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.

 

Who attacks first U.S. or Iran?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
who do you think will attack first? will it be Iran? or will it be the U.S.? or will the u.s. stage an attack like 9/11?




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
It wont matter, the US cant even beat cave dwellers in Afghanistan and no need to mention the Iraq quagmire. The US should surrender now and avoid losing another war as its last couple also ended in major defeat...ie: Korea and Vietnam.

Yes you could argue they won the so called "Cold War" but if you take into context how long it actually went you could equally argue that Russian never totally fell but rebuilt into this new military and economic might and that the war is still ongoing with the US. Now perhaps its the US who is heading into financial trouble and the next rounds of the cold war are coming up.

In all its obvious that eventually any agressor nation loses so whats the point ? use history as a guide and there is one rule strong nations should abide by...don't be the invader...be the liberator's only.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mazzroth
 


Haha, yea according to your avatar you must spend all your time looking into a mirror.
I must be asleep because either Im dreaming or there is a division through Korea called the 38th parallel which divides Korea into a very economically stable and democratic South Korea and an extremely poverty laden and starving North Korea. I guess it is also a dream that several Nations fought along side the US, including Britain, Australia and 14 other allies in a very brutal war against N. Korea, Chinese and Soviet troops AFTER the North Koreans and then China invaded South Korea. The US wasnt the aggressor in that war, we just answered the call of an ally for help.
So how do you figure that war was lost?
Same thing in Viet Nam were we did not lose many battles with the enemy, we just lost the war of attrition. The North V-N couldnt face us in open terrain army to army battle and the few times they did, like during the TET invasion, they lost very badly.
I guess the Gulf War in 91-92 was another defeat for the US military to right?
Oh and whats this about Afghanistan where we were able to do in less than 2 years what the mighty Soviets couldnt do in 10 years?
There is no Taliban Army left, there is only an insurgency, just like there is in Iraq. Fighting a war like that is vastly different than two armies meeting on the battlefield and they are fighting this insurgency type war BECAUSE in the beginning they did try to meet coalition forces on the battlefield and paid a very heavy price for it.
So you consider it a US defeat in Iraq, when they place a home-made bomb in a donkey cart in the middle of the night and explode it as a humvee crosses its path on one side and a school bus crosses it on the other side?
Yea, they may kill 2 or 3 US soldiers, while at the same time they also kill 30 or more innocent children and teachers, that were on the school bus.
These idiots are just killing off each other and taking kids with them, at this point we are playing referee.
You point out any of those FACTS that I posted about the past wars weve fought in and you provide some info that proves that I'm wrong and youre right... wait, you cant can you? you cant because you know its not true and saying otherwise would just make you out to be a liar.


[edit on 8/20/2007 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
krOnOs:

i agree with everything you say except "There is no Taliban Army left, there is only an insurgency"
you cant really call the fighting members of the taliban in afghanistan "only and insurgency" the word insurgency could be labeled to vietcong fighters (also known as "The People's Liberation Armed Forces") when we were at war with vietnam. using the word insurgents to describe fighters in a war makes it sound like there is only a few dissenters in the region. but according to this article the taliban is actually regrouping and getting stronger
www.usatoday.com...
and also al-qaeda is at pre 911 strength
Just because they use guerrilla tactics in a war, doesnt mean it isnt a war all the same.
other than that great post!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Kronos

Your opinion counts for little as the facts stand..Korea is divided into 2 parts and you blindly forgot to mention the USA's ongoing embargoing of the North and the claiming of it being a Nuclear Threat. If the allies had won the Korean war wouldn't it be one country and free of Communism ?????. Loss...

The Vietnam war was a tactically brilliant withdrawl...its called cut "N" run and the communist lead North took over the whole country...Loss.

I never mentioned Gulf Wars because I thought it was hand in hand with the current conflagration, the allies wouldn't have had to go back in if Saddam was still in power. When he was removed the so called sectarian violence erupted with no peaceful end in sight..so basically its in flux but leaning the way of your enemy. Loss Pending...

