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.

 

Military force ruled out against Iran.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
CX

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I will post a link when it comes, but Sky News are reporting breaking news that Russian sources are saying that "major powers rule out the use of force against Iran". As i say this is breaking news on Sky at the moment so no news links provided at present.

I'm asuming these "major powers" include the US and UK?

Thoughts anyone?

CX.



[edit on 2/6/06 by CX]




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Neither the US nor the UK have the forces available to invade Iran. It's just not possible. The place is far larger than Iraq, plus it hasn't been ground down by a major war followed by crippling sanctions and no-fly zones. Any invasion would have to be a major military operation, involving hundreds of thousands of personnel, because the Iranians would fight - damn hard too.
Bush could only bring it about if he pulled out of Iraq or if he brought back the draft - and that would be political suicide for the Republican Party.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
We've had some sabre-rattling, but US forces are already in there stirring up trouble.

The news that the US and Iran might be entering talks is for me kind of a non-starter. The US wants Iran to give up enrichment before talks start. Iran doesn't want to stop enrichment. How will a way be found out of that impasse? Only time will tell.

However the track record of the US in these kinds of negotiations is not good. They are given to moving the goalposts as each particular issue is resolved, and backing a smaller, weaker nation right into a corner.

Despite the fact that all logic suggests that the US should not launch another war, I think there is still a drive from the neocons to implement the PNAC plan. The question is can they pack the military with enough of their supporters to go down this route?

I also think that some sort of manufactured incident precipitating a war should not be ruled out. The oil bourse is going to come on line soon and already nations are slimming down their dollar reserves.

Who knows which way the psychopaths in charge of the US will jump? I still would not rule out an invasion, plans for which have already been drawn up, troops are in place, with a carrier group... don't know when or how, but I still think it may come.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
The whole thing is a joke. You have Russia constantly playing the "no force" card (which makes a mockery of trying to strong-arm Iran...) and at the same time the US saying that "no option is off the table". Iran doesn't need to try and buy time....the UN powers can talk for weeks and not really get anywhere. We all know the US will do what it wants anyway - if it's made up its mind to attack Iran then that is what will happen. The UNSC is a waste of time - how is it supposed to be effective when the countries on board all have their own agenda?

It's going to be a long, hot, messy summer, I fear



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
i am sure they are spinning to get the iranians to play ball, all the iranians have to do is look whats happening in iraq, that these people are not to be trusted.

of course there will be action, if iran does not do what they want. but i would say to iran, they have not gone and taken over iraq for nothing.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
US military action against Iran and other countries that support the insurgency in Iraq will be a side effect of the occupation of that countrie. Like it or not we havnt seen the last of US military action in the Middle East.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by xpert11]


bih

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   
attack against Iran would be an attack against all muslims



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
Neither the US nor the UK have the forces available to invade Iran. It's just not possible. The place is far larger than Iraq, plus it hasn't been ground down by a major war followed by crippling sanctions and no-fly zones. Any invasion would have to be a major military operation, involving hundreds of thousands of personnel, because the Iranians would fight - damn hard too.
Bush could only bring it about if he pulled out of Iraq or if he brought back the draft - and that would be political suicide for the Republican Party.


Tomorrow, US congress will be debating a new bill to introduce the draft (can't remember the source)



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
US military action against Iran and other countries that support the insurgency in Iraq will be a side effect of the occupation of that countrie. Like it or not we havnt seen the last of US military action in the Middle East.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by xpert11]


And for your sake I hope we don't
Now the question is are you smart enough to understand what i mean?????



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bih
attack against Iran would be an attack against all muslims


Hey there, care to elaborate on this comment?

Maybe I should ask my question differently: So was the War on Afganistan and Iraq and Palestine and what ever will happen next. So your point is?

Maybe the message you need to take is: What the .... is wrong with Islam to be
A) So much hated that is under attack?
B) So useless that can not defend itself?


out.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
The U.S. and/or Israel will attack all sites in Iran suspected of involvement in nuclear production should diplomacy fail to convince the Iranians to abandon their frivoulous ideas. There will be no invasion, airpower and cruise missles will be utilized. Iran will respond by firing missiles into/toward Iraq/Israel, being totally unconcerned about collateral damage and civilian deaths mind you. US/Israeli airpower will silence Iranian missile batteries. Game over.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
see your troops/missles/.. wiping Iran on battlefield then. Till then sleep happy and after keep sleeping happy as Iran will be wiped off quickly and with no resistance so there will be nothing to worry about. US has wiped other races before or at least made a good attempt at it. They succeeded the last time as well so if history is anything you guys are fine


Iranians can't even think or be creative so no problems there. They just might even turn their cheek and ask you to hit them on the other side.


I forgot, in 79 after irans reveloution where Iran virtually had no Army, Us went in as well didn't they? The plan was we drop in, extract the embassy staff and move out. Game Over!

guess what it was
I mean we all know that US can plan everything and they never make a mistake or miscalculate enemy capabilities.


lol smokenmirrors I just read your signature
did you write that?

[edit on 5-6-2006 by zurvan]

[edit on 5-6-2006 by zurvan]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
Neither the US nor the UK have the forces available to invade Iran.

The majority of US active combat brigades are not stationed in Iraq, or even overseas. The US has a large reserve of warmaking capacity.


