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.

 

Iran the most powerful (nation) , says Ahmadinejad

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by crmanager
 


I seem to remember Iran has the 2 most powerful allies aside from the US. Guess who?

I seem to remember Iran has a vast reserve of oil, and if pressed, could seriously mess up our fuel supply.

I also remember that we're still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight.


Iran also doesn't have any refineries

You can't make gasoline without a refinery, you can have all of the oil in the world but without a way to process it, it's completely useless. A U.S. blockade would cripple Iran, we may actually be able to destroy their military forces without a single bomb.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by yellowcard]




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by crmanager
 


I seem to remember Iran has the 2 most powerful allies aside from the US. Guess who?

I seem to remember Iran has a vast reserve of oil, and if pressed, could seriously mess up our fuel supply.

I also remember that we're still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight.


While China and Russia are allies of Iran, I seriously doubt they would actually intervene if any shooting were to start. IF anything they will use Iran to test their latest weapons systems to see how they do against US systems.

Iran has a vast oil reserve, however they have a very real refinery problem.
www.ameinfo.com...

The National Iranian Oil Company expects oil revenue to reach a record of more than $52bn in the current financial year. The problem is that much of the state's revenues are draining away in subsidies to support a largely closed economy lacking foreign investment. One of the most pressing challenges to the government lies in the country's lack of refined fuels.

The Islamic Republic produces 44 million litres of refined fuel a day which provides less than half of domestic requirements. It is a vulnerability that Washington has indicated it will use as a lever in its efforts to curb Iran's nuclear programme.


www.eia.doe.gov...

Iran’s oil consumption totaled 1.6 million bbl/d in 2006. The Iranian government heavily subsidizes the price of refined oil products which has contributed to increased domestic demand. Iran has limited refinery capacity to produce light fuels, and imports much of its gasoline supply. Iranian domestic oil demand is mainly for gasoline and automotive gasoils, but domestic demand for other oil products are declining due to the substitution of natural gas. However, it is an overall net petroleum products exporter due to large exports of residual fuel oil. Oil export revenues represent the majority of Iran’s total exports earnings, but the country suffers from budget deficits due to a growing population and large government subsidies on gasoline and food products. In 2005, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that energy subsidies accounted for 12 percent of Iran’s GDP, the highest rate in the world according to an International Energy Agency (IEA) study.


As for Iraq and Afghanistan, yes we are stuck playing cops instead of doing what the Military is designed for, that is crushing enemy forces.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


They don't need refineries, they have all their neighbors to do that for them.

I've posted this map many many times before. Notice how the Iraq oilfield is the same as the Iranian oil field.

Well guess what. No more Iraqi oil if Iran decides as such.







Iran doesn't need oil as much as you'd think. They have huge renewable energy resources: wind, solar, hydroelectric, cogeneration, geothermal, and biodiesel. A boycott would not hurt them in the same way a boycott of the US would.

renewable energy in Iran



reply to post by US Monitor
 



Russia and China do not want a US military presence anywhere near them. Iran is much closer to both countries than Iraq. They have a strong buffer nation [Iran] that would give the US military problems if they choose to invade.

Do I think the US could beat the Iranian military in a 1vs1 war? Sure. But that's not what's at stake here.

A war with Iran would erupt in World War 3, spreading way beyond the middle east.

I hope we never make it that far.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I think people miss the point here.

I think the U.S. Military wouldn't have the "cake-walk" they had with Iraq. A shock and awe campaign just won't work in Iran.

Granted, our military is vastly more advanced, but that doesn't mean that Iran is playing war with Tonka trucks. Their air force and defensive measure are adequate for a country of it's size, and possible adequate for a country even larger.

Do you think Iran has sat back and sipped margarita's while the United States has seemingly surrounded their country? I assure you, they have not. The Russians tested their latest in tactical bombs with the "Father of all Bombs". I'm sure Ahmadinejad was drooling over this news.

No, it wouldn't be a cake-walk. But, we would wipe out their military, eventually. But, they would only rebuild it with the help of Russia and China. Without the ability to occupy Iran, we could only conduct a "hit and run" campaign with Iran.

