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.

 

Comment on the "war with Iran" posts

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The boards have been ripe for years on "war with Iran" conspiracies.

Now I am fairly convinced that before Bush is out of office that the US and/or Isreal will strike Iran. And the way Iran is acting it might even be a good idea.

However; I find it very UNLIKELY that the US will invade Iran. I look for a 3-5 day (possibly longer) Desert Storm type air campaign on Iranina strategic and nuclear targets to set back their nuclear program. This would be unlikely (although not impossible) to spin out of control, and could contribute to long term regional stability (does anyone REALLY want a nuclear iran?).

I do not see an invasion, especially after the fiasco Iraq has become, happening. At best, I could see an incursion across the Iraq-Iran boarder to establish some sort of security zone to help prevent Iranian supplies and advisors from coming across into Iraq and MAYBE a grab at the oil fields at the top of the Persian Gulf to keep Iran from cutting off western (in fact world) oil supplies.

However, everyone hear keep screaming invasion, and I was wondering what exacly is prompting this line of thought. Other then "Bush is Hitler" type comments. He may have certainly screwed this up, but he is far from any comparison to adolf!




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Sr Wing etc
It amazes me that although you have the imagination to find yourself on ATS, your tunnel vision is obscuring your geo-political spectrum to the point that you make comments such as these...




I look for a 3-5 day (possibly longer) Desert Storm type air campaign on Iranina strategic and nuclear targets to set back their nuclear program. This would be unlikely (although not impossible) to spin out of control, and could contribute to long term regional stability (does anyone REALLY want a nuclear iran?).


Why can't the iranians have nuclear energy........because they will immedietly bomb the world......HAAHaHA yea right.

Your blindly nationalistic veiwpoint further manifests itself...



At best, I could see an incursion across the Iraq-Iran boarder to establish some sort of security zone to help prevent Iranian supplies and advisors from coming across into Iraq and MAYBE a grab at the oil fields at the top of the Persian Gulf to keep Iran from cutting off western (in fact world) oil supplies.


I mean come on, what is your deal? Are you a fed-contracted poster or something?
Fishing for some data on what the overall response will be?

Well, here is a response...

WAR IS BAD

and as for your comment



However, everyone hear keep screaming invasion, and I was wondering what exacly is prompting this line of thought. Other then "Bush is Hitler" type comments. He may have certainly screwed this up, but he is far from any comparison to adolf!


actually if you just spend some time looking at the following links you would probably see the similarities between Bush and Hitler...

ecosyn.us...

www.thememoryhole.org...

Open your eyes, war is not the answer!



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   


Why can't the iranians have nuclear energy........because they will immedietly bomb the world......HAAHaHA yea right.


Well, let's see" The Iranian president THREATENS to "wipe Israel off the map." Iran is known to support terrorist organizations. Oh, and did I forgot to mention that Iran is CONTROLLED by Extremist Muslims!

Enough reasons?



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
Sr Wing etc
It amazes me that although you have the imagination to find yourself on ATS, your tunnel vision is obscuring your geo-political spectrum to the point that you make comments such as these...




I look for a 3-5 day (possibly longer) Desert Storm type air campaign on Iranina strategic and nuclear targets to set back their nuclear program. This would be unlikely (although not impossible) to spin out of control, and could contribute to long term regional stability (does anyone REALLY want a nuclear iran?).


Why can't the iranians have nuclear energy........because they will immedietly bomb the world......HAAHaHA yea right.

On what is this based? Their threatening statements seem to speak for themselves. Why are they resisting UN inspections if their program is totally benign, and why are they installing centrifuges that they do not need?


Your blindly nationalistic veiwpoint further manifests itself...



At best, I could see an incursion across the Iraq-Iran boarder to establish some sort of security zone to help prevent Iranian supplies and advisors from coming across into Iraq and MAYBE a grab at the oil fields at the top of the Persian Gulf to keep Iran from cutting off western (in fact world) oil supplies.


I mean come on, what is your deal? Are you a fed-contracted poster or something?
Fishing for some data on what the overall response will be?

Well, here is a response...

WAR IS BAD

I appreciate that war is bad. Given. But his assessment of the situation is one that results in defanging Iran with minimal casualties. If Iran doesn't come to the table, what is the difficulty with his solution?


and as for your comment



However, everyone hear keep screaming invasion, and I was wondering what exacly is prompting this line of thought. Other then "Bush is Hitler" type comments. He may have certainly screwed this up, but he is far from any comparison to adolf!


actually if you just spend some time looking at the following links you would probably see the similarities between Bush and Hitler...

ecosyn.us...

www.thememoryhole.org...

