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.

 

How Wars Are Born

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I sense a new battle in an existing war (WW3). I will now give my detailed analysis. The purpose of this thread is not rehash Afghanistan and Iraq but to give my impression of the next stage in the war against terrorism.

The nation of Iran will be the next nation that will go to war against western powers such as America and England. A third ally may present itself in the form of Israel as they have a dog in the fight. Ever since the end of the Iran/ Iraq war in the 80's Iran has continued to be a source of trouble to the west. After 9/11 things began to take a turn for the worst. A precursor to the outbreak of total war is the political maneuvering in the few years preceding the conflict. Since 9/11 Iran has definitely stepped up its political maneuvers which indicate a course towards war.

It is known by intelligence services of many nations that Iran is sponsoring terrorism in many areas of the Middle East. The most notable of which is the Hezbollah organization which is deeply entrenched in Lebanon. Israel went to war with Lebanon last year and it was well known that Iran was funding Hezbollah. Iran has allied itself with any nation who is bent on the destruction of Israel. Their leader has stated the Holocaust never happened and that one should happen. He has been quoted as saying "Israel should be wiped off the map."

Anyone up to date on world event's is aware of the state of things between the Middle East nations so I need not go into more detail on that aspect of the overall issue. The "war" in Iraq is not a war. America won the recent war in Iraq and met all objectives. What is happening there now is a mix of occupation and supporting a fledgling government from forces within and without. Iraq, for the most part, is not out enemy. Only the insurgents are our enemy, and those who aid them and support them. The far left in this nation would have you believe we are losing their fictitious "war." We are not losing. Although our men and women are dying, their lives are not in vain.

The far left will not tell you the inconvenient truth. The truth is Iran is supporting the insurgents. There is also an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Their goal is to undermine the effort to establish a democratic and free Iraq. Iran wants the effort to fail for several reasons. The main one being it harms the west and strengthens their image in the Middle East. The second reason is if it works in their favor Iran could, via several options, control Iraq and increase it's oil domination. Iran essentially wants to be a superpower in the Middle East much like the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. If this is allowed to happen the lives lost now pale in comparison the what lies ahead. Americans should consider what we are doing in Iraq as a first move towards averting future warfare.

Now, very recently Iran seized a number of British sailors on the grounds that they violated international law and entered Iranian waters. Of course, England denies this. It can be proven via the GPS technology on board ships. But this is irrelevant. What did Iran hope to gain by this? England has, quite naturally, rattled sabers and made threats. One would imagine England could effortlessly defeat Iran if it came to blows correct?

Iran gains by this action several things. To start with it is a way to give the West a black eye. It makes Iran look tough and ballsy to their friends in the Middle East. This can of course help build allies when the chips are down. Iran is playing a risky game here however. Iran has always thumbed its nose to the United Nations and the West, but it could stand to lose face if they do not play this right. Another thing Iran gains from holding the sailors is they have an opportunity to size up their potential enemy. England is the weak link in the chain of nations willing to support the U.S. against terrorism. And Iran knows if it plays it right they can make that weak link snap. Iran was taking measure of the Brits. Iran was carefully watching and listening to how the English were reacting to this situation and they will learn much about their enemy. England should have responded accordingly to ensure that Iran isn't under any false impressions. If England appears weak to Iran in regards to this issue then Iran is going to be emboldened.

What does this mean? It means, that when the fight comes, Iran will know its enemy. They will have an advantage over the Brits. They will know how strong of will the Brits are based on how England handles the issue of captive sailors.

What does this have to do with war? It is believed by several Western nations that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Iran has made allot of tough talk in regard to this as well as making many lies. They have even went as far as saying if America does takes any action, such as an air-strike, they will respond by attacking U.S forces currently in the region. All the while the United Nations are quarreling and dithering about. As the U.N continues to chit chat and pass useless resolutions Iran is slowly getting closer to having nuclear weapons. Iran has stated its intentions in regards to the conflict to come. It knows it is the next target on the list of terrorist supporting nations. And Iran is spoiling for a fight. They are close to getting their nuclear weapons in my opinion. These past 4 years have seen increased hostility and aggression on the part of Iran, as evident by their supporting insurgents in Iraq and the Hezbollah organization. All of these things, including the capture of the sailors amounts to pre-war maneuvering. The problem is, who will trigger the war? It isn't in Iran's interest to initiate the conflict as they must rely on allies to overcome the west, even with a nuclear weapon.

So who initiates the war, or more accurately the next theater of operations in the terror war? Well when it came to England. Iran had made bet and rolled the dice. They bet that the Brits don't have the resolve to start a war let alone fight it. England is steadily becoming anti-American and disinterested in fighting terrorism aggressively. Iran knows this. Iran sees England as a nation without balls who can be easily cowed thanks to terrorism.

America then? Possible. Not likely. Iran has done a good job of stirring things up in Iraq to keep us bogged down. And they've managed to help the far left in this country turn against the war on terror effort. Also, it's banking on the upcoming presidential election. Iran will benefit greatly if a democrat takes the White House. After all, many democrats are liberals and quite a few are owned by the far left. As we see now in our nation the democrats no longer wish to support our troops in Iraq. They are trying to block any more funding and calling to bring the men home. So Iran knows America won't pick a fight with them any time soon.

