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.

 

Who would win the war? need your help :)

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omega85
Couldnt agree more allthough i would like bush to suffer a load more then being thrown in jail


Of course!
He should be beaten 1 day for every people he killed...

So here's the count... 9/11 = 2986 deaths Afghanistan = between 20 000 and 50 000 deads... Iraq = US military = 2359+ Iraqi = between 35 000 and 100 000...

So he could spend 119 986 days to be beaten, 328.5 years, or so, from an average US lifetime of 77 years, 4,33 lives. So even if Bush dies at 90, and he surely will not, he owes us 4 lives of suffering... IF he doesn't attack Iran..


[edit on 12-4-2006 by Vitchilo]




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   
LOL thats awsome hehe.
some see bush as Hitler Reincarate. what do the people of this forum think about that??



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Bush has some Hitler's caracteristic but Hitler is better, he was a genius and Bush is just dumb. Those who really control him and influence him are his father, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rize, Clinton and of course, the lobbies and in particular, the Israeli lobby which is the most powerful.

And for paying for his crimes... if he have a soul, his soul will suffer for a great time before he even reincarnate.. He will do a lot of time, I would say aproximately, the half of eternity in the purgatory... hell, even sadam hussein wouldn't do that much time! The guy who surely spend the most time in the purgatory is Hitler!

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omega85

Just a question . how do u know for sure that the US has more advanced technology then the middle east??
And in the case of the two parties blowing each others countries off the face off the earth how can u say that the US would win?? people would die everywhere in both countries and everything would fall to pieces so i believe that should that event arise both sides would Lose bigtime.

Just a thought
Omega

ps.I have heared that countries around the globe think that they could wipe China off the map if they wanted to , like it would be crushing a paper cup But china has the biggest army the world has ever seen and as for the technology part of things who is to say that there not as advanced if not more advanced then the most "powerfull" countries put together?

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Omega85]


Well, first of all, with the M.A.D. part; I meant more, even if things when their worst, we wouldn't really 'lose' because we'd make sure to take the enemy down with us. As for the more advanced technology part, this is just my educated guess on the matter considering we have not only more advanced technology among our general population; but also an extremely large military fund, I believe one of the biggest if not the biggest in the world that pays for research on newer weapons all the time. And considering that even if Iran HAS had the technology to make nuclear weapons for a lot longer than they claim, I doubt they have so far mass produced them to the quantity at which the U.S. holds. Furthermore, Iran is what I consider to be a peripheral country, and peripheral countries are usually underdeveloped in the fields of economics, politics, and technology. As for the part about China; I don't think the U.S. would have an easy time at all against China, China is believed to have some of the most advanced weaponry on the face of earth. However, just as with Iran, I believe it might come down to a M.A.D. war, which isn't all that unbelievable considering the M.A.D. acronym was basically created in light of the dawn of nuclear weapons. It's the reason that countries don't use them against each other in wars, in addition to the internationl agreements. It's because they know if they use them, their enemies will sue them two, resulting in the elimination of both of them. Just my 2 cents.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Omniscient]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I greatly value your opinion to me it seems like a wise and well thought out one .
However i dont see how u can say that be the US going down and taking the opposing country with it that the US would still win.
How can a country that has been brought down by war to ruins "win"?
I am Still of the opinion that noone wins in war of any kind in this world .
By the way Your reply to my post i found was indeed a smart and interlectual one and i would like to thank u for opening my eyes to a few little facts. i appreciate it.and remember we all have our own opinion.


Cheers
Omega



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Thanks, I guess 'win' wasn't the correct wording. My opinion relies more on the "not lose" wording, because we might 'tie' or we might win, but loss is doubtful to me. I see your opinions as well, though.

-Omniscient



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Thanks, I guess 'win' wasn't the correct wording. My opinion relies more on the "not lose" wording, because we might 'tie' or we might win, but loss is doubtful to me. I see your opinions as well, though.

-Omniscient



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I thank u for your mutual unserstanding.

Omega



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Militarily Ameirca will win but in the long run the fall out will come back to seriously hurt the US when Iran provides informatioin and technology for Nuclear weapons to sum crazy terrorists.

Your thoughts I have to admit is abstruse, although I support US bomb Iran, but I think US has still not done because of this kind of consequence.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
Winner: Nobody

Scenario US Attacks Iran:
1. U.S. Nuclear Strike on Iran
2. Iran Nuclear Strike on Israel
3. Russia and China Launch on the U.S.

Scenario Iran Attacks US
1. Iran Nuclear Strike on Israel
2. U.S. Counter Strike on Iran
3. China and Russia Launch on the U.S.


