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.

 

Global War on Terrorism as an excuse for waging war. Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
Without the U.S helping, and without using nukes, Israel would get their buts handed to them by a Syria/Iran Alliance.



Hopefully we won't have to find out. Syria would not be much of a problem to militarily defeat and Iran has about 600 miles to traverse till it reaches Israel. That's a mighty long way to go without air cover against the largest and best airforce in the Middle East. Especially when you consider few major roads they would have to use in western Iraq, it would be a turkey shoot.

The only attacks Iran can do are Missile strikes, which if done will result in some major problems for all in the M.E and critical problems for Iran. You know, the "eye for an eye" kind of thing.




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Really...thought both parties had agreed a ceasefire...

Which should result in:]

security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL 1701

Don't know about you, but that kinda sounds like no Hezbollah weapons or troops in that region doesn't it.


Well...no, Israel kinda had air superiority, they just had to bomb those positions...was Airforce sloppy as well?

Again that CNN report seemed to show a bunker that could withstand bombs being dropped on it, as you said, they had time and planned for just such an event.


A great success, considering they were fighting a very small force,who didn't have air or armor...

So it's ok if you "fight the good fight" but don't win the war. Sorry if you get overrun, you pretty much lost. I got a hint for you, if you don't have armor and air, don't pick a fight with a nation that has plenty of those.


Well...I'm not a five star general...but a really entrenched enemy is flushed out with air and artillery...maybe they failed to even identify this positions? After air and artillery, you kinda flank them...so you don't have to face them from the front...
So are you saying Israel shoulda just carpet bombed the snot out of them? Then you would be complaining about Israel's tactics then. I agree flanking and cutting off is a good move. Cutting off is a good move but a frontal assault achieves the objective of smashing the stronghold and it's defenders. Israel was aware it had a short window of opportunity to deal blows to Hezbollah.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
You have voted iskander for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

What amazes me is that all these intelligent (OK, maybe not all -) people argue incessantly over which state is terrorist and which state has the moral authority to have nukes or bunkers or WMD, etc., without defining the common terms. Let's first agree what the term "terrorist" means.

According to Dictionary.com it means:

ter‧ror‧ism  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Considering this definition both sides to these conflicts are terrorist states. The term is patently meaningless when it is used as a weapon to try to take the moral high ground by accusing the opponent of being a terrorist. How is the United States not a terrorist state? We are the only nation to use nukes aggressively against a civilian population. We have openly bombed civilian targets with "depleted" uranium, cluster bombs and white phosphorus weapons, among others. We have intentionally lined up and murdered women and children in Iraq during the present conflict. How are we not terrorists by definition?

How are the Israelis not terrorists by definition? They intentionally bombed the UN post in Lebanon killing 5 international workers. They intentionally bombed the electric plant in Lebanon causing tens of thousands of gallons of fuel oil to pollute the area waters and undermine civilian health in the region. The arbitrarily dropped bombs all over Lebanon ostensibly to get to Hezbollah but without any indication that they had a plan of attack other than TERRORISM of the civilian population.

Am I in favor of Palestinian violence against Israelis? No. But let's get the fact straight by agreeing to the definition of terms. We will all see more clearly and argue more persuasively.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
That's a mighty long way to go without air cover against the largest and best airforce in the Middle East. Especially when you consider few major roads they would have to use in western Iraq, it would be a turkey shoot.


A combined land assault from Syria and missile attack from Iran would cause Israel some problems. As well as afformentioned gorilla warfare from Southern Lebanon and Gaza.

Air superiority can only go so far. I agree with you though, when you say lets hope it doesn't happen..



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Hopefully we won't have to find out. Syria would not be much of a problem to militarily defeat and Iran has about 600 miles to traverse till it reaches Israel. That's a mighty long way to go without air cover against the largest and best airforce in the Middle East. Especially when you consider few major roads they would have to use in western Iraq, it would be a turkey shoot.

Syria could dish it out with Israel a bit, they have SAM and unlike hezbollah, could possible nullify Israeli air. Iran...I don't see it going through Iraq, US would make intercept, and that's one battle they don't want right now, and if it did happen, it would be on their turf, not Iraq.

But let's imagine it happens as you say, and Iran in fact mobilizes through Northern Iraq towards Syria and Israel. Iran starts to cross the border, US realizes (or not, big if) early and cuts Iran off from Syria.

Best guess, big battle between US and Iran, and we get to see what Iran really has in reserve, and how effective it's weapon systems are.

To be honest, I don't see Iran moving to Syria, for the simple fact that it's not ready to do battle outside it's borders...


The only attacks Iran can do are Missile strikes, which if done will result in some major problems for all in the M.E and critical problems for Iran. You know, the "eye for an eye" kind of thing.
Well, Israel has the same problem of Iran, it can't go through Syria easily, and it's air assets would be warmly received by Iran SAMs. Iran does have a way to hurt Israel, loads of missiles Israel can't shoot down, and basically torch every Israeli city to the ground...



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join