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.

 

Simultaneous invasion of Iran and Syria possible?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
But the invasion of three major muslim states in as many years might do that anyway. .


Yes, it might. Isreals involvement will insure it.

The US doesn't need help to take any and/or all nations in the middle east. Thus, why would you take away any possibility of a lower resistance? I'd rather take my chances playing the diplomacy card and using leverage to make nations like Saudi Arabia do work for us.



Why would iran really require more, let alone twice as much? The Revolutionary Guard isn't any better than the Republican Guard no? The region would be anarchic, but then again thats how a lot of large empires operated anyway..


Purely because their nation is much larger in size and population. It has nothing to do with military affairs.

Frankly, the cut and dry "US vs Iran military" is a joke. They just don't have a chance going toe to toe. The numbers are for the occupation.



Assuming that syria doesn't take the invasion of iran as a sign that their days are up. The possiblity of them launching a chemical weapons attack on the US while the Iran invasion is just getting underway might in and of itself warrant going to war with them at the get go..


That is an interesting idea, but I don't buy it. The Syrian government has been playing "nicer" since the US invasion of Iraq. Their leader understands that he has to do so much or else he personally is gone.

Beyond that, just as in GW I, the US will let it be known that any use of chemical weapons will be met with decisive nuclear retaliation. That is a little known fact of GWI, but it rings true.

Besides, if you are in a position of power in Syria, are you really going to commit suicide because Iran was attacked?




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Invading these two countries could happen, but not at one time. The draft will not be back, FACE IT. You have never had to face the draft. It was done away with in the early 70's, and has not had much done to it since. The American public will not go along with it, either. Even if it did return, there would be any output from it for about 1 year. We still do not have enough people in uniform. To invade a country you need armor, infantry and artillery, plus you need a way to get them there and another way to keep them going. You need 500,000 troops per country to do it right, remember Gulfv War 1. Forget this current fiasco. I still say you need to enlist, do a tour, then talk, not read CIA books. Warfare is not explained very well in a book.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
That is an interesting idea, but I don't buy it. The Syrian government has been playing "nicer" since the US invasion of Iraq.

Indeed, I suspect that Assad has simply capitulated to the US. His government handed over hussein's brother who'd must've been organizing part of the resistance (and notice now that there is more willingness on the part of the sunni resistance to get inovled in the elections) and also their strong-man in lebanon (commited) suicide(ed).


Besides, if you are in a position of power in Syria, are you really going to commit suicide because Iran was attacked?

True enough of a concern, but, if the US is attacking Iran, the situation might be different enough that the syrians will recognize that its really just a matter of time.
Either way a dual invasion is definitly doable, especially with yehudis occupying lebanon, syria, gaza, heck maybe even the whole of the arabian penninsula. Might be intersting to see a yeshiva school in mecca. The Kabba was originally built by abraham no?


Syria and Iran would be the same by the time US ground forces reach the sites in question I doubt the means would still be available to steal oil.

In the current situation, the focus of the military is to restore order and permit a civil society to form first, and then protect oil second, leaving lots of that up to private security. In this 'apocalyptic' scenario, the US really only needs to protect oil fields and the oil infrastructure, and let the countryside rot. Besides, the oil infrastructure in Iraq is generally protected and the fields weren't massively destroyed. On occasion a pipeline seems to get hit, and these could have more securit, sure. But in the current situation is Iraqi oil. In this new hypothetical situation, its actual american oil, directly controled by americans.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
guess we will just have to wait and see.... being the throw down we are contending with now with our government and where we are. I expect to be at war with them in the next 3 years.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
There is nothing more destroying than reading what has been said on this site, WAR, WAR and more WAR...

Try and start a thread that implies what it would do to have peace and how many individules (not armies) it would take to get PEACE on the table and NOT WAR




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I agree with peace! But, do you guys really think Bush will allow chemical weapons attacks on our troops? He will push THE button. I for one am awaiting the bad news. There will be no vote in congress, or warning to the population. You are going to wake up to find we strategically used nuclear (not nukular) bombs in Iran. The fact that Irans Pres. just called for the complete destruction of Israel, and that Israel has readied its troops for strikes in March, doesnt help us anti-war citizens cause of peace. Remember we all have to share this planet until we destroy it. I think this may come sooner than we thought.

One Love



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
In answer to the original question, I don't think the US is in a position to invade and occupy either country, let alone both. Troop numbers only tell half the story, what would be need to invade and occupy Syria and Iran would be not just "troops" but combat infantry and lots of them, which represent ony a fraction of the total force numbers. And we haven't really got the numbers available to to the job, without a draft and a certain amount of lead time to train the draftees.

Considering the current unpopularity of the Iraq War, starting two new full-scale wars with countries that haven't attacked us directly would be political suicide. It's simply not going to happen.

