US fears defeat in Iran war

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Turning off the oil would be a bad thing for Iran. Iran’s economy absolutely depends on the oil transfer taking place. Iran can only afford ~0.78% of America’s military budget now. Turning off the oil would destroy their economy and, accordingly, their military budget. Not that it was much of a budget to begin with. Assuming that would be a 43% budget loss, which I think is a very conservative number, they would only be able to afford ~0.44% of America’s military budget.

America would take a temporary economic hit by the oil being cut off; however, America could recover.

Iran would be hurting itself alone...

Top U.S. oil suppliers:

1A. The U.S. (we're our biggest supplier)
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria

Oil we get from Iran: None




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Iran would be hurting itself alone...

Top U.S. oil suppliers:

1A. The U.S. (we're our biggest supplier)
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria

Oil we get from Iran: None


doesnt matter if iran supplies oil directly to america. there is what is known as a total world output of oil and iran is basically from what i understand the 4th largest in the world if iran reduces its oil supply it reduces the worlds total suplly of oil barrels which inturn increases the price of the oil which the US consumes becuase the demand vs quantity of oil has been altered. america will be hugely effected by any drop in oil output by iran.

aslo i would like to add people say if iran stops its oil flow it would suffer economically well if iran is attacked or invaded its will suffer anyway so they basically have nothing to loose. infact what they could do is pretent they are no longer producing oil by making a statment pulling out of any orginisation they are a part of i think there with OPEC and then sell the oil secretly to china while letting no body know this would affect world oil prices hugly wile iran is still making money of its oil. iran will have a win win situation if it does this.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Rootin' Tootin' flag wavin' always blinds those who are pro war.


The bottom line is, China and Russia are military allies and trading partiners with Iran. China and Russia have huge energy investiments and interests in Iran and you can BET that they will NOT allow the carpet bombing and occupation of their assets.

This would result in an open conflict with the 2 big guys on the other side of the earth. Thats their backyard. YOU CANNOT WIN

Its so clear that the losses for the US would be tremendous.

So ya, the US could wipe out Iran in an afternoon but then that evening Isreal would be removed off the map. The next morning All oil would be traded in the Euro, rendering the American fiat dollar useless. Everyone would feel the pinch.

As long as Iran feels threatened they will continue to persue a means of defence. If Isreal pipes down and the US goes home where they really ought to be then watch Iran play ball.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Exactly how are the Russians and Chinese going to stop us? The same way they stopped us in Iraq. When they had just as much at stake and were equally opposed to that operation. The simple fact is if we want to take Iran out we can and we will. The russians can't even subdue Chechnya oh and the Chinese aren't quite ready to take on anyone outside their own neck of the woods. They'd still be pretty hard pressed to take Taiwan if they ever declared independence.

If your talking about economic warfare well thats a double edged sword my friend. China could dump its US assets and start selling of dollars but then what happens when are interest rates rise and we stop buying cheap Chinese goods and since we're not beholden to the Chinese anymore we can retaliate against their artificially low currency further damaging their still developing economy.

Sure China is a riseing power but they haven't risen enough yet to take on the USA pal. Further more if this situation did happen I really can't see the Chinese doing anything except make strong anti-american protests and demonstrations(like we haven't seen those before). If China does challenge the US to early they'll quickly find themselve sback where they were 30yrs ago.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Rootin' tootin' flagwavin'


Thats what Im talking about.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Voice
Rootin' tootin' flagwavin'


Thats what Im talking about.


So why don't you tell us what's wrong with his statement?
You can call it "rootin tootin flagwavin" all you want. Doesn't take away from the fact that what he said is based on real life and not your fantasies.


The bottom line is, China and Russia are military allies and trading partiners with Iran. China and Russia have huge energy investiments and interests in Iran and you can BET that they will NOT allow the carpet bombing and occupation of their assets.

Do you honestly think China and Russia would go to war with the US over Iran?
How would that benefit them?


