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 fears defeat in Iran war

page: 12
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Let's calm down. Mehran need's to understand that America isn't in the mood to be played around with, and that Iran should start cooperating and quit the nuke program. Israel has way less patience than we do, and they could easily start a war if Iran continues to seek nukes. Why may I ask is Iran so adamant on this issue? Give it up, we can't trust nuclear Mullahs, you know why we can't don't play dumb.




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
What we all need to consider is what we mean by defeat in Iraq.

After all, there is no doubt that the US could - if it chose to - annihilate Iran, with a barrage of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the space of an hour, problay much less. Whilst no one doubts this, the prospects of this happening are - at the minimum - remote. The global outcry would be unprecedented.

The US could also defeat Iran militarily using conventional weapons, in the sense that a sustained air and sea assault would quickly cripple large scale Iranian conventional forces. Pretty much all Iranian aircraft (and certainly air bases), the majority of their naval assets and a large percentage of their ground forces would be dealt a devastating blow by US airstrikes and sea attack. The Americans would suffer some casualties (possibly via anti ship missile strikes), but losses would be quite light compared to the damage they could inflict.

However, the US could not occupy and control Iran - if it did so, it would face a bloody defeat. This would be a war America could not win.

US military supremacy exists ultimately at its stand off ability: the power to deliver strikes against the enemy with relative impunity. Long range cruise missiles and stealth aircraft give the US the ability to reach out and touch the enemy, with the enemy not able to strike back or in many cases detect they are being attacked until it is too late.

But American soldiers, despite better training and better equipment to any other nation, are still men on the ground who will face other men on the ground. They will be vulnerable to IEDs, snipers and the like, just as they are in Iraq...except the Iran situation would be far worse. It would face a huge civil insurrection, with hundreds of thousands if not millions of people willing to die to kill the invaders.

America needs to understand its overwhelming military power does not extend into all battle theatres. It must choose to fight its wars using its strengths and not throw those away into a type of conflict where it evens up the playing field for its enemies.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
If you think that Iran could actually beat America in a war, you are a moron.
However I think the US may have some trouble defeating Iran, I think they will have alot more trouble with Iran than they are having with Iraq.

However the US will WIN against Iran.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Let's apply a THICK application of CHILL here guys. Keep the name calling for Yahoo chat.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   
You talk about Air-Strikes, but where are these US airstrikes going to come from? In ALL recent US Air assaults-Gulf War,Yugoslavia,Iraq War-the US has been allowed to launch the bulk of their air-strikes from neighboring secure countrys like Kuwait and Turkey..This time they'll only have their bases in Iraq which are limited and too close to ran, as they are in range of Iranian missiles and will be hit repeatedly..Aircraft carriers can launch some strikes but they are not enough to hold the situation in Iraq and at the same time assault all the Iranian targets, cruise missiles can be launched from the sea but again they are expensive and in limited supply. The US also has to waorry about Iranian commandos coming accross the border with sophesticated shoulder launched missiles and linking up with insurgents..all of this is simply too much for a country that is running record deficits to pay for a quagmire in Iraq that they are losing on the ground.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Ever thought of Turkey and Bulgaria/Easter Europe?

US Air bases Turkey:
Incirlik Air Base, Adana
Izmir Air Base, Izmir


I furthermore wonder what Egypt's position will be if the Western world will get in war with Iran. I suppose they'll choose the Western side, as Egypt's economy mainly depends on the (western) tourism.


www.novinite.com...

US Bases in Bulgaria Undergo "Constitutional Check"


Politics: 13 March 2006, Monday.

The Constitutional Court may be approached for its say on the agreement for setting a couple of US bases on Bulgarian territory.

According to TRUD daily, Bulgarian magistrates are to rule whether the accord complies with the state's main law.

The agreement is expected for signature in April, along with a visit by US State Secretary Condoleeza Rice to Sofia.

The US has asked to be given access to a third military base in central Bulgaria, though negotiations have been so far focused on two sites alone.

An airfield at Graf Ignitievo, near the second largest Bulgarian city of Plovdiv, is said to match all of the Pentagon's requirements, defense officials have said.

According to TRUD as quoting experts, two bases in Bulgaria will deploy some 3,500 US militaries - a third one will possibly engage another 500.

About 2300 US servicemen are expected to go to Romania in 2006 as part of the same Pentagon restructuring plan.

Sofia and Washington have already reached an agreement on two other bases: one at Bezmer airfield and the other at Novo Selo shooting range.

The general command of the Bulgarian and Romanian troops will be in Romania.


[edit on 26-3-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Borys


America needs to understand its overwhelming military power does not extend into all battle theatres. It must choose to fight its wars using its strengths and not throw those away into a type of conflict where it evens up the playing field for its enemies.



