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.


iran war with us wouldnt last very long

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:45 PM
War with Iran is inevitable.

We win by Air Sea and Land.

I see no problem in sayin the actual war part would be over in less than 1 month.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:47 PM

Not sure if your reply was in response to mine. The earlier discussion was vibeing more towards US vs Iran scenarios. I was simply providing a post around that. I give alot of credit to the help of the UK and other great allies. I have 2 brothers, an uncle, and 1 cousin serving in Iraq right now. So, i honor all of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, uncles and family members serving there. Whether they are American or UK or others.


posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:51 PM
in a REAL war.
the us would win.
no need to occupy, no need to train them...just air war.
it'd be over in a matter of days.


posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Mr Carburetor

Not sure if your reply was in response to mine. The earlier discussion was vibeing more towards US vs Iran scenarios. I was simply providing a post around that. I give alot of credit to the help of the UK and other great allies. I have 2 brothers, an uncle, and 1 cousin serving in Iraq right now. So, i honor all of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, uncles and family members serving there. Whether they are American or UK or others.


Not just you mate, and I wasn't 'having a pop'.

Reading posts from the US I often get the impression our (and others') contribution is overlooked.

Not blaming the posters - I know we 'others' get a mention from GWB & Co now and again but I suspect that's for foreign, rather than US, consumption. I watch ABC news here everynight and the coalition hardly ever get a mention.

We've just had our 100th death in Iraq (sorry I don't know other non-US nations' casualty figures) and something like 300+ seriously wounded. We have c.9,000 troops in Iraq at present.

We and others may not have the most rebellious bits but non-US forces are dealing with 1/3-1/4 of Iraq at present. Many other coalition forces are under UK command or backed by UK armoured forces.

We've just announced a 5,700 troop deployment to Afghanistan (this from an Army that's only c. 100K and has 15k+ still in NI) and are sending pretty much all of our rapid-deployment force.

In US terms our 'bayonet' contribution may not be much but as a proportion of what we have it's a big drain on our resources.

Not saying I'm at all happy we're involved but I know our troops are good at what they do and are playing a vital part in the campaign - I don't think this is really known or appreciated in the US.

Clearly if Iran was attacked UKLF, RN and RAF would also be involved (doubt I'd agree with that either!)

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:28 PM
The war might not last long but the occupation would last until they kicked us out.

In the mean time we would be bringing them democracy as usual:

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:15 PM
I don't believe war with Iran will be an isolated event.

I believe it will be a significant trigger or bench mark toward WWIII with the goals of WWIII as planned by the puppet masters being to:

1. destroy the old order of things sufficiently to allow easier achieving of the following;

2. destroy masses of the world's population to make managing the resulting goal of 500,000,000 left much easier and more 'ecologically benign;

3. establishing of the globalist world tyrannical government ready for the Anti-Christ's rule.


Natural disasters coupled with China and Russia et al piling on top of the USA mainland could considerably extend the firestorm Iran is itching to set off--in the sincere belief of it's President that by doing so he and Iran will usher in the 12th Imam, the messianic Mahdi that will rule the world and establish tyrannical Islamic Shariah law the world over.

Clearly the puppet masters are using him to make their not greatly different goals all the easier.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:53 PM
I think that if Iran keeps trying to make nukes its going to cause the israelis to go over there and start blasting, which then would lead the other arabs to fight them and in response the us would have to jump in and back them along with england and all our allias. in other words this could be WW3. but then again i thought the same thing would happen with iraq, i guess nobody liked sadam. This region of the globe is just too unstable.

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:14 AM
no one cares about the middle east its the OIL everyone cares about thats all countrys includeing China and Russia middle east means nothing to everyone non middle east, its the OIL we all care about as soon as a new replacement for OIL is found no one would give a **** if anyone marched in an nuked middle east.

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 08:07 AM
Blobby (PHIL200!!) please could you post again and this time use all the letters, full stops, capitals and a spell-check.

You may have a point but I can't tell what it is from what you've written

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 08:21 AM
First of all let me say with sincerity Thanks to all our allies! It isn't said enough so Thanks. I still have fond memories of the British Navy. That being said war in Iran won't be easy to win but if it comes to that we can win however, I wouldn't want to see an occupation that would be long and bloody for everybody.

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:44 PM
The war will take well over a year. It takes a couple of months to occupy Tehran alone, Tehran is a mega capital, some 13 millions people reside in tehran.

the insurgency would be 10 times worse than iraq. beside the iranian resistance, Afghan, Pakistani, Iraqi (Arab) jihadists ( shiites, sunni) will flow into iran, fighting numerous US forces, 5 times as many as in iraq.

Iranians have 2 options, either to fight americans or escape! I'm afraid there is no 3rd option


posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:30 AM

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by arkansasmedic
United States
1.2 million soldiers in the Army

Whoa, hold up there pal, where did you get this number? I'm not saying you're wrong but it seems a bit inflated. I was under the impression that China(largest standing army) had little more that a million ground troops.

