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 the US needs to go into Iran NOW with all guns blazing

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE
I thought the same thing about 3 months ago but now i think becasue of china and russia we should go the diplomatic route




War's not supposed to be fair or humane. War's about defeating the enemy and making them think twice about engaging you in conflict again. I don't see what's wrong with employing DU rounds, white phosphourus or other similiar weapon's systems.


So if some invading army came running in firing radoiactive rounds and white hot rounds you would see there side and see that they only want your country not attck them again?

Yeah, the material in the DU rounds is slightly radioactive, but it's not like the Americans are making .50 rounds out of them. They're primarily used to knock out the bad guy's armour (on the ground or from the air). As for WP; what's so inhumane about it? I do know that getting shot is a pretty painful deal too - perhaps we should ban bullets as well as WP?




posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
So you don't see the difference between nerve gas, or low-yield nukes and phosphourus. Do you even know the origins of WP or that despite it being classified as a chemical agent, it's been used by armed forces worldwide in numerous conflicts (used a lot against the Japanese in the Pacific during WWII)?


No...let's be real straight. I don't see the difference between any given nation when you make the following callous statement:


War's not supposed to be fair or humane. War's about defeating the enemy and making them think twice about engaging you in conflict again.


That precludes you getting to "cherry pick" the acceptable weapons.


War's not supposed to be fair or humane. War's about defeating the enemy and making them think twice about engaging you in conflict again.


With that said, nerve gas, low-yield nukes and phosphorus would definitely make an enemy think twice about attacking, now wouldn't they?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   


Yeah, the material in the DU rounds is slightly radioactive, but it's not like the Americans are making .50 rounds out of them. They're primarily used to knock out the bad guy's armour (on the ground or from the air). As for WP; what's so inhumane about it? I do know that getting shot is a pretty painful deal too - perhaps we should ban bullets as well as WP?


Whats inhumane is the people cleaning up the battle field of these DU rounds witch leads to all sorts of cancers and basicly rots your insides



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Well that's the way things work in the real world mate. That's real politics - unless you're the kind of person that follows the school of thought that we've gotta be the one's to be seen doing things by the letter; cos hopefully then the bad guys will stop doing bad things and play nicely with us for once.

Ever wondered why the League of Nations, for example, fell on it's arse only years after it had been set up? The League of Nations told the Japanese to stay out of Manchuria and the Japanese told the LON to go jump; 'we're not playing with you anymore.' Nothing was done about the Japanese gobbling up Manchuria and large swathes of China....which led partly to that fateful day in 1941.

Iran doesn't want to play nice - they've made that crystal clear. So now it's up to the Americans to go in there and sort them out.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
And what does Iran want to do?Take out that nation of mass murderers and terrorists called Israel?If only they could!



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
America is the one who threatens not only Iran but several countries at a time, then when their enemies say theyll fight back if attacked merrycan propaganda machine starts screaming : "can you belive the nerve!!! They want to attack us!!! Nuke `em!!!

Yeah ridiculous, imagine they will defend their country, PROPOSTROUS, how dare they !!!



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

The Chinese ground the US led UN forces to a standstill in Korea - the US couldn't win the war on the ground in Vietnam (nor the did the country as a whole have the stamina to last it out in Vietnam - the Americans didn't despose Saddam in 1991; they merely booted the Iraqi's out of Kuwait - the Americans left Somalia with their tales between their legs -
[edit on 3-20-2006 by Valhall]


Actually politicians caused all of the above. If the military had been given "free reign" to do what was necessary the US would have won all of the conflicts mentioned.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Iran is a little defensive at the moment and can you blame them?If someone said you were a part of the "axis of evil"you might just feel a little threatened.Infact you might be a wee bit angry and start throwing threats and sabre rattling hoping you don't end up like that other member of the "axis of evil".



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
The reason the USA needs to go and hit them now,
is all time, the UN, security council, the rhetoric.... does absolutley NOTHING, accept allow your enemy to PREPARE, MILITARISE, and plan how your going to keep your military machine running, after the initial 'cowardly' night time sneak attack.

if the USA DONT go in, Iran has the confidence and cheak to believe the USA wouldnt dare face a war with them, until they actually do something horrendous.

If they dont go in, it risks the apocolyps aftermath shall Iran terrorists detonate a crude nuke on israel.

Because its quite obvious, with the ' death to israel ' chanting, the 'remove israel from the map' idea's, and now there sudden interest in aquirering spent fuel rods that IRAN leaders arent scared of a large battle resulting in the death of there countrymen.

why arent they scared you ask?

"Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam"

Because this man believes, he can remove his 2 greatest enemies in one foul swoop, and bring back the imam..

all he needs to do is start it,
all he needs is a functioning bomb.