So that leaves the Israelis. Israel will launch a preemptive strike against Iran well before Iran gains any nuclear potential. Their intelligence service is exceptional and when it comes to the Middle East the Israelis are on the money when it comes to intelligence. Israel is well aware of where Iran is in their nuclear program. Unfortunately, Israel is alone in the Middle East and must always carefully consider any move it makes. It is surrounded by enemies who wish to wipe them off the map. And even worse for Israel is the fact that its two biggest and most loyal allies are currently unable to help them out. America is bogged down and England has lost its heart. So any action Israel takes most likely it will be taken alone. The Israelis aggressively defend themselves from its enemies and has always persevered but now it is in a severe crisis.

All of this favors Iran. Iran could, once it gets a nuclear weapon attack Israel knowing very well that the American public would not support any action to assist Israel. Iran could do so without fear of the Brits. The rest of Europe doesn't really give a damn and Russia has always backed Iran. So as it stands right now, I feel we are in a crucial moment in the war on terrorism. We have yet to see its bloodiest battle and have yet to engage the main enemy in this war. What is happening in Afghanistan and in Iraq pales in comparison to what will happen when the conflict with Iran erupts. To illustrate this consider a desperate tactic the Iranians employed against Iraq during their war. Iraq was winning. In a desperate action Iran mobilized thousands of fanatics and sent them against the Iraqi forces in large human wave attacks. The end result was success for Iran but at a horrifying cost in lives. The estimates of Iranians who died in this tactic numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Such a thing we can expect should we invade Iran.

I expect quite a few angry liberal and far left minded responses. What I've presented here is my opinion and analysis of current events weighed against history. It is not a partisan effort on my part either. I would ask you not to reply to this if you're just going to bash the president, the troops or your nation.




posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
If China were to invade while we are engaged in Iraq that would be the best chance at a quick and complete victory. We are spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also have a manpower issue in the military. You could imagine the invasion as another Pearl Harbor.
Japan hit us there fair and square. They knew America was going to enter the war in the Pacific and knew we were a true threat. By hitting our naval fleet they had hoped to seriously cripple our naval power. Unfortunately for Japan they underestimated America's vast resources and production capabilities. We quickly grew in strength and took the fight all the way to Japan.
China would see hitting us in Iraq in the same fashion. Unlike WW2 Japan, however, China can match us for production capability. If they hit us in Iraq the only logical step for them to take after that is an immediate attack on U.S soil. Quite possibly involving extensive use of nuclear weaponry. This is because any invasion on our soil would be met with severe resistance, especially with civilian militias and our right to bear arms. Obviously, if you're not willing to engage in what would essentially be like what is happening in Iraq against American forces, you must do something major to suppress the enemy's ability to fight and to break their morale. Nukes would be the best choice.
In my opinion, the best strategy for China (assuming total destruction and occupation of America is the goal) would be highly sophisticated and well timed attack. All forces would need to be coordinated perfectly.

Phase One: Surprise assault on American armed forces abroad. Perhaps utilizing foreign insurgents and allies to effect this. Main objective will be to greatly reduce American personnel and war material. Command and control will be hit severely hard in this phase. The deployment of satellite destroy missiles will be fully used to maximum potential. Military and civilian satellites will be targeted and destroyed prior to deploying the forces intended to attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.

*Nuclear strike on American soil could be done prior to invading Iraq and Afghanistan as the havoc caused by this would completely cause our armed services abroad to lose morale and effectiveness. For that matter, a nuclear strike in Iraq or Afghanistan would yield better results.

Phase Two: After destruction of armed forces occupation begins in Iraq. If Plan B: Nuclear strike was used the occupation would be much easier. Obliterating not only American and Coalition forces, Iraqi insurgents are also taken out. This will allow for a easier occupation and faster access to Iraqi oil. Chinese mass production and engineering skills will be brought online to secure, repair and expand existing and surviving Iraqi oil production facilities.

Phase Three: Ground invasion of America. China lacks he ability to rapidly mobilize and deploy significant quantities of troops abroad. Therefore reliance on potential allies, perhaps Russia would be critical. Political agreements would need to be made. America will be tough to pacify as civilians are well armed and likely to resist. Softening up will be done with long range strategic bombing. If needed nuclear strikes on major cities and high value targets will be acceptable.

Phase Four: Consolidation of power in the long term. American allies will have to be dealt with militarily or politically. Occupying forces will require constant support and a permanent military presence must be established.

