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.

 

NEWS: Possible Air Strikes Against Iran and Syria

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
CIA Director Porter Goss recently visited Turkey and brought information with him which stated that Iran has nuclear weapons, was supporting terrorism including the PKK and al-Qaeda. Reports state that Goss informed the Turkish government that they should be ready for "a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria".
 



www.turkishpress.com
During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara. Goss is said to have asked for Turkey’s support for Washington’s policy against Iran’s nuclear activities, charging that Tehran had supported terrorism and taken part in activities against Turkey. Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria. Goss, who came to Ankara just after FBI Director Robert Mueller’s visit, brought up Iran’s alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. It was said that Goss first told Ankara that Iran has nuclear weapons and this situation was creating a huge threat for both Turkey and other states in the region.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I've seen this action coming for many months now. Both Iran and Syria have been on the US's radar since the capture of Saddam Hussein.

I certianly hope this administration has all of its ducks in a row before it takes any action.

Although, this was an unannounced visit, which begs the question as to why the US is doing it so secretly.

This is a fairly new story, so it's hard to find many links to it.

Related News Links:
www.globalresearch.ca

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iran war being plotted




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Why take on Iran when the Iraq war is still going badly? If there is not enough intenstinal fortitude in this current administration to send adequate troop numbers into Iraq, what makes them so positively eager to engage a much stronger and larger country such as Iran?

I dont buy it personally, as much as I think Bush Co are insane I dont think they are that insane. This is for Iranian domestic consumption, to spur some kind of revolution perhaps. Ahmadinejad did it with the Israeli speeches, this is just a little more subtle.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
@ Subz,
It could easily be argued that Iran is one of the main causes of the war going badly in Iraq. This could be substantiated with more tales of foreign fighters, weapons and explosives crossing the Iranian border into Iraq.

I didn't say it was a good argument, but I could see that being brought up...

[edit on 12-21-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Im not surprised we are seeing this reported. Actually, Im sure that many of us here have just been counting the days from when we first set foot in Iraq to now, waiting for this.

Im sure many of us feel that this is all part of the plan anyways. I did read some sort of report on here (not sure the credibility) just after the start of the Iraq war, basically it was saying that Syria's battleplans are finalized/ready to go.

I predict we see more of this type of secret planning, then we will see accusations from the 'western world' that Iran is helping the terrorists and has WMD. Then the battle of Iran and Syria will be put into action.

Sooooo predictable its scary.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Personally, while this is intersting, especially the Iran-PKK (kurdish group) connection, I am still betting that Syria isn't targeted at least. Seems like they are capitulating, handed over saddam's brother (an obvious director of elements of the insurgency), suicided Kanan (or whatever his name was), made appeals to western media (cnn interviews). And also, notice, they, or 'someone', blew up an anti-syrian reporter in lebanon, not much of a peep out of the US.

"You work with us on iraq (and iran?), we'll turn a blind eye to some control of your interests in the lebanon"

Seems plausible.

Iran might be a different story. Ahmenidijad seems like he is unpopular enough to make a regime change via proxy strategy work.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Porter Goss is hardly a credible source IMO and I agree with intelgurl's point.

BTW: This is being discussed in the WOT forum as well: CIA Director Porter Goss: Iran Has Nukes
.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I also have come to the conclusion that they are in fact -(minority I hope )
of there people ,that they want to kill Americans in Iraq and are doing so .And as far as Israel is concerned ,they should be . Unless all that has been told is lies ? And they are as just as loving as you .



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vertol
I also have come to the conclusion that they are in fact -(minority I hope )
of there people ,that they want to kill Americans in Iraq and are doing so .And as far as Israel is concerned ,they should be . Unless all that has been told is lies ? And they are as just as loving as you .


OK. Let me be the first to ask. Exactly what does this post mean?


Ram

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Is this the begining of a new war? I ask - i don't know..

Oh my god im ignorant here....
I ask again - is this the start of a new invasion or something?

