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: 24
0
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
As far as I'm concerned, Pat Robertson is as loony and self-absorbed as they come. No different from your garden variety "Al-Qaeda" rabble rouser.


That's exactly why I'm so concerned, I wouldn't want Pat Robertson's finger hovering over any red button, would you?




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Iran is not Iraq. And the same folks who spun that fiasco are spinning this Iran situation. For that reason alone, I am very wary of their claims (even if the EU-3 seem compliant).

Compliant? They're more than that. They seem to be pushing this harder than when we pushed for Iraq.
And it's not the same people spinning the same thing.
With Iraq...you had the Bush admin and Britian, that was it. Here you have basically all five members of the security council, the EU, democrats, etc.

Does this sound the same as Iraq?
Sen. Clinton accuses Bush of DOWNPLAYING Iran threat

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran as it resumes its nuclear program and faulted the Bush administration for "downplaying" the threat.

In an address Wednesday evening at Princeton University, Clinton, D-N.Y., said it was a mistake for the United States to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said.


Hardly the same as Iraq....



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Here you have basically all five members of the security council, the EU, democrats, etc.


No. China and Russia are not on board.


Hardly the same as Iraq....


Iran and Iraq are different militarily speaking. Iran is much stronger than Irag has been for 20 yrs. Ever since the Gulf War, Iran has quietly been building up its defeses.

We can't even handle the insurgency in Iraq. The last thing we need to do is get into a protracted engagement with Iran. We can bomb the holy crap out of them, but eventually, the operation will call for ground troops. On that count, we cannot win. Its better to not go there.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

We can't even handle the insurgency in Iraq. The last thing we need to do is get into a protracted engagement with Iran. We can bomb the holy crap out of them, but eventually, the operation will call for ground troops. On that count, we cannot win.


Not really, our objective in Iraq was complete regime change, that required ground troops, our objective in Iran to stop Nuclear Proliferation, it does not require ground troops. Why do people always assume we have to invade Iran to stop them from acquiring Nuclear Weapons?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
At the risk of offending you, are you truly that naive?

The US government totally wants regime change in Iran. This whole thing theyh want, this whole force package, its insane.

Its not do-able.

Let's hope the Carolina Panthers are for the Super Bowl!!!





posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
We will not invade Iran unless we have the resources and man power to do so. Whats hard to understand about this? Why do you think ads are now saying "bomb in Iran ten years away"? To make you accept invasion - no - to calm people, to buy time. The press is not controlled just tamed.

On another note, as a salesmen you try to get as much out of a deal as you can, all the while lobbying for control of anything in the most insignifiant manner. Momentum is the case for war and we have no momentum for Iran. You think Jihad is recruiting now? Invade Iran and see what happens or do you believe our government is ignorant of reality, or rather it's own controlled symphony?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

We can't even handle the insurgency in Iraq. The last thing we need to do is get into a protracted engagement with Iran. We can bomb the holy crap out of them, but eventually, the operation will call for ground troops. On that count, we cannot win.


Not really, our objective in Iraq was complete regime change, that required ground troops, our objective in Iran to stop Nuclear Proliferation, it does not require ground troops. Why do people always assume we have to invade Iran to stop them from acquiring Nuclear Weapons?


If I may, I'd like to jump in here. First of all, correct me if I'm wrong but our objective in Iraq was not to complete a regime change. (Of course, it depends on what you mean by a regime change) It was take out their WMD's which of course we found out their weren't any. Then the Bush Administration tried to come up with an excuse to stay saying "We will do everything in our power to promote democracy in Iraq." So far that hasn't worked either according the reports I've read.

No matter how you look at it, it is not a good idea to attack Iran. Let's look at some of the reason why.

1. Our national debt and our budget deficeit are extremely high. If we go to war our nation will probably be bankrupt and the economy will make the crash of 1929 look like a picnic.
2. Iran has signed the NPT. Have they not?
3. They claim they are using their nuclear programs for economic purposes
4. They have cut off their oil supply to the rest of the world. (The U.S. does not like this. Remember, Bush and the NeoCons are after the worlds oil)
5. If we can't win in Iraq what makes anyone think we stand a chance in Iran (That is regardless if Iran posses a threat to the security of the world. I don't think they do)
6. Also, if we go to war with Iran the oil prices at the pump will triple in this country meaning only the rich will be able to afford to drive. That will piss alot of people off blaming it on the current Administration.
7. Bush's popularity rating is so low, nobody wants to join the military. The draft will more than likely happen and I guarantee you that nobody will go for that either.

