Iran is indeed not Iraq - And arrogance has always led to the fall of the greatest empires...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Inresponse to those here who have asserted that "Iran could never resist an American attack" or that "Iran's military may be able to successfully engage in warfare with a smaller Western nation, but not with the U.S.", I have this to say:

First of all, using logic one cannot generalize in regards to this issue by believing that since the U.S. has successfully agressed against countries like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and other smaller countries, that it should be as successful in a strike against Iran just because Iran is 1) located in the Middle East 2) A Muslim nation 3) Does not (supposedly) have as sophisticated high-tech weaponry as the U.S.

There are many factors that support a potential U.S. defeat should it strike Iran, or use it's little puppet or master (which ever you like, if any) to do the job. Iran is a vast country - almost the size of all of Western Europe, with a population of close to 80 million, out of which some 70% are below the age of 30 (A good age-range for engagement in war) and it's terrain is very difficult to master. Yes, we have heard all this already. But there are much more significant reasons that point towards why Iran would be a much, much greater challenge for the U.S. / Israel to attack and subdue.

Iran has an armed forces consisting of some 800,000 men. In addition Iran boasts a 7 million man strong and heavily armoured voulountary militia which is very experienced in warfare from the Iran-Iraq war. A significant number of this militia called the "Basiij" forces are extremely loyal to the Islamic republic - many to the extent that they would gladly participate in suicide missions.

The notion expressed by some very misinformed individuals on this board that "millions of Iranians would welcome a U.S. strike" is so far from the truth that it could possibly ever be! Iranians are extremely nationalistic people. It doesn't matter if you are on the left or right, Islamic fundamentalist or very liberal secularist - Iran is sacred for Iranians, and I mean literally sacred. Iranians are a very civilized and peaceful people, with a very strong humanitarian sense and noble spiritual values and very tolerant, hospitable and kind. BUT.... if you mess with their country, they can turn very nasty. And a nasty Iranian is not a pleasant person to have to deal with. He/she is very shrewd and at the same time very determined to defeat his/her enemy. Those Iranians who would support any foreign agression against Iran do not number more than 0.001% of the Iranian population. On the contrary, Iranians strongly reject any foreing intervention, and any attack against their country would mean that virtually all Iranians of all political, ethnic and religious groups would unite into an iron-clad platform of resistance against the agressor(s). This whole thing that there are many Iranians who support a U.S. attack against Iran is totally absurd! And it's nothing more than a bad propaganda stunt pulled by Washington.

If you look at the history of the world you will see that empires have come and gone, but few countries have made so many comebacks as an empire as Iran has. The Greek, Roman, Ottoman empires all disappeared, and never made it back to empire-hood. But Iran has been an empire numerous times throughout its long history: The Achaemenid dynasty, the Parthian dynasty, the Sassanian dynasty, the Samanid dynasty, the Saffaari dynasty, the Safavid dynasty, and the Qajar dynasty, are some of the long periods during which Iran (Aka "Persia" in western countries) enjoyed super power and empire status. I think its important to look at such historical events because they can tell you a lot about the psyche and capabitilites of a nation. For instance by studying the history of the Iranian peoples you may understand why they are so determined to be independent (Which is why the colonial powers never succeeded in colonializing them) Iranians do not see themselves as material for colonial powers - On the contrary, they see themselves as a culturally superior civilization, and if you study their poetry and and culture in general, you may understand why they feel this way. Iranian nationalism though differs in a major way from the Western nationalism which led to two devastating world wars. That kind of western nationalism is a negative and agressive nationalism which rests on the notion that other countries and peoples must be sacrificed so that our people can be the masters. Iranian nationalism as fierce as it can be rests on the noble values of Iran's ancient religions "Mazdakism" and "Zoroastrianism" which both, but in particular the latter, preach tolerance, humanism, and good faith towards all humans. This fierce nationalism of Iranians is the reason why Iranians have prevailed throughout their exremely chaotic history of turmoil. It is because of this nationalism that Iranians have preserved their language and culture throughout thousands of years and numerous wars and invasions. While most of the nations which were conquered by the Arab armies in the 7th century AD speak Arabic today, the Iranians manged to preserve their Indo-European language (Farsi)

Iran and Egypt are the only real NATURAL national-states in the Middle East. All the other ones are more or less the artificial creations of colonial powers. This is why I don't believe in the future of a "democratic" Iraq. Iraq is a perfect example of British made state. It's not natural and within its drawn up borders there is a lot of tension - tension between different ethnic and religious groups. This tension has always been there since the Brits created Iraq, and the only reason it never erupted in a serious fashion is because a brutal tyrant and ruthless dictator ruled that country and would use force against the smallest attempt to launch an uprising. Afghanistan is also a British artificial creation, and the only reason that their country never experienced any major eruptions of internal violent conflicts (Prior to the Soviet invasion) is because their society was so feudal and primitive, lacking all kinds of infrastructure so that there was no real sense of national identity except perhaps in the capital Kabul. The tribal lords were content with their territories and their territory was their "country". Many Afghans view themselves as Iranians because they ethnically are.

