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.

 

A few thoughts for those who think engaging Iran militarily would be disastrous for America

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by fweshcawfee
I keep seeing comments illuding to some type of mythical devastation for America if it engages Iran (and possible Iranian allies) militarily.

Apparently there are a few people around who still don't quite comprehend the true strength and might of the United States of America. I'm unsure if it comes from actual stupidity and ignorance, or just a refusal to acknowledge the truth because you don't want to flatter a country you hate.
Blah blah blah






I am sure your arm is sore from all that flag waving.

Yes America is the master race and the rest of us shouldn't even bother so who cares.

What a load of nonsense. Rome was the best, so was Greece and the British empire and France and Holland and the Fascists and a whole swag of others but history tells us that in the end every bunch of self important flag waving idiots get their Waterloo.

So instead of boring the rest of us to death by spouting how superior you are why don't you take a look at what put you there and see to the foundations of your great Fourth Reich before they cruymble entirely into dust.




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

The objective has to be define first, either get rid of the nukes facilities, or get rid of nukes facilities and regime change, in neither of those nuclear weapons need to be used.

Those bunker buster get the job done, they might have to bomb the same target more than once but is achieveable.


Bush's military advisers have stated that because the nuclear facilities are so fortified, the use of nuclear bunker busters will be necessary to destroy them.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
You guys have to realize some things:

1) Outside of the US, Western Europe, China, Russia etc armed forces are basically little more then an internal dissent suppression force and heavily armed police forces.


A very astute observation that is not commonly acknowledged...


This includes every nation in Africa and Latin America with the possible exceptions of South Africa, Egypt and Brazil.


I would say the list includes very many more that are capable of waging war but wont disagree with the fact that they are all quit able , and normally employed in, keeping their own countrymen in 'check'.


2) The Iranian military is made up of brainwashed conscripts who are taught more about ideology then practical military knowledge.


That far i would not go and how brainwashed must American soldiers have been to take part in the illegal invasion of a country that never threatened the US? I am not sure how well trained Iranians in fact are but i happen to be of the opinion that the inclination to fight is still pre-eminant and that great technological disparities can be made good if a general public of any given country just refuse to support invaders.


In the 1980 - 88 war with Iraq their sole tactic was human wave charges spear.ed with little kids who were forced at gunpoint to run into the minefields.


As far as i understand they were not forced at gunpoint ( 15 and 16 year olds are quite impressionable thought so guns is hardly required) and the human waves served as a substitute for the lack of artillery and tank support; the one thing Iran had that Iraq did not was very many more citizens...


There was one particular battle where the Iraqis lost like 200 troops and the Iranians like 20,000.


It's not that i can not see how that is possible ( WW1) but that i like such statements to go supported.


3) The world has not seen the full might of the US military since 1945.


That i can agree with but do you understand that the the same people are still in charge and will in Iran as in Iraq once again force the US armed forces to fight with two hands behind it's back? Do you understand that they are in part forced to do so by public opinion and the principle if a volunteer force?


Vietnam, Iraq, etc were half assed attempts with 1 hand tied behind our backs.


Right but your not acknowledging the possibility that someone in either the US , or god forbid, a foreign government is forcing the US armed forces to fight in this way? Why do you think they will ever be allowed to fight any other way?