As for afghanistan do your homework and revisit history, the Brits thought they beat them hands down until they moved their main contingent into India to fight there. The Afghans are patient and have very rarely been beaten so I would wait and see as history always repeats, they will basically do another Mogadishu ( I forgot to also mention that loss ) and bide their time until the Allies democratic process votes to lose the war for their military and brings the troops home.Loss pending...

Forget all this patriotic crap, the world needs less of this ideology and more redirection of the money wasted on war being spent on actually helping the needy and less fortunate.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by mazzroth]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mazzroth
 


Mazz, Im not really all that "patriotic" really. I just get tired of the same old, generic negative comments about the United States and our Military and feel the need to reply with FACTS and not conjecture.
It seems that your definition of loss is different than mine.. the troops are sent to where theyre ordered and do what theyre ordered to do, this is the Military and when they win their battles and their objectives, then I consider that a victory for our Military.
The war in Viet Nam was lost at the political level, not the military level.
In Afghanistan the allies pushed the Taliban and Al Queda into the mountains and effectively removed the Taliban soldiers from the field and their Govt from the capital.
I know all the history that i need to know about that country full of backward idiots
Even the Soviets, who lost the ground war and political war in Afghanistan, even they tried to move them into civilized society by upgrading and updating the Nations utilities etc..
What do the morons do? They dont want to be a part of the civilized world, they would rather starve and thirst to death because they believe that is how their God demands that they live..

More to post but I gotta watch a movie with my kid now..

p34c3


Turbokid.. Youre right about my comment about the Talibans demise.. they have indeed been making a comeback and I've also read the story about Al Queda's strength being back to pre 911 size.

Im also aware of the fact that there was a regular army in Vietnam in addition to the guerilla VC force
When I mentioned insurgents, I was pretty much talking about the current wars that we are in.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance911
who do you think will attack first? will it be Iran? or will it be the U.S.? or will the u.s. stage an attack like 9/11?


Humm, I will take a guess . . . taking into consideration that our nation attacke already two nations in the middle east and is right now actively invading Iraq I will say that we already are at war, is just that we are taking our time crossing Iran's borders


[edit on 20-8-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Same thing in Viet Nam were we did not lose many battles with the enemy, we just lost the war of attrition. The North V-N couldnt face us in open terrain army to army battle and the few times they did, like during the TET invasion, they lost very badly.


Welcome to modern combat. It does not change the fact that the US military was incapable to win that war. No matter how many troops they would send. All they got in return were body bags.



Originally posted by Kr0n0s
I guess the Gulf War in 91-92 was another defeat for the US military to right?


The difference between that war and the current Iraq war is that the US back then enjoyed the support of many NATO countries, there was a plan and enough boots on the ground.


Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Oh and whats this about Afghanistan where we were able to do in less than 2 years what the mighty Soviets couldnt do in 10 years?


How could you possibly compare the war the Soviets fought with this war? The insurgents (and the American creation: Bin Laden)were backed by the US, Saudi Arabia and other countries. Like Vietnam, it turned out to be very hard to fight these insurgents with a conventional force. In Afghanistan things are pretty bad and it shall take years, if not decades, to create and maintain stability.


Originally posted by Kr0n0s
There is no Taliban Army left, there is only an insurgency, just like there is in Iraq.


Really? It is recommendable to keep track of news, as Taliban forces keep on coming from Pakistan, day in day out.



Originally posted by Kr0n0s
So you consider it a US defeat in Iraq, when they place a home-made bomb in a donkey cart in the middle of the night and explode it as a humvee crosses its path on one side and a school bus crosses it on the other side?
Yea, they may kill 2 or 3 US soldiers, while at the same time they also kill 30 or more innocent children and teachers, that were on the school bus.
These idiots are just killing off each other and taking kids with them, at this point we are playing referee.


It does not matter how a war is fought, the FACT remains that the US is on the losing side and RESPONSIBLE for totally messing up Iraq, the Middle East and the world. The US army is merely a tool in this.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   
My best guess: Somehow a new war between Lebanon, Syria and Israel will emerge. Then, an attack on Israel by Iran will be faked (false flag rocket attack), which puts the US on the plan.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 






Really? It is recommendable to keep track of news, as Taliban forces keep on coming from Pakistan, day in day out.


