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.

 

Why Iran will not be invaded

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Tehran elite turning on extremist presidency

www.washtimes.com...

[es]TEHRAN -- Iran's clerical and business establishments, deeply concerned by what they see as reckless spending and needlessly aggressive foreign policies, are increasingly turning against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Within this context, many see the president's long-running confrontation with the United States and Europe over Tehran's nuclear program as an attempt to demonize the West and distract the Iranian public from pressing domestic problems. [/es]

Goes to show even the people are against the mullahs and the idiot they have as president.

I see revolution...hopefully it happens before the mullahs get 'the bomb' and do something distasterious.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by ferretman2]




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
An interesting read. A few other things to remember:


Your average Iranian esp the younger population is chafing under the current regime. However not at the levels seen in Iraq. You would have very few people welcoming any invaders into the country.

We can barely controll section of Iraq and that with civilian cooperation by and large. However I for one would like to see Rummy explain how he plans to do the same in Iran which is twice the population of Iraq and Teheran has 3 times the population of Bahgdad.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2


Goes to show even the people are against the mullahs and the idiot they have as president.

I see revolution...hopefully it happens before the mullahs get 'the bomb' and do something distasterious.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by ferretman2]


As uplifting as this news is, the same day this here gets reported:



Iran Leader: Nuclear Path 'Irreversible'

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's supreme leader said Tuesday that Tehran's nuclear program was "irreversible" and warned that any retreat in the face of international pressure would "break the country's independence."

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took the tough line over the nuclear program hours before the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council discussed on what action to take if Iran doesn't back away from its atomic ambitions.


War is inevitable. The people of Iran have days, maybe a few weeks to revolt, or the world is going to do it for them.




[edit on 14-3-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Maybe the young population of Iran wouldn't have to be controlled by force, maybe they'd just be happy to have the freedom to play loud music and dance. The population is different than Iraq, and I'm sure wouldn't take kindly to a forceful invasion, however, since they are much more sophisticated and admire American pop-culture, maybe we could just throw a big concert and bring some beers.
That's my kind of occupation...



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Maybe the young population of Iran wouldn't have to be controlled by force, maybe they'd just be happy to have the freedom to play loud music and dance.


Thats just it. The population is not controlled by force (perhaps the threat of it) as was the population of Iraq. In Iran, you can do just about anything as long as you are discrete about it and that includes booze, raves, music, etc. Yes you cannot flaunt it to be sure however



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
skippy,

The bomb is simply a reaction to the failed US policy in NK. Every country has seen the kid gloves approach that every US administration has taken since Bush Sr. and realize that if they too have a bomb they will force the US and other countries to provide more that lip service.

That is the consequence IMHO of failing to deal with Kim and his antics



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
skippy,

The bomb is simply a reaction to the failed US policy in NK. Every country has seen the kid gloves approach that every US administration has taken since Bush Sr. and realize that if they too have a bomb they will force the US and other countries to provide more that lip service.

That is the consequence IMHO of failing to deal with Kim and his antics


I dont dissagree with what you say, its fact after all. But the result will be conflict with Iran regardless of the failed politics behind it. The "bomb" is also a nice excuse too, after all Iran is a much better target against terrorism than Iraq ever was.

But the bottom line is the Iranian governments hardline tactics, in spite of its peoples feelings, will lead to conflict. Ive commented in posts months and months ago that the people of Iran are not being represented well by the new Thug In Chief and will be subject to great hardship as a result. And the nuclear issue will be the official cause, right or wrong.

I just hope the Iranian people take care of it themselves, they just dont have alot of time.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by skippytjc]

[edit on 14-3-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
because of our landscapes its just impossible to invade us, aryan people are good fighters and i really dont want a conflict between the two of us. Also iran is not a country that is full of sand, theres so many different kinds of climate and landscapes there.














[edit on 14-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Mehran]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Iran will not be invaded, not because of domestic political opposition (which there is plenty of, unfortunately it is disoranized and increasingly supressed), but because an invasion of Iran is simply not a practical military option at this point.