It will be quick, and unexpected.
I beleive one bomb will be detonated out at sea, then minutes later a second bomb on israel.
They wont test it and wait a while, for the world to react..
as soon as they see the test bomb out at sea go off, they'll immediately push the button for down town israel.

And before the world knows it, the greatest challenge for mankind peace will be put into motion.

But when its all over?... mankind will be in a state of peace, fossil fuels would have been removed from the collective nations of the world. we will ultimately destroy the middleeast, making it a barron wasteland, muslims will be a minority around the world, only in there numbers... they'll still beleive in there god, and prey him, but they will understand the west wont tolerate finatical followers.

During this war, the imam and the antichrist will be found, not as special beings that emerged from the skies in charriots of fire,
but out of a comman man, from good morals and values, who leads his men taking charge and becoming a dedicated player in the interest of civilisations..


But then again, thinking all this...

is the west prepared to sacrifice so much of its men and creativitiy to change this whole world?...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Been reading for too long not to chime in with the unstated obvious....If we wanted to truely WIN any war, past or present, we would be labeled as animals (more so than now even.) The only way to attain true victory is to annihilate the enemy until they holler uncle. We now have rules, and these things called human-rights that seperate us from the rest of the animal world. We dont slaughter people. We kill bad guys, and we let the civies be. Our current problems stem from our inability to tell from the two.

If we wanted, we could kill every single living thing in that part of the world. Our immense military budget alone is testament to this fact. Total annihilation doesnt necessarily even mean nukes.

We are caught in the ultimate struggle. How does the good guy win when he has to play by good guy rules, whereas the bad guy adheres to none? They expect us to beg for mercy when they capture and behead a few civilians, yet are we applauded if we blast an entire city to ruins? Its like bringing a gun to a knife fight...but we can't shoot anyone but terrorists, yet the bad-guys can cut anybody...On a long enough timeline we prevail, but its a damn long timeline.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

all he needs to do is start it,
all he needs is a functioning bomb.

It will be quick, and unexpected.
I beleive one bomb will be detonated out at sea, then minutes later a second bomb on israel.
They wont test it and wait a while, for the world to react..
as soon as they see the test bomb out at sea go off, they'll immediately push the button for down town israel.

And before the world knows it, the greatest challenge for mankind peace will be put into motion.


Sorry, I got a little chuckle from this. You are stating this as if you know it will happen. Do you really think they would nuke Israeli, when it would result in, not only, the deaths of many pallestinians (muslims), but also the complete erradication of their country? Think logically. Nobody's gonna nuke anyone unless they are attacked first.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearHead



Say that to the liberals and they'll tear you to pieces.

I understand your point, and it does make sense. But we currently live in a world governed by certain rules that shouldn't be broken. There's something called the Geneva Convention. Maybe you should do some research on it.


heres a question, if our enemies dont follow it, should we still be bound to it? i say once the enemy crosses that line we should start fighting like they do.


also, if theres a draft in the US, there will be mass civil unrest in the United States. President Bush stated in the debates on national television that there would be no draft. im sure he wouldnt want to have to deal with unrest in two countries espically if one is the one hes president of.

[edit on 3-20-2006 by KrazyIvan]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Nation-building doesn't seem to work, at least not quickly. It's been proven over and over with Iraq being only the latest example. I don't think the U.S. or allied nations will invade Iran, just bomb the nuclear sites and political command and control centers and just hope and cross their fingers a better regime will arise naturally out of the rubble.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
the only guns going in are on planes or going to be used by spec ops to assasinate the president of Iran.

they will not bring in us militairy ground forces in , not the major groups of infantary and marines.
they will use satelites and ucavs , b2 , f117 , b52 , (some secret black planes) and submarines and some other ships.
if they are going ahead it will be sudden with out any notice and they first signs will be explosions. as they will use stealth planes and bombers and use cruise misseles launches from subs.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by NuclearHead



Say that to the liberals and they'll tear you to pieces.

I understand your point, and it does make sense. But we currently live in a world governed by certain rules that shouldn't be broken. There's something called the Geneva Convention. Maybe you should do some research on it.


heres a question, if our enemies dont follow it, should we still be bound to it? i say once the enemy crosses that line we should start fighting like they do.


also, if theres a draft in the US, there will be mass civil unrest in the United States. President Bush stated in the debates on national television that there would be no draft. im sure he wouldnt want to have to deal with unrest in two countries espically if one is the one hes president of.

[edit on 3-20-2006 by KrazyIvan]


Of course, there may not even be a need for a draft. If another 9/11-like event happened, and all of the evidence pointed right at Iran, you wouldn't need a draft, and the US Military would be turning away people.

Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Lanton, do you have any idea of the war casulties that would result from invading Iran? We aren't talking about a few hundred people here, we're talking about a few hundred thousand people. Is that what you want to see? Just what is so important that we should invade Iran right now?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
The main thing here that should be considered is that Chian and Russia have HUGE investments and energy interests in Iran.

