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.

 

Costs of US attack on Iran enormous, says Gary Sick

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
i recommend people to read this, not because its my opinion but because its so realistic and true. Seriously what is Bush thinking? does he want to start a war with us!! do you guys think China and Russia will just sit and let everything go by? do you think everything in Iraq, Afghanistan and palestine will be easier to handle?




New York, March 5, IRNA-Former US National Security Advisor Gary Sick said in New York on Saturday that any US or Israel military attack on Iran is a blatant mistake and they will incur heavy costs. "Moreover such an attack on Iran is also impossible," he added.

Sick who was a member of US National Security Committee during presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan and is currently a professor at the Columbia University's Department of International Affairs said that any attack on Iran will have the opposite effects and the perpetrators will bear heavy costs.

Alluding to the recent threats by Israel and US against Iran, he added "contrary to the publicity propagated by the US and Israel they will not launch a military strike against Iran."

www.payvand.com...


[edit on 5-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 5-3-2006 by Mehran]

Edit: Copy and Paste.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by intrepid]




posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
It will not be an invasion, it will only be an airstrike and a small invasion in the area of the country where all the oil is by the british forces.

It's simple.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
It will not be an invasion, it will only be an airstrike and a small invasion in the area of the country where all the oil is by the british forces.

It's simple.


lool yeah what a dream you have.. an airstrike means war and thats whats going to start it and china is not going to lose her oil so dont even try it buddy.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Small invasion?? It will be alot more than that, it will be an all out war with more countries involved that you want to believe.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
China won't move. Indeed, the next few weeks will be very interesting.

If US don't move, Iran will get away with nukes? Israël won't like it. Maybe Israël is stupid enough to attack Iran alone. That would be stupid. If Israël would be strike back by Russia or China, I would suggest to US to let Israël die alone because if not, it will be WW3.

Zero, are you talking about WW3?

And mehran, i know you're iranian and I would like to say that I support you're country in his way to fight the hegemony of the US and to show their right to have nuclear powerplants. And I'm totally against the war.

Americans, remember that what did trigger WW3 was the Bush administration, that you've elected, twice.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
What Im saying is that if or should I say when the US attacks Iran it will be more than just an airstrike or small invasion. I really dont see how the US can just launch an airstrike and then just simply back away. WW3, I do believe that it has already began and things will begin to gain momentum with a strike on Iran, which I do believe will be forthcoming very soon.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran

Originally posted by Vitchilo
It will not be an invasion, it will only be an airstrike and a small invasion in the area of the country where all the oil is by the british forces.

It's simple.


lool yeah what a dream you have.. an airstrike means war and thats whats going to start it and china is not going to lose her oil so dont even try it buddy.
While I would prefer that everybody play together nicely that doesn't seem likely. Do you really think we would stand by and let Isreal our ally be destroyed? Come now, you can't really believe that.
While that was a let's call it an interesting article you fail to realize nobody ever said attacking Iran wouldn't come with a cost and by the by scamper if we really wanted to destroy Iran we could. Remember, we went into Iraq not intending to take it over or destroy it therefore our operations there will take longer since our forces were and still are trying to avoid injuring civilians. Your comment "so dont even try it buddy" struck me as being a little similar to comments someone on the defensive would make. How about if both sides of the issue try a little less retoric and a little more negotiating in good faith. Wouldn't that be fun?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BANGINCOLOR
mod edit to remove profanities
What a nice example of the posturing/retoric I was refering to. This type of stuff really does have to stop, from both sides. Good Grief people let's all try to grow up and get along world leaders from all sides included.
Sorry but silly behavior from anyone tends to get me fired up.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by gallopinghordes]

[edit on 20-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Any war with Iran will not be just the US. Take a look at the posturing going on right now. Russia and China are not for sanctions, but they aren't exactly standing the way of them either.

I would say China values their current trade status with the US more then anything they have with Iran at present. Russia has been trying to get a compromise on the nuclear uranium enrichment but they have had a hard time getting a deal done and not because of the US or EU3, but because of Iran. Couple this with the remarks from Armanass and you can see where Russia would not be keen on jumping to Irans defense either.