America needs to fight its wars, not with the marine corps- but with the peace corps.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
If either president Bush had foreseen the outcomes, would each have invaded Iraq?




"There's evidence of real progress," says President Bush.
"We continue to make great progress," echoes Gen. George Casey.

"We are in a civil war," says former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

Three years after the launching of the Iraq invasion, you can play it upbeat or downbeat, depending on whether you consider 2,300 American lives and some 35,000 Iraqi lives as necessary losses on the road to democracy - never mind the multibillion-dollar financial cost.

I think of this as not only a three-year anniversary, but also a 15-year anniversary in a father-and-son war. And I wonder what both President Bushes might have done differently had they been given the gift of advance hindsight.

Once Kuwait was liberated, would President Bush the elder have continued the pursuit of Saddam Hussein's army all the way to Baghdad, instead of calling the forces home for victory parades?

...............And, once the war had started three years ago, would he have revelled in the swift advance to Baghdad, proclaiming victory, had he known that the invaders were leaving behind them the makings of a sanguinary insurrection?

.................But we are not given the miracle of retroactive hindsight. So now, three years later, the president does not proclaim victory in the war he inherited from his father.

The best he can proclaim is "progress."



Read the full article in The Christian Science Monitor


Another wave of destruction to pave the way for promised reconstruction.

Another victory to sow the seeds of terrorism.... and a really dead slow progress over decades, entangling the military might of US....?

Just a hattrick of victories, Kuwait, Iraq.......Iran?

Bushes politics and ancestral dreams, US taxpayers money......
........Aaaaah dreams!




chaudri



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
If you think that Iran could actually beat America in a war, you are a moron.
However I think the US may have some trouble defeating Iran, I think they will have alot more trouble with Iran than they are having with Iraq.

However the US will WIN against Iran.


Iran has already won. They now control Iraq. The war in Iraq has been a classic rope-a-dope fight. Unfortunately our guy is the dope.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Of those countries you mentioned with bases, Bulgaria is the only country that might allow the US to use it's bases for an attack on Iran, forget about Turkey-no way; remember Turkey wouldn't even allow the US to use it's bases during the invasion of Iraq and the US had to do everything from the South..the only reason a country like Bulgaria would allow it is money, it's an impoverished corupt backwater-you can pay them and do anything..but Bulgia isn't close enough anyways and the US would have to overfly Turkey anyways so I don't see it's significance..Wgypt no way and again it's too far away, why not just use Israel if your gonna use Egypt..the gulf states-forget it, it's not in their strategic interests to piss off Iran and they could get hit by missiles if they allow it, the gulf states know that after a few years the US will be gone and they'll be on their own.

As far as Irans missiles..the US bases in Iraq are unlike anything in previous wars..the one near balad is basically a small town with int cafes and starbucks, kfc, shopping etc. It's not like the Vietnam war where they were always hunkered down and the guerillas could sneak up on them through the jungle bush, In Iraq they can go out in the desert and establish a perimiter and pretty much be safe from insurgents, at least while they are on the base..but sprawling bases like the Balad one and the big one outside Nazaria are juicy targets for thousands of Iranian missiles, and whats worse is the accuracy of Iranian mssiles has increased since the first gulf war with Chinese, Russian and N.Korean help..not to mention their anti ship missiles and the missiles they will give to Iraqi insurgents to knock out US helicopters..

either way it goes down, war with Iran will mean many more dead Americans and greatly increase the cost of the war which is already out of control. Eventually the US will have to make a choice-occupy Iraq and let Iran make nukes, or pull out of Iraq to launch strikes vs Iran..launching strikes while they are in Iraq is too dangerous.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
i agree with jajabanks. an air strike on iran will mean not only will all of sunnis be against american forces but shiites aswell which would lead to a civil war!. afghanistan will be even alot harder to control and will mean another withdrawl of troops down there. i ask you guys this and please respond... have americans die everysingle day by large numbers and have no choice but to withdraw from iraq for "JEWISH PEOPLE" or let iran have its peacefull right for nuclear energy.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
i agree with jajabanks. an air strike on iran will mean not only will all of sunnis be against american forces but shiites aswell which would lead to a civil war!. afghanistan will be even alot harder to control and will mean another withdrawl of troops down there. i ask you guys this and please respond... have americans die everysingle day by large numbers and have no choice but to withdraw from iraq for "JEWISH PEOPLE" or let iran have its peacefull right for nuclear energy.


I know you support your government but your statement is really unrealistic.
The war in Iraq is wrong, Saddam was an old pathetic granny not able to harm that much.

