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 Plans

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I've noticed here in the past two months that it seems as if Iran is going a. with it's nuclear program and is still on the dangerous path of making weapons grade material. What I would like is your input and any new and fresh ideas or ponderings. The following questions should give up quite a few good ideas. Here goes:

A. Should the U.S. approach from the West from Iraq and East from Afganistan to carry out an invasion keeping Iran in the middle, basically flanking both sides? Would this be a viable option considering that we already have a presence in the area.?
B. Does anyone really think the E.U. is realistically going to make Iran cave in to the desires of most of the worlds "normal" countries by taking the matter to the Security Counsel and at the same time putting harsh economic sacntions in place?
C. How much aid in weapons systems and money would Russia be willing to give to Iran considering up to now, it is it's favorite trading partner? Also would the U.S. still have some faith in Russia doing the right thing?
D. Considering the fact that Putin is a wolf in sheeps clothing (being old KGB), how and at what point would the U.S. and it's allies draw the dreaded "red line in the sand.?"
I'll be back in a few...

[edit on 18-12-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]




posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
A) The US has other options the the ones you presented. The US could come through Turmenistan (we are building military bases there as we speak). We could come through Turkey as well. Over all, the US will pick the best strategic option. The thing is though, from a military stand point, it really doesn't matter which way we come in - we will win either way. What needs to be considered are the effects of high value political targets and what not getting away.

B) Nope.

C) Not much. The US will own that nation in a matter of weeks, so the only real thing the Russians would have to support is an insurgency. I highly doubt that they would want to risk getting caught, because the economic backlash from the US would be great.

D) The US and it's allies would never get into a . to . match up with Russia, unless they started giving WMDs to terrorists. Thats not going to happen though - they have their own Islamic problems to deal with.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
It really doesn't matter which way we come in - we will win either way.


Win?!?

What are the winning goals of a war against Iran?
Genocide?
Armed revolt against the present Government?

Aren't these two goals rather optimistic?
Aren't anyone considering the flipside of a war, against a relaitively quiet nation? Yes, it is fundamentalistically islamic, but if starting a war, especially against a fundamentalistic islamic country (and others!!) you will ALWAYS have a high percentage of it's citizens opposing you, for generations, and generations. That means, a forever increasing deathtoll, more poverty, more famine, less development, more anarchy. How in your wildest fantasies are you able to believe that a true democracy will come out of an attack against a country with armed forces?

Do I again have to draw a remainder of WWII, when Germany 'integrated' Norway into it's Reich? Norway only returned to democracy 5 years later, AFTER the 'helpers'/'attackers'/'liberators' was defeated in their own country. That wasn't even a racial war, on Norways behalf. Germany just 'wanted' us!

Before the war, Norway was leaning towards communism (social democracy), but it was still democratic!


Please consider what the reactions of the people would be, if the US invaded Norway because of it's oil production!? I, for one would not accept that! The US has NO RIGHTS to invade another country!! Islamic or not.

Imho, what The US, and other governments purely hypotetichal could do, was to order their militaries to snipe off their political adversaries, that way, the politicians would be way more reluctant to make stupid desicions as deciding open war. Infact, they would be very cautious of get a lot of attention, at all! This is what makes politicians politicians. They rely on the art, and allowance, of freedom of speech! Without the freedom of speech, they WILL get assassinated, if not physically, verbally!

How do You win a war these days? I wonder, I really do!



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I am speaking of defeating the Iranian military.

Save your political bable for PTS, as this thread is about the hypothetical military invasion of Iran - not if the US is "right" or "just" to do it.

BTW, Iran a "relatively quiet nation"???????


That's a good one.

[edit on 18-12-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Destruction of X number of tanks, and X number of planes, okay, that is a managable perspectiv of figuring out a winning side. Due to military technology, whereas the US armed forces indeed is better equipped.
IF the Iranian regulars where their only military force.

