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.

 

US will invade Iran in '06

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
VAGE..
Your behind the times..at the onset of WWII Germany had to battle the RAF and great difficulty just to get a few fighter/bombers thru to inflict some damage; by the end of the war they had developed the V-1 and V-2 missiles and they were able to devestate London by launching a barrage of hundreds of missiles..

In a modern world war, in the first few hours of total war (theoretically speaking) Israel has a nuclear weapon and a small poor country like Syria has thousands of missiles that can reach TelAviv/etc. and completly wreck it with convensional explosives, once that has been completed they can pepper the ruins with VX nerve gas making the aftermath completly intolerable; so mass destructive capability in the ME has been the norm since the early 1980's-likley a big factor in the mutual decision by Israel & Syria to hold their direct hostilities in Lebanon rather than striking each other..

by your logic Syria has "veto power" over anything Israel does, yet Israel has been invading lebanon, blowing up the WB and Gaza, building illegal settlements on Syrian territory etc.



Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by jajabinks
VEGObond


Oy... here we go again. What in the (sanctified fornication) is so difficult about my name? Now in this case at least somebody has seen fit to highlight the fact that they're doing it in purpose, but it would have been nice to do it in a more clever fashion. (secretly I chuckled when one member started calling me "vagabanned"- at least that one had a meaningful implication.)


has it ever occured to him that the mere suspicion that Iran may already have nukes already gives Iran the strategic and diplomatic advantages he claims they might obtain.


Suspicions don't give you the ability to shatter an opposing army if they defeat your conventional forces. Suspicions are not enough to chase America out of the gulf. Suspicions are not enough to make moderates in the region start distancing themselves from America for fear of backing the wrong side.

If you think the chatter that they might already have a few weapons is a big deal, wait until they've got sufficient weapons and means of delivery to hold UAE, Iraq, Saudi, Turkey, Israel, and eventually Europe hostage.

If the Taepo Dong 2 can do what it's supposed to and ends up in Iranian hands, we're going to be dealing with something completely unprecedented. We're talking about hardliners without much to lose having a defacto veto over any action by any nation or even the UN in Southern Asia, North East Africa, the Middle East, etc. Diego Garcia, Israel, Parts of Europe: these are just a few noteworthy locales where survival will become contingent upon cooler heads prevailing in a radical theocracy which loves to threaten genocides.

I'm not saying that Iran will launch them the minute they get them. I'm not saying they'll launch them for no good reason. What I am saying is nothing done by Iran or any group allied to Iran will be subject to international law unless the security council is willing to risk a nuclear confrontation.

If a viable and far-reaching Iranian nuclear program is tested and confirmed, Iran will have the leverage to set OPEC's prices virtually unilaterally, and nobody who isn't willing to risk a missile crisis can do anything to stop it. Can you contend with any hint of seriousness that a nation like Iran, which god knows has not gotten a fair shake from the Western World, and which above and beyond that is politically dominated by religious fanaticism, would hesitate for one moment to take actions which can nearly ruin the global economy, starve and freeze millions, and turn any semblance of order in this world on its head, if it gives them a chance to get back at those who have raped them?

Now I admit there is no moral highground to be had for the Western world. I've often liked to joke that the reason Europe has dominated the last 500 years ago, despite being johnny-come-lately in terms of having the ability, is because most powers which had the opportunity in the past just weren't as vicious or as greedy.
Be that as it may, there is no coming back with the argument that Iran has a right to arm itself and prepare itself to do widespread harm to invididuals who had no direct role in hurting them earlier.

Nuclear proliferation is dangerous. A nuclear Iran is in a position to be particular dangerous. They have every motive to do it and very little motive not to. Things have not come anywhere near as bad as they have the potential to be in a worst case scenario, and that makes this the best possible time to exhaust every peaceful alternative and do it sincerely, and then, but only then, if necessary, resort to force before the worst case scenario draws near.




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I don't think China would be too concerned about an invasion if they received guarantees from the US govt that their oil and gas deals with Iran would be honoured after the invasion. This way they still get their fuel and get to keep their cash-cow (the US market), the US gets their invasion and Russia gets the benefit of inflated oil prices. A win situation for everyone concerned (except the Iranian rulers, of course).

