Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

America going to war with Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon

If war breakes out with Iran, watch out for the draft.

- zeeon


it's already in effect shipmate. you think you only signed up for 8 (4 active, 4 inactive)? read the fine print.....i've got two buddies who've been recalled two and three years after their full 8 years was up.

two more words to go along with that nice little tidbit: stop-loss. hope you didnt have that nice cozy civilian job all lined up!




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
HAHA shipmate I've been enlisted for 7 years - got 3 more to go in this enlistment. And yes, not to sound insulting but I already knew of the 4 and 4 contract trick

When I'm out - I'm out!

EDIT: I don't know about surface navy, but they're trying to get rid of people in aviation. I know 4 people who got their early out's approved.
Secondly - are you sure your buddies didn't go reserve ? (I'm aware of the inactive reserve your obligated to after 4 years active. I'm asking of they stayed reserve AFTER the total 8.


[edit on 22-9-2006 by zeeon]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
I hate to say this but I think our alliance with Britian is fading fast.


Why is our alliance with Britain fading?

Because the civilians there don't like the alliance?

When did THAT matter?

Seriously, Britain's alliance with the US will fade when their interests aren't aligned with the US's interests.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I can't quote sources but I remember reading that Tony Blair's approval rating was dropping dramatically among the brits.

Like I said, I'm shooting from the hip here, going off what I'm fairly sure I heard before on this forum. But as always - I could be wrong.

Speaking of Blair - anyone know when his term as prime minister ends?



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon


Speaking of Blair - anyone know when his term as prime minister ends?


It ends I believe in May of next year.

But so what if he steps down? Yeah Europe's and the US's relationship is rocky, but that in no way means that the relationship will break. The US+Europe=The West. Even though people hate to admit it, Europe is just as bad as the US is, and has had their hands in poking at and taking advantage of 3rd world countries and the Middle East for just as long as the US has. So, like I said, America's and Europe's interests are the same, they won't be breaking their relationship anytime soon.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Canada has a relatively strong relationship with several nations besides the USA...our leaders haven't been lazy so much as Canada's identity is not that of a warring nation. We were up until just recently (Iraq) considered to be one of the finest assemblances of Peace Keepers and Mediators this side of the UN.

So back on topic...

Draft is innevitable with resources so skewed...Canada will not likely go that route but we will undoubtably invest sveral hundred troops and equipment should we pressured to do so.


Canada is kind of funny in the sense that a draft wouldn't be required. Not sure what exactly prompts us to enlist (even against better judgements and opposition) but we do.

It gets complicated even more so when you begin disecting the trade relations we have (not just Canada but the US too) with some rather hefty "forces". Iran being one, Libya (also nuke capable) China, Russia, Pakistan...Canada has it a bit tougher in that, while not militarized, we have acted as a hell of a source of Tech and Trade for many of the forementioned countries...

Which ties will break?

The US has long been a military force to be reckoned with...economically able to call on financial favours. In the event of war with Iran...Both Canada and US will experience what will be akin to cutting off ones nose to spite a face (or something like that)...

I do agree with the posters who say that a war with Iran will devestate many facets of both Canada and the USA's economies respectively. Not to mention the abhorable loss of life for all in such a sad event.

I just hope that peacefulness will prevail and the "roosters" will stop fluffing their feathers.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I just posted a very well thought out post on this that I accidently deleted.

Here is the jist.

Put aside your NWO conspiracies (which may be true), your "I hate Bush" rants (and some of you have some good points), your multi national corporations have done disjustice to the 3rd world (and many of them have), your Isreal is too rough in defending themselves (sometimes they are), your "its all just about oil" (which in large part it is about oil) or whatever other points you have.

There will be a war with Iran and probably with most of "radicalized" middle east countries. It maybe this year, or next, or five years from now. It will probably develop to what we will eventually call WWIII. It will be likely be horrendous, and unfortunately we may have no choice. Personally, while the timing may not be great we would finally be going after the "right" country.

Why? Because whabist islam (200+million followers estimated) does not see a world where Western Judeao-Christian liberal democratic culture can co exist with "their brand" of Islam. Period, end of story. The hard core clerics, imams, and leaders of these groups (Al Quedia, Hamas, Hezbellah) and countries (Iran, Syria) have to much sway and control over Islam and their countries and this is what they want, a world controlled and ruled by fundamentalist Islam.

Can it be stopped, probably not. I see only one real way of this being stopped and thats for moderate muslims to be able to get some control in their countries. And while I often see Iraq as a strategic long term mistake, it may be (or have been) the only real chance at doing this without a broader war. What Bush initially tried to do (forget the WMD stuff) is get in a country and try to get some sort of democratic coalition government going, where the people would have some sort of say in how their countries were run. Was it niave? Yeah probably. Was it likely to succeed? Not really? Has it made Bush look bad, even incompetent? Pretty much. Has it failed? Probably, but I don't think all hope is lost, but the Bush adminstration and it's successor will need to make some changes.

