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: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Hello everybody. I'm usually more of an observer but as events are apparently unfolding I feel compelled to throw my hat into the ring...
After the invasion of Iraq (an unprovoked attack on a foreign country) Bush and his toilet boy Bliar (now Brown) seem to be ever more bullish.
People seem to be forgetting that the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons in anger in the last century was the US. We (the 'allies') even used depleted uranium in the Gulf War ffs! There were no WMDs because 10 years of aggressive economic and military sanctions had denuded Iraq to a primitive level. I think most people realise that the oil was the only reason for the invasion and subsequent occupation (liberation? don't make me laugh!).
Now the US is threatening Iran for developing nuclear power. I don't hear Bush's plans for a shock & awe campaign in North Korea... Could it be because they are far too well organised and would give the US a bloody nose, not to mention their readiness to defend themselves with everything in their arsenal...
Is it possible that the US has designs on the other oil resources in the Middle East (specifically Iran)? Have the US considered the possibility of other Arab states joining on Iran's side if these plans go ahead?
I am increasingly uncomfortable with the people who claim to be protecting me & mine...




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy


USA will just bomb the crap out of Iran then sit back and laugh as another helpless country crumbles.


And meanwhile the Iranians will just sit back and suck it up?
You cannot win a war from the air alone, no matter how big a "shock and awe" bombing campaign is launched and shown to the folks back home 24x7 on the tv.
The troops on the ground will then have to face the likelihood of a ground engagement from Iran whilst having the Iraqis shooting at them from behind.
Needless to say it'll get very messy. Then there's the likelihood of land based units targeting shipping in the straits of Hormuz and surrounding area. Of course, I'd expect every patriotic flag waving idiot to immediately sign up and go fight the Ayrabs as soon as they hit back


Somehow I don't think the laughter would last very long.


While I cannot say for certain of course, but I do believe the plan or hopes is that Iran will fall on its face and the Iranian "people" will then "take over" from the current regime.

While it is obvious that the Iranian youth for the most part is progressive and intelligent, and do not have the same hardliner beliefs of the older generations.. I honestly don't think bombing their nation is going to cause them to officially overthrow the older generation. If anything another generation of hardliners will be made, the young will grow up in war zone like atmosphere.

All in all it will be 100% the same mistake made in Iraq.. that just because you remove the "oppressive" force "holding people back" that they will have the actual ability to rule themselves and assemble their own nation.

IMO, if a people cannot rise against the most oppressive times them selves with no outside assistance then they are not ready to rule themselves.

Bomb Iran and it will be chaos. Though it would be great for the economy.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howie666
Is it possible that the US has designs on the other oil resources in the Middle East (specifically Iran)? Have the US considered the possibility of other Arab states joining on Iran's side if these plans go ahead?
I am increasingly uncomfortable with the people who claim to be protecting me & mine...


If everything is based on oil why not just be buddy buddy with them and get the oil at a cheaper price? If we just let them do anything they want to do, any atrocities or genocides at their whim, we could of just said “hey we will look the other way as long as you sell oil to us at a good price”. Gas today would be much cheaper but then the population over there might be quite a bit lower and a huge chunk left would be basically slaves to a small ruling class.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
...so according to you Iran is the same as it was 20 odd years ago?
...same military tec, no advancements, walk over now...


Why do you think I listed historical comparisons? In the same time period late 80's and early 90's the US did what Iran could not do in nearly a decade in about a month's worth of time. And in 2003 the US again defeated the Iraqi national military in a matter of days and occupied the country in a matter of weeks. Any and all growth of Iranian capability is shadowed and dwarfed by the advances in US military technology during those last 16 years. Even if both advanced at a liner and expediential pace (which they have not) than it stands to reason that the difference is as great as it was 16 years ago... And let me clarify, an invasion and occupation of Iran would likely be very difficult, more so than Iraq. However that is not what we aim to do. Consider Gulf War I, we did not invade and occupy Iraq nor did we unseat Saddam from power. What we do accomplish however is that we severally crippled his military forces and industrial complex. They were never able to fully recover and pose a conventional threat to the region again. And we accomplished all of this without needing to permanently occupy it or invade it for a prolonged period of time. So, our aim with Iran is the same. Devastate it's military and industrial capability, this has two benefits. One, Iran cannot physically and conventionally threaten the region in the same manner nor will it's leaders be as willing to take risky political and military actions. Without any credible forces ensuring protection one is not likely to meddle in Iraqi and US affairs knowing full well this time they themselves might be targeted with impunity.


