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.

 

Maths proves US won't attack: Iran leader

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
[I'll bet you can't.
Further, I bet you can't because it is in-fact impossible.

You need to stop swallowing all the corporate media generated propaganda.



well I can about Iraq since i sent a year there...




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
You sent a year there?
Did they send anything back?

if I could save time in a bottle...

*ahem*

We were not discussing Iraq.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
You need to stop swallowing all the corporate media generated propaganda.



You dont think that any of the ME media outlets will agree that the US is trying to destabalise the ME?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   
I actually LOL'd when I read this article.

What a nutcase.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Perhaps he was thinking that it'd be mathamatically impossible for the U.S. Army to invade Iran, in their current situation? Think about it. There are over 1,500,000 active personnel in the U.S. military. 500,000 of those are army personnel. With 200,000+ in Iraq, and 20,000 in Afghanistan, and probebly everyone working in rotation. There aren't many fresh troops who can go on an offensive against Iran. Not to mention with the cost of the Iraq war apparently $1,000,000,000,000, I sincerely doubt that the U.S. is capable of another offensive like Iraq, with an overstretched army that is under-resourced. Unless they introduce conscription, and loan some money from a "friendly" nation like China, then they can bomb Iran as much as they like.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 4/9/07 by MacDonagh]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
The US can do anything to Iran, short of a full scale invasion, without too much trouble and or difficulty. It's just that we have so far chosen to restrain ourselves. And as mentioned before we are not interested in invading and occupying Iran, at least not now...

[edit on 4-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
It should be obvious by now with comments like this, that this man is a blow hard and is not to be taken seriously. The fact that he has no real power should also be taken into consideration when discussing his comments.

He and bush minor are so much alike... frat boys with loose lips and lacking in reason. The only real difference between them is in all reality george is far more dangerous.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If people have learned anything over the last few years is that the US wont sell it's national security to other countries. Given what we plan to do, air strikes and not an invasion or prolonged war, we can go at it solo.


"US wont sell it's national security to other countries"

Are you suggesting that Iran has the ability to strike the United States already
I suggest they not be given the chance to strike the U.S.or anyone else(israel,europe)for that matter.As iv'e said many times,if the UN does its usual nothing then expect an attack from the US.If not the US then definitely Israel.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Think about it. There are over 1,500,000 active personnel in the U.S. Army. 500,000 of those are army personnel.


I dont get it 1.5m in the Army, 500k are Army Personnel?..
Is there an 'Army' 'Army' personnel? Are they the Army's army or something?


[edit on 4-9-2007 by SmokeyJo]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
called civilians , but anyways ,

get yer noses out of wiki and into books , atleast where i live and study , wiki and google aint qualifyed as reference ,

get a history book and some chomsky , start readin , then come back and say its justifyed ,

its easy to throw rocks in a glas house if you have no windows ,


us is one of the biggest vampires in the world at the moment , im just puzzled you guys get away with it ,,,



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyJo

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Think about it. There are over 1,500,000 active personnel in the U.S. Army. 500,000 of those are army personnel.


I dont get it 1.5m in the Army, 500k are Army Personnel?..
Is there an 'Army' 'Army' personnel? Are they the Army's army or something?


[edit on 4-9-2007 by SmokeyJo]


It's like this. The military of the U.S. has 1,500,000, and 500,000 are army personnel. Then there is the air-force, the navy, the marine corps, and the coastguard. My mistake pal.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Wow Iran has the 8th largest military in the world, according to Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org...

I never knew. This changes my whole view on the possibilty of a US attack on Iran. There are countries that have a lower sized military that I would have thought would pose a bigger threat (harder task) to the USA in war time(or tyrant times). I guess this wiki page doesnt take nukes, modern technology and explosive power into account.

Anyhow check out the wikipedia link.. en.wikipedia.org...



edit :- Image size reduced (Can somebody give the the image size policies please)


[edit on 4-9-2007 by SmokeyJo]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyJo
Wow Iran has the 8th largest military in the world, according to Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org...