Has it anything to do with the congressional hearings? about Bush and stuff...
To make us forget the hearings?
(im so ignorant - plz - tell what can happend here) i want to know..



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Airstrikes don't bother me, even if Iraq is going badly. Invading Iran would be a mistake. The last thing America needs in terms of cost, domestic politics, foreign relations, and the toll on our reserves is another long occupation mission.

It would be prudent however not to attack Iran even from the air until we have prepared enough men and equipment to be deployed to Iraq on short notice, in the event that Iran should try to retaliate with a full-scale invasion.

If they actually have nukes already tough, we better also be prepared to go nuclear in preemption. My play would be to have the B-2s in the air, ready to make every possible nuclear launch site in Iran glow for the next 50 years on the first indication that a conventional airstrike had failed to eliminate the threat.

Now behind door 3, if you'll forgive me for being more than a little cold- the US could always just let Iran have the bomb and let somebody else deal with the consequences. I think Iran would probably use their weapons to force America out of the middle East and try to sieze control of OPEC via control of the Strait of Hormuz, probably going to war with UAE along the way, but we're outside of their missile range, provided we pull our guys out of the region.
So, if we're sick of being painted as the bad guys, we could give Iran just enough rope to hang themselves- Israel, Turkey, and any Arab state that wouldn't bow to Iran would pay most of the price. The oil interruption would be very very bad, but providing that it affects everyone equally (not putting the US at a sole disadvantage) it might be one of those sacrifices worth making in the long run.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   
The Pentagon released a statement some months ago stating that without serious reductions in the number of troops in Iraq, the US cannot get involved in any other military actions at presentl.
Given the situation when hurricane Katrina hit, and the pressure on the national guard to deploy, involvement in any more conflicts at present is unlikley.
This is the same old sabre rattling that has been going on since the US attacked Iraq.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expositor
The Pentagon released a statement some months ago stating that without serious reductions in the number of troops in Iraq, the US cannot get involved in any other military actions at presentl.


You're forgetting that Iraq itself would be the base of operations if there was any problem with Syria or Iran. Beyond that, I'd just say don't believe everything that you hear. America can get an awful lot done with not very much in a pinch, although it's not prudent to go around trying it all of the time.

We've got plenty to deal with Iran and Syria, though we certainly shouldn't and probably couldn't occupy them in the highly foolish and unproductive manner that we've gone about with Iraq.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
This is honestly just brilliant the way we meddle in middle eastern affairs. Another war will spread our resources and defenses so thin that the Chinese army could walk down the streets of DC unopposed. How can our troops defend OUR country which they were hired to do when they are spread all over the world defending everyone elses? This poor management of foreign policy is leaving the US mainland a sitting duck.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Another war will spread our resources and defenses so thin that the Chinese army could walk down the streets of DC unopposed.


If only they had enough row boats to get there.

If China can't keep their spurs from jangling, it might be a bad idea to plan a vacation in Seoul, Taipei, or maybe even Tokyo (I doubt they'll come that unglued though) but Chinese aggression in America? They can't get the troops here- we've got plenty of naval power to handle a war in the middle East and still contain the Russian and Chinese navies.

If they just miraculously teleported an army into California I've got 15:1 against them getting past the Sierras/Colorado River and 50:1 against breaching the Rockies without a combined Russian, Cuba, Venezuelan, Brazilian effort which strikes from the West Coast, Across the Rockies in Candada, and the Gulf Coast simultaneously. Even then they simply don't have the naval forces to for a Gulf Coast Landing, nor can Russia get into and through Alaska quickly enough to cross the Rockies in Canada get into our Midwest.


How can our troops defend OUR country which they were hired to do when they are spread all over the world defending everyone elses?

Maybe because we don't share and land boders with dangerous advesaries, and most of our most vulnerable economic interests are abroad, therefore the longterm security of the United States of America can be served only by securing foreign interests against rivals and maintaining superior naval and air power to prevent a threat at home from compromising our ability to defend foreign necessities?