It's my opinion that the world has just about had enough U.S. Military for this decade. I just don't see the world standing by while we aggressively attack yet another country. The U.N. stepped aside as we defied their wishes when we invaded Iraq. Don't expect them to do the same next time.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by yellowcard
 


They don't need refineries, they have all their neighbors to do that for them.

I've posted this map many many times before. Notice how the Iraq oilfield is the same as the Iranian oil field.

Well guess what. No more Iraqi oil if Iran decides as such.







Iran doesn't need oil as much as you'd think. They have huge renewable energy resources: wind, solar, hydroelectric, cogeneration, geothermal, and biodiesel. A boycott would not hurt them in the same way a boycott of the US would.

renewable energy in Iran


A boycott? I'm talking about a blockade, if we blockade their gasoline supplies they are dead. You can't fly a jet without jet fuel, you can't run a tank without diesel, your economy can't transport food without gasoline. Oil prices aren't directly tied to oil supplies hence the crack spread so $200 oil wouldn't exactly cripple the U.S. economy. We would completely destroy Iran, it's not even an argument. It might take 6 months, but without an occupation victory would be historically swift for the U.S.


It's my opinion that the world has just about had enough U.S. Military for this decade. I just don't see the world standing by while we aggressively attack yet another country. The U.N. stepped aside as we defied their wishes when we invaded Iraq. Don't expect them to do the same next time.


If we invaded Iran it would be with international support, we'd use Israel as an excuse and it would rally European support. I'm sure if we do have a war with Iran it will start out between Israel and Iran...the Western World would back U.S. intervention 100%. It's funny that the world hates our politics, but if they feel threatened they will ask for our defense and aid. That's how the world works, I don't like U.S. foreign policy, but their is a lot of hypocricy in international criticism of it.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
A boycott? I'm talking about a blockade, if we blockade their gasoline supplies they are dead.


And why would be blockade Iran? What have they done? Give me one good reason we should do this. Oh, because they threaten Israel after Israel threatens them. Both sides are slinging crap at each other, and neither side is helping so don't bring that up. I'm not interested.



You can't fly a jet without jet fuel, you can't run a tank without diesel, your economy can't transport food without gasoline. Oil prices aren't directly tied to oil supplies hence the crack spread so $200 oil wouldn't exactly cripple the U.S. economy. We would completely destroy Iran, it's not even an argument. It might take 6 months, but without an occupation victory would be historically swift for the U.S.



As $115 dollar per barrel prices are currently crippling the US economy, I don't see how $200 per barrel wouldn't. Care to enlighten me on this one?

Why would we want to destroy Iran in the first place, because we can?

If the US does invade Iran, we couldn't claim victory unless we occupied. And that would be a surefire way of completely dismantling the US military and flushing the economy down the toilet.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls

Originally posted by yellowcard
A boycott? I'm talking about a blockade, if we blockade their gasoline supplies they are dead.


And why would be blockade Iran? What have they done? Give me one good reason we should do this. Oh, because they threaten Israel after Israel threatens them. Both sides are slinging crap at each other, and neither side is helping so don't bring that up. I'm not interested.



You can't fly a jet without jet fuel, you can't run a tank without diesel, your economy can't transport food without gasoline. Oil prices aren't directly tied to oil supplies hence the crack spread so $200 oil wouldn't exactly cripple the U.S. economy. We would completely destroy Iran, it's not even an argument. It might take 6 months, but without an occupation victory would be historically swift for the U.S.



As $115 dollar per barrel prices are currently crippling the US economy, I don't see how $200 per barrel wouldn't. Care to enlighten me on this one?

Why would we want to destroy Iran in the first place, because we can?

If the US does invade Iran, we couldn't claim victory unless we occupied. And that would be a surefire way of completely dismantling the US military and flushing the economy down the toilet.