They will not stand down and allow the US to carpet bomb, invade and occupy.

The US will look to Isreal to return the favor for policing the arab world for a decade and that will be for them, Isreal, to send in jets to take out specific targets but that will prove to be a mistake as Iran has plenty of SS-N-22's supplied by Moscow.

The Russian missile deployed in Iran is the P270 Moskit [Mosquito], known in NATO circles as the SS-N-22 "Sunburn", once described by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher as "the most dangerous anti-ship missile in the Russian, and now the Chinese, fleet.” The ship borne version of this missile is launched from deck mounted quad tubes, but since Rohrabacher made his comments, Russia has adapted the Sunburn for submerged launch from submarines, air launch from Sukhoi 27s, and single surface launch from modified 40’ flatbed trucks. Nowadays, western defense experts unambiguously view all versions of Sunburn as the “most dangerous missiles in the world”.

Each Sunburn will hurtle out of its launcher riding on the white-hot tail of a booster rocket, while its special ramjet lights and cycles up to full thrust. Then rapidly sinking back to an undetectable cruising altitude of approximately 60 feet, each missile will accelerate to Mach 2.2 [1,520 mph] in less than 30 seconds, with a total flight time from Damascus to Tel Aviv of around three minutes. When the end finally comes for Israel, it will all be over in microseconds. Flying faster than rifle bullets, the Sunburns will approach Tel Aviv and Haifa at twice the speed of sound, detonating in blinding white 200 Kiloton flashes designed to instantly transform animal vegetable and mineral into heat and light.

Then there is this...


Though Sunburn can fly 150 kilometers at Mach 2.1 [1,520 mph] at an average altitude of 60 feet, Onyx leaves this performance for dead. Using the same launch tubes as Sunburn, Onyx streaks along its extended 200+ kilometer flight path at a blistering Mach 2.9 [2,100 mph], while hugging the ground even closer at an average altitude of only 45 feet. Onyx is 100% “Fire and Forget”, meaning that once out of the launch tube, flight management is entirely automatic, and you can forget the doomed 93,000-ton aircraft carrier sitting meekly down range, only minutes away from being converted into environmentally-friendly heat and light.

Though SS-N-25 deployment might seem like giant overkill, this is far from being the case, because Onyx differs from Sunburn in one utterly crucial way. So great is the kinetic energy at the point of impact on the target, that Onyx can sink an American aircraft carrier using only a conventional penetrating warhead. Those boffins who might doubt this should calculate the impact energy of 5,500 pounds of missile striking a carrier at a terminal velocity of 2,460 feet per second. Onyx means that Russia or China can sink American aircraft carriers at will without ever having to escalate to nuclear warfare, which gives both countries a massive strategic advantage.


____________________________________________________________

Iran is a BAD idea.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by The_Voice]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
america just signed deal to develop the nuclear weapons industry of india....who never ever signed up to the international non-proliferation treaty and who exploded nuclear bombs in tests in 1974.....

iran has always been a member of the non-proliferation treaty and has never ever been known to breach it.....

so america sells enriched uranium to india and threatens to attack iran....

it must be the icing on the cake for the military-industrial complex in america to just be able to sit back and watch their own docile zombie population justify the most unjustifiable of breaches of international law....

where is any shred of proof that iran has a nuclear weapons program ?????

even if iran had 300 fully functional nuclear warheads......what threat are they to america siting thousands of miles away across the ocean with 24 000 nuclear warheads ....many of which are mobile circling the globe on nuclear armed hidden submarines ????

only 1 nation has ever used nuclear technology to kill= america

only 1 nation has ever been convicted of terrorist acts in the International Court of Justice=america

only 1 nation has the IQ barbequed worm=america

cheers
postgradspy



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Another very scary development if true,

This information was found at the Middle East Newsline

Middle East Newsline



"The Iranians have achieved a major breakthrough in missile development with North Korean help that would allow Teheran to fire a nuclear missile toward Europe," an intelligence source said. "It's likely that Iran has already obtained at least one nuclear warhead. The threat of one mushroom cloud is enough to deter Europe."



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
It seems you are completely wrong, you think it's about resources and unstable gov's, not at all. It's about world control, money and power. But we don't need that oil if we'd put the same amount of money the war costs into clean energy technologies, but thoses same people wouldn't benefit of it, so it is not a solution for them. You are citing that the us is bad at wining wars, it is not about winning a war, for me a war can't be won, because if you go to war you allready lost. There not any valid reason for me to attack a souvereign nation that is not threathning another. The US is a war-economy, and the western world in general. We should go to a peace-economy, and get off that best-democracy-can-buy capital system, that is killing our planet, our air, our people our species, are plants....everything.

Freedom - love and truth is the answer, but also acces to real non-partizan information.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join