It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


80,000 Reserve U.S. Troops Called Up for Iran Invasion

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:29 AM
Can it be done? Absolutley.

every able bodied male up until a certain age of the United states of America must register with the selective service system, providing the opportunity and duty to be involved with any event, good or bad, that your nation may become involved in.

Given the delicate nature of any impending international event in today's modern quagmire of existence, plans must be kept strictly confidential.

In any case, anyone in active reserves would simply be called up, and ordered to report to their nearest meps facility. Upon arrival, it is likely they will be ordered to retain blackout on any information relayed through the active project.

Nearly everyone involved would simply appear as if they were just going about their daily routines, until training begins, and their average peers would simply believe they were on their way to iraq or afghanistan for rotation (which is probably exactly what this action really is when you unravel all the spin).

[size=3.5]Congress have already stated they will not allow it. More than enough Generals have come forward not only advising against it, but announcing their are absolutley no plans for such a thing.

These are the racist rantings of a supremacist lunatic who only gets off at watching any outside of his small minded world suffer and beg for mercy. Honestly, I believe any person behaving in this manner should be institutionalized, and sent through rehabilitation for their inability to cooperate as a species for the benefit of everyone equally!

Please people, get a grip with reality. If you fall into this stuff, its part of the reason all the mainstream start calling us looney. They represent the truth, if only the truth they desire to represent. But standard among them is standards for professionalism and basic human rights. there is a big reason we dismiss the rantings of these lunatics, they do no represent a stable or factual representation of information.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:31 AM
Racism is disgusting. To call him "Mister Turner" is an insult to men. Hal Turner goes beyond the pale of racism. Just looking at him I want to vomit.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 04:59 PM

Originally posted by never_tell

Originally posted by Chyort
reply to post by never_tell

Oh, so you're saying if a government does it in Dafur that the U.S. government will do it in Iraq? Sounds a little outlandish to me. Do you have any evidence other than a quote you made?

I'm saying "anything is possible".. run out of "real" people.. what do you do? There are numerous historical accounts of recruitment where people are arrested for petty crimes only to be given the choice to enlist instead...

and ancient history is filled with armies comprised of slaves, which of course is all the prison population is... convicts already underwrite the corporate bottom line... will only be a matter of time before the "draft" extends to the interment camps of the American penal system..

afterall, only makes good fiscal sense!

[edit on 15-11-2007 by never_tell]

You need to look at probability as well as possibility. There is no precedent in the USA for such an example of what you mentioned occurring, so while it may be .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% possible, what's the likelihood? Not all theories are equal. Some are sound, and some are unsound.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by DYepes

Reservists don't report to MEPS stations for mobilization, and they certainly wouldn't just be called up, and told sensitive information. There are a lot of steps that Reservists go through pre-deployement(i.e. mandatory training, weapons qualification, medical, finance, etc.....), and they go to various posts that have Mobilization sites.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by tvgraphics

They don't need to go to Iran to deal with Iranians. Iranians are in Iraq already.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by BlueRidge

You should be able to look at the source and figure out whether you need further validation on your own. If you go looking for the "truth" on some wacked out site, you're gonna be looking for a long time. Critical thinking is a skill that allows one to evaluate assertions, credibility, etc..
If it isn't self-evident that a source like that isn't credible, I'm not sure what to tell you.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:21 PM
With modern resources and equipment, i'd judge 80k troops to be more than enough for a ground-level incursion against Iran.

We're also going to need to look at America's known ability to turn other countries to their own means - i imagine isreal might take something of a hand to play in this, if indeed it goes ahead.

People need to stand up and state that 'We Refuse to Allow Our President to Lead us into Another War', and stick to it.

Only a solid opposition, made up of thousands if not millions of voters will cause Boy Georgey to sit down and shut the f*ck up.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by Throbber

One thing to consider that there are no combat arms units in the Reserves. Only the Active Duty and National Guard units have combat arms units. This fact alone should along with the source of that quote squash that notion.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:28 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

If they have no combat arms units then perhaps that is the reason these people are being trained.

Judging from the type of training the OP mentioned ("specialized combat tactics") i'd judge these guys are being prepared for the worst.

EDIT: But you're right, of course - i think it highly unlikely anything will come of this other than enhanced pressure on American politics.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by Throbber]

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by Throbber

You don't just take someone who is in a support unit, give them training, and then hand them a tank, helicopter, howitzer, etc.. and expect them to invade a country.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja

Nor do you expect a professional soldier to go out onto the warzone and come back in one peice.

You expect them to complete their mission, that is all, if they come back alive, then they can go on to complete more missions.

Anywho - what exactly do these 'support' roles entail anyway?