Again, I'm not saying we SHOULD invade Iran, I'm sick of people putting words in my mouth. The POINT is that if we did invade Iran without occupation, we would beat the hell out of them. I'm really getting tired of people assuming that just because someone knows the U.S. can win a war means that we actually want to go to war. I've been a Ron Paul supporter, I don't support any of these wars or nation building, but given a situation I'm giving you the result. $120 is not crippling the economy, it just coincides with a credit market fallout, a housing bubble and a falling dollar. It may slow the economy, but $120 a barrel in my eyes is doing the U.S. good, finally the markets will demand alternatives. All it's doing now is squeezing profit margins.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
Again, I'm not saying we SHOULD invade Iran, I'm sick of people putting words in my mouth. The POINT is that if we did invade Iran without occupation, we would beat the hell out of them. I'm really getting tired of people assuming that just because someone knows the U.S. can win a war means that we actually want to go to war.


I don't think I put words in your mouth, but ok. I did not do it on purpose.

My point is that we wouldn't invade Iran without an occupation, and if we didn't occupy, how could we call it a victory?

I'm glad you're not calling for the destruction of another nation, that gives me hope for this country. At least some people are paying attention.




I've been a Ron Paul supporter, I don't support any of these wars or nation building, but given a situation I'm giving you the result. $120 is not crippling the economy, it just coincides with a credit market fallout, a housing bubble and a falling dollar. It may slow the economy, but $120 a barrel in my eyes is doing the U.S. good, finally the markets will demand alternatives. All it's doing now is squeezing profit margins.



If you think a rise in price is going to ensure alternative energy is used, I suggest you look at the 1970s oil crisis. Solar panels were used for a short amount of time before the price in oil dropped again.

We'll see the price of oil to continue rising, but that doesn't necessarily mean the oil companies are going to be out of business. They make more and more profits everyday, and they're exponentially increasing as the price rises.

Our sinking economy is linked directly to the price in oil. We use the petrodollar in the US, and as the dollar sinks, the price of oil rises, and as the price of oil rises, the US dollar sinks. Its quite the conundrum we've gotten ourselves into, and it doesn't look like we're going to get out of it anytime soon.

Iran is a threat to US oil companies because they've been nagging OPEC to switch oil to back the Euro. Iran is not a military threat, and never will be. They're peanuts compared to the might of the US military, but like Iran, the US military needs oil to run its war machine. Without it, we'd be just as dead as the Iranian military.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
The POINT is that if we did invade Iran without occupation, we would beat the hell out of them.


We might eventually win (what's victory) without occupation, but we'd suffer many more casualties in a much shorter time than we have in Iraq.

This is a country that continually holds annual Anti-American rallies as a sort of national holiday. Don't think that if the Ayatollah and the President told the nation to pick up arms that any able body, man, woman, or child wouldn't be fighting along side each other against our troops.

Basically, you're looking at another urban warfare senerio but instead of a broken up Iraqi military .. it'd be roughly a couple million vs. however many we were able to draft (500,000?).



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22

Originally posted by yellowcard
The POINT is that if we did invade Iran without occupation, we would beat the hell out of them.


We might eventually win (what's victory) without occupation, but we'd suffer many more casualties in a much shorter time than we have in Iraq.

This is a country that continually holds annual Anti-American rallies as a sort of national holiday. Don't think that if the Ayatollah and the President told the nation to pick up arms that any able body, man, woman, or child wouldn't be fighting along side each other against our troops.

Basically, you're looking at another urban warfare senerio but instead of a broken up Iraqi military .. it'd be roughly a couple million vs. however many we were able to draft (500,000?).


If you think the entire nation of Iran hates America you are terribly misinformed. The Iranian youth hates their current regime, and loves American culture. It seems many here know absolutely nothing about Iran, defining it as simply a nation instead of a individuals. What is victory? Well, it seems to me if their military is completely disabled, that's victory. Why would we have to occupy? They are vastly more organized and "cultured" than Iraq, setting up a government would go over much more quickly because a) we would have international support and b) Many Iranians do not hate America...if you want to see hatred for America look at our "best friend" in the Middle East (aside from Israel)...Saudi Arabia

www.amazon.com...