If we see any conflict with Iran, it will be a series of airstrikes directed at Iranian nuclear facilities, not a full scale invasion. Personally, I don't think even that is particularly likely in the near term, given the political ramifications at home and for the occupation of Iraq.

[edit on 12/14/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
BINGO- you said it.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valorian
There is nothing more destroying than reading what has been said on this site, WAR, WAR and more WAR...

Try and start a thread that implies what it would do to have peace and how many individules (not armies) it would take to get PEACE on the table and NOT WAR


What do you expect on a poor,small,oceanic,tilted ,elliptical-orbit planet?
A lot of 7 bln people currenly on Earth are trying really hard not to starve tommorow,so securing "strategic" resources and killing others is their only chance.
USA has 13 trl $ in debt,more than its 11.5 trl $ GNP.So,even if they print the world's money,if Iran switches to Euro on its oil bourse,it will mean the grave devaluation of $.
To answer your question,Valkirie,ONE man is enough ot make peace,with some time-agonizingly-long twists and political moves.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Full scale invasion? Possible but highly unprobable. And Americans would have to do that all by themselves. They cannot afford to have Israel as their ally in this lunatic escapade.

Does anybody recall Saddam's threats to Israel during GW1? Israel wanted to defend themselves but Coalition could not permit Israeli part in this war because there would be an upheaval in muslim world and Coalition would lose all local allys. So they instaled Patriot bateries to protect Israel from Scud missiles.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Simultaneous invasion of Iran and Syria possible?


- Together with Iraq and Afghanistan that would make for 4 hugely difficult and probably open-ended commitments simultaneously so whilst in theory it might be possible I don't expect anyone in their right mind would ever seriously contemplate it.

Then there is the whole question of cost.
The USA already owes vast amounts and runs on a credit line from the rest of the world day by day.
It is far from unknown for recession to follow war, I doubt the next one will be too long in coming.

============================================


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Russia helped out alot with Germany as a second front


- Is that the ridiculous line they're pushing in US schools these days?

The truth is that Russia won WW2 in Europe.
Britain and her then Empire did a lot (and so too did the USA even if they were years late into it).

But to term it as "helped out a lot" is laughable and a grevious insult considering the price she paid.

I can just imagine your outrage if it had been the USA that had bled so badly in such a vital endevour only for it to be pissed all over in that callous manner shadow.

I thought you usually made a big deal about respecting the soldiers who bought your freedom?
(or is that just when it's guys from the US
)

That was really nasty.



but they didnt do squat with Japan. They declared war on Japan after the US dropped two atomic bombs on them


- Sorry but this is plain wrong too.

Russia attacked the Japanese with approx 1.5 million (veteran) men along a vast 3000mile front on Aug 8th.

Their army and airforce were utterly superior to what the Japanese had (5500 of their excellent tanks, 3900 modern high performance aircraft and 25000 artillery guns and mortars) and simply overwhelmed them completely.

Mind you, there are more than a few who suspect the real reason for the haste in dropping the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki (Aug 9th) was to finish the war in the east asap because Russia was cutting through the Japanese forces like a hot knife through butter and the last thing that was wanted was the war to drag on with Stalin's Russia grabbing large stretches of previously Japanese-held territory.


[edit on 13-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

mod edit to remove some =====

[edit on 13-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- Is that the ridiculous line they're pushing in US schools these days?

The truth is that Russia won WW2 in Europe.
Britain and her then Empire did a lot (and so too did the USA even if they were years late into it).

But to term it as "helped out a lot" is laughable and a grevious insult considering the price she paid.



Russia won WW2 in Europe? No see no single country won World War 2 in Europe. Your just as wrong as people that say the US won WW2. Thats a grevious insult to every person that died liberating Western Europe. I dont know what lines they are feeding you in school.

Without the other allies and the second front Stalin kept asking the allies for Russia odds didnt look so good.



- Sorry but this is plain wrong too.
Russia attacked the Japanese with approx 1.5 million (veteran) men along a vast 3000mile front on Aug 8th.

Their army and airforce were utterly superior to what the Japanese had (5500 of their excellent tanks, 3900 modern high performance aircraft and 25000 artillery guns and mortars) and simply overwhelmed them completely.



Aug 8th two days after Hiroshima LOL

Oh yes Russia declared war on Japan after it had all but lost the war and had a Atomic bomb dropped on them. What a great help to the Pacific Theater


utterly superior over a defeated country trying to figure out a way to surrender and keep their Emperor yeah I would hope so.

You got to be kidding with this stuff. Trying to make land grabs on a enemy defeated by others yeah sorry that is doing squat



[edit on 13-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Russia won WW2 in Europe?


- Basically yes, seeing as that was where the greatest part of it was really fought out.


No see no single country won World War 2 in Europe.


- I did not say there was no-one else involved and I actually didn't down-play the contribution of the others either, unlike yourself.


