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.

 

jets to patrol Iran-Iraq border

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I had assumed that we were patroling the Iran border from the air?



The US Air Force is preparing for an expanded role in Iraq that could include aggressive new tactics designed to deter Iranian assistance to Iraqi militants, senior Pentagon officials were quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying on Wednesday.

‘For every improvised explosive device that goes off in Iraq, a bomb should go off in Iran,’ retired Air Force lieutenant general says

www.ynetnews.com...


So what happens when one of our jets 'strays' into Iranian airspace and is fired upon or shot down?

Countdown to Gulf of Tonkin 2.0




posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I would hope that this wouldnt happen in this day and age with GPS guidance and mapping. You never know though, anything is possible however unlikely. I just don't see a conflict with Iran around the corner.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
probably happening already, how much more provoking will usa do to iran.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
probably happening already, how much more provoking will usa do to iran.


Who said anyone was provoking anyone? The US has had helicopters patrolling that border for some time now I believe (I cant find the thread but I remember something to this effect). Seeing as Iranians appear to be meddling in Iraq, how do you suppose we stop that? By patrolling the border from the ground up.
Completely justified and warranted in my opinion.

[edit on 2/2/2007 by ludaChris]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Seeing as Iranians appear to be meddling in Iraq, how do you suppose we stop that? By patrolling the border from the ground up.
Completely justified and warranted in my opinion.

[edit on 2/2/2007 by ludaChris]


Well isn't Iraq full of Iraqis? so why in the heck is the job of the US to patrol that nation, that is the job of the "for the democratically elected government of Iraq to so"

I find very funny that after the invasion The Bush administration didn't care about the borders in Iraq and now when Iraq is nothing than a mess of full with foreign fighters and insurgency . . . now is so important to patrol the borders.

I think that this the next step into finding more prof that Iran is attacking US soldiers in Iraq.

This administration is playing this whole thing by the book.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well isn't Iraq full of Iraqis? so why in the heck is the job of the US to patrol that nation, that is the job of the "for the democratically elected government of Iraq to so"

I find very funny that after the invasion The Bush administration didn't care about the borders in Iraq and now when Iraq is nothing than a mess of full with foreign fighters and insurgency . . . now is so important to patrol the borders.

I think that this the next step into finding more prof that Iran is attacking US soldiers in Iraq.

This administration is playing this whole thing by the book.


Well for one, we have to stop any supplies coming in from the outside to the insurgency. Or should we let more of the insugencies war supplies through and keep giving them more tools to kill our troops with? Certainly wouldnt help the case for the US finally pulling out would it?

I agree with the second statement but it doesnt change the fact that somethings gotta be done about it does it?

I dont see why everyone finds it hard to believe that Iranian agents are playing a part in Iraq. They are already preparing for the day the US leaves, and putting their pieces in place to gain political control of Iraq in this little proxy war going on now. I don't see a problem with implementing air and ground patrols allong the border to minimize the ammount of materials and possibly fighters getting in along the Iranian and Syrian borders. We'd be making life tougher for ourselves if we didn't.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
We'd be making life tougher for ourselves if we didn't.


To tell you the truth the bush administration did that all by himself when he took Saddam and the ruling Sunnis to replaced them with the Shiites, see . . . Iran and Iraq share tribal ties.

But I guess somebody forgot to give the people in the white House some historical facts about the middle east.

While the administration is putting the lives of our soldiers on the line to control the borders with Iran the Shiites militia welcome them with open arms.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
"Who said anyone was provoking anyone?.....Completely justified and warranted in my opinion. "



The US has pursued aggressive provocation against Iran for years. Especially in the last 5 or so years. If you actually take a look at the events surrounding Iran geographically.

To the north Azerbaijan and Georgia appear to out of the blue had "pro-US" revolutions. Georgia has recieved a billion dollars worth of weapons from the US. Azerbaijan will soon be host to a US air base since the Russians were asked to leave after the revolution. What are the CIA doing here catching people smuggling uranium?

To the East the United States has just invaded Afganistan and is building a large air base near the Iranian border.

To the south numerous arab countries are host to US naval and air bases. Not mentioning the airstrip in Kharab Oman 5 minutes from the Iranian coast. The sea is so constantly full of submarines they collide over and over each year.