Stellar



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
For a start the U.S., in my opinion, has the full capability to reduce everyone to rubble, no other country has that capability, including Russia.
Whether or not this is in the U.S.'s best interest is another question.
So what if you can bomb the hell out of somewhere and even force people to capitulate to their regime.
Well in Iraq they could have easily done this but this would have been an approach reminiscient of Germany, and other countries would not stand for it, but what could they do. Well the whole framework of U.S. capatilism could come down and they could try like Russia in WW2 to mobilise the whole country to attack and defend but that would mean the end of western way of life.
If the U.S. people were oriented to a patriotic service way of life it could work, but they on a whole are not, everyone knows about the privileges of power associated with money, not strength, so most people are after this goal so that they do not have to fight.
It takes immense manpower to restore countries to an economically feasible state and no country has this strength to operate on multiple frontiers in occupation let alone the world.
Sure I'm almost convinced that the U.S. could nuke the whole world without external repurcussions but I believe this would have colossal internal repurcussions with civil war and the like occuring which would defeat the purposes of those in power or money.
Guerilla warfare is fine as long as the forces attacking do not use maximum force where it would soon become just revenge warfare which would become more and more manageable as time passed.
This is not historically acurate but technology available has changed what is feasible.
There is a middle ground on which militarily superior countries have to fight these days and the U.S. is pushing the boundries of that middle and losing, it has nothing to do with geneva conventions or U.N. agreements but with what you can get away with economically.
Economically sounds like a poison word here but it has more to do with other nations than with your own internal business because the world consists, in modern times, of intricate associations between all sorts of different industries; wheat from Australia, Egypt, Africa ,South America: Heavy industry from Japan, Russia, U.S., Western Europe: Mining assets from all over: Energy from Middle East, Russia,U.S., Australia, the Arctic!: Manufacturing from China and all of Asia.
None of the NWO enterpises could exist without steadfast binding agreements between all of these powerful industries and people located through out the whole world (which is very big!), plus they are all in competition with each other.
Look at the biggest companies in the world today, China has a alot of the biggest already, Russia has Gazprom and others, G.E. ais up there, the richest man is Bill Gates, who has hardly been around long enough to be entrenched in NWO, Indian and Mexican entrepreneurs!
NWO is not happening, One world government is approaching but on strictly local beneficiary status (look at the E.U., the U.N., NATO, APEC, AU)

Blah, Blah, Blah, I digress.
Here in Australia everyone I know hates Americans but we have a pro-Bush government who supports Iraq, N.Korea, Iran and anything else Bush has his mind set on but I am here and everyone I know doesn't like it.
I am willing to assume that there are alot of people in the U.S. who don't like it either so I tell them don't hate Americans hate the policy of the current government and I say the same about Iraq, Iran (who's leader has said some very inflammatory statements), and N.Korea who's leader is a nutter.
We don't have to destroy the lives of the people, or their culture, or their religion, if the need of the people is desparate support a regime change and then let the people take control.
Don't treat them like children who have to conform to your standards just take away the main menace and then let them decide.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
So, what has Iran done to us? Clearly they are an impediment to the NWO and elite's economic and strategic goals. What have the done to us? Oh. They have oil, natural gas and extensive uranium ore deposits we believe we should own? Yes. Does the Empire have a right to these? No. But most of the posters here seem to be caught up in the government disinfo that somehow Iranian moms, kids, and fathers don't count. That we are Justified. That 'they' are a threat. To Whom? Yeah, let's kill em all. Take their stuff. We got the Power. Right?

In a just world, each of you who supports this nonsense should be made to go and eviscerate each kid. I'll hold him/her while you use your switchblade to cut out their guts. I'll hold each one for you. Or maybe you can bring your Glock and I'll bring my... .40. You can shoot each one and the mother too. There, that should satisfy your bloodlust. I'm sure that after the first hundred or so, you might get quite used to it.

Just a bunch of panty assed computer geeks fantasizing about the deaths of millions through the use of high tech by -somebody else - to achieve their little dreams of conquest. Imperialists garbed in the robes of false patriotism disguising their essentially bankrupt sadism and greed.

Geeze, it's hard not to love Americans. Spreading the 'democrazy' all around.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   


"If we get chased out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, that will be the fifth consecutive Third-world country with no hint of a Navy or an Air Force to have whipped us in the past 40 years." - Hunter S. Thompson



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Well...I will say it again.

IF it were not for the United States, all you anti-american, hate spewing, root for the enemy people out there would probably living under German rule right now.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat history!

Long live the US. God bless everyone of us!



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Well...I will say it again.

IF it were not for the United States, all you anti-american, hate spewing, root for the enemy people out there would probably living under German rule right now.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat history!

Long live the US. God bless everyone of us!


Hi


Please take some time to research the number of casualties per country in World War 2. Be sure to look up the Soviet Casualties.