Your just as wrong as people that say the US won WW2.


- They were on the winning side but they certainly didn't 'win' it.


Thats a grevious insult to every person that died liberating Western Europe.


- Very funny shadow.
You must watch your sides don't split one day with incredibly amusing comments like that.


I dont know what lines they are feeding you in school.


- Coooo, impressive again, parroting back, wow.


Without the other allies and the second front Stalin kept asking the allies for Russia odds didnt look so good.


- Dream on.
Russia was vast enough for them to lose the most enormous amounts of men and material initially and still come back with resouces Germany had not and could not even imagine.

Plus they had Germany riddled with spies telling them every move (even to the point of getting the actual German intel services to think it was feeding Russia proper - so as to be credible - intel about their strengths and deployments in the mistaken belief they were setting them up to one day turn the tables on them!)


Aug 8th two days after Hiroshima LOL

Oh yes Russia declared war on Japan after it had all but lost the war and had a Atomic bomb dropped on them. What a great help to the Pacific Theater


- Er, who said anything about the - US idea of the - "pacific theatre"?

What about the Chinese and Manchurian theatre?
Large and experienced Japanese forces till then in good shape, hmmmm?


utterly superior over a defeated country trying to figure out a way to surrender and keep their Emperor yeah I would hope so.


- I think your US-centric (or is it just anti-Russian?) view of history just crept out there shadow.
The Japanese in China and Manchuria were far from the defeated forces you imagine.


You got to be kidding with this stuff. Trying to make land grabs on a enemy defeated by others yeah sorry that is doing squat


- Well shadow at the risk of being accused of hijacking the thread and taking it off topic I shall simply finish here and advise you that you obviously you haven't much of a clue about this part of WW2.
I suggest you go do some reading.

Here's a reputable US site to start with - www.colorado.edu...


[edit on 13-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Basically yes, seeing as that was where the greatest part of it was really fought out.

- I did not say there was no-one else involved and I actually didn't down-play the contribution of the others either, unlike yourself.


No by saying Russia "won" WW2 in Europe you are infact down-playing the contribution of the others. I never said a single one country won anything your the only one making such claims.



- Very funny shadow.
You must watch your sides don't split one day with incredibly amusing comments like that.

- Coooo, impressive again, parroting back, wow.



Yeah those comments were classics thats why they deserved to be rehashed. hmmm.. like chili better the second time.

Heres another one I think your Anti-US feeling are slipping out a tad




- Dream on.
Russia was vast enough for them to lose the most enormous amounts of men and material initially and still come back with resouces Germany had not and could not even imagine.

Plus they had Germany riddled with spies telling them every move (even to the point of getting the actual German intel services to think it was feeding Russia proper - so as to be credible - intel about their strengths and deployments in the mistaken belief they were setting them up to one day turn the tables on them!)



Now really whos the one whos dreaming. Phantom scenarios of Russia fighting in Europe without any second front. Thats a dream never happened and all this ^ is wild speculation on your part.

Perhaps you should read your own links on WW2. Its quite well known Stalin had been demanding that the Allies open-up a second front in Europe. ...Strange for this power that could win Europe by themselves.

The other allies werent asking Stalin to go to war with Japan and open a "second front" Hmmm.. interesting

The fact is Stalin waits to declare war on Japan until it has all but surrendered and had a Atomic bomb dropped on them.

WOW your right thats a huge help.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I thought the US military as a whole only had some 920,000 or so people in it not 1,299,000 or so as someone said. DOD put out the 920,000 part and you can look it up cant remember where I got it. Draft is the only hope they have if they want to do a ground invasion of both Iran and Syria let alone one of them.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Last time I checked it was 1.4 million personnel currently on active duty.

Where did you see the 900K figure?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
web1.whs.osd.mil...
and
web1.whs.osd.mil...

Where did you get YOUR statistics? Also its odd that China would have "only" 2.25 million troops but has 1/3 the world population and america only has some 290 million people and considering how many people DO NOT support the war..... hmmmmm odd that your numbers have a mysterious extra of 200,000+ people in it. I count US troops ONLY not the freaking civilian support screws, they are not soldiers. So considering THAT it would meen they are so scared of the american public they need 80% of the military to keep themselves safe..... kinda like hitler and stalin if you ask me, keep as many as you can right at home because people might kill you if those soldiers were not between them and you.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
No by saying Russia "won" WW2 in Europe you are infact down-playing the contribution of the others.


- Nonsense, it is a simple recognition of the reality of what happened.

The vast bulk of the fighting in the 'European theatre' with the Germans was in the east by Russia and Russia won that hands down.

That does not deny others contributed and neither does it down-play that contribution.

It's the same as (correctly) saying America won the pacific island war, others contributed and were involved but America did the bulk of the fighting and won hands down.
(How anti-American is that, huh?)