It's much easier to attack countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan because of the lack of national identity and unity. Iran is the total opposite of these countries. Iran is the historically dominant power of this whole area and beyond. Most of these countries have all fallen into the Iranian dominion of cultural and political influence during long periods of history. And the traces are still there in major ways. Take Iraq as an example - The majority of Iraqis are Shia Muslim and have been under the influence and directives of Iranian religious leaders for centuries. (Shi'ite Islam itself is an Iranian creation which dates back to the Safavid dynasty in the 16th century AD) The most powerful man in Iraq today, Ayatollah Sistani is an Iranian himself. (His name "Sistani" suggests that he is from the Iranian South-Eastern province of "Sistaan") Almost all the religious leaders of Shia Islam have been Iranian (Sistani, Khoi, Boroujerdi, etc...)

Because of the strong Iranian influence in Iraq, many Iraqis are actually ethnically Persian, which is why many of them bare Persian names, like for instance "Shahrestani" the prominent Iraqi nuclear scientist, and many also have Iranian features. This why Saddam Hussein and his minority Sunni Muslim followers were so hostile towards the Shia majority - Because they viewed them as "Ajam" meaning "Persians".

The reaction of a nation in a war is very important and can play a major role in how that war will proceed. Vietnam was a small and weak country, and yet it defeated the super power U.S.. The reason is because the Vietnamese were determined and they were driven by a strong motivation to defeat the enemy. Sure the terrain helped, but more than anything it was the determination of the Vietnamese which led to the gigantic defeat of the U.S. agressors. Iranians will have the same determination and will be driven to fight the enemy with a motivation even much stronger than that of the Vietnamese. Why? Well, to understand that you would have to understand the by the West intentionally much ignored ancient Iranian civilization and culture and its history. You would then understand the enormous national pride of Iranians and the strong sense that their country has been the victim of a brutal and agressive colonial and imperial onslaught which has seeked to rob their country of the profits of their own natural resources and their right for self-determination during much of the last two centuries. The last wave of this onslaught is the Western attempts to deny Iran its legal right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. Not at all because the West fears an Iranian nuclear arsenal, but because the West fears a potential future strong industrial and economic competitor. And should Iran go the extra length and aquire nukes, then that would even be worse, because that would mean the end of British and American intervention and manipulation in Iran. Iranian nukes would cut of off the bloody and greedy hands of British and American imperialism in Iran once and for all.

To think that no country except perhaps Russia could stand up against U.S. agression as some people here have suggested, is to be severly out of touch with reality. To those people I say: STUDY THE HISTORY OF MANKIND! The same kind of arrogant attitude has lead many empires and super powers to their grave! America is a paper tiger. The American war machinery has always been used against small and defenseless countries. Vietnam and Korea were also small countries, but the difference was the determination of these two nations to resist the imperialist agressors, and thus they were successful in their combat efforts. The U.S. knew how worthless the Iraqi army was prior to deciding to attack Iraq. Had it believed otherwise, it probably would not have attacked. But Iraq was the perfect situation for the American agressors - It was what they had dreamed about for a long time. Here we had an oil-rich Arab country, ruled by a brutal lunatic, and with a huge army, but an army which was largely incapable of engaging in warfare. The Americans knew this since Iraq had attacked Iran during a time when 65-70% of the Iranian military forces had been eliminated by the revolutionary regime right after the Iranian revolution 1979. Almost all Iranian military commanders had been executed. Those pilots who had not been executed were rotting in jail. Some 70% of the Iranian armed forces had either been executed, jailed or deserted because of the revolution. Iran was in the heydays of revolutionary turmoil. The streets of Tehran were scenes of daily battles between different revolutionary factions. Then early one September morning Saddam attacked Iran by air and by ground. The Iranians were majorly surprised. There had been no warning, no indications whatsoever. Yet the Iranian nation united and fought back with bare hands even. Women, men and children of all ages. Eventually they forced the "mighty" Iraqi army out of Iran, and at that point Saddam was begging for a cease fire. But Ayatollah Khomeini refused to even hear the word. The Iranians, and I mean regular folks, not the armed forces, pushed into Iraq until they surrounded the strategically and economically important city of Basra. At that point it was evident that the Iranians could very soon cause the fall of Baghdad, and it was then that the Americans gave their green light to Saddam that he should use chemical weapons against the Iranians - A crime against humanity which Washington one day must pay for. So it is evident that the U.S. knew very well what an incompetent and incapable war machinery the Iraqis had. And it was precisely what they wanted because it gave them the golden opportunity to create a scenario where they would have to invade the oil-rich country in order to "save the world", secure the oil riches for themselves, while controlling much of the Middle Eastern world with their military presence, and at the same time put up a big high-tech propaganda show in a typical disgusting and tasteless American manner, boasting their technological superiority. The U.S. will never be able to do the same with Iran. And their zionist masters in Tel Aviv will attack Iran only if they enjoy getting showered with upawards 10,000 missiles.




posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Thats one very long piece of opinion you have there.

Who is stating that Iran cant stand up to a western power exactly? They cant btw, but who exactly are you writing this to?



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Thats one very long piece of opinion you have there.

Who is stating that Iran cant stand up to a western power exactly? They cant btw, but who exactly are you writing this to?


What does it matter who exactly I'm writing this to? And do I necessarily have to write this to any particular person? I'm responding to some of the people who have posted messages about Iran and its capabilities to strike back against the fascist imperialist American agressors and criminals. And, you what? Although I really hate to see people being affected by death and destruction, I can't help somehow wishing for the U.S. to attack Iran so that the American agressors will get what they deserve!



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Facist Imperialist! You must stay awake at nights thinking of long impressive words to call America. Why don't you just say USA?
Iran vs USA? USA wins! See that is so much quicker and takes so much
less space! But instead of doing this one Arab country at a time, why don't you throw in Syria, Jordan or any other arab country you can think of.
Then it'll be Ragheaded Vagina-phobes against Facist Imperialist.
USA still wins!

Just another proud arrogant Facist Imperialist American!

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Yorga]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos
I'm responding to some of the people who have posted messages about Iran and its capabilities to strike back against the fascist imperialist American agressors and criminals. And, you what? Although I really hate to see people being affected by death and destruction, I can't help somehow wishing for the U.S. to attack Iran so that the American agressors will get what they deserve!



And if we win? (which we would if we invaded or attacked Iran - - if we did do something with Iran over the next few years it wouldn't be an invasion btw......)

Then what? How do we get what we "deserve" then?



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Siroos, excellent post


You have a stronger case in my eyes, as you've actualy able to explain your side in depth and are obviously more educated than most of us on the reality of the situation in Iran. As opposed to your counterparts the chidish and dumb "we will win, we rock" army of kids. Who can only pride themselves on attacking weak countries like Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Kudos, for standing up for yourself.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
Facist Imperialist! You must stay awake at nights thinking of long impressive words to call America. Why don't you just say USA?
Iran vs USA? USA wins! See that is so much quicker and takes so much
less space!


No, actually I don't have to stay awake at nights to think up long impressive words - Plenty of people have already done that for me since the history of U.S. agression on our planet is quite extensive. And as for your childish remarks "Iran vs USA - USA wins" let me remind you that this is no soccer game. We're talking about war, and war means that people die - people like your mum and dad, if you have any, and lives are shattered. I don't blame you for having the mentality of blood-thirsty barbarian - It's not directly your fault that your TV airs "Wrestling" shows where both the "wrestlers" and the audience behaves like the worst unvivilized and barbarian creatures. Watching shows like that and other shows like Jerry Springer as well as movies like Rambo will take it toll on any psyche eventually. I guess this is what has happened to you and quite a few other Americans who voted for the clown Bush and his zionist/evangelic alliance of criminals and crooks.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Siroos
I'm responding to some of the people who have posted messages about Iran and its capabilities to strike back against the fascist imperialist American agressors and criminals. And, you what? Although I really hate to see people being affected by death and destruction, I can't help somehow wishing for the U.S. to attack Iran so that the American agressors will get what they deserve!



And if we win? (which we would if we invaded or attacked Iran - - if we did do something with Iran over the next few years it wouldn't be an invasion btw......)

Then what? How do we get what we "deserve" then?


