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: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Why would we attack Iran first..what reason do we have to do that..and I don't see how we are any worse warmongers than Iran..their president even declares that he wants to wipe another country off the face of the world.

We wouldn't attack them first because we know China and Russia would react unfavorably. We'll wait for them to do something or their crazy President to be assassinated by one of the Iran people, or to come out of office or to die, whichever comes first.

Also in conventional war on Iran the United States would win. It would take a few months I'd bet maybe up to half a year but we would win. Its the war of Attrition afterwards we would need to worry about where the citizens would take the fight to the streets, and we would label them terrorists and they'd label themselves freedom fighters. That's where we would lose I agree with that.




posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Are you serious?We let Russia take Moscow........if not for us Britain would have fallen,than Germany would have easily defeated Russia.Not only did we win in that theater..but also in the Pacific (BY OURSELVES)


Lets deny some ignorance here shall we?

The US entered the war after the Battle of Britain.

As a result of the Battle of Britain, Operation Sealion - the Nazi plan to invade Britain - was cancelled indefinitely because the Nazi's knew that they could not invade this country without air superiority to counter the absolute hammering their landing craft would have got at the hands of the Royal Navy.

The Soviets made a decision during the early stages of Operation Barbarossa - the Nazi invasion of Russia - to give the Nazi's as much rope as they wanted to hang themselves with whilst building industrial complexes out of the range of Nazi bombers and conscripting their manpower. Russia is an enormous country, they could afford to give the ground.

When the Russians finally hit back, they did so with overwhelming numbers and equipment some of which was lend-lease and supplied by the US, but alot of which was indigenous to them. By late '43 the Russians outnumbered the Germans by 3 to 1 in areas of tanks and aircraft, and more in terms of available manpower, and NO US forces whatsoever fought on the Eastern Front. The Russians smashed into the best units the Nazi's had and rolled them over.

Yes, the US helped to liberate Europe, and yes, the US provided quite a bit of the equipment that the Western Allies used to do so - and I'm sure those of us who live in this part of the world are eternally grateful for the sacrifices made by those troops who died to liberate Europe - but the US most certainly did NOT win WW2 by itself, and I'm suprised that in this day and age, with the available text books and historical records that anyone can be so ignorant of the actual facts.

Deny Ignorance. Learn History



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
@ Everyone

Size Matters

Your post has to be at least this long to be added to the thread:



Please guys. Let's stay away from the one-liners!


One Line Post – Please Review This Link.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


LOL is all I can say to this.

There are less than 100 WWI Vets left here in AU & I bet these guys "at their age", could successfully invare Iran.

Only thing these guys really have going for them, is their allies (Russia/China).

Honestly, I think Iran has the biggest Ego out there, with the exeption of North Korea.

How do you think Iran got its name?

When they were last invaded & were asked how they survived, their answer was.... "I Ran"....


[edit on 4/18/2008 by Ironclad]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   
The Iranian president's comments should not be overblown, what do you expect him to say...He knows g.bush can be goaded into doing something assine. One thing I've learned in life is when you know your capabilities you don't have to tell anyone, it is evident. What America needs to do is press the ignore button on Iran.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by ufoorbhunter
 


I'd suggest a bit of research is in order.

If the US tries to invade Iran, they're going to get hurt.

They may win in the end, but it will set the country back many years.



Irak war cost $500 billion so far.

Wake up folks.... the USA will run out of money first.


You can't even win the war against drug runners....lol..lol...lol.

USA already is in deep trouble economically.


it cannot afford another trillion dollar war.


wars are expensive to fight.

very expensive.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
And still no one has given a reason or explanation on why Iran will defeat the US.

The only reason ever given is "OMG They has the mountainzzz!!1!!1"



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
And still no one has given a reason or explanation on why Iran will defeat the US.

The only reason ever given is "OMG They has the mountainzzz!!1!!1"


Why would anyone HAVE to give a reason o explanation for this?

The topic being discussed is Ahmadinejad making a declaration that Iran is the most powerful nation in the world. This does not necessarily mean militarily, nor is it a precursor for war. Exercising influence is often far more powerful than shooting guns.

Im thinking, that, the question you SHOULD be asking is, "wy is Iran making some proclamation that they are the most powerful nation in the World"?