China has around 2.2-2.8 million active troops
The US has about 1.4 (not including reserves)

(India and NK also have over a million troops)

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 05:08 AM

Originally posted by nightscape
First reason why the usa will pawn every country that it gets in a conflict with,

Utter Crap.

Originally posted by nightscape
1.we have been developing secret weapons for years for the very reason of testing them out in a major conflict.

1. There are many countries developing secret weapons, the US is only one of few.
2. A war with Iran wouldn't be a major war, a war with China or Russia would.
3. I highly doubt the US would expose their secret weapons unless there is no other alternative.

Originally posted by nightscape
2. The usa has spies everywhere, the pentagon papers showed a fraction of this.

Everywhere? On mars? on the moon? Up people's butt?

Once again, a lot of countries have spies in just about every country, and yes there are many foreign spies in the US.

This doesn't mean much.

Originally posted by nightscape3.we have the best military the world has ever seen.

Utter crap.

Originally posted by nightscape
4.usa misinformation on capabilitys of us military showing that we have over extended our forces, doing this to provoke middle eastern thinking that they can take us in a fight. in reality they would get there asses handed to them in a few short weeks. the reason for this is so we can start a war


Originally posted by nightscapei dont know the full reasoning behind this.

No you don't.

The US has less Army personnal on the US mainland than in Iraq. There's no way in hell they have enough troops and equipment and equipment used for deploying the troops and equipment avaliable.

Originally posted by nightscape5. i am convinced that the us has spy satelites capable of launching missiles and lasers.

I am convinced you know aboslutely nothing about what you're talking about.
First of all, if the US would send missiles from satallites, they would get nuked by Russia as a result of their policity against the weaponization of space, which is also banned by the way.

As for lasers, by the time they get to the ground, a slingshot would do more damage than the laser.

No matter, the US isn't capable of either things you mentioned.

Originally posted by nightscapeOk the usa has mastered laser technology and wants to test it out

Mastered laser tech? Are you on drugs?

The SDI has already been tested successfully. It's meant to shoot down balistic missiles, and that's all it's good for...with limits.

It's not powerful enough to blow up a tank or kill someone.

Originally posted by nightscape i dont have any sites linking you to this information but google it and you'll get a # load.

If you google anything you will get a #load of results, doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by nightscape You really think that you have seen all th usa military weapons and capabilities?

Do you really think you've seen them of any country?

Originally posted by nightscape You really think we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on everyday weapons.

Really depends on what you mean by everyday weapon.

Originally posted by nightscape
The chinese hacked into a usa military website and stole a copy of a ballistic missile with multiple warheads that could hit mulitple targets, how can you possilby think we dont have more # like that. I think some of you forget that the usa is number one in greed, conspiracys and above all power. are acting like a lunatic. A lot of countries have balistic missiles. Being able to carry multiple warheads is nothing special.

And if you're suggesting that the US is going to nuke Iran, then you're insane.

Originally posted by nightscapeThinking that America can be threatened in anyway is rediculous

It gets threatened all the time by Al Qaeda and others like it...nothing ridiculous about that.

And Iran hasn't threatened USA.

Originally posted by nightscapethe goverment has come up with a plan to deal with any problem anytime anywhere.

What's their plan for when they all suddently turn into fuzzy little kittens *mod edit, do not attempt to bypass the censors*

Originally posted by nightscape In my opionion the japanese are building there military becuase of the usa, there going to become our partners in crime i guarentee you.

Partners in Crime? You saying USA is a criminal?

Japan is already an ally of USA.....

Originally posted by nightscapeI would like to hear everyones response on my post and thoughts on our usa's millitary power and opionions on winning wars. Im not thinking im right on anything they are just my opionions.

My opinion is, your post is idiotic.

And I highly doubt the US would win a war with Iran, unless they use unconventional weapons, like launching nukes from the other side of the planet...which won't happen.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by Amuk]

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 05:52 AM
Well I must firstly say that war with Iran is not necessary. But in case the war will really happen...

My view of war with Iran.

