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: Attacking us is idiocy

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Iran: Attacking us is idiocy


www.news.com.au

IRAN has dismissed speculation that it risked being attacked by the United States over its contested nuclear drive, saying that a military strike would be "craziness".

"Any aggression or military action against Iran is an idiocy whose repercussions would hurt all," Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said.

"I don't think that such craziness and nonsense will prevail or is do-able militarily," he added.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Finally, some common-sense prevails and it comes from the Iranians.

Aggression against the Iranins will be a silly course of action to take. Too bad it seems that the USA has plenty of silly leaders who are more than willing to pull triggers.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


Finally, some common-sense prevails and it comes from the Iranians.

Aggression against the Iranins will be a silly course of action to take. Too bad it seems that the USA has plenty of silly leaders who are more than willing to pull triggers.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

While it may be "craziness" an attack by the US would no doubt end the regime currently in power. Would the US do it quickly and decisively? Absolutely!
Although much of the world would be super PO'ed at the US for causing yet another mess in that part of the world.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bios
While it may be "craziness" an attack by the US would no doubt end the regime currently in power.

Why does the US care about that regime? The US has its OWN problems with its own corrupt regimes in power! Why does the US think that it is Team America World Police and needs to rescue oil-rich nations from evil regimes?

If the US was really concerned about ending corrupt regimes, then they would have unloaded their entire arsenal on Mugabe's Zimbabwe by now. Nope, not a whimper from them. No oil or resources = no care.


Originally posted by bios
Would the US do it quickly and decisively? Absolutely!

Right... So they would do it as quickly and decively as they have in Afghanistan and Iraq? Years progress and they're still in those countries, loosing and taking lives on a daily basis...

[edit on 12-7-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   


While it may be "craziness" an attack by the US would no doubt end the regime currently in power.


An airstrike is going to overthrow their government?

Do you seriously believe this?

"Regime change" in Iran would require a ground invasion, and an occupation, something the US is currently in no position to pull off.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw



Originally posted by bios
Would the US do it quickly and decisively? Absolutely!

Right... So they would do it as quickly and decively as they have in Afghanistan and Iraq? Years progress and they're still in those countries, loosing and taking lives on a daily basis...

[edit on 12-7-2008 by tezzajw]

Apparently you fail to differentiate between destroying a regime and remanufacturing a country from scratch.
Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush wanted to remake Iraq into a pro-western democracy - the difference with Iran is they simply want to destroy the regime and send Iran back to the stone age and let the Iranian people figure it out from there.
Big Difference!
Very Possible -
Very Likely -
No occupation -
No one cares about insurgency or Shahabs or Silkworms ... They will be destroyed with the quickness.

And to Xmotex -
do I personally believe that the US can overthrow the Iranian regime with airstrikes and no invasion?
It doesn't matter.
The goal is different from Iraq.
Airstrikes can destroy the infrastructre of a country, decapitate it's leadership, and eliminate it's defensive capability (revolutionary guard),
Any invasion force would be to secure and destroy the nuclear assets of the Iranians - secure the straight of Hormuz and then move out.
Let the Russians and the Chinese rebuild the Persian empire - the US is too busy rebuilding the Babylonian empire...

And one other thing - if you think I'm for such a move you are wrong - do you think I believe it will happen?
Did the sun rise this morning?









[edit on 7/13/2008 by bios]



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I cant believe im hearing the same foolish goals here.


Bombing Iran will not bring regime change.

For starters, you think the current regime is just going to sit at head quaters wondering which cruise missile will kill them?

you think all the muslims will instantly turn christian?

regime change in Iran... isnt that what happened when the American puppet got ousted?...



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bios
Apparently you fail to differentiate between destroying a regime and remanufacturing a country from scratch.

A-huh. So when a regime is destroyed, who picks up the pieces to rebuild the country?

Apparently, you fail to understand that any attempt to dislodge a regime will result in a rebuilding revolution within that country.


Originally posted by bios
do I personally believe that the US can overthrow the Iranian regime with airstrikes and no invasion?
It doesn't matter.
The goal is different from Iraq.

Sure it is. No problems. Launch a few missiles and hope for the best, is that your master plan to settle the tensions with Iran?



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw



Originally posted by bios
do I personally believe that the US can overthrow the Iranian regime with airstrikes and no invasion?
It doesn't matter.
The goal is different from Iraq.

Sure it is. No problems. Launch a few missiles and hope for the best, is that your master plan to settle the tensions with Iran?

Interesting -
Obviously you did not read my entire post - just what you thought would get you kudos from other readers.
way to go...