Interesting! Do you think Beijing really dare to bomb US?
I can teel you that all of guys who live in Zhongnanhai ARE Scaramouches!
The Jiangzemin for example, are exact afraid of death we all know, he is the No.1 against attack Taiwan because of afraid US will bomb Beijing



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by superhooptyratchetclanker
I don't know...
What, with the flying stealth boats, the super-sonic torpedos and God knows what else, Iran is looking and sounding pretty tough.
On the other hand, Iran is looking and sounding alot like it always has... an angry loudmouth with Photoshop, and a couple of store-bought "Super-Weapons".

Iran is a kitten.
With a bowel problem.

What!!!!!!!?
Do you know what's the speed of Supersonic? One or two weapon can determine the results of war? Whereas the topedo you mentioned only 7 kilos range! Where is F-22, USAF spent huge costs to developed just is rubbish?!



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
Iran has no chance.

Third world guerilla tactics will be less effective then Iraq.

Iran advertise's balsa wood seaplanes and russian torpedos as their deterrent to a US attack. I wonder what the US would showboat if Iran was talking about preemptive Military action against the US.

From what I see Iran has no capabilities I'm worried about. I laugh at their underwater torpedos, they will see our underwater launched missiles when the time comes (hopefully in the next few months). I am personally sick of religion. I am sick of countries that don't seem to have any sensible humanity.

I hope Iran burns, along with the rest of Islam.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by ImplementOfWar]


You looks like a warmonger and egoist. We support bomb Iran just for demiliterize Iran's nuke, not for killing Islamian. Most of Islamians are good, friendly and gentle.We should prevent the nukes from be used by terrorists only.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Who would win? In my opinion, no one.
1) The US is getting spread pretty thin as it is I believe. Things arn't too great in Afganistan and even worse in Iraq, the last thing they should do is go to Iran.
2) The Iranian army is much better equipped then Iraq. Sure it's not close to what the US has, but I don't the Iranian soldiers giving up so easily.
Like what some one else said. Army vs. Army. The US would defeat them, but it's not over after that. They'd have to deal with an Iranian insurgency. That's when things get really messy for either side.

Come back to 1990, most of people would say that Iraq is the strongest armed country in mid-east. But what happened aft?


Originally posted by ElTiante
Mehran, your country is part of a culture that in the last thousand years has contributed nothing but violence to the world.
The only reason any pays even the slightest attention to Iran is because WESTENERS found oil there and pump it out of the ground for you. The day viable alternatives for oil are found is the day the rest of world forgets about Iran.
All around the word (Iran include) people watch American moves, listen to American Music, wear American fashion and follow American culture. I couldn't name a single Iranian athlete, but I'll but you and whole lot of other Iranians know who Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan are.
Why is this? It's because America is vibrant, successful country. Yours is a country with a dead, 15th century culture and can only offer violence.


Originally posted by Vitchilo
ElTiante and ImplementOfWar are the worst racists, no lifes and no knowledge at all about Iran (unless CNN)!!! Congratulations!!
[edit on 5-4-2006 by Vitchilo]

I consider that ElTiante is right! Think about Iran's government kidnaped embassise for hardware of weapon! How schwarmerei it is! One day you don't want to give the government money they will kill all your family!


Originally posted by Clipper
America has lost the propoganda war in Iraq. In other words, its actions have created 10,000 Bin Ladens, as the intelligence services warned it would.
However bad Saddam was, most of the world now think America is also a bad guy. After so much sympathy following 9/11, Bush is now the most hated man on the planet. Hatred and anger for America already could result in nuclear devices being used in American cities.
The American borders with Mexico and the ports are not being protected well enough. It could happen anytime. We know there are missing nukes and America has given the motivation. But the terrorists don't even need nukes to cause devastation. The 9/11 hijackers used knives and box cutters. A determined terrorist could cause mayhem with a knife or a rocket launcher and most airline cargo is not checked.
If America bombs Iran, the consequences could be World War 3. We just don't know how it could esculate.
Certainly most of the allies of America would not support the action. Dead Iranians would be televised around the world. It would be a recruiting sergeant for Al-Qaeda and other groups to hit America. Instead of creating 10,000 Bin ladens there would be 100,000. And tell me how America can stop them?
America would be devastated as nearly every country on the planet condemns it. The dollar would be dumped and the economy would collapse and every newly made terrorist would head straight for America to exercise their revenge. Bush would use extreme draconian measures to prevent further terror attacks, but it would be an impossible fight. What was once a great nation would close in on itself and enter a long period of darkness. A New World Order would begin, that did not include America.

