It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iran/nuclear pretext wont happen until after Iraq

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:02 PM
I think I heard somewhere that we could use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran now because it would limit the number of troops...I dont think so. Once the Iraqis have drafted the constitution (shoudnt be long now, US is pushing), the US will finish its duties in Iraq and leave. Then, Bush will have the troops and resources available for Iran. You can't just nuke the hell out of it, you need to go install a new democracy and suchlike, so you'll need troops.

If something bad is gonna happen, its going to happen after Iraq has its new constitution and a half-arguable security force.

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:04 PM
Nuke it first, invade later or use a neutron bomb

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:39 PM
Iraq gaining a constitution does not make it stable enough to run by itself. If we attack Iran, terrorists will be jumping for joy. It will be a third country they can attack us in while we spread and thin our forces out.

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:02 PM
I see this scenario. Iraq gets a constitution and some semblance of a government. Bush pulls the troops out and gives them a month off. America attacks Iran with battle tested soldiers who will cut thru the Iranians like butter. The insurgents in Iraq move next door to fight the great satan in Iran. Iraq becomes stable, Iran becomes the new war front. The killing continues.

Yes, there will be an insurgency. That does not stop the fact the US can topple Irans government just as fast as it did Iraqs and this time we know for a fact there are weapons of mass destruction. Iran is in debate with europe over them at this very moment.

I pray to god i'm absolutely wrong and nothing like this happens.

Its just how I see things playing out.


posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:59 PM
The facts are this: Iraq will never be stable because the Iraqis and Muslims will NEVER accept an American pupprt government and constitution. We can never leave the middle East now. Soon we will pull back and into Saudi Arabia because we know that as soon as we leave the American puppet government will be overthrown. We are in this war until the end of time or until the last muslim is dead.
Rather than leave Iraq, we will announce we are leaving and before it happens America will be hit with a suitcase nuke [ now called dirty bomb] and Iran and Syria will be blamed and there WILL be intel to PROVE it- fabricated of course and never shown to the public. It will just be announced it exists. Americans will support an invasion of Iran and Syria because we were attacked don't ya know.
Isn't there something in the Christian bible about a BEHIND THE SCENES WORLD LEADER ATTACKING AND CONQUERING THE MIDDLE EAST? Hmmmm
he rules from behind the scenes huh? Perhaps by nuclear blackmail.
He must be an American politican. I wonder who it could be? Hmmmm. i wonder who it could be.

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:29 PM
I don't think the US wants to invade Iran, the only kind of attack I can see the US mount against Iran even while Iraq is unstable is a mass Air Strike. The air strike would be focus on their nuclear site and missile site.

This is just hypothetical of course, no one knows how its play out


posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:28 PM
Well if any attack or air-strike i know for fact U.S will have to answer to Russia and China for that and they can also be rebuil, dont forget its not gonna be easy going around thousands of S-200's, SA-3, SA-4, SA-6, S-300 and our own SAMS. jetfighters are also patroling and there was this one time where 2 F-18's were in our terriorty and our F-4's escorted them out immediatly.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by NR]

[edit on 4-9-2005 by NR]

[edit on 4-9-2005 by NR]

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:36 PM
I feel that if Iran contnues with it's present position regarding their advancing in Nuclear proliferation, not just Russia, but China will become engaged as if Iran's dealt with I'd assume North Korea will be too.

The whole mess is a mess with us little people, and theirs paying an extreme price..


posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by mrwupy
this time we know for a fact there are weapons of mass destruction. Iran is in debate with europe over them at this very moment.

- This is simply not true.

Europe is in discussion with Iran over how they manage their civillian nuclear power program, specifically their desire to use their own domestically produced enriched uranium (Iran is a signed up member of the non-proliferation treaty and the IAEA; Iran's facilities are under 24/7 observation by the IAEA still).

Producing enriched uranium under the auspices of the IAEA is not illegal and is nopt proof of a weapons program.

There is not the single slightest actual shred of any evidence that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program.

What Iran does have (apparantly) are stocks of chemical and possibly biological weapons (a perfectly foreseeable consequence of the US supplying Saddam with such weapons in the original Iran - Iraq Gulf War).

Europe is not in discussion with Iran about those weapons, in fact those WMD's don't seem to bother anyone much at all for some reason.
Strange that, hmmmm?

[edit on 5-9-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

top topics


log in