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.

 

Some facts about Iran, what many don't know...

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
I agree, concur, and belive the russian technology is better sad to say. IM not marine, army guy or anyting, but in can tell you this... everything here in this country has now gone digital, or'solid state' solid state sucks, at least for amplifiers for guitars. Nothing beats the original . At wrok, i cannot tell yuo how often or cheesy, these new technology devices fail. And quite often they operate on thier own. I jsut work in a retail store, but damn, if this is technolgy at its best, its sucks..
Our systems, seem to have converted digital, almost so aman dosnt really have to be in the plane at all.... i wouldnt trust a bunch a wires and a few circuit boards, to get the job done.


Perhaps you would like to go back in technology to Vacuum tube theory?
Solid State technology was devoloped for its reliability, tubes are very unreliable!




When you get into amps for music, yes tubes are better for sound.... that is the only advantage to tubes.

I will admit though that we do use some vacuum theory in the defense industry, Klystrons and Magnetrons.

When mankind finds a way to produce high power at microwave frequency without using tube theory as used in, magnetrons, klystrons, synchrotrons, bevatrons and tevatrons. You will see the biggest technological breakthrough in history.

-Kdial1




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   
yeah,

The only problem with Russian Vacum tubes versus American Solid state "stuff"...

Vacum tubes are not permanently damaged by Electromagnetic Pulses like solid state "stuff" is.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Crystalline
 


Um.....

That'd be Farsi. Iranians speak/write Farsi, not Arabic. And its right-to-left. (Same alphabet, but different language)

And we also find Czech, Ukrainian, Chinese and Russian weapons (to make IEDs) in Iraq. All kinds of stuff is smuggled into Iraq.

--ghcaine



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
yeah,

The only problem with Russian Vacum tubes versus American Solid state "stuff"...

Vacum tubes are not permanently damaged by Electromagnetic Pulses like solid state "stuff" is.


Believe me we have protection


-Kdial1



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Interesting thread, too much bickering, it all comes down to “who cares?” Why think war when we can think of the alternatives : ) Don’t be so pessimistic people....




Best Regards,

Richie



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I am a relatively new poster on ATS, but have lurked here for a long time, so I will confess openly more confusion about this topic than any others in a long time.

There appear to be a great many anti-Bush administration people on ATS, and maybe that is to be expected. But my confusion stems from why ANYONE would be pro-regime in Iran.

Any thinking person could recognize that the current Iranian regime is rogue, and needs to be removed. Their leader has pledged to "wipe Israel off of the map." Why does no one get more outraged about this single particular fact?

Another issue is the stated desire and observed practice of Iran to engage in efforts supporting insurgency in the Iraq theater of operations. EVERYBODY knows they are actively supplying weapons to Iraqi terrorists that are used daily to kill and injure Amercian and NATO forces, and Iraqi civilians.

Additionally, why would anyone even consider verbally supporting a nation-state that has consistently and intentionally caused international incidents on the scale of the hostage incident of the 80s? Think about it - they imprisoned peaceful western people that were there to HELP THEM! For 444 days!

Don't forget that an Iranian foreign minister threatened to shut down traffic through the Strait of Hormuz yesterday. That is just not a civilized way to behave, and statements like that reflect a willingness to thwart long-standing agreements within a community of civilized nations.

Oh, and for you left-leaning folks - how can you explain Ahmedenijahd's statement when he was here about homosexuals? Don't even pretend like you don't remember what he said on national TV - where he claimed upon a question from the audience that "we don't have that (homosexual) problem in Iran." That is possibly one of the most chilling public statements made by a national leader in recent history. The fact is that, in his mind, there is no homosexual issue in Iran because they imprison and murder gay people over there with impunity.

Take care with this kind of talk, people. If ever there was a regime that deserved to burn, it's the current ruling force in Iran.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Wow,

what an interesting thread. We were presented with thought provoking debate by all side of the argument. Albeit, it has dissolved into "mine is bigger then yours" but it was still a good debate.

Although I voted for Bush twice (I have lived in the Houston area for 22 of the last 28 years so...), I don't think he should play any more war cards. Leave something for the next President. Please.

It's gotten bad enough!

Our economy is in bad shape and I don't think we are close to bottoming out before things start getting better.

