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.

 

Is The War With Iran Now Starting?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Yeah you didn't mentionned Al-Qaeda. But the US government is trying to associate Iran with Al-Qaeda.

Be that as it may, true or not…it still has nothing to do with my posts.


Originally posted by Vitchilo
So Iran is probably trying to wage a war against the US interests in Somalia, but who's trying to put in power the same government who killed the US soldiers back in 93?

First…Iran is/has engaged in proxy wars via Lebanon (Hezbollah), Afghanistan (Mullah Jalaleddin, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Hazara Shiites in addition to what I have already provided) and of course Iraq…Iran also endorses militant elements in Palestine (PIJ and Hamas) and Turkey (Kurdistan Worker’s Party)…and has directly involved itself for over a decade in the atrocities of Sudan…not just Somalia.

Of course…all for the goal of peace right?...

Second…in 1993, US forces were in Somalia to help the humanitarian aid flow the UN was attempting to deliver. US forces were deployed with the blessing of the UN to open the closed supply routes, get relief moving again and clear a way for the UN peacekeeping mission UNISOM II…never was the US mandate to enact regime change or disarm the nation. Yet, even these types of humanitarian missions have risks…yes?

Clinton’s administration allowed Somalia to somewhat languish and AQ was blamed for training the Somali’s which committed a majority of the acts against US forces…not a governmental body (if there even was one at that time)...


Originally posted by Vitchilo
So you like imperialism?


Please…Iran is guilty of imperialism.

Furthermore, Iran was involved in these types of organizations long before OIF. Iran’s actions can not be so simply justified by only pointing the finger at the US nor are Iran’s actions that of a solely peace seeking nation.



Mg


I can't tell you how much I enjoyed reading you destroy this guy with a totally reasonable, well-though argument. Aside from the factual blunders and horrific grammar skills, I found an absolute lack of substance in everything he wrote....and I'm glad you were there to show him up.




posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I don't think the war is starting per-say with Iran? I don't think a increase in troops is going to gain the results the adminstration hopes. I do think the increase will secure "Certain area's of intrest". I find it intresting that the the new commander is a airforce general...I might be looking into this from a way out there point of view but does the airforce have special tactical advantage from ground war point of view than a army or marine commander doesn't? I mean from a America launching a air offensive against Iran then having a airforce commander makes perfect sense? But on the other hand when I look at this adminstration not alot makes sense.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I think Vitchilo is trying to be open minded and anti-US, yet is terribly confused. Vitchilo doesn't like Imperialism or countries interfering in other countries, yet supports Iran. Makes sense.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Another aspect of all this nuke Iran propaganda is that it has a desensitizing effect on the public, where as the reaction to dropping atomic weapons won't carry as many negative reprisals...i.e. play enough video war games and dropping real nukes sounds entertaining to some.

Trained and ready to nuke sir!
Top 10 video game picks for 2006


nukeiran.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by Vitchilo
You're talking about killing innocent civilians... well, who killed the most? Israël/US or Hezbollah/Hamas? Israël (over 5000 since the first intifada in Palestine only + 1200 in Lebanon) USA: Just in Afghanistan and Iraq over 750.000 deads civilians) Hezbollah (44 kills in Lebanon) Hamas (30 kills max)


Wow what a GREAT defense. You like supporting the killer who does not kill as much. How about supporting neither?


And also...the US hasn't killed even MOST of the people in Iraq as it stands now. The "freedom fighters" and Sunni and Shia insurgents have!



Well, it's the own CIA estimations of death after a strike against Iran nuclear installations, if you're wiser than the CIA, go work for them.


Hold that against the US if it actually does kill 3 million civilians with mini-nukes (which won't happen)


Will you and the others neo-cons (with no respect for human life) promise that IF they use mini-nukes you will finally come to the bright side and say that you were wrong and they are a bunch of criminals and that they must be tried for war crimes? Or you'll just be in denial for the rest of your life?


lol first: im not a neocon. Learn what a neocon is. Just because you don't support terrorist groups or groups that kill ciivlians does not make you a neocon.

second: I never said I support the Iraqi war, or imperialism, or Israel. I support none of the above.



Good job ret.

I think Vit shall be on my ignore list now. Ah the innacuracies and the lies. All to support a political agenda.

Anyways, back to the thread.

The United States arrested only those who where not legally allowed to be there, and where in conduct of unorthodox nature. Those who where arrested and had immunity where released. The compound was not stormed, inface it was not a raid either. The US army arrested the diplomats without incident, they asked they come with them, that they where under arrest and they went willingly. The Kurds where angry because we did not ask permission or tell them we where coming. Iran is angry because they got caught and feel that we used it as a way to slap them in the face. Really, it is a non-issue that was blown out of proportion by those, again like I said, with a political agenda.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Big money giving warning to investors. This has more merit that the usual media hype. Looks like ING's stock opened lower on the 10th too...must of spooked a few.


Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran

ING's Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was "high impact, if low probability," but explained some of the reasons why a strike might go forward. The Jan. 9 dispatch, describes Israel as "not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country....So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point."

Robertson suggests a February-March 2007 timeline for several reasons. First, there is a comparable time line with Israel's strike on Iraq's nuclear program in 1981, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's political troubles within Israel. Second, late February will see Iran's deadline to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1737, and Israel could use a failure of Iran and the UN to follow through as justification for a strike. Finally, greater US military presence in the region at that time could be seen by Israel as the protection from retaliation that it needs.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 15-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't an attack on another nations Embassy an act of war since it's considered the sovereign territory of that nation?

So hasn't the United States just invaded sovereign Iranian soil? How is this any different to the raid on the US Embassy in Tehran? Technically the United States just declared war on Iran.

What ever you may believe Iran to be doing covertly, via proxy, there is no official confirmation from Iran on that. This raid is confirmed by the Americans. Big difference.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I believe the Embassy was not a "real" one.. unauthorized except by the Kurdish peoples.. that and it was not a raid.. no violence .. they asked them to come with them and they did. All authorized people where left alone..



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't an attack on another nations Embassy an act of war since it's considered the sovereign territory of that nation?


Well, it wasn't exactly an embassy- was more of a liazon office. And seeing as there was no official listing of any Iranian embassy in Iraq that I could find at places like embassies.org, I tend to believe it was likely just that- a liazon office. So it's really not quite the same thing, even though the rhetoric can make you believe that in a weak moment.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   


I think Vitchilo is trying to be open minded and anti-US, yet is terribly confused. Vitchilo doesn't like Imperialism or countries interfering in other countries, yet supports Iran. Makes sense.


Who here has proof that Iran is intervening in the internal affairs of Iraq to the extent of the conjecture propounded by the Bush Administration? Nobody does. In fact, this administration refuses to provide any evidence either.

The U.S has is the sole reason for the turmoil in Iraq and has tried to convince the public otherwise by making Iran it's fundamental scapegoat.

A minute amount of critical thinking deserves to be used..

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
We've been in a proxy war with Iran for a long time now. Those insurgents aren't Iraqis wanting freedom from an invading force ... they are terrorists and Iranians and Syrians. The Iranians are there to get us weary of the war and to get us to leave so that Iran can move in and take over Iraq when we are gone - IMHO. BETCHYA.


I'm in agreement with you partially on this comment. I do believe Iran is heavily involved in the insurgency in Iraq and they defintley have an overall interest in the country as a whole, wouldn't you if you were Iran? I also believe certain groups from within Syria are also involved in the insurgency though I do not believe the leaders (figureheads without much real power) want this to happen.

I disagree with your comment that the insurgents are not made up of Iraqis wanting freedom from an invading force. I believe this makes up a small part of the insurgency as well.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Thanks for the clarifications regarding the nature of the Iranian diplomatic establishment within Iraq.

I've got a couple of quotes from Iranian sources with which to flesh out this topic.

It seems the Iranians consider their five nationals to be "diplomats" and that they have been "kidnapped" by the United States.


Iranian Student News Agency

In response to a question stated by a reporter that whether the talks encircled the recent kidnapping of the five diplomats in Arbil, Ejei stated that the issue was being followed up separately through the routes of Iran's high ranking officials and the foreign ministry.


I also found the following quote from Iraq's National Security Minister, Shirvan Al-Waeli, to be interesting.


Iranian Student News Agency

He also referred to the Islamic Republic of Iran as a country that has perpetually backed up the Iraqi nation.


Why is it that the American backed Iraqi government considers Iranian involvement in Iraq to have been a consistently positive force?

Al-Waeli continues further to clarify that the Iraqi government is acting to secure the release of the Iranian diplomats on behalf of the Iranian government.


Iranian Student News Agency

"We are following the issue and contacting the U.S. side. Before coming to Tehran, I talked to them and it is scheduled that we will resolve the issue in no time," concluded.


It's my conclusion that when push comes to shove, the Iraqi government will side with the Iranians in any US conflict involving Iran. That should be a sobering thought to Washington, but some how I doubt it will register.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   


First…Iran is/has engaged in proxy wars via Lebanon (Hezbollah), Afghanistan (Mullah Jalaleddin, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Hazara Shiites in addition to what I have already provided) and of course Iraq…Iran also endorses militant elements in Palestine (PIJ and Hamas) and Turkey (Kurdistan Worker’s Party)…and has directly involved itself for over a decade in the atrocities of Sudan…not just Somalia.


