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.

 

How I envision Attack on Irans Nuke Facility

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I see two possibilities for the most effective and lethal strike to take out Irans Nuclear Facilities.

We all know this is getting out of control and I just read again another email from a sargeant in Iraq about iran and syrias involvement with the IED's, mostly sophisticated shape charges and armor pentration rounds.

The first possibility would be a B-2 strike flown all the way from the US, with no doubt, support from both f-15's at a standoff platform. And possibly f-22's flying wing tip to the B-2 for any airborne threat that happened to be in the air.

Another possibility, more likely I think, would be a cruise missile strike fired from the gulf or an Isreal strike with US airpower flying standoff. Bunker busters flying one after the other.

What do you guys think?

Train




posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The F-22s can be used to jam any IEDs that are a threat to the B-2 bombers.
Seriously it can, but anyways the B-2s are the perfect choice to be used for attacks on Iran's facilities before Iran could react.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Alli know is it will be swift and deadly. If this were the 1st strike to a possible invasion it would be an air attack like the world has never seen. If it were just to strike Irans nuclear capabilities it would be scaled down, but surgical and lethal.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
B-2's would be a good choice, Could cruise missles from the gulf penetrate far enough down to destroy everything? Also if the nuclear facilities are attacked wouldn't that unleash nuclear substances and material upon the people in a pretty wide range of space. If so i see some very bad things coming from an attack such as this

[edit on 6-12-2005 by Uber Fr0g]


Sep

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   
An attack cannot take place while Iran has the opportunity to hit back at the US. So if an attack is going to happen, the US and her allies better be out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan, where Iran has considerable recourses.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
We all know this is getting out of control and I just read again another email from a sargeant in Iraq about iran and syrias involvement with the IED's, mostly sophisticated shape charges and armor pentration rounds.


That's a whole load of propoganda BS, nothing is out of control, everything is fine.


Originally posted by BigTrain
The first possibility would be a B-2 strike flown all the way from the US, with no doubt, support from both f-15's at a standoff platform. And possibly f-22's flying wing tip to the B-2 for any airborne threat that happened to be in the air.


What? I think that's way too far away for the B-2.
It's range is 12kms, what's the distance of Iran from the nearest USAF base?


Originally posted by BigTrain
Another possibility, more likely I think, would be a cruise missile strike fired from the gulf or an Isreal strike with US airpower flying standoff. Bunker busters flying one after the other.


Such an attack would follow by Iran's cruise missile attack on the original attacker, and would do more harm than good.


The chance that either of those two succeedes, is only if Iran doesn't have the S-400 air defence system, which can shoot down anything. B-2, Cruise Missile, paper plane.....


In any case, if such an attack was to occur, I doubt it would be as simple as you make it out to be.
I'm sure the US along with allies would plan some super secret and outrageous stunt to get past all the defences.

The clock is ticking though, if they're going to make a move it better be very very soon.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Personally, there will be no attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, above ground or below ground. It has been speculated [military analysts and the like]that the Iranian's learned from the Israeli move against one of Saddam's nuclear facilities. As such, Iran has spread out the main components of their nuclear program so that taking them out will require not one or two airstrikes, but more like ten or more.

There will be no airstrike(s) on Iranian nuclear assets, and I would be quite surprised if such does take place. Look for sanctions or other counter-economic considerations. Quite frankly, those sanctions will do nothing to impede what Iran continues to strive to do covertly.






seekerof



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
As for the IED's with Iranian origin, read this article from the washington post, this is the second page in which there is a quote from a current insurgent about the materials they are recieving for the bombs.
www.washingtonpost.com...

The B-2 can hit another continent from the US. With one midair refueling, it can hit a target 10,000 nautical miles away. What that translates into in reagular miles, i dont know, but saying that the B-2 couldnt reach is just not true. Its range and the fact that we have an airforce base in Turkey that they could stage out of. I dont know of any in Iraq that can stage them but im sure that could be rigged up if necessary.

I do agree with you on the cruise missile strike, with radar and computer sophistication today, you can pinpoint the origin of a strike with computer. But the S-400, while has been ordered by the Russian Defense ministry, it cant pay for them yet. And do you think they would give another country something they dont even have yet. Uh-uh, no country would sell their top of the line equipment before they have it, it doesnt benefit them to do so.
www.globalsecurity.org...

