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.

 

When will the attack on Iran begin?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
So most of us in the loop have come to the conclusion (foregone of course) that the United States intends to attack and ultimately debilitate Iran. Whether you lean to the left or right makes little difference, the framework is there and the media machine is churning. Here in the states the corporate media has nearly reached the level of fervor that they strove so diligently to create prior to the initiation of the Iraq war.

Meanwhile in D.C., Cheney and Co. are doubtlessly drafting up new attack plans with multiple levels of contingency. They know that this time, it's a whole different ballgame. Iran is not the economically destitute country, impoverished after years of sanctions, That Iraq was/is. They know that this time collateral damage may be enormous; They don't care, there are to many people anyway .

So, when will the time be right? Will they wait until after the elections so as to defer any societal backlash? Or will they try and go down gung-ho in a blaze of glory? This writer thinks that since civil unrest is fairly high, it would be wiser to wait until after they've installed Hilldog 2.0 (The cold woman who will rise to power). The Clinton name is a powerful marketing tool and I believe they intend to use it.

Thanks and be well friends and patriots.

P.S. Can anyone give me any info on the man who made that prediction (Cold woman rise to power). I remember reading about it, he was a christian tent pastor in america during the early 1900's ( I want to say 20's?) He made something like 10 predictions. The reason I was so astounded was because he correctly predicted the rise of hitler many, many years before WWII even began. Any info would be appreciated.

[edit on 10/30/2007 by ExquisitExamplE]




posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Hopefully soon, Im waiting for the rapture...




posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Norman Podhoretz says it will occur before Bush leaves office. I think it may happen by next summer. It is possible that it could happen under Clinton but they'll need another false flag to justify it in that case.


...I thought Jesus taught love, tolerance, and peace for everyone. How have these 'Christians' been led to such bloodlust? Can't they see that they are being radicalized in the same fashion as many Muslims by accepting an altered version of their religion?



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
If it does happen and I think theres a pretty good chance that it will, I think it will either be this coming spring or next fall/winter.
It seems that they dont like to start a desert invasion during the summer months and I dont blame them.

I dont think it matters who's in office, when "they" want it to happen, (whoever they are) the person in the white house makes absolutely no difference. When theyre told to do it, they will do it, or else..

Heres an article that I found just after I posted the paragraph above..

Source Page



The US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, according to military sources.

The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure coincides with an "urgent operational need" request for £44m to fit racks to the long-range aircraft.

That would allow them to carry experimental 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs designed to smash underground bunkers buried as much as 200ft beneath the surface through reinforced concrete.
advertisement

One MOP - known as Big Blu - has already been tested successfully at the US Air Force proving ground at White Sands in New Mexico. Tenders have now gone out for a production model to be ready for use in the next nine months.

The "static tunnel lethality test" on March 14 completely destroyed a mock-up of the kind of underground facility used to house Iran's nuclear centrifuge arrays at Natanz, about 150 miles from the capital, Tehran.

Although intelligence estimates vary as to when Iran will achieve the know-how for a bomb, the French government recently received a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency stating that Iran will be ready to run almost 3000 centrifuges in 18 cascades by the end of this month. That is in defiance of a UN ban on uranium enrichment and would be enough to produce a nuclear weapon within a year.


[edit on 10/30/2007 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE
 


Star and a flag! I've been waiting for someone to say just those things and start a thread discussing what we think might happen. I, personally don't think it's going to be some great "Shock and Awe" campaign. I think, if anything, it will be surgical strikes by Israel that starts the whole she-bang and then a 2-day diplomatic scramble and THEN we might get in there with some flierpower. Anyway it happens, we're in some dogpile for a bit.

I'll keep an eye on this thread.
Cuhail



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wingman77
Norman Podhoretz says it will occur before Bush leaves office. I think it may happen by next summer. It is possible that it could happen under Clinton but they'll need another false flag to justify it in that case.


I was kind of thinking the opposite, people know bush is a snake, so I think there would be a lot civil unrest if they (bush/cheney co.) were to initiate the war. On the other hand, people seem to love Clinton; I believe the masses would be more tolerant of a seemingly "new" war initiated by them.

EDIT: Then again on a third hand, I'm sure they have a plan for those of us who might get a little rowdy. Boys! Set your nightsticks to whomp!

[edit on 10/30/2007 by ExquisitExamplE]



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Actually it will not happen unless Iran attacks first on a very large scale. Iran could do this since the Iranian government most likely thinks that a war will generate a few more decades of extremists. Right now their young are heading the direction of moderation and I bet the elders fear that could lead to a loss of power for them.

The US will not attack them for really as of now and 5 plus years they pose no threat even with what seems to be daily challenges and threats as to what they will do if they are attacked. This is all just a political ploy with little meat to it.

Media is the other saber rattler for they just want to print what might sell, and anything that might have war in it will sell. Also we are now living in a hyper society where we get the “news” by the minute and doom and gloom is in everything. You could actually get the news monthly and not really miss anything while saving yourself all the hype that vomits out of it in almost real time. I wonder how many people each day think that this is the day the DOW crashes 10,000 points or we are at war with Iran or any of the other big sell items that the news wants you to want to read or hear.

Don’t take my word for it go back 30 days and see what was actually news worthy in those 30 days and you would see you actually missed nothing of importance if you only read the news once every 30 days. This time next year Iran will be just about the same as they are now, and as I stated unless they do something monumental stupid they have nothing to fear.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I'm not so sure Iran will have to attack first for a war to begin. The way Bush Co. do things, we'd probably just do a preemptive strike and start things off. Russia would probably come to the Iranians aid. Of course, I've thought that maybe Russia has been giving the Iranians their Nukes. It could be like what they did with Cuba, and maybe this is what Bush Co. is refering too. Personally, if Iran wants to produce nuclear power to help their country, I'm all for it. The US, and this goes for any other nation, shouldn't be allowed to tell another nation that they can't have nuclear technology if it is going to benefit their society as a whole. I'm sure someone will point out the fact if we let these nations have nuclear technology, they'll use it for destructive purposes. However, I do believe the United States is the only country to have actually used Nukes in a war.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The US will not attack them for really as of now and 5 plus years they pose no threat even with what seems to be daily challenges and threats as to what they will do if they are attacked.