Originally posted by bodrul
...and you really think that casulties in Iraq wont increase when u invade a shia country which has deep religous ties.?
...and expect more in Iran if you think you can occupy the country...


Again, what is this fascination with invasion? It has been proven throughout history that the most effective means of control is not a visible and direct occupation. Rather leverages and indirect ways which leave the local system appear intact while in reality they are influenced by your presence ensuring compliance, one way or the other.

Seeing as how we will not Invade Iran I do not expect anything significant and permanent to change within Iraq, although it is a possibility. The US is not the main enemy of the many factions fighting each other for one reason or another, this is just another reason on the long list. Still compared to the alternative of maintaining the status quo I'd take this.


Originally posted by bodrul
...expect more attacks from within Iraq...


Iran may choose to retaliate in an asymmetric kind of way, and for all purposes this is the most likely response for a considerable amount of reasons. Still, it will have the opposite affect on the Iranian government, they will seek to minimize official involvement in Iraq and will most certainly not invade it or seek an all out war with the US, that is foolish, in the end no one is above self preservation. They may however become more discreet using finances and independent parties to facilitate attacks against the US and our assets, instead of the methods they are using now.


Originally posted by bodrul
...and i was talking about general bombing the bleep out the country not invading it...


The former is relatively easy and if done right can be very effective. The latter is very difficult and requires a considerable amount of resources, both material and otherwise. To think that we accomplished both with such relative ease is incredible.


Originally posted by bodrul
...didnt say they would, but they would be able to strike back before falling to the US...


Iran will not be able to "strike back" in any meaningful way for a number of reasons. Military speaking we will attack their C5ISTAR capabilities almost simultaneously and in an overwhelming manner. Not only will they be physically incapable but functionally as well. For any military response to be effective against the US it will have to be coordinated, large, well planed and sustained. What Iran will be able to mange is a few sporadic, unrelated and uncoordinated attacks which will do nothing but 'chip the paint', so to speak. And the US can absorb the likely counter strike, seeing as nothing too dramatic is likely to happen. And yes the flow of oil might be temporarily disrupted in the Gulf like it was back in the 80's, but it's noting that can't be fixed. When Iran regains their senses and command abilities the focus will shift away from a further conventional arms escalation, again for a number of reasons.


Originally posted by Czerss
...You made up the majority of that...


On the contrary. You do not seem to be informed that Iran had one of the largest and most capable militaries in the region when the Revolution happened. Not only trained and advised by the US but supplied as well. It had a military and the equipment needed, what it did lack is leadership seeing as how Mullahs were the ones making the decisions, something which has not changed to this day. Iran’s conventional military perfumed rather well during the later stages of the war against Saddam, both sides were relatively equal. What did happen however was that initially hundreds of thousands of ill equipped and trained individuals were sent to physically stop Saddam’s army from advancing by a modern version of the human wave, hence the high casualties. Saddam later become disinterested in an all out invasions (for various reasons) and the two side mainly fought a conventional defensive war that ended in a stalemate.


Originally posted by Czerss
Get an education.


I intend to, but you are hardly the one to educate me.



More posts as time becomes available...

[edit on 3-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
It doesn't matter how militarily superior the US may be, if you attack Iran there are going to be dire consequences on a regional scale.

All those advocating an attack on Iran, what is the justification and the threat, if any, to America that Iran poses?

