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.

 

Iran Issues Stark Military Warning to USA

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoQuest
The US Government is making a very big mistake to attack Iran militarily IMHO. Better to leave them. The Ayatollahs lack popularity and Nejad presidency would lose legitimacy. Instead we give these guys something to run on. As for nukes, I don't believe Iran has any, and is making any because I don't believe they can. If they do have some, someonr gave it to them, which is something that could happen anyway. If they do want to make them they won't have them anytime soon.



Your position is understanable, but you seem to have neglected one inportant fact--there are forces (Illuminati or whomever) that control the so-called decision makers. If you study the life of Bush, you will come to understand that it is inconceivable to think he just has this drive to wipe "terrorism" off the map. He is being influenced/controlled by those whose shadows we can't even see. You have a good mind, but you ae using it to reason utterly false premises.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by MilitantAngel]




posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Maybe Iraq didn't resist to give America a sense of confidence that it can go into Iran too and do the same but actually an attack on Iran would be the welcoming move to give Iran the excuse to obliterate Israel and give a massive blow to U.S. support in the world and at home.

Would the U.S. win a war with Iran? Sure, ok. At what cost? Israel, our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, our Navy in two seas and a crushing blow to Oil exports around the world.

Iran is not just issuing rhetoric to the U.S., it is in a sense calling U.S.'s bluff that it can easily destroy Iran's nuclear ability with a surgical strike. It would take a massive war that could result in the unification of islamic republics, create multiple theatres of war and eventually create the third would war.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by 00PS]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Iran stands absolutely no chance of having its conventional military survive a US invasion. Iraq was one of hte great regional miliatry powers in teh middle east, and it's conventional military was defeated utterly and completely and permanently.

Iran could have a more powerful and better organized resistance to the occupation, but it can't prevent the occupation.


Nygdan, come on chap, I know your much clevere than that...

Iraq was THE power in the ME during the 80's. Post 91 she was a wreck and in `03, her armed forces were much like Hitlers fictitious SS divisions he pushed around on the map in the last days of the Reich.

Her Generals were all bribed, her troops deserted their positions, her airpower was non-existent, she had piss-poor air defences... I could spend all day listing all the differences between Iraq 03 and Iran now.

Iran, on the other hand, has had a relatively free hand in building and developing her forces for some time. Free from the restrictions of sanctions and with a sizeable income from Oil, she is in a far better state than Iraq EVER was.

Please, don't fool yourself into thinking this will be easier than Iraq. Thats just bloody stupid and your not. We will win, but at what cost is the question here.

Yes, we will bomb them viciously from the air, but once it gets on the ground, which it will as this is going to escalate from "surgical strikes" to a nasty ground fight, then we have a whole different ball game.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Marge, if the US invades, which I don't think we will, but if we do then Iran’s conventional military will fare no better then Iraq’s did in 91 or 03.


I disagree it has been over 20 years since that time and Iran may very well have some more modern weapons that Saddam had back in 91 and 93.

Still no enough against US conventional weapons but nerveless weapons to cause harm.



Now, the area in which they can cause problems is in the occupation phase.


Another occupation on another country will be devastating to our nation financial means and also to our troops taken in consideration that Iraq is just next door with all kind of problems already.

The entire region can become a completely mess with no end and a lot casualties.

Iraqi insurgency will join the Iranian one to make a big regional nightmare with not borders.



This is one of the many reason I would not support an invasion of Iran over the Nuclear issue.


I agree with you on that one.

That is why if US just wants to have a surgical assault to stop nuclear weapons from been make it will have to be just that, no invasion.

But if US even hint another invasion and occupation of Iran, we the people in this country will have to stop it, because it will be the biggest mistake that our nation will ever make it will make Vietnam looks like child play.

Why? because the entire region will united to fight occupation, it will not be just Iran but already unstable Iraq that will join forces.

The role will change from the Iraqi people wanting a Saddam out to the Iraqi and Iranian people fighting for their lands.

You may disagree with me but the people of Iraq and Iran would fight to preserve their lands and resources.

Saddam was hated but in Iran people support the government.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Iran, on the other hand, has had a relatively free hand in building and developing her forces for some time. Free from the restrictions of sanctions and with a sizeable income from Oil, she is in a far better state than Iraq EVER was.


And the US military isn’t better off today then she was in 91? Please, I know you don't seriously think that Iran stands a chance in conventional fight against the US Military. And I’m curious as to how you envision this turning in to ground war, care to elaborate for us?