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   


"Regime change" in Iran would require a ground invasion, and an occupation, something the US is currently in no position to pull off.
reply to post by xmotex
 


You sure about that? Recently Bush was in London and Brown pledged MORE troops. Now, the way i see it, is that Iran is definately next.
If you look at the propaganda patterns you will know that "similar" accusations were made about Iraq, which turned out to be turd.
It would just make business sense, while the troops are there, use them.
I reckon the troops have been coordinating attack in Iran for some time now.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I;ll haftya take some time out from my break in sin city to back Bios up on this.

Have any of you been in on logistic meetings dealing with what assets would be needed for certain scenarios?
Or have you been in on meetings where goals are required for certain programs to be determined a success?
Bios has.

PS: honey, I'm up 700 - thank me later... ;-)



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
Have any of you been in on logistic meetings dealing with what assets would be needed for certain scenarios?

The kind of meetings where the war pigs plan on how they're going to further maximise profits?

What about the meetings where people plan for peace, without using any firepower? Do they even exist?



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by intelgurl
Have any of you been in on logistic meetings dealing with what assets would be needed for certain scenarios?

The kind of meetings where the war pigs plan on how they're going to further maximise profits?

Actually the meetings are usually about how to minimize losses on both sides and still accomplish your goal.


What about the meetings where people plan for peace, without using any firepower? Do they even exist?

That would be the State Department's deal or maybe a relief organization - like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - everyone knows they are a peaceful organization.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bios
 


I don't care how well thought out a war with Iran would be, there is no way that it could be done without the "craziness" ensuing.

Iran doesn't think that they could win a war with the US. They just know that they are more than capable of plunging the world into chaos. I doubt that they would inflict many casualties in US troops or even in Israel. I do firmly believe that they would do some major damage to the oil network. Their retaliation would potentially cripple the flow of oil and the world can't afford for $300 a barrel.

It would be crazy to think that we could just drop a few bombs and not feel any fall out. I am very curious why they think that the ends will justify the means. Is the (IMHO manufactured) threat of Iran getting a nuke worth the crumbling of the world economy and the most likely collapse of the United States?

Us bombing them now would be far more damaging than some fantasy nuke that they may or may not want to build years from now when they may or may not have the technology that may or may not have been sold to them by a company that would stand to make a huge profit off of the war (Haliburton).



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bios
 


thats ridiculous.
do you ever have meetings to decide how stupid "the goal" is and how it is completely unecessary. or logistics meetings where you count up how many corperate sell out tools there are in the room with you? the damn spooks are responsible for iran being a mess in the first place. the iranians HAD a democratic regime until british petroleum didnt like it and had it overthrown with the CIA and Operation Ajax. stay the f--- out of other countries business spooks. if you want war for oil and regime change go play in iraq.

iran isnt going to be conducting beachheads on the shores of maryland, they dont have nukes, their damn missles dont even launch correctly and our country is as broke as a two bit whore.

what an assinine idea.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Any bombing that would take place would only target suspected facilites. I don't think that we would flatten everything. Israel bombed a suspected nuclear facility in Syria, they didn't destroy the country in the process.

I would suspect any action taken against Iran would be similar in fashion



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by crisko
 


Yes, I am sure that is how Israel would love for it to go down. Problem with that is that as soon as Israel bombs anything on Iranian soil, Iran is pushing the panic button and launching as many missles as possible into Israel and everything else in the region. Do you think Israel will just sit back and let the missles rain down on their country without any sort of further retaliation?

Iran is not just going to sit back and let Israel or the US bomb anything. This will be a cluster "you know what" of epic proportions if this is allowed to happen.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Not only would it be a bad mistake to attack Iran, but it could lead to a conflict with Russia as well. I think we have a full plate as it is, and don't need to the added expense of fighting another superpower.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
reply to post by bios
 


thats ridiculous.
do you ever have meetings to decide how stupid "the goal" is and how it is completely unecessary. or logistics meetings where you ...

Did anyone read my first post?
I think we all agree as to the "craziness" of attacking Iran, (as staterd in my first post). But Can the US take out the nuke facilities, government infrastructure, revolutionary guardbases and silkworm batteries aimed at the straight of hormuz?
Yes it can.
Is it insane to do it?
Yes it is.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


thats what annoys me about these a--holes in my government and israels government. its almost like they want ww3. if they attack iran there is a possibility russia and china could enter the fray, how in the hell is this worth it at all?

and when the shah was in power it was a great thing that iran was building nuclear powerplants, but now its suddenly awful. and lets just say (even though iran dosnt have nukes and is years away), that they did have nukes. lets say they have 10 even! are they going to launch them at israel? no. israel has 400 nukes. israel would wipe iran off the face of the earth. the iraninas arnt stupid.

the reason israel has their panties in a bundel is because if iran develops nukes then all of a sudden iran has leverage. iran could balence israels power in the middle east. israel couldnt act like the biggest bully on the playground any more.

israel...might...have to use... DIPLOMACY!!!!
oh god forbid such a horrid though!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join