To the West the US has invaded Iraq.

And of course - the US don't try to meddle in Iran.

To be honest this has very little to do with Shia/Sunni muslims attacking each other. Its all very good for the White House for people to think this, it appears to make us forget the United States currently occupies a foreign state and is now planning to launch another war against someone else from this state. The majority of these attacks are aimed at making the US fail and leave. Its just obvious guys.

Let us all sit down and remember Iranian Air Flight 665 - you all remember that don't you? Surely?


[edit on 2-2-2007 by superpaul55]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
To tell you the truth the bush administration did that all by himself when he took Saddam and the ruling Sunnis to replaced them with the Shiites, see . . . Iran and Iraq share tribal ties.

But I guess somebody forgot to give the people in the white House some historical facts about the middle east.

While the administration is putting the lives of our soldiers on the line to control the borders with Iran the Shiites militia welcome them with open arms.


Yes, Iraq is a majority Shia' country, and was under rule of the Sunnis. Who cares if the Shia's welcome them with open arms, Iranian agents are still meddling in our attempt to stabilize the country and have no business doing so. You can go all day about how the US has no business in Iraq in the first place, but the face is we are there and the Iranians have no business screwing it up.

But I really just want ask you one question.

Do you think that something does need to be done about Iraqs borders with Iran and Syria, hell maybe even Saudi Arabia(whom I dont believe is an ally at all)?



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris

Do you think that something does need to be done about Iraq's borders with Iran and Syria, hell maybe even Saudi Arabia(whom I don't believe is an ally at all)?


The borders is the Iraqis job to take care off, but when the government is part of the problem is nothing that can be done, putting our soldiers there is just like putting a band-aid on an open wound as long as they are wanted in Iraq is not much US can do, unless they decide to make Iraq another US state.

You can not contro a nation that doesn't want to be control due to loyalties.

Saudi may be financing under the table the Sunni Resistance against the Shiites militias and government death squats.

When you have a mix pot of people with tribal priorities, democracy is nothing more than a dream, the Bush administration dream.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   



Yes, Iraq is a majority Shia' country, and was under rule of the Sunnis. Who cares if the Shia's welcome them with open arms, Iranian agents are still meddling in our attempt to stabilize the country and have no business doing so.

Sorry, but the US isn't trying to stabilize anything. Massacres in Fallujah and some cities or this or this don't help stabilize. I'm sure plenty of Iraqis remember that one. And the bombing of the Golden mosque by US/British commandos don't help stabilize either. They don't want to stabilize Iraq, they say it themselves:
Bolton: The US have no interests in a stable Iraq

Their initial plan was to divise it in 3 parts, so you have to create a civil war to accomplish that.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
They shoot down an aircraft. We retaliate with Missle strikes that are aimed at Military building that accidently hit a Temple. Bam we are in there. I've been saying all along Bush wants us in before he is out of office so that the next guy will have to finish it.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
The US has pursued aggressive provocation against Iran for years. Especially in the last 5 or so years. If you actually take a look at the events surrounding Iran geographically.

To the north Azerbaijan and Georgia appear to out of the blue had "pro-US" revolutions. Georgia has recieved a billion dollars worth of weapons from the US. Azerbaijan will soon be host to a US air base since the Russians were asked to leave after the revolution. What are the CIA doing here catching people smuggling uranium?

To the East the United States has just invaded Afganistan and is building a large air base near the Iranian border.

To the south numerous arab countries are host to US naval and air bases. Not mentioning the airstrip in Kharab Oman 5 minutes from the Iranian coast. The sea is so constantly full of submarines they collide over and over each year.

To the West the US has invaded Iraq.

And of course - the US don't try to meddle in Iran.

To be honest this has very little to do with Shia/Sunni muslims attacking each other. Its all very good for the White House for people to think this, it appears to make us forget the United States currently occupies a foreign state and is now planning to launch another war against someone else from this state. The majority of these attacks are aimed at making the US fail and leave. Its just obvious guys.