BUT it is/was probably the only chance to do something in the middle east to prevent what was unfortunately just about inevitable and thats a CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS between the West and Islam. Islam is playing for keeps and has the patience to do it. The West (at least the populations) doesn't seem to grasp that yet. Instead we sit in our ivory towers enjoying our cultural successes and whine about how many "innocents in Iraq or Lebannon" may die. The problem is Islam revers DEATH and we rever LIFE. That's why for them the deaths (other then rallying more martyers) are not a big issue, they are celebrated, an honored.

We need to face a new reality and that's half the world wants the rest of us to live like them.

War is a terrible thing, yet it is often a necessary thing. Hitler is a great example. He wanted a segment of the world dead. We are essentially facing the same thing here. Some of us have yet to realize this. Mostly because we are still caught up w ith are own comfort and pleasure. Half the world wants the other half to convert or die. Think about that, then think about what you support.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by Sr Wing Commander]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
HAHA shipmate I've been enlisted for 7 years - got 3 more to go in this enlistment.


hell, you'll be half way there...might as well call it a career.


And yes, not to sound insulting but I already knew of the 4 and 4 contract trick

When I'm out - I'm out!


that's not what i'm saying. both of these guys had been out for two and three years after their eight were up (and no, niether joined the reserves).




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
Have you people ever heard of pre emptive nuclear strike ?
We wont lose, not matter what. Bush dont take [] from
anyone.

[edit on 22/9/2006 by Umbrax]


Wrong, we will lose. If we issue a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran, we will lose what little respect the world has for us and it will plunge us into ww3. We have absolutely no right to do such a thing. The loss of innocent life would be catastrophic.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
I see any attack on Iran as an absolute disaster for the U.S and for West/East relations generally. Any attack on Iran would simply throw gasoline on the fire that is the Middle East at the moment, and i fear the reppercusions would be horendous.

In my eyes any attack on Iran would be the begining of a very dark age.

The U.S would have to be crazy to attack Iran, and this time they'd be going it alone.


Individually carrying out such a campaign is literally mission impossible, it would lead to a reintroduction of conscription, not only in the US, also in many other (Western) countries. The planet would become one living hell, wars would be fought probably in the ME/Asia and Europe.

However, getting back to the point. Most people still don't understand the US has to do it. Why don't they? Because the media doesn't tell it and at first sight you wouldn't think of it: the Iranian oil bourse. As it has been delayed again, there's still enough time for pointless negotiations.

I wasn't member of ATS prior to the invasion of Iraq, could anyone on who was during that time, whether the general opinion on the forum was similar to the current one: that war will break out between the US and Iran?



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Even if we are shortly planning a strike on Iran, it doesn't mean we are going to invade. I would look more for a week or so air campaign on Iran, not an invasion. I recently posted a thread about the US now having a plan to drop 10,000 smart munitions in a few HOURS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


There would be terrorist repercussions, but as far as Iran's nuclear facilities and most of its conventional military, they would be toast.

Now if we invade, that's another story. Especially because, while Russia and China might tolerate an air campaign, they might NOT tolerate an invasion. Even if they did, Syria would likely jump in by attacking into Isreal, or US forces in Iraq. N. Korea might get frisky. And if Venezula's Chavez is to beleive, the US could face a southern threat from Venezula, Cuba, and possibly other Latin America countries (although frankly, the TX, LA, MS, FL, AL, OK, AR, and NM national guard units could take care of that threat).

And if we are going to invade I would watch for a build up of armor and mechanized units in S. Iraq near Basra. Any land invasion would have to come from there. Its closer to Tehran then the gulf is.

So far I don't THINK there has been such a build up, but then again, I don't know if there would be a lot of reporters or civillians in S. Iraq that would witness that though.

Also, as far as I know, except for units currently deployed in Iraq, alot of our forced entry type units (82nd Airborne, 75th Rangers, 1st and/or 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force), are all at home. Anyone know anything on deployments of these units?

Conscription, possible, but not really likely. While the active forces of the US are spread relatively thin, more then half of our guard and reserve forces are still available. I'd have to do some serious checking, but I think we could field another 6 or 7 full divisions within about 45-90 days if needed. Another 3 or 4 more within 120-180 days after that. Not to mention alot of air guard fighter and attack aircraft.

Yes it's very very worrysome, and it could get very, very, bad, but lets not all come unglued just yet.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by Sr Wing Commander]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander So far I don't THINK there has been such a build up, but then again, I don't know if there would be a lot of reporters or civillians in S. Iraq that would witness that though.


There were reports of a build up.I have friends in iraq working private security and ordnance disposal. Armoured build up too. I posted on this a couple of months ago



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander
Even if we are shortly planning a strike on Iran, it doesn't mean we are going to invade. I would look more for a week or so air campaign on Iran, not an invasion. I recently posted a thread about the US now having a plan to drop 10,000 smart munitions in a few HOURS. There would be terrorist repercussions, but as far as Iran's nuclear facilities and most of its conventional military, they would be toast.


Did you see the following animation? animation

Guess on what country Iran would fire its Weapons of Mass destruction in this case...



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Even though people hate to admit it, Europe is just as bad as the US is, and has had their hands in poking at and taking advantage of 3rd world countries and the Middle East for just as long as the US has. So, like I said, America's and Europe's interests are the same, they won't be breaking their relationship anytime soon.