All I hear is a lot of bravado and how the US can open a can of Whuppass on anyone, anytime, anywhere, but no mention of the consequences or the reasoning / justification behind it all.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Hello again.
I'm no expert, nor would I claim to be one. I have heard anecdotally that the biggest and best defended allied bases in Iraq are the ones that defend the oil installations. If this is so was it out of a philanthropic desire to support the Iraqis economy, based on oil revenues? I have also heard that the occupation force will never leave due to the need to maintain security over the oilfields... and control perhaps?
I feel it is possible that America believes itself to be more powerful than, say, Iran and doesn't need to negotiate nicely for the oil, or doesn't want to pay their prices...
Has Iran's military spending halted in the years since the revolution? Once the US withdrew support did Iran slide backwards in military technology to the extent that they can now be attacked with impunity by any warmongering western power? What gives anyone the idea that Iran is more likely to use nuclear weapons any more than any other country that already has them?
One last point. 'Our' media here in the UK has consistently described the Iraqis that fight the occupying force as 'Insurgents'. I was given to muse if France invaded the UK to 'liberate' us and the people went underground to push the enemy back, would we be described as insurgents too?



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
How many operating nuclear power plants does Iran have that need uranium fuel?

Answer - NONE

The only plant near completion is being built by Russia and they are going to provide the nuclear fuel.

So if Iran has no operating nuclear power plants and the fuel for the only one almost completed wil come from Russia - why is Iran in such a hurry to enrich uranium?

Let me think about this - this is a difficult question. As far as I know enriched uranium has only two uses - nuclear power reactors or nuclear weapons.

What do you think?



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The use of the word "Insurgent" was used to give the impression that those fighting the occupation were fighters from outside Iraq. Crazy Al Qaida Jihadists hell bent on the destruction of the west. The facts, from US and UK sources point to an extremely low - single percentage - of killed or captured fighters being non-Iraqis.
It's all a simple propaganda tool to make it look like the Iraqis want us there but it's outsiders causing all the trouble.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by itguysrule
How many operating nuclear power plants does Iran have that need uranium fuel?

Answer - NONE

The only plant near completion is being built by Russia and they are going to provide the nuclear fuel.


At the moment they have no operational power plants, hence the need for fuel.
The last I heard, they had turned down the Russian offer to supply fuel as they were already in the process of enriching their own.

Provide the proof that they are making nuclear weapons. All that has been presented as evidence of a nuclear weapons programme is speculation.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
don't think something is going to change if you remove bush.. the actions will be just the same, president is just a puppet, there is more power behind



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
22 september 1980 > 20 august 1988

that was the Iran - Iraq war

april 1979 was the revolution and started the purge of the army

so in 17 months they were stripping out army officers and loyal troops and replaceing them with there own people - the iranian army was in no shape in 1980 to fight a war.

by 1988 they held southern Iraq and only left because of the negotiated peace treaty with the UN .

less than 24 months after they end of the 8 year long war with Iran - Iraq then invaded Kuwait (2 august 1990) - and well we all know what happened then in 1991.

to say the military hadn`t recovered from the long war with Iran would be an understatement so when the coalition war machine wandered in , they(iraq) had no morale or (realistically) the equipment to fight.


so most was destroyed and the people who were sick and tired of fighting.


fast forward 20 years - Iran hasn`t been invaded twice and especially not right after a long war and has a new generation of trained troops with equipment - all are factors which need to be considered.


as an aside - the Iraqi reactor was a similar LPW design to the Iranian reactor - Israel claimed that they bombed the Iraqi reactor to stop nuclear weapons - but as has been proven many many times over the years - LPW designs are near impossible to use for a weapons programme.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by manzoor
...well the first gulf war wasnt the iraqi army against atleast 12 countries 1 on 12 is not fair and anyone knows who will win you went in 1991 with your forces and wiped out half his army...


Actually the coalition was much larger, still it was one created our of political and not military necessity. The Iraqi army was much larger than the entire coalition put together, still in this day and age numerical superiority mean little. In any case US forces represented 76% of all combat troops and they were responsible for the overwhelming amount of missions and sorties performed, contributing the bulk of the coalitions assets and systems. Most of the key military leaders and the regional commander were also American. No doubt our allies contributed but if we had to we could have compensated for the difference ourselves or defeated Iraq with the forces we had in the region at the time. It would have made no noticeable difference in the long run, Iraq was so easily defeated that either way it would have stood no chance.


Originally posted by manzoor
...then you come back 2003 and say you did it in a few days fact...


