It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:52 PM
I'm not going to answer your personal questions because its irrelevant, but I will say I value all life equally.

What im saying is that while millions of Americans here wanted a regime change, a majority didn't. To compare Americans who disagree with the current administration to Iranians is a little far fetched. We have a political system that allows the people to decide what direction our country can go, and that is how we differ from Iran. I am not saying that every country with dissenters needs to be liberated, I'm saying that countries under governments that do not allow change, and oppress thier people, need to be liberated. It boils down to the fact that in our open society change can and does happen, while in closed societies change is something to be crushed. And again, I am not a proponent of military liberation, I am much more in favor of ramming MTV down thier throats, in so many words. I am simply saying some times military action to liberate a country is required to not only protect our own country, but to free people under an oppressive regime.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:57 PM
No really.. they bent over, I tripped, my zipper broke... big misunderstanding.

Iran is asking for it, but they won't get it yet. Bush can't screw them until he's screwed the Dems.

I'd be very impressed if America actually invaded Iran this spring. It'd be the first time since... well ever that we got within 4 months of invading somebody without the whole world knowing about it.

Maybe we'll bomb them, but I don't see it before November, unless we have Israel do it. Too many things can go way too wrong; it is really possible, but it's not politically smart IMHO. What if it turns into another war? As it is, the Democrats stand a decent chance of regaining a majority in the Senate- with 6 of the 7 seats they need to take in the North East and no incumbent in Tennessee, but they might not as long as Bush doesn't do anything stupid to motivate Democrats to vote.

If Bush tries to go with a simple bombing, and starts a war by miscalculation that results in even so much as a thousand casualities, the Republicans will be lucky to hold six or seven of the 15 senate seats they are defending- that means a Democratic Majority that can't be undermined Jim Jeffords style, and depending on the House, the Republicans could easily find themselves fillibustering for all their worth just to stop the Democrats from pulling us out and making Bush "officially" only the second American president to lose a war.

I really think the politically smart play for Bush is to very quietly use the troop rotations to position additional hardware in Iraq while continuing to pull down troop levels, then put our men on alert, ready to get back out to their gear, invoke war powers, and make the airstrikes sometime shortly after the elections. That way he runs a slightly reduced chance of a hostile senate, and we're ready to fight back if the Iranians up the ante on us. Then even if the Senate is hostile he can drag them kicking and screaming into a war, claiming that the Iranians started it because we didn't make the first ground move.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:02 PM
And spoken like a true blue politician, The Vagabond.

That was an astounding read.


posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:39 PM
I agree with Vagabond in that no US military action will be made until after the midterm 06 elections. However, the only thing that could circumvent that is another 9/11 attack this time with Iranian involvement in order to galvanize support for an attack. I believe it may play out like this.

March 06- Israeli airstrikes on Iranian facilities
April-June 06- Increased attacks on Israel, possible full military response by Iran
July- Dec 06- U.S. acts as an ally and opens second front against Iran thus sandwiching the Persian nation between the Jews and their empire.

(PS- I am jewish so don't even start the anti-semite bs)

Of course another 9/11 would dramatically shift the timeline for 06 but this is how I see it playing out.

Hook-Line-Sinker. Iran is defeated. Next stop: Syria.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:42 PM
Interesting idea Rebel, but I don't expect another 9/11 scale attack.
I've said it before in other threads, but its sort of a new idea for me. I've become convinced part of the reason that Al Qaida hasn't tried again yet is because they expected 9/11 to do it. They seemed to overestimate the value of the towers to our financial infrastructure. Maybe Bin Laden watched Fight Club too many times.

You know that sinking feeling that you get when you hit somebody as hard as you possibly can, and they don't fall down? (well, I'd like to pretend that I don't but it's happened once or twice)

At this point I think Al Qaida has a lot of homework to do. They can't afford to tick us off again without getting the job done. They might just be waiting for our politics to dove down again, and in the mean time they're going back to the drawing board to pick the right tactics for the right targets.

Israel may strike, and Iran might launch missiles back (hopefully without any unpleasant surprises in the warheads), but I'd be pretty shocked if they tried to get through America in Iraq to get at Israel. That's a borne to lose proposition, unless they're willing to go down just to take 5 or 10k Americans with them (and short of NBC Warfare, I'd call that the worst case scenario).

Then if they do go at it with us, it's not going to be all fun and games from out standpoint. We'll win, but it'll be ugly. Americans don't like body bags. There will be body bags. We won't be able to just hop into Afghanistan and go in the back door. We talking about duking it out for a week or two along the Tigris, probably getting a hell of a run for our money in Mosul, then after anywhere between a few hundred and several thousand casualties, depending on how well they do at seizing the initiative and how well we respond on the tactical level, we've got them where we want them and everyone in the world is really really mad at us, because they all know that we want Khuzestan, and short of a nuclear standoff there won't be anything stopping us from controlling it.