It depends on how you define ''bad''.
I'd say Europe has a less radical attitude when it comes to negotiations. The US prefers to negotiate with bombs, Europe does prefer to do it with words. Others might want to define Europe as cowards, yet many countries have been/are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course Europe takes advantage of third world countries, Europe has been doing this for so many centuries, in that particular perspective both Europe and US don't differ. Europeans brought African slaves as Americans demanded them, and Americans chased Indians from their native lands.

Europe's and the US interests are not the same. Europe does not have any problems buying crude oil from Iran, nor does it with Russia, nor does it have to protect its Euro from collapsing, whereas the US has. What might be the same is that both are not looking for a global imperium as some claim.

Needless to say, the US and Europe both need each other, the US is not capable of fulfilling its warmongering activies on their own, while Europe needs the US should they be attacked by a major player.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
wing commander, hezbollah is shia, they are therefore not wahabbi.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
There will be no war with Iran.

First...no one will back the US and the US people would not support it.
Second...open war would destroy Iran, they can't win.
Third...Iran just has to act innocent and spew "love and peace" while they build a nuke.

The radical Islamist know they can not win a conventional war until they have nukes. They are waiting patiently as Pakistan and Iran continue to build nukes, which they can purchase/smuggle afterwards. Europe is not passionate enough yet to join an anti-Muslim war. They are too fragmented...only a strike on Rome may cause them to unify. Even then I'm sure the smaller countries would not join unless they felt they were next...which the radical Muslim factions would lie about anyway.

There may be airstrikes against nuclear facilities. I used to think Israel would do this, but I think a likelihood of all out war forces the US to be the ones to do this. Who knows though, Israel can do what it wants.

Iran and the US really have this very thin veil of hate...there really is not much to it. If Iran followed Libya's lead and renounced selling weapons or giving money to terrorists, I think both countries would quickly come together. Still, we shall have to wait until Bush leaves office in 2008 since he has created unintentionally an image of being anti-Muslim.

[edit on 23/9/06 by Atomic]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by justgeneric
in the current war has actually caused more af a separation - division in those following the events.

What we see in the mainstream media is still "upheld" and toted as the "official" source of "truth and responsible" reporting.

It would seem that much of the amazingly important information being circulated via the net is downplayed as to it's actual importance in Government and indeed the mainstream media agents and outlets.

Kind of like a giant poll where the administration can get a "feel" for what's going on and what opinions are being circulated.

I firmly believe that the Bush admin, takes the internet rambling of "us" web folk seriously, but then in the same instance will turn around and put forth a much different opinion in public.

A sneak attack is not an option. Hell even Desert Storm was widely debated as a possibility long before it came to be a reality, the same thing with this handy "War on Terror".

Iran is in for major trouble, in plain site...though if you glue yourself to CNN or Fox...you're very likely to get a much different opinion.

The web offers great insight, but make no mistake, it won't stop an attack on Iran just because people see it coming. The Iranians see it coming...

BTW - uphill...thanks for the Book titles...I haven't read them but will take a look next time I'm out at the bookstore.


[edit on 9/22/2006 by justgeneric]

[edit on 9/22/2006 by justgeneric]


all that you said makes sense. in turn, i must say... how many reporters are there? as many as fast food general labor employees? no. not even. i'd say less than 100 people(-50 from that number for visible characters) tell you the news- IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. what makes you or me think we can land a job at Fox news? i will tell you- the fact we know we can't.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by chibidai_rrr]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I don't think we will invade them to occupy them, but I think we will send some spec ops in there to take out nuclear capabilities or a few cruise missiles



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
etshrtslr,

Yes they will go to war with Iran. They will start this between April and May of 2007 - sometime before Tony Blair resigns. We need to be clear that much hangs upon what the American people do during the coming November elections. If they do not throw out both houses and get new people in who are still not compromised; then I suggest buying losts of ammo, or if you dislike this idea take your kids and leave America. These coming elections are so VERY important and the reason why the gas prices are now dropping is ONLY to try and sway the America people into allowing the Neo-con friendly incumbents to stay in office. After the November elections, the oil and gas prices will go back up - trust me


Anyhow, the elite plan to form the triangular grid to outflank Russia and China - both economically and geo-politically. So they already have Turkey on their side and Israel. They still need Syria, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Beshia to form the triangle. As nuts as the lunatics in the White house are, they are planning to institute the draft and martial law and they will possibly also carry out another false-flag operation before April 2007. They are planning a genocide in the Middle East and they will be using tactical nukes - their excuse being that to be able to hit Iranian targets that are 50+ feet underground etc.


[edit on 23-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Why is our alliance with Britain fading?

Because the civilians there don't like the alliance?

When did THAT matter?

Seriously, Britain's alliance with the US will fade when their interests aren't aligned with the US's interests.
If Britain goes to war again, the government loses the next election. If the US goes to war, their government probably wins the next election.

Thats all that matters to them. Political parties do their best to stay in power and Labour wont be able to rig the elections like Bush did.






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join