So in your opnion, Bin-lartin have a right to destroy the many skyscrapers. whereas so few has been destroied by him because US hadn't bomb the Tariban and occupy the Iraq?!

Some countries said US have no evidence to prove Bin lartin lived in Afhgan, but what is the result is it at last?
Yes No evidence to prove Sadam were going to develop nuke, but the tyrant had killed so many innocenters that all most people threaten. That's the reason why US army can go through to Baghda without tough resistance. Today the situation not by US Army made whereas because Sadam released maaany mobs before he was be arrested.
Since something you said, I can see why west civilized world did nothing after Tian'anMeng massacre. All you think just trade and money while we fight with tank and helicopter by hand and body. that is why some of young guys back to support Beijing to make trouble to occident!



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Let's come back to the question:who will win the war.
Mainly, there are two opnions.
One is that said US will win.
Two is said that no side will win.
For the side of thinking US will win, the reason is US has advanced weapon, superior tech. etc....
For the side of sayng no one will win, the representation could like this:

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I don't think victory in a war with Iran is tenable for either side.
...........
It is unlikely that air strikes alone would topple the Iranian regime. It isn't impossible, but militants can complicate any efforts by dissident rebels to take control, and it is all but certain that Hezbollah and Al Qaeda would flock to Iran. Sectarian strife in Iraq could spill over the borders into Iran if a significant power vacuum is left and the Mullahs are killed or forced from power. Granted, some of these scenarios are highly unlikely, but we believed it unlikely that an insurgency would still be going on in Iraq by this time as well. Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, could become a swath of land where insurgency and sectarian conflict becomes a way of life. This is why I feel neither Iran nor the U.S. would "win" a war.
All of this assumes Israel does not strike Iran first, unilaterally, or that Israel does not take part in any conflict with Iran as a U.S. ally. Let's just say that many in the reason would be "displeased" by this.
for example.
But these two are totally unrelable. This is a problem concerning two different levels. One is the action could destroy Iran's nuclear power or not, Two is the consequence after attacking Iran. For the second I have to ask what will happen if we do nothing to let Iran get nuke? Before 9-11 US has never invade Islam country but there several thousands people has been killed by hijacker. Before Sadam invade Kuwait, US has never intermiddle the war or conflict between countrise around gulff. Before the embassise has been kidnaped, US was never hostiled to Iran. But we all know what happened then? Yes, there are some trouble happened in IRAQ thesedays, But I have to ask it seem to be no trouble happened after Soviet occupied PRAHA, so would you guys think that is righteous rather than US arrest SADAM?
So the trouble happend or not is not a correct standard. On the other words every things happened in the world is trouble, nothing happened will be no trouble! That is a boloney! There is no orderliness in Iraq today because orderliness has never been there previously, there was tyrent and slaughter only in Iraq, so the people in Iraq has never know what is orderliness, thus need a long process. How long has tyranny been, how long the process will be demanded.
Now move to could US win the war?
The answer is depends on what's the purpose has been set by US decision maker. If they want to estabilish a democracy in Iran, They will lose probably, since Iranian maybe don't want democracy even never know what is liberty. This is a long time mission, not for short time to get.
If the aim was made just is topple the nuclear station in Iran. I perfer to say US will win if the tactics made is right. Why US will win? because US is a democracy and liberty nation, so the people in US are more creative and active, that is the most important point why US can make such many advanced technology others couldn't image. Whereas manage to aim of war relay on technology of weapon we all know.
Remember! Even nothing will be done, trouble or disaster will befallen still. You could do not bomb IRAN but you will never get promiss there is no trouble made with US.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
first of all one comment on that graph: it does not take into account the fact that the USAs economy is centered around a military industrial complex in other word borrowing large sums of money (mostly from foreign sources) and then dumping it into labor intensive defense projects. Comparing Americas debt to countries like Germany is very misleading.

B. I doubt the war will ever come, but:
IRAN
1. US will get into a war of attrition with Iran pounding away at sprawling US bases in Iraq with missiles and will destroy many US military ships with missiles like the sunburn, US casualties in Iraq will triple if not quadruple.
2. US will hit back with some punishing hits of it's own but will be forced to an early ceasefire because teh damage caused by Iranian attacks will be severe enough that they will be desparate for a break.
3. US air bases in Iraq (where most of the attack sorties will have to come from) will be damagaed by missiles and will not be able to deliver the punch that is usually the US knock-out like in Gulf War1 and Yugoslavia.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
1. US will get into a war of attrition with Iran pounding away at sprawling US bases in Iraq with missiles and will destroy many US military ships with missiles like the sunburn, US casualties in Iraq will triple if not quadruple.
2. US will hit back with some punishing hits of it's own but will be forced to an early ceasefire because teh damage caused by Iranian attacks will be severe enough that they will be desparate for a break.
3. US air bases in Iraq (where most of the attack sorties will have to come from) will be damagaed by missiles and will not be able to deliver the punch that is usually the US knock-out like in Gulf War1 and Yugoslavia.