Do I think there will be a conflict with Iran? Yup. Of course, I can say that and have a 50% chance of looking like a prophet and I don't believe in such things.

I am interested in knowing what CIVILIANS in Iran are doing to prepare for war. How are the common people preparing. I would like to read that first hand by Iranians that are currently living in Iran.

Are they stocking up on food & water? Are they heading to the hills? Are they buying ammunition for their weapons?

Americans have not had to worry about war on their homeland since the civil war in the 1860s. I am not talking about a one day raid on Pearl Harbor on NYC. I am talking about a sustained combat situation for days, weeks, and months at a time.

Not a bunch of soldiers stationed at major airports, pretending to have loaded guns that were really as empty as a glass of water with a hole on both sides of the cup.

So, how is the Iranian civilian preparing for what we are all pretty sure is going to happen within the next 12 months or less?

I will have a difficult time supporting this. I am sure the first wave of attacks will go in favor of the west but what happens when the missles head toward Isreal.

I need to get to work so until tonight, Peace until war everyone.

Peace until war.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Crystalline
 


I was expecting more of a thread about the people of iran, the culture, the music, the landscapes, the beauty that lays there?

THAT would make people think again about attacking a beautiful place.


Edit: I would like to say if the usa does attack iran and sets up bases there like in Iraq and afghanistan. AND THEN decides to choose another country to attack in the area, then we can be sure that there is another agenda here, and that it is more about taking control of the middle east in a sly way. I sure hope they are not invading countries in front of our very eyes.


[edit on 2-7-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
But lets all put it to a test then, lets have US trying to invade or strat.bomb things and see how all hell breaks loose, and then lets all us others around the globe watch US suffer an economic breakdown, coz you have to admit it, US is already in heavy recession, and the monetary collapse is just around the corner, US will not and have never been able to fight on 3 fronts on the same time, just at 2 fronts and US is already on a downspiral to having brokers jumping out of the windows.

Ps.

Try search on the gas prices in Iran, i bet you get from one end of the country to the other for under 10 euro
then ask your self if its the same in your country


Best regards.

Loke.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Loke.]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
Any thinking person could recognize that the current Iranian regime is rogue, and needs to be removed. Their leader has pledged to "wipe Israel off of the map." Why does no one get more outraged about this single particular fact?

Like Saddam? At least he kept all these groups in check... look at what is happening now in Iraq... plus Iran is completely different story... in any case who are you to label Iran as a regime state... president was elected to that position by the people of Iran... same way as Bush was elected... or was he now...



Another issue is the stated desire and observed practice of Iran to engage in efforts supporting insurgency in the Iraq theater of operations. EVERYBODY knows they are actively supplying weapons to Iraqi terrorists that are used daily to kill and injure Amercian and NATO forces, and Iraqi civilians.

Who is "EVERYBODY"? Bush and his Administration? They will tell you anything... just like they were beating them selves over Iraq... bunch of liars and criminals



Additionally, why would anyone even consider verbally supporting a nation-state that has consistently and intentionally caused international incidents on the scale of the hostage incident of the 80s? Think about it - they imprisoned peaceful western people that were there to HELP THEM! For 444 days!

You cannot judge country by these statements. Each country has its own radicals/terrorists... People of Iran did not hold them as hostage, just select few...



Don't forget that an Iranian foreign minister threatened to shut down traffic through the Strait of Hormuz yesterday. That is just not a civilized way to behave, and statements like that reflect a willingness to thwart long-standing agreements within a community of civilized nations.

Hmm funny! US, Israel threatens to attack them... should they play nice? "That is just not a civilized way to behave" you again setting standards?



Oh, and for you left-leaning folks - how can you explain Ahmedenijahd's statement when he was here about homosexuals? Don't even pretend like you don't remember what he said on national TV - where he claimed upon a question from the audience that "we don't have that (homosexual) problem in Iran." That is possibly one of the most chilling public statements made by a national leader in recent history. The fact is that, in his mind, there is no homosexual issue in Iran because they imprison and murder gay people over there with impunity.

It is one way to stop a circus... stop judging Iran by your standards and believes... who are you to do so... they live in their own world for who knows how long... and now you come and tell them it is wrong?



Take care with this kind of talk, people. If ever there was a regime that deserved to burn, it's the current ruling force in Iran.