Those are just a few reason why it is a very bad idea to go to war with Iran. Leave them alone for now. We have our own problems to deal with at home before we start to worry about other countries.

Fox


[edit on 20-1-2006 by mrmulder]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Trade, aid, you name it.
Name one country that supports more nations (foriegn aid wise) than the US (in numbers and amount).


You are talking foreign aid. I'm talking about trade, and China is trading with stable countries, the US is increasingly not.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
China will have little or nothing to do with the US ever losing superpower status. The whole world (including China) rebuffed our invasion of Iraq, yet we didn't lose superpower status.
You give the Chinese too much power and influence. Maybe years down the road, but not now


The US did not lose superpower status, but it lost popularity, and influence is crucial. It was the first small step towards the decline.

China rebuffed the invasion of Iraq, but Iraq was useless to China for the most part because of the sanctions, and before that, Saddam being the US's 'bad guy' to use against Iran.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
And you know this how?
What would be the difference between when the US and Russia were both superpowers than when the US and China are both superpowers?


The Soviet Union's economy was centralised anti-capitalist, and stagnated, unable to compete in a eternal arms race or economic race, compared to the American powerhouse capitalist economy.

China is different, it ditched the Soviet model and went full-blown Capitalist, with a booming economy that grows at a rapid rate all the time.

With large resources and 1.3 billion workers, it can easily compete, and indeed out compete the US.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
There will be spheres of influence. Iran is already in China's, along with North Korea (Although North Korea is concerning China) Burma, and Venezuela.
Oh no! Not Burma!
...the world trembles


Burma's military ruled government trades with China. We may see Burma become a factor, with military it's priority.

Mock all you want, does not change things.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
What are you talking about. They have 2.4 billion consummers RIGHT NOW. Yet they US is still a superpower. Competition has ALWAYS and will always be there. This is nothing new.


China has not restricted it's trade with the US.

China's economy is booming and growing, and again with it's resources and man/womanpower, has the attrition to compete.

The world wants a slice of that 1.3 Chinese billion consumer share, traders will be lining up.

America grows insular and unpopular, and slaps trade tarriffs on imports, hardly encouraging for traders.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Are you seriously suggesting that the 4 other nations would have just left China out in the dark?


With the influence China is starting to wield? No. Are you?


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Please, they start trade restrictions with the US and the EU, then we're talking about going from losing alot of trade to losing the majority of their trade and losing where most of the money is at.
Again, if the economic leaders support such a thing...I feel sorry for the Chinese people....


It depends on the EU military role, but trading with the EU may still continue as a way of making China the EU's largest trading partner, while the US loses trade with China, who play on anti-Iran war sentiments in trading partners.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
If it's a ground invasion, then it would be a UN led one.


And you know this because??

Did not stop the Iraq War not having the UN lead it.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
China has veto power. Why didn't they use it?


For the war in Iraq? Already explained.

For a war in Iran? Who is to say they won't?



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You've got a lot to learn. You're giving China WAY too much credit and power. You and I are just as good a reason to why Chavez is in power as the Chinese are


Please at least try to deny ignorance.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You suggested that the US has to go to war with a country to secure their oil. Did we go to war with Saudi Arabia to secure their oil?
No. You can talk about Al Qaeda all you want. That doesn't change a thing.

(btw, Al Qaeda has no clue as to what they're fighting against and why. Do you honestly think those terrorists care about oil?)


The US is waging war against a Saudi Billionaire, the US was attacked by Saudi hijackers, and rich Saudis in Saudi Arabia are known to donate to Al-Qaeda's cause....the US is waging war, amongst everything else, against a Saudi Arabian funded organisation, one that has aims to overthrow the House of Saud, destroy Israel, destroy America.....they know in their minds what they fight for, and why, as they reason it.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Our oil imports from Venuezala have not changed. How do you explain that?


