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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by bodrul

As the old joke goes:

Two russian generals meet in paris,
one says to the other

"SO, who won the air war then?"

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by bodrul

The whole Idea is to remove the nuke and missile sites, Then to severely degrade their army for the next 50 years or so. Who cares who is leading them if they have nothing to hurt their neighbors with. How do you know that the Ayatollah and Amadinanut wont get a Jdam type MOAB dropped right on their heads? We have those for the B-2 now. We may not be that lucky however you can bet they will target the leadership if we do any bombing campaign.

The World bank are the ones making Bush do all this so don't start bashing America because they would make Russia or China do the same thing if we were not around.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:27 PM
I'm not a military expert but I think I can contribute a few things here based some of the posts placed in this thread:

It's been said that America didn't win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - The wars aren't over yet so history has yet to be written for it to be read and stated definitively yet, regardless, the initial objective of removing Sadam et al was completed (rightly or wrongly). Also, wars never win anything other than a territory occupied by those whom resent the occupiers. To gain more than an occupied territory one needs the native people on side. (I might get flack for this bit but...) A lot of people will contradict me here, the MSM paints a different picture to the one I'm about to present but just perhaps the war in Iraq was not intended to be won by brute force but by political maneuvers and people pacification. And please remember that although America has spearheaded both those wars and taken most of the burden (of the occupying force) it is not the sole force, if my knowledge serves me correctly the British (and others) are also there.

As for Iran's display of military might and assertion of military supremacy, picture a frightened child brandishing a stick or the man who wears a thick coat in summer because it makes him look bigger. Iran is worried and rightly so. Fear can provoke even the most clever and upright people to commit stupid actions and say ridiculous things. Iran has had to display itself just as N/ Korea, China and Russia have/do. America can be a bit of a bully at times and those who suffer bullying often prefer to show their "stings" rather than use them first.

Lastly, were I to launch an attack on Iran, I'd deliberately reduce the standard of life for its people whilst increasing the standard of life for its neighbour's people (possibly Iraqis) so that Iran's people welcome and invite their "liberators." If one steals a people's hearts and minds whilst giving them one's culture , by the time the ground troops arrive the people are already part of one's nation.

With regard to my comments, please do not infer any support or denunciation of either party; and where I've mentioned a country, I mean the country's leadership not its people unless otherwise stated. We are all family and we have good, bad and indifferent relatives throughout it in every corner of our God given Earth.

[edit on 17/4/08 by Rapacity]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:29 PM
The US does not need to invade Iran in order to defeat them.
Their Navy is a joke and wouldn't last the first week of any war.
Their Air Force, made up of old outdated US Planes and half ass Russian planes wouldn't fair any better. Maybe 8 days if they run and hide, 3 if they are stupid enough to stand and fight.

Once the US controls the sea and Air, then we can just sit and destroy there infrastructure and there defenses. We keep our troops where they are, and if iran wants to fight on the ground then they will have to come to entrenched, battle hardened ready US troops who will see them coming miles away and blow them off the map easily.

Too many people here over estimate iran's forces and underestimate US forces.
But that's ok, I remember hearing all this before. In 1990 just before Desert Storm.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by xstealth

I don't recall any history lesson, documentary, conversation or the rest, that ever showed a country being occupied by an air force alone. Ground troops are vital to all battles. Not the best analogy here but..would you kill a couple of ants with a pea-shooter (from afar) or up and close by hitting them with something in your hand? Please don't return with "No, I'd use chemical bombardment." because I'd like to assume WMD's for ants are off limits with this analogy.


Troop moral and self belief are much better determining factors in any battle than number and technology. Remember Iraq - the Iraqis had low moral and over inflated fear of America so progress into Iraqi territory was quick. Remember the Zulus, their spears and the British at Rorke's Drift (a Michael Caine film popularized this battle) where 139 British soldiers successfully defended against 4000 to 5000 Zulu warriors?