As for any fight, well I look at it like this, US and EU forces can pretty much remove Irans navy and air force with the first set of strikes. Second the US and EU can hit all the known, and it is the unknown locations that are a problem, nuclear sites in Iran at the same time and we can also secure the coastal areas, and the straits right away as well.

Now of course Iran would strike back, and it is at this point that escalation becomes the issue. How far would Iran go in their retailiation, and just how capable would that be? Remember the US has battle proven troops and equipment in theater right now. We know what our equipment and the men manning it can do. Right now Iran cannot say the same.

I also would venture that the US and EU would focus more strikes on Iranian leadership in an attempt to take out Armanass and the ruling mullahs. Here is where the US would have to have some sort of group ready to step into the power vacum to keep things from getting too far out of control. Perhaps a deal could be or already is being worked out with the reformers in Iran?? That could explain why Rice said that $75 million is needed for promoting such groups and why the US is setting up a new office of foriegn affairs that will deal with Iran only.

As for the talk about war and what would happen, in a convential war, the US has superior equipment, air power/supremacy, Naval Power/Supremacy, and we have better trained and combat proven troops. There is nothing about Iran geographically speaking that can't be found in the US. Climate, moutains, etc...The US would have great difficulty trying to occupy all of Iran, but then the US would not have to do so in order to win v Iran.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Hey up there, we didnt vote the bushies in they walked in the front door with lies and stole it... yeah we have heard that a million times.
If Israel attacks Iran the US is obligated to defend Israel though yes it would be wiser to just let them die. Though I think bush wont like having his zionist masters die so he will have to do something about it or they will make him do it (or the puppet masters) and here we go for WW3. China will be royaly ticked if the oil regions are taken, Iran would enlist help from anyone who could offer it and all heck would break loose. Even airstrikes would do nothing in the long run, it would still be total war. Time will tell, we dont have the crystal ball that tells the future or at least not yet. Probability that the US will get into it somehow though is kinda high even if its just economicaly.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Mr. Sick's cited article states that the described attack would be both a "serious mistake" and "impossible". That is mathematically unsound. If it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE... we've nothing to worry about as it can logically never proceed to the level of SERIOUS MISTAKE.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
We all know that the next 911 will hapen in 2006 (posibly March/April) and the US will blame IRAN and retaliate with a Hiroshima on Tehran. Iran will not get away with having nukes and needs to fold there bluff right now.

An attack on Iran is not impossible, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
They can pay back the US in oil, it is valuable stuff.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   
"An attack on Iran is not impossible, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN."

What happened to Mehran??? MeUSA is still here and I play poker and like someone else said, Iran is trying to pull off a crappy bluff. They better fold right now. The Iran Navy......what a joke?

I think when we DO hit them, hit them with a nuclear weapon. They want to make nuclear weapons so bad, let 'em see one up close!!



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   
If we do attack i want to see some new black ops or prototype (haha as if its prototype) stuff used.

Dont we have next gen mini cruise missiles that can Ladar ahead and dodge an just sit and wait for targets comming soon.

I read long ago the cruise missiles we got now are old and need to be used or dismantled cause next gen ones are on the way.

next gen ones can be loaded onto bombers as they are hell of alot smalled and equal to if notmore powerful than existing crusie missiles, planes could launch hundreds of them per plane.

And it better be an all out air raid and crusie missile deployment as first strike i want to see utter devistation in the first strike so Iran cant hit back to much and is crippled, i dont want to see occupation or any Iranian citizens hurt if possible
as its their Goverment that wants the nuke uranium for weapons and not peacefull purposes, Irans had how many offers from Russia for them to enrich Uranium for them 3 i think and Irans not accepted any
Talks have failed its time for action, and its not as if Iran had the chance for peace its been offered on a silver plate 3 times from Russia and im sure other country's have made offers of some sort to help them in peaceful ways for their research into nuclear power for civillian use.

i think EMP bombs might be used as a pre emtive strike then cruise missiles and bombing raids follow, doubt any troops will be deployed at all, couple weeks of bombing raids and constant pick off the list crusie missile attacks.

Now if Iran decide to lob a chemical weapon into Europe well that be end of Iran instantly as we would launch eith mini nukes or more likely an ICBM against them and utterly annihilate them in 1 blow that would be end of Iran and they started it so their fault for useing a weapon of mass destruction first.