Open your eyes, war is not the answer!

Even if the allegations in the first website are true, they establish only tenuous connections between Hitler and the Bushes, ones that probably any well-connected family would have. How is this evidence of anything other than a rush to judgment?

With regards to the second ad, it merely sets the stage for the accusations in the first. It has no independent significance on its own.

[edit on 1/29/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt


Why can't the iranians have nuclear energy........because they will immedietly bomb the world......HAAHaHA yea right.


Well, let's see" The Iranian president THREATENS to "wipe Israel off the map." Iran is known to support terrorist organizations. Oh, and did I forgot to mention that Iran is CONTROLLED by Extremist Muslims!

Enough reasons?


Don't make those blank statements. Oh, and did I mention the USA controls the oil business? Oh, and did I mention Israel controls the USA? hmm, maybe not..



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qwazzy
Don't make those blank statements. Oh, and did I mention the USA controls the oil business? Oh, and did I mention Israel controls the USA? hmm, maybe not..


Last I checked OPEC controls the Oil business.

Provide factual basis for your second claim please.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Iran having Nuclear weapons doesn't bother me one bit! In fact it makes me think that the US will think twice before attacking them. Just like N. Korea they weren't attacked because they have the bomb.

As far as Iran saying agressive things, think about it! If you felt threatened, would you like your leader to be tough or show weakness?



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
So far I haven't seen one real answer to my original comment/question. Why does everyone assume an invasion of iran.

Only a hyper emotional and seemingly uninformed/unknowledgable attack on my "tunnel vision....and geopolitical world view" with an accusation of being some sort of government employee. Funny, but kind of sad.

By the way, I have a degree in Political Science/International relations, so I am well versed in geopolitical situation. I however; do not, and have not ever worked for the US or any other Government....short of a brief stint in Army ROTC and as an intern in the State of Oklahoma's office of personnel management.

Now back to the point. Why so much talk on an invasion of iran.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt


Why can't the iranians have nuclear energy........because they will immedietly bomb the world......HAAHaHA yea right.


Well, let's see" The Iranian president THREATENS to "wipe Israel off the map." Iran is known to support terrorist organizations. Oh, and did I forgot to mention that Iran is CONTROLLED by Extremist Muslims!

Enough reasons?
Forgive me for not being a P.C. Zionist robot but, so be it if Iran says whatever they want against Israel....this is America not Israel. let Israel fight and finance there own public and private wars for a change. Answer me this k4rupt Did we lift a finger while Lebanon and Palestine where being targeted with bombs and not just mere words?



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I think you'll find the only people screaming 'invasion' are the same people screaming ' America rules the world, we kicked butt in Iraq and we'll kick butt ANYWHERE '

people with a bit more logic, and understanding of the international arena understand and invasion is out of the question.

land mass, population, the military breaking point and the ecnomoy all make for an invasion to be almost impossible.

How ever, a prolonged AIR Campaign just opens the door for Iran to randomly shoot of missles at Israel and Iraq.

So if we are to go into Iran, we need to hit them hard enough, and fast enough to ensure there ability to strike back is sevrely diminshed.

Todays day and age, the bomb is getting easier, and easier to get.
In the end, Saudi's going to get it, Iran will get it.... hell a lot of countries are going to get it, and the USA doesnt want that because that bully tendancy goes out there door
I mean, the victim just learnt a mean form of martial arts...

Iran are ONLY Going to strike Israel with a nuclear bomb, if there impending defeat is at hand.
A last throws on the death bed sort of strike....

But If we hit Iran, it will cause a major crisis across the ME.
Do not think we can just bomb Iran to obvlivian, and they'll stop there rhetoric and come to the party allowing america to dictate.

No, if we hit them, they will hit back. Anyone who believes Iran are goign to be wiped out in a few days and thats the problem over with, are badly deluded.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I agree with you Sr Wing Commander. An invasion of Iran by the US is very unlikely. If action is taken, it can not be economic as a great many items are banned for sale to Iran by US companies.

Action would be selective strikes but I do not see the US invading Iran as part of a security action. If the US had a hard time in Iraq, Iran would be worst, very much worst.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Which really boils down to the fact that America (or Isreal) can't really afford to hit Iran, and can't really afford not to.

We could quickly see things spiral out of control.

Anyone ever read Ezekiel 38 and 39.........sounds alot like the current situation is adding up directly to that.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Its a tough one.