[edit on 17/4/08 by Rapacity]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:54 PM
reply to post by ufoorbhunter

You dont understand, you cannot fight a war like you did in the 40s'50's
Warfare isnt like that any more, gloves off? doesnt exist, the world wouldnt back you, or follow you.

wake up!

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Midav

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

I know that is the anti-Bush, anti-US tag-line, but I don't see how that conclusion is reached without a mass quantity of Spin. Or old fashioned bull#### if you will.

The leadership in both countries was eliminated or removed from power and new government put in place. Democratic governments at that. The Terrorists had to hide to survive and the Iraqi military was completely removed. How is that not winning I wonder?

What is going on now is insuring that the Terrorist leaders don't return to power in Afghanistan and so the Iranian backed Insurgents don't butcher the elected government in Iraq.

Having said that, I am opposed to a war with Iran but surgical strikes to keep them contained seems to make some sense. I think the people of Iran are different than Iraq and will eventually stand up for themselves so others don't have too.

The people of Iraq are loosing my interest over their apathy in not taking charge themselves. It's hard to sympathize with people who won't help themselves and seem intent on killing each other if nobody else will.

As far as that speech. Sounds like another ordinary day in Iran. I have no doubt that in a real war, one US Sub could eliminate Iran's leaders and infrastructure in a matter of hours if not minutes; just like we could destroy Iraq in a day if that were our intention.

I guess our not wiping out Iraq is seen as weakness by the ill-informed of this world. How anyone could see a country like the US, with nearly half the wealth on Earth and weapons that could level every large city in any country in hours or minutes, as being at risk? It boggles the mind.

I'm starting to embrace a theory that we have all been rendered silly by silly juice introduced to our water supplies.

Before I get flamed, I'm not a Bush supporter. I'm just not far enough gone to loose touch with reality.

Powerful is to weak a word to describe our Military capabilities. Maybe it is a good thing people who lack that knowledge think otherwise? They would not defend properly since they do not realize the power that they would be up against.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Rapacity
(I might get flack for this bit but...) A lot of people will contradict me here, the MSM paints a different picture to the one I'm about to present but just perhaps the war in Iraq was not intended to be won by brute force but by political maneuvers and people pacification.

I won't contradict you, at least entirely. I agree with the first part of your phrase: the war in Iraq was not intended to be won. Period.

It was intended to make certain corporations profit, at the expense of US taxpayers and Iraqi lives, and at the same time destabilize even more the region, to ensure further conflicts and therefor, profits.

Lastly, were I to launch an attack on Iran, I'd deliberately reduce the standard of life for its people whilst increasing the standard of life for its neighbour's people (possibly Iraqis) so that Iran's people welcome and invite their "liberators." If one steals a people's hearts and minds whilst giving them one's culture , by the time the ground troops arrive the people are already part of one's nation.

Even if the US - and by US I mean the people that control it's policies and wage the wars - really wanted do such a thing, how many decades you think the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, set back that strategy?

I mean, after everything that has and is happening in consequence of US' policies and actions, such strategy would take - and will take I'm convinced - many many years to work on any country of the world, much less on an Islamic one.

If the US ever had a chance to win people's hearts and minds in that (and other) part of the world, the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, Guantanamo Bay, etc blew those chances.

But I remain convinced that the instability that we're observing now, the opposition and animosity towards the US and US policies and actions, is exactly what the people behind these policies really wanted.

The more people hate the US and it's policies, the more enemies. The more enemies, the more need for weapons and security. In sum, more profit for the same people.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by danx]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:28 PM
reply to post by budski

A joke to be sure since it never happened.
Ask the arabs what air power meant for Israel in their wars.

And if the US and Iran fight, I have yet to hear any reason, let alone a good reason, for the US to need to invade Iran in order to meet any goals for the war.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:57 PM
Iran beat the US? lol

Not gonna happen!

What is funny is all you people claiming the US will have problems, have yet to back up that claim.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:11 PM
Im sorry, but there is a lot of b.s. going on here. Opinions are like a**holes..everyone has one. But an opinion should be stated as so.