The US needs Venuezala as an oil supplier, Chavez won't cut them off, and the US won't cut it's supplies. it's his powerbroker to stay in power along with China being a trade partner as well as America's.





Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You're really stretching now....


You are referring to Nigeria's troubles?

Not at all. Look it up.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Since the majority of the world agrees that Iran should not persue nuclear weapons, it would be stupid to just lose trade with your biggest trading partner and not the rest of the world because of something the rest of the world agrees with. Again, that would be stupid and pointless.


It's not who agrees with America over Iran, but who's willing to really show their commitment by sending troops.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You underestimate the power of money.


That is a sentence you should direct at yourself, not I, along with the second sentence: "I underestimate the power of China and it's trade and money."


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I thought this was common knowledge. If you can show otherwise then please go ahead....


Be free to look up China's economy growth, trade, and it's standings compared to established economies in the world.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
What in the world are you talking about?
The US would be following the UN. What China does after that is up to them. The US wouldn't be jumping anywhere. If China decides to cut off trade to all countries who participate in any UN ordered airstrikes to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, then that's their loss and their loss alone.


Again, this insistence the UN would be involved in military action against Iran. Referral is one thing, military action another.


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Seems there's a little wishful thinking on your part for China to overtake the US as the world's only superpower.

Why?


I don't understand your absurd irrationality, can you leave it out of what is a serious topic of discussion?

It's not wishful thinking that China will overtake the US. It's reality, and is perhaps wishful thinking on your behalf that it's not going to happen.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Again, an invasion would be pointless and accomplish nothing.
Airstrikes on their nuke plants doesn't take a whole lot of military might and no other country has better technology than they US to conduct such a strike with minimal damage (i.e., limiting any possible radiation spread). So other countries may not be needed to back up the US.


'Collatarel Damage' is another matter of course, and in your scenario, looks like the UN won't have involvement, does it not?


[edit on 20-1-2006 by Regensturm]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
No matter how you look at it, it is not a good idea to attack Iran. Let's look at some of the reason why.

1. Our national debt and our budget deficeit are extremely high. If we go to war our nation will probably be bankrupt and the economy will make the crash of 1929 look like a picnic.
2. Iran has signed the NPT. Have they not?
3. They claim they are using their nuclear programs for economic purposes
4. They have cut off their oil supply to the rest of the world. (The U.S. does not like this. Remember, Bush and the NeoCons are after the worlds oil)
5. If we can't win in Iraq what makes anyone think we stand a chance in Iran (That is regardless if Iran posses a threat to the security of the world. I don't think they do)
6. Also, if we go to war with Iran the oil prices at the pump will triple in this country meaning only the rich will be able to afford to drive. That will piss alot of people off blaming it on the current Administration.
7. Bush's popularity rating is so low, nobody wants to join the military. The draft will more than likely happen and I guarantee you that nobody will go for that either.


Absolutely - all of these reasons I believe are not only correct, but I'm sure weigh heavy within the administration. They might have been "stupid" once with Iraq, but polls and public opinion are in a much different place than in 2001. However what worries me is what happened the last time polls and public opinion for this administration were this low at the start of 2001 - we had that all change in September. Now we have the Bin Ladin "truce" - where the last "truce" offered to Europe was followed up by the London bombings. Are we now repeating history again in the course of just 4 or 5 years...?

-rdube02



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
No. China and Russia are not on board.

Define "on board"
They are calling for Iran to suspend it's nuclear program just as the rest of the world is.



Iran and Iraq are different militarily speaking. Iran is much stronger than Irag has been for 20 yrs. Ever since the Gulf War, Iran has quietly been building up its defeses.

We can't even handle the insurgency in Iraq. The last thing we need to do is get into a protracted engagement with Iran. We can bomb the holy crap out of them, but eventually, the operation will call for ground troops. On that count, we cannot win. Its better to not go there.

What are you talking about? You said the same people who were spinning the Iraq war are spinning this. Not true.
Not sure why you're changing the subject but nevertheless....