Is this a joke? Turkey supplied by Clintonian arms slaughtered how many Kurds? Afghanistan former leadership, the Taliban, was supplied by whom? All these proxies are under U.S jurisdiction ever so blatantly. Iranian intervention in the Middle East is as posit as U.S intervention in Latin American without the gross human rights violations the U.S has and continues to exercise the world over. Iran has nay been proven to be the sole perpetrator of the escalating insurgency in Iraq nor responsible for the nonsense you just spurted. This conjecture - if it can even be considered as such - is the basis of decades of warfare conducted by the U.S to further it's geopolitical objectives and more importantly the sole reason hundreds of thousands have lost their lives; hundreds of thousands of innocents and millions more which will surely come as well.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar ? Was he not a former CIA informant of sorts? Presumed to be a proxy of the Iranians now is he? Where are the molecules of evidence to support these claims? Does it matter however when we can see so clearly that Afghanistan is just a senseless battle with no rational justification behind it?

You would have us believe Somalia was a humanitarian effort? This is laudable news, truly. Have all heard that the U.S recently voted against what would considered a ground breaking resolution that would stop arms from being sold to African nations? No No of course not, this is not news. What is news is that the U.S would rather supply Militias and the transitional government for purposes of destroying the only basis of justice and peace in this war torn country: the Islamists; yes, them..

The U.S has other interests particularly in creating power vacuums all over the world and of course Islamic quiescence.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   


It's my conclusion that when push comes to shove, the Iraqi government will side with the Iranians in any US conflict involving Iran. That should be a sobering thought to Washington, but some how I doubt it will register.


It does not need to be registered. The Iraq's really have no say on what happens internally in their country and it's more of a proxy government as of now until the U.S can deject it's influence and Iraqi does feel a more psychological and social sovereignty which is far more fundamental to register.

Aggression towards Iran by the U.S, as vehement as it seems at the moment, can only relate to harsher ramifications for Iraq in the long run and much more blood spilled on it's streets. The madness of the men behind the scenes in the U.S will drive this region of the world into an utter murderous redundancy.

The U.S needs to stop it's negative prolix on Iran and withdraw it's troops; this is an answer which they have not learned from the days of Vietnam or seemingly refuse too.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Rice and Gates have been dropping a lot of hints that we should be ready for an attack Iran.


Bush's New Iran Policy - War Plan or Propaganda?
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Rice refused to answer a question from Chairman Joe Biden on whether the president has the authority to conduct military missions in Iran without congressional approval. That provoked expressions of alarm from both Democratic and Republic senators. Sen. Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said this ambiguity reminded him of the Richard Nixon administration's policy toward Cambodia in 1970 during the Vietnam War.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Gates: Iran Target of US Gulf Military Moves Guardian

Looks like it going to be a one real hell of a mess, if Bush does decide to go for Iran.


Russian missiles delivered to Iran: Ivanov Reuters

"We have supplied the modern short-range anti-aircraft systems TOR-M1 in accordance with our contracts," Ivanov told reporters "Iran is not under sanctions and if it wants to buy defensive ... equipment for its armed forces then why not?"

A defense ministry source later told Reuters deliveries of hardware under the $1 billion deal, which has been criticised by the West, have not yet been completed.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Tor M1 9M330 Air Defense System
Each TLV is equipped with 8 ready to launch missiles, associating radars, fire control systems and a battery command post. The combat vehicle can operate autonomously, firing from stationary positions or on the move. Set-up time is rated at 3 minutes and typical reaction time, from target detection to missile launch is 5-8 seconds.

Tor M1 can detect and track up to 48 targets (minimum radar cross section of 0.1 square meter) at a maximum range of 25 km, and engage two of them simultaneously, at a speed of up to 700 m/sec, and at a distance of 1 to 12 km. The system's high lethality (aircraft kill probability of 0.92-0.95) is maintained at altitude of 10 – 6,000 m'.


Hyperinflation here we come, cause we are going to pay out the ass for a war in Iran. Best hope the Russians and Chinese don't step in with both feet too.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Rice and Gates have been dropping a lot of hints that we should be ready for an attack Iran.


I actually find this to be a more likely synenero.
ING



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Big money giving warning to investors. This has more merit that the usual media hype. Looks like ING's stock opened lower on the 10th too...must of spooked a few.





Regenmacher,
That was some pretty good information. Thanks for posting it.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't an attack on another nations Embassy an act of war since it's considered the sovereign territory of that nation?

So hasn't the United States just invaded sovereign Iranian soil? How is this any different to the raid on the US Embassy in Tehran? Technically the United States just declared war on Iran.

What ever you may believe Iran to be doing covertly, via proxy, there is no official confirmation from Iran on that. This raid is confirmed by the Americans. Big difference.


It wasn't an embassy...it was a consular compound which had not been granted full consular status...so, NO IT WAS NOT AN ACT OF WAR.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by graphicsman1977
NO IT WAS NOT AN ACT OF WAR.

Welcome to 5 replies ago champo



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
An act of war by whose definition?
I think only Irans definition would matter.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join