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: 21
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Want to check which Domesic and Foreign Violations the current Goverment of the United States is Guilty of?


Two wrongs make a right, here we go again... ugh.



Ofcourse the FACT that Iran will start selling Oil in Euroes on March 2006 has NOTHING to do with this Rush to invade Iran


Well that explains what's got America so ticked. Now all you've got to do is tell me what France, Germany, Britain, and Russia are doing on our side.


By the by though, something just hit me like a ton of bricks- I could be very right or very wrong, but let me float it anyway:
China is up to it's ears in greenbacks- a nice strong dollar is good for their exports.
Unless they're planning on dumping the dollar post-riki-tik, I wouldn't be shocked to seem them come along for a war on Iran over the Euro switch.

Still doesn't explain what EU-3 is doing though.

Edit to add: China will obviously expect a nice big chunk of the rebuilding effort, and the honoring of the oil deal with Iran, if they come along.

Also, I'm not pulling back from my position that airstrikes are the smart move- just saying that Bush is unlikely to settle for it, and it looks like his old man may have sat him down and explained to him how to make others help do the dirty work.

[edit on 16-1-2006 by The Vagabond]




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I've been quietly reading this thread, but finally had to respond to this post.

Duh! If iran and everybody else has nukes, what on earth makes you believe they will "keep it over there" and not where you live? Ever considered sneaking them into a country on a ship or truck?
And that's just the first of many problems with your utopian view of the world and how everyone should "just get along". The world, as you view it, simply does not exist, and won't for quite awhile, unfortunately. Turning the other cheek (appeasement) will not accomplish what you dream of. It will more likely hasten the end of civilization as we all know it.

No, vagabond has it right on this subject in my opinion and I have voted him a WATS award for his series of posts on this thread.


first id like to say, if we didnt do any deals over there and simply didnt involve at all in there affairs. became totally isolated from the entire middle east, why would they bomb us? they bomb us now because we are constantly fueling the wars over there, constantly taking the oppositions side of them. so yes right now as it stands, id be afraid of them sneaking one in considering most our docks 9/10 creates werent being checked. if we didnt side with israel or any other opposition though and minded our own business i doubt they would bomb us.

that doesnt mean they wont kill millions of people, but like i said my immediate concern right now is my friend family and those i care about. our government is putting us in danger by declaring a war that we can never win (terror).

dont misinterpret my intention though, i am fully aware of what could come of a nuclear exchange, which is why we should peacefully resolve the matter. when it comes down to it though, im not willing to have my people die because our not so intelligence suspects they are an immediate nuclear threat.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
No, vagabond has it right on this subject in my opinion and I have voted him a WATS award for his series of posts on this thread.


Thanks Centurion
. I'm honored that you would burn a WATS vote on someone who never wins and probably never will, such as myself. (I appreciate the compliment of it- medal or not)



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The recent times when we were NOT attacked was because of the clear and certain Reagan policies, it was not as you paint it to be.

Regardless, there are more than just one variable in any such situation, and to claim that any one is the reason makes no logic.

I am in agreement, though. I am also concerned with friends who will die because of war with Iran. I am, however, concerned about the friends who will die if Iran is not brought in check. Regardless of what happens, the future is not rosey, and the responsibility lies not in anyone else's lap but the ol' leader of Iran, and whoever in that government who is with him in regard to building special weapons and wanting to attack free and non-threatening countries.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
The way I see it, the U.S. Army is a bit overstreched. However, that does not mean war will not happen. There have been alleged NATO discussions, and also the reported plane movement to the Iranian border. If there will be war in the near future: 1. it will compromise predominantly from airstrikes. 2. There will be some kind of coalition.

War is a horrible thing... and it's not like we need more of it anyway.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
i think iran should be brought in check, but i am against any attack we should make, its not our call to attack.

israel is the ones at threat, so i see it as there decisions and there actions. im tired of fighting wars that we dont need to fight simply because we feel we should. i am not in direct threat from iran so i dont feel we should physically attack them. yes we should do whatever we can to stop them, but ultimately i leave the attack up to israel and any other nation that feels immediately threatened by iran.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rdube02
What do you think Tony Blair's future holds...sounds like his political career is heading downhill lately??


- Tony Blair has already stated he believes 3 terms is plenty and that he intends to step down at the end of this term in office.
In terms of appealing to the public his personal political career is already over, what remains now is his parties' future fortunes and any notions about his 'legacy'.

Taking into account the political practicalities of putting a new Labour party leader in place to fight the next British general election (expected in 2009/10) it may be that he begins the process of 'going' in late 2007 or early 2008.
Some say (wish for?) sooner, but so far everyone can guess away, who knows as neither he nor his party have announced anything beyond indicating that 3 terms is his lot?

I cannot imagine any of the British political party leaders surviving the British public's reaction to an attempt to 're-run' an Iraq; I can see no realistic circumstances in which the people of Britain would support another ME war in any shape or form (and if 'we' wouldn't go for it guess how the rest of Europe is likely to feel).

