It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iran's plan of attack

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:50 PM
Anything's possible, 'specially in war. Here's my take.

As previously posted, American political will for self preservation is weak. Therefore, I think that Israel will somehow become involved and draw us in. We will then easily wipe out Irans 'everything' using Stealth warplanes and Cruise Missiles.

Iran, meanwhile, will use everything it can muster to shut the Straits of Hormuz. Including bottom tethered mines (Chinese) and SS-N-22 sunburns (Russian). Simultaneously, the expected terrorist attacks would begin in the West. The Wild Card being the use of WMD in these strikes.

In the long run I think we could maintain a no-fly zone over Iran and clear the Straits. But if Russia and China become involved, all bets are off!

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Mr Gunter
You can't invade Iran.

The terrain is too mountainous. Think about how hard it was for the Allies during 1944 marching up Italy. The Germans held the area with minimal troops causing huge losses of life.

I will tell you that upgrades have been made since 1944. It's not really a matter of if we can or can not, there are politics to be played. We could, our leaders know this, but unlike some believe we are not a war happy country and there other thing we must consider. As for me, I really wouldn't like a war in Iran, but things happen.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Mr Gunter
You can't invade Iran.

The terrain is too mountainous. Think about how hard it was for the Allies during 1944 marching up Italy. The Germans held the area with minimal troops causing huge losses of life.

Take a look at a map of Iran. There are multiple ways to get in. Italy was a very narrow and a very direct approach for the allies. There was one way to go.

Besides if it does come down to armed conflict, the U.S. goal will be the destruction of Iran's Military, Military infrastructure and the destruction of it's nuclear program, not the occupation of Iran. That would be achieved in short order and Iran will be set back a century in terms of ability. Don't make the mistake of comparing the US military destroying Iran's ability to wage war to the potential the occupation of Iran. The first one is very easily obtained, the second is harder.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:45 PM
Has anyone watched the tv series Jericho in the US. Only a few episodes - - I'm always reading topics here but im surprised after three pages that no one brought up that maybe the US would detonate a nuke, on its soil, to unify the American citizens in bringing IRAN etc down. Im republican but that doesnt change the fact Im seenig some odd things happening lately. We're bogged down in 2 wars. A few people made good points that attacking IRAN right now would result in one hell of a new war front in IRAQ. What happens next will be big. Very big if it happens at all.


[edit on 25-10-2006 by madmangunradio]

[edit on 25-10-2006 by madmangunradio]

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:51 PM
I pose a real question. What do you think will be Americas response if nuked? The only way we'll take on a new war, at this time, is if that happens.


posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:29 PM

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
1) Coalition forces launch air strikes against Iranian targets.

2) All major military installations are destroyed within a few hours.

3) Iran surrenders.

ohh please just like you think iraq did
and they still whooping some us/uk arse

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:34 PM
I think the purpose of the US buildup near Iran coast is because the neo-cons want to give the democrats their Iraq with a Gulf Of Tonkin stage false-flag, to show the US population that the democrats are even worse than republicans because the US casualities in Iran will be at least 10X worse than in Iraq. And in 2008, the republicans will ``save`` the situation by being elected AGAIN, thanks Diebold.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:37 PM
We're bogged down in two wars because the freaking towel heads hit the towers!!! They even admitted it, and are taking credibility for it and threratening to do more in the future.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:38 PM
Vitchilo - that made no sense. If you could elaborate a little more to make it make sense Im all ears.

P.S. Im on the fense here so please help me out. Your statement, after reading it a few times, shows a sign of bias and a little confusion..

[edit on 25-10-2006 by madmangunradio]

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:44 PM
Amazingly even after iran has threatened to wipe israel off the map and threatened any european supporters some here still portray iran as an innocent victim.Aside from being a longtime supporter of terrorism their leader is making statements such as god promised him a destroyed israel.And this is an administration you want to have nuclear capabilities?Sure give a madman the bomb.duh

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:46 PM
xfile - hehe.. just for public clarification your talking about iran. anyways your right.. but i'll side with others here. Iraq was a bad choice to target after afghanistan.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:50 PM

^- above is a post that labels a real scenario for going to war with iran.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Xfile
Amazingly even after iran has threatened to wipe israel off the map and threatened any european supporters some here still portray iran as an innocent victim.Aside from being a longtime supporter of terrorism their leader is making statements such as god promised him a destroyed israel.And this is an administration you want to have nuclear capabilities?Sure give a madman the bomb.duh

Wow a post with some common sense.