Bush is that you? I mean seriously... If Iran believes that they have a need for a gay community to populate the land... they will change the rules... they will evolve as did US... stop imposing your rules and believes on different country... you have no right to do so.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Oh, this thread is a little different than I assumed. At first I thought it was going to be another one like we had awhile back where the OP tried to get everyone to forget about iran's nastiness by showing us pretty pictures of the country and asking how the U.S. could even think about blowing up such a beautiful place. Of course, it was quickly pointed out that surgical airstrikes would not touch mountains, waterfalls, parks, etc.

As for this thread, when are the iranophiles going to get a clue? The number of iranian tanks, etc. is useless information if no one is planning to invade your "beautiful country".


Any U.S. attack seems doubtful to me. But if unfortunately there was one, all must know that the first thing that would happen is that the iranian air defense would be flattened by any means available. The iranian air force would be swept from the skies, or hiding in another country. Then with control of the air, U.S. aircraft would be free to take out targets of opportunity (like all those tanks) until the iranians held up the white flag. BTW, all the beautiful things would still be there - unless, of course, iranians tried to hide their nukes there.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


You don’t understand what is all about…do you?
It is about denying ignorance from all fronts.
Not trying to be on the side of any one here, you will have to admit that your post is one sided and your rhetoric about changing or removing the actual regime in Iran is very arrogant.
Did you ask any one that live in Iran if they want their regime change?
Did we have not change the regime of Iran once?
I think we have made enough damage to the Middle East then now to have people rallying to bomb Iran which have shown more cooperation with the UN then ever Israel would have.
So on the more middle level; the regime of Iran is not a nice regime, we all know that. The regime in the White House is not a nice regime, we all know that. But what we don’t know is what kind of damage another large conflict will do the world.
So it is better to let diplomacy do its work and find the way to bring some stability to a rejoin in desperate need of it.
Kacou.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Few are missed some facts, so I'm adding a nice article to the thread.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk...

Here is the eternal truth in this article.


will no doubt tell you about the great civilization that is Persia, which hasn't attacked another country for more than 300 years, not a boast we can make ourselves.


And that's a fact. Persia never attacked in the last 300 years. They just defended themselves, but never went to another country. But they were attacked by Israel without reason already. So, honestly, after this, a country with 300 years of almost complete peace, where only THEY became under attack, tell me, who is the aggressor. The U.S. and Israel, because they don't let this country to advance with the ages. And it's ONLY the warmongering Israel's and it's U.S. representatives, AIPAC's fault.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I agree that Iran has a vast army and weapons and they fight with something of the most ergency they fight for what they think is the name of God. But they dont have nukes yet. The country of Iran and their leaders wouldnt hesitate to use them if they had them. The people of Iran dont have the means to argue thier point and as everyone can see they ALWAYS back their government and its decisions. Not because Irans government is always right but because they have no other choice. War is war and all is fair I dont think invading Iran is the right decision now but it may be just a matter of time before the strongest super power ever known to the world may have to step in and give little Iran a spanking and send it off to bed without dinner. Also dont forget Isreal is no joke and have been fighting against odds that should make them non-existant forever.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by (^_^)

Originally posted by MMPI2



Additionally, why would anyone even consider verbally supporting a nation-state that has consistently and intentionally caused international incidents on the scale of the hostage incident of the 80s?

You cannot judge country by these statements. Each country has its own radicals/terrorists... People of Iran did not hold them as hostage, just select few...



Don't forget that an Iranian foreign minister threatened to shut down traffic through the Strait of Hormuz yesterday. That is just not a civilized way to behave, and statements like that reflect a willingness to thwart long-standing agreements within a community of civilized nations.

Hmm funny! US, Israel threatens to attack them... should they play nice? "That is just not a civilized way to behave" you again setting standards?



Oh, and for you left-leaning folks - how can you explain Ahmedenijahd's statement when he was here about homosexuals? Don't even pretend like you don't remember what he said on national TV - where he claimed upon a question from the audience that "we don't have that (homosexual) problem in Iran." That is possibly one of the most chilling public statements made by a national leader in recent history. The fact is that, in his mind, there is no homosexual issue in Iran because they imprison and murder gay people over there with impunity.

It is one way to stop a circus... stop judging Iran by your standards and believes... who are you to do so... they live in their own world for who knows how long... and now you come and tell them it is wrong?



