Reports: IAF Landed at Saudi Base, US Troops near Iran Border

reply to post by area6


I must admit my comments are only relevant to a U.S led attack.If Israel decides to do a quick strike ,things could change ,I don't really know how the Israeli's operate with such matters, whether they have to convince anyone but judging by their latests acts i doubt they give a rats what anyone thinks.

When a government is seriously losing support at home, war can be something they resort to in order to deflect from the domestic problems and bring the people together. What better way to deflect the people's attention and reduce pressure.

A US/Iran war would serve this same purpose for both Ahamadinejad and Obama.

Don't be fooled. Keep on putting the pressure on your government...those monsters who are stripping ordinary americans of their freedoms and are the major players in destroying this planet.

Time to wake up and stop falling for their evil games.

If you think Iran will retaliate against the USA for an attack in a conventional way, you're deluded. I seriously doubt Iran will respond by sending a missile (even if they were technically capable of this, which I doubt) into New York or Washington. They will attack Israel with missiles, but they're more likely to retaliate inside the US with use of suicide bombers.

Iranians will send suicide bombers against soft civilian targets inside the USA - it's amazing to me that they haven't figured out that a few suicide bombers on Greyhound buses or on city buses in large population centers would create havoc in the USA. Maybe they have figured it out - to me, I think the USA has been very lucky to escape this sort of suicide attack for this long.

It's not like there is major security on buses or trains or other soft targets such as town centres - Department of Homeland Security is a big joke to anyone that isn't coming through a major airport (even their airport security is a joke).

In Times Square they got very lucky due to the complete ineptitude of the so called "terrorist", I think it's a question of WHEN they succeed in an attack, not IF.

reply to post by area6


Nope. Oil is not needed. We have plenty from easier sources. Not to mention Iran's oil , and nation, is in the mountains. Pretty much the only thing not making us die in Iraq now is the lack of mountains. Whereas the mountains of Afghanistan continue to allow us to elude our enemy.

Occupying Iran is a commitment to staying for 30 years. No joke, It's as culturally and militarily committed as wartime Germany. Germany took 50 years to civilize. 50 years of US occupation. Still to this day. NO THANKS.

Jewish propaganda used to place fear in the Iranian people and thereby further destabilise the Iranian government. There will be no attack on Iran anytime soon, it would be political suicide.

Originally posted by area6
reply to post by Gorman91

 

Interesting scenario ...

I don't see a point in attacking Iran without securing oil supplies, and I don't know how that can be done ... a ground war would be long and bloody.

But, maybe a desert-storm / shock-and-awe combination is the strategy. Which would be, take out everything from the air: nuclear facilities, military, electrical grid, command, etc. Then sit back and enforce the sanctions over several years and take another stab at regime change - all the while with an oil-for-food program in place.

Of course, I'm not sure these reports are credible enough or in their true context to tell us war is imminent yet.

A desert storm shock and awe type campaign will not work in Iran - their military is too well trained for this to happen. Any ground war in Iran would not be shock or awe - it will be long, drawn out, and very bloody.

Sit back and enforce sanctions and take another stab at regime change? Oh yes, because this worked so well in North Korea, Cuba, and Iraq under Saddam.

Why would Iran even need to come to the US mainland. They have a target of US forces that are worn out and troop numbers keep dropping. Strikes to across the border would be easier than working their way to the US mainland.

They could do their actions towards the military and strike a blow to the armed forces and the population of the US. They already send over equipment, training, and have had insurgent training camps just over the border to train people and send them back to Iraq.

You would never believe how many insurgents I arrested that were from Iran, or the higher tech weapons that came from Iran while I was in Iraq.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by cavscout11cav]

reply to post by babybunnies


No. It would work. Their army would be destroyed. But the simple act of occupation would encourage a lot of resistance. Not to mention the obvious back fall of terrorist groups from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran.

The US and Israel could destroy Iran's army in a day and a half. But that does not make the war won, nor does it make a successful occupation.

reply to post by babybunnies


I say "Desert Storm" in the sense that it would not be a run to Tehran. It would be air (shock and awe) and then sit outside.