As for any one who has a lick of knowledge or common sense will know that a conventional battle between the U.S. and Iran will look like a child swinging his arms in anger at his father. In no way (conventionally) would Iran even come close to touching the American forces. We don't even need the air force. Our Navy could handle it quite effortlessly, literally by the push of a button or two. And I'm not pounding my chest about American forces either. It is just a simple fact that we are just better equipped and a huge gap in technology exists. You can take that to the my opinion

That being said, there are some very brave soldiers out there, but there is a reason why the deserting rate is so high and the recruiting rate is so low. We have no moral reason to be in the ME in the first place. Simply put, people do not want to die for other countries any more. I can guarantee you my son will not go to war to die in another land. It would have to happen over my dead body.

Getting on to clarifying my position, it is absolute horse pucky that American boots are even touching foreign land. And in no way should they even be thinking about inserting our men and women in another illegal war. For Christ sake, when are people going to wake up and realise this whole b.s. of a situation is about greed and power... on ALL fronts.

Also, If Israel starts some type of b.s. with any of its neighbors, America should and needs to stand up and say NO. We are not their effin patsys. They have taken and been given enough. (when I say "they" I mean the government, not the people..there is a big peace movement in Israel that I completely support and acknowledge)

[edit on 17-4-2008 by abelievingskeptic]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:28 PM
Besides the true major superpowers, I don't the believe the allied forces would have trouble taking over and occupying any nation if drafts were reenacted.

If Iran began to threaten the world, and the allied countries were able to get their citizens to rally behind a war, Iran would be in a world of trouble.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:54 PM
Hold up a Second.

total: 329,560 sq km

total: 437,072 sq km

total: 1.648 million sq km

We couldnt win vietnam with a draft, we cant win Iraq even though we have more PAID mercenaries than soliders... yet, your saying we could take on Iran, who ACTUALLY has an airforce, mechanized force, navy, subs, cruise missiles??

Vietnam had NONE of those, we couldnt take them, and Iran is over 5 times as big with a much more technological military, some of you are really kidding yourself.

Who do you think FUNDS these mis-adventures?
The chinese arent going to continue giving you endless credit, this whole subprime mess is because of Iraq.
Once China and Japan pull the pin on finance, the USA will not be able to maintain its military, let alone in a new war.

People MAY have followed in Iraq, because it was possible what the US was saying, after-all no one had any real intel on Iraq.

But people will not fall for the same ' good guy, bad guy ' act again.

Your miiltary might not be defeated in 1 to 1 combat, but there are OTHER ways of being defeated.

For example, lack of funding.
Maybe the US public forces revolution.
Maybe the US military backs out voluntarily.

If we are stupid enough to strike Iran, middle eastern nations that have stayed quite on Iraq will join in. Because no one in that region can risk allowing the USA control of Iraq, Iran, Israel and bed buddies with Saudi.

And fair be it to, we have NO BUSINESS what so ever to be involved in that region. The only reason we are there are for corporate oil magnates, and world financial magnates.

Its sickening to see so many idiots still believing the hype that got us screwed up in Iraq.

Funny, I never ever beelived those theories that shadow governments were deliberatley dumbing down society through drugs and media so they wouldnt ask questions or argue when sent of to war.

Im starting to believe its actually true.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by Sublime620

It depends on what grounds.

There wont be ALLIES if the US and israel decide to take on Iran.

If Iran drops a nuke on someone, then yes its certain many nations will join against them.

But nations will not back the USA this time, especially when their economy is all but kaput.

The USA used to be able to blackmail nations with economic incentives and trade incentives, now, they need those countries more than they need the US

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The USA used to be able to blackmail nations with economic incentives and trade incentives, now, they need those countries more than they need the US

Meh, I don't think you're giving us the credit we deserve.

Just like every other crisis this country has faced, we'll come out of it guns blazing right back up with everyone else.