Let us all sit down and remember Iranian Air Flight 665 - you all remember that don't you? Surely?
[edit on 2-2-2007 by superpaul55]


Your geographical observations are correct and I agree that Iran views this as a threat as any country would. But would it not be in Irans best interest to cooperate with the US to help with the situation in Iraq if they want the bulk of our forces out of the region.(I think everyone can agree that the US isnt leaving the region completely and its unrealistic to even suggest that we should at this point)

You seem to forget that since 1979 Islamic Revolution(Though western influence goes back much further than that, installing the Shah for example), the US and Iran have been at complete ideological odds. Each with contempt for the other. The US has certainly meddled with Iran in the past and I'm sure there have been recent SOF recon incursions, probably UAV's and other intelligence operations. I haven't heard anything to suggest were in Iran blowing things up or arming insurgents, though to be honest it wouldn't surprise me. Are you really surprised that the last 50 years of history between Iran and the US have caused such an icy relationship. But if Iran wans us out of iraq, then they should be helping us insead of working against us to fix Iraq.

As for the fact we are preparing for another war with Iran, I think you're mistaken. I believe the current buildup is simply to give Iran a moment of pause, probably regular rotation cycles though. Most people with basic knowledge of military power can tell you that Iran has no chance in a conventional fight with the US military and Iran knows this too. Even if there is a shooting war with Iran, I dont believe it will turn into an invasion of Iran, just air and cruise missile strikes on certain facilities. But an invasion would be political suicide and way more costly(i.e. a complete disaster equal to 10 Iraqs). Not worth the effort, as the ends wont justify the means just as history will probably show for the Iraq invasion.

Yes I do remember that Iranian Airliner, . You remember the Iranian embassy hostage situation dont you? Its been tit for tat for years, but either way it justifies none of Irans agents helping the insurgents in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Lets no forget that Iran wants to talk but the Bush administration doesn't want diplomatic talks, because that is not what is wanted . . . because they have been targeted.

Maliki doesn't want Bush to wag war to Iran from Iraqi soil, he already voice his disapproval of it . . . but we already knows that it fell on deaf ears because the agenda is already set and will be executed.

Maliki also wants diplomatic talks, for that he was targeted by Republican senators as weak and his role as a leader was put in question, also Bush gave the ok to raid the Iranian embassy in Iraq. why?

Perhaps to show Maliki that he after all has not say so in his own country?

already Iran is a target and Maliki's diplomacy wishes are out of the question even when he is the elected leader of Iraq.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


Yes, Iraq is a majority Shia' country, and was under rule of the Sunnis. Who cares if the Shia's welcome them with open arms, Iranian agents are still meddling in our attempt to stabilize the country and have no business doing so.

Sorry, but the US isn't trying to stabilize anything. Massacres in Fallujah and some cities or this or this don't help stabilize. I'm sure plenty of Iraqis remember that one. And the bombing of the Golden mosque by US/British commandos don't help stabilize either. They don't want to stabilize Iraq, they say it themselves:
Bolton: The US have no interests in a stable Iraq

Their initial plan was to divise it in 3 parts, so you have to create a civil war to accomplish that.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Vitchilo]


You totally misquoted Bolton!!!!! If you read the entire article you would realize he said the only interest they have is that when we leave, Iraq isnt a state that is going to collapse. He siad they have no interest in one iraq or three iraqs. Massacres in Fallujia? Need the evidence there for that one, I recall several inconclusive threads, but nothing that prooves anything. The fight in Najaf between Iraqi and US forces, in your article says the evidence shows an unpremiditated massacre. Those militants attacked Iraqi forces first and then the US stepped in and mopped them up, and rightfully so in my opinion, they were outmatched for the fight and the results showed it. YOu didnt even read your links, jsut the headlines it appears. Nice try though.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   


You totally misquoted Bolton!!!!! If you read the entire article you would realize he said the only interest they have is that when we leave, Iraq isnt a state that is going to collapse. He siad they have no interest in one iraq or three iraqs.

You're right, oops, I just red the title... But it's total BS, read the CFR documents, they say that they want to divide Iraq in 3.


Massacres in Fallujia? Need the evidence there for that one, I recall several inconclusive threads, but nothing that prooves anything.

A city of 300.000, 250.000 left, US attacks, 50.000 are victims of the attack, but how many died? Fallujah massacre


The fight in Najaf between Iraqi and US forces, in your article says the evidence shows an unpremiditated massacre. Those militants attacked Iraqi forces first and then the US stepped in and mopped them up, and rightfully so in my opinion, they were outmatched for the fight and the results showed it. YOu didnt even read your links, jsut the headlines it appears. Nice try though.

