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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack


It's strange that a Persian would be offended at being called Iranian. I've always referred to my background as Persian but also Iranian.

The nation officially changed it's name from Persia to Iran in the 1930's since Persia had become synonymous with being manipulated by the European powers. Some say that the name change occured to curry favour with the Nazis (Iran, Ay-ran, Aryanam literally meaning Land of the Aryans) but that willfully ignores evidence of the word being in use from as far back as Achaemenid times and the Sassanids referred to their lands as Iran.

From personal experiance I've always noticed that my older military realtives (who were fairly high up in the Imperial army) refer to themselves as Persians - mainly I think, due to the association with the old "empire" and the shah.

The Persians were also the tribe that the Achaemenids came from, so they lent their tribal name to the empire they created. Persian ethnic group is Indo-European, the same as Kurds, Tajiks etc.

The racial distinction is a complicated matter, since I can imagine that very few people are pure Persians (just as it's hard to find a pure englishman), for example, my eyes are green, and that isn't a common Persian feature. Also, many of the people that left Iran during and after the revolution came from the middle and upper classes, alot of self-made-men who came from diverse backgrounds like Armenians and Kurds.

It seems to me that the Iranians/Persians that you've met have been being, for want of a better word, snobs.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by DenyAllKnowledge]




posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao
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..


The US did learn. What we learned was every time we become an isolationist nation the world ends up with a world war.

Let’s say the big bad Americans went home for the last 60 years and said screw you all. Well first let’s look at World Aid. With the US government donations totally more than the next top three nations on the list this is not even close to private US donations of more than two times the government. The rest of the world pales in comparison, and not to mention the 150 billion the US gives each year in remittances that would not even be an issue since we would not have given loans/equipment etc it in the first place.

If we were total isolationist Russia would still be an empire and growing with all of Germany a part of that empire too with nothing and I mean nothing stopping them from taking all of Europe like Germany tried i.e. WWIII.

Korea would be all communist and a satellite of China. Japan would be part of Korea, and Taiwan and Hong Kong would be fishing villages as part of China. You can inclued all of the countries around Vietnam to be added too with the powers of China making it happen.

Iran would cover all of the Middle East until Russia decided to grab a piece of the pie there too, and they would with no doubts about it.

Cuba with Russia’s backing would invade into Central and South America taking every country one at a time creating the great Communist Empire of the Americas.

Ya the US is the Bully of the world shame on us…




[edit on 21-8-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Let’s say the big bad Americans went home for the last 60 years and said screw you all. Well first let’s look at World Aid. With the US government donations totally more than the next top three nations on the list this is not even close to private US donations of more than two times the government. The rest of the world pales in comparison, and not to mention the 150 billion the US gives each year in remittances that would not even be an issue since we would not have given loans/equipment etc it in the first place.
[edit on 21-8-2007 by Xtrozero]


Erm, I'm sure some other nation would do the equivalent since the world without US involvement would be very, very different. The result of WWI was directly affected by US involvement - that conflict created the Soviet Union and the Nazis as well as the middle east mess. If the Americans had stayed out the world today would be completely different.......

For better or for worse I don't know since such conjecture is worthless.


kix

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Iran will atack first for sure, well if you count black ops like the gulf on Tonkin incident as a provocation, so in the "eyes" of the world Iran will be the bad guys and the US freedom fighters will be the saviours.

Waht worries me is that he black ops card has been played way too many times, so I think the Iran government must have something up or a plan B...



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
MOTHER RUSSIA!!!!!


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
Erm, I'm sure some other nation would do the equivalent since the world without US involvement would be very, very different. The result of WWI was directly affected by US involvement - that conflict created the Soviet Union and the Nazis as well as the middle east mess. If the Americans had stayed out the world today would be completely different.......

For better or for worse I don't know since such conjecture is worthless.


So WWI created the Soviet Union, Nazis and the Middle East problems, and the US created the WWI problems? The US maintained complete neutrality for the first 3 or 4 years of the war.

Unfortunately the "other nations" that had the ability to be a world power were more eager to conquer than to help.

For better or worse....I doubt you would be speaking english today or more importantly speaking your mind.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyAllKnowledge
 


Thank you for the lesson, I have been very curious about the distinctions. It may be of note that the individuals were first generation U.S. citizens. By that I mean they were born here and have overwhelmingly adopted U.S. customs. They were very proud of their heritage and exhibited a distinct nationalism regarding Iran. However, by their own accounts their parents were born in Iran and have only slightly dipped into U.S. cultural norms. A note - I may have been misinterpreting them as being insulted.


JSR

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
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.....


yea, thats true.

i worked with an engineer who told me he was form persia. it got me curious, and i looked on a map to see where it is. he told me, its not on u.s. maps. "i come from persia. just because the u.n. calls it iran now, does not mean its still not persia."

didnt iraq and iran used to be persia?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by resistance911
 


Limited attacks possibility exist from insurgent based or terrorist based links in Iraq allowing strikes.

Also limited strikes or bickering with Israel.

None of which would allow a regime change in Iran. Merely a reduction of its capabilities by limited strikes.

To get into Iran, take it and of course gain Khuzestans riches.

A nuke going off on american soil and terrorism within Iran getting the blame.