It is recommendable that you at least keep track of the thread that you
are posting in, as my statement about the demise of the Taliban was admittedly premature.
Youre just another predictable and biased US bashing person from the "European Union" who thinks that they have all of the answers to world peace
This is coming from a Continent that is responsible for starting the two largest wars in the world, killing millions and millions of people. It isnt nice for the Pot to call the Kettle black

Many forget that the US, the 21st century "Evil Empire" did their best to set out these wars but was forced to enter the European Wars because you guys couldnt handle the wars that you started, they spiraled out of control and engulfed the entire world.
So even though we were just beginning a very long and bloody Pacific Campaign against the Japanese, we were able to spare a few hundred thousand troops and countless machines to send over there and straighten your mess out.
Anyway, it makes no difference to me. You guys go ahead, sit over there in your little "Unions" and bash us all you want but you better be careful because there will come a day when you will screw things up yet again.
This time though, all of your crying and begging for us to come back may fall on deaf ears.

Im sure that resistance911 wishes that you guys would quit going OT with all of your Anti-US babbling and stick to answering his question.

Sorry bout that resistance911, I'll just quit feeding the trolls and ignore anymore of their off topic BS..

P34c3



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Terrapop
 


Terrapop, thats actually a very good theory and definitely something to keep an eye out for.
Good Post!



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Kronos

You are suffering from a delusional phalacy that the US is invincible, Perfect, Righteous and the good guy. Wake up and smell the coffee as that was WW1 and WW2, since then the USA has become as agressive as the old Germany it help defeat ( notice helped defeat ) with the Allies.

Your moronic blind Partiotism defies the simple fact that the USA is no longer isolationist and now a full on protagonist of war and has no quarms in smashing innocents from high altitude with its arsenal of smart bombs and DU rounds from tanks.

History has shown for 10 000 years that powerful civilizations come and go after great periods of success and I need not mention Sumeria, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Don't think you are invincible as your allies are starting to grow thin and your enemy list is ever growing.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
@mazzroth: Please keep in mind that the overriding aim of the NWO is to depopulate the planet to 500 million. Thus, the collapse of the US is organised and just part of the great plan.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terrapop
@mazzroth: Please keep in mind that the overriding aim of the NWO is to depopulate the planet to 500 million. Thus, the collapse of the US is organised and just part of the great plan.


Yes I know this Terra but what can you do ? Just try to be one of the 500 Mil
.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
I know all the history that i need to know about that country full of backward idiots



I'm assuming in your case that isn't very much.

An American invasion of Iran (and let's face it, they'll be invading on their own) would end in disaster. Alot of the US kit is pretty high tech, but that'll count for very little in an extremely mountainous (and very large) area where your enemy would be willing to die to protect their homeland. The Iranians aren't Iraquis, and no matter their political alignment they will fight against an invader.

It'll be a complete mess.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
reply to post by mazzroth
 


Mazz, Im not really all that "patriotic" really. I just get tired of the same old, generic negative comments about the United States and our Military and feel the need to reply with FACTS and not conjecture.
It seems that your definition of loss is different than mine.. the troops are sent to where theyre ordered and do what theyre ordered to do, this is the Military and when they win their battles and their objectives, then I consider that a victory for our Military.
The war in Viet Nam was lost at the political level, not the military level.
In Afghanistan the allies pushed the Taliban and Al Queda into the mountains and effectively removed the Taliban soldiers from the field and their Govt from the capital.
I know all the history that i need to know about that country full of backward idiots
Even the Soviets, who lost the ground war and political war in Afghanistan, even they tried to move them into civilized society by upgrading and updating the Nations utilities etc..
What do the morons do? They dont want to be a part of the civilized world, they would rather starve and thirst to death because they believe that is how their God demands that they live..

More to post but I gotta watch a movie with my kid now..

p34c3


Turbokid.. Youre right about my comment about the Talibans demise.. they have indeed been making a comeback and I've also read the story about Al Queda's strength being back to pre 911 size.

