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.

 

Arab state tells Israel it would not oppose Iran strike

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Dan Tanna
 


I have its a massive mega city and would BE impossible to garrison, simply impossible




posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
If High Oil Prices can give you a Natural Erection, who needs a Fake Pfizer Job


July 11, 2008

Iran and Israel build up their bluffing game

The warlike posturing would be more frightening if there were much likelihood of an Israeli attack - but there isn't.

When governments undertake grand gestures in the full glare of public attention, the only thing you can be sure of is that they do not mean what they appear to mean. That's a useful rule of thumb to apply to any exercise in public diplomacy but it's especially helpful when trying to fathom the volatile politics of the Middle East.

It's clear what we are supposed to think. Israel is sufficiently agitated now by the Iranian nuclear threat that it is in the military-strike-planning stage, flying sorties that match in range precisely the distance between Israeli air bases and Tehran. Iran in response makes clear it has the missile capability to take out Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

But appearances can be deceptive. In Iran's case at least part of the deception has already been exposed - to mildly comical effect. It turns out that the picture of the launch of four Iranian missiles that appeared on the front pages of newspapers around the world yesterday was itself a fake.


Link : www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I'm still wondering who this "Arab Country" is, and why their name should be kept hidden. I mean, if an entire country feels that way, why can't we know who they are?



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
What I think a lot of you fail to realize is that an attack on Iran would be much different than the situation in Iraq. The coalition troops toppled a regime and defeated an army in a matter of days in Iraq. The quagmire is a result of trying to rebuild the country, and establish a new government.

An attack on Iran would be a few strategic strikes to cripple its nuke program, and probably take out some aircraft and AA installations.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Are They Really Oil Wars ?


Has Oil Really Peaked—and Is It Running Out?


War for Cheap Oil?


War for Expensive Oil?


Behind the Myth of "War for Oil"



Link : www.counterpunch.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



If Iraq is so defeated, why are hundreds a month still dying from bombs, bullets and suicide tactics ? because maybe they don't have any control maybe ?

Iraq war has never been won, they just changed tactics.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
If a War with Iran occurs what will happen in this country? Will there be mass protests across the nation? Is President Bush crazy enough to send troops into the Iran or will this war be fought from the air and sea?



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
I'm still wondering who this "Arab Country" is, and why their name should be kept hidden. I mean, if an entire country feels that way, why can't we know who they are?


I think it is obviously Saudi Arabia.

Islam is a many-fractured thing, as some say.

ompared to ancient race and national hatreds, Islam is just the latest thin veneer papering over that middle eastern cauldron.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Dan Tanna
 


The fall of the USA? Wow you really aren't skimping on the hyperbole there are you?

For starters notice that the only wars who ever bring up war with Iran are Irans leaders, Israel's leaders and members of the US Govt.? Yet while all 3 are talking about it, there isn't really any deep planning taking place, nor are there troop movements going on, or intense spying taking place.

Then of course there is all the chest thumping and big talk around here. All full of sound and fury signifying nothing!

The reality is that Iran is going to continue to talk tough and prop themselves up until at least the US election. The US will not be doing anything because if Bush starts something it endangers McCain's campaign for office, and the Reeps aren't going to allow that. Israel is going to continue to with making a show of their abilities in response to Iran's actions.

In the end nothing is going to happen.

Now in the very off chance that something did happen, it won't be like Iraq, the US will not invade the whole of Iran, if anything they will send the Marines to secure the straits and then proceed to use an air war to destroy iran's infrastructure, missile systems, nuke program, there air force will be waxed and there navy sunk.

I realize that for the non-military types around here who never served, and don't understand what would constitute a victory in a war with Iran, that the US doesn't need to conquer and invade Iran to win a shooting war with them. The goal would be simple. Destroy there ability to build nukes, destroy there ability to launch attacks by sea or missile and remove there only ace by taking control of the straits. But for those who think that war means a full invasion of iran, then keep on with that fantasy.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by splendourinthegrass
 


That said, if any country wants to see the US fight iran it would almost certainly be the Saudi's. Far moreso then Israel. The arabs and persians have a centuries old hatred, and really right now the Saudis and Iranians are vying to be the sphere of influence for Muslim nations in the region. Israel and the US are just being used as pawns in all this.