AB1



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

West coast wrote:
Yes, everyone shivers in Irans wake, oh, the almighty Iran and there $3 billion dollar a year military expenditure...


If I had sociopaths like Bush and Cheney stalking me and threatening to invade my country, $3 billion dollars would be peanuts compared to what I would spend on defense, to protect myself, my people and my country.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum

Irak war cost $500 billion so far.


The IRAQ War has cost far more than $500 Billion, it has probably a cost approaching 1 Trillion.



Originally posted by esecallum

Wake up folks.... the USA will run out of money first.


The USA won't run out of Money, perse, we will run out of other foreign nations willing to buy our Treasuries which is tantamount to our debt. That is what still gives our USD value at the moment. The FED can print all the money they like, so long as others are willing to hedge on the fact that the USA is capable of paying it back.


Originally posted by esecallum

You can't even win the war against drug runners....lol..lol...lol.

This I will agree with for solely one reason, that, IMO, the reality is no one really WANTS to win the war against drugs..if you think about it realistically, it's almost financially not feasible to do so. The amount of people that would be put out of work, what would be deemed unnecessary expense (ie., DEA, Drug tasks forces, not to mention all the extranneous income garnered by less than forthright individuals) make it very attractive to never win that war.


Originally posted by esecallum

USA already is in deep trouble economically.


it cannot afford another trillion dollar war.


wars are expensive to fight.

very expensive.



Yes, indeed.


AB1



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rilence

Originally posted by jasonhb
reply to post
 


"Everybody knows the russians helped move the wmd's to seria. "


Proof or reliable evidence please

Oh...And please learn to spell or use a spellcheck...Its syria not seria

Poor spelling in your posts only magnifies your ignorance and lack of knowledge about the topics being discussed here...



How pathetically pedantic can one be? What a pathetic post! Please get of your high horse! Maybe you can consider adding substance to the debate instead of a very cheap shot at a very credible poster.

I've very much enjoyed reading Agit8dChop contribution. He's a great writer with a lot of interesting things to say.

[edit on 18uFriday08/27/20 by paul76]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jasonhb
reply to post by danx
 


Intended for the money???? Wheres the oil and money? Explain that one!


It's in the pockets of Exxon, Halliburton, KBR and the likes.

Not in the pockets of the people, of course. What did you expect? They would wage a war so that the people would benefit? That'd be the first...



reply to post by paul76
 

Hey Paul, it wasn't Agit8dChop that said that. It was jasonhb

[edit on 18-4-2008 by danx]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Freethinker:First off,Im 22 and in college.........Second off we gave Japan MULTIPLE WARNINGS that we would drop the bomb if they didnt surrender.They WERE NOT GOING TO SURRENDER.Carpet bombing was not going to work.Get your history right before you talk.Our generals told Truman that the only other way to win was another "D-Day"type invasion that would cost millions of lives.We did the world a favor by droping the bomb.I am not gloating of the use of Atomic weapons in WWII.I am however pointing out what happens when,again,the U.S. is put in a corner.Keep in mind we were fighting in TWO theaters AT THE SAME TIME.Russia WAS NOT.Whether you want to admit it our not the U.S. put a much needed end to the war without more bloodshed(of course there were fatalities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,but not as many as there would have been in an all out invasion)

Ignore me if you want.....I have never seen a thread with so many "cry babies"and U.S. bashers.You all claim you are "free thinkers"or open minded and have a grip on reality enough to judge other nations,but yet you "ignore"people when you dont like what they say?I AM GLAD PEOPLE LIKE YOU DONT RUN MY COUNTRY-OR ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER.Cause we'd prolly all be speaking Japanese or German,or Russian.
Now to everyone else who replied to me:

I made the Fench comment cause we all know the French HATE the U.S.
It was kinda a joke,but I guess you didnt get it(big suprise)



Also, it seems that you all dont really have a real sense of reality,or wont admit it-Technology wins wars-heart is obsolete.I promise you the US has technology ATLEAST 100 years more advanced than any other nation on the planet.The Russians and Chinese know this-we own space,we own the air,we own the seas...thats why they arnt a concern,

You can think what you want,but your opinion really doesnt matter now does it?I for one am glad it doesnt......you all will see soon enough IF we go to war with Iran.It is actually funny to listen to what you all think and say,cause you realy know nothing and are making biased,angry judgements based on hate or dislike of the US,or certain actions we have taken.