Is that what you define as a military force? How about saboteurs aka. partisans aka. insurgents? Are they not to be counted as a military force?
How are the US military personell going to fight them, w/o having the US Government start to draft people again. At one point, the US citizens won't volunteer anymore, how will you defeat an enemy military force then? By throwing propaganda pampflets by airplane?

How about the US army deploying their forces in neighbourly countries, and these neighbouring countries suddenly 'deny' them, by political voices, their ability to retreat? The US forces would surely don't care about this change of welcome in these neighbouring countries, but in a worst case scenario, that would drag the US into war with those countries too. And again a military force(or more) would oppose the deployed forces.

A war is no longer measurable between two opposing military forces by their numbers directly. I think they have started to educate West-Point'ers about this. Sun-Tzu wrote 'The art of War' in a time where forces where forces in a conventional style, i.e. X soldier at horse equals X number of soldiers with spears, and so on.
There is a long time since Europe fought their wars with knights and horses, where they could easily measure the power of their fighting force.
Eventhough the US has their weapons, they can easily meet their 'Battle at Agincourt', without being able to foresee it!
Sometimes quantity beats quality, look at the russian tanks vs. the german tanks during WWII. -I do not know if the iranian has any quantitative numbers to brag of, but they have their tricks, I'm sure of it.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
An invasion of Iran is extremely unlikely, even though I don't doubt the US's current leadership would love to see it happen. The Iranians are sitting on a lot of oil, after all.

The political cost of another "preemptive" invasion and occupation would be high, both internationally and domestically. The military situation is also not advantageous, with so much of the US's combat infantry tied up in Iraq.

If we see conflict with Iran, it will be limited (or be intended to be limited) to a series of airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. A full-scale invasion is not a politically or militarily realistic scenario, especially since we can expect little or no international contribution to any such action.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Is that what you define as a military force? How about saboteurs aka. partisans aka. insurgents? Are they not to be counted as a military force?
How are the US military personell going to fight them, w/o having the US Government start to draft people again. At one point, the US citizens won't volunteer anymore, how will you defeat an enemy military force then? By throwing propaganda pampflets by airplane?


Iran has 50,000 barefoot cruise missiles at their disposal.

How could America hope to stand against a force like that and win?



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

You have got to be kidding me, ArchAngel.
You make like freakin' Iran is far more powerful than the Soviet Union/Russia could have ever of hoped to have been during the height of the Cold War.

But you ask: How would US ever hope to win?
You need to get a grip on your knee-jerk commentaries dude.

You are one of the main members here that continually and habitually talk about the US and Israel not fighting war by legal International standards and the rules of war, but wait: the use of suicide bombers by Iran is AOK and certainly meets legal International standards and the rules of war, huh, ArchAngel?






seekerof

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The Iranians are sitting on a lot of oil, after all.

Really?
Current energy estimates by energy experts stipulate that Iran's oil extractions are already at or near peak levels, and within the coming next couple of decades will need alternative fuel sources. Thats alot of oil?
Here is something else to consider: How much oil does the US import or buy from Iran?

I will agree with you that I do not foresee an imminent or future US invasion of Iran. To continue to carry on conversations and discussions on this matter are merely conjecture based and not valid.






seekerof

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

You are one of the main members here that continually and habitually talk about the US and Israel not fighting war by legal International standards and the rules of war, but wait: the use of suicide bombers by Iran is AOK and certainly meets legal International standards and the rules of war, huh, ArchAngel?


In defense of their nation in the face of a hostile invasion what is wrong with suicide bombings?

The Barefoot Cruise Missiles are justified as defense.

How are they any different than the mechanical ones?

Taking your own interpretation of 'pre-emptive' Iran has the right to attack America and Israel because of the open threats against them.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Current energy estimates by energy experts stipulate that Iran's oil extractions are already at or near peak levels, and within the coming next couple of decades will need alternative fuel sources.

And the US isn't in the same situation? Why have them invaded Iraq, and why are they pumping CO2 in the ground, in oilfields in Texas? Perhaps, because they have dried up?



Here is something else to consider: How much oil does the US import or buy from Iran?