I never knew. This changes my whole view on the possibilty of a US attack on Iran. There are countries that have a lower sized military that I would have thought would pose a bigger threat (harder task) to the USA in war time(or tyrant times). I guess this wiki page doesnt take nukes, modern technology and explosive power into account.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by SmokeyJo]


I'm not sure what they use to determine rank order other than raw numbers. I guess stuff like smart bombs and cruise missiles don't count. Or one of our F-15s is equal to 20 of their Aircraft and one of our F-22s is equal to 6 F-15s or even more. Quality and capabilities is not figured. As example Iran’s 8th number is just about a 3 day war with the US that everyone is talking about.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I'm not sure what they use to determine rank order other than raw numbers. I guess stuff like smart bombs and cruise missiles don't count.


It is a ranking of largest military. What you are proposing is strongest which is hard to calculate, being subjective and influenced by tactics.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

It is a ranking of largest military. What you are proposing is strongest which is hard to calculate, being subjective and influenced by tactics.




Yeah. You'd have to be a Ph.D. in transportation science to make those calculations. And then let God check your math, just to be sure.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The US can do anything to Iran, short of a full scale invasion, without too much trouble and or difficulty. It's just that we have so far chosen to restrain ourselves. And as mentioned before we are not interested in invading and occupying Iran, at least not now...

[edit on 4-9-2007 by WestPoint23]


Originally posted by Xtrozero
I'm not sure what they use to determine rank order other than raw numbers. I guess stuff like smart bombs and cruise missiles don't count. Or one of our F-15s is equal to 20 of their Aircraft and one of our F-22s is equal to 6 F-15s or even more. Quality and capabilities is not figured. As example Iran’s 8th number is just about a 3 day war with the US that everyone is talking about.

This sort of attitude is not only shortsighted and foolhardy, it's also downright dangerous.

Iraq had a fraction of Iran's military capability, yet the war rages on.
In Vietnam, the vastly superior US war engine was effectively brought to a halt by farmers with scavenged weapons.
The Mujahideen kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan despite being sorely out numbered and out armed.
Hell, even the "invincible" Roman legions got the snot kicked out of them by a bunch of barbarians.

Even if Iran's military complex could be "easily" destroyed, the result would be a massive spike in terrorist activity. [FYI, current estimates show that terrorism has increased by a factor of seven since the invasion of Iraq]
History teaches us that those who believe themselves to be invincible are setting themselves up for a fall, yet the ignorant refuse to learn.

So please, help deny ignorance by dropping the bravado and learning from real history.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Seriously, this does seem highlight that those in positions of power or those who possess 'genius' are also usually plagued with insanity.


I can't argue with that, at least.

Though I think Bush & Cheney could give Ahmadinejad a good run for his money



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Iraq had a fraction of Iran's military capability...


Not in 1991, a more realist model of what we are proposing to do with respect to Iran. The current situation in Iraq is irrelevant, it is centered around an invasion, occupation and rebuilding effort...


Originally posted by BitRaiser
In Vietnam, the vastly superior US war engine was effectively brought to a halt by farmers with scavenged weapons...


Not quite but yeah, however don't forget the imbecile civilians in charge of military leaders. Still, this too is not relevant, prolonged ground, political and ideological war with irregular and regular forces...



Originally posted by BitRaiser
The Mujahideen kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan...


The Russians chose to leave Afghanistan for a number of reasons and the local forces were supplied, financed and trained by the United States. Still it's not relevant, again, invasion, occupation and rebuilding etc...


Originally posted by BitRaiser
...even the "invincible" Roman legions got the snot kicked out of them by a bunch of barbarians...


The situation which led to the eventual fall of the Western Roman Empire and before that it's great military power is very complex and prolonged...


Originally posted by BitRaiser
...[FYI, current estimates show that terrorism has increased by a factor of seven since the invasion of Iraq]...