I guess what it will take is for us to pull out the big guns and pull out free energy and tell the world"Come on,what now?"We dont need any other country-you need us.Sure it benefits us,but in reality if all countries broke of from us-we would either invade them and win,or be fine without them.

You all just really have no clue to how powerful the U.S. actually is.

-JKrog

[edit on 4/18/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Why dont YOU deny ignorence(once again the word is being used like "holy"text,and overused)

If you comprehended what I said then you would know that I am not saying the US won WWII,BUT WITHOUT us Europe would be speaking Russian or German.You talk about all the Russians great technology..................HOLD UP-Are you aware that Germany was close to making a Atomic weapon,that could be delivered via v-2's or long range bombers(in production)not to mention the fighter jets they were working on that would blow away even the US at the time.It is because of US bombings that the Germans never got the chance to bring any of these WAR WINNING technologies to reality,if the US didnt bomb them,they would have completed them and won the war-no doubt-ask any historian,better yet Ill ask my History Professor for you.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Im thinking, that, the question you SHOULD be asking is, "wy is Iran making some proclamation that they are the most powerful nation in the World"?
AB1


Yes, exactly ! If you examine the amounts of disinformation and "cherry picked" intelligence reports that have been used to justify the most recent US military campaigns (Iraq '03/ Iraq '91/ Vietnam),you would be remiss to accept "news stories" as completely factual.

There is only one source for FARSI language translation that is used by the major News agencies. What are the chances that words like "most" or "powerful" were mistranslated either directly, by emphasis, or by omission?

I don't speak Farsi and AFP has been around since 1835 and maybe they speak fluent Farsi, but you have to leave a little room for doubt

It sounds like Iran was stating to their own people, that their government has the ability to protect its people from being "liberated" by another country



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Also heres a little eye opener for those who said we are outnumbered by Russia in military number:


The United States military is the second-largest in the world, behind China's, and has troops deployed around the globe. As in most militaries, members of the U.S. Armed Forces hold a rank, either officer or enlisted, and can be promoted.

Wikipedia

Yes,Chna outnumbers us still..........BUT,our vastly superior technology gives us the big advantage.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Here is what I think.

Propaganda, BS and Jerry Springer.

What would happen if people stop listening to the media for just 6 months?

If the USA kept its eye on the ball and saw what was really going on things would change. It's like this, if you start a rumor and its not true, but then re-enforce the BS over and over people start to believe the BS.

I read, I read more, I doubt myself, I doubt them, I doubt everything, I can't do anything about it, oh well I get depressed.

Discernment is the key, and not to over react.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Realtruth]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by neformore
 


Why dont YOU deny ignorence(once again the word is being used like "holy"text,and overused)

If you comprehended what I said then you would know that I am not saying the US won WWII,BUT WITHOUT us Europe would be speaking Russian or German.You talk about all the Russians great technology..................HOLD UP-Are you aware that Germany was close to making a Atomic weapon,that could be delivered via v-2's or long range bombers(in production)not to mention the fighter jets they were working on that would blow away even the US at the time.It is because of US bombings that the Germans never got the chance to bring any of these WAR WINNING technologies to reality,if the US didnt bomb them,they would have completed them and won the war-no doubt-ask any historian,better yet Ill ask my History Professor for you.


This is correct ....in fact a lot of our modern military technology comes from hitler...do you realize shooting missiles from subs were in the works by Germany...V-2 led to ICBMs we werent even thinking about anything like that at the time. Helicopters came from Germany...USA did not win the war alone of course not but without us there indeed Europe would be speaking German. Sprechen Se Deutsch?



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jasonhb
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 

What about Saddam invading Kuwait. The regime was evil...EVIL! Cowards like you know nothing of our hearts to do the right thing here.


Iraq (Saddam) had a very good, legitimate reason to invade Kuwait. Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil by drilling diagonally into Iraq's territory from Kuwait. Were I Iraqi, I would have invaded Kuwait too. Most of Saddam's regime I cannot comment over because I know little about it but I do know Iraq had good reason to invade Kuwait.

