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.

 

US prepares for Iran war with split Nato

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
On-Topic:

I can't see any harm in excluding France and Germany from this. They wouldn't go along with it anyway so including them would just be a massive waste of time and an open invitation for more diplomatic grandstanding. The only thing that troubles me about this plan is that it may push France and Germany into trying to accelerate plans for a full-fledged EU army.


Again, not a big fan of current German or French policies but I think any free society needs dessenting voices. When everyone agrees with America is when I think we need to be worried as a society and as a world.




posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marid Audran
Again, not a big fan of current German or French policies but I think any free society needs dessenting voices. When everyone agrees with America is when I think we need to be worried as a society and as a world.


I agree the world needs dissenting voices (for the record I am against military action against Iran based on current evidence). You must consider, though, that NATO is a military alliance and the French/German establishment right now would be against pretty much anything America suggested.

There will still be plenty of dissenting voices (rightly so) and plenty of forums for France and Germany to express their opposition but i'd rather have them outside the tent pissing in than inside getting it all over everyone.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I said stop or SET BACK Iran’s Development of nuclear weapons. Iran was lying about its secret sites for years and what they are doing right now is illegal under a treaty they signed.

Also all we need for an affective air strike is SF units on the ground gathering intelligence and shining lasers on targets. If we waned to overthrow the current regime in Iran and invade it like we did in Iraq then we would need a lot of troops and equipment. We just want an air strike to take out their nuclear development sites and perhaps some missile sites and for that we don't need thousands of troops.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Don't rely on Britain helping in any war on Iran , i speak for myself , but this Country is getting fed up with Bush and his wars , i cant see you getting any support here.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Here is my question:

Why is Russia not mentioned in these conversations? It is they who are entering into long-term nuclear power deals with Iran and it is they who are building these nuclear power facilities.

Now if we just go in and bomb those sites, what will be their reaction? Does the rebuilding process profit them and so they will not mind? Is there a chance that they will send fighters up in that event or somehow supply the Iranians? Iran has been a boxing ring for the US and USSR during the cold war, so why would this upcoming situation be any different?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the USSR threaten to nuke England in 1956 when Nasser shut down the Suez? I am wondering if Iran might be a similar cause for sabre ratttling in the months to come, particularly since the soviets and China are constructing military and oil sharing deals right now.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I don't think Russia would risk everything for Iran and a couple of nuclear faculties.
Also by the end of summer if Iran has not agreed to the British, French, German proposal the U.S. and those countries will go to he U.N. to ask for sanctions and go on from there.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
The credibility of that article is suspect.
The part about the side aspect being a body blow to the EU was a little iffy and then they talked about the US being upset over not being consulted on the new Pope and it really lost it's credibility at that point.


It sounds less than credible to me too.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Agreed and exactly what I sense too. Between the two the world could change to a better or worse place?

Israel is always dirty-dangerous when it comes to pre-empting third world or Terrorist's plans.
USA is getting closer to realizing that may be true and in feeling that way may ask Israel to help themselves (please) to taking out or delaying whims of the Terrorist calamities.

Dallas



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I said stop or SET BACK Iran’s Development of nuclear weapons. Iran was lying about its secret sites for years and what they are doing right now is illegal under a treaty they signed.

No, we have no evidence to suport this.
All we have is opinions and "evidence that supports they "may" have nuclear weapons" not a "they have nukes".


Also all we need for an affective air strike is SF units on the ground gathering intelligence and shining lasers on targets. If we waned to overthrow the current regime in Iran and invade it like we did in Iraq then we would need a lot of troops and equipment. We just want an air strike to take out their nuclear development sites and perhaps some missile sites and for that we don't need thousands of troops.

You think its going to be easy to get those SF troops INSIDE iran?



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I still don't understand what gives the US the right to be the "referee" in this r matters.
The U.S. is the country with the most Nukes in the world , add that to the fact that you have a leader and administration that promotes and starts WARS as much as he can..... frankly that scares me more then Iran...

I think that i speak for a lot of Europeans that we in in Europe don't oppose American idea's by default, we just think that war is a negative thing by default...



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Piss poor article and no other information on any more credible news networks appearing......one for the bin I think

Spacemunkey



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

You think its going to be easy to get those SF troops INSIDE iran?


DW we have Iraq to the west of Iran and Afghanistan the East of Iran. Do you know how long each of those borders are? Border infiltration combined with air dropped SF should be enough, and amphibious infiltration would be risky but there's another option for you.


[edit on 14-6-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Navy SEALS diving then swimming onshore, airdropping etc... All are hard to conceal except for the first one. Airdropping is simply too obvious, if you see a C-130 you aren't just going to sit there and watch. Border infiltration, well, it is very hard to pull off. Iran's border is heavily guarded, it won't be easy.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I think if we ever go to war with Iran we need to plan a lot, make sure our intell is right, get other nations involved, and build up a Iranian Resistance. And of course take care of Iraq, so we will have a lot of nations around Iran that could support us with troops, Intel, Bases, etc.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
DW we have Iraq to the west of Iran and Afghanistan the East of Iran. Do you know how long each of those borders are? Border infiltration combined with air dropped SF should be enough, and amphibious inflation would be risky but there is another option for you.

Thats inside the local coastal and border regions, what about DEEP iran?
With out declareing war?
Interesting, but we are NOT playing splinter cell or rainbow 6, that mission would be unfeasable.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Thats inside the local coastal and border regions, what about DEEP iran?
With out declareing war?
Interesting, but we are NOT playing splinter cell or rainbow 6, that mission would be unfeasable.


im sure Delta, Rangers, etc, can go deep in Iran, since smugglers seem to go deep as well.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I don't see this as a real possibility. The US is over-stretched with its current military commitments, add to that the recent polls showing that the majority of Americans want to pull the troops out of Iraq and the problems with military recruitment and it looks to be highly unlikely.

Expect a couple of years of cooling off after the pull out from Iraq, then the military will be looking for another conflict.

They will deal with the Iranian "Nuclear Issue" with more carrot than stick.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
im sure Delta, Rangers, etc, can go deep in Iran, since smugglers seem to go deep as well.

And assualt an obviosly heavily guarded facility surounded by a hostile population?



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Let the Brits do it, I mean they are pretty much to our knowledge the best at these kinds of operations.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by blue cell
Let the Brits do it, I mean they are pretty much to our knowledge the best at these kinds of operations.

Yeah but we might just go, "what nukes?" to the US high command.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join