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.


Iran the most powerful (nation) , says Ahmadinejad

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by dk3000
When will Dinnerjacket learn to stand in line and wait his turn!


posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:49 PM
lol That IS funny.

But seriously, I guess it all boils down to what you/they mean by 'power'.

Power can be alot of different things to different entities for different reasons. By power, they could mean "The ability to direct events" which they certainly do have the ability to do. By power they could mean "The ability to control the actions of the worlds strongest superpower", which of course they DO have the ability to do (if they havent been all along already).

Attacking Afghanistan wasnt really so bad in that the world basicly said 'ut oh Taliban, not a good idea to defy them after 911'... but it should have been left at that. The US could have put alot more resources there afterwards and made a better place out of it.

Attacking Iraq has now weakened the united states so badly that all doctrines are out the window (the miltary was based on a '2 theater doctrine') and SEVERELY weakened the US's ability to wage further conventional war AND our ability to allocate resources where resources need to be properly allocated.

Attacking Iran would be IDIOTIC in this chain of events given all the above. To continue along this path would be (potentially) SUICIDAL for the general welfare of the citizens of The United States as well as the rest of the entire world.

So yes, Id agree with the OP in that regard... Iran may BE the most powerful nation right now, they certainly control a whole lotta oil right now when its needed by us the most.

Iran is a respected nation among the brethren of this planet. Sure they fund terrorism, but so does the united states government. Cant we all just get along and stop talking about fighting each other?

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by biggie smalls

The US military has not won in Iraq or Afghanistan so far. How are they going to beat the Iranian military, which is far superior than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.


The US military has taken its gloves off in Iraq. Even with the help of the mercenary forces we haven't seemed to suppress the "insurgency." You think Iraq is bad?

While I agree with you that the US has neither won in either Iraq or Afghanistan, I disagree on two other issues.

The Iranian military is quite formidable and would most certainly cause many US casualties. However, the question remains, what type of fight are we looking at?

Iran invading Iraq and/or Afghanistan? US invasion of Iran? Naval action in the Gulf? Air attack on Iran? Miscellaneous?

My other point is this: The US has not taken its gloves off in Iraq. I understand people will disagree with me. However, to me, taking the gloves off is a no holds barred, total annihilation of the enemy without any restrictions.

If Iraq in general looked more like Dresden, Hiroshima or Darmstadt then I could agree with you.

That is MY opinion of that term.

(I mention Darmstadt, my hometown in Germany, as that city was pretty much obliterated on the night of September 11/12, 1944 (ironic!) when it was hit by a main bomber raid.)

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by ufoorbhunter

I'm not sure if people realize Iran is a tremendously beautiful country full of people much like ourselves. If anyone needs to be re-educated it might need to start at home. The leader comes of as crazy but his is one of 2 major countries that has been able to stay away from the "Federal Reserve" cartel which is the single most evil organization in this world. Educate yourself sbout what goes on behind the scenes and please do not follow the rhetoric shelled out by the media. No we shouldn't attack because they pose no threat to anyone other than Israel and Israel should be able to take care of themselves by now.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:06 PM

Well it seems they can still fly the F-14 Tomcat. Wonder if it's actually combat capable though, or if they still have any AIM-54 missiles.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:07 PM
I dont see these statements as a threat, and I think there is a bit of gun jumping going on.

To me it would seem that statements like these are a form of muscle flexing but not directly towards an 'enemy' as such but to let the Iranian people see that Iran is willing to stand up to the world.

Bringing about support from your own people is half the battle, whether you win a war or not.

Every nation on the planet holds a torch.

Regards S_G

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by ufoorbhunter

Defend the mad men if you want to scramjet. I won't. I will defend my own. I'm onside and I back my forces in the ME. To me you're no better than a red under the bed. Time to buy your one way ticket to Tehran? Wonder what they'd do with you?

I'm not defending any mad men. Read my post again.

Furthermore, I feel very fortunate to have been born in the USA. Both my parents are immigrants and my mom came from a third world country. I know how some of those people live. However, if you would like to buy my plane ticket to Tehran I can save you hassle.... just send me the money!

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
The road out of Iraq is through Iran. Not until Iran has been eliminated will peace be brought to Iraq and all the ME. Remember Iran is the main pillar within The Axis of Evil. Remove it and the whole thing will collapse just like the Nazis did. Then we can start to re educate the people.

Based on the things you 'say', I think this might be of interest to you:

Employment Opportunities With FOX News

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:17 PM

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
The road out of Iraq is through Iran. Not until Iran has been eliminated will peace be brought to Iraq and all the ME.

Oh - really?

So eliminating Iraq is going to solve the Palestinian issue is it?

No. Its not.

Whats going to bring peace to the middle east is people keeping their noses out, and the US stopping $10billion dollars in military aid to a nuclear armed country.

A folly into Iran will most certainly end with a US victory, but the cost of that victory will be very high on all sides, socially, politically and militarily, and the only thing that such a venture will "guarantee" is the increased likelihood of a nightmare reprisal by a nutjob with a small portable nuke.

Now personally I don't want to live in a city that suddenly and abruptly disappears off the map, and I'm damn sure you don't either, so instead of the full on rhetoric, why don't you have a think about what you're preaching here, because it sounds to me as if you actively want to live in fear for the next 50/60 years by - literally - creating new terrorists and giving them a reason for doing something stupid.