1. You have any proof Iran is as strong as Iraq was during the Gulf War?
2. We could easily handle the insurgency if we really wanted to. We have less than 150,000 troops in Iraq.
3. Why would it call for ground troops? The UN is calling for a halt to Iran's nuke program. If it doesn't halt we'll bomb the facilities and make it stop. Same thing happened with when Isreal bombed Iraq's plant. No ground troops were needed then, no ground troops would be needed now.
4. This is the UN, not the US. If ground troops were needed, we could easily surpass the amount of troops used during GW1, as troops from all over would participate.

regen:

You are talking foreign aid. I'm talking about trade, and China is trading with stable countries, the US is increasingly not.


Such as?
Mexico, China, Canada, Japan, UK, Germany....
These are the main trade partners with the US. How are these countries not stable?

Most of the rest of your post is repeated stuff that is more wishful thinking in having the US lose superpower status and China gain it.


It depends on the EU military role, but trading with the EU may still continue as a way of making China the EU's largest trading partner, while the US loses trade with China, who play on anti-Iran war sentiments in trading partners.

So the UN bombs Irans nuke facilities.
China doesn't like it so they stop trading with the US but continue trading with the EU, even though the EU was just as responsible.
This is what I'm talking about in your wishful thinking.


And you know this because??

Did not stop the Iraq War not having the UN lead it.


The UN is the main one pushing for Iran to halt it's nuclear program.


The US is waging war against a Saudi Billionaire, the US was attacked by Saudi hijackers, and rich Saudis in Saudi Arabia are known to donate to Al-Qaeda's cause....the US is waging war, amongst everything else, against a Saudi Arabian funded organisation, one that has aims to overthrow the House of Saud, destroy Israel, destroy America.....they know in their minds what they fight for, and why, as they reason it

What are you talking about? You still haven't answered my question.
You suggested that the US has to go to war to get a country's oil. Did we go to war with Saudi Arabia to be allies with them and get their oil?


The US needs Venuezala as an oil supplier, Chavez won't cut them off, and the US won't cut it's supplies. it's his powerbroker to stay in power along with China being a trade partner as well as America's.

You still didn't answer my question. You suggested that the US has lost it's dominance in Ven. yet imports have stayed the same. How do you explain how it's remained the same if the US is supposedly losing trade?


It's not who agrees with America over Iran, but who's willing to really show their commitment by sending troops.

Sending troops where? Again, it would be an air campaign if anything should happen.


That is a sentence you should direct at yourself, not I, along with the second sentence: "I underestimate the power of China and it's trade and money."

Do you honestly think China would be willing to just lose it's lagest trading partners and billions upon billions of dollars (money that without it, China wouldn't be where it is today) over a country that's not even it's largest oil supplier?


Again, this insistence the UN would be involved in military action against Iran. Referral is one thing, military action another.

Any military action would be sanctioned and directed by the UN, not the US. It doesn't matter how many planes are used from this country or that, they would all be flying under the UN flag.


It's not wishful thinking that China will overtake the US. It's reality, and is perhaps wishful thinking on your behalf that it's not going to happen.

Cool! Can you let me know the lotto numbers for tomorrow as well!? Seeing as you know the future.
What if the riots and labor disputes that have happened recently in China exploded into a civil war? What if they people revolted against the communist regime?
What if their economy slips into recession?
Then what?

I could care less if China becomes the next superpower. You still haven't given any good explanations as to how that would mean the US would lose superpower status....



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
No matter how you look at it, it is not a good idea to attack Iran. Let's look at some of the reason why.

1. Our national debt and our budget deficeit are extremely high. If we go to war our nation will probably be bankrupt and the economy will make the crash of 1929 look like a picnic.

The US wouldn't go in alone. The tab will be billed to the UN


2. Iran has signed the NPT. Have they not?


Are you saying them violating the NPT would be reason for or against attacking them?


3. They claim they are using their nuclear programs for economic purposes

Then accept Russia proposal.


4. They have cut off their oil supply to the rest of the world. (The U.S. does not like this. Remember, Bush and the NeoCons are after the worlds oil)

Are you saying they have or will?