Nothing, Russia does, that's one reason why US wouldn't mind, but hasn't taken on Iran, yet.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   


How much oil does the US import or buy from Iran?


Nada, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't like to.

And considering it's not just in Iran, but worldwide, that consumption seems to be approaching the limits of production, that simply adds more urgency to the matter for those who would seek to make sure they have an edge in supply.

I don't think the conflicts in the region are "all about oil", but it's deliberately obtuse to pretend oil has nothing to do with them either.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Nada, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't like to.

Thanks.

Accroding to the run-up to the 1st Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, Iraq possessed 10 percent of the world's known oil reserves, Kuwait had another 10 percent, and Saudi Arabia possessed 25 percent.




And considering it's not just in Iran, but worldwide, that consumption seems to be approaching the limits of production, that simply adds more urgency to the matter for those who would seek to make sure they have an edge in supply.

If this is concerning the worldwide consumption of oil for production means, then are you indicating that the an alleged US invasion of Iran is simply acting for the rest of the industrialized world and its continued use of oil in regards to that worldwide demand and consumption of oil?




I don't think the conflicts in the region are "all about oil", but it's deliberately obtuse to pretend oil has nothing to do with them either.

Agreed, I do not think so myself, but how many have stipulated, claimed, and asserted that the war in Iraq was strictly for oil? Oil became a political force when OPEC, during the October or Yom Kippur War, announced that they would not export oil to any country that supported Israel. This OIL embargo had three main results; First, decreased supply and increased demand drove the price of oil from $3.00 per barrel in September of 1973 to nearly $12.00 per barrel by January of 1974, a 44 percent increase. Secondly, as a result of the oil-price increase, oil-exporting countries became very wealthy. And third, oil became a new political force in world politics.. Thats how I see oil being diliberately a cause for what is transpiring today in Iraq. Oil and those who directly control oil pricing and supply virtually made the current situation in Iraq inevitable.






seekerof

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulvetann
And the US isn't in the same situation? Why have them invaded Iraq, and why are they pumping CO2 in the ground, in oilfields in Texas? Perhaps, because they have dried up?

You are aware that Saudi Arabia holds 25 percent of the world's oil reserves?
As such, you are also aware that the US has oil shale in equal to or in excess of Saudi Arabia's known oil reserves?

Technology today could allow the converting or oil shale into oil cheaper than the current price of a OPEC barrel of oil ? The US has ANWAR and its unmentioned and untold amounts of barrels of oil. What you mention may well be a truth, but is not a truth that correctly portrays the whole portrait.





Nothing, Russia does, that's one reason why US wouldn't mind, but hasn't taken on Iran, yet.

Care to clarify this a bit more?
Not fully comprehending what your trying to assert.






seekerof

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

You are aware that Saudi Arabia holds 25 percent of the world's oil reserves?

Out of the given percentage, would YOU go to war against Saudi-Arabia? -or Iran? Correct me, if I am wrong, aren't The Saudi very good friends with the Bush-clan? Isn't the Saudi army and airforce state-of-the-art equppied, surely on level with the US? Isn't the Saudi citizens way more feroucious than the average G.I. Joe? Isn't the United Emirates the most powerful entity regarding oil-trade, would you have the US Abrams M1A4's run out of diesel in Sahara, Rommel-wise? Purely picturesque, I would define the US as a brat, trying to beat his older steroid-pumping big brother with a baseball-bat. He might surprise, and give the big brother some pain, but the pain would surpass, and when the steroid brother got aggroed, the big brother might do something bad.
Since the US cannot attack Saudi-Arabia, they will have to do with the less powerful. Yet there are other issues to it too, true. That Iran has nukes (soon?) Is a future threat, better taken care of sooner than later.



As such, you are also aware that the US has oil shale in equal to or in excess of Saudi Arabia's known oil reserves?

It is being said, and the technology to suck it out of the rocks is awaited. Question is when. Cheaper? I don't know. Propably. But then the prices of oil and gas will increase, because the oil being imported today is sold with a artificial low price anyway. There might actually be a good point in this, that makes a war cheaper for the interested parts of procuring more wealth on oil.