1. Some things would be more difficult, some less - for example the war will take a longer time, because the terrain there is much more difficult - more mountains and such. But this could be also the advantage - it is much easier to isolate the parts of the country - especially if you destroy comminications. Also the people who say US has no experience with such terrain - look at Afghanistan - it's even worse there.
2. Military strenght of US forces - many people are underestimating it just because of few losses in Iraq and Afganistan. But those killings are not the result of war they are a result of efforts to rebuild the countries and give them stable goverment. There is no need to do something like that in Iran - just hold the oil fields and destroy the conventional army.
3. Post war - besides the example above you must remeber than Iran is multinational country and it would be easier to divide it in parts - divide and reign strategy. There is only app 50% Persians.
4. Iraq insurgency - will be almost zero factor in Iran war. They can kill civilians in the cities, but they have no chance to stop regular military in open fight.
5. Russia and China would be also not involved. No matter what some people say Iran is not worth much for either country. Especially the Russian involvement with Iran is heavily overestimated. Chinese need the Iran because of oil, but they need the US friendship much more - their trade with US is almost 250 billion$ - this is more than the value of whole chinese economic growth! The war with US would immediately ruin whole chinese economy, especially their east coast cities. Besides they have not the common border with Iran, which means their army would have to march through middle Asia and Afganistan to get there. I highly doubt they can provide some help through air, because their power projection is quite weak.

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 06:34 AM
I'm not surprised if bush drafts people,
it hapend in vietnam so it can hapen, now it's easy to talk about the war but it's not easy fighting it to actully be in the war.
The fact is that many of you dont care about others.
Knolege is power how people decide how to use that power defines you as good or evil.

Why have war when you can have a beer.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by pepsi78]

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 11:03 AM
man there are some clangers on this thread! some of you armchair rambos would do well with a stint on the ground in iraq. I wonder whether on your return you would type such idiot guff as 'post war' and 'a few loses' or 'a REAL war'? people are cold and dilusional fools. The war is on going, losts of people are dying and it is very very real.

Secondly, all above who are saying things to the effect that 'it wont be a ground war' and 'there will be no occupation'......well how do you win then?.....Lob $5 billion worth of guided ordinance at this or that and throw down some high fives on the carrier deck afterwards?........You win wars by sending in the troops and taking the real estate and controling the pop, always have and always will. If you think you can do this in a matter of weeks or months in a country the size of Iran then your mistaken (or on Rumsfelds staff). Dont you think the Iranians have been keenly watching Americas strengths and weaknesses next door in Iraq? If they go in, it will be big, bloody and costly as the chance of it becoming a 'peoples war' are fairly high. You only have to think back 20 years and see a whole generation of Iranians were prepared to be massacred on an horrific scale to fend off an invader. That war ended in stalemate after 8 years, I would not be suprised if this next one went the same........

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by punkmonkey14
War with Iran is inevitable.

We win by Air Sea and Land.

I see no problem in sayin the actual war part would be over in less than 1 month.

Lemme guess, when bush was on the aircraft carrier with ' mission acomplished '' in the background, u stood up and placed your hand on your chest saying how much of a HERO that man was.. yeah? am I right?

Why... why in gods green earth would the war with Iran, whom is a lot BIGGER, with a lot more military, and a lot more sophisticated technology be over so easily?

Iraq was nothing compared to Iran, look at the mess that is.. you think iran will be over in a heartbeat?

errrrr NO!

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:22 PM
Ok my first post but ive been here for quite some time, and seeing this i had to post.

first off who says theres goning to be a war ? more than likely there would be a few Air strikes at key instalations. Remember air strikes arnt exactly a war, but after the inital strikes there could be retaliation from Iran or Irans allies, i think perosnaly if there are any air strikes it would stir up the all the extremists with small terorrist attacks posibly leading to 9/11 attacks or worse, also countries with alot of money invested and exports from iran would start a political war.
Personaly i feel a big war possibly WW3 is not far in the near distant future
East V's West

But a war that will be over quickly i doubt it, just look at afghanistan / iraq, also Russia with there high tech weapons couldnt defeat afghanistan in the late 70's 80's

This is my personal view not a prediction

[edit on 12-2-2006 by u4ria]

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:23 PM
you will never accomplish your goals unless you go onto the ground in a full scale ground war. you can't disable iranian nucluar amitions if they have them unless you send troops onto the ground and not just special forces becuase i think alot of people are confused to what the purpose of sepcial forces is, i keep on hearing specal forces will take care of this or that, no they wont. you need regular soldiers to take care of missions becuase if it was that simple SF would have dealt with saddam hussians CW/BW programs back in 1991 but whole forces where sent in.

iran is completly different becuase they also have underground and reinformed bunkers and some are half a mile deep you cant take care of that with bombs and SF becuase it just wont work. you will need to occupy the whole country to make sure there program is dismantled otherwise they would be up and running again in a few weeks or even months becuase you didnt destory all there nucluer capabilities.

air bombardment will only take care of visible known targets, bunker busters will only take care of shallow known bunkers, whos' going to take out hidden bunkers and ultra deep half mile underground bunkers with nucluer technology stored in them?

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 03:14 PM
This thread has really given me quite a laugh reading some of the uneducated posts regarding the US Military. Anyone here who thinks that the actual war part with Iran is in any way questionable doesn't know squat about the US Military, and you can quote me on that.

However I’ll just say this, Iran will not be invaded, at least not now, our air strikes will prolong the inevitable for some other time.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in