I also agree that such an attack would not be so simple, but it would be possible without stealth aircraft. I know it sounds nuts but they do have aircraft especially retrofitted to break radar nets and destroy the radars, such as:

The F-16CJ/CG(Block 40/50/52D-2 Seater)-
www.aeronautics.ru...
While it does put the pilot in harms way, its specifically designed navigation and terrain rendering systems help it fly in below the the radar floor and home in and destroy radar sites using HARM missiles. Probably accompannied by jamming aircraft to distract(probably E/A-6B's but), preferably the new B-52H armed with the new jamming systems the airforce has been talking so much about. But if this is not a viable option the B-52 can still play a role in helping aircraft escape hostile airspace. If SAMS are launched, the B-52 can also be retrofitted to hold massive ammounts of Chaff in its bomb bays. I'm talkin 100's of pounds. As the planes are on their way out the B-52's drop this massive load of Chaff, the planes pass through, and the missiles are taken in by the massive cloud of Chaff. This is a very good possiblilty of the conventional tactics the airforce could use to defeat such an radar net.
www.murdoconline.net...

[edit on 12/7/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
We all know this is getting out of control

What do you guys think?

Train


What is out of control?

Hawk elements with the USA are trying to create yet another conflict situation - as they cannot bear to see Iran start trading oil in euros.

Nothing is 'out of control'.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Yeah, I'd defenetly go fot the "Spirit" too... the MOAB is just unstoppable...
but the cruise missiles aren't a bad idea either...



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Personally, there will be no attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, above ground or below ground. It has been speculated [military analysts and the like]that the Iranian's learned from the Israeli move against one of Saddam's nuclear facilities. As such, Iran has spread out the main components of their nuclear program so that taking them out will require not one or two airstrikes, but more like ten or more.

There will be no airstrike(s) on Iranian nuclear assets, and I would be quite surprised if such does take place. Look for sanctions or other counter-economic considerations. Quite frankly, those sanctions will do nothing to impede what Iran continues to strive to do covertly.






seekerof


Dear Seekerof. This threads name isn't "Will there be an attack", it's "How I envasion Attack on Irans Nucke Facility". That means that the question is how to attack, not if to attack.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Dear Seekerof. This threads name isn't "Will there be an attack", it's "How I envasion Attack on Irans Nucke Facility". That means that the question is how to attack, not if to attack.


Ahh, but the following infers such an attack may very well be justifiable/forthcoming in future.


We all know this is getting out of control and I just read again another email from a sargeant in Iraq about iran and syrias involvement with the IED's, mostly sophisticated shape charges and armor pentration rounds.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by BigTrain
We all know this is getting out of control

What do you guys think?

Train


What is out of control?

Hawk elements with the USA are trying to create yet another conflict situation - as they cannot bear to see Iran start trading oil in euros.

Nothing is 'out of control'.



Guys, no no no, Im not talking about the iraq war being out of control, im talking about Iran being out of control. Sorry for the confusion. With the recent remarks of sharing nuc tech with other arab nations and them building a 2nd nuc reactor and then the leader of Iran calling for Isreal to be blown off the earth. Iran out of control, not the war. I dont listen to the democratic pacifist military haters who cry foul and who claim we are losing just to win a office seat.

Train



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain

Guys, no no no, Im not talking about the iraq war being out of control, im talking about Iran being out of control. Sorry for the confusion. With the recent remarks of sharing nuc tech with other arab nations and them building a 2nd nuc reactor and then the leader of Iran calling for Isreal to be blown off the earth. Iran out of control, not the war. I dont listen to the democratic pacifist military haters who cry foul and who claim we are losing just to win a office seat.

Train


I'm not worried about the nuclear power plant aspect - we are all going to have to start building fission plants again to keep up energy levels until fusion arrives. So I hope Iran aren't being condemned on that.

As for the Israel comments, bad, yes, but apparently there is a history of strong rehetoric speechs for new leaders over there - so I don't quite know what to make of it.