Take care with this kind of talk, people. If ever there was a regime that deserved to burn, it's the current ruling force in Iran.

Bush is that you? I mean seriously... If Iran believes that they have a need for a gay community to populate the land... they will change the rules... they will evolve as did US... stop imposing your rules and believes on different country... you have no right to do so.


I have to disagree. With all respect to you, whomever you may be, you are using a counter argument that no longer applies. In summary, your argument goes like this:

"The world is made up of rules that are arbitrary and subject to change based on the culture, time, religion, situation, etc. I, and people like me, are the arbiters of these rules. Under no circumstances are you or anyone else allowed to judge, alter or otherwise comment on the way we conduct ourselves, even if our actions involve murder, rape, genocide, or indifference to the larger community."

This argument may have been effective prior to 9/11. We suffered through 40 years of this pathetic, pseudo-intellectual tripe because we had a bunch of pencil-necked academics who were once hippies telling us that we had to "respect others' world-view." And it worked for a while. As such, the islamic/arabic world has run rampant since the '72 Munich olympics where they murdered athletes who were there only to have fun and compete in a peaceful manner.

I am here to enunciate the fact that the Iranian/Iraqi/Muslim/ Persian/Arabic way of life as we have observed it since 1972 is patently WRONG and is incompatable with the civilized world. It is not OK to oppress women, it is in no way acceptable to condone the murder of civilians in the name of a pagan religion, it is not reasonable to close down a major international waterway in violation of longstanding international agreements. These things are not acceptable, and I'm frankly surprised that someone who sounds at least moderately intelligent would try to use this failed argument.

It seems as though the "standards" your spoke of in your rebuttal are getting ready to be set, and the "rules" that your culture and countrymen have shunned will be enforced. Get used to it.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The people that want to attack iran stateside don't really want the war to end, so the more balanced, expensive, time intensive of a war they can engineer, the better.

They would probably go after china after and not stop till we have WW3 and a billion people dead, and all based on half truths, lies and just simple fearmongering.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Crystalline
 




What do you think, what shot down that almighty F-117? A twenty years old simple, ancient Russian piece of junk. That's telling everything about the U.S. tech superiority.


I think you forget...

The F-117 was built in 1981.
That means you are talking old technology for us.



The Air Force retired the F-117 on 22 April 2008,[2] primarily due to the purchasing and eventual deployment of the more effective F-22 Raptor[5][6] and F-35 Lightning II.


Plus our REAL technology is 40 years beyond anything anyone knows about.

We own the skies.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy

Plus our REAL technology is 40 years beyond anything anyone knows about.

We own the skies.


I forget who said it, but I think it was a CEO or some higher up official from Lockheed Martin Skunkworks that stated "Imagine Technology 50 years from now.....We already have it."

-Kdial1



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdial1

Originally posted by Grafilthy

Plus our REAL technology is 40 years beyond anything anyone knows about.

We own the skies.


I forget who said it, but I think it was a CEO or some higher up official from Lockheed Martin Skunkworks that stated "Imagine Technology 50 years from now.....We already have it."

-Kdial1


Right. Too bad the U.S. can't tell about or show rogue (but beautiful
) countries like iran some of that technology. It might persuade them to just give up and go home with tail tucked between their hind legs.

But I also understand why we don't. War needs to be about surprising the enemy. Plus, with all the weapons imitators around the world scurrying around trying to steal and copy everything the U.S. develops, it pays to leave their sights set much lower than they would be if they knew the truth. Also, if the rest of the world did just give up, what would the U.S. military-industrial complex do from then on?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Crystalline
Few are missed some facts, so I'm adding a nice article to the thread.


Starting with you ...



Here is the eternal truth in this article.


will no doubt tell you about the great civilization that is Persia, which hasn't attacked another country for more than 300 years, not a boast we can make ourselves.


And that's a fact. Persia never attacked in the last 300 years.


Because "persia's" track record over the last couple thousand years when attacking other countries is pretty dismal? Maybe - unlike other muslim states - they learned their lesson a long time ago. Maybe, with a------ (whatever his name is) threatening Israel and other countries iran has recently forgotten their historical lessons, too.

Honestly, if you really think we have a "cowboy" for a president, why continually provoke him and us? Hint: if Bush was really the "cowboy" you think he is, we'd all be talking about iran using past tense (again).




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join