It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran invasion & how Russia/China could be affected?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   
The Caspian Sea.

We know the US will be heading into Iran soon. Look at a map and google US interests in the countries that border Iran, the US have them surrounded financially and militarily and Rumsfeld has been busy this year running around to those countries to make sure the US have their bases nicely secured and ready. These are signs that the US has Iran on the table.

We also know that Isreal has set a date with the US on Iran's nuclear enrichment. Isreal has told Washington that it must make a move on Iran and be ready to make an attack by June as after that, it will be too late to stop Iran enrichment. This does not mean the US will attack Iran in June, it means they will be ready by then and there are a lot of signs that point to an event happening mid-2005.

But how could Russia and China be brought into a fight against America?
Iran and China have a good relationship over oil and Russia is connected by land to the Caspian Sea. Surely the US taking over Iran and controlling the Caspian region will affect China and Russia hard in the pocket, let alone in a pure dominance threat.
Could that problem lend credence as to why Russia and China are doing joint military work? Can they foresee this as a problem they should be prepared for?

What do you think?

Some quick google work in relations to US involvement in some of the countries that border or are close to Iran, working around clockwise.


Here's a map for reference: www.ndu.edu...

EAST of Iran:
-----------------
Afganistan
16 March 2005
US Considering Permanent Bases in Afghanistan, General Says
The U.S. military has kept about 18,000 soldiers in Afghanistan since defeating that country's former Taleban government in 2001. It also has forces deployed in neighboring Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
www.voanews.com...

Afganistan
March 29, 2005
Afghanistan U.S. bases get $83 million upgrade
150 U.S. aircraft, including ground-attack jets and helicopter gunships as well as transport and reconnaissance planes, were using 14 airfields around Afghanistan. Many are close to the Pakistani border. Other planes such as B-1 bombers patrol over Afghanistan without landing.
www.tampabaylive.com...

Afganistan
15 April 2005
Rumsfeld pushes for permanent US bases in Afghanistan
The construction of a large military base on the border with Iran is designed to intensify the pressure on Tehran, which is being targetted by the Bush administration over its alleged nuclear weapons programs. With the US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran confronts a major US military presence on two of its borders.
wsws.org...

EAST/SOUTH of Iran:
---------------
Pakistan
13. 12. 2004
USA gives billions in funding and weapons to Pakistan
www.saag.org...


SOUTH of Iran:
---------------
Qatar/Oman/Kuwait/Gulf
July 02, 2002
US beefs up air base in Qatar
Al Udeid is among several US military bases in the Gulf area. Nearly 10,000 Army soldiers are at Camp Doha in Kuwait, and 4,200 troops are in Bahrain, headquarters for the Navy's Fifth Fleet. Several thousand are in Saudi Arabia and a few thousand in Oman.
www.csmonitor.com...

WEST of Iran:
---------------
Iraq
March 23, 2004
14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq - Long-term military presence planned
www.globalsecurity.org...

Iraq
APRIL 14, 2005
Kucinich: New Report From Congressional Research Service Shows US Has Long-Term Plans To Stay In Iraq
Report Commissioned By Kucinich Shows US Is Spending Hundreds of Millions of Dollars On "Long-Term" Bases In Iraq
www.commondreams.org...

NORTH/WEST of Iran:
-------------------
Azerbaijan/Caspian Sea
4/15/05
Secret Agent: Rumsfeld Sneaks Off to Baku
Unreported in U.S. press, he stalks oil and Iran in Azerbaijan
Rumsfeld left Iraq, flew to Baku for meetings, spent the night, and then sneaked out the next day—with no announcements from the Pentagon and (as a result) no notice from the U.S. press.
villagevoice.com...

Azerbaijan
04/13/2005
USA plans to expand military presence in Azerbaijan to strike Iran
english.pravda.ru...

Azerbaijan/Caspian Sea
2005-04-15
United States wants to establish special forces units and military bases in Azerbaijan to ensure the security of the entire Caspian area.
en.rian.ru...

NORTH of Iran:
--------------
Kyrgyzstan
4/14/2005 -
Rumsfeld makes sure the US won't loose it's base which is an important base for operations in Afgahnistan.
www.usatoday.com...


I don't know about you, but all signs are pointing to a June/July event taking place that the US will be 'ready' for soon after.

Not unlike the attack on Afgahnistan being well worked out before 9/11 happened, could an attack on Iran already be envisioned and planned with the June deadline for readiness being similar to circa August 2001?

Will this attack on Iran be the first step into WW3?


[edit on 19-4-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]




posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Insane.... the country and the world have gone INSANE.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   


You have voted TheShroudOfMemphis for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


Its good to see someone thinking critically and objectively, the accumulation of facts does seem to be pointing in somekind of hostile direction... Its hard to see how the US can be compared to anything but Nazi-Germany when you think about it...

The way I see it happening is...

Israel will start the ball rolling...
The US will then make a huge deal saying how they dont want to go to war, but they have a mutual protection agreement with Israel...
They will go to war...
Then they'll own another country in the middle-east for its oil...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
The main reason the US wants all the Oil in the Middle-East is to slow down China in its progression towards a superpower... Wether or not China will go in and fight to protect its trades is another thing all together...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The good thing that may come out of all this is a massive Youth Radicalisation like there was in the 60's, and maybe this time around the world might change...