M6D

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I believe a stealth strike would be the only practical way, you'd have to disable any means of retaliation in the first strike.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Think this is more complicated than 'me hit now, think later duh.' One thing is quite true the current deployment of land forces would need altering and there is Syria too. Your simple air attack scenario is weak your ground force would need to be deployed for an attack on three fronts. From Iran/Syria and of course from within. More troops and equipment being deployed could be a precursor to an attack. Best thing on this one would be to negotiate peaceful like.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Dear Seekerof. This threads name isn't "Will there be an attack", it's "How I envasion Attack on Irans Nucke Facility". That means that the question is how to attack, not if to attack.


I was not in a speculative mode.
Nor am I now.

I will stick with what I said.






seekerof



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I would like to share this study:





This book examines what additional security threats Iran might pose as it becomes increasingly capable of making nuclear weapons, what steps the United States and its friends might take to deter and contain it, and what should be done to assure Irans neighbors do not follow in Tehran’s nuclear footsteps.

Publication Date: November 2005

Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran

(free download, 320 pages)


[edit on 7-12-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
..sometimes.. I just wanna scream when I read some stuff in here.



I see two possibilities for the most effective and lethal strike to take out Irans Nuclear Facilities.


Why do you want to do this? Why is it okay for Israel (the only country routeenly killing its neighbours in the area) to have Nuclear Power, but its not okay for Iran to have it? Is it because they are Arabs, and Arabs should not be allowed N.P.? Why do you even want to entertain the idea of MORE * death and destruction and * wastes of money that if spent... god dammit, if spent properly on improving the living conditions of some of the more worse off countries in the world (and even fixing the situations at home with poverty and crime and basic desperation because of a lack of hope and opertunities there too) very easily to do so much with that kind of money... you could easilly start to build a world where people do not want to blow themselves up for anyone elses war or for that matter sign up to just kill people in general... you could so easilly start to build a world that was worth fighting for instead of one with no real moral direction anymore, where soldiers kill for lies and over lies and deception, where the reason for the war in the first place is unclear and men and women and (how can you support this when you know its true that it happens EVERY SINGLE WAR THAT HAPPENS - ITS UNAVOIDABLE NO MATTER WHAT) childern for crying out loud are killed and for what? Why are they killed?

www.prisonplanet.com...

And all of this started over weapons that didn't exist..

www.usatoday.com...

The mainstream media has caught on but you have not?

Are you really one of the ones in the minority that believes that more wars are really the solution to this situation?

www.aljazeera.com...

Because people who believe in that stuff are few and far between at this point. Most Americans are fed up with this never ending war that is just going to eventually destroy the country in one way or another, and it just might take the rest of the world with it in return.

Thats odd dude. You want this to continue and spread? You share the neocon philosophy of "can't make it better, then make it worse"? Do you not understand that this type of poo happens in every single war that has ever happened pretty much? This is what you are calling for man.. more of the same. This doesn't solve the problem of terrorism. Because terrorism is an unorganised (or nongovernment/privately organised) effort to make war against an enemy by killing their population and attacking their nonmilitary targets... and since the US is doing SO MUCH of this to the Iraqi people, you can bet that some of those Iraqi people who have suffered because of this type of sad event these people will be looking for payback.. and more Americans will die and the cycle will just continue. We need to build a peacefull and fair world, and we could have easilly done it with all the money that has been spent so far on this stupid war.. we could have build a society that no one would want to die simply to kill others in.. there would be no need for armies eventually. This is not idealistic.. this is simple.. we don't need militaries if we have a fair world where people don't suffer unfairly or are taken advantage of or made to suffer by a stronger people.. to make war or to defend yourself from people who want to hurt you in return for hurting them are the only reasons to keep a standing army. If you arn't fighting with other countries, then they won't want to bother getting an army together to attack you, and if they start doing it anyways, you'd have more then enough time to organise to fight them off.. but this wouldn't happen anyways. The people of individual states don't want to harm the people in the neighbouring states unless the government convinces the people that they have to do so in order to survive... just like Bush is doing to the American people with the fear of Terrorism.. this is the only way that the US public would have wanted to go in to Afganistan and Iraq in the first place, otherwise it never would have crossed their minds. But incidents like this are what war is about.. and you want this to expand to Iran, man?

The first war was based on lies...

www.worldnetdaily.com...