In all likelihood though, China will never attempt such a thing. They depend on the US to drive their economy with exporting goods to America. China loves to rattle sabers and talk tough but they do show a propensity for negotiation. They have a growing hunger for oil as their nation is growing more industrialized every year. Energy is a main concern for them. They can make deals with Russia, who have been steadily increasing their control of natural resources in certain areas, for their energy needs. Or, for that matter, make deals with America or the Arabs. China is not a bully type of nation like North Korea. China uses North Korea as buffer with the South Koreans and Japanese. Russia in turn uses China as a buffer. Each nation is a matter of convenience for the other. And it is inconvenient for either to directly challenge the US militarily.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Very insightful and provocative post Alien Abduct. You make some very fine and valid points. My most basic questions I have asked myself is 1) How were we/our representatives so easily duped into believing 'the mushroom cloud Rice thing'. 2) How would you feel if US were occupied by a more powerful force in a pre emptive strike with no provacation. And 3) How this is going to go down real ugly in the end. These are no digs upon you whatsoever. The whole affair is so convoluted it's just so difficult to comprehend. I'm sure there is much I don't know that goes on in the war rooms, but there is much my eyes can see. And I'm sick of war rooms.
Peace and God Bless the world, not just America.
John



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   
China sent us packing out of Korea in the 50's with 5 million? troops. Logistically they are in much better shape to do the same. The nuke is the trump card now though. I have read China is so huge to really irridiate their capabilities would be nearly impossible.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
By the by Alien Abduct, I am impressed by your writing style. Not that it probably means anything from a newbie like me. If you are interested in the Sci-Fi short story contest I'd be honored.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   
That was as good read, and you make many good points.
Unfortunately, its obvious how associated with the 'right' you are, being you dont question anything against the west, and only criticise the iranians.
very biased!

Wars are born when bad things happen to good people.
When innocent people are killed for no reason.
Wars are nessecary when a nations survivial depends on destroying an aggresive, confronting nations military.

It seems, we are the ones causing war, unessecary war!
Iran, a nation wants to TALK, to stop anything unfortunate occuring.
Yet we refuse, that says to me, we are the ones obstructing peace.


Iran will benefit greatly if a democrat takes the White House.


Id stop believing everything you read!



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Abolish greed and accept and respect those different to you. Would be hard to find a war then. Most people can't stand anyone being different from them. If it's not a race or religious issue, it's because they live in a different state, even suburb. I know a person who "hates" another person because he passionately supports a different football team...



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Well said nuclear Paul, especially when your opponents team's field is dripping in oil, not some dusty no goodies place like Darfur entrenched in genocide.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by jpm1602]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Does anyone else 'get it' that if we cumulatively amassed the trillions of dollars we spent on war to get everyone off the oil bottle for power and economic security we might all possibly, and I say possibly live in a moducum of peace? Tanker spills obliterating coast lines and reefs, global warming and brown skies diverted. The Rothchilds and Saudis wouldn't like that tho. It's like a big black snowball.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It seems modern wars are being fought for economic reasons more than ever before. And often wars are fought without military action at all. In the end, this war on terror is a real war. It is a complex war involving economic and political factors. I think if Iraq can become a stabilized nation with democratically elected leaders, high oil production capacity, and a friendliness to America that it will translate into making the overall war on terror easier.
It seems to me that many of the Hollywood celebs bashing the war, the Cindy Sheehans, Tim Robbins, Rosie O'Donnel's are guilty at not looking at the big picture. If one seriously takes the time to consider all the factors, what ifs, and other issues involved in waging a war against terrorism on a global scale it would be mind boggling. Unfortunately, many of the democrats, being driven by the far left, also fail to see the big picture. The liberal media has done such a good job at assassinating the president and the republican party, playing to the small thinkers in the nation, that they are going to win the election. When they do I expect a complete undermining of our efforts not only in Iraq, but in the overall war. They will withdraw troops and Iraq will be just like South Vietnam when we left. Even if the worst case scenarios don't materialize, surrendering will invalidate the loss of American life and limb, as well as Coalition Allies, and the Iraqi people themselves. It will have all been in vain.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
WE are definitely in the whirlpool around the drain. things are very volitile and unpredictable.
My take is we were meant to get over there and start stretching our armed forces out enough that we really would not have well equiped fighting forces and ' Gottcha!" this has felt like a well laid plan- obviously not our gov'ts- but those who have hated us for decades- the entire middle east, for one reason or another ( some legit, some not). Add on top of that old Capital history, the fact that our Pres keeps talking about US as a christian nation (really- had no idea, thought we were the melting pot. Well I'm an ex- catholic, turned something 'heretical'-should I leave? It's bad enough this invasion was about oil, but the references to religious righteousness over other self righteousness- infuriates me and sends me into a terret moment.
Beside We still have enough toys in the toy box to blow them right off the map- ya think he's feeling lucky (esp with cowboy W and wild Dick HickCock). Yes there may be psychotics in positions of power who would get off on WW3, but more (I hope & pray) who really don't. then add in all us poor slobs who get to fight and pay for it- over my dead body! (that's as far as I can go in this dimension



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Very good put together thread and very insightful, I can agree with some points and disagree with many others.

Like some has said before me this time a war with Iran will not be easy. This is not the same as Afghanistan and Iraq, this one will have more factors that will come into place.

A war with Iran will no be as easy not because Iran is a power to reckon but because other issues are at play here, that includes economically and strategically and Iran may have friends to back them up making a confrontation to die before it even starts.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join