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.

 

Iran is a trap!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
in responsse to my own response as no one is answering human wave warfare vs. chemical warfare????? wtf sorry for the profanity.




posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
yes iran is a trap, it will draw the U.S.A and the U.K. into another war that anglosphere countires "will sign up to" ? Against a muslim ideology which is so similar with the christian ideology? WTF. research people please, I am a christian.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I believe if Iran is attacked they will use everything at their means and if they do use chemical the US will not hesitate use nukes!


This war will disrupt oil supplies, so I was interested in the timing of this article!

Saudi's to Increase Oil Production!




posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Okay – I’ll jump in and offer my bit.

While on paper such an alliance is scary, it isn't. First off, we have to take into account the capabilities of each country, none of which has the capacity to project conventional forces to the American mainland.

Wait - Chaves' fighter planes in Cuba? Well maybe there, but I highly doubt that. The F-15's stationed at Eglin Air Force Base are in strike range of Cuba, any such action would reduce the country to rubble.

Russia, they have advanced weaponry - but they can't afford it for themselves - they sell it. So they would Nuke Israel? That would end with NATO rolling east across Europe and pouncing on them, as such action would re-invigorate Europe and Britain, bringing them into the fray with a vengeance.

China? Okay - America has pulled her forces back to Guam. This was done for two reasons; first as a nod to Japan to rearm and secondly allow the Pacific Command a more robust ability to respond. More troops can be deployed rapidly to Korea, Oceana and the Middle East. Guam is only a 3.5 hour flight from Japan.

I would doubt that China could defeat Japan in a conflict, much less the United States. But in that event, the famous million man army would grind to a halt within 30 days. They won’t be able to fight for long if they are starving, and it would be hard to get food to them with B-52’s razing the rice paddies across the country.

I highly doubt India would offer anything more than moral support with Australia and America breathing down her neck.

In my opinion we are not the ones who are surrounded, I think it is quite the opposite. Which brings us back to the Middle East and some rockets, well it’s going to take more than rockets to defeat the U.S. Military. Will we take losses? I am sure – but such losses are likely to be taken when destroying the means that allow Iran to transfer it’s energy resources to China and Russia, further tightening the noose around the two countries.

Ahh, the fearsome anti satellite test of China, it was something that both Russia and the United States achieved last century. And when one thinks of it, the test wasn’t that impressive at all by today’s standards. It was an aging satellite in a geosynchronous orbit, and the technology involved was kinetic in nature. It would be like shooting a beer bottle from 1000 yards out – now, could you make that same shot if I tossed the bottle into the air and you had destroy it while it was in motion?



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mel1962
I believe if Iran is attacked they will use everything at their means and if they do use chemical the US will not hesitate use nukes!


This war will disrupt oil supplies, so I was interested in the timing of this article!

Saudi's to Increase Oil Production!



If Saudi Increases oil production, it reduces the price of oil. Most of Iran's income is based on oil -



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Well Crisko, you made me feel better, I just hope our civilian leadership is aware of the dangers!



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mel1962
Well Crisko, you made me feel better, I just hope our civilian leadership is aware of the dangers!


I am sure they are, while the article brings up interesting tidbits for debate, it isn't realistic. I mean, all the major powers in the world sacrificing everything for Iran?

Such actions would destroy the economy and perhaps civilization - as we would go back to the dark ages, or close to it.

I would certainly hope not.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Here is a link to a Reuters article, it will explain why Saudi is rasing oil production.

Saudi king "may decide to strangle Iran"



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mel1962
I have had a bad feeling about the Iranian thing, especially since the testing of the anti-ship missles and what happen to the Israeli ship off the coast of Lebanon!



Do you mean the German ship that was accidentally hit by the israelis?



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
The thing about India getting involved in this is that it won't be pretty if they do. That is because if we are pressuring them to get involved with attacking Iran, the Pakistanis may have something to say about it. If Pakistan goes against India attacking Iran, we may have to keep another war from happening. With the way that Pakistan and India have been at each others necks, it would not surprise me if they were to break out the nukes. However, a war between Pakistan and India may provoke Iran to get involved.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mel1962
Well Crisko, you made me feel better, I just hope our civilian leadership is aware of the dangers!


It has been my belief for the past few weeks that Bush is baiting Iran. If they attack us first, then we have justification for going to war with them. It's like drawing a mark in the sand and saying "I dare ya to cross it."



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I saw this on Glenn Beck earlier regarding economic warfare with Iran, I understand that Glenn Beck is an alarmist but he had an expert...



Transcript - Glenn Beck, 01-25-2007

We, apparently, are one of three countries that can make the kind of equipment that Iran needs to pull their oil out of the ground. The other two, Canada and Japan. The Iranians went to go buy some new equipment. We put pressure on Japan and said, "Don`t you dare sell it." So we`re squeezing them from the production standpoint, as well.

COHEN: We are not there yet. More sanctions are necessary if we are to avoid the war, and the oil prices will need to go much lower, into the $20 range to start to impinge on Iraq.

BECK: Holy cow. Do you think that`s even possible?

COHEN: Yes, absolutely. Because the Saudis also are obsessed about the market share. Every time an oil producer collapsed, such as Iraq under Saddam or Venezuela when there were disturbances under Chavez, the Saudis were the ones to pick up the pieces and to step in. The Saudis want to be in this game for a long, long time


I'm not sure what to make of this. It appears to be more posturing. Could economic sanctions work against Iran or is this just another provocation?

Here is a list of papers by Ariel Cohen, many are regarding Iran and Oil.
www.heritage.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   
So let me get this straight. If there are hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, Russia, China, India and Venezuela will take on the U.S. and it's allies for the sake of Defending Iran? Sorry to burst that bubble but what exactly do any of these countries gain by doing this? They stand to lose far more that what they would gain by such actions.