READ that article man.. start there. Ask yourself HOW in the hell you can believe anything that the US Gov administration tells you in reguards to Iran after all the lies it told you about Iraq. And btw.. there is only one other country talking about ACTUALLY INVADING and ATTACKING IRAN right now... and that is...

www.dailystar.com.lb...

www.iran-press-service.com... (how does this little country get the US attention so much these days?)

www.guardian.co.uk... (its always been on state pushing the US military to do its bidding)

english.aljazeera.net... (sometimes they just come right out and say so too)
l
...Israel. The country that is all bent out of shape over Russia selling those anticruise missle DEFENSIVE MISSILE SYSTEM... why are they so upset about that? ITS DEFENSIVE (this should speak volumes about the plans.. this war is already "a go" for execution.. unless someone else gets executed first).

www.ynetnews.com...
Sharon: Israel will not accept nuclear Iran...
Prime minister says Israel is making all necessary preparations to handle with such a situation; warns that nuclear Iran also threat to Arab world and other western countries


www.newsmax.com...
Israel says "IRAN NEXT!"

www.dailystar.com.lb...


And what the hell does this little insignifigant state like Israel (its a spec of nothing in the world of states like Russia.. it has no history, no population and no real use in the world besides causing grief for EVERYONE on it when in comparison to a country like Russia) think its doing critizing Russia for providing Iran with the MEANS TO PROTECT A RUSSIAN INVESTMENT (this is really fracking laughable when you think about it - can you imagine the reaction in the Kremlin - total laughter)! Do you think its unfair for the Russians to try to defend something they have spent billions of dollars on and have workers there (some of their best and brightest) in the world trying to make something better come out of Iran and that area for the first time in a long time? Of COURSE Israel wants to screw that up... and your surprised that some leader in Iran is calling for Israels destruction?? This surprises you too? Its not smart, but do you blame the guy for threatening to PROTECT HIS COUNTRY from another country that is saying that IT IS ITS GOD GIVEN RIGHT (more examples of acceptable religious extremism from Israel.. which the news media has already convinced you is acceptable because... well because its not Arabs)? Or because he is Arab does that make him a terrorist for not lying down and giving up and giving in to the demands of the US and Israel when the UN and the INTERNATION COMMUNITY ITSELF is saying, "Please go ahead and do whatever you want as long as you do not hurt anyone or intend to hurt anyone..."

www.mosnews.com...

UN Nuclear Watchdog Satisfied With Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation

So no disrespect.. but who are you to be upset about Irans programs? Oh? No one? Okay then.. so how about being part of the solution and no longer giving the military the support at home it needs to go and vaporise innocent people anymore? Stop supporting these illegal wars, and get the US back on track of REALLY being about freedom and democracy ... not torture and nuclear first strikes ... somethings everyone on the plant use to look up at the US over because it was a good moral position that no matter the lame international disasters the CIA use to create all the time, the US still had moral authority over the monsters it was usually going after.. which... almost.. sorta made things bareable... (barely) ...but now... yes there is ONE country out of control and its not Iran. Very few think Iran is out of control... you are in the minority here on this one. You are one of the few who wants to see this situation get really out of control... its not their yet, in fact.. everything is going quite well dispite USrael disruptions.



We all know this is getting out of control and I just read again another email from a sargeant in Iraq about iran and syrias involvement with the IED's, mostly sophisticated shape charges and armor pentration rounds.


No, you only BELIEVE that "WE ALL KNOW" that its "GETTING OUT OF CONTROL"! Well, you know what buddy, with all due respect; you don't "KNOW" anything at all. All you know is what the US propaganda mouth pieces are telling you to think. That is it. And since I'm going to give you some credit because no one can be so stupid to believe at this point that Bush did NOT lie to get this war started.. you can't be part of the 25% that believe he told the truth about the Uranium and the WMD.. so I have to ask you since you have to know that he lied about all the other things about Iraq and 9-11 and everything else he has said since taking office (how can you BELIEVE ANYTHING this administration says at this point - have you never heard of the term "lack of credibility" before - its what happens when someone lies over and over again) how can you believe that "Iran" is SO responsible for the IDEs over there in Iraq, which is just more propaganda for morons. This is how its really going to go down.. this is why its happening..

www.tbrnews.org...

And then after the war on Iran is completely being mismanaged and falling apart at the seems like Iraq is, they'll be blaming the IEDs in Iran on ... UAE or SA or whoever they are going after next.