5. If we can't win in Iraq what makes anyone think we stand a chance in Iran (That is regardless if Iran posses a threat to the security of the world. I don't think they do)


The UN's goal would be to make sure Iran can't make nukes not invade the country. If the UN for whatever reason did decide to invade Iran, they would have plenty of troops at it's disposal. Several hundred thousand more than the 130K the US currently has in Iraq.


6. Also, if we go to war with Iran the oil prices at the pump will triple in this country meaning only the rich will be able to afford to drive. That will piss alot of people off blaming it on the current Administration.

lol
How do you know oil prices would "triple"? Do you know how much oil we get from Iran?
None.

And when gas was over $3 per gallon, did that stop people from driving? It's well more than that in Europe, does that stop people from driving?



7. Bush's popularity rating is so low, nobody wants to join the military. The draft will more than likely happen and I guarantee you that nobody will go for that either.

A draft for what? To send cruise missiles?


Also we have less than 200K in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Out of over a million and a half active duty (not including the reserves). That's just the US. The UN would have millions of troops at their disposal. No draft would be needed for any country.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Also we have less than 200K in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Out of over a million and a half active duty (not including the reserves). That's just the US. The UN would have millions of troops at their disposal. No draft would be needed for any country.


Yes no draft would be needed and pretty soon as a US citizen compulsory military service will be mandatory



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird




The US wouldn't go in alone. The tab will be billed to the UN

Maybe but the US in my opinion are the major players.



Are you saying them violating the NPT would be reason for or against attacking them?


I never said they were violiating the NPT


Are you saying they have or will?


I'm saying they have.




The UN's goal would be to make sure Iran can't make nukes not invade the country. If the UN for whatever reason did decide to invade Iran, they would have plenty of troops at it's disposal. Several hundred thousand more than the 130K the US currently has in Iraq.


First of all, I don't the UN will invade Iran. If they do it will be under US influence.



lol
How do you know oil prices would "triple"? Do you know how much oil we get from Iran?
None.


And why is that?


And when gas was over $3 per gallon, did that stop people from driving? It's well more than that in Europe, does that stop people from driving?


I bet you when gas prices reach $6.00, people will start complaining.




A draft for what? To send cruise missiles?

Uh, no. To send troops.

Also we have less than 200K in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Out of over a million and a half active duty (not including the reserves). That's just the US.

And you really think the US wants it's troops that are in other countries sent to Iran when needed?


The UN would have millions of troops at their disposal. No draft would be needed for any country.

lol
The UN won't be sending to troops Iran. From what I heard there wasn't much success in Iraq either.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
we have had naval secial warfare troops including seals in the united arab emirates for over a year i know because my freinds father is one they patrol the ufraities river and board boats searchin for terrorists it is also said they have dropped navy seals inside iran to do recon



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by WestPoint23
We can't even handle the insurgency in Iraq. The last thing we need to do is get into a protracted engagement with Iran. We can bomb the holy crap out of them, but eventually, the operation will call for ground troops. On that count, we cannot win.


Not really, our objective in Iraq was complete regime change, that required ground troops, our objective in Iran to stop Nuclear Proliferation, it does not require ground troops. Why do people always assume we have to invade Iran to stop them from acquiring Nuclear Weapons?


heres an update for ya there threatining to launch missles at oil shis to block the straits thus stopping oil if we mess with there nuclear program there government is a bunch of crazy terrorists and we do not negotiate with terrorist under no circumstance

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Profanity – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 21-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Scott 'I can be bought and make predictions too' Ritter has nothing on the king and queen of Iranian predictions within ATS.
Last year, the two of you were found buried within "Iran will be attacked and/or invaded sometime in 2005," now look at you both, back buried in the "Iran will be attacked and/or invaded sometime in 2006." As long as you both keep guessing and predicting , odds are it is bound to happen sooner or later, just ask John Titor, huh?

Hey, look on the Scott 'I can be bought and make predictions too' Ritter brightside: even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day.








seekerof

[edit on 3-1-2006 by Seekerof]


True. After all, even though Bush was wrong about Iraq on just about every turn, he was right about Hurricane Katrina not being his fault.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I'm joinging this thread very late, but I have been following the issue very closely, even started a thread a while back on the ability for the U.S. to conduct full-scale invasions of both Iran and Syria.