Any invasion would have to be a major military operation, involving hundreds of thousands of personnel, because the Iranians would fight - damn hard too.

Indeed. And there are many, many, more active combat brigades to throw into it than there are in iraq.


Bush could only bring it about if he pulled out of Iraq or if he brought back the draft - and that would be political suicide for the Republican Party.

The troop counts do not support this idea at all. A small force was able to defeat the Iraqi Army. Clearly, Iran's army will require a larger force, but there is still such a huge reserve of these active combat brigades, that they could easily send enough to have 'overwhelming force'.


rich23
Despite the fact that all logic suggests that the US should not launch another war,

Iran has repeatedly stated that the US is 'the great satan', its a country lead be religious zealots, that kind of rhetoric is't symbolic or allegorical, its literal. As much of a religious nut bush is, would you think that if he called a country 'The Tool of evil Satan" that he wouldn't be plotting to destroy it? Added to that is the fact that Iran is not legally permitted to have nuke weapons, as per the agreements that they themselves signed, and yet they certainly appear to be trying to develop that capacity.
On top of that, they fund international terrorist organizations. Post 911, that combination is a death sentence.


bih
attack against Iran would be an attack against all muslims

Since when does Iran represent all muslims? Iran is dominated by the Shi'ites, so whats it got to do with the Sunnis, if nothing else? If the US wanted to attack all muslims, it'd bomb mecca, which it could easily do. The US doesn't want to attack islam or muslims, its going to be attacking Iran because Iran is the enemy of the United States.



scubadiver
Tomorrow, US congress will be debating a new bill to introduce the draft

The bill was introduced by Rangell, a democrat, and he created it knowing that it would be shot down, like the last draft bill he introduced, which was shot down by the republican majority congress.


smokenmirrors
There will be no invasion, airpower and cruise missles will be utilized

I very much doubt this, there is no way to know the full extent of the Iranian nuke programme, weapons or otherwise, it would be pointless to attack the few sites that are officially know. It would also simply make the public in iran support the iranian government, and further support the insurgency in iraq. With the government gone, teh public can become as hardline as they want, there won't be any government through which the hardliners can act, or to fund the insurgency.


zurvan
I mean we all know that US can plan everything and they never make a mistake or miscalculate enemy capabilities.

Indeed, the iranians shouldn't be underesimated, they won't be as easily defeated as the Iraqis. But, inevetably, their main army will be utterly wiped out and their civilian centers will be under occupation. SOmeone on this board had said though, "Don't underestimate the people that invented Chess". Its a sobering reminder!

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
There's a mandatory draft bill slated for the House floor Wednesday. The results of that will be the tipping point as to whether AIPAC/PNAC decides what should be done with Iran.

www.govtrack.us...



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The idea that there's going to be an invasion seems more than a little out there to me. The US is having enough trouble in Iraq, trying to occupy a country more than twice the size with a population that is far more likely to resist violently just isn't in the cards, triumphalist BS aside. Not to mention the public is already out of patience with the Iraq War. A far larger and costlier war would be political suicide for the current leadership.

Not that I believe the current leadership is very rational - they go to great lengths to delude themselves into believing their own propaganda, as we've seen in Iraq. Last I read, the Office Of Special plans (responsible for pruning intel on Iraq to make a case for war) has now reopened in the Pentagon, in the same office and with much of the same team, as the "Office of Iranian Affairs." You've got to admire the hidebound stubborness and stupidity it takes to repeat the same disastrous errors over and over again.

IMHO, I don't see military action against Iran in the near term coming as anything except a limited set of airstrikes. My concern for a wider conflict comes largely from the fact that Iran is likely to respond to any strikes with offensive operations of their own, thus creating a wider war whether that's the intention or not.

[edit on 6/5/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
For some strange reason posters are still trying to apply common sense to prospective actions of Neocon Nation. Please show me where common sense has been employed before.!



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan

lol smokenmirrors I just read your signature
did you write that?


Herbert Spencer wrote that signature, I think it's a good one......


Mod Edit: BB Code.


[edit on 5/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
Neither the US nor the UK have the forces available to invade Iran. It's just not possible.


Why would the US or UK even have to invade? Iran's nuclear program could be crippled with air power alone. There wouldnt be a need to put a single boot on the ground to stop Irans nuclear program.

But if it really came down to it the US clearly has the forces to invade Iran its called a draft and some 300 million people to pick from. The US fought two much stronger powers at the same time during WW2 and could do so again.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
But if it really came down to it the US clearly has the forces to invade Iran its called a draft and some 300 million people to pick from.


www.globalsecurity.org...


Total Army Active Combat Brigades: 37
In Iraq: 10 And 1 in SK and 1 in Afghanistan.

That leaves 25 of these Brigades, from the Army, not counting Reserves, Guards, Air Force, Marines, etc. 25 Brigades. Thats more than enough to have a force two and an half times larger that what is in Iraq be sent over into Iran.


The US doesn't need a draft.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
If we had to invade Iran I would want a overwhelming force. A brigade is made up of what 3,000 men? Perhaps 25 brigades could do it with the right airsupport but I would rather be safe then sorry.

I would want to go into Iran with atleast 500k Perhaps more becuase of the Basji groups.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join