Oook, what about Haditha then? And of course the use of DU, which affects US soldiers and Iraqis.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Iran's leaders are bad, U.S leaders are worse, this is my current opinion on the whole thing.
In my opinion the middle east can't be taken,the crusaders failed but they did try for a very long time, let's face it, their culture is just very diffrent and I don't think our culture will work for them, I'm sure they don't want it.

Boming them will just crate more hate, I don't think it will solve anything, and comming with flowers after blowing them up won't work.
How about saying "we gave you democracy" after blowing them up and killing the hell out of them, do any of you think this will really work?
Plus boming them won't solve anything, they will just reconstruct and even hate the U.S and Europe more.

Let's face it , the only reason war in iraq is, it's because of oil and money comming from the weapons industries



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
The United States don't want outright war with Iran, it is never the primary choice. Their first choice is that of 'low-intensity conflict'. You basically surround your enemy and then sancation them preventing certain chemicals and goods from entering the country.

You basically let the people starve and die. The United States has already surrounded Iran and in years to come they will prevent arms and parts for machinery entering the country thereby removing the countries military power and will to resist. You will be a witness to this. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is freedom, the freedom to starve.

The reason the American embassy in Tehran was invaded is because the United States see's its duty as to meddle and position leaders in power to favour themselves, not the people of the particular country, themselves. As Ayatollah himself said:

"The removal of the American spy-den is the second revolution".

The Iranian people have made it quite clear they do not want the Americans interfering in their affairs, so the Americans should back off 6000 miles to the other side of the planet.

Its obvious how the United States plays the 'diplomatic game'. You request talks and then try your hardest to make these talks take place at a time of one of your big military practices for invading that country. You also do this for IAEA inspections. It puts the opposition on a severe back foot and helps nothing.

"I'm sure they don't want it." Spot on.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
The United States don't want outright war with Iran, it is never the primary choice. Their first choice is that of 'low-intensity conflict'. You basically surround your enemy and then sancation them preventing certain chemicals and goods from entering the country.

You basically let the people starve and die. The United States has already surrounded Iran and in years to come they will prevent arms and parts for machinery entering the country thereby removing the countries military power and will to resist. You will be a witness to this. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is freedom, the freedom to starve.

The reason the American embassy in Tehran was invaded is because the United States see's its duty as to meddle and position leaders in power to favour themselves, not the people of the particular country, themselves. As Ayatollah himself said:

"The removal of the American spy-den is the second revolution".

The Iranian people have made it quite clear they do not want the Americans interfering in their affairs, so the Americans should back off 6000 miles to the other side of the planet.

Its obvious how the United States plays the 'diplomatic game'. You request talks and then try your hardest to make these talks take place at a time of one of your big military practices for invading that country. You also do this for IAEA inspections. It puts the opposition on a severe back foot and helps nothing.

"I'm sure they don't want it." Spot on.




Well Iran doesnt seem to give a damn about the IAEA seeing as they just barred 38 inspectors last month. More and more of that program is becoming less and less transparent. This goes against what they signed, I believe it was the Nuclear NPT. Nuclear energy fine, I'm all for it for anyone. But when you are trying to reduce or even ban the agreed inspections and degree of transparency agreed on in the NPT, thats when I have a problem as everyone should in my opinion.

I think youre being a bit overzealous with your depiction of sanctions. Sanctions limit certain materials from entering the country. Most probably to include parts for weaponry, or certain chemicals used in the nuclear or chemical weapons creation process. Sanctions like these are what is more likely to be implemented, the Us wouldnt be trying to starve the Iranian people, just the military of vital supplies required to keep equipment operational and research projects going.

[edit on 2/3/2007 by ludaChris]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55

The US has pursued aggressive provocation against Iran for years. Especially in the last 5 or so years. If you actually take a look at the events surrounding Iran geographically.



That's myopic in its clear form of logical disconnection,

How about remembering "Tehran 79' embassy takover"

or "Beirut barracks bombing"

or not one but two "African embassy bombings"

nuff said.................



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join