The general populous of America needs to WAKE UP and start defending HUMANS ALL AROUND THE WORLD NOT JUST YOURSELVES!!!

[edit on 20-4-2005 by ghostsoldier]



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
You have voted TheShroudOfMemphis for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month



I nice big game of risk. I don't see China doing much but you do bring up a good point about Russia. Though I don't think they will be much of a factor either. Makes you wonder too. The first gulf war came after problems with Iran now We're having problems there again and this time we take Iraq and establish a military presence. (this time we also took the other flank as well)



[edit on 20-4-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
It will be very very difficult to beat Iran,Iran is a huge country with over 70 million people and Iran knows that a war with the U.S could happen within the next couple of years so they will be ready.With that said i think the U.S would beat them militarily but I also think it would be almost impossible to occupy it.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   


Originally posted by thecry
It will be very very difficult to beat Iran,Iran is a huge country with over 70 million people and Iran knows that a war with the U.S could happen within the next couple of years so they will be ready.With that said i think the U.S would beat them militarily but I also think it would be almost impossible to occupy it.


Are people aware that Iran is already preparing for it... All through-out there cities there are huge anti-american peices of art work... Huge banners etc... They know its coming... I for one support them in advance...



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
now this is just speculation, but say the china vs. Tiawan is just a rouse. They sign a treaty with India and to the world it looks as though they are moving to place themselves in that direction. Now what if, due to oil concerns, they are putting themselves with India to aide in this conflict with whatever side. Now they have themselves in a position to come down through India to Pakistan.

I know it's all speculation thats been mentioned on various threads. But perhaps any troop movement this way could help your theory of Russia and China getting involved.

(I guess this wouldn't even be considered speculatory just a quick brainstorm as to how china could be/come involved. Also, with regard to russia, ScepticOverlord had an interesting thread on a media showing of a meeting between bush and the russian president or whatever you called him. Seems the overall reaction was that Bush didn't seem happy to be meeting with him.)

[edit on 21-4-2005 by silentlonewolf]


cjf

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Its hard to see how the US can be compared to anything but Nazi-Germany when you think about it...


...and "Atomic Ayatollahs"... would be a very positive step for all of humanity?...

(Friday Sermon, Dec 14, 2000) one example

“ The Jews [who immigrated to Israel] should expect a ‘reverse exodus', because one day, the tumor will be removed from the body of the Islamic World, and then millions of Jews who moved there will become homeless again . And when will that be? We shall have to discuss it another time”… “If one day, a very important day, of course, the Islamic World will also be equipped with the weapons available to Israel now, the imperialist strategy will reach an impasse, because the employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth, but [such a bomb] would only do damage to the Islamic World . It is not unreasonable to consider this possibility… the people who have no choice but to sacrifice themselves will not be intimidated by the [Israeli] violence. After all, they have nothing to lose. How can a man lose something when he believes that by blowing himself up, one moment he is in the material world and in another moment he is in a divine heaven, borne by the wings of God's angels"

Head of the Expediency Council and Former President, Rafsanjani, Iran



Originally posted by ghostsoldier
I for one support them in advance...



Originally posted by ghostsoldier
The general populous of America needs to WAKE UP and start defending HUMANS ALL AROUND THE WORLD NOT JUST YOURSELVES!!!


Which is it?....NM, I didn't see the part "it's all about oil"



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   


Originally posted by cjf
...and "Atomic Ayatollahs"... would be a very positive step for all of humanity?...


I dont think any form of violence is beneficial to human society on a whole... However I do think Iran has the right to protect themselves and form a resistance against US Imperialism... That being said I do not think Iran should have Nuclear Weapons, but I think that the US should get rid of its own before pointing fingers... I DO NOT condone the use of Nuclear Weapons by ANYONE...



Originally posted by ghostsoldier
I for one support them in advance...


I can support the resistance, without condoning the violence... If the people needed liberating they can liberate themselves... How about teaching them how to resist if its such a big deal...If the US is so concerned about the democracy in the region, why not set a good example yourself...



Originally posted by ghostsoldier
The general populous of America needs to WAKE UP and start defending HUMANS ALL AROUND THE WORLD NOT JUST YOURSELVES!!!



Originally posted by cjf
Which is it?....NM, I didn't see the part "it's all about oil"


You think bombing a town to smitherenes with laser-guided weapons is defending humanity! You are sadly mistaken if you beleive violence on that level is right and just... Perhaps you should remember how the American public reacted after 9/11...

[edit on 21-4-2005 by ghostsoldier]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
I wouldn't be suprised if this triggers World War 3.....



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
IF (and it's a big if) the US decides to attack Iran, it won't be an all-out invasion. Iraq was about regime change and that requires an invasion. Any military action in Iran will be limited to surgical strikes designed to destroy Iran's nuclear program. There will be no ground troops used except for special forces doing recon, target illumination, and BDA. THE US WILL NOT INVADE IRAN!!!