I mean, hey, I'm just guessing. It's not like I've been up to my ears for the better part of the last decade in military strategy- you've probably done way more reading and thinking on this so you tell me. (/sarcasm)


This poor management of foreign policy is leaving the US mainland a sitting duck.


To whom? The mighty and belligerent forces of Hawaii???

[edit on 22-12-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
We couldn't even defend one city after Katrina. How do you expect to stop an invading force when there is nobody left to defend? Look how long it has taken to try and put down an insurgency in a country the size of Iraq. I'm sure if we were invaded there would be plenty of people in government and those supporting them that would find a way to point the finger of blame at someone else.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I agree with the Vagabond, Chinese (or any other) troops invading the U.S. homeland is unthinkable...we do still have our Navy which is only minimally involved at this moment in the WOT. Any fleet of troop transport ships would be blown out of the water by our attack submarines.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Anyone got some good property for sale in Canada?

Seriously though, what's going to happen to this country if Jeb Bush is elected in 2008? The Iraq War becoming The Iran/Syria/Iraq War and another Bush elected President, and I would seriously pursue moving to my family to the Great White North. It starts to look like the beginning of the end of this great Republic when the majority of Americans are blind to the catastrophic policies of the Administration... catastrophic to foreign relations as well as domestic liberties. Where's it all gonna end?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
We couldn't even defend one city after Katrina.


False analogy. That wasn't a defense mission.

Furthermore we did have the troops, but typical bureaucratic nonsense prevented their speedy proliferation and assignment to critical tasks. Our navy can keep the Chinese out, what military we maintain here, in cooperation with volunteer forces would be more than sufficient to hold critical terrain and stall out a Chinese offensive.

We have redundant natural and man-made obstacles on both coasts- heavily urbanized coastal areas which would be a nightmare for any invader to secure, followed by major rivers and mountain ranges.



Look how long it has taken to try and put down an insurgency in a country the size of Iraq.


Another false analogy. We defeated the Iraqi army in record time. China and Russia were seriously stunned by how quickly we did it in 1991. American hardware and military doctrine are a generation and a half ahead of the antiquated Soviet equipment and doctrine employed by China and Russia. We'd mop the floor with either one of those nations in the field, especially given "home field advantage".

Counter-insurgency is one of the most difficult aspects of warfare, and even that is only really difficult when you keep the gloves on. Genghis Khan never had a problem with counter-insurgency, and he didn't have nearly the technical advantage that we do.


I'm sure if we were invaded there would be plenty of people in government and those supporting them that would find a way to point the finger of blame at someone else.


Like the aggressor maybe? Imagine that- some people don't think that America is the root of all evil.
At ease Chicken Little- the sky is perfectly intact, and if that changes, I'll protect you.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
come on..sing it with me...'he's got the whooooole world in his hands, he's got the whole wide world in his hands'.........at the very least this admin seem to be trying to. so after syria and iran, who will be next? what pretext will be formed? how many countries can be invaded or bombed before some of the smaller kids on the playground get together and decide to do something about AMERIKA?

as AMERIKA invadeds,bombs and controls/influences more countries,..more countries get scared and conduct pre-emtive operations to try to stem the advance of a forced,so called, democracy.
AMERIKA acts like it is the only govt on the earth....... hmmmmmmmmmm



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You're forgetting that Iraq itself would be the base of operations if there was any problem with Syria or Iran. Beyond that, I'd just say don't believe everything that you hear. America can get an awful lot done with not very much in a pinch, although it's not prudent to go around trying it all of the time.


Iraq as a base of operations? For what exactly, for running around and getting shot at by the local population.

Back in 2004 General Richard Cody was quoted as saying "Are we stretched thin with our active and reserve component forces right now? Absolutely," since that statement more troops have been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US military is not capable of starting let alone mainting a war against another nation, after all it had to increase its personnel pool by 30,000 to continue with the war on terrorism.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join