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: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Why don't usa attack Russia or China? They are possible threath to the whole world, are they scared? It's easier to bully the small than same size, ask any schoolyard bully. I'm sick of this, something needs to be done! Where can i enlist .....




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:18 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!


Ever read a history book?

Here's a quick lesson on the Eastern Front.

Proof that the Geramns could have been defeated without the US

Go wave your flage elsewhere pal the rest of the world has had a gutsfull.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyBlonde

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!


Ever read a history book?

Here's a quick lesson on the Eastern Front.

Proof that the Geramns could have been defeated without the US

Go wave your flage elsewhere pal the rest of the world has had a gutsfull.


True, Russians were the real winners. USA was just making it faster. IF usa would have not joined the war, Russians and other allies would have crused Nazis, i still appriciate usa's effort.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I'd just like to clarify something for people who think I'm a war mongering neocon: In one of my earlier posts, I was stating that we SHOULD NOT attack Iran, **AND** that we can't afford to. I wasn't saying money is the reason not to start another war. Fortunately somebody had the well intentioned idea of calling me a sheep and accusing me of being the source of all of America's bad foreign relations. Had it not been for them, we all would have gone along assuming I'm the devil or something.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Ill support the war as long as we can blow up your house first.

Anyone that thinks Iran would be able to mount any type of a credible attack needs to have their head examined, Nuclear or otherwise.

Ever think the President of Iran might speak some truth? Not everything..but on some things. Take Human rights for example.
GITMO? Oh yeah, a stellar moment for America.

Lets use Abu G. Oops..anothere stellar moment. WMDS?..strike again. How about Iraqs Nuclear threat..Damm..strike again.

Im tired of this Administrations " Stellar " performance and personally dont want to do anything until we have a new leader in power who knows that the Austrians arent Australians,

www.youtube.com...

and that Mandella is alive and well.



Bush has been Bush..league. The Iran thing needs diplomacy, not detonators.

Im for an America that supports the truth that all people are created equal, and there are certain rights that all men are Gauranteed, God Given or not..those being Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness..

Not just for Americans..but all Mankind. All means all

War should be a last resort when all means of diplomacy have been exhausted. And I mean last resort.

Peace


[edit on 26-9-2007 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 26-9-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


To be fair to George W I think he was referring to 'the lack of a Mandella 'type' character within Iraq to stand up and form a strong government and lead with the backing of all' - Though of course, I could be wrong.

Someone is his position should take a little more care in their oratory.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

The only thing inevitable is death.


...and taxes, at least if Benjamin Franklin is to be believed.

As regards the thread title, I believe most people who say that a conflict with Iran would be disasterous for the US mean disasterous in an economical and political sense rather than purely militarily. I have little doubt that Irans military would be methodically destroyed and dismantled, although I believe it would be a much trickier proposition than either Iraq or Afghanistan provided.

The far reaching political consequences of such an action are somewhat less easy to predict however...



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Excellent video that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the US Bush Administration are a pack of liars. If after watching the video and you still disagree, then you are obviously in a state of denial.

www.youtube.com...

I'm not a great fan of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but atleast when he speaks, he sounds more sincere and honest than any member of the Bush admin who frankly just look and sound damn creepy.
Anyone who believes these morons, must of sold their soul to the devil.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by kindred]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Russians have technology to turn all American's to little frogs, so how can you use your system if you are a frog? They might have that tech, but it is not depolyed, also i would like to see the targeting system that would accomplish this.


ok, here you go. Here is a video describing the targeting system

www.youtube.com...

There are a number of other systems that I will try to post videos for later today.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Hmm, that plane looks similar to the one hovering over World Trade Center during 9/11.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Half over? We Americans saved most of Europe. You Brits while were in a good fight and I'm not bashing Brits here because they took on a tough one, You didn't even have a chance.You couldn't have defeated Germany. Paton and Bradley ran over and chased the Germans right back home. We knocked out Germany's war making infrastructure and their will to fight. Russia moped up the rest on their front. How many countries did the Allies have to run through? Allot. How many did Russia have to push through? What maybe 4.
Oh and defeated Japan at the same time.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Sky watcher]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Half over? We Americans saved most of Europe.