Not in the continental United States, this is the whole point of our strategy. It would be fantastic if we could reduce global terrorism. However by creating "hot spots" and other global instabilities we keep resources, assets and attention focused "over there" rather than on the homeland.



Originally posted by BitRaiser
History teaches us that those who believe themselves to be invincible are setting themselves up for a fall...


No one is invincible, however predicting likely results in this matter is not a difficult proposition. Furthermore I want to again express my confusion at why people insist on bringing up an invasion and occupation scenario?
Hasn't that point been made clear already...?

[edit on 4-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Iraq had a fraction of Iran's military capability, yet the war rages on.


Let’s see we started the invasion on March 20th 2003 and were in Baghdad on April 8th. A big part of it was traveling 400 miles from Kuwait, and so that was about it for the war. What we been doing ever since is trying to set up a government, and that part has not been easy.
Our military skills, equipment, weapons and tactics are much better now with four years of refinement, and only 200 miles to Tehran from Mosul Iraq.



In Vietnam, the vastly superior US war engine was effectively brought to a halt by farmers with scavenged weapons.



Not vastly...

So are you saying that an elite fighting force can be stopped by farmers with outdated weapons? We didn’t advance in Vietnam because of politics. Those politics didn’t allow our troops to do the right job, and this was mainly because the antiwar feelings in the states and most importantly we didn’t want China to fully engage, but China was providing everything Vietnam needed, so those scavenged weapons were new Chinese made weapons.




The Mujahideen kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan despite being sorely out numbered and out armed.
Hell, even the "invincible" Roman legions got the snot kicked out of them by a bunch of barbarians.



Man that is rugged country, but what does the Russians getting their butts kicked got to do with the US, oh..BTW we were suppling the Mujahideen and anyone else over there with anything they wanted, so I guess it was American tech that beat the Russians.




Even if Iran's military complex could be "easily" destroyed, the result would be a massive spike in terrorist activity. [FYI, current estimates show that terrorism has increased by a factor of seven since the invasion of Iraq]
History teaches us that those who believe themselves to be invincible are setting themselves up for a fall, yet the ignorant refuse to learn.


Wow, you finally said something correct… The fact is we can destroy that countries’ infrastructure, military, you name it in short order, and with little resistance in doing so. Now the big question is, a week later after we blow them to bits what then? You are right that massive numbers of extremist would be created overnight, and a crap load of people will die around the world for years to come.

This is one logical reason why Iran’s president wants us to attack, and a big one why we will not attack. At this point Iran is zero threat to us or the world and time will do them in with their large numbers of young people adopting less extremist views. Iran wants extremist views and an all out invasion by us would play right into their hands to get another few generations of them.

Please don’t confuse military capabilities with politics as you seem to do with your statements.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Iraq had a fraction of Iran's military capability, yet the war rages on.
In Vietnam, the vastly superior US war engine was effectively brought to a halt by farmers with scavenged weapons.


What do you mean brought to a halt? I don't remember the U.S. invading Vietnam. More like North Vietnam invading South Vietnam. The U.S. military succeeded in preventing the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army from taking over South Vietnam until President Ford decided to pull troops out because of constant American deaths when the American people would not tolerate especially on tv. And I don't remember seeing Vietcong farmers flying MIGs...do you?


The Mujahideen kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan despite being sorely out numbered and out armed.
Hell, even the "invincible" Roman legions got the snot kicked out of them by a bunch of barbarians.


Not without U.S. help. Look at the war in Afghanistan right now. Whats our casualties there? Less than 400?


Even if Iran's military complex could be "easily" destroyed, the result would be a massive spike in terrorist activity. [FYI, current estimates show that terrorism has increased by a factor of seven since the invasion of Iraq]
History teaches us that those who believe themselves to be invincible are setting themselves up for a fall, yet the ignorant refuse to learn.

So please, help deny ignorance by dropping the bravado and learning from real history.


Massive spike in terrorism? When are we comparing to what era? The 80s? The 70s? 60s?

[edit on 4-9-2007 by deltaboy]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join