Nothing, Russia does, that's one reason why US wouldn't mind, but hasn't taken on Iran, yet.

Care to clarify this a bit more?
Not fully comprehending what your trying to assert.


I am stating that the US is not buying from Iran, but Russia does.
For the US, it is a balance on the edge of a sword. They want oil/destruction of WMD. They don't want to upset Russia, because Russia want to continue their trade with Iran. If the US interfere with the interests of Russia, Russia will surely make the US effort of 'liberating' Iran way harder. Perhaps not in a openly declared war, but the russians play the same game as the US. A lot of covert operations. Imho, Russia is one of the factors, that keep the middle-east 'stable' from further escalating into a fullborn crusade. If Russia had no interest in Iran, Iran would more likely be open for an attack by the US. I wonder if the US wouldn't mind having Israel bombing Iran instead!



Edited away some forgotten things at the bottom...


[edit on 18-12-2005 by Ulvetann]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulvetann
Out of the given percentage, would YOU go to war against Saudi-Arabia? -or Iran?

Implying what?
Saudi Arabia is a partner in the war on terrorism whereas Iran has been labeled as a 'rogue' state.




Correct me, if I am wrong, aren't The Saudi very good friends with the Bush-clan?

The Saudi government has been very good friends with a number of presidential families going back as far as Roosevelt. Your point is irrelevant and mute.





Isn't the Saudi army and airforce state-of-the-art equppied, surely on level with the US?

Surely? Hardly.
Though the Saudi Arabian military and air force may have US equipment, overall, that equipment, and subsequent level of training, etc, is not on par or on a level with the US, period.





Isn't the Saudi citizens way more feroucious than the average G.I. Joe?

Save the conjecture and back it with sourced fact, m'k?





Isn't the United Emirates the most powerful entity regarding oil-trade, would you have the US Abrams M1A4's run out of diesel in Sahara, Rommel-wise?

Source, link, or you merely adding your ad-lib conjecture again?





Purely picturesque, I would define the US as a brat, trying to beat his older steroid-pumping big brother with a baseball-bat. He might surprise, and give the big brother some pain, but the pain would surpass, and when the steroid brother got aggroed, the big brother might do something bad.

That is your contrieved and conjectured opinion. Be careful of the brat of a brother carrying the baseball bat though, cause that baseball bat comes with some serious spikes and nails.





Since the US cannot attack Saudi-Arabia, they will have to do with the less powerful.

Again, nothing more than speculative conjecture backed by nothing remotely factual.





I am stating that the US is not buying from Iran, but Russia does.

Think about it: why would Russia have need for Iran's oil when Russia is a world producer of oil?





They don't want to upset Russia, because Russia want to continue their trade with Iran. If the US interfere with the interests of Russia, Russia will surely make the US effort of 'liberating' Iran way harder. Perhaps not in a openly declared war, but the russians play the same game as the US. A lot of covert operations. Imho, Russia is one of the factors, that keep the middle-east 'stable' from further escalating into a fullborn crusade. If Russia had no interest in Iran, Iran would more likely be open for an attack by the US.

The US has been doing a fine job in countering and interfering with Russia and her latent ambitions. As such, I am finding what you say to be plausible, and yet, a non-issue.





I wonder if the US wouldn't mind having Israel bombing Iran instead!

Been discussed before in a number of like threads on this matter. The issue of import is not if the US wants Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but if the US can restrain Israel from doing so.






seekerof

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Seekerof, am I stepping on your toes, or something? I find your reply to my reply rather agitated, and hard to continue, when you want me to dissect every sentence, instead of trying to read it as a whole.

Saudi-Arabia became a 'partner in the war against terrorism', yes. Not very willingly if i remember correctly.

'irrelevant and mute'? You brought up the issue, that the Saudi's got 25% of oil production. In my mind, it is not irrelevant to mention that country, as a potential target, to gain more wealth. The other reason for me to mention the Saudis, is as yourself are saying, they have been 'friends' with the presidential families for a long time. You know that this most likely aren't a heartly kiss-and-hug relationship, but trade, right?