It wouldn't be too far-fetched for a soldier who spent his time learning how to maintain a tank to have no clue as to how one works, really.

The way i see it is that this 'new army' would be comprised mainly of fresh troops, yes - but there would also be a few experienced soldiers attached to each unit - providing intuitive counter-measures when faced with a sudden threat, even if the people reacting to it were all green.

I'm not too familiar with the way the american military functions, so that may explain my relative short-comings in my knowledge on the subject.

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by Throbber

BlueRaja is right; the Reserves have no combat arms units. They have combat support, which includes, but not limited to: Military Intelligence, Aviation, Medical Service, Military Police, Quartmaster, and others.

Using your example, of a soldier learning how to repair or drive a tank, would entail the soldier to change his current MOS (job). This requires going to the tanker (or applicable) school, which can be a couple of weeks to over a year, then coming back to the unit and training with them. It would be a long process.

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by Chyort

The method of training can be changed - instead of indirect tuition one could directly train individuals by giving them real-time experience in tank manuevoures up until they are confident enough to perform duties without exterior assistance.

This method of training would take weeks, and it's important to remember that not all 80,000 are being trained for heavy infantry duties.

We're also ignoring the capabilities for next-gen technology to be applied for use in the potential technological stand-off in a scenario involving two countries with relatively modern armies, as after all they do possess many of the combative abilities that first-world countries claim to own.

That thought did literally just pop into my head - maybe the american establishment feels it's time to make the next-generation technology known to the public, and this is the only way they can do it without the masses rejecting that technology.

My point is, ultimately - that this isn't exactly going to be conventional warfare, perhaps we're looking at some sort of symbiosis of guerilla warfare and chemical or biological, or perhaps these 80,000 troops will simply be there to clean up after we nuke iran's military capacity to teensy-weensy little bits.

Perhaps there will be some sort of false-flag event that causes the rest of the world to sit up and 'take action', thereby providing added troops to fight alongside the original 80,000 (much like what happened in Iraq.).

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by Throbber

Or perhaps you can just accept that those of us that are in the military know what is and isn't feasible, likely, possible, etc...

You can't just take someone whose background is in one discipline, and train them to do a completely different job in a few weeks. Furthermore, who is gonna take care of their jobs, while they are supposedly being trained for new MOS? Face it, this is a ridiculous assertion, that if you had any military background would be painfully obvious.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Throbber
reply to post by BlueRaja

Nor do you expect a professional soldier to go out onto the warzone and come back in one peice.

You expect them to complete their mission, that is all, if they come back alive, then they can go on to complete more missions.

I'm not too familiar with the way the american military functions, so that may explain my relative short-comings in my knowledge on the subject.

Actually you do expect professional soldiers to come back in one piece. Obviously there'll be some casualties, but the vast majority do come back fully intact.

The second part of your quote is obvious as well.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by BlueRaja]

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Souljah

Military of Iran

  • The Islamic Republic of Iran Army consists of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. The regular armed forces have an estimated 420,000 personnel: the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, 350,000 personnel; the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, 18,000 personnel; and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, 52,000 airmen.

  • The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, or Revolutionary Guards, has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; the Quds Force (Special Forces), and the Basij (militia).

  • The Basij (or Baseej) is a paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards; it includes about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed Basij members, up to 300,000 reservists, and a further 11 million men and women who could be mobilized

  • In case that there will be a ground invasion in Iran,

    All I can say to U.S. Military is,


    If the stats are true, then each unit in the American forces 80k would have to be able to take out between 137.5- 162.5 Iranian armed forces in a ground assault for an assured/guarenteed victory. which would require one hell of a trainning program, and battle stratedgy unrivaled to any command giver in the history of man (almost a modern day 300 scenario). IMO if there was an invasion it would probably be co-op'ed by the UN or other foriegn forces (Israel). Even with the 80,000 and units currently in iraq, it still would be vastly insufficient.....unless the Invasion were under....Nuclear Circumstances....

    Im guessing if ground forces were used in Iran with such opposing Odds, the objectives would most likely be to just disarm the nation of its capabilities rather than toe-to-toe warfare. In and Out guerilla warfare on a larger scale (dismantling facilities before Iranian forces can be mobilized). I wouldn't hold your breath though , such operations isn't America's style. esspecially in such an everything or nothing situation.

    [edit on 3/1/08 by Obsurion]

    posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:34 AM
    lol the part that makes me laugh is quietly calling up 80,000 troops

    You can't call up that size and keep it quiet.This absolute BS.
    This is a perfect example of someone creating a fabricated lie to get ratings or a bigger audience to listen to them dribble on about how the US is gone war crazy.

    new topics

    top topics

    << 2  3  4   >>

    log in