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.

 

'Three-day blitz' plan for Iran

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
And how much more can the US financially afford?


Hmmm, good question. It's going to be tough. It should be able to cope.



I really hope this is just propaganda because the US governments ongoing campaign is a complete and utter failure.


I doubt it.

As they said on the BBC, this issue is going to speed up in the next few months. Washington is getting annoyed at the slow pace.

France has even warned that it's willing to bomb Iran.

We are already on the warpath.




posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

France has even warned that it's willing to bomb Iran.

We are already on the warpath.


Then if this does happen the US better have a major coalition backing them because going it alone would be a major tactical error. And have the blessing of most other major world powers.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
the leaked '3 days of strikes', cannot possibly eliminate All the capabilities of Iran.

the '3 days of air strikes' might just be the 1st installment of strikes,

which might hinge on the Iranian response...
a plan may call for a saturation destruction of all possible 'targets'
within a 75km area which follows the border between Iran & Iraq,

the purpose of the '3 days of strikes' being justified because verifiable
intelligence has evidence to show the world that Iran is exporting arms,
ordnance, personnel into the continuing & growing insurgency upon Iraq.

The U.S. operation is intended to disrupt anddestroy those Iranian assets
going into the war torn, fledgling 'democracy' of Iraq.



Clearly, after the '3 days of strikes' a week or so of careful intelligence
will give both the U.S. time to re-supply,
and offer Iran the option to cease & desist insurgency into Iraq
or for Iran to busily reconstitute their war exporting infrastructure...

If Iran choses the path of insurgency, Iran stands to suffer another barrage & onslaught of an even wider 100km swath of the border
between Iran-Iraq,
the second stage targeted facilities could include arms depots & other war exporting infrastructure on Iranian soil, and Revolutionary Guard
installations, along with civilian infrastructure (like the carnage in Bosnia, etc)

a second or even third campaign [the 3rd stage would be targeting Tehran itself and the soverign regime of Iran]
might be envisioned by the bunkered neocons,
if & when Iran persists in it's policy of exporting war & insurgency into Iraq
and specifically attacking the U.S. forces assisting the Iraqi people & govt.



just another viewpoint


[edit on 2-9-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
They should do it already.
I'm annoyed too at the "pace" they are going for all this, it might not sound good but I'm getting tired of hearing all these "news" and what not going on and on for attacking and stuff..



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Has this been thought through carefully?

What would Putin and the boys in Red Square think of having thier arms market customers blown to smithereens, Iran is a middle man for getting arms into Iraq for the insurgeants. The strategic area and the oil supply is not something that the Russian are going to want to see. American coalition forces are already too close for Putins liking.

Russia can (and will no doubt!) up thier supplies to Syria, and the other Arab nations in the area, who will see this attack on Iran as the 'end days'.

They do not (the extremists) hold life as valuably as the western world (especially from deep within thier own bunkers!)



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
And what about when they fight back? bomb US bases in Iraq? attack the USN carrier with super cavitating torpedos and moskit? how will that be played `at home`?



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I might be wrong but wernt Russia and China going to stick up for Iran ? Im sure i heard that some where, if not. Doesnt matter.

Take Care, Vix



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
iran to wiped out in 3 days no i dont think so iran isnt afghanistan or iraq it can and will put up alot bigger fight they have advanced in missile cababilites and other military fields such as there own fighters, there air deffence system are a big threat to us, bombing irans nuclear infulstructure wont do anything all iran would do is a massive counter offencive shahab 3s hitting tel aviv and us bases in iraq also iranian ground forces hitting us troops in iraq after all they do no were they all are.

if war does happen us will pay a massive prise possibly even losing a carrier in the persian gulf which are all sitting targets for iranian anit ship missiles, there military and nuclear infulstructure are heavily fortified and is almost impossible to destroy them military forces have ben given orders if attacked to dispand the army and hit back and hit hard for me iran has 100% my support and the right to nuclear power also i personaly beleave as well as many others that us will be making a big mistake



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vixion
I might be wrong but wernt Russia and China going to stick up for Iran ? Im sure i heard that some where, if not. Doesnt matter.

Take Care, Vix


I heard that Russia and China will "prevent" an attack, but I don't think this translate into military action.

The two nations may supply arms.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Either way, a nuclear Iran is not something the western world should want left alone.


Why not? This is the biggest lie since 9/11.
If Iran manages to get a bomb in 10 years time or so what is it going to do with it? Use one bomb on Israel to then get obliterated?

Again the entire world has everything backwards, Iran is not the agressor, we are! And it's not about weither we COULD bomb them, but if we should.
There is absolutely no reason to, and it would be downright insane.

That some of you overlook this detail is pretty despicable.

4 Years have passed but it's still the same propaganda, just another country, please don't fall for it again.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The only thing the american soldiers can beat these days is their meat,and if there foolish enough enough to launch 3 days of bombings then they deserve the payback that will come from lots of countries.

this is just getting crazy,someone shoot bush and his friends before they explode the world with their racist religous views



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I have no doubt that Bush wants Iran taken down quickly, and with a certain amount of prejudice. Whether this can be accomplished in a 3 day window remains to be seen, given that the American military is deeply mired in the Iraq mess, and their Nato allies are reluctant about further involvement in an unpopular war. Vietnam again anyone? I remember the nightly television broadcasts from the field, and the images of young men dying on the choppers - not pretty.

I don't believe for one minute that China, or Russia will defend Iran, but will in fact aid the American efforts, not unlike the end of Germany in the second World War. They need the oil, and the stability in the region to grow their own economies, and if it means getting dirty with the Americans, I think they will do it.