So ya, the US could wipe out Iran in an afternoon but then that evening Isreal would be removed off the map.

By who?


The next morning All oil would be traded in the Euro, rendering the American fiat dollar useless. Everyone would feel the pinch.


Who would switch to the Euro and why?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
*yawn*



Think about it cowboy.


Think deep, non-bias, whos involved if this does happen then consider the numbers.



Think sport, think.

No more time for you and speaking of time, it is that, which will tell.

YEEE-HAWWW



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Iran would be toppled overnight


you mean Mr President will get a quick and clean victory just like Iraq ?

some people just love to live in denial.





[edit on 21-3-2006 by mr conspiracy]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Americans are so misunderstood. A few hundred years back entire fleets of downtrodden Euro-Peons came over looking for some payback and joined up with 3,000 Indian Nations embroiled in incessant internecine warfare and looking for some payback while bringing along shiploads of African warriors and trainloads of Chinese gungfu practitioners all looking for some payback. Into this mess step the German Army (got some payback), the Japanese Empire (got some payback), the North Koreans (got some payback), the Viet Cong (got some payback), and now the Radical Muslims (who just don't get the idea they gonna get some payback). Americans love to fight. They fight with their friends, with their enemies, with themselves. For the love of war, and for the love of the money it generates. Fear has nothing to do with it- the soldiers in the US military are all volunteers- and every single one looking for some payback. Any country that wants a piece of that just doesn't understand American soldiers.

Do yourself a favor. Do not spit on a tiger.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
The way I see it there is just too much complicated politics surrounding the Iranian situation. No matter how you look at it Iran is important for alot of nations; first economically, then social-politically, and strategically, if the U.S. attacks, things could get out of control and the U.S. could suffer some serious blowback.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
We've been suffering from serious blowback for the past three years. It really hasn't changed the situaition much. Even before we went into Iraq we were at least suffering from mild blowback whether it was Kosovo or Bosnia or were ever the hell we had to intervene. The US could promise to make every person on the planet a billionaire and all that would happen is we'd be accused of spreading immoral capitalistic free-market values.

So thats why I will call on all my American yankee imperialist aggressor countrymen to once again tell the world the UN and the EU were to put it and go ahead and do what needs to be done. The US isn't the only country that realises that Iran needs to be taken care of but we're the only country willing to do the dirty work(as usual).



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6

but we're the only country willing to do the dirty work(as usual).


The US is indeed a busybody, you're very true. The US government didn't allow the EU and UN to go on with their search for the holy grail, which should be in Iraq, according to Bush.

Bush decided a war was required to disarm Iraq of chemical weapons that have never been found. What was the other reason again, oh yes, I remember, to liberate Iraq from this poor old man Sadam. Whether you like it or not, Iraq becomes even worse than Vietnam, Bush wanted war then he may sacrifice his American fellow men and deal with the consequences.

If he decided to give the UN the opportunity for further inspection, we would have come to same conclusion: to start a war against Iraq was pointless and didn't solve the existing problems in any way. Well, it made the situation even worse, how long would it require for a civil war to break out?

Didn't the UK, NL, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Japan, Australia and several other countries go to Iraq? Did the US have to do it all by there own?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy

Originally posted by Nakash
Iran would be toppled overnight


you mean Mr President will get a quick and clean victory just like Iraq ?

some people just love to live in denial.






[edit on 21-3-2006 by mr conspiracy]
Totally agree, do you really think Iran is Iraq? Don't expect the total casualities to be again roughly 2500...

I've seen it's hard for some people to understand Iran isn't a matter of the US alone, but obviously many people see it like that. Well, good luck then!


[edit on 22-3-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Putting aside my ethical, spiritual, personal, and humanitarian reasons for being opposed to any such conflict in the region, and forgetting all political concerns:

In my opinion, if U.S. foreign policy were to reach the point at which the consensus was that war with Iran was a viable, favorable option, both nations would have to already be too short-sighted and subjective in their policies to fear defeat at all. They would careen headlong into conflict mutually. A war in Iran would be a catastrophe, win, lose, or draw, and would be an even bigger mess than Iraq has turned out to be for both “sides.”