All the arguments against Irans nuclear power program could just as easilly be leveled at ANY COUNTRY (including and specially Israel) that is building them. THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL IN THIS DAY AND AGE FOR ANYONE TO BE BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AT ALL! But everyone seems to want to waste their money anyways.. and the people have no say in the matter even though they are the ones in the end would be be atomised by them.

www.globalresearch.ca...
Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat to Peace

But the thing is... Iran is following the UNs demands for the most part pretty well... they don't see eye to eye on everything but that is how these things work, countries negotiate what access the UN gets to senstive sites (specially after it was revealed that UNSCOM had so much to do with spying on Iraq) ... but reach an agreement usually... however read how much Israel cooperates with the same demands they place on other countries..

www.channelnewsasia.com...

www.gulf-daily-news.com...

"Screw what the international community wants. We were persecuted in WW2! We are under threat of destruction right now, even though just adjusting our attitude towards our Arab neighbours would probablly fix everything, and stop the killing."

You can easilly spend one afternoon, sir.. and you could easilly get yourself a much clearer and acurate picture of whats going on. It has nothing to do with being antiwar or antimilitary or antidefence.. its all about being manipulated for the needs of another state which has no respect for its friends that it uses... just like a single petty lowlife individual would do to his friends. No difference. Just scum. You will learn quickly how easy it is to see through American propaganda after awhile. Its not hard at all. And if you respect yourself and your brain.. then you can spend the Sunday or two making sure that your world view hasn't been scewed by US Media Propaganda. But OTOH if you were inclinded to find this all out for yourself in the first palce, you could have found it all here in the first place... so you could turn around your thought process... Or don't.. keep your head in the sand and not looking at the whole picture. It isn't that complicated and once you understand it all, you can have a much more realistic picture of what is going on then a bunch of cave dwelling morons who can pull of attacks of astonishing technical feats.

This is what the US soldiers over there are really going through...

You claim to support your country and your soldiers but you want to put them through another poorly planned war for the sake of Israel? No one in their right mind would mess with the US itself.. all this talk about Iran hitting the US is all propaganda to make folks like yourself geared up to attack Iran on behalf of Israel. And that above is what you want to put more of your peers through.

www.marxist.com...

You have bought in to the propaganda. Iran bad.. booga booga booga!!!

The only reason to prevent Iran from building nuclear power plants is to halt its development as a state, and as an excuse to go and invade them. The sad and scarry thing is that this isn't even going to be the US initiates the attack but it will be the US that gets pulled in to the war that results from it. And its going to make Iraq look like the Bay of Pigs disaster.



Guys, no no no, Im not talking about the iraq war being out of control, im talking about Iran being out of control.


Who the hell are you to say that Iran is out of control? What is so out of control about them? Oh I see, you get all of your world opinion from CNN and that makes you some sort of political science expert?



With the recent remarks of sharing nuc tech with other arab nations and them building a 2nd nuc reactor and then the leader of Iran calling for Isreal to be blown off the earth.


What about Israel saying that Iran has reached the point of no return and its time that the US started attacking them for them?

www.israelnationalnews.com...

Want to explain that one to me?

Iran has the right UNDER WORLD WIDE LAW to share the tech with who ever they want to share it with. So * off with what the US wants abnd double * off with whatever Israel wants. What do you think the US and Russia did with their tech when it came to sharing it? They gave it to whoever they felt was on their side. Canada sold 100s of reactors all over the world... why wasn't that such a big issue in the 80s? Why is it such a big deal now for countries to build power plants? They shared it with the countries that were on their side. Do you have a problem with Arab nations being able to defend themselves from a nuclear attack from an unfriendly nation? ITS MORE likely that nuclear weapons will be used by a nation that doesn't have to fear nuclear retaliation. But if the attacking/agressor nation knows that they might be nuked back, then the chances of a nuclear confrontation are greatly diminished. AND THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.. we don't want MORE nuclear weapons, but we DO want everyone to be safe from nuclear agression. And the ONLY REASON that Israel (the only enemy of those Arab nations in the area) has nuclear weapons is to intimidate and threaten its neighbours with the same destruction you are refering to. The ONLY reason to have nukes in the first place, its TO PROTECT YOURSELF from OTHER counties (ever hear of the term DETERENT) that have nukes. But none of Israels neighbours had nukes before they started building them. So why did they build them then? To use them against neighbours who can not nuke back, thats why. So the only reason to prevent Iran from having nuclear power is to prevent them from having nuke weapons so that Israel can nuke them (or the US) without fear of nukes coming back at them... and thats wrong. Besides when Iran is attacked, like I've said, its not going to be pretty at all...

www.aljazeera.com...