I'm a firm believer in Karma - what goes around comes around. Since the overwhelming majority of criminals pay for their crimes according to this universal law, why shouldn't the U.S.? The criminal actions of the U.S. which has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, and to the shattered lives of millions and millions of people, and the destruction of numerous nations and the suffering of many millions more of people, will ultimately lead to the point where the U.S. will have to pay the consequences and stand in humble humiliation and shame before the entire world.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Siroos, excellent post


You have a stronger case in my eyes, as you've actualy able to explain your side in depth and are obviously more educated than most of us on the reality of the situation in Iran. As opposed to your counterparts the chidish and dumb "we will win, we rock" army of kids. Who can only pride themselves on attacking weak countries like Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Kudos, for standing up for yourself.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]







Are you saying we won't win because we don't rock


Sorry for being so childess but you see I didn't read past the word arrogant in his title. The fact that ATS will allow crap like this to be posted just amazes me. The fact that people read this crap is even more amazing.
If that makes me childess then thank you, I will wear my new title with honor.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
actually Siroos, the chemical attacks was Hussein's own decision he don't need America for permission to attack, the U.S. government was ignorant to what had happened and Congress try to use sanctions for it but the Arab countries told them to go to hell and not interfere.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siroos
I'm a firm believer in Karma - what goes around comes around. Since the overwhelming majority of criminals pay for their crimes according to this universal law, why shouldn't the U.S.?

Hmmm...I see...
But wouldn't it go both ways? Or are the terrorists allowed to get away with beheadings, hijackings, car bombings, etc. that have lead to the death of thousands of innocent people.


The criminal actions of the U.S. which has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people

?
Are you talking about since the US was a nation?

Please, the US is an angel compared to what some other nations have done throughout their history.


and the destruction of numerous nations

???



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
No, actually I don't have to stay awake at nights to think up long impressive words - Plenty of people have already done that for me since . I guess this is what has happened to you and quite a few other Americans who voted for the clown Bush and his zionist/evangelic alliance of criminals and crooks.




Yep, got me there ole buddy. I voted for BUSH not once but twice and I would vote for him a third time if he could run. But since I live in a free society then sadly I must say that we will be forced to elected another
zionist/evangelic alliance criminal. And as far as were I get my bloodthirst, that comes from 25 years in the military killing enemies of my country in the name of whatever criminal or crook happened to be the Commander in Chief at the time. You see I didn't need to learn my disdain and hate for people like you from TV. I learned it first hand on the battlefield. Yeah I'm an arrogant American bastard and anything else you want to call me. Crazy American Cowboy, damn right! And there are a hell of a lot of Americans that feel the same way I do. They wear camo and they carry big f******* guns. They'll be preforming in a city near you, so be f****** sure to watch out for them.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Siroos, excellent post


You have a stronger case in my eyes, as you've actualy able to explain your side in depth and are obviously more educated than most of us on the reality of the situation in Iran. As opposed to your counterparts the chidish and dumb "we will win, we rock" army of kids. Who can only pride themselves on attacking weak countries like Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Kudos, for standing up for yourself.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]







Are you saying we won't win because we don't rock


Sorry for being so childess but you see I didn't read past the word arrogant in his title. The fact that ATS will allow crap like this to be posted just amazes me. The fact that people read this crap is even more amazing.
If that makes me childess then thank you, I will wear my new title with honor.




Hey, I know it's difficult hearing criticism - especially when it's the truth. But if ATS accepts your kinds of war-mongering posts, then the sky is the limit.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
Facist Imperialist! You must stay awake at nights thinking of long impressive words to call America. Why don't you just say USA?
Iran vs USA? USA wins! See that is so much quicker and takes so much
less space! But instead of doing this one Arab country at a time, why don't you throw in Syria, Jordan or any other arab country you can think of.
Then it'll be Ragheaded Vagina-phobes against Facist Imperialist.
USA still wins!

Just another proud arrogant Facist Imperialist American!

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Yorga]



This whole "we'll win" kind of statements just shows how far away people like you are from the reality of things. I repeat - this is not a game like soccer or chess.... it's a war! And people get killed in wars - lives are ruined. I guess you will only know the meaning of war once it has hit your own neighborhood. As it is now, you are too distanced to even know what you're talking about. You have to loose a few relatives and a limb or two until you will know the real meaning of war. Until then keep cheering on like a real "qute" American cheer leader.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
actually Siroos, the chemical attacks was Hussein's own decision he don't need America for permission to attack, the U.S. government was ignorant to what had happened and Congress try to use sanctions for it but the Arab countries told them to go to hell and not interfere.