It is one thing to express 'concerns' over the Iranian situation and to desire a proper and agreed 'solution' (involving the IAEA and the UN) but we certainly do not believe they are anywhere remotely near having nuclear weapons now and we most certainly do not see the need for any military threats or aggressive action to attempt to resolve the situation now.

As someone has already correctly said, the Iranians already have WMDs in the form of chemical and biological weapons and have had them for many years if not decades - along with long range missile systems to deliver them.

We have our nuclear deterrent; we believe that works, just as we all did all through the cold war.

Despite some extreme statements by their President we see no reason for any of the real power there to take leave of their collective senses and suicide their nation.
There is no doubt 'we' would respond in kind if attacked by their WMDs with our WMDs and anyone who imagines otherwise is merely insanely deluding themselves.

They are not going to attack us because they do not want to bring the terrible retaliation that unquestionably follow such an attack.

Everything else is, IMHO, mere paranoia and hysteria.

[edit on 16-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
CNN and FoxNews have been talking about Iran a lot latley and both are calling Iran the "Nuclear Showdown". How can they even call it a nuclear showdown yet? Were not even positive if Iran has a nuclear bomb. Really what I think will happen is, I think the US is going to attack Iran but I think they will have Israel do it first and we will just back them.

But, heres a positive way to look at it, if we do attack Iran, at least then we can finally get our troops out of Iraq
but they will probably just be going right next door.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Coolaid
But, heres a positive way to look at it, if we do attack Iran, at least then we can finally get our troops out of Iraq
but they will probably just be going right next door.


If we attack Iran, it will take what's going on in Iraq to another level. Unfortunately, those who plan these things, do not take our men and women on the ground in iraq into account. They are only numbers to the planners.


Be assured, if Iran employed their Iraq option, the outcome would be untenable.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
If we attack Iran, it will take what's going on in Iraq to another level. Unfortunately, those who plan these things, do not take our men and women on the ground in iraq into account. They are only numbers to the planners.


Be assured, if Iran employed their Iraq option, the outcome would be untenable.


I don't understand exactly what makes you think that. What is their "Iraq option" exactly? Incite whatever shia militias they can to rise up? If that's the case we put them down, wouldn't be hard if the kid gloves come off, and they would. I'm sure the planners have taken whatever you can foresee into account, and knowing full well that whatever mass slaughter of our soldiers you think Iran can inflict in Iraq will seriously undermine the whole thing, have planned around it. But hopefully it doesn't come to any of that.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I don't understand exactly what makes you think that. What is their "Iraq option" exactly? Incite whatever shia militias they can to rise up? If that's the case we put them down, wouldn't be hard if the kid gloves come off, and they would. I'm sure the planners have taken whatever you can foresee into account, and knowing full well that whatever mass slaughter of our soldiers you think Iran can inflict in Iraq will seriously undermine the whole thing, have planned around it. But hopefully it doesn't come to any of that.


Have you ever served in the military? Have you studied Iraq, at all? If so, how far back, exactly? Have you ever been over there?

Our gloves have been off for quite some time now, in Iraq. Unfortunately, the US "plan" is not panning out as they had dreamed.

How old were you when Iran took our hostages?



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Have you ever served in the military? Have you studied Iraq, at all? If so, how far back, exactly? Have you ever been over there?


No, I tried but was unable due to history of asthma. I know enough about Iraq to know there's no love lost between them and Iran. No I have never been to Iraq, but I'd already be used to the weather If I did.




Our gloves have been off for quite some time now, in Iraq. Unfortunately, the US "plan" is not panning out as they had dreamed.


No Saddam Hussein's gloves were off. Not ours. That's why nobody challenged him, they were afraid. But I'm sure you know that. Nobody is afraid of us because we pass out candy instead of cutting tongues off. I've answered your questions, I ask you again, what could Iran do in Iraq better than Saddam's regime did, and that we couldn't squash if needed?



How old were you when Iran took our hostages?


I was about 2 years old.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

first id like to say, if we didnt do any deals over there and simply didnt involve at all in there affairs. became totally isolated from the entire middle east, why would they bomb us? they bomb us now because we are constantly fueling the wars over there, constantly taking the oppositions side of them. so yes right now as it stands, id be afraid of them sneaking one in considering most our docks 9/10 creates werent being checked. if we didnt side with israel or any other opposition though and minded our own business i doubt they would bomb us.


I'm sorry, but double duh! on your answer. It would be "somewhat difficult" for the U.S. to become isolationist when a large part of our economy is fueled by that region. It is currently irrelevant for this discussuion whether this is good or bad, because it simply is a fact.

Also, I guess you never stopped to consider that it would have a huge effect on the U.S. (fallout, energy and otherwise) if the countries in the middle east decided to have a nuclear exchange.

I suggest that you might want to expand your scope and perspective to fit the current geopolitical realities of the world. Trying to assume the "ostrich position" (head hiding in a hole in the sand) will only result in getting your rear blown off in today's world.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
The way I see it, the U.S. Army is a bit overstreched. However, that does not mean war will not happen. There have been alleged NATO discussions, and also the reported plane movement to the Iranian border. If there will be war in the near future: 1. it will compromise predominantly from airstrikes. 2. There will be some kind of coalition.