Surely? Hardly.
Though the Saudi Arabian military and air force may have US equipment, overall, that equipment, and subsequent level of training, etc, is not on par or on a level with the US, period.

Oh, I surely stepped on someones patriotic feelings here... ...no need to further discuss abilities of different armies here, though. That belongs in another thread.




Isn't the Saudi citizens way more feroucious than the average G.I. Joe?

Save the conjecture and back it with sourced fact, m'k?

Yes, I should perhaps not taken for granted that You would understand what I was referring to. -That I was referring to islamic jihad, and their zealousness to blow themselves up, when facing an enemy.
I am not contesting the american soldiers will to fight, either, but regard the link in one of the previous post, where the barefoot cruise missiles, shows an example of how far religious belief can lead people astray.
I know, Saudi-Arabia has not had any tradition of doing this, but they have neither had any reason to. Why tempt faith by giving them one.

my spontaneuos example of what can happen in a desert war, is indeed true. Field-Marshal Erwin Rommel lost some tanks due to lack of gas in the desert, yes.
If in need of litterature on warfare in Africa, WWII: WWII Bookstore

Why russians want more oil, than they produce themselves? Read this; Russian Pipeline Politics




Since the US cannot attack Saudi-Arabia, they will have to do with the less powerful.

Again, nothing more than speculative conjecture backed by nothing remotely factual.

speculative, yes, but isn't this whole thread speculative? I speculate out from the 25%, 10% or nothing. If you have to choose between these three alternatives, wouldn't You go for 10%? at least it is ten percent more than nothing. 25%, and the loss from obtaining it, would very likely become much greater than 'acceptable'. And yes, Generals do consider what is an acceptable loss, to 'win' a war. To get the facts for this speculation, I would have to have a sincere talk with some persons higher up in the system, but I don't think they would invite me. That's why we have ats, to contemplate these speculations!


Russia, being a non-issue. Well, I certainly believe they have a role in it. But I can't give you any facts through links to prove it for you, So you can just continue to disregard a potent factor in the political puzzle.

My last statement regarding the US, wanting Israel to bomb Iran, is to be read with a slight sarcasme. What You state, that they don't want to have Israel to bomb Iran, is as just as well true. If Israel started to act out in a war, that is infact geographically crossing the country that the US is in now, Iraq, that would be very inconvenient. indeed.



In a crossroad in Baghdad
Iraqi soldier to israeli soldier: What are You doing here?!?
Israeli soldier: I am on my way to Iran!
Iraqi soldier: Oh, okay! Move along!
Later
Iraqi soldier to iranian soldier: I saw you 25 years ago, what are you doing here now?
Irani soldier to iraqi soldier: You must have me excused for my previous actions, but now, I am at war with Israel!
Iraqi soldier: Oh, okay, he went thaddaway (pointing east).
Even later
American soldier to iraqi soldier: What is going on here?
Iraqi soldier: I don't know! I think I was supposed to shoot at You, but I am getting confused! Whose war is this?
American soldier: I don't know, who are those guys? (pointing at the irani and the israeli)
Iraqi soldier: They are both my enemies, but I think I will start living the american way, and sell tickets to my family, for everyone to watch them fight eachother.




[edit on 18-12-2005 by Ulvetann]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
War War War


Sheesh is that all you people think about? Freaking Facist



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Poison
War War War


Sheesh is that all you people think about? Freaking Facist


No one forced you to open and read this thread. Suggest that if you don't find this subject interesting or it is offensive to you in some unknown way that you simply click on the little black "X" in the upper right corner of your screen. Some people do find it useful and interesting to speculate about these kinds of issues and there is no reason to call someone a fascist or anything else just because they do.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Ahh...It seems I got a wide range of opinions from this subject with some pretty challanging ideads. I thought that I would see who would jump in and contribute to my thread. to those who did...thank you for helping our ATS Community realize that there is a wide range of diversity in this great group and with very little prodding, speak their mind(s).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join