Then please understand that the courageous men and women from the countries that made up the fighting forces of the allied powers are fondly remembered, and their sacrifice is not, and will never be forgotten by the people they assisted.

After that please take some time to ponder this statement.

The people who are currently running the USA aren't fit to be wiped off the shoes of those who fought in WW2, and as such, using those people as a comparison is a gross insult to their memory.

You see, the United States of America used to represent freedom, and came to the aid of those in time of need. Nowadays, it looks after its own interests and attacks countries that it doesn't agree with.

There is a huge difference. Think about it.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Hi back at you


You say American were fondly remembered by those they helped free. That was because our entrance to war was late. We allowed the war to go to far at that time. If we had entered the war earlier think about all the lives that might have been saved. We waited until we were attacked at Peral Harbor. Don't think we had our own interests at heart? Think again my friend.
Now we try to prevent things like that from happening. We do flex our muscles, because it is expected. But when we do, we are the big bad bully. We are abused by other nations for interfering. We are damned if we do and damned if we don;t. If we allow something to happen, people ask....Where were the Americans? Why did we allow it to happen. If we act first, we are accused of trying to take over a land.

Yes, the people of World War II were very special warriors, fighting for a purpose. It was easy for them to give their life for their country, they were proud of it. Too many people are not proud of this great nation any more. You do not have to be proud of a nations government to be proud of the nation. Think of all the good we have done in the world, Think of all the great things here at home.

Not everyone agrees with me, but I love this country and would honrably give my life to defend it, my feloow americans, or their right to bad mouth it.

BUT, please do not take anything away from our fighting forces today. Please do not say they are not fit to wipe the feet of WW2 forces. Neither they nor the WW2 fightrers would appreciate that.

By the way, if thats a picture of you.........WOW!



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Attacking Iran would be stupid.. The Russians help the Iranians, which would put us at odds with the Russians. Putin would have no problem helping kill U.S. Troops, the country is already going broke, so is the world, and another war, which would have to be fought on the ground, not nuclear, would not be sustainable by our country. We don't have the shear numbers to attack Iran and we couldn't hold the land once we had it. We can't even hold Afghanistan, let alone Iran... The problem we have today is the lack of intelligent leadership in Politics, Military and Business. The current President has fewer brains than a lobotimized rat...



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
BUT, please do not take anything away from our fighting forces today. Please do not say they are not fit to wipe the feet of WW2 forces. Neither they nor the WW2 fightrers would appreciate that.


Its a good job I didn't say that then, isn't it?

I said the current administration is not fit to be wiped off the feet of those who fought in WW2.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Here are a few words on this subject:

Yes, America has unparalleled military power but as other people and Marge Simpson point out “couldn’t is not the same as shouldn’t Homer”.

For details on how mismanagement by the current US government has prolonged the insurgency in Iraq (the war was finished very quickly – i.e hostilities against the soverign nation AKA WAR) read Bob Woodwards book “State of Denial” senior US military officers told their superiors and government repeatedly that their lck of attention to the aftermath of the war and poor policy choices would prolong the conflict and alienate more of the population. This has proven to be correct.

The second world war, in Europe, was won by the Russian's efforts and lost by the German's poor decisions in equal parts. The western front following D- Day was only a distraction for the Germans from the huge and scary undertaking of warding off the vengeful Russians. To find out how the Americans, through mismanagement of the aftermath of war again caused the frictions and problems of the cold war, not to mention allowing German Atomic research to end up in the hands of the Russians read Anthony Beevor’s book Berlin: The Downfall. It seems that the Americans considered that they would be home in a few months after the war had ended with all of the borders placed where Roosevelt thought they would be following Yalta. Churchill, with his distrust for Stalin and the Soviets was seen as negative so the Americans set out to smooth over relationships by giving into the Russians at every turn (probably thought it would not be their problem). They even went out of their way to exclude Churchill because of this and when he and Montgomery suggested that the Western Allies try to beat the Russians to Berlin and limit their land take beyond the 1939 border, this was dismissed with Eisenhower preferring that they push for Bavaria to try and stop a mythical retreat to a mountain fortress by the Nazis.