Actually most of Europe landed up in Soviet hands so putting aside who saved who that statement just isn't accurate.


You Brits while were in a good fight and I'm not bashing Brits here because they took on a tough one, You didn't even have a chance.


Britain would have bankrupt by the end of 1939 ( or 1940, i forget) with or without a war so your quite correct in stating that they could never have prosecuted a war to victory against the combined industrial might of Germany,France,Austria, the low countries, Italy and their east European allies. This is on the face of it pretty obvious.


You couldn't have defeated Germany.


And how on Earth should they have given a rather larger German population and industrial base? Even with their foreign colonies and industrial holdings the preparation for world war two simply bankrupted them...


Paton and Bradley ran over and chased the Germans right back home.


Taking a very long time and suffering heavy material losses and human casualties along the way against a largely defensive German force. The western allies would have simply failed if not for the attrition visited on the Nazi war machine by the SU and the invasion of Normandy came so late because i would in my opinion have simply failed at a earlier date.


We knocked out Germany's war making infrastructure and their will to fight.


The SU did that as the air campaign against Germany were only gaining real success against Germany proper , where the actual military goods were being manufactured, after the invasion of Normandy had started. By the time the western bomber fleets started really pounding German industry they were already running dangerously low on manpower and in fact massively EXPANDED their production in the supposed time the air campaign become really successful.


Russia moped up the rest on their front.


That is in fact what the US and Britain did in France while the SU struck the strategic blows that Germany could not sustain.


How many countries did the Allies have to run through? Allot.


Right but the territories that the SU took back from German occupation were far larger and they did this fighting the vast majority of Germany's industrial and human capacity.


How many did Russia have to push through? What maybe 4.


Maybe you should get yourself a map.



Oh and defeated Japan at the same time.


A country that lacked the ability to kill even one US citizen on the North American continent. Compared to the fighting the SU were doing they could in my opinion have taken on a few Japan's and achieved the same victory in the same time.

We might to do better to ask why the US had such a hard time prosecuting a war against a nation that had relatively little other than a large population with which to fight. To compare what the SU had to sustain while recovering from a very near defeat to what the US had to do to recover from a defeat at Pearl harbour is to admit that you have not in fact read any history books related to this topic.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by fweshcawfee

Originally posted by Kaliayev
Sure, America could win a conventional war against Iran. I dont think anyone would deny that.


Lots of people have denied it, otherwise I wouldn't have made this thread. Where have you been?

Maybe you aren't denying it but plenty of others emphatically have and still are.


Well, unfortunately you have been banned and so wont see my reply, but I'll write it for everyone else to see. Iran's conventional forces are, quite frankly, crap, and I wouldn't trust them to win a war against any competent foe.

But winning on the battlefield is only half the equation. This isn't the glory days of the Napoleonic Wars any more, now you have to deal with the population as well. RPG-7's, Kalashnikovs, IEDs, car-bombs and the will to fight are all you need to make any invading commander think twice about going in.

The current Iranian President is not popular. In fact, in many ways he is seen as the Bush of the Middle East. But an invasion of Iran will stoke the old patriotism. Iranians do remember the Shah, as well as the war with Iraq, had US blessing. They are, generally speaking, proud of their culture and history and their country, regardless of current politics. And while some Iranians may initially welcome an overthrow of the Shi'ite theocracy, at what cost would it be?

The Revolutionary Guard would likely remove their uniforms, create cells and walk among the civilian population while the conventional Iranian forces traded land for time. By the time US forces entered Tehran, I would expect the Revolutionary Guard to be very prepared for urban guerrilla warfare. And the longer that drags on, the more people will side with them. The longer the USA has to stay to put down the insurgency, the more it will be seen as an occupying force.

But lets take another tack. Lets assume the airstrike plan goes into effect, instead of the full invasion. OK, on one level this is safer. The Iranian air force is no real threat, despite having some cool F-14's hanging around somewhere. But if airstrikes are used, you can only destroy facilities, which are not really the problem. The scientists would likely be moved away, Iran would increase its oil output a bit and suddenly it would have brand new facilities again. So Special Forces would need to go in to either convince the scientists to defect, or to kill them.