I would not invade Iran. The west could either occupy (which would be even harder than Iraq) Or we just destroy everything that is a threat, pull out and let them rebuild again.

I dread that any US attack on Iran after they have the bomb, will mean the end of Israel and the deaths of thousands of troops in Iraq (coupled with even more bloodshed). So I am currently leaning towards a lighting strike (Air and Cruise Missiles etc) on nuclear facilities within the next year or two.

Iran is a present threat to the West, they have been linked to several terror attacks, and even the leader of Hezbollah has recently admitted that Iran and Syria provided full-on logistical and moral support. They do not recognise the state of Israel, and they have made it clear that they want Israel wiped off the face of the planet.

It is naive for anyone to deny that Iran isn't trying to achieve nuclear weapons. They do have a right to nuclear energy, yes, particularly if their own economic lifeline (oil) is rapidly running out. But the fact of the matter is, they will develop atomic weapons. They have clearly signalled their attentions to become the main powerhouse in the ME, their defence spending is through the roof and they are even reaching into Space. Nuclear weapons will cement them as a Global power player.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
To no one in particular. I think the term 'invasion' might also be construed by some to mean a surgical air strike. Corcern is very high because the US has recently established a pre-emptive nuclear policy. So if we 'attack' in any way shape or form it would be the fisrt time nuclear weapons have been used on a sovereign target since Nagasaki. The US and Bush are all ready on the rest of the world's s**t how would they react. Of couse neo-cons, zionists, evangelicals, and others who believe they are saved don't mind but for the rest of us it would ruin a fun thing, life. I'm guessing that is not part of Gods plan.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Oh yeah, sure. All us "evangelicals" are just itchn' to drop the bomb.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I am fairly certain his blanket statement about evangelicals really was meant to be targeted at "some" fundamentalists', who seem to be trying to hurry along the "rapture" scenario.

[of course I am assuming he just miss-typed]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Thank you Arkangel I did not mean to impugn Evangelicals or anyone else that is against war in Iran.

Apologies Sr Wing Commander.

Any body who does want war with Iran perhaps should reconsider. It could end the World.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I think the "Invasion" term was bandied about liberally in the media and anti-war crowd once to often to the point it has become a replacement for the word "attack" which has a whole different meaning in military terms than "invade"

No one in their right mind as far as I know has said the US should invade and hold territory.

An attack on the otherhand could involve small ground forces to neutralize missile sites and other threats prior to securing sealanes in the gulf or assist in targeting inland strategic sites.

Since the Iraqi invasion I have believed that Iran was the true target in the first place. Topic for another thread but I believe the Iranians are complicit in 9/11.

Iraq was a threat, but more to Saudi Arabia, Iraq once occupied acts as a buffer to Iranian counterstrikes on that axis in retaliation for taking out their nuclear capability. IMHO this is/has been all about protecting a strategic source of oil for the US.

Look at our deployments and allied countries and it is not hard to ascertain that Iran was boxed in with the Afganistan and Iraq invasions along with base agreements in central asia, bases in persian gulf.

Once attacked Iran will find it difficult to respond regardless what the naysayers claim they have as an arsenal. Sure in some small way they may suceed at something somewhere much as the Iraqi's scud landing on the Suadi airbase in 91' but not much more than that.

Improved patriot batteries have been forward deployed where needed, the Iranian airforce is a joke, the navy is barely capable of a days battle, their subs will be sunk at the first launch of a torpedo.

US airpower can stop any cross border strike into Iraq.

With all that, terroristic reprisal is their option now and in the future. They know it and the US knows it - that is why they must not be allowed nuclear weapons.

Four carrier battle groups along with two MEU's will soon be within distance if needed.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
there is so much talk about invasion because we are kept on eggshells since 9/11. cant say if it is intentional or not, but we are surrounded by semiotic hints that we are afraid. and when your scared, it is fight or flight.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Why would an Iran invasion be unlikely? Bush listed Iran in the Axis of Evil. The same list had Iraq in it. We know without any uncertainty at this point that Iraq was no threat to the USA and was of zero defensive value for invasion.

The exact same thing can happen with Iran. Nukes or not. Threat or not. Legality or not. It doesn't matter when it comes to the USA's foreign policy. If the USA wants to invade Iran, it will do so. We have seen in the very recent past that this is the case. All you need to do is look at Iraq.

There is no reason to conclude that the USA won't invade Iran simply because the Iraq invasion turned out so badly. The USA has shown its willingness to forego any diplomatic or even logical solutions when dealing with foreign nations they are targeting.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join