It wouldn't surprise me if this kind of deal has already been discussed by the powers involved.

It would also depend on whether China / Russia are willing to trade off some influence in the region (which they would not be guaranteed to lose post invasion anyway) against the US putting itself further into a financial hole bankrolling another long and costly war.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Just imagine if, right after our Iran folly begins, North Korea decides to attack South Korea, and China made a move on Taiwan....

That's not even mentioning the economic moves China could make to twist our (US) screws. It could get very ugly.

Another thing.. Syria's got Iran's back. And their forces on the ground are nothing to sneeze at.

I see all kinda hell breaking loose if Iran is attacked. Maybe nothing like I described above.. but hell just the same.

Anyway.. just going through the possibilites.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anyway.. just going through the possibilites.


I agree, things could possibly get hairy, no doubt. But at the same time, perhaps you could go through the possiblities of a nuclear exchange between Iran, Israel, and whomever else enters the fray. What outcomes or escalations could you foresee in that event?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
While it is valid that military action between Israel and Iran would be crappy regardless of US involvement, it is also worth mentioning that it WILL NOT involve my friends dying, or future terror attacks on our soil.
I have said it a lot...
NOT OUR FIGHT!



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
While it is valid that military action between Israel and Iran would be crappy regardless of US involvement, it is also worth mentioning that it WILL NOT involve my friends dying, or future terror attacks on our soil.
I have said it a lot...
NOT OUR FIGHT!


Oh yeah, well let's take a look at one of the scenarios (add Iran) for escalation to worldwide nuclear conflict that I posted a couple pages back...



Any nuclear attack on Israel by terrorists, or Pakistan, Russia or China will result in Israel’s surviving land, air and submarine carried or based missiles being used against Arab and Muslim capitals. A particularly devastating attack (including with chemical or biological weapons) might result in possibly in a full scale "Samson Option" attack on European and Russian targets. The latter of course would result in Russian retaliation against the United States, perhaps its punishment for not having done enough to protect Israel.
www.carolmoore.net...


How many of your friends will die right here on our soil in this situation? Roughly ALL of them maybe?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Ok. So all the talk I'm hearing is that we plan on invading or bombing the crap out of Iran and soon. Who out there believes this will happen? Who out there believes there's a good reason to?



Hell why not. Let's just nuke them and have done. Just kidding. I think we can't because we may have assets in the AOR but they aren't enough to fight both countries problems effectively.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Here's the possible nuclear targets in my state:

www.ki4u.com...

Since I'm in Phoenix, I'm screwed. Maybe that's why my instinct, and not propaganda, tells me a nuclear Iran is, in the words of Police Acedemy's Commandant Lassard, a very, very bad thing.

Wanna check your state? click here:
www.ki4u.com...



[edit on 12-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
And how is Iran going to hit those targets? Slingshot? I was with you on Israel, they are in range, but Arizona? Dont let them make you so paranoid. We have all the nukes. Who is the threat?
We killed 10 million people with a couple nukes and you are scared of Iran. I just dont understand.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I'm talking about escalation to worldwide nuclear war. In the event of a major attack on Israel, Russia and what Israel considers "anti-semetic" Europe may be targeted in their "Samson option." In the event Russia is nuked, then they nuke us, and vice versa. I never said Iran could hit us directly, but since ECK and others are listing worse case scenarios, so am I. And that is definitely a possible scenario. Even in the best case scenario involving a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, things would be very ugly.

EDIT to add: Ten million? Where did you get that number?

[edit on 12-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Looks like you over calculated just a wee bit:



Together these bombs caused over two-hundred thousand casualties.
www.turkeyland.net...


The Japanese killed many more civilians in China, the Phillipines, etc. using chemical and biological weapons than the bombs even came close to, in some areas people are still dying from the bio weapons .

[edit on 12-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I'm talking about escalation to worldwide nuclear war. In the event of a major attack on Israel, Russia and what Israel considers "anti-semetic" Europe may be targeted in their "Samson option." In the event Russia is nuked, then they nuke us, and vice versa. I never said Iran could hit us directly, but since ECK and others are listing worse case scenarios, so am I. And that is definitely a possible scenario. Even in the best case scenario involving a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, things would be very ugly.