The best thing would be for the US, Israel, and Iran come to an understanding with each, see that it is the saudi's and the other sunni arabs who are by far the most violent people in the ME, notice that it was saudis that led 9/11 and sunnis that are behind most of the terrorism in Iraq, and these 3 should work together to reign in the threat that the arabs pose.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
It could be Bahrain, another majority Shia country that used to belong to Iran and is controlled by a minority Sunni.
But still if Iran is attacked Bahrain is like so tiny that within two days Iran will occupy it.
It is all probably Bull to drive a wedge between Shia and Sunni.
Unfortunatley many Arab countries are ruled by puppet regimes that the British put in and the people don't recognise them, like the Kings and the sheick's and stuff.
All those kings will have to go because the people don't want them, Arabs are repressed and they hate their regimes much more than Iranians hate their regime. Take the king of Jordan a freemason, imagine a muslim country that has a king that is a freemason and a friend of Israel, they hate him and want him dead. These people have not got a leg to stand on apart from Israeli and US support. So if you want democracy in the middle east, leave them to it and they will achieve it. And yes your friends the kings must go. That is why the middle east will be set on fire, Jordan, Bahrain and Israel will be the first to suffer. But my guess is that it could also be Jordan.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Most folks on here are WAY off base when considering a possible strike on Iran and the objectives of such a strike. No one is talking about occupying forces, only about eliminating the nuclear threat. Bingo. Think about that for a second okay? No ground troops, no invasion, no regime change. Just destroying the military machine period.

The same thing that was done to Iraq in less than 3 weeks.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by US Monitor
 







The reality is that Iran is going to continue to talk tough and prop themselves up until at least the US election. The US will not be doing anything because if Bush starts something it endangers McCain's campaign for office, and the Reeps aren't going to allow that. Israel is going to continue to with making a show of their abilities in response to Iran's actions.


I agree that Bush probably won't start something with the elections coming in 4 months. BUT what if Bush decides to declare martial law?



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Actually it has been shown that if we go to war with Iran, this improves McCains chances. The gen public will go with a Repulican in time wof war.

If Iran is seen as starting this up, game over.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
reply to post by Dan Tanna
 


I realize that for the non-military types around here who never served, and don't understand what would constitute a victory in a war with Iran, that the US doesn't need to conquer and invade Iran to win a shooting war with them. The goal would be simple. Destroy there ability to build nukes, destroy there ability to launch attacks by sea or missile and remove there only ace by taking control of the straits. But for those who think that war means a full invasion of iran, then keep on with that fantasy.


Thank you!!!

I did a similar post on this last year. There isn't going to be an "INVASION". Just air and missle strikes. There will be little or NO major troop movements because most of this will be launched from carriers, naval based cruise missiles, and B-1's, B-2's, and B-52
s from the mainland US. The only "invasion" would be as mentioned a possible marine landing and/or airborne operation to secure the strait of hormuz, and even that's not real likely when they can just hit every military target in range of it. I suppose it's POSSIBLE you could see raids/incursions into Iran from iraq to help ensure there is no support for any sort of "TET" like counter attack on US forces in Iraq. And all this is if WE do it, more likely Isreal will end up doing it.

As far as this article it's probably propaganda, and gets all the Arab governments arguing at each other. BUT as mentioned Saudi and the gulf states aren't happy with Iran. Not to mention Iranian's are Persians, not Arabs. Yeah there all muslims and they all hate isreal, but that doens't mean the arab states might not turn a blind eye to an isreali strike. They did it in 81 when the IDF hit Orisk and set back Saddams nuke programs.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
and in alternative news

Arab state tells Iran it would not oppose Israel strike

`an unamed arab country said it would not oppose the use of military force against the aggressive and zionist regime in israel`

see i can make headlines as well.....



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
White House plan for Iran attack.

1. Massive air and missile bombardment of main military and nuclear research sites, as well as government headquarters buildings and communications infrastructure.
2. The Iranian people, having been set free from the yolk of tyranny immediately allow the US to assist in electing a new democratic government.
3. The Iranian people, being reasonable types, understand that the loss of friends and family in the attacks is all part of the regime change they longed for and all is forgiven.
4. Oil execs, Monsanto reps and copyright lawyers stream in to sign contracts with the new government and all is well with the world once again.

It's simple, what could possibly go wrong?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join