Bush could end it in an hour or so, but to use nukes in the field would be suicide. Efficient and expedient perhaps, but not a good choice. EMP would be a possibility, provided it was sufficiently confined, although taking out several other neighbouring despots would be a bonus.

The next two years should prove interesting, if nothing else.
Keep Smiling!



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Bush could end it in an hour or so, but to use nukes in the field would be suicide. Efficient and expedient perhaps, but not a good choice. EMP would be a possibility, provided it was sufficiently confined, although taking out several other neighbouring despots would be a bonus.



yes , of course , glass the country from one end to the other


so , afterwards , who will control the now irradiated oil fields?

EMP? well - EMP is a product of a nuke going `bang` and to improve the efficiency you need an enhanced radiation type , then its let off over the middle east - im rather sure saudi arabia, israel , kuwait etc would have something to say about it - oh and russia as well (and india and pakistan).


you do you know that saudi arabia has a fully operational (and the missiles are nuclear capable) IRBM base?



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Man, our govermnet has to be really inept, they have had 4+ years of time to plan, and they are 72 hrs into a plan...??? that stinks.

The men at the top aren't thinking right anymore, we need a true leader to emerage.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   
The navy will not risk our Carriers being in the gulf. They would be out in the Arabian sea. Our navy would stop any re suppling operations of Iran. U.S. Ground troops would prevent any movement on the boarder with Iraq with Artillery. Marines may need to be sent into Iran at the Straights of Hormuz to prevent them from trying to shut down shipping. A US attack would be blinding and know one would know it is coming. Our stealth planes would bring their radar, air force bases and missiles sites down. followed by an onslaught of tomahawks to decimate bases all over Iran. The next days would have the air force picking apart the Iranian military and B-1S would pound their nuke sites into the ground with bunker busters and air fuel bombs.
China has no force projection and Russia well they don't care because they are not getting paid.
I believe this has been the plan from the get go, To surround Iran then hit them hard.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Basically I do not think there is any doubt about this and you should go find the Cheney interview from a few weeks ago on Meet the Press, I don't remember the exact quote, he said if we leave Iran in the the shape it is now it will become the predominant power in the middle east and we don't want that to happen, so if you read into that what does this tell you?

They are not going to let that happen, and how will they stop it? my guess is some sort of action beyond diplomatic so it looks like the announcement today by Iran of achieving 30,000 centrifuges to enrich will boost this to happen in the next few months.

I really don't think the U.S. is playing and I really believe that all the troops in the region aren't just sitting there having a hard time with insurgents they are there ready for the attack orders on Iran.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


amazing

www.lib.utexas.edu...

to give you a real idea of size - Iran is about the same size as Alaska and 3x times larger than Texas (Iraq is about the same size as California, Afghanistan is about the same as Texas)


please take notice of how many time larger than iraq it is and how much of it is in fact on the arabian sea - so to place your carrier force within `safe `margins your also limiting there strike ability - unless you want to operate tankers near the enemy airbases ; and a suicide run from Iranian strike aircraft would be 1 way.... they wouldn`t be expecting to fly back again. so thats 700 miles + with loadout to get to you...

interdict shipping to stop resupply? this is probably the busiest shipping lanes anywhere in the world - you going to stop all shipping? if thats a `yes` then where will you base your troops from when they lose all local support inside the persian gulf?

or is it ` we`ll use nukes if you don`t let us`


straight of homuz - so your sailing your marines there yes? since staging areas in Oman, the UAE and Qatar don`t exist (and they won`t get involved in another american war) - and since the USMC is presently occupied to the north - thats a few days sailing accross a rather narrow water way (thats shallow btw).

so thats leaves the iran/iraq border -small isn`t it. - think texas/mexico border . during Husseins rule he had early 40,000 troops stationed on the border -and that didn`t stop to hourly crossings; like a state crossing in the usa , not all of it can be covered all the time.



lets have an honest feasabilty study in logistics i think.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because ah some ah..people out there in our nation don't have maps.

and I believe that our education, such as South Africa and Iraq and everywherre like that..such as should help., such as like US Americans
with Iran.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
There have been some very intelligent and thoughtful posts on this thread. Most are thinking clearly about the situation.

I regret that I do not have anything to add because clearly, I don't know what the objective is of the United States in the Middle East. Or why obliterating Iran is going to help. Or why we have to save Israel if in fact Israel has to be saved.

The only possible reason I can suggest for all of this carnage is to justify the development, manufacture, optimization and cost of all those new fancy weapons we have developed.

But that cannot be the reason. That would be sheer insanity.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
We all know that Isreal did an air strike on Iraq in the eighties and they took out there nuclear program. At that time Iraq was a US ally, the US couldn't do it, even if they wanted to.

An Iraq scientists who worked on the nuclear program for Iraq, said in a interview that Iraq was rebuilding the program since then but in the first gulf war within the first 24 hours of air strikes there nuclear program was gone, and NEVER rebuilt.

Airstrikes can knock out nuclear program developments, and I have always said that I believe Isreal has told the US "you do it, or we do it" and given them no other option, the question is what type of window do they have as a deadline. I beleive that it must happen before the Nov. election in 08.

My concern is, will the US use a false flag op. to justify it to the American public & world. Because most of us that post at ATS are tired of 9/11 type false flag ops, killing your own people and destroying your own property because you know most people are so stupid they buy it.

Like sending an older carrier into the gulf to be sunk, that was going to be retired anyway, something like that.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join