... if nukes are in the mix, I'd be willing to bet that within 48 hours you are praying for a return to peace after you see what happens.

In order to have a safe world.. we need to either ALL disarm nukes, or everyone has to have them, and have them all pointed at each other, so that no one gets the bright idea to use them. BECAUSE AS SOON AS SOMEONE USES ONE IN ANY WAY (let me make this PERFECTLY clear to you so that you understand it.. if I say anything in here that is true and worthwhile, this is it) AT ALL... then that opens the door for EVERYONE ELSE TO GET NERVOUS and start using them or at the least threatening to use them in return... and you know what... you may think you know who your friends and enemies are right now, but if your US GOVERNMENT starts using nuclear weapons IN ANY WAY ONCE SO EVER, you are going to find out that countries you thought were 'friends' of yours are quickly and 100% against you and your policies and even the population that allowed the US GOV to do what it did.... and you know what..... the US GOV knows this too, even if you don't understand the magnitude of the action of using a nuclear weapon against another country (you just don't seem to understand, no matter what or who you use one on or for what reason, there is just no excuse for doing that.. it harms the entire plant and destablises the world political situation because you set a presadant and declair that "its okay" to use it under situation X - if you felt 'threatened' for example - well what happens when the next country with nukes feels like its in situation X, or just 'feels threatened'.. does that not give them the right to go ahead and use a nuke against some other nonnuclear armed country also). If the US or Israel nuked Irans nuke sites, they would find themselves very quickly completely isolated from the world community. And if Iran fired nuclear weapons at anyone (or if anyone else fired them for that matter) that country also would find itself at odds with the REST OF THE WORLD, if it didn't find itself getting nuked in return right away in retaliation either from the victim or one of the victims allys (Russia has billions of dollars invested in the Iranian nuclear plants - it won't go over well with them if they are destroyed, let alone with nuclear buster bunkers).

And ... Iran has the right to build as many nuclear power plants as it wants to as long as the UNITED NATIONS (which btw is monitoring the entire operation and has found no wrong doing on Irans part at all.. they don't have a problem with what Iran is doing and the Internation Atomic Energy Commision doesn't have a problem with it either, its just the US and Israel that have a problem with Irans nuclear power plant program) is still saying that it is okay for Iran to go ahead and do it.

And you mean the Iranian PRESIDENT who said that (let me clarify what he said because you are grossly missquoting him) Israel should be wiped off the map?



That was an increadably stupid thing for him to say, even though I do believe he clarified (though I don't feel like searching for it right now) that he never called for genocide but for the borders to be erased and all of the land returned back to the Palistinians. He stressed that he did not want to kill all the Israelis in the process, he just 'wants them to leave' the land he feels that 'the jews' are occupying. I still think he made a huge mistake by not calling for interfaith cooperation and asking the world to intervien and redistribute ALL of the holy land equally between all the interested faiths laying claim to the various sites... its the ONLY way to solve this problem once and for all and stop armageddon from occuring which saddly is exactly what a lot of these horrible (and insane) people want to happen (my god, how did we let this come to this). But this just prooves that the Iranians themselves have a leadership problem, or he has a problem with perhaps how the things he says are TRANSLATED in english and should be more careful about how he puts certain things if he doesn't want to alienate the entire world while they come to his peoples/countries aid on this issue.. its still not a reason to destroy their nuclear power program and/or use nuclear first strikes on Iranian nuclear power program sites or Irans military just because it could give just about any country on the planet a very hard time in a conventional battle. Sir, a war with Iran is NOT a good thing.. it would not go down like the way Iraq went down in the early days of the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" propaganda. That is what they want you to think.. that these invasions are a piece of cake, then they start some huge conflict and before the public realises the intensity of the battles being fought its already too late to de-escalate (hopefully not, but.. realistically usually not).

www.tbrnews.org...