In 1981 Israel did the exact same thing when it bombed and destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. It did not launch a major ground war. It sent 16 bombers and destroyed Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

Do I think an attack on Iran's nuclear sites is justified? Right now no, but in the future who knows? Iran signed the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This means Iran pledged it would never develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran is allegedly violating the treaty it signed. If it is found to be true that Iran is indeed engaged in building nuclear weapons and it fails to cease and desist, military action will be the only way to prevent Iran from creating these weapons. At this point diplomacy does not appear to be working but every diplomatic solution should be exhausted before resorting to military action.

Personally I don't believe military action will be needed in Iran. Iran is exposed to the world now after running it's nuclear program in secrecy for years. I don't believe the Iranian government is stupid enough to thumb it's nose at the world and continue to develop nuclear weapons. Iran must know it cannot defend against a massive air assault aimed at crippling it's nuclear program. Saddam was stubborn and in effect brought about his own demise when he refused to let weapons inspectors back in Iraq. Iran is currently negotiating with several nations about it's nuclear program and while there hasn't been a lot of progress made, they are still negotiating. That is a good sign that this issue will be resolved peacefully.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Technically u r right, But it is not about WMD, it is about oil.

You have to know the right motivation of the US gov. to know what is probablt gonna happen.
If Bush does invade Iran that even the dumb people in the world have to know its all about the OIL!!



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Of course it is all about oil, US has to get the oil first before someone else gets it like upcoming superpowers like china etc...



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier I for one support them in advance...


and i hope you get shot for your support of killing americans, hell you should join them since you think we're so bad.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier start defending HUMANS ALL AROUND THE WORLD NOT JUST YOURSELVES!!!


rich coming from a communist...



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I agree that the U.S. does and probably will not invade Iran. All that is needed is a massive an precise air strike on Iran's nuke sites and its missile sties to eliminate their capabilities to retaliates.
All that would be need in Iran are Special Forces, a massive air strike on Iran would not be that hard to do considering all the air bases the US has in the region.

And to the people that say its all about the oil, if the U.S. is all about the oil why did we not take out Saddam in 91. And why are oil prices rising and profits falling or oil companies if the Iraq war was all about oil?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And to the people that say its all about the oil, if the U.S. is all about the oil why did we not take out Saddam in 91. And why are oil prices rising and profits falling or oil companies if the Iraq war was all about oil?


Why do you think the Gulf War was considered such a great victory? Why do you think Gulf War veterans are heroes?

Here's why. If not for those brave men and women, having a driver's license would be worthless today. If you think gas is expensive in 2005, imagine what it would be like had Iraq annexed Kuwait or even invaded Saudi Arabia.

(Raises Coke bottle) To the men and women of the Gulf War.

BTW, that wasn't sarcasm.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Unlike the current Gulf war, I think the first one was entirely justified.

There is no doubt at all that Saddam invaded Kuwait, he may have had a justifiable beef about the slant drilling, but he could have seized the area with the rigs and left it at that. After the invasion, he was given plenty of time to pull out peacefully, and refused to do so.

And Bush Sr. was able to put together a coalition from a wide variety of countries because everyone knew Saddam had no justification for his invasion. Hell, nobody remembers these days, but even Syria sent troops to push Saddam out of Kuwait.

This Iraq war is entirely different. No matter how nasty an SOB Saddam was, he didn't attack anyone, hell, he couldn't even if he'd tried. Unlike the first war, it wasn't a reaction to an act of aggression. Saddam was at the very least contained, and in actually pretty much entirely neutralized as a military threat. Sure he was still a murdering scumbag, but if you look around, you'll see there are plenty of murdering scumbags running countries that we don't invade.

This doctrine of "preemptive" warfare is dangerous, doubly dangerous when the "threat" is entirely imaginary.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by ghostsoldier I for one support them in advance...


and i hope you get shot for your support of killing americans, hell you should join them since you think we're so bad.


One could also say that you should be shot for supporting the killing of Iranians?

Or is it oK to kill as long as it isnt Americans getting shot?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Unlike the current Gulf war, I think the first one was entirely justified.

There is no doubt at all that Saddam invaded Kuwait, he may have had a justifiable beef about the slant drilling, but he could have seized the area with the rigs and left it at that. After the invasion, he was given plenty of time to pull out peacefully, and refused to do so.

And Bush Sr. was able to put together a coalition from a wide variety of countries because everyone knew Saddam had no justification for his invasion. Hell, nobody remembers these days, but even Syria sent troops to push Saddam out of Kuwait.

This Iraq war is entirely different. No matter how nasty an SOB Saddam was, he didn't attack anyone, hell, he couldn't even if he'd tried. Unlike the first war, it wasn't a reaction to an act of aggression. Saddam was at the very least contained, and in actually pretty much entirely neutralized as a military threat. Sure he was still a murdering scumbag, but if you look around, you'll see there are plenty of murdering scumbags running countries that we don't invade.

This doctrine of "preemptive" warfare is dangerous, doubly dangerous when the "threat" is entirely imaginary.


I think people are very well aware of what may have happened had we not intervened in the first Gulf War. It's just that most people think the war was important for reasons other than it really was.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join