The US is in a tough spot right now, but we're still strong.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:04 PM
with respect, I think your wrong.
The US isnt being told everything, your government is hiding the true extent of the problems facing your

' economy
' military
' global influence
' food production
' climate
' security
' immigration
' housing

The USA has had some bad times yes, but never before have you had all those bad times coupled into 1.
War, Economic collapse, energy, climate.... Your fast running out of time to move in a different direction to battle these issues.

Its not the people, its your leaders. But for the life of me I cant understand why your standing by when its obviously going downhill, YOUR NATION is going downhill under someone elses ORDERS, and you simple sit still and listen to their lies.

The War is draining your economy, your production depends on your oil imports, and your oil imports are growing. Because of your economy, your oil imports are becoming very expensive, very quickly. Your people are quickly running out of work, and money. the world is quickly losing confidence in your morals, and your econonmy thus foreign investment in your nation is diminishing quickly, once again hurting your economy, even more hurting your ability to produce because its becoming more expensive to import oil.

Its a massive cycle thats quickly getting out of control.

My friend, the USA has never faced a time like this before.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:09 PM
I agree with most of the people here...Iran may act all big and tough- but the U.S. will bomb them back to the stone age before they get the chance to prove what they think they can do. With all this talk of nukes- Im going to assume we'd strike first before letting Iran do anything. Bush probably has his hand on the button, just waiting.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:17 PM
Just to clarify, Iran does have hundreds of ballistic missiles. Some of them are modern types and some are older.
(Some of the names of their missiles are kind of hilarious I found.)
Cruise Missiles
and some others. Plenty of these are also sold to them from other countries like China and Russia, so they would have some okay capabilities and range.

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:18 PM

Sorry, but I'm going to have to put you on ignore - I find your stance, lack of knowledge and embracing of ignorance to be offensive.

I dont remember who posted that,but you know who you are............WTF?Your like a toddler who didnt get his way"fine Ill just put you on ignore!"LOL come on man,cause someone says something you dont ike or agree with you "ignore"them.

Anyways back to topic:Actually the first gulf war was pretty much wn by air power-it only lasted about 120 hours,not saying we didnt have ground support-but really if we wanted to,we could take out a country from the air-I think you all are negating the "top secret"technology we have-its a fact,it might not be "alien"or anything like that,but you can bet its alien to every other country on Earth.Where do you think our(U.S.) defense dollars go to?No,its not the covert...its to the overt.We had the f-117,blackbird, the 60's-early 80's(and thats when the b-2 and f-117 was made public)

It comes down to this............even with our "known"technology we would cripple Iranian infrastructure within HOURS (24-100)it wouldnt be appropriate to say in days.Really that is a generous time frame,you talk about mountains?Cruise missles,F/A-22's,B-2's are NOT affected by terrain.Tell me,how would this massive Iranian military fight without any technology besides guns and soldiers?We will just carpet bomb the troop masses.Not like this matters anyways because it is likely not going to happen,sure you might see some "precision strikes"by the U.S.,and Iran will do nothing,cause they cant.Also Russia and China WILL NOT get involved-One word:MAD

Although I fear that if McCain is elected the world might be in trouble-just because he might do something dumber than attack Iran,he might attack N.Korea,or instigate Russia or China.Oh,and before anyone flames me for sources-just look up U.S. military and Iran military............oh,I forgot........look up the history books on how many wars we have WON............there is a little War in there called WORLD WAR 2.If not for the U.S. the world,or atleast Europe would be saluting the Swastica.

But to close I dont think we will invade Iran.........and I think soon we will pull out of Iraq.But keep in mind:To those who say we havent won militarly in Iraq or definition of military victory we easily won. 1)Iraq-No original military,No Saddam,U.S. troops walking the streets...............Same goes for Afghanistan.


posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

'' If not for the US, - saluting the swastika ''

your kidding huh?

Yes, while the USA did come into the war, 5-6 years LATE, and it was noble, heoric and definately contributed.. Id say RUSSIA did more to defeat nazi germany than america did.

everyone deserves their just applause for this time, but to say the USA is the reason is rather, american!

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in