This will be very ugly.



Not only do lots and lots of US soldiers get wiped out in the early days of the battle as an excuse to send more soldiers as back up and then just keep escalating instead of pulling out because of ... some OTHER event that will occure making it even more nessesary that US forces to be sent and get more involved in Israels destruction of Irans nuclear power stations (you do know that they destroyed Iraqs in the 80s too right.. they have a habbit of destroying the nuclear power programs of Arab countries with the excuse that they will build nuclear weapons but the thing is that is exactly what Israel itself did in the first place to build their nuclear weapons - see this is the problem is the double standard and the other problem is that the American public pays for all of Israels weaponry and then Israel starts all of these conflicts and keeps them going, it is IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS for the US public to believe that the "Arabs are coming to get them" (and Israel too) and that nothing can stop them except for draconian laws that restrict everyones freedoms at home (makes sense of course if the terrorists hate you for your freedoms to just get rid of the freedoms so that the terrorists don't hate you so much anymore - now if you'd just stop droping bombs on their childern they'd probablly not care to kill or harm you at all) and wars all across the middle east that kill hundreds of thousands of people. This has to stop. You have to be a part of that, not contributing to it. You can start by no longer beliving in these little lies and excuses to drop bombs on childern in the name of freedom and security and world peace and stopping massive destruction and all of that nonsense.. be smarter then that for crying out loud.




I dont listen to the democratic pacifist military haters who cry foul and who claim we are losing just to win a office seat.


It has nothing to do with being a pacifist, it has to do with not triggering WW3 over the interests of a few individuals. This is about common sense. This is about protecting REAL American Values. What is going on right now is a deliberate attempt to destroy the country, and you are playing right in to their hands... you are contributing to this downfall. There are many in the US military that believe this whole thing is a bad idea, that the war is being handled poorly, and that the US is being led down the wrong path and possiblly being led down the path by another nation (not even by its own poor leadership) that doesn't have the US best interest in mind. The only thing you have to be listening to is yourself answering the question "Do I want to take the chance that my countries military might be getting manipulated by outside forces in order to attack and destroy their enemies for them. Is it even slightly possibly that the elections of my country been stolen by outside forces and is the leadership of my country under the control of someone else?" Do you understand the blow to your countries credibility if it turns out that your entire government has been subverted by outside control? There is enough evidence to support the very fact that there has been a silent coup in the USA that began on 9-11 and that the US public has been lied to since then about "Muslim Terrorists" and that other terror events besides 9-11 have been highly suspicious in reguards to who knew what and when and who was responsible and what they allegedly did... in fact almost every aspect of the supposed terror attacks that have occured since 9-11 has been completely suspect... and you being a member of ATS have access to all of this information in here, and you should know that if even 1/10th of it is true (or if the information in here can prove that even 1/10th of the governments stories are lies and false) then you have to seriously concider your stance on the engagement of future conflicts by your military because there is a very good chance that it is being used and many of your soldiers, your peers are being killed or horribly wounded spending the rest of their lives in hell all for the benifit of a few rich people and all they had to do to get away with it was kill a few of their own people and lie to the rest of them about who was responsible for it. Sad. You should think more about the bigger picture and to be on the safe side.. to ensure always that you did the most to ensure a peacefull and safe world to begin with that you advocated peacefull means to ensure that everyone is safe from the threat of nuclear destruction... that means that everyone disarms, or everyone has them... its always worked in the past and should work in the future. No one wants to suffer nuclear war or bring nuclear death to their country or their people so no one is going to be the first to launch nukes... unless they believe that they can get away with it... unless they believe that world opinion will be with them.

Which brings me to my main point that I will stress. Right now the US government believes that the public feels that it is okay for its military to use "small and strategic, tactical, surgical" (as someone put it) nuclear weapons to attack sites military or nonmilitary and nuclear and nonnuclear sites that could possibly have any remote link to the constuction of WMD (in this specific case and jucture we are at they are talking of course about sites in Iran) IF and under this very serious (of course) condition that "The United States is attacked with any weapon of mass destruction, or just hit with another large scale high casualty attack, and specially ("all options deffinately on the table") a nuclear attack on the US homeland" ...

www.antiwar.com...