As for "Iran will be bombed back to the stone age...just as Iraq was..." type comments placed in this thread:

1, Iran has had a head start over Iraq - it has seen and observed recent military strategy and tactic employed by the Allies in Iraq and Afghanistan;

2, Iran's developed and is developing new weaponry (during WW1 and WW2 (and the American Civil Wars), the "allies" developed new weaponry, technology and industry even whilst under attack and suffering severe economic hardship.

3, Iraq had been weakened by years of economic sanctions by the international community and much of its populace wanted change - Iraq was dead long before the invasion had begun;

4, Iran may spend only a fraction of the money the U.S spends on arms and personnel but more expense does not mean more goods or better quality (I buy materials and products from all over the world (non-military!) - wherever the cheapest for quality supplier can be sourced);

5, As others have stated, Iran has its allies who willingly assist it with development maybe even who supply items without charge (trade isn't solely financial expenditure: one might provide freely because another's business will increase one's own);

6, Not so long ago, there was a news article (MSM) that showed U.S navel vessels being "buzzed" by tiny speed boats. A large ship can easily be brought to a halt if it is attacked the right way (How many 10 years olds would be needed to take you down? You might be bigger and more skilled but enough of them could easily confuse and over power you); and,

7, Iran would not be fighting for economic reasons but because of an ideal - Islam and Persia. People are brought-up on Islam; Persia is still alive in the hearts and minds of the Iranians; and, I imagine that Iraq, once part of Persia, could easily be sold the idea of a united Persia facing the world. Consider the Nazis, Germany and Prussia.

Someone once told me that before WW2 kicked-off Germany knew it had only a few years within which to achieve its military goals before it became bankrupt i.e The allies didn't totally win it was more a case of Germany lost.

BTW How many English speaking U.S citizens realise that the vote to use English or German was passed in favour of English by 1 vote? I might be corrected there but my sources tend to be good.

In someways, I would like to see a big war between the U.S (no allies) and Iran. Perhaps it will serve to humble so many of the dangerous people (who should wear a public health warning) who seem to see the U.S as the almighty, ultimate force in the world. It isn't and never really has been. Metaphorically, it has been quite insular upto post WW2. Without her many allies and supporters, she would be like most European nations. Please don't misunderstand, the U.S is important to the rest of the world hence the support she receives from other governments. Personally, I would like to see America exist for a long time to come but sometimes, some people need to be humbled (I'm glad many U.S people are humble. I intend by sentiments to those few who spoil the world view of the U.S by overstating her, her aims and her people). As one last thing in line with this, there are parallels between the U.S and the once British Empire - the U.S is at the stage the BE was before it fell to clutching a commonwealth.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
I just think that if our military is asked to take out Iran and not occupy it and try to get the Iranians to love us at the same time, that we would not have much of a problem.


It depends on the type of war waged.

If you're speaking in terms of tactical nukes, then of course the U.S. would walk all over Iran. But what would the rest of the world have to say about that? Russia? China? India? Might have an Allied Force lump the U.S. into it's own category of an Evil Axis. Using nuclear warfare on a nation that cannot defend itself by that means? Seems kinda like having Evander Holyfield fight a 5 year old.

If we're speaking in terms of a tactical air war, then we would get bogged down in another quagmire. Though, we'd be setting no troops on the ground, Iran has one of the more formidable Air Forces and Defense Systems for a nation of it's size. And don't forget where Iran gets it's technology? You think Russia and China have any interest in Iran? I think so. They'll be feeding Iran what they need, just as we did in Afghanistan when the Taliban fought AND defeated mighty mother Russia.

To what end do you justify an attack? Regime change? We barely got Saddam even after having troops in nearly every major city in Iraq. Think we could oust Khamenei or Ahmadinejad by an air war? Even if we were to devastate the Iranian military ... which we would eventually do - overtime, the same leaders would stay in power and gain international support. They would quickly rebuild their military.

Ground war is the only way to change a Regime (or social upheaval, but that's unlikely if anything concerning the U.S. is involved) and there's NO WAY we could EVER win a ground war in Iran. It'd be like combining the worst parts of Vietnam with the worst parts of Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join