Mushroom, your theory is being called sensationalist, because it just isn't realistic. From most of the posts I've seen from you (and I could be wrong here, this is not a personal attack), but you seem to be caught up in some liberal hippie fairly land.

It's rather obvious you have no knowledge of military operations, the conduct of said operations and the capabilities of the various militaries of the world. For example, a chemical weapon strike on advancing US ground troops (by the way, IF we attack Iran the chance of invasion/occupation is extremely unlikley) causing 10,000 casulties is very, very, unlikely due to standard US military operational concepts for a chem environment.

Isreal could be attacked, but then you would likely see the full might of the Isreali War Machine in action, which would make that little war with Beruit last summer look like a kindergarten preschool trip.

And the whole war crimes thing, not happening. The Iraq war is backed by UN resolution and a vote by the US Congress. It is legal, you may not like it, but it is legal.

About the only threat you mention with alot of merit is possible terror strikes against the US in the event of an Iran campaign. And while I agree this is a major threat.....the same thing was said about going into Iraq (both recently and in 91). In Afgahnistan, etc.yet it hasn't happened. Inf fact the whole reason we haven't had attacks in the US since 01' is 1) We are fighting them there, and therefore they are concentrating on fighting us on their home turf. 2) US/UK viginlance in fighting terror world wide has broken up several attacks as well.

Your theory is more fiction then well thought out speculation.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 03:04 AM
Hmm where do I start, so once again the great military minds of some members come into play. I really like the comments about being realistic and talking about both sides of the story, what like the pro Americans do, what a joke, their comments are completely one sided with the US winning every time, very little comment is given to the otherside of the argument thats why I posted the thread. And of course the would be winners would always disagree with the opposit to their views because they cannot conceive any other outcome.

I wonder just how many of these armchair experts thought Iraq2 was going to pan out, I'm sure their comments would be just the same as now, oh yes we'll wup them rag heads they wont last 5 minutes, we have all the technology to beat them. Well thats not happened has it, quite the opposite in fact, and now these very same "Experts" want me to believe that Iran will be another pushover. That by attacking a country with nuclear weapons is the right thing to do, that the risk of an escalating nuke exchage is worth it because a few people in America want it to happen. You see I'm a realist, I dont follow the herd and believe all the lies that are told. Im not scared of Muslims or anybody else, if people want to believe the lies and hogwah thats their choice, I,m an individual and I will not fall in line just because some people dont like my opinions, although I think some here on ATS would welcome the Thought Police.

And please, spare me the Anti American crap, if you cannot argue a point in a logical way then keep your snide and pathetic comments to yourself.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 03:42 AM
How about this.

1) Coalition forces pull out of Iraq after civil war and a new leadership is establish.
2) Isreal and America attack all major military instalation and nuclear facilities in Iran
3) Iran takes down some US aircraft in the air compagn, but Iran army is a sitting duck with no air support. Iran also attacks Isreal, but their offensive attacks are quickly distroyed after communication towers and instalation are taken out by America.
4) The world gets mad at America.
5) America does not invade, but leaves Iran's economy and military in ruins.
6) Iran retaliates with suicide bombers in Isreal.
7) Isreal continues air bombing in Iran without the help from America.
8) After a number of fail attemps, Iran was able to bomb a few skyscrapper in America.
9) American citizens gets mad.
10) America returns to Iran and finish what they started.
11) History repeats itself. Iran is in the same position as Iraq is in at the moment.
12) Civil war in Iran takes place.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 03:47 AM

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
What "allied preparation for war"?

Certainly the US are preparing:
US naval war games off coast of Iran
Daniel Ellsberg on the upcoming attack

If you think that the UK would never go in, then why was Jack Straw sacked?
Straw sacked on Bush's request

Margaret Beckett is more compliant.

MARGARET Beckett, the new Foreign Secretary, has defended her decision not to rule out military action against Iran.

While her predecessor, Jack Straw, had said an invasion of the country was "inconceivable", Mrs Beckett has refused to go as far.

She echoes the Bush line - "we have no plans right now..." (an outright lie) "...but we could change our mind tomorrow" (a half-truth).

There's no-one else interested in another disastrous war except a small minority in the US and Israel.

Who happen to control the government.

Is this to be another Iraq?

I think it will be much worse.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 05:35 AM

has threatened to wipe israel off the map

First, he never said that, go find the thread about it and read it.

Second, MagicMushroom, great post.

Third, madmangunradio, sorry, i'm not quite good in english, it's not my first language, i'll try to re-explain.