Infact if Iran does attack Europe with missiles that would bring rest Europe into war against Iran do they really want that?

You think Europe would say ho hum a few missiles never mind, doubt it all european countrys would deploy missiles aimed at Iran and bomb the living hell out of Iran entire europe would im sure as its all within reach of Iran, so no chances taken method of cruise missiles and massive bomb raid by Europe let alone USA and Israel hmmm pretty much no more Iran after that happens, as for China and Russia if they decide to help Iran then let WW3 begin and let the people with the most advanced secret weapons win.

Im sure China and Russia will be offered our own Oil to the equal amount of what Iran was going to sell them, we do have the Oil to give them too so you think they will help Iran?

If Iranians want to suicide bomb then let em that be stupidist thing to do cause then they and all citizens of Iran will become targets for bomb raids and cruise missiles or even mini nukes.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   


Americans, remember that what did trigger WW3 was the Bush administration, that you've elected, twice.


Wrong, 9/11 will be remembered as the day that WW3, or the War of Terror (WOT) was created. The cost of attacking Iran would be enourmous in the fact that the middle east will destabilize past the point it is now. You would see uprisings in the Phillipines, Europe and more than likely the US.

Did anyone read about the van that plowed into a group of College students last week?

www.forbes.com...




Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 22, who graduated in December after studying psychology and philosophy, was in the custody of campus police. They intended to charge him with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, said police Capt. George Hare.

Taheri-azar called police to surrender and then awaited officers on a street two miles from the campus, authorities said.

The FBI joined the case because Taheri-azar, a native of Iran, "allegedly made statements that he acted to avenge the American treatment of Muslims," said agent Richard Kolko, an FBI spokesman in Washington. "The ongoing investigation will work to confirm this."



The driver of the van stated he did it because of his support for Iran. I still wonder also about the failed bombing at that college football game, the kid with the Syrian roomates who dissapperaed. . The cost ofan attack on Iran will be the lives of the innocent Americsns that will be lost in the US during reprisals.

There are no plans to invade Iran, it is a tactical nightmare in any case. We are looking to disarm them. Just as US citizens sometimes must deal with the decisions their politicans make, so must the citizens of Iran.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
It will not be an invasion, it will only be an airstrike and a small invasion in the area of the country where all the oil is by the british forces.


I really find it quite amusing that some people here think that there is going to be an airstrike without being engaged into an all out war.

once US attacks iranian nuke facilities, iran will respond with short range solid-fueled accurate missiles to hit us bases in iraq. longer range missiles will be used to hit us bases operating in other regional countries such as Qatar, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Georgia. Iranian Missiles Video: www.sendspace.com...

iraqi shiite led government will step down and asks US to withdraw immediately, having used iraq-based bases without their permission. There has been attempts to use bases in other countries, turned down by local governments (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey). then we have an insurgency (10 times worse than what we have now) led by shiite Sadr,Badr Army, armed with iranian anti-tank/ManPads etc. weapons + iranian special forces known as Al Qods Army (one of the best in the world) will run into Iraq and operate against coalition troops.

have a look at this video: www.sendspace.com...

impressive iranian made anti-tank missile called Sagger used by hizbollah guy that rips thru the side hull of israeili APC

RESPECT



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Alluding to the recent threats by Israel and US against Iran, he added "contrary to the publicity propagated by the US and Israel they will not launch a military strike against Iran."

Also, a point to be borne in mind is that Israel cannot attack Iran unless it is with the US' consent. "In other words any Israel military attack on Iran is like a US strike on the country," he underscored.


I love the part where he says that Israel wont attack without America's consent. Has this guy forgotten his history? Did we forget Israel's attack on Iraq back in 1981?



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I would be less worried about the US and more worried about Israel they wont let Iran develop a nuclear weapon.

What did the Israeli General say when asked by the press how far Israel would go to prevent Iran from getting the bomb?

Oh yes he said " About 2000 miles"



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The reason the Israelis would need US approval to attack Iran is they'd have to get through Iraqi airspace - patrolled by the USAF - to get to Iran. The IAF is good, but I doubt they'd want to try to fight through the USAF to get to the IIAF


An attack on Iran's nuclear program would be a much more difficult mission than Osirak - there are more targets, spread over a much larger country, at vastly longer ranges from Israeli bases.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join