Let's get one thing straight: war is conquest, nothing more, everything less. I feel that if the U.S. ever invades Iran, it is when the country is at a low point, and it is currently headed that direction. And that low point is in regards with the toiling economy and nightmares of an upcoming oil crisis. I'll say it right now, when American consumers start feeling the heat of gas prices once more and division runs even higher in America, the time for war will have come.

Forget nuclear weapons. America wants Iran's oil. Therefore, all the U.S. regime has to do is fabricate yet another reason to invade Iran and boom, it's on. The timing of this has to be executed perfectly. It has to come at a time when the Iraq War is not paid much attention by the American public. Hurricane Katrina or another Space Shuttle Challenger disaster would be a perfect opportunity to go to war. Bush must make it clear to Americans (even clearer than he did in 2003) that a clear and present danger does exist and that invading Iran will make American even stronger, instead of following Europe in a nosedive.

Speaking of which, Europe is a very interesting wild card. For one, Europe is a superior ally and the so-called Persian threat could possibility unite the continent not only with itself, but with the U.S. once more. However, Europe is a failing system. Therefore, if the current U.S. regime does the right thing, it should take full advantage of Europe's nosedive and fully be able to assert a more dominant world position without much opposition from the EU or the U.N.

I think none of this will happen this year. Again, it's about timing, and my feeling is barring another national distraction, it probably won't ever come to war. But if it does, look for Bush to leave the next President of the United States, Democrat or Republican, a very bad situation to inherit.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
The money? Thats why taxes go up for one, and also why the US borrows so much from other nations. Corporations dont care how many wars it takes to suck your blood dry so long as its done.
Yet thats not the worst part oddly, when a nation is run dry its easy for a corporation to put forth a "beacon of hope" to get people to rush to it and support it thinking things will get better if they do. Promise salvation but demand peoples souls is what they might do, in process they may be after a greater picture, total 100% domination of the US and all of north america, but this can only be done with all of north america is at its knees and can no longer get up without their or someone elses help.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
What makes everyone so damn sure the US can invade Iran, Kuwait and Bahrain won't allow their bases to be used so the US will have to use their bases in Iraq, those bases are in missile range and the Iranians have enough to pound the hell out of those bases, + the US ground forces in Iraq are spread all over the place thin battling a gurilla campaign, Iran has 8 or 10 times the tanks, troops, artilary in a conventional fist on the border, once US air power is nuetralized, the US ground force will be exposed as the over-paid underperforming sham that it is, Iran will smash right through and be in baghdad in about 2 days..can't use nukes against them because then they'll pull theirs out..

US-no military option vs Iran



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Its not looking good is it.
Especially now Syria has sided with Iran, and China is staying quiet..
12% of chinas oil is Iranian, is that enough of a $ value to wage war?
I wonder if the US marines in Iraq are starting to feel a little uneasy, Iran is setting itself up to destroy the american forces, Syria to the North backs Iran, and the insurgents are obviously getting help from somewhere.

Do you need a degree to say ' this isnt looking good ' ?

America has passed the point of no return in my mind. You only need to read the papers and its OBVIOUS we are being marched to war. I remember seeing in the news papers in 2003, maps of iraq with labels saying chem factory here, nuke factory there rah rah rah, photos of Iraqis OLD missles... well i look in the paper today I see the IDENTICAL thing, accept the Q is replaced with a N.

America cant do anything now but lob missles.. because if they dont and allow Iran to go ahead unabaded, how will that make Iraq look?
We went into Iraq on the suspicion they were building WMD's....
But we WONT go into Iran after they publically reopened there nuke plants.

There seems to be so much news going round of Israel preparing defences in northern Iraq, the sale of large quantities of missles to israel, and these new strategic nuke bunker busters?...

And we've alreayd been given the month.. -March-

Accept a hell of a lot of rhetoric to start pumping into the old propoganda machine.

Hey look, its already started

-Iran financed Israeli attack, after go ahead from Syria-

Ive always wanted to run around the desert with a M16 while jets zoom over my head.. looks like we're all gunna get the chance.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join