Think of what could have been saved if they had thought that one through… Hind sight is a wonderful thing eh?





posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I feel obligated to inform you tubthumpers for an invasion of an Iran of some points, half of which is about geography.

Iran is massive. It's one of the largest countries in the Middle East. It is several times the size of Iraq, which is a relatively small country.

Currently in Iraq there are about 160 000 actual troops occupying the country. There's about 180 000 people on the ground there from private armies funded by the United States and the United Kingdom.

So with over 300 000 troops, and an additional Iraqi national force of about 160 000 give or take, they cannot pacify Iraq. They toppled the military and government but they have not pacified the people.

Iran is over three times the size of Iraq. Occupying this nation would be an absolute nightmare. It is 1.6 million square kilometers. To put it in perspective, Iraq is half a million square km, Vietnam is 300 000 square km, and Nazi Germany proper was 600 square km (nevermind Nazi-occupied Europe, which was millions more square km).

Consider the amount of troops needed to invade, occupy, and liberate.

We sent 300 000 to Iraq and still couldn't prevent civil war.

Vietnam took over a million troops, and the day was still lost.

Over a million troops were involved in the Invasion of Normandy alone.

Then, consider that the Europeans were the only people listed above that share our culture, religion, and values. That makes them less likely to revolt against our liberation because we can better understand their worldview.

Iran, while progressive, quite developed (just search 'Tehran' in Google Images) and moderate (a fact downplayed by the media), is still a Muslim nation that frowns upon the West's infringement in Middle East politics, which the West understands little about on the people's level. That makes them prone to taking up arms in the event of an invasion, particularly among the uneducated rural population. Toppling militaries and governments is easy, as already proven, but building something better over top isn't, especially when civil war is in the mix once someone opens a power vacuum by taking out the leadership of a nation in the first week of a war.

The American Military has never been a good occupying force of large territory without overwhelming international support. And America has never won a foreign war without it. This is because the American military has the might but lacks the heart that is integral to the pacification of foreign peoples. They do not do enough compassionate operations and have a reputation and a history of leaving people worse off. Just look at South America.

Iran should be dealt with, but we're burning bridges as though the military option is the only one available. We make Ahmadinejad out to be the devil when we forget he's a person with term limits, that he'll be gone soon, that even many of the influential Iranian clerical leadership are disappointed in the position his outspokenness has put their nation in. We tell him he's got all the makings of a cruel dictator when there's the same sort of person at home in America's own Presidency. A president that a third of his own nation isn't supportive of. How do you think the rest of the world feels, watching all of this, the powerless people living in the countries that suffer under America's hegemony? They feel alienated. They feel exploited. And they're tired of it. America's invisible empire will topple if these people aren't appeased to some extent, and you can't do that by turning their country into a plate of glass. It isn't the poor lower class US worker who is the pillar of American economic might, but the poor lower class third-world worker.

Rome was not sacked by the Greeks, or the Egyptians, or the Persians. It was sacked by the Goths, a people the Romans considered Barbarians.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by blairco]

[edit on 25-9-2007 by blairco]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by blairco
 


Thanks for a very informative post!

I agree with you on many points, hopefully this administration comes under intense pressure at home and internationaly that prevents them from lauching a first strike on Iran, and at the same time prevent Israel from going solo.

I think that Iran is a long way from developing a weapon, if they are doing that at all.

Hopefully the next administration brings in a new set of diplomats that would at least bring all this countries close to stability, as much as I like discussing war scenarios, but in all seriousness I would rather leave in a peaceful place.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by fweshcawfee
 


HA HA, thats actually quiet funny, but if you think about what Bush is doing, first the cover up of 9/11 , then the war for oil and now a stir up with Iran. He just wants power and war, thats the only thing he has been good at to be honest. Ok if you say American would crush Iran, Iran is a Muslim country and they have allies all over the world
. Too bad America doesn't have many allies. It would be America, UK Vs. the world and now thats not looking very nice when you see the reality.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by fweshcawfee
...I'm unsure if it comes from actual stupidity and ignorance, or just a refusal to acknowledge the truth because you don't want to flatter a country you hate...