Taking out Iran's initial air defenses in a sufficiently timely fashion would require more ordinance and many more sorties on average than Iraq's if the goal were similar to that in Iraq. We would see a repeat of the "shock and awe" strategy, having as its purpose both those intended psychological effects, as well as the rapid degradation and elimination of those air defenses. Greater civilian casualties would result, in all likelihood. There is a reform movement in Iran, but we've seen in Iraq what resentment and bitterness can result in if we aren't careful to stay on the good side of the general public, and the sheer scale of the initial air-strikes - particularly if there were genuine concern about Iran's nuclear capabilities - would all but ensure civilian casualties great enough to sew those seeds. Yes, the insurgency in Iraq is in fact a minority, but it is an effective enough minority to have become a serious liability and a threat to the lives of everyone there - American, Iraqi, British, or otherwise, and an insurgency in Iran would likely be worse.

More feet on the ground would be required in Iran than in Iraq, unless the aforementioned reform movement is organized and equipped well enough to play a role similar to that of the northern alliance in Afghanistan, which I sincerely doubt is the case, and even then it would be pushing it. This would absolutely require greater European participation, which would no doubt lead to a greater emphasis on terrorist strikes against European allies. The dissention between western nations over Iraq would probably seem like a happy memory compared to the rancor and divisions that would open up over Iran.

I am not too proud to admit when I'm wrong, and if proved wrong, I would concede it, however my fear, right now at least, is that this apparently growing “clash of civilizations” will result in little more than massive bloodshed all around, and a smoldering insurgency and bitterness throughout the region for years to come - which is not at all conducive to the reduction of terrorism. Quite the contrary, in fact, as my understanding is that this is precisely how terrorists are forged.

If I factor back into the equation my personal beliefs, then the suffering of the people I'm supposed to view as enemies also counts as a strike against it in my mind. In conclusion, my hope is that whatever the rationale for not entering into an armed conflict with Iran, it will never happen.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I mean.... they had the technology and the numbers during the vietnam war, but they still lost. Even if we look at the war in Iraq, they haven't won it either. They are still there and soldiers and humvees and tanks are getting blown up day after day. What other facts do you need???

I got to say, you people can be so ignorant and only believe in things you want to believe in. Who cares if you have the best navy and air force in the world, you still need to get on the ground to occupy a country.

Another fact, have you found Mr Bin Laden yet??



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I find it hilarious how easily people write off Iran. Does anyone remember that whole Iraq-Iran war thing? OVER 1 MILLION PEOPLE DEAD and $1.3 TRILLION spent! I know, I know, the US military is SOOO different, RIGHT? Let me pose this question: If the US military still can't get a handle on Afghanistan, a country full of goat herders running around with AK-47's, is it really realistic to think that Iran, a country with NUCLEAR SUBMARINES and long range missiles is going to be a pushover? Pull out a topographical map, you will see that Iran is a mountainous country. You can't just roll a few tanks across the border, knock a statue down, and call it a day. Iranians aren't really the quitting type. Last time I checked they used 12 yr olds to CLEAR MINE FIELDS in that war; whereas 3,000 US soldiers have died in Iraq in 3 yrs and Bush has a 32 % approval rating. AINT GONNA HAPPEN SO EASILY!!



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bassboywonder2003
I find it hilarious how easily people write off Iran. Does anyone remember that whole Iraq-Iran war thing? OVER 1 MILLION PEOPLE DEAD and $1.3 TRILLION spent! I know, I know, the US military is SOOO different, RIGHT? Let me pose this question: If the US military still can't get a handle on Afghanistan, a country full of goat herders running around with AK-47's, is it really realistic to think that Iran, a country with NUCLEAR SUBMARINES and long range missiles is going to be a pushover?