Little to no threat. Precisely. Just as Iraq posed no threat to us but we saw what happened there. From a military standpoint, it is always advantageous to first attack targets that pose little threat so as to minimize your losses. That is why we started in Iraq. We obviously underestimated the courage of the insurgents however. Good sentence structuring by the way.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE
 





Good sentence structuring by the way.


You have to remember that there are a lot of members here and English isnt their first language.
I may or may not be wrong but this guy seems to fit that profile.
Iit doesnt really bother me, as long as I can understand their point it can be typed in pig latin for all i care.



[edit on 10/31/2007 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
[
Little to no threat. Precisely. Just as Iraq posed no threat to us but we saw what happened there. From a military standpoint, it is always advantageous to first attack targets that pose little threat so as to minimize your losses. That is why we started in Iraq. We obviously underestimated the courage of the insurgents however. Good sentence structuring by the way.


Sorry, I was in a hurry and just typed what I was thinking without really rereading it.


Well Iraq is a completely different animal. They showed real threat to the region with their full attack on Kuwait and WMD attacks on the Kurds. This forced the US to setup huge no fly zones for a decade keeping an offensive posture up the whole time.

Iran on the other hand has not attacked anyone, (lately) and so the US will maintain a defensive posture until they pull a move much like Iraq tried.


[edit on 31-10-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Iran on the other hand has not attacked anyone, (lately) and so the US will maintain a defensive posture until they pull a move much like Iraq tried.
[edit on 31-10-2007 by Xtrozero]


Have you been watching the news lately? I would hardly call our current posture defensive, more like passive aggressive. The corporate media are doing the exact same thing to demonize Iran as they did to Iraq just prior to the war; and according to them, Iran is attacking someone by helping to finance insurgents in Iraq. Not only that but they have a dastardly nuclear program o noes! Team America needs to make sure her and her allies are the only countries with WMDs. We are after all the World Police!




posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
When Bush gets the nads to do it. I would have bombed them for killing our boys in Iraq let alone the nuke problem. Thats the only way that the Iranian leadership will get the message. Stop sending arms and terrorist into Iraq or pay the piper. It don't have to be Shock and Awe just let them know that we have had it and bomb there missile sites or something so they crawl back in there hole and shut up. Give them an ultimatum stop now or else and if they flinch then bomb them back into the stone age.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
if anyone can find out when Iran is supposed to flood the world with cheap oil and also by denominating in euros instead of dollers than we can make an assumptions that an attack will begin before they do that on our part.

they have a date set but i don't no when

if anyone can find out that would be great



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I'm thinking sooner then later if iran doesnt back-off from supporting terrorist's and stopping their Nuke program...Yeah Sky Watcher, concussed back to their hole to reflect on how great their lifeway is according to their "understanding" of the koran...and maybe a " Building with Mud made Easy" handbook...



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Heres a link I just stumbled across.

payvand.com - The march to War

Quite interesting considering it's over a year old.

[edit on 5-11-2007 by arclore]



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Do you think they may be waiting to see how the situation in Pak rolls out before launching in Iran. I mean if Musharaf is overthrown and the extremes get the country, then the number one target changes from a country trying to get weapons to one with a full arsenal. In my opinion, the worst case scenario would be for Pak to fall (into the wrong hands). It would change the dynamix of the region, not to mention make india extremely nervous. Plus, as soon as we attack Iran, I wouldnt doubt seeing baslan in the US and s-bombers in supermarkets byt the Hez cells here in the US lite up immediately. Militarily, we may have the infastrucutre to coordinate the attack, but do we really have the resolve at home to keep secure.

Thanks,
Bandit



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
On the other hand, people seem to love Clinton;


What is wrong with the people of this country??????



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
consider this.............


there will not be an attack on Iran, aka Persia.

the whole 'good guy' 'bad guy' drama is an Orchestration

Iran had below-the-radar dealings with Israel during the Iran-Iraq wars

Iran has (imho) 'understandings' with the USA, to act boisterous and braggidocious on the world stage...but secretly the USA and Iran
have a covert cooperation agreement.
They want to become a regional power...and they are that right now,
all these worries of attacks on Iran's nuclear enrichments are
nothing more than Bluster and Positioning



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Israel said a while back that if the U.S. didn't strike the Iranian nuclear facility, they would. If you remember your history way back whenever, Israel bombed the Iraq nuclear plant they were building. The problem though is that it is out of striking distance for their fighter aircraft, so either the U.S. would have to do it, or somehow get involved with mid air refueling.

And to address the post about a country having the right to nuclear power, that's not what this is about. Iran could let in inspectors and run a nuclear plant legitimately, but they apparently refuse to do that. And you seem to be forgetting that the Iranian president said that he plans to wide Israel off the face of the map. That's why something needs to be done. And no, the US isn't going to launch a full scale war on Iran, it would probably just be a fast surgical strike, like we did with Libya. You'll probably turn on the news one day and find out that we had done it over night.

From what I've heard, if the US is going to do anything, it will be sometime in 2008, before Bush leaves office. I'm all for it. Never mind the wimpy little effeminate peace freaks on this forum who seem to want Hillary for their leader and want to live in a world of kisses, hugs, and gay pride parades. There really aren't many real men left these days.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join