...You people talk so much about the "disaster" it would be for America if it decides to engage Iran militarily. You are completely out of touch with reality if you honestly think so. Are you really so incapable of adequately assessing the history of world events over the past 200+ years???...

...Stop hoping so much for the devastation of America because in actuality what you're praying for is the effective annihilation of Planet Earth. Or do you naively believe that America could dare be brought to it's knees without slamming her enemies face first in the dirt in the process.



Those three passages alone invalidate your argument as far as I am concerned... If you cannot make your case without belittling the people you disagree with, then you don't have much of a case at all.

Have you even considered the likelihood that instead of hating America or the Planet, the exact opposite is true... that we love it and don't want to see a dangerous and destructive mistake happen.

That far from defending Iran... we are more concerned with the bush administration's fast and furious rushes to war and their lack of concern for the truth, unless it bolsters their case and only their case.

Can you say WMD?



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by blairco
 


Thank you for interjecting a bit of logic into the thread. With as much illogic as it gets every bit is a breath of fresh air...that will probably be utterly ignored by the pro-war crowd as some sort of short-sighted terrorist-supported mumbo jumbo, no matter how logical, no matter how historically backed up.....

I must say, an element of a possible war with Iran that goes far too overlooked is short-sightedness. As I'm sure its been said before. Lets say we blitzkrieg them, excuse me, pre-emptive strike...okay, their military and general infrastructure is demolished. Lets even pretend that, somehow, America can force a regime change that installs pro-American 'democratic' politicians (After all, the only truly 'democratic' regimes are the ones that the US installs, funds, maintains, which serve our best interests...whether they're installed by fabricated elections, or the end of a rifle and the heel of a boot...) What then? What is going to happen? Regime change in Iran is not going to change the anti-western sentiment in the region. It is not going to end terrorism. (BTW, remember that the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a US ally.) Chances are, as the unintended consequence of the War in Iraq has been, the most probable result of a war in, and even a victory over, Iran will be an increase in terrorism. America decimated Saddam's Iraq, what happened? An increase in support for terrorism in Iraq, as well as the region in general, according to the CIA. What do the supporters of the expansion of the illegitimate 'War on Terror" think will come out of an attack on Iran? Suddenly, all the Muslims in the Middle East and throughout the world will be shuddering in their sandals? They will finally realize that they'd better shape up or else they're next? Hardly. Terrorism, this 'great threat' that our generation faces, is not a people...its an idea. It is a tactic of the weak that allows them to do maximum amounts of damage to a much larger, much more powerful enemy. Wars and decimation of the region by the American Empire will only create more terrorists

Besides that, people who think that wars against nations serve a purpose are living in the past. Hell, people who think that nations matter anymore are living in the past. This fascination with nationalism is laughable at best and sickening at its very worst. Governments are bought for by international corporations who couldn't care less about who is suffering in the world, what color their skin is, and who they pray to, so long as their profit margins are going up. Governments have changed. In today's world, liberal-democracy only stands for capitalism.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
fweshcawfee or someone else from this thread decided to start up the same thread on the site www.neowin.net just yesterday.

The thread creator on the other site posted the opening post from this thread word for word but didn't source ATS. When they were getting a backlash they admitted that it came from another site they had read, but still didn't source ATS.

Whoever it is in this thread didn't need to do that. For one you copied one story and tried taking credit for it before the backlash on you and now there's all kinds of people arguing over there. Whoever posted it over there knew the thread creator here got banned and knew this was a touchy thread.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Someone is trolling to promote their favorite subject.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I found another site they posted it on that doesn't even have anything on it's forum related to ATS like conspiracies. It's a computer tech site and nothing more. It was taken down pretty quick and the person who posted it was banned.

They have a general discussion section in their forum where it could have been posted, but whoever posted it put it in the Windows XP discussion area that gets the most views.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's fweshcawfee making rounds after getting banned from here.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by nightmare_david]




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join