You all know that the democrats and republicans are all sold to the Bilderberg group/corporation/fed. They want a war for money, for oil, to protect Israël, to push for fascists laws at home, to make people fear a foreign threat at home, to merge Mexico/US/Canada and a lot of others reasons. Anyway, it's easier for the corporations when the neo-cons are ruling. So, people are complaining against the Iraq war and how it's the republicans fault.

Now, by placing US forces near Iran, i think they'll let the democrats win this mid-term election, but by a slim majority, and then they'll stage another false-flag operation to bring war to Iran. We all know that's gonna be ugly, worse than Iraq. With a lot of spin, they'll blame the democrats for all the deaths due to the Iran war and how they managed it, even if it's not even linked, also to show how they are spineless in face of terrorism, they may stage a terrorist attack in the US to push for even more fascists laws. Then, in 2008, the strong republicans against terrorism will protect the nation by winning the next elections with the help of Diebold.

Or i'm crazy.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:01 AM
Sr Wing, I never claimed to be a military tactician like some do, its just a case of watching and listening to whats going on. I like the idea of me being some kind of liberal hippe, but actually I'm not. I believe that any country has a right to defend itself from external aggresion be it the hands of the US, Iran or anybody else. If my country was attacked or invaded (I dont mean 9/11-7/7) then I would fight the invaders. Many have stated the party line on Iran, which is they have nukes and they want to wipe Israel of the map, both of those statements are lies but many believe them because it suits their agenda and political view. I never said that the Iranians were world class on Human rights, but remember 53 when the country was attempting some form of democracy, it was killed off by the US because of who controlled the flow of oil.

During the Iran/Iraq war both sides were supplied by the West, we have (the UK) meddled in ME affairs and expolited the region for our own ends since the early 1900's. That tends to p--- people off and sooner or later they start to fight back.
Many of the reasons why were in the situation today is directly because of this past and continuing interference in the ME. Past US Goverments were quite happy to trade with Saddam knowing full well what he was doing to his people but he provided a bulwark against the Iranains so he was kept in power. But he did not play ball and becasue of that we had Iraq1/2. Afganistan was invaded for the same reason, The US tried to a deal with the Taliban re the new oil pipeline, when they changed their minds on the deal we invaded Afganistan.

Now the US/Israel are trumping up the charges against Iran in order to take them out. The Iranian leadership may be a problem but you dont solve problems by nuking a country and killing millions in the process. Such actions will only lead to a hardening of attitude against the West which would result in yet more violence. Its simple really we either try and settle our differences peacefully or we act like savages and wipe each other out. But that will never happen will it while you have the US/UK colluding with terrorists and despots. The choice is ours, we can allow our Goverments to commit nuclear armageddon or we can stop them.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:24 AM

Originally posted by doctorfungi

All your wishful thinking about thousands killed by chemical weapons and Bush/Blair being arrested is just crap and quite frankly would never happen.

Not to mention Iran shooting down several US fighters/bombers and sinking US ships is WAY beyond their capability.

I think the Bush/Blair part would never happen, but who'se to say the chemical weapons wouldn't happen? Sure as hell did with Iraq vs Iran.

And I'd bet they could sure shoot down a few of our planes and maybe sink a few ships. In the first gulf war, the Iraqis shot down MANY of our aircraft, and this coming almost immediately after a taxing war with Iran, even though we did supply Iraq at the time with money.

I'm not sure how Iran's military now compares with the 1990 military of Iraq, but i'm willing to bet they could sure inflict serious damage. And we surely donnot have the manpower to invade that country, aside from the fact that it would severely destablize the Middle East even more than it already is. Muslims everywhere in that region probably would call for more of these Jihads of theirs.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by el_madmaster]

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:35 AM
El_Madmaster, thanks for the comments, it seems the armchair tacticians have short memories and have forgotten whats happened recently. Thats the very point I was making. If a militarily weak Iraq could inflict damage and continues to do so what will be the effect on coalitions forces engaged in Iran.

Iran is not capable of winning in such a confrontation on its own but is capable of inflicting heavy casulties and would possibly get support from other countries should the conflict spread. The Russians might want some payback for the US backing the Muhajadeen in Afgantistan. Or better still why not just leave Iran alone, they have no nukes they dont want to wipe out Israel, but some people are ambitious and alot of people are scared, scared of that big Muslim bogey man, well if you asked the question would you be scared of a country with no nukes and does not project its power as against a country that has thousands of nukes, and has used them, and projects its power all over the world, who would you be scared of the most. The sad thing is that there are people on this site who are proud of what their country does in the name of Democracy.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in