If we see any military action at all, it will be a limited series of airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. How Iran chooses to respond to that is the wildcard that will determine if it blossoms into a wider war or not. Honestly at this point, I have my doubts that even airstrikes are likely soon, considering how close to the edge things are in Iraq. Nobody wants Iran to have nukes, but they want a wider Middle East war even less.

[edit on 3/14/06 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
You guys are all right, Iran will not be INVADED, it will be attacked though. There will be no occupation, just strikes agaisnt its offensive military capabilities and its nuclear facilities.

Iran is quite small from the air...



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Iran will not be invaded, not because of domestic political opposition (which there is plenty of, unfortunately it is disoranized and increasingly supressed), but because an invasion of Iran is simply not a practical military option at this point.

If we see any military action at all, it will be a limited series of airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. How Iran chooses to respond to that is the wildcard that will determine if it blossoms into a wider war or not. Honestly at this point, I have my doubts that even airstrikes are likely soon, considering how close to the edge things are in Iraq. Nobody wants Iran to have nukes, but they want a wider Middle East war even less.

[edit on 3/14/06 by xmotex]


i dont get it xmotex, you guys are allowed to attack us but were not allowed to do the same?, an airstrike will lead to war and force US to do an invasion which seems impossible. china has signed alot of oil deals with iran that is worth over 500billion and russia also needs us. why are americans dying for jews? what have they ever done to US? why arent they doing most of the jobs with you guys over there? soviet-union and the US were two worse enemies of all time and yet they were still able to mantain the peace. this can happen to both of our countries
.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
well jeez...maybe if your president would stop "wiping Israel off the map" and HAMAS would take the destruction of Israel out of their charter, things might ease up a bit and we could find ways for Iran to have the peaceful nuclear energy it so desires. As it stands, too many countries are just too uncomfortable with what your leaders might do if they had the button.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
well jeez...maybe if your president would stop "wiping Israel off the map" and HAMAS would take the destruction of Israel out of their charter, things might ease up a bit and we could find ways for Iran to have the peaceful nuclear energy it so desires. As it stands, too many countries are just too uncomfortable with what your leaders might do if they had the button.


please dont tell me you think ahmadinejad has power when coming to military and the nuclear issue?. the guy is an idiot but he has no controll over it and he basiclly did that for the arabs and palestinains to gain more support. US cant start wars or nuke a country without congress approval right? well its the same here but they have to be ordered by the supreme council. us nuking a country is suicidal and will mean we will be nuked back so all that was just talks. i just find it funny that everyday american troops are dying and going country to country that invloves arab nations just so that they could keep the jews happey. just because of Israel you guys are losing so much from economic to military so that you could keep the zionist basterds happey and now they want your americans troops to come to iran and not do it themselves.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
i just find it funny that everyday american troops are dying and going country to country that invloves arab nations just so that they could keep the jews happey. just because of Israel you guys are losing so much from economic to military so that you could keep the zionist basterds happey and now they want your americans troops to come to iran and not do it themselves.


Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Ahmadinejad is also working for the zionists somehow? His rhetoric is just too good to be true for those who may want to see action taken against Iran. If he were smart about it, he wouldn't be running his mouth so much, and buying as much time as he could to achieve whatever it is he is trying to achieve. Usually when somebody is trying to do something illegal that they don't want others to know about, they try and be as low key as possible. You don't usually see people selling drugs out of their homes with a big sign saying " drugs for sale, police kiss our butts".



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
...and now they want your americans troops to come to iran and not do it themselves.


Well bud, I wouldn't be too sure of that Israel won't do it themselves. In fact, from what I've been reading, the pentagon isn't too sure either, and has launched an in-depth analysis of the likelihood and feasability of Israel attacking Iran, and whether Israel would alert us first.