Russia is energy sufficient, it has no need for Iranian supplies. China and India get a relatively small part of their oil needs filled by Iran. In fact, a disruption of Iran's oil exports would probably effect Europe and Japan more than China and India. Take a look at China's top trade partners, you won't find Iran there. Take a look at China's top import suppliers, again you won't find Iran there. The same can be said for India as well. Those 3 countries stand to lose far more than what they can gain by throwing their weight behind Iran in a conflict with the U.S.

As for Venezuela attacking oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, well that is just suicidal for their economy as we would either: a) seize their oil fields in response or b) destroy their oil fields in response. Countries that have a one export economy will not do things that will destroy their livelihood.

I've read the article and am left wondering why the countries named in it would risk so much for a rather small country, relatively speaking. I'm sure if it does come down to armed hostilities, the U.S. will make the proper overtures to various countries to get the job done.

On a side note, why does everyone seem to think that the US navy would be holed up in the Persian gulf or the straits of Hormuz? They don't operate that way, they would stand off the southern coast of Iran in the gulf of Oman and do what they do. Why risk the ships in the Persian gulf when you have unsinkable aircraft carriers on land throughout the region?

Just a word to the wise, if Iran has a nuclear tipped anti-ship missile (a very big if) and they managed to launched it and hit a carrier group causing massive damage, you would see an Ohio class sub that are parked near enough to Iran (make no mistake, there is one close enough), send them the proper message. That message would probably take the form of 24 SLBM's with about 4 warheads each. It really would not be very pretty after that.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wingman77
I'm not sure what to make of this. It appears to be more posturing. Could economic sanctions work against Iran or is this just another provocation?

Here is a list of papers by Ariel Cohen, many are regarding Iran and Oil.
www.heritage.org...


They sure could, the Iranian refinement capability is in decline. The state has not invested in the industry in years, and it will continue to be as such due to the investment in Nuclear Technology.

Iran imports more gas than it exports - which is then subsidized by the government. 60-70% of Iran's income is oil - lessen the income and you weaken the countries ability to continue to provide cheap fuel to the citizenry - which further places those in charge in a precarious position.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by crisko]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12

Originally posted by mel1962
I have had a bad feeling about the Iranian thing, especially since the testing of the anti-ship missles and what happen to the Israeli ship off the coast of Lebanon!



Do you mean the German ship that was accidentally hit by the israelis?


Yes, Ghaleon, but I though it was an israeli ship, not sure were they bought it from.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Just a word to the wise, if Iran has a nuclear tipped anti-ship missile (a very big if) and they managed to launched it and hit a carrier group causing massive damage, you would see an Ohio class sub that are parked near enough to Iran (make no mistake, there is one close enough), send them the proper message. That message would probably take the form of 24 SLBM's with about 4 warheads each. It really would not be very pretty after that.


So pavil let me get it straight of what you saying.Usa invade iran for obvious to everyone reason which is to control the wast amount of oil in the middle east(lets leave the bs of Iran and the nuclear weapons). So the Iran which protecting it self from an agressor hit the carrier group causing massive damage the usa then go nuclear and blow the iran out of earths face and the iran goes a quite neibourhood for about 10,000 years and the very purpose and the whole fuss about that the use invaded Iran is flashed into the toilet . And lets not forget the already US dept .



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Though the possibility of russia,china,india and venezuela ALL attacking the u.s.are remote we should at least consider the chances.Short of this combined force imho the u.s and israel would make mincemeat of iran AND syria.i seriously dont believe russia and china would go to the mat with us over iran.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy

So pavil let me get it straight of what you saying.Usa invade iran for obvious to everyone reason which is to control the wast amount of oil in the middle east(lets leave the bs of Iran and the nuclear weapons). So the Iran which protecting it self from an agressor hit the carrier group causing massive damage the usa then go nuclear and blow the iran out of earths face and the iran goes a quite neibourhood for about 10,000 years and the very purpose and the whole fuss about that the use invaded Iran is flashed into the toilet . And lets not forget the already US dept .


Slow down and take a breath. I said if the U.S. and Iran came to hostilities, I didn't mention an invasion. I mentioned if Iran were to attack a U.S. CBG with a nuclear device as someone stated, what would be the inevitable response from the U.S.

The U.S. response to such an attack should be so obvious as to prevent such an attack in the first place. Who will attack if they know they will suffer totally and immeasurably? The U.S. will respond to a nuclear attack in a most heavy handed way. We don't want people thinking that they can get away with attacking us like that, the destruction of the nation launching such a nuclear attack on the U.S. will serve as a deterrent to others.

That may sound very cold, but it's the truth. That is all I am stating. Nations need to be aware of the consequences of their actions. Why do you think Saddam didn't use his chemical weapons on coalition forces during Desert Storm? He was bluntly told what would occur should he use them. Sometimes you need to speak loudly AND carry a big stick.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
My post was not so much the rest of the world lining up with Iran, but rather covertly supporting Iran with weapons, supplies and run interference in the UN, Iraq, Israel, etc.

The US is in a vulnerable position and can afford no mistakes.

I believe Iran could be a real "tar baby" beware Br'er Rabbit!




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
An attack on Iran will probably happen in the next 1.5 years...how I nor does anyone know.

The International Community will at best denounce it...or if Iran attacks first praise it at the beginning.

All these elaborate schemes won't happen such as China attacking US forces or what not. That is just preposterous.

The USA and Israel aren't the only ones who want Iran out of the equation...remember, most of the Middle East is Sunni.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join