EDIT to add: Ten million? Where did you get that number?

[edit on 12-1-2006 by 27jd]


The "sampson" option was using bombs slung on fighters not missiles. They (Israel) don't have the capability to hit very many places around the globe like Russia for starters to make the escalation possible. Now if the the fighters could get through (and we won't let that happen) then maybe. We'd have to tell the Russians that "the jews are coming, the jews are coming" grab your torch and pitchforks!!! And narcing them out we would to save ourselves the trouble of a toe to toe with Russia.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Here's some info on Israel's nuclear capabilities, and a good explanation of why they are permitted to get away with so much, something I wish was not the case:



However, Americans should consider carefully Israel's nuclear weapons and its threats to use them if the United States ever withdraws its full backing or if Israel is otherwise endangered or attacked. Threats include retaliatory -- or even preemptive -- attacks on Muslim, Russian and even European targets. Israel considered the Soviet Union an enemy backer of Arab nations and thinks the new Russia only a tad more trustworthy. Any attack on Russia, of course, would quickly bring massive retaliation against Israel's greatest ally -- the United States. No doubt this is a major reason U.S. political leaders approach Israel with fear and respect -- and rarely punish it for its violations of U.S. law, United Nations Resolutions, the Geneva Convention and a variety of other treaties.
As mentioned on this nuclear war home page, the U.S. government already threatened to use nuclear weapons, and even went on full nuclear alert, to prevent any "Soviet aggression" in the Middle East, especially to protect Israel in its pre-emptive and defensive wars of 1956, 1958, 1967, 1973, 1979 and 1982. Had there been some sort of technical hardware or software accident, or misinterpretation of evidence, any of those alerts could have resulted in a full scale nuclear war killing most Americans.
However, just as threatening to Americans, and the world, is Israel's aggressive stance towards using its own 200 to 400 nuclear weapons -- ones which it has never formally admitted exist. These weapons can be deployed by air, missile or submarine to almost any place on earth. Therefore it is important for people to learn about Israel's nuclear programs and Israel's many threats to use them.
www.carolmoore.net...


(emphasis mine)

[edit on 12-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
The 10 Mil wasnt supposed to be taken literally, I only mention it to make a point.
I do see your point in a worldwide nuclear war. But you do realize that our friend Israel is making as much noise as Iran is right?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Another update on the suituation:



BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- Britain, France and Germany have called for the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog to refer Iran to the Security Council over the country's atomic ambitions.

Foreign ministers from the European Union's three biggest nations -- the so-called EU3 -- met Thursday following Iran's moves to restart its nuclear program.

"Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters after meeting with his British and French counterparts, Jack Straw and Philippe Douste-Blazy, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
www.cnn.com...


Hmmm, whose missing? Oh yeah, the U.S., the country everybody is accusing of playing world cop and claiming will be attacking Iran alone or with Israel, etc. Nobody seems to acknowledge this isn't a U.S. vs the world issue. The article goes on to say that Russia is "deeply disappointed" with Iran, and that Iran's president said "The Iranian nation is not frightened by the powers and their noise." Referring to the EU3 as a group of bullies.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
But you do realize that our friend Israel is making as much noise as Iran is right?


They're not really our friend, they just have us by the balls pretty much. I can't stress enough that I don't side with Israel on this. But their fingers are on a hair trigger, and a nuclear Iran would almost ensure a nuclear war between the two, the religious hatred is so deep, it's not the same as the U.S. vs the U.S.S.R, which was political. I think the Pakistan India thing was a bit closer, but not nearly as heated, remember how close they were to nuclear exchange? I hope folks can see the difference here, would you want Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell at the red button?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   


Oh yeah, the U.S., the country everybody is accusing of playing world cop and claiming will be attacking Iran alone or with Israel, etc.


Plenty of countries want to prevent Iran getting the bomb, and I think sanctions and diplomatic action will recieve wide support. On the other hand, few will support and fewer will participate in any military "solution." Even the UK has ruled it out.