I never said a single one country won anything your the only one making such claims.


- Naaaa, you just characterised the Russian contribution as "help" (even if it was followed with an "alot").


Yeah those comments were classics thats why they deserved to be rehashed. hmmm.. like chili better the second time.


- Well maybe if you're 12.
What happened shadow? You used to be able to debate properly with the silly BS?


Heres another one I think your Anti-US feeling are slipping out a tad


- Perhaps you'll be able to show how the truth is "anti" anyone?

The fact is that your game-playing over this is actually demeaning to those you claim to want to value.

Shabby manipulation of the truth demeans the truth, it is as simple as that.


Now really whos the one whos dreaming. Phantom scenarios of Russia fighting in Europe without any second front. Thats a dream never happened and all this ^ is wild speculation on your part.


- Maybe you could point out where I actually said that then?

The fact remains that Russia had effectively defeated the German armies by June 1944 and the outcome was never in any real doubt.


Perhaps you should read your own links on WW2. Its quite well known Stalin had been demanding that the Allies open-up a second front in Europe. ...Strange for this power that could win Europe by themselves.


- Stalin wanted the 2nd front to reduce the pressure on Russia, that is perfectly reasonable, totally understandable and nothing like the same as saying that without it they either couldn't win or would have lost now, is it?


The other allies werent asking Stalin to go to war with Japan and open a "second front" Hmmm.. interesting

The fact is Stalin waits to declare war on Japan until it has all but surrendered and had a Atomic bomb dropped on them.


- Er, actually you ignorance in this is showing here.

Russia was asked to and agree to enter the war against Japan on Feb 3rd 1945 at Yalta.

They hardly 'waited' until the atomic bomb was dropped (something almost no-one outside of the USA knew about anyway) and the idea that they would just happen to attack the day after hearing about Hiroshima to somehow capitalise on it is as ignorant of the facts as it is laughable.


WOW your right thats a huge help.


- Well at the time people thought it would be.

Japan was far from considered defeated, even after Hiroshima the Japanese military did not wish to sue for peace.
Taking on garrisoned islands was one thing but even in mid 1945 the thought of invading Japan was not considered something that would be 'easy' at all and finally the Japanese situation in China and Manchuria was very different to the situation in the pacific islands.

You may disagree with the proposition that the 2nd atomic bomb was dropped as quickly as possible with the specific intention to try to knock Japan out of the war before Russia got too involved in the final settlement(s) but to dismiss the proposition as "kidding" is to deny the sheer weight of historical opinion about this.

Without Truman standing up and admitting it it is always going to be a matter confined to debate but to dismiss it so lightly (and/or perhaps never to have heard of the idea?) is just silly.

That is all I have to say on the matter and my apologies for going so off topic but in mitigation I'd just like to say I didn't raise the points to start with.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
web1.whs.osd.mil...


Where did you get YOUR statistics? Also its odd that China would have "only" 2.25 million troops but has 1/3 the world population and america only has some 290 million people and considering how many people DO NOT support the war..... hmmmmm odd that your numbers have a mysterious extra of 200,000+ people in it.



That link you gave gives the total 1.37 million thats not counting reserve either just enlisted men.

As for China they only have a 2.25 million enlisted troops. Its likley impart a cost issue why that many. They have been trying to modernize their military and have been downsizing troop levels it since the 1980s.

They could in theory draft about 200 million. This gets close to pure fantasy for fielding a army of that size though.

The most prolific rifle on the planet is the AK-47 in all its variants and that only totals about 50 million units. If China had every AK which they dont they would still only be able to arm 25% of that force with a rifle.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
i have read up on everybodys posts and some of them were funny like we only need 200,000-300,000 troops to invade iran
. First off all Iraq will not be in the war because their government are shiite and they have stated they will not be participating. Second off all your only allies in iraq which are Shias will also be against you guys and this will be a good oppurtunity for sunnis to also attack in large numbers. Second off all irans army will not be a walk over because with 7million basij and with over 862,000 in service it will be very difficult. Iran in the terms of alreayd being self sufficent building awsome war machinery is without a doubt a very deadly country. the main thing is. iran is too big and with different landscaps with climate is impossible to invade or even to think about. Sure bahdgad is pretty ok and big but Tehran is huge! it wont matter how much troops will go in, it will be a tragedy for any one to consider. Through out these decades we were never invaded . We are not arabs nor cheap two faced people. You want to stay in iraq and afghanistan for the next 40 years than good luck but trying to think about attacking iran and staying there way more than 40 years with the option of rebuilding it then god have mercy on that soul because it will take a frigin miracle to make it happen. China will also not allow it. with over 500billion dolars in oil deals and more economic and military deals with Russia to expand will make bush think twice or not to even think since he cant already. lets stop talking about a invasion and an air-strike and instead talk about diplomacy and negotiations.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by Mehran]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join