In other words, the since the single condition they believe that the US public (and hopefully some of the world like they did after 9-11) will accept using these 'acceptable nuclear weapons' under this set of 'acceptable circumstances' is a semicatastrophic attack (possibly nuclear) on the US doesn't it make it that much more likely that IF the US is being manipulated that the manipulators will then make sure that a semicatastrophic attack does occure on the United States in order to use these horrible weapons on Iranian sites WITHOUT ending up alienating themselves from all of the other countries in the UN. Quite the opposite, if the US was attacked with a nuclear weapon all of the NATO countries obligations would be activated (section 5 or something like that) and then the US would start to look for the state responsible for the attack. Here is the problem with that of course... any evidence would be vaporised. The US and Israel and NATO would then of course make the excuse that in order to prevent anything like this horror from ever happening again they have to go after ever rogue state that is left, every dicator that is left and anyone else who has ever said a bad thing about them before.. or anyone who threatened back in return for being threatened (oh and probablly any individual who ever said a bad thing about them too - since they are persecuting people for commiting crimes of speach and thought in Germany again - just like old times .. so it begins again). You have to tell your government that under no circumstances (short of being clearly and blatently attacked full on by missles - thats a different story) is there any acceptable use of nuclear weapons. This way, the nefarious forces in the US will think twice about destroying one of its cities in order to persude its citizens that a nuclear attack in retaliation against "whoever" in return for attacking them is not a viable option for retaliation ... this keeps yourselves safer in general. Its very simple. But honestly.. I think its too late. I think the attack on the US is coming because time is running out for the attack on Iran to succead, and if the US and Israel can not arrange the attack on the US in order to shift public opinion to allowing the US to nuke Iran.. then Israel will simply go it alone, causing massive strife in the region and drawing the US in to a war where they HAVE to use nukes in order to keep it under their control. Like I said, this will start a dangerous president.

WHAT IF.. what is to stop.. Russia from selling "small tactical strategic surgical nuclear weapons" to Iran to use in retaliation for them being used on them first? What is stopping Russia from leveling the playing field in order to protect their investment? If the US and Israel start an illegal war on Iran in the first place, and THEN on top of that use nuclear weapons in any fashion against Iran... world opinion will not be favorable, and when someone turns the tables on the US by giving Iran a few small nukes to take out strictly military targets (like the green zone in Iraq) ...world opinion will be on the side of the inital victim... things will only get worse for the US and Israel at that point. Which saddly.. is probablly all part of their contingency plan anyways.. at which point they would just flatten the entire area right away. War over... great cost to everyone though.. and nothing would ever be the same again.

The point is man... you seem to be desiring a war that would result in the deaths of so many people, I don't think you understand how brutal this war would be. You are not helping by spreading this fear that is unfounded in the first place. Don't tell me you REALLY believe that Iran is suddenly a "THREAT" too after its been made quite clear that Iraq was a complete fabrication of its danger.

And you know what really scares me, is that you guys really talk about some of this stuff like its a video game.. "Well US has unit X and that can do Y amount of damage per unit and Iran doesn't have anything that can compete with that." ... Guys, if this war happens.. its going to be a full out freeking slaughter.. it could very well destroy this planet.


And the scarry thing is.. its close to coming down on us all soon. The time is running out for Israel to hit the plants before the fuel is delivered.. it could be months away.


We might only have months of world peace left.. and it will all end because of the ambitions of Israel.


Sorry this was so disjointed... actually its not that bad.. I've just got other stuff on my mind right now... but thanks for the chat guys.. and its good to see that some of you have at least a decent over view of whats to come from a conflict like this.


Now if some of the rest of you would just come around and realise everything WE ALL HAVE TO LOSE ... war destroys generations... we are suppose to be better then this now... we shouldn't be led to killing each other by our leaders anymore.. manipulated by them.. with fear and threats... we gotta find a better way.. or we're in deep trouble.


-VMX


Mod Edit: Please use shorter links



[edit on 12/7/05 by FredT]

Mod Edit: Profanity, Circumvention Of Censors, BB Code.

[edit on 8/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
[

I was not in a speculative mode.
Nor am I now.

I will stick with what I said.






seekerof


In that case you didn't make a good answear on the thread, and you would have been lot better of If you wouldn't have posted at all...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join