Im also aware of the fact that there was a regular army in Vietnam in addition to the guerilla VC force
When I mentioned insurgents, I was pretty much talking about the current wars that we are in.


But you can not distinquish a military and a political war anymore, since the whole public is actually embedded nowadays with the troops..
The Tet offensive was a big suprise in first hand, eventually the us almost destroyed "charlie", but this offensive was the same reason for the public to reject the war completly..

To quote the [in]famous Ho Chi Minh

"You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win. ”
If the US attacks Iran, i bet a lot more Iranians will die, but since they're defending their homeground, they wont give up even if there remains one soldier left..
The question is, will an air raid be enough? i doubt it, you'll be surprised of the underground network they've build [as well as their air defenses], just as the amazing underground mazes the vietnamese build.

Btw if the Europeans plunged us all into two world wars, isnt it just odd the Americans didnt learned a bit of the history before, during and after those bloody conflicts?[at least we did],
Not to mention your own greedy capitalism wich wil be the beginning of the downfall..
The English went down before, at least their foreign/empire policy was a lot more prudent and cost conscious, thats why they made a pretty soft landing..

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Foppezao]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyAllKnowledge
 


Yeah...something about being "Persian" and not "Arab". I don't really understand it but from the few Iranians I have met, they are very nationalist about their homeland.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Trust me, it's seriously important to them. The ethnic groups are very distinct, and although Iran has a pretty complicated ethnic make up there are very few Arabs in the population and the Iranian national identity is very important. There are the usual ethnic tensions with the Kurds however.

Peoples of Iran map

Even the millions that have left the country since the revolution get fired up and defensive about their home.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   
The few Iranians that I have met have all proclaimed themselves to be Persian during normal social introductions. When asked if that is the same as Iranian they where each offended. When further questioned on the difference between the two, they were insulted by my ignorance and viewed me with slight disdain after that. I gather it is more of racial distinction in some way. Do you have more info?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
You are suffering from a delusional phalacy that the US is invincible, Perfect, Righteous and the good guy. Wake up and smell the coffee as that was WW1 and WW2, since then the USA has become as agressive as the old Germany it help defeat ( notice helped defeat ) with the Allies.

Your moronic blind Partiotism defies the simple fact that the USA is no longer isolationist and now a full on protagonist of war and has no quarms in smashing innocents from high altitude with its arsenal of smart bombs and DU rounds from tanks.

History has shown for 10 000 years that powerful civilizations come and go after great periods of success and I need not mention Sumeria, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Don't think you are invincible as your allies are starting to grow thin and your enemy list is ever growing.


I would need to disagree.

The problem with not being able to win a war is because the US does not go all out to secure a victory where the countries fighting the US are in the fight no holds barred. If the US had their attitude to win at any cost things would be much different and maybe not for the better.

With that said I would put my money on the US in a fight to the death, but then where would you spend it if the world as we know it was no longer here and so I’m not sure what your point is. It is great to point out all great civilizations in the past have an end, but you also need to see why they ended.

To say statements like “we can’t even get some guy in a cave” you need to look at the big picture of yes we can, but at what cost? As much as you see us as the bully of the world I would like to know if you approve of a country like North Korea and feel the people who live there have a splendid life?

BTW the last time we were an isolationist was WWII. With the US looking the other way Germany was smashing Europe. When we entered the war Russia was starving with nothing but a harsh winter to keep the Germans back. England was getting blown to peices with a full invasion soon to follow of unquestionable victory for Germany. Those were the last two countries left and they both had one foot in the grave. On Japan side they were mopping up what would have been the Japanese empire that covered about 40% of the world given a few more years of free reins do it.

After WWII, Russia gobbled up a lot of countries to create their empire that our cold war dissolved to give those countries autonomy once again. In both cases of Vietnam and Korea it was the communist that pushed to take over the republic and not the other way around, so who were the bad guys there? But in both cases we fought a totally defensive battle that didn’t have a chance for success if our goals were to conquer.

If you come forward to the 1990s and today if we were the isolationist that we were before WWII I would think the world map would be much different.




[edit on 21-8-2007 by Xtrozero]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join