We probably won't take Israel off the leash unless they can and will completely do the job without American involvement becoming a strong possibility. Fighting a war for Israel might be even more unpopular in some areas of the country than fighting a completely unnecessary war, and as I've said, the future of the mission in Iraq hangs on the vote in the North East this November.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:31 PM
The European Union has spent over a year being 'nice' to Iran with respect to the nuclear program, mainly to show the US the sophisticated olde-worlde way to deal with middle eastern despots. No joy. Don't think they're playing any more.

If the Iranians were anywhere near developing a nuclear option, the Israelis would surely be taking matters into their own hands, US notwithstanding.


posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:56 PM
Hello NumberCruncher,

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
The USA and Coalition is on a War Path because the Islamofascist Killers have attacked and continue to attack un armed Women and Children, we will destroy the sponsors of Terror.

Ok, that statement's right outta propaganda 101. I'm not picking a fight. It's just.. a little vague and alot veangeful. I don't mean to be glib. I realize Israelis, Palestinians and any other unlucky souls who get in the way of the cosmic mischief are getting killed and maimed. I just don't like broad strokes too much, if you know what I mean.

Iran has this coming if you think you can say that Jews should be wiped off the face of the Earth with Impunity your about to learn and awful lesson in table manners son.

I agree. I found that statement to be reprehensible. But I'm not going to play their game on that. It's a sad and ignorant boast. But, that's all it is in reality. Afterall, if the expletive hit the fan, I think we all know what the outcome would be.

Why get excited about something some guy sez?

The only harbourer of Lies and Criminal conduct are the Iranian and Syrian state sponsors of Terrorism.

I'm being the devil's advocate here, but do you have any proof to back up your assertions, any links? Any specific cases?

Peace be with you.

And with you.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What? You can only post in this thread if you have two warns?

It's called street cred.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:14 PM
The biggest mistake for the west to make, as in Iraq, is to underestimate their loathing of our foreign intervention.

Iran is not Iraq, remember. That is very important. And we, unfortunately, and quite honestly, are not the military tour de force we were once upon a time not so long ago.

Thanks to BushCo., our military's busted and bogged down in Mess 'o' Potamia for the foreseeable future.

We misjudge the young brothers and sisters in Iran, I think. It is very true that they long for "democracy," freedom and the right to live in peace in their own lands without the perverse meddling of sicko extremist clerics. But, just like we Americans, or Brits or Aussies or what have you, they are Iranians and they are not stupid to what's going on in Iraq and elsewhere. As discontented as they may be with their internal situation, that does not mean they long for our Bushian world. If it came down to it, and Rummy started shockin and awin' on Iran some dark night, those folks would come out swinging, in hordes. It would be an expletive nightmare for us.

Let's not bring this on..

It's wholly unnecessary.

But hey, if Israel wants to go to work on Iran's nuke facilities, I say be my guest. It's their neighborhood. It has nothing to with us, so to speak.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:40 PM

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Thanks to BushCo., our military's busted and bogged down in Mess 'o' Potamia for the foreseeable future.

What people seem to forget is that there are two branches of or military that are pretty much sitting on their hands doing nothing right now. Who said we were going to invade Iran with troops? I can think of several things that are much worse than 10,000 troops marching on your borders. They often start with a 'B' or 'F' followed by a hyphen and end in a number.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:45 PM

Who said we were going to invade Iran with troops? I can think of several things that are much worse than 10,000 troops marching on your borders. They often start with a 'B' or 'F' followed by a hyphen and end in a number.

That's a *nice* line. Remind me to plagiarise it sometime!


posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:55 PM
Yes, you're right. However, if you understand Iran's breakdown and ours, and what controlling Iran would entail; ultimately, our military, in general, is not in a position to go there. We've got enuff on our plate w/Iraq. The only way to truly pacify Iran would be to be heavy on the ground. You'd have to start the draft back. There is no way the military could raise the amount of recruits that would one day be needed to handle it. Sorry Rummy, but air war can't do it all. *SNIP*

Mod Note: WOT Posting Conduct – Please Review Link.

[edit on 3/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:08 PM
But would the objective be regime change, like in Iraq? Or would it be precision strikes with bunker busters on select facilities (possibly using nuclear bunker busters if the revised language on pre-emptive use is any indication)?

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:15 PM
I've been hearing a of lines about America being too bogged won to mess with Iran.
I believe this may ignore a few mitigating concerns.

1. There is no really understandable reason why stopping the Iranian nuclear program involves an occupation, even if Iran does force us into a ground war.

2. My map, which I admit is a few years old, says that Iraq and Iran are right next to eachother, so we're not talking about separate, stand-alone forces. It's not as if we have to deploy an additional 200,000 men to deal with Iran. Much of what is already in Iraq can be temporarily retasked with minimal effect on the security of US forces in the region- it's not as if a monsterous insurgency is going to crawl out of the Sunni Triangle and bite the US' head off if we stop running psyops for a few weeks. The insurgents can't come out of the cities and project a viable force, they can't take a significant toll on forces in the field operating against Iran, they can only minimally even obstruct major movements. They are a minor threat organic to the activity of regularly sending small forces into unfriendly districts, not much else.