Regime change did not work with Saddam, and I say "regime change" with optimism of less bloodshed in the future. The strategy did work with Saddam in terms of weakening the country further for the second war and occupation. That's all the strategy is designed to do.

N Korea and Cuba have never been worth occupying in terms of resources or strategic positioning, so I don't think they really apply.

Don't often post here, but I'd just like to say that this is it guys. I was told 4 days ago that I'll be deployed to an undisclosed U.S base in Saudi Arabia and have had to cut my holiday in London short. Not that that matters but, I'm off on Saturday and I'm hoping I'll be back. This is my first time being deployed into a situation where the potential for combat is strong. I've had a chat with the 2 of the lads I'm off with, they seem adamant that something will happen. At any rate, pray for us over there whilst we pray for you all back home.

Its been a while since I have posted. I feel the need to post in this thread because something along the lines of a troop buildup would garner HUGE coverage by almost every news outlet. So that in mind, i checked fox, cnn, msnbc, al jazeera, cant find anything about this anywhere... The only think I can find remotely close is a story about Iran booting two inspectors.

reply to post by Cylent773


Yeah, it doesn't seem credible yet.

I would bet on a re-positioning or a small strengthening of forces in terms of testing out these new UN sanctions at this point more than a buildup to all out war.

I hope Britain doesn't get dragged into this crap! My tax Pounds are already going on Afghanistan and Iraq, don't need another American destroyed, failed nation mooching out of my salary thanks! Like it isn't hard enough already to keep the lights on! And the death...no more UK deaths!!!!

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Englands_Glory]

reply to post by babybunnies

Iranians will send suicide bombers against soft civilian targets inside the USA - it's amazing to me that they haven't figured out that a few suicide bombers on Greyhound buses or on city buses in large population centers would create havoc in the USA. Maybe they have figured it out - to me, I think the USA has been very lucky to escape this sort of suicide attack for this long.

Maybe somebody else will figure that out instead of them.
It has been done before
Like... do I have to say?

Before a war of this caliber the surrounding nations are either advised of it or consulted with in secret before it takes place. China, Russia, India, and other nations in the area are fully aware of what is taking place.

This will not be a nuclear war. Iran does not yet possess nuclear warheads. The purpose of the war is to destroy their technology and overthrow the corrupt regime. How do we know it is corrupt? These supposedly great and holy men of Allah lied to the people and faked the results of the election to make it appear Ahmadinejad won when in reality he lost. Therefore, he is an illegitimate leader and does not belong in power. What's more he is playing with fire while threatening to destroy Israel and the USA.

Syria is in league with Iran. They will also feel the brunt of this war. All of Damascus will be wiped out. The least amount of deaths will be in Iran itself.

Israel might regain more of its historic land as a result, but it really doesn't matter. This is about the survival of Israel and of the entire world. Iran needs a democracy. War is hell, but war is necessary in cases like these.

reply to post by dovdov

Israel might regain more of its historic land as a result, but it really doesn't matter. This is about the survival of Israel and of the entire world. Iran needs a democracy. War is hell, but war is necessary in cases like these.

Man, can you hear yourself

reply to post by DangerDeath


The Iranian people seemed to agree with him a bit back.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

The Iranian people seemed to agree with him a bit back.

A bit about the regime change? Is that what this "war" is about?

Does anyone think there is a chance that Iran may attack Georgia? Im going there for 3 weeks towards the end of July, and that would really be a mood-killer

Originally posted by dovdov
The reason is because Iran has threatened both Israel and the USA. Israel and the USA have never initiated a threat against Iran.

That's absolutely unreal. We've been threatening them, ad nasuem for decades upon decades. Hell just the US alone has been mettling in the area since the 1700's with the failed attemps of regime changes during the Barbary incidents and the entire western world has been invading the reigon at the behest of the zionist ideaology for over a thousand years. It's a valid question, why can't other countries posess nuclear weapons? Because their leadership is a fruitcake? Ever heard of G. W. Bush or Ariel Sharron? Why not leave people the hell alone, everybody is so taken into this war is peace rubbish, the only path to peace is minding your own business.