First of all Iran doesn't have a need for nuclear 'power' yet, as it has enough oil to fulfil demand.

Then they got the opportunity to enrich uranium in Russia, which they neither want. Well if they really don't want war but want nuclear power they would have agreed to enrich it in Russia and avoid the current mess.

The people of Afghanistan deserved to get liberated from these idiots, I don't feel the same for Iran, as the most poor people support their government and will figh till they die.

This war will be to prevent the wester world to get attacked by some crazy men.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   
my bad...i posted something in this thread that was ment for another thread

[edit on 3/27/2006 by ConfederacyOfUnity]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
However the US will WIN against Iran.

With oil at over 100$ a barrel, even if there is a win, you might want to look up the term Pyrrhic victory.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
However the US will WIN against Iran.

With oil at over 100$ a barrel, even if there is a win, you might want to look up the term Pyrrhic victory.


If in turn it forces creation or more and better alternate fuel engines that ultimately removes our need for oil and reliance on oil then yes I will take that victory.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Maybe I missed something but I've juss been scimming through this thread and everyone here seems to be talkin like USA is the greatest freakin power in the world and how Iran should co-op and blah blah blah. Everybody should know by now that almost EVERY major country has nuclear powers now, Iran got thier supplies from Pakistan whom had lied to everyone that they had no nuclear weapons. They created them without tellin the UN and AFTER creating nuclear bombz they told the UN (Kinda to late to stop them huh??). Also, AMERICA AINT # without the help and alliances of other countries. 2nd thing I would like to clear as an AMERICAN MUSLIM is that you guyz say if the world of islam was given power they would abuse it by gettin rid of anyone they hate. Hate is such a strong word, and one crucial thing that islam teaches you is NOT to hate and NO violence. Bin Laden and Bush are in it together go read the terrorism conspiracies. The only reason the west hates america is because america is trying to change the western world and gain power.

And about this subject, I think itz a VERY big possiblity that USA DOES in fact fear going to war with Iran because it can lead to the begining of World War 3 (Once again may I suggest you guyz read the terrorism conspiracy section).



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Error, meant *The only reason EAST hatez etc.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Sure....if the Islamic world had the edge it wouldn't wipe everyone it hated out. Just ask Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan or some of those guys shouting death to Christians by the thousands only to appear on the BBC later saying Islam is peace. Let's quit playing games. Islam does as Islam says, and Islam has a bloody intolerant history. Iran will cooperate or face action, we can't afford Mullahs with nukes end of story.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   
why is there so much debate about who is going to kick who's ass in a potential war between the US and Iran? The reasons to enter and not to enter that are used in this dumb debate are wrong.

1. the reasons to enter a war:

Iranian Nukes are not a threat. yeah, nukes kill people, but it makes no sense. The US buys a LOT of oil from the middle east, and you don't Nuke your customers. cash bridges the gap between religious differences with ease.

The potential reason that the US might toy with the notion of invading iran is to stabilize the value of the dollar. Since 1944, the USD has been the international reserve currency. other countries keep large reserves of USDs in order to protect the value of their own currencies agains financial attack. Oil has replaced gold as the true backing of the USD, which hasn't been redeemable for gold domestically since 1933, and internationally since 1971. But you can redeem it for oil. The 'problem' with Iran is that, worse than the devastation of a nuclear weapon, iran is supposed to be introducing a new iranian bourse this month, which measures crude oil in terms of euros, rather than dollars. they will still maintain the dollar measure sticks, but now, countries in the Eu, as well as China and Russia will benefit from not having to rely on the dollar as much, and thus, will not have to keep as high of a reserve. the reason that keeping reserves of USDs is bad, is because the Federal Reserve keeps printing them up out of thin air, and since being removed from the gold standard, the USD has fallen in value to the point that now, in order to purchase a constitutional silver dollar, it would cost you almost 11 USDs. this is essentially a tax on anyone holding USDs. They are bad stores of value! However, the value will fall even worse if other countries aren't forced to use them to purchase oil with.

2. The reasons NOT to go to war with Iran.

This really isn't a war with Iran. Iran is only a battleground. Iran is not a military threat, and has no leverage in that regard. but it can devide the world up, as it's doing, and weaken everyone else. The main obstacle that would exist to invading Iran is not Iran, but the EU, China and Russia, who stand to gain from the new Iranian bourse. It turns out that the Federal Reserve does have some limits, and those limits are that someone has to want the money that it prints out. If other nations don't want to buy the currency, then it doesn't go to far in paying for a war.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
check the debate forum....theres a topic US occupying Iran in 3 years.....Pros and Cons.....its pretty intresting!




top topics



 
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join