War is a horrible thing... and it's not like we need more of it anyway.


Why do people have this false idea that the US military is overstretched. It isnt!!! We have less than 200,000 of our total 1.8 million military personnel over there. The Army has appx. 500,000, the Marines have appx. 180,000, the Navy has appx 380,000, and the Air Force has appx.
360,000. These are all active duty personnel, without reserves included. The US military is designed and structured to hold 2 major fronts at any given time. The army reserve has more than 1 million it can pull back into service if needed. This includes retired army reserve who meet the requirements to serve. As you should be able to see, it is not anywhere near overstretched.

Army Reserve
US Military Personnel



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I'm sorry, but double duh! on your answer. It would be "somewhat difficult" for the U.S. to become isolationist when a large part of our economy is fueled by that region. It is currently irrelevant for this discussuion whether this is good or bad, because it simply is a fact.

Also, I guess you never stopped to consider that it would have a huge effect on the U.S. (fallout, energy and otherwise) if the countries in the middle east decided to have a nuclear exchange.

I suggest that you might want to expand your scope and perspective to fit the current geopolitical realities of the world. Trying to assume the "ostrich position" (head hiding in a hole in the sand) will only result in getting your rear blown off in today's world.


which is a perfect example of why our country is not going to last, because we cant self sustaine. if we could lose our dependence on the middle east, we wouldnt be rushing for war. but lets be frank, we arent dependent on them in the first place, the officials just paint the picture that way. mexico is sitting on massive amounts of oil, and should the middle east cut us off, wed go down there and build them the stuff they needed to get it out of the ground in exchange for a deal. also the oil in alaska. im not saying this is good but face it we want everyone to think we depend on the middle east so we can suck their oil dry first then we can control mexicos and be the ones in major power.

also, i have taken into account the effects of a nuclear exchange, and i stand by the fact that if we decide to take away irans nuclear program, the same goes for israel and all the middle east. you want to stop nuclear war, then you have to get rid of ALL the nuclear weapons, not just the ones that pose the immediate threat. im not gunna sit here and try to justify restrictions on iran and such while we do nothing about the countries who dont pose the immediate threat.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
you want to stop nuclear war, then you have to get rid of ALL the nuclear weapons, not just the ones that pose the immediate threat. im not gunna sit here and try to justify restrictions on iran and such while we do nothing about the countries who dont pose the immediate threat.


As with any problem you may face in life, take care of immediate threats first, then move on to threats that are not immediate. You'll live longer if you take that advice.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Agreed LudaChris

People tend to talk about Iran being underestimated. However, i think the US is underestimated in much larger fashion. First off, we are holding 2 middleastern nations right now (Iraq, & Afghansitan) with under 200,000 soldiers. This is being done for a reason. The US is not known as a world super power for nothing. They took into consideration years ago about the possibility of Iran, Syria, North Korea and such. The US is prepared if another threat is immanent. The administration is using the minimal amount it has to to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan so that it is capable of projecting quick defenses or counter offensives elswhere if necessary. The US has a way to go before it truely becomes stretched thin. Being stretched thin is more of a twist in image that the media has created. As well as those hopefuls who wish for America to be brought to its knees.

Carburetor



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
As with any problem you may face in life, take care of immediate threats first, then move on to threats that are not immediate. You'll live longer if you take that advice.


haha yes i know but i think we have been over this and my lack of faith that after the immediate problem anything will change. it will be immediate problem, hesitation, immediate problem, hesitation....over and over again, never accomplishing anything other then more lifes lost because we dont resolve the real core of the problem.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
haha yes i know but i think we have been over this and my lack of faith that after the immediate problem anything will change. it will be immediate problem, hesitation, immediate problem, hesitation....over and over again, never accomplishing anything other then more lifes lost because we dont resolve the real core of the problem.


Well if either one of us were in charge, things would be different. Unfortunately, we're not.

Here's an interesting development, apparently Ahmadinejad asked for the ban on CNN (that I didn't know existed) in Iran be lifted. I guess they banned them because CNN hired a translator who incorrectly translated what Ahmadinejad had said in regards to nuclear weapons...



As Ahmadinejad was speaking, an interpreter working for a translation company hired by CNN misquoted him as having said Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons. In fact, he said Iran has the right to nuclear energy, and that "a nation that has civilization does not need nuclear weapons." He added, "our nation does not need them."

www.cnn.com...


I wonder if that mistranslation was really an accident or not. That would be pretty weak if that was an intentional effort to try and make Ahmadinejad look worse than he is. On the flip side the translator could have been working for Ahmadinejad, to make it look like the western media is lying about him. Strange.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
America will invade Syria. Its true. America and Iran is just playing drama. Syria is the real target for America. First they invade Iraq, then they will invade Syria. Iran and America is allied, because they were Jew and Syiah. Jew and Syiah will attack Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join