I disagree it has been over 20 years since that time and Iran may very well have some more modern weapons that Saddam had back in 91 and 93.

Still no enough against US conventional weapons but nerveless weapons to cause harm.


Actually Marge it was only 15 years ago, and people seem to forget that the US Military has not stayed stagnant for those 15 years. If Iran is more advanced than Iraq was in 91 so is the US Military of today from the one in 91. Now can people see why the outcome of today will be no different than that of 91?

[edit on 16-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Westy, did I say that at all? Please point out the post where I said the US stayed stagnant? I am well aware of the progress the US has made. In the same vein, can you seriously believe the Iranian military has stayed stagnant?

My point is this. While the US undoubtably has a superior air arm, the difference on the ground is not so vast as to be a walkover for the Yanks and any other dopy monkeys silly enough to follow them. You have a hard enough time against the insurgency, for crying out loud.

As to the reason why I envisage this to turn into a ground war? I've said it before, but I'll repeat it.

Do you honestly expect the Iranians to sit and be bombed like good little enmies, like the Serbians did in 1999. Even then, the damage done by airstrikes to the Serbian military was minimal, hence the switch to strategic targets half way through the campaign.

The Iranians will retaliate, escalating the situation further. You could see a possible incursion into Iraq, seeing as we have men there. The whole thing will not be limited to "surgical strikes" by any means.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I mean to said 15 but got 20 instead.

I never said US is not better now than 10 years ago or 15 but even with all it’s might still can not control a country through occupation.

Because Iraq is still with not control.

Hopefully for our nations sake it will be an air assault and nothing else.

If our present administration decides after the assault to go ahead and invade then even you should question the intentions and state of mind of the people that are now in charge of our country.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

This sounds pretty ominous. I pray we do not take any nuclear action.


Ever heard of the saying, speak softly but carry a big stick? What’s coming out of Iran is just rhetoric, that all. Kind of like Saddam promising the “mother of all battles”.


I agree. I think Baghdad Bob got all his training in Iran. Tehran is blowing smoke because of what has been in the media about the United States readying to launch an attack on Iran at any time -- which just may be true...Worry on!



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I think if the US really wanted to topple Iran, covert support of the reformers who really are not happy that they had a fixed election would be the best way to go about it. We don't need to bomb the hell out of them, we should help them crumble internally. As has been said, many Iranians do not like the mullahs, but this saber rattling makes it easy for the puppet masters and their puppet armanass get popular support cause he makes it appear that all Iranians are a target for the US.

Now I have no doubt that the US would easily destroy Iran's armed forces in a matter of weeks, that would only serve to create anger and more anti-US attitude there. We could easily turn the tables on the mullahs in Iran.

All we have to do is back off a bit, provide covert support, and push our position in the UN. Let the EU do the war talking. Let the EU make the Military movements while the US sits back all the while prepping for war but doing so quietly. There is no reason the US has to be at the forefront here.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Immediately following the first wave of US fighters, you will see the end of the oil facilities along the East coast of Sudia Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and ships and shipping through the straight of Ormuz. Israel will be hurt along with other middle east countries with friendly tiies to the US. Oil flow from the middle east will become a trickle and Japan and great Britain along with other US allies will lean closer to Russia, and Venezuela will sell to to anyone but us. Yes we will win the battle of Iran but continue to lose the war.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Remember him from Sadam's regime?


Springer...



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

My point is this. While the US undoubtably has a superior air arm, the difference on the ground is not so vast as to be a walkover for the Yanks and any other dopy monkeys silly enough to follow them. You have a hard enough time against the insurgency, for crying out loud.


Key word here, repeat after me, Insurgency, not Army. Iraq’s Army was decimated both in 91 and 03. Now, I have said from post one that if we try to occupy Iran then they can mount and insurgency and cause problems for us, however their conventional military is no match for the US. Also, "the difference on the ground is not so vast"? I beg to differ, care to name some Iranian systems that even come close to being compared to their US counterparts?


Do you honestly expect the Iranians to sit and be bombed like good little enmies, like the Serbians did in 1999. Even then, the damage done by airstrikes to the Serbian military was minimal, hence the switch to strategic targets half way through the campaign.


No, I expect them to retaliate through indirect means toward the US, they wont have any direct retaliatory options left once the Air Strikes commence.


The Iranians will retaliate, escalating the situation further. You could see a possible incursion into Iraq, seeing as we have men there. The whole thing will not be limited to "surgical strikes" by any means.