Remember what happened the last time Special Forces went into Iran? An operation that deep in enemy territory, that complex, would have a good chance of failure, no matter how well trained the men are. Deserts are not good for choppers, for example. The division of the scientists would call for multiple teams, meaning more chance of the mission being blown. So what happens when US forces are stuck deep in enemy territory, surrounded by enemies?

Well, you could always send more men in, but then the Iranians would be preparing for that too, and before you know it, you're in a situation where you have absolutely no control over what is going on.

Attacking Iran in any way is going to cause more problems than it solves, with things as they stand. Best bet is to do nothing, wait until the Iranian public get sick of their moron President, and then deal with someone far more reasonable, in a diplomatic manner. Iran wants things, the west has things. A deal could be cut, if the offer were juicy enough.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Also, where did all this WWII rubbish appear from?

This is a wakeup call: wars are not fought like that anymore. Restructure your economy for a total war footing and you can expect an economic hammering in the international markets.

The real wars nowadays start once the conventional forces are routed. For goodness sake, this pattern has been repeating itself since Chechnya (first time around). Advances in technology allow for numerically inferior and firepower lacking forces to defeat superpowers. You could always try the Syrian method of urban warfare - bombardment until the entire city is flat - but that wont play well with the world media. Nowadays, killing civilians is a big no-no, and yet if you want to put down a popular urban insurgency, you'll have to just that.

Stopping the insurgency before it starts, just like studying the root causes of terrorism, is something that is very new and the power elites don't seem too interested in right now. But that's where the research needs to be, because otherwise the fallout from modern warfare will make wars not worth fighting, economically or in terms of human life.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Kaliayev]

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Kaliayev]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Half over? We Americans saved most of Europe. You Brits while were in a good fight and I'm not bashing Brits here because they took on a tough one, You didn't even have a chance.You couldn't have defeated Germany. Paton and Bradley ran over and chased the Germans right back home. We knocked out Germany's war making infrastructure and their will to fight. Russia moped up the rest on their front. How many countries did the Allies have to run through? Allot. How many did Russia have to push through? What maybe 4.
Oh and defeated Japan at the same time.


Please. Go and read a history book or find some decent WW2 historical sites on the net and learn about what happened instead of posting what you think you know.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Stellar I'm done arguing with your communist views because its a waste of everyones time and i got a warning for over quoting you when you had done it ten times more than me. I know your views and you know mine so lets just leave it at that.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
What about the 50,000 Suicide Bombers in Iran waiting for a US attack before they are set lose?

www.iranfocus.com...

Iran signs up 50,000 “volunteers” for suicide attacks



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
like i said idonno how many times iran wouldnt put up a good fight its the aftermath the loose weapons how thin stretched we would be in the region and the possibility that if we bombed there reactors al queada hizbullah anyone could get there hands on uranium and possibly WG uranium then that would be worse for us later on not to mention iran is friends with north korea how far can we stretch a conflict syria and lebanon might decide to get involved before they get struck and who knows who else might decide there gonna be next iran itself isnt a threat but a war with iran is a threat or at the very least a majorly complicating matter



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The question isn't if we can or can't beat any country on this earth, because we can unquestionably do so. The question is can we defeat another country without , destroying the U.S. and global economy, destroying relations with other countries, going to war with multiple countries, winning with the least possible sacrifice of innocent and U.S. military lives alike. Yes, anyone who thinks anyone on earth currently can beat us in a flat out war is pretty much insane, because if we showed no humanity, we could destroy and conquer the rest of the world probably in less than a year with nuclear weapons and other advanced weaponry...but that doesn't mean anything, because we will never do that unless Hitler is reincarnated as Hillary Clinton. The fact is, because we are cooperative nation in the global landscape, a war with Iran would cause us a lot of harm, both economically, politically and militarily.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kindred
 


Kindred linked a great video worth watching...

Before we go marching off to war, and killing people on all sides including our own troops, take a close look at the back peddling and the Lies this administration has put out..

After watching this, its hard for me not to be just pissed as hell..but dammit Truth will prevail The lie will come back to bite, and justice will correct. Not by this administration..but by those who walk a higher standard.

Before we say Iran, Lets recall history for a minute...


Google Video Link


Peace



[edit on 26-9-2007 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 26-9-2007 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 26-9-2007 by HIFIGUY]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join