3. Not all wars are desert storm. There are a lot of assumptions floating around about what happens when the United States is not in complete over-kill mode. Some assume that when it's not a picture-perfect, made-to-order smack down that it necessarily has to be a messy WWII style campaign. On the other hand some just take it for granted that the US can take a big steaming you-know-what on any enemy in absolutely any conditions. The fact of the matter is that we haven't seen it in a long time and we can't be certain.

If history is any indicator, our tactical and technical edge is sufficient to ensure impressive victories in less one-sided matchups, especially when the initiative and control of tempo are siezed quickly but also in situations where these must be wrestled from an agressor. The Six Days War and Yom Kippur War provide some evidence to this effect.

I believe the prudent assessment is that while Iran will not be found toothless that the superior doctrine, superior training, and superior hardware capabilities of the United States can be relied upon to out-pace the Iranians, stall out their offense, and cut their attacking forces off from home, thus making for an impressive rout not entirely dissimilar to the Six Days War in the Sinai. The one qualifier which seems only prudent to include here though is that if the Iranian Army behaves impressively enough in the early war to achieve certain criticical objectives, most noteably the crossing of the Tigiris at Mosul and thereby perhaps convincing Syria to get involved, that things do become more difficult in terms of regaining the initiative.

If I get really ambitious tomorrow (no promises because this looks like it will take an hour or more) perhaps I can go through Global Security and map out exactly what our lines in Iraq would look like if Iran moved tomorrow, what our reinforcement timetable should look like, and with a lot of luck, maybe even what the Iranian Order of Battle would look like.
I'd have to be pretty bored though- looks like a lot of reading.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:16 PM
Here's an article on this subject I ran across. It's by Wayne Madsen. Take a look:

Intelligence Indications
And Warnings Abound
On Bush Iran Military Strike

By Wayne Madsen

Intelligence and military sources in the United States and abroad are reporting on various factors that indicate a U.S. military hit on Iranian nuclear and military installations, that may involve tactical nuclear weapons, is in the final stages of preparation. Likely targets for saturation bombing are the Bushehr nuclear power plant (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present), a uranium mining site in Saghand near the city of Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs, a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant in Lashkar Abad, and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:21 PM
I do not think an attack on Iran would be justified. Here's why... It seems that the primary justification for such an attack is Iran's nuclear weapon program. Problem is, I'm an U.S. citizen and the country I come from has nuclear weapons. How could I possibly say another nation doesn't have the same rights to defend itself that my nation has? That would make me a hypocrite. The U.S., France, China, Russia and Great Britian decided that it stops with them? That the rest of the nations in the world don't have the same rights to self defense that they have? I'm sorry, but that just wrong. Either everyone has the right to nukes or no one does.


posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:22 PM
Hey Vagabond, good to see ya.

Our biggest mistake is underestimating Iran. Going into Iraq we whacked a big hornets nest. And all them hornets ain't just from Iraq. It will come down to who holds the ground. Unless we just nuke them off the map.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:24 PM
if we do attack, i hope we get hit by something, serves us right. running around like we are the world police. has iran started invading any country? has it actually used weapons on other countries in any high amount? yea so they did some saber rattling and they want nukes. lets not be hypocrits, its not right to have nukes....unless your on our side? of course they dont agree because they arent on your side, nor do they want to be. if your going along with the government right now you arent on my side or my fellow peoples side. go along with the rich people if you want, but me and my friends arent fighting your wars, go over there yourselves. we are the ones going over and being called on to "do our duty".

bull, you think any of us want to fight for YOUR country. most of us see "free education" and thats that. schools dont give us anything, we need something to get out of being lower middle class and under. fighting for your country and believing in these wars you start arent our reason, our reason is to get educated. and even those that arent going for education i know are going to fight. not because they believe in this war but because they just want to kill people. thats all.

but yea the propaganda aint working on alot of us anymore. you should start worrying about home before other countries.

but anyway
leaders are suppose to be our role models, but my leaders saying if you want change and they dont listen start a war. so are they telling us to start a war because we need change?

[edit on 3-1-2006 by grimreaper797]

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:30 PM
I'm 90% sure there will be some sort of attack on Iran this year. Israel will just not allow them to continue down their current path - people should not underestimate that. And I highly doubt the US will just let Israel get on with it.

There will be no land invasion tho - that would be complete madness. Even with a massive draft I doubt it could be done. But of course the US has absolutely devastating airpower, and as already suggested, Special Forces are also an option.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:36 PM
Don't get me wrong, the idea of a nuclear armed Iran doesn't suit me, either. But as my fellow poster noted, its pretty hypocritical to say its ok for US to have something but YOU can't. The world is what it is, is it not? Short, brutish and nasty, I believe the writer wrote.

I remember when Iran seized our hostages. I spent the next 20 yrs at least feeling nothing but anger toward that country. The whole X country. Over the years though, I have learned more and become more tempered. I think an attack on Iran would cost us more than its worth.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in