No, we wont. They’re going to invade essentially a forward US military base full of US forces and assets? Don't think so mate. One, you cant hope to succeed without air cover, and you cant hope to defeat a vastly superior force by driving straight toward them. Iran knows this and unless they want their entire military destroyed they would never attempt such a foolish thing. It would be the same as Saddam in 91 trying to invade Kuwait with US forces already in place, well, you can guess how long that invasion would have lasted.

_________________________________________________________________________________


never said US is not better now than 10 years ago or 15 but even with all it’s might still can not control a country through occupation.


Agreed, that’s why I’m not advocating nor discussing that notion.


Hopefully for our nations sake it will be an air assault and nothing else.


Agreed again, I said I would not support an invasion of Iran over the Nuclear issue as it stands now and I mean it.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
My point is this. While the US undoubtably has a superior air arm, the difference on the ground is not so vast as to be a walkover for the Yanks and any other dopy monkeys silly enough to follow them. You have a hard enough time against the insurgency, for crying out loud.


You seem to forget that the air land and naval forces all work together at once. Its called network centric warfare, they are all connected through communications systems. Even if the US had inferior land forces to Iran, its this doctrine that makes the US military the power it is just as much as its technology does. The fact is, the US not only has superior firepower, power projection, technology, and training, but also the most important aspect that brings all that together, and that is doctrine.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Ahhh the famed insurgency and their greatness against the pitiful US Military. Here it is 3 years after the war started and US losses are less in those 3 years then in any 1 year of fighting in any of the previous wars this nation has ever been in. Also consider the roe the US forces are having to put up with, can't go into mosques, can't just level a known insurgent village. We have gone to great lengths to keep civ. casulaties down while the insurgents do all they can to kill anyone and everyone.

If the US took the gloves off and just went on S&D missions this insurgency would be gone in a week.

As for the flow of oil being stopped, and all those areas destroyed, yeah the pitiful US forces are no match for the superior Iranian Missiles and such. I mean the US has no solid fuel missiles, or MiRV's or any of those fancy stealth airplanes or ABM sytems at all. And the straits, how can anyone expect the US Navy to be a match for all those Iranian warships?



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Guess we'll just have to wait and see, Westy. I could post facts about Irans capabilities, possibilities of what could happen etc and vice versa with yourself.

At the end of the day, I'm not saying that the US/UK/whoever joins in won't be able to win. I am merely pointing out that this is going to be far tougher than some of you hawks seem to think it will be. Not respecting your enemy is a major oversight and has been the downfall of many a superior force throughout history.

The sheer size of their Military (and we're not talking conscripts here, they have a sizeable Regular force of volunteers), plus their ability to severely disrupt shipping could pose major logistical problems for the guys in Iraq.

Air strikes may work if targetting their Nuclear sites only. But sustaining air strikes in a situation where you logistics and ability to launch these strikes can be compromised will be difficult.

As I said earlier, the NATO inability to hit Serbian military targets in 1999 shows that Air power alone does not a war win.

Just be prepared for casualties and a whole lot of mess when the proverbial poo hits the fan.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Valid warnings, stumason.


Accordingly though, I recall that pretty much what you are saying was said prior to the First Gulf War...and the Second.





seekerof



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Valid warnings, stumason.


Accordingly though, I recall that pretty much what you are saying was said prior to the First Gulf War...and the Second.

seekerof


Indeed, but to be honest, Iraq then (both 91 and 03) does not compare to the abilities of Iran now.

By all means, Iran is not a match for the Western forces, but she is far more capable an enemy than Iraq ever was.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
MOAB information:

usmilitary.about.com...

With the ordinance we have at our disposal, I don't think nuclear will be required.



fuel-air bomb is much better. it will literally suck the lungs out of a person



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Yes stumason I agree, war by no means is easily predictable and the potential always exists for surprises which can be devastating. However I’m merely stating how I think the situation is likely to unfold. Also, fair point you make about the Oil Shipping, its a very vulnerable target due to the layout of the region.


[edit on 16-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes stumason I agree, war by no means is easily predictable and the potential always exists for surprises which can be devastating. However I’m merely stating how I think the situation is likely to unfold. Also, fair point you make about the Oil Shipping, its a very vulnerable target due to the layout of the region.


[edit on 16-4-2006 by WestPoint23]


See, it's nice when we can reach a middle ground
..if only all discussions could go like this




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join