But this illustrates my earlier point beautifully, after essentially destroying Iraq's military and industrial capacity we ensured that their political leadership remained in constant check. They knew we could act with impunity and that their hold on power was determined by us. Why do you think the no-fly zones were established and never really challenged by Iraq? They were set up to continue the destruction of Iraq's military and ensure that it never regained itself and to keep it's leaders under control. If we decide to do the same to Iran we will impose a similar method to ensure it stays under our thumb for the near future, lest a "2003 invasion" occurs. Yes we would suffer if we chose to do that, however so would Iran's leadership. They would be killed and more importantly out of power, in the end self preservation trumps all and they would not choose that path.


Originally posted by manzoor
...if you had gone in on your own in 1991 iraq would off pushed you out...


They were not capable of doing such a thing. It might have been slightly more difficult or longer but again the end result would have never been in question.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
You yanks are all the same the answer is always bombs



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Essentially I don't believe the majority of the Iraqis want the occupying forces there any more than any of us would. I don't think it is right to invade other people's countries for whatever political pretext. If the west has nuclear power who is to say the rest of the world is not entitled to it too? Who elected Bush the ruler of the world?
I am still of the belief that we have more to fear from our own leaders than we do from those they deem 'the enemy'. And I think the film/Graphic Novel V for Vendetta was uncomfortably close to the truth.
What's next? Will Bush Nuke Iran to stop them using nuclear weapons? Oh the irony. Oh the beautiful nuclear clouds!



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Why do folks on here keep drawing comparisons to Iraq when tal;king about the possibility of a strike on Iran? These are two totally different scenarios. One entailed regime change and a necessary invasion and occupation of the country.

Why do folks keep saying the same thing will happen in Iran? Regime change and invasion are not on the menu here folks. I dont know how many ways it can be said before that part finally sinks in.

As far as Iranian troops trying to cross into Iraq and or Afghanistan that would be tantamount for suicide for them...sitting ducks my friends, sitting ducks.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


sitting ducks are you stupid the americans will be sitting ducks the iranians know were you are a massive counter attack into iraq will take you by surprise massive losses iranian forces have been training for this.

iranians have a massive force on the boarder and once attacked they can just invade and hit off your forces, there morale will be extreamly high they will be determaned unlike the iraqi army.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Czerss
The problem with your logic is it seems you refuse to believe Iran will retaliate massively. Air power can't defeat a ground army.


It can and has proved to be quite effective. The well known incident that took place during desert storm was known as "the highway of death". It was where positions of a 'retreating' convoy of iraqi military personnel were obliterated and vaporized, by US air power.





What's going to stop massive amounts of Iranian/Syrian/Lebanese guerilla's from just moving right on into Iraq/Afghanistan? Nothing. In the end we lose so it doesn't really matter now does it.


That would be like shooting fish in a barrel for neighboring forces in both Iraq, and Afghanistan. This would not be a wise, tactful move militarily speaking.





[edit on 3-9-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
you should link that piccie its too big for the board

also `the highway of death` - the majority of vehicles were buses , cars and lorries (can be seen clearly in the picture as well)



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

While it is obvious that the Iranian youth for the most part is progressive and intelligent, and do not have the same hardliner beliefs of the older generations.. I honestly don't think bombing their nation is going to cause them to officially overthrow the older generation. If anything another generation of hardliners will be made, the young will grow up in war zone like atmosphere.



I'm no expert in ANY matters other than the 'what would I do scenario', but if I were to relate young Iranians against their old hardliner govt, it sounds alot like our young people being against a hardline Bush govt. But if some military power came and bombed our Bush govt would we rejoice and take over Washington? Or would we as Americans want to retaliate against the outside aggressors?

I don't know ANYTHING about Iranian people or even all American people(I am one) or even anything military. I am just adding my 2 cents.

About the above quote I think I agree with Rockpuck 100%



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
you should link that piccie its too big for the board

also `the highway of death` - the majority of vehicles were buses , cars and lorries (can be seen clearly in the picture as well)


Many of those were actually troop transports. The buses acted as such as well. There are tanks, as well as other combat vehicles scattered throughout that pic as well. Google it.. look at other pictures and see for yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join