Which brings be to another point. If the US and Israel are so close, why on earth would the pentagon need to do such a thing, and worse, why is there even a question as to whether Israel would alert us or not? I mean surely they'd have to alert us, especially considering that:

1) If they are going to use Iraqi airspace to get there, they probably prefer not to be blown out of the sky...

2) all would need to consider Iran's response, which may likely include attacking all kinds of US forces and bases in the area...

3) a unilateral move like that without alerting us, such as if say they were to attempt to attack by sub, would really piss Washington off



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I agree, Ahmadinejad is probably a zionist agent, war with Iran would only further the zionist aims, which is a shame, because they have enough power as it is.

Too many people confuse Zionism with Judaism, whilst there are true Jews that support Zionism, they probably don't realise that the Zionists are Satanic Jews, who hide behind Judaism, much to the disparagement of the true Jews, who should practise the Torah, NOT the Qabala, and I don't care what Maddona or Aston Kutcher or any other of the hollywood celebraties say, Qabala is the practise of Demonic Magick, plain and simple.... well I certainly got sidetracked on this little rant.


By the way, Mehran, your pictures of your country are beautiful.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   


i dont get it xmotex, you guys are allowed to attack us but were not allowed to do the same?


Where did I say that?

Personally I think attacking Iran is a stupid idea, and more likely to make things worse than better. However Iran's current leadership seems determined to encourage a fight, and my own country's current leadership never met a war it didn't like. It sucks, but there you have it.

However if another disastrous Mideast war finally convinces my countrymen that the superpower business is not worth the butcher's bill, it might just be worth it. We can go back to being a peaceful democratic trading Republic instead of a demented psudeo-empire, and all the arrested adolescent war fetishists that measure their virility by the US's military prowess can go back to torturing small animals, or whatever else they would otherwise do for kicks...

But I digress...

[edit on 3/14/06 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I dont believe that Irans Pres. is a Zionist agent as you put it. But I do believe that he was the choice of the Supreme Council. For what reasons I dont know. Conventional wisdom would say they chose him because he is willing to say crap like this to our faces. Maybe Iran feels it can bring down the US if they get the US to attack, to try and bring China and Russia into the conflict. I dunno though, international geopolitics isnt my field of expertise.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
well jeez...maybe if your president would stop "wiping Israel off the map" and HAMAS would take the destruction of Israel out of their charter, things might ease up a bit and we could find ways for Iran to have the peaceful nuclear energy it so desires. As it stands, too many countries are just too uncomfortable with what your leaders might do if they had the button.


please dont tell me you think ahmadinejad has power when coming to military and the nuclear issue?. the guy is an idiot but he has no controll over it and he basiclly did that for the arabs and palestinains to gain more support. US cant start wars or nuke a country without congress approval right? well its the same here but they have to be ordered by the supreme council. us nuking a country is suicidal and will mean we will be nuked back so all that was just talks. i just find it funny that everyday american troops are dying and going country to country that invloves arab nations just so that they could keep the jews happey. just because of Israel you guys are losing so much from economic to military so that you could keep the zionist basterds happey and now they want your americans troops to come to iran and not do it themselves.


Well, what i'm wondering about hte "wipe Israel off the map" thing... The man has also chided Europe for elbowing all their Jewry into Israel rather than incorporating them into the European fabric. When I take the two statements together, it seems that Ahmadinejad isn't calling for the destruction of Israel and its people, but instead a quite literal "removal from the map" - he beleives the Israelis should go back to Europe, thus dissolving the nation.

Am I incorrect in this, wouldja say?
The American media is famed for its purposeful mistranslations of foreign leaders.


Sep

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I thought I may add this to the conversation:

Here is a quote from a speech given by one of the opposition leaders, the son of the former Shah on March 3rd 2006

"a military strike may delay the bomb by two or three years, but it will delay democracy several times over. It is not a smart choice, and no way to win the race"

Although I disagree with the gentleman almost on all levels of Iranian politics I whole-heartedly agree with this statement.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join