The "War on Terror" is a self sustained recruiting ground. Its a perfect circle of never ending violence.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by xSMOKING_GUNx

Exactly. It's just Ahmedinejhad flapping his jaws and trying to antagonize the White House.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by budski
I think what people need to imagine is this:

Imagine fighting a huge well equipped army, with all the proper support functions and no supply issues in terrain similar to afghanistan, with the indigenous population against you and potential russian and chinese support (even if only defensive)

Doesn't sound so easy to me

Iran isn't well equipped by any standards, both Russia and China know it's best not to get involved with the place (hell, for that matter, so does the US), and their army isn't really that huge either.

Iraq circa the gulf war was a huge (something like the 3rd largest in the world) well equipped (or so it was reported and thought) army. It got steamrolled.

Iranian soldiers, for some reason, seem to be better fighters than Iraqis. Despite having far less strength on paper, and Iraqs use of chemical weapons, Iran held off Iraq for two years, in brutal trench warfare, before going on the offensive for another six.

I have my doubts that their human wave tactics that worked on Iraqi soldiers would work well on better trained American soldiers. And their air foce that he's boasting about is pathetic, even on paper. Their main indigenously produced fighter is an unlicensed copy of the American F-5 trainer aircraft, modified to have two vertical stabilizers.

The US can't effectively fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran simultaneously with an all-volunteer army. Had we not gone to war with iraq, however, the US could soundly defeat Iran in a matter of months.

Really, it would have been better to leave Saddam around, so Iran would have somebody local to be pissed at. As it stands, we've removed their biggest rival and enemy, and simultaneously become their greatest enemy.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:21 PM
Its not really that big of a deal.... ALL nations with any strength and hopes for more like to posture for their citizens that they are the most powerful... Hell we do the same... big difference is that we are... for the time being.... sooner or later, it will be someone else's turn.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:37 PM

Originally posted by biggie smalls

The US military has not won in Iraq or Afghanistan so far. How are they going to beat the Iranian military, which is far superior than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
[edit on 4/17/2008 by biggie smalls]

That is a totally incorrect statement. The U.S. military defeated the iraqi military like a hot knife going through butter. Making U.S. soldiers play policemen after the war was won is another matter, and quite foolish IMO.

Something similar happened in viet nam, where the U.S. military won all the battles but politicians were still able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

You're whole premise about iran being able to give the U.S. a good fight in a land war has been debunked here and everywhere else many times over. If you are finally convinced, then everyone will know that if there ever was a war between the U.S. and iran, there would not be an invasion of iran by large U.S. combat formations. Again
what would happen is that most of iran's combat assets would be destroyed in place and from long range in a very short period of time - maybe even a few days.

The next likely thing to happen would be that iran's current theocratic government would fall as people realized that the organizations used to keep them in fear no longer existed.

[edit on 4/17/2008 by centurion1211]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by centurion1211

but wasnt the Iraqi army full of pansies and their equipment (almost all of it pre-dated the cold war) were rusting.

air force, No training restricted by no fly zones, pre-dated planes that were buried.

armed forces. low moral and CRAP equipment lions of babolon tanks
and other rubiish

air defence rubbish

come to think of it any country could have wiped the Iraqi forces out like the US did even the worst third world country.

Iraq was in a far worse position to start off with.

so the US just proved it can beat the crap out of a weak country big deal,

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:53 PM
I feel that I can do give some input here.
Iran's navy is nothing, mainly a handful of pass-down ships from other countries like China, Italy, the U.S., and some other countries. Some WWII era ships given to them by the U.S. for example.
A lot of it is aging, only a few of them are produced domestically. Mainly smaller ships.
And they are somewhat lacking in terms of manpower for their navy as well: 13,400 crew; 2,600 marine units; 2,000 aviation units.
I could put forward some more information on this besides just navy info. I just got done doing a class project on a theoretical plan of attack by the U.S. into Iran, so I do believe that I can be something more of help on this.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by bodrul

Actually things really started getting hard when the Marines started pushing into Baghdad and tried taking Saddam's palace. The place had indeed ended up as an ambush overall despite them only taking a few casualties overall in the offensive. They ended up getting lucky from my understanding through some other means. The means being something more of the strange or unexplainable.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:16 PM
His cheese has quickly slid off his cracker. I would bet that Poland could kick Iran's ass in a war....solo......Just because you have a bunch of crappy planes and tanks does not make you a powerful country. I would put any 10 Iranian Air Force jets against 1 F-22 Raptor. By the time our bombs took out their command and control/electricity/water/bridges/and ports they would be begging for a end. I think that if Iraq has taught us anything it is to hit them hard and haul ass. In other words, they would be left to rebuild what was left. All we have to do then is post a ton of soldiers along the Afgan/Iraq borders and wait for the nuts to come in search of "revenge".....I would not want to be in that country when the US bombs start falling. They are pretty much surrounded at this point.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:30 PM
Air superiority, we have it and thats all we need. We don't need to go in and destroy every one of their soldiers, we only need to overthrow their government which can be done without much our of infantry, it will be a battle won by our air force.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by biggie smalls

Police and peacekeeping are way different than war. On the battlefield Iran would not stand a chance. We are not going to try and Invade them anyway. How many times do I have to say it? Not one general would even think about it because Tehran is surrounded by mountains, So you would have to drop in the whole 82nd and 101st Airborne and then you would have little chance of re-supply if things were tough.

Why would you think we would invade them when we are being so careful with their stupid little gun boats in the gulf, As to NOT START A WAR!!.

Bombing yes maybe, Invasion no way.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by xstealth


no Battle has ever been won just by air strikes
where did you get the idea bombing a country would mean change to leader ship

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in