1. If there were a full out war and we suffered triple or quad the casualties we had in the invasion of Iraq, the US would still prevail. While every loss is tragic, the end result would be the destruction of Iran's Military and Economy as well as its Nuclear capabilities. That being said, ground forces and occupation of Iran are not the methods needed to achieve the results stated above.

2. Wishful thinking on your part. Iran does not have the capacity to fight a prolonged military engagement against the U.S. It's indigenous capacity to produce weapons will be destroyed and no weapons from other countries will be coming in.

If there is a full fledged conflict between the U.S. and Iran, Iran's armed forces will be destroyed. No tanks, no APCs, no major bases, No aircraft or airfields, no Navy or ports. In Iraq we were trying NOT to damage the infrastructure while defeating the military. In Iran we will not be hindered by that.

3. Take a look where the U.S. has forces near Iran. If we strike Iran, it will be from multiple nations and locations with the first volleys being cruise missiles and B-2 precision guided munitions. Iran will not know of the first attack until the explosions happen and the B-2's are already on their way out.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Your NOT going to be able to attack from multiple nations, bull#, NO other country wants to have ANYTHING to do with attacks on Iran concerning it's atomic program, that could be suicide for them..you have 1 attack staging ground, Iraq-and the American military position there is weak with their army spread out all over the place and under seige by guerilla armies, those air bases will be severly damaged by Iranian missiles so it's not going to be the kind of concentrated fire-power thtas necessary like in Yugo/Iraq1 cruise missiles and sorties flown from far away are too few and cannot provide close ground support to US troops in Iraq which is necessary just to keep the insurgents off their back. Just yesterday 2/22 Marnins were killed/wounded when they came under ambush, they call close air support and get bailed out all the time like that-it won't be there after Iran pounds the US bases in Iraq with salvos of missiles/airstrikes.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The scenario is:
1. U.S. Nuclear Strike on Iran
2. Iran Nuclear Strike on Israel
3. Israel nuke strike on Iran and every Arab country.
4. Russian nuke strike on Israel in desparate attempt to put at end to the environment destroying counterattack.
5. nuclear winter/everyone (Russia/China/Europe)strikes north america because they were the ones that started it.



Originally posted by emile

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
Winner: Nobody

Scenario US Attacks Iran:
1. U.S. Nuclear Strike on Iran
2. Iran Nuclear Strike on Israel
3. Russia and China Launch on the U.S.

Scenario Iran Attacks US
1. Iran Nuclear Strike on Israel
2. U.S. Counter Strike on Iran
3. China and Russia Launch on the U.S.


Interesting! Do you think Beijing really dare to bomb US?
I can teel you that all of guys who live in Zhongnanhai ARE Scaramouches!
The Jiangzemin for example, are exact afraid of death we all know, he is the No.1 against attack Taiwan because of afraid US will bomb Beijing



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Sorry, I have been thinking theseday continually, and I remember I forgot to say that US also could lose the war. Here is some reasons:
What's the standard to judge the win of war? To get the aim will be suposed to say I think.
Then what's the aim should be established?
Destroy the nuclear power in Iran is the only one exactly...
But, since nuclear power station is so eurychoric in Iran and such secretly that even IAEA factually never knew as we have seen Iran has dallied IAEA as they has anounced that they had already got uranium enrichment ability,so I have to warning that nuclear stations will not be destroied inside out by one or two or several bombs.
So there must being massive and continuouslly bomb. If the bomb is consecutive, and only it is consecutive, Iran will has no ability to intervene in Iraq and has no ability to strike back to allies of US.
I foresee USAF are planning to bomb Iran's nuclear station by taking off from Guam Island through airtan. I strongly suspect that will be successfully get aim. Two or three B-2 will only carry less 100 ton bombs, that is too few to destroy all of targets and will give the time to Iran strike back to Israel and some bases of US Army in Iraq.
Yes, because of US bombers taking off from Guam Island, Iran has no pretense to attack Aribia country, but they can attack Iraq not as Iraq attack IRAN because Iraq has no power to defense themself. So I suggusted that US should and must assemble/concetrate massive Navy force to burn all of targets suspected in Iran simultaneously!



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
This is not a war with a traditional winner.. If this war escalates into something drastic then the only winners are going to be those countries that took a neutral stance and stayed out of it.

More room for the logical ones to breathe.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join