The argument is not whether anyone wants Iran to get the bomb: it's whether anyone thinks war over the issue is justified or worthwhile. I think Iran getting the bomb would be a bad thing. As it was in North Korea. I also think military action is likely to lead to more problems than it solves. As it would have in North Korea.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Plenty of countries want to prevent Iran getting the bomb, and I think sanctions and diplomatic action will recieve wide support. On the other hand, few will support and fewer will participate in any military "solution."


You have absolutely NO idea who will favor what. Please show me your source, besides others' and your own assumptions, that France, Germany, or anybody says they will not participate in military action.



Even the UK has ruled it out.


Um, really?



Tony Blair delivered his strongest warning to Iran last night, saying Teheran would not be allowed to become a "threat to our world security".

He hinted that the West might have to resort to force. The Prime Minister said western allies would meet in the next few days to decide how to react after President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

*snip*

A telling response came from Moscow, which suggested it may no longer be able halt western attempts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council over fears that Teheran is secretly trying to build nuclear weapons.

"I have to admit that those who insist on transferring the Iranian nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council have received an additional argument to do so," said the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, during a trip to Jordan.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/28/wiran28.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/28/ixportaltop.html




The argument is not whether anyone wants Iran to get the bomb: it's whether anyone thinks war over the issue is justified or worthwhile. I think Iran getting the bomb would be a bad thing. As it was in North Korea. I also think military action is likely to lead to more problems than it solves. As it would have in North Korea.


This is a totally different issue than NK. Personally, I don't have any bad gut feelings about Kim with a few nukes, others may disagree.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   


Please show me your source, besides others' and your own assumptions, that France, Germany, or anybody says they will not participate in military action.


OK. Here's the UK ruling it out:

Military action against Iran 'inconceivable', says Straw

As far as France and Germany participating in any military action, all I'll say is don't hold your breath


Here's one for Germany: Germany attacks US on Iran threat



Personally, I don't have any bad gut feelings about Kim with a few nukes, others may disagree.


Hmmm, one of the common justifications for going to war with Iran has been the current Iranian presiden't threats towards Israel. NK is a regime that has issued threats to the US that make anything Iran has said seem absurdly tame by comparision, on a fairly regular basis. But we're supposed to be terrified of Iran, despite the fact that a nation that already does have nukes, and the means to deliver them, threatens to use them on us on a nearly monthly basis.

[edit on 1/12/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
OK. Here's the UK ruling it out:

Military action against Iran 'inconceivable', says Straw


Okay, that article was before the one I linked, apparently things have changed. Does Jack Straw hold more authority than Tony Blair?



As far as France and Germany participating in any military action, all I'll say is don't hold your breath


You'll say that speculatively.


Here's one for Germany: Germany attacks US on Iran threat

Um, Schroeder is no longer chancellor of Germany, got anything newer? A few things have changed since last summer you know....



Hmmm, one of the common justifications for going to war with Iran has been the current Iranian presiden't threats towards Israel.


Yeah, and again, Israel has a very itchy trigger finger. You're just not getting it are you?



NK is a regime that has issued threats to the US that make anything Iran has said seem absurdly tame by comparision, on a fairly regular basis.


How so? Has NK called for the U.S. to be wiped off the map? Or have they just said if we attack them, they'll retaliate? I think that's it. There is no real nuclear standoff between us and NK, it's all political. The second Iran gets nukes, there will immediately be a religiously fueled nuclear standoff between them and Israel. Period. If you think otherwise, you're gravely mistaken. I don't care if you're not concerned about your family being incinerated or radiated, I am.



But we're supposed to be terrified of Iran, despite the fact that a nation that already does have nukes, and the means to deliver them, threatens to use them on us on a nearly monthly basis.


We're not supposed to be terrified of Iran, just the fact that the nealry inevitable nuclear exchange in the ME will likely escalate to a much graver situation. Kim loves the power he holds over NK, he won't give that up for anything. Attacking the U.S. with nukes would put a quick end to everything he holds dear. Please explain what makes you think Kim wants to commit suicide and lose everything? Then think about the theology of Iran's president and the mullahs and their belief in their god's mandate that Israel is an abomination to be destroyed, coupled with Israel's aggressiveness. Completely different situations.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by 27jd]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join