Iran would not be won on the ground with troops, it would be won at sea and by air with blockades, a draft would most likely not be needed because if we went into Iran we would undoubtedly have international support. This is the only way that the Executive Branch could ever get the Legislative Branch to allow action.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by yellowcard]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
What allot of you are also missing is that 'under the sheets' allot of Iran's neighbors actually don't want the Persian's coming back into power. They cannot say this publicly, but deep down this is how they feel. The fact is that no other military in history could have/can project military power on a global scale like the US military is able to. Want proof, just Google that topic. The US is currently fueling China's financial explosion and it would be committing financial suicide by defending Iran. Russia is just now beginning to regain some of its lost glory and I highly doubt they are in the mood to engage in any activity that might affect this. Besides, they don't like the idea of an Iranian Nuclear Bomb either (remember, Iran is led by crazy religious extremists). HOWEVER, don't make the mistake of underestimating the Persians. They do possess some sophisticated missiles they have purchased from China/Russia. Iran might not be on the technological edge, but China and Russia are. Besides, the bottom line is that in any war, it's always the innocent people that suffer the most. Just my opinion.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
For all your information. WW2 was won by a team effort but especially by Germany being too 'cavalier' in their attitudes. Look at the battle of Britain. The RAF were greatly outnumbered by the Luftwafe But the attitude of the British pilots was superior and disaplined , they were fighting for their homes and their families.
The Germans on the other hand just had the attitude that they were strong and undefeatable (sounding familiar yet?).
The WW2 was won by the US (pearl Harbour) being bombed by Japan who tried an annex as much as they could before the US stepped into the war , because if the Germans had gone into Poland , then France THEN the UK they would have won the war , but as it is they had too many fronts to fight on.
If the Germans had gone down that route then the US would have been in line after the Germans had taken over Europe.
The same will be if Iran is attacked, it won't matter by who because they will throw ~hit at everyone who even looks their way. And the US is fighting on many fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan) to be fighting Iran as well.
Maybe the US HAS suprerior numbers and technology, But if the US DOES go into Iran in for whatever reason they will get a very bloody nose.
The US troops are deserting in droves because of the Iraq war and post traumatic stress. IF you were in that position and your country said "go fight another war" what would you do?
If the war does start with Iran it will be drawn out to years not months like the Iraq war (won by strength of numbers but now its a war of attrition with guerilla warfare raging in the streets).
The US should finish what it started and clear out of Iraq and Afghanistan once its completed the 'takeover' then rest it's troops , rebuild its forces and it's strengths before going into Iran.
Besides for the time being it'll be covert operations , blow up a few refineries and bases so it looks like 'accidents' before a full scale attack.
I just pray to God in whatever form that no one uses a nuke. Coz once one goes off I think they'd be a few more going off .
In fact I think when a few US nukes 'got lost' last year that one of the 'lost' ones will find it's way onto a Iranian base and then 'accidentally' go off, then the world can say " OOH look, Iran had a nuke" . another act of terrorism . perpertrated by whom though? I'll let you decide.
But the world will say that Iran supports Terrorism and that they were preparing the nuke for shipping to the US to be detonated in a city somewhere but it went off early.
Then the US will storm Iran 'before they get anymore shipped' , and then it's goodnight all......

OH and before anyone goes on about the US bailing out us Brits, remember we held off the Germans for years . and who is bailing you out now and backing you up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I salute troops of all countries who fight and die for our freedoms , but also give respect to 'enemy combatants' for their beliefs as well, Becauseafter all arn't they fighting for their homes and families?.
I think what we should do is get the Governments (the Bushes and Dinnerjackets of the world and give them a gun and go tell them to fight) Because its always the average troops that get killed for someones elses pocket. The generals and countries leaders issue the orders for people to die but never do any of the fighting.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
wow, really?

Well, I hop he never see's his most powerful nation/airforce face any real challenges like:
US
England
Russis(though currently friendly)
China (Though currently friendly)
Israel

He may find out just how wrong he is.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join