The U.S. supplied the chemical ingrediences necessary for the chemical weapons to Hussein, and they did this knowing what he would use them for. This is why many Iranians recently have called for a class action lawsuity against the U.S.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
This thread is about if the U.S. will defeat Iran in the unlikely event of an invasion.

The answer is simply, yes.

Iran may have 800,000 troops, but they will be fighting against better equipped, better trained, and highly motivated U.S. soldiers. The Iranians would have the advantage of terrain. If we are talking about storming into Iran, and making it into Tehran, then pulling out again, then the U.S. could do this hands down.

During the Iraq-Iran war, Iranian tanks were used as stationary artillery units, instead of what tanks are designed for: swift forward advancement, clearing the way for infantry troops. I would hope that they have learned their lesson.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
they may have supplied it, but Hussein used it for other purposes instead of using for farming or others that he told them he would use for. it be like im telling the suppliers that i need metal to build cars but im really using for bullets.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Siroos
I'm a firm believer in Karma - what goes around comes around. Since the overwhelming majority of criminals pay for their crimes according to this universal law, why shouldn't the U.S.?

Hmmm...I see...
But wouldn't it go both ways? Or are the terrorists allowed to get away with beheadings, hijackings, car bombings, etc. that have lead to the death of thousands of innocent people.


The criminal actions of the U.S. which has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people

?
Are you talking about since the US was a nation?

Please, the US is an angel compared to what some other nations have done throughout their history.


and the destruction of numerous nations

???


Well, who exactly are we talking about here? Iran? Iran has not engaged in any beheadings. Iraq? Those who have engaged in beheadings in Iraq are sunni followers of Saddam Hussein. What they have done cannot be condoned, but on the other hand can invasions be condoned? And what means of resistance can the defenseless people of such an invaded and occupied country resort to? Are you so sure that certain American elements within your society would not behead people to resist an invasion of their country? Even if the people who are beheaded are innocent? Weren't innocent Muslims killed and/or harassed after 9/11 in the U.S.? And exactly who are the terrorists? The U.S. supported the Contras war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua - Iran and Syria supports the Hezbollah and Hamas against the Zionist occupiers. Why would the latter be any worse than the prior? The U.S. supported the Afghan guerillas like the Talibans against the Soviet invasion. Iran supports the Hezbollah against Israeli invasion of Lebanon and againt Israeli occupation of occupied Arab lands. Furthermore, the U.S. has and is supporting the MEK, and Iranian opposition group which is listed on the U.S. state department's list of banned terror organizations. The MEK is the organization which the U.S. always drags in front of the world media when they claim they have detected new clandenstine Iranian nuclear activities. A typical example of U.S. double standards and hypocrisy. Iran has not engaged in any terrorist activites to date. The word "terrorist" derives from the root word of "terror" and the verb "terrorize". A very large portion of the world's population today, if not the overwhelming majority seem to be in consensus that no country is more guilty of terrorising other countries more than the U.S. does. It could therefore be claimed that the U.S. today is guilty of terrorism. In a recent survey in Europe 86% of Europeans thought that the biggest threat against world peace today was the U.S. But, in general to respond to your question, my answer is that yes indeed it goes both ways, but the fact is that all too often the other side is a consequence of unfair, unjust and sometimes outright criminial American actions. Anti-American sentiments are not a cause by itself, but are caused. The U.S. doesn't fail to look for the cause of the anti-American sentiments in the world - It doesn't care to look for the reasons behind the anti-Americanism that is so prevalent around the world today. And this is a big mistake. Instead the U.S. has chosen to play games and to try to make the world believe that it's fighting a "war on terror" and that it's on a mission to deliver "democracies" around the world. This is absurd. The U.S. is on a mission to secure sole super power status and world dominance for itself, and by doing so it has unknowingly embarked on a journey of Karma with the destination being its grave.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

his thread is about if the U.S. will defeat Iran in the unlikely event of an invasion.
Extremely unlikely, since we don't have the troops available to do the job. I know it's an article of faith among some here that five Delta guys with garrottes could take over the whole country, but the simple truth is, without a draft, the US does not have the forces available to launch an invasion of Iran.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Iran would lose if it was attacked/invaded or even challenged to a game of chess by the U.S.
Our Navy is superior to theirs, our Air Force is superior to theirs, our Army is superior to theirs, did I miss anything? Oh yeah... our soldiers are better trained and equipped then theirs, and I'm proud to say they are happy gunho Americans, so unless you want to meet your Allah don't get n their way. And the U.S. wouldn't even have to do that much in a war with Iran, the terrorists in Iran would be overthrown by their own people, because most of them are pro American.





new topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join