In short "terrorists of Iranian origin" will attack first and the US will defend itself.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I remember reading quite a long time ago about how Iranians REALLY hate to be called Arab but I never heard anything about them having a problem with Iranian.
For some reason, even with all of the rumors and despite the "hostage crisis" in the 70's, I've always thought of the Iranians to be different than other Middle Easterners, like the Saudis and Iraqis etc...
I know that, from the pictures that I've seen on the internet Tehran is beautiful city and the Iranian women are
It would really be a shame for any bombs to hit those really cool buildings and structures that I seen, not to mention, bombs hitting some innocent people, especially children..
I know that the Iranian people dont want a war and despite what most people think, the US people dont want war.
Occasionally you may see me BS'n around about war with this or that country but in reality I dont want war with anyone and I'd really like to see us pulling out of the countrys that we're already in, just as soon as it is safe for all concerned to do so.

There is also this to consider. There is no way that we will be able to sustain our current wars and take on an additional war at our current military strength levels.
In my opinion, we wont be able to keep up with these endeavors without instituting a military draft and once it is on, it will be really damn hard to get rid of it.
Some people will say, well this is a good thing because now it wont just be the poor that have to go fight and possibly die in the desert, the sons and daughters of politicians will have to go as well because the draft treats everyone equal right?
It seems to me that the people that use this as an excuse for activating the draft, only do so when it allows them to make a political point.
Usually, within just a few months of making a statement like that, these same politicians are whining about how some other politician was able to avoid the draft or get some kind of soft duty during Viet Nam.
These statements usually come out during an election year and are aimed at whatever politician is running for an office at that time and may have a questionable military record.
Ill be perfectly honest in my opinions regarding a draft. I dont want one, period!
There are many reasons why I am against the draft coming back but there is one main reason that I oppose it. The reason for that is because of my son.
He's only 13 right now but I predict that it'll take at least a couple of years for the draft to get going and if we stay on the same path that we've been on for a few years, then we will either still be in Iraq and Afghanistan and/or we will have already started a war with Iran.
So with the possibility of our military being embroiled in 3 wars the draft will start and in 5 years, he will be 18 and they could be knocking on his door to call him up for service, which of course I dont want to happen.

So, to sum it up. I hope that we never have the answer to the OP's question because if no one attacks then theres no war.
I also hope for a quick resolution to the wars that we are currently involved in. I dont like Bush because now that were there Congress can get us out really quickly.
Ok, ive rambled enough

P34c3



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JSR

Originally posted by kosmicjack
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.....


yea, thats true.

i worked with an engineer who told me he was form persia. it got me curious, and i looked on a map to see where it is. he told me, its not on u.s. maps. "i come from persia. just because the u.n. calls it iran now, does not mean its still not persia."

didnt iraq and iran used to be persia?


Yes they associate with the culture. Also being Persian doesnt mean you are a Muslim it means you come from a Persian territory thus some Jews consider themselves Persian.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by KezigluBey
 




didnt iraq and iran used to be persia?


The Persian Empire once covered a WHOLE lot more territory than just Iraq and Iran but the most recent change in names, I believe, was after WW1 when most of this territory belonged to the Ottoman Empire (Turkey).
After losing the war, they were carved up like a Thanksgiving Turkey

some of their land became many Middle Easter Nations and some went to other Nations in the area.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
reply to post by KezigluBey
 




didnt iraq and iran used to be persia?


The Persian Empire once covered a WHOLE lot more territory than just Iraq and Iran but the most recent change in names, I believe, was after WW1 when most of this territory belonged to the Ottoman Empire (Turkey).
After losing the war, they were carved up like a Thanksgiving Turkey

some of their land became many Middle Easter Nations and some went to other Nations in the area.


Didn't the british split it all up, by making borders were there once was none?



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Iran will atack first for sure, well if you count black ops like the gulf on Tonkin incident as a provocation, so in the "eyes" of the world Iran will be the bad guys and the US freedom fighters will be the saviours.

Waht worries me is that he black ops card has been played way too many times, so I think the Iran government must have something up or a plan B...


why do that they can wait for us to strike first which will happen cruise missiles followed by airstrikes it would put us in the wrong and iran can go into deffencive they would have the right to strike back in deffence and public support for bush will shrink.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Didn't the british split it all up, by making borders were there once was none?


They did indeed, along with the Russians. What was Persia had been a centre of a secret war between the British and Russian Empires - I highly reccomend "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk as a classic analysis of the Anglo-Russian Rivalry, it's a cracking read!

The dismembering of the Ottoman Empire was a joint venture amongst all the first world war allies, everyone was shamelessly eager to cut themselves a slice of that pie!

Persian was also the official court language of the Ottomans.

Ancient Persian history is really fascinating as well as up till now being one of the least researched (partly due to a lack of written evidence as well as a large amount of misleading Hellenic documentation), so there's lots of rather exciting new research going on.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
IMHO, just watching the current news worldwide, I would think, by the current spin, that Iran is on the back burner, and that Putin is now taking the lead in the "Bad Guy" scenario.
Maybe the PTB's realised that in no way would the world buy any attack on Iran, and going back to a cold war would generate about as much income, with less outcry, than an all out war.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join