1. Who said we were going to invade Iran? Taking care of their nuclear facilities and making it hard for them to create nukes doesn't require a foot on the ground.

2. Can't handle Afghanistan? Have you been living under a rock the past 5 years? We took care of Afghanistan with only about 20,000 troops

Are you saying we should have killed everyone in Afghanistan or something? That wasn't and isn't the goal




Pull out a topographical map, you will see that Iran is a mountainous country. You can't just roll a few tanks across the border, knock a statue down, and call it a day. Iranians aren't really the quitting type. Last time I checked they used 12 yr olds to CLEAR MINE FIELDS in that war; whereas 3,000 US soldiers have died in Iraq in 3 yrs and Bush has a 32 % approval rating. AINT GONNA HAPPEN SO EASILY!!

Again, who said anything about invading? Invade for what?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeTex
man i'm sick of all this crap, if you middle east people don't get in line we gonna have to send 20 drunk texans over there to straighten y'all out..


Yeah you did do a good job raping/killing the NAI children and women untill the point of their extinction... Maybe its you yank fools who should get in line and stop thinking you have the god given right to run the world.

Lets face it you cant control a bunch of armed civilians in Iraq nevermind Iran, your armed forces are a joke, despite the best technology in the world your incompetence shines thru, the USA always underestimates the small enemies they constantly attack and always come out looking like mongrol dogs with their tails between their legs.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Well, according to this NewsMax Report, Iran is certainly gearing up to defend Iran. And while NewsMax might not be the most reputable news site on the internet, this is an interesting report on Iranian defense strategy.

According to the report, the Iranians intend to mine the Straits of Hormuz to attack shipping by using suicide attack boats and sea skimming missiles -- all in all, a credible plan given the suicidal mentality of the fundamentalist factions in control of Iran.

Reports like this make me keenly aware that the U.S. and any nation would think twice about attacking Iran. Attacking any nation is not a desirable tactic but it is one that is only used when all viable diplomatic options are exhausted. And, of course, the U.S. fears losing a war -- any war -- with Iran or any other country. But losing is not an option when the result is living a life under the threat of nuclear blackmail.

If the U.S. does attack Iran, it will not be a land invasion. A land invasion is simply not necessary to achieve the aims and goals of stopping nuclear proliferation. All that is necessary is that the U.S. destroy Iraq's' capability of producing nuclear weapons and materiel. This goal can be achieved through the use of cruise missiles, conventional missiles with "bunker busting" warheads. Additionally Stealth Bombers will wreak havoc on Iran's air force and, of course, Iran's missile capabilities.

And, if the U.S. were to attack Iran, they would certainly not go in alone. You can bet that Israel will participate in any such attack. Given the record of Israel's Air Force, the U.S. will have a most capable partner.

Forget all thoughts of a ground war in Iran. This will not -- I repeat -- be a ground war. This war will be fought in the skies and the skies are "owned" by the U.S.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I see ignorance is still running rampant on ATS...


Originally posted by HiddenReality
Yeah you did do a good job raping/killing the NAI children and women untill the point of their extinction... Maybe its you yank fools who should get in line and stop thinking you have the god given right to run the world.

lol
You have the Spanish and English to thank for that (the French...eh...not so much).


Blaming America for stuff before America even exsisted.
Brilliant!


Lets face it you cant control a bunch of armed civilians in Iraq nevermind Iran, your armed forces are a joke

Care to cite examples of our armed forces being a "joke."
Has it ever occured to you that politics plays a huge part in wars?
Do you honestly think that if politics weren't part of the equation we would be hearing about any (alive) insurgents right now?


despite the best technology in the world your incompetence shines thru, the USA always underestimates the small enemies they constantly attack and always come out looking like mongrol dogs with their tails between their legs.

Again, I'd like for you to cite ANY examples of this where politics played no part.





top topics
 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join