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.

 

Study: Attack on Iran would be 'start of long war'

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


China, Europe and Russia would never allow the Iranian plateau to be nuked because of the energy exports from that region. It could severely endanger the oil and natural gas coming out of that region. I don't believe that an all out nuclear strike on Iran would ever happen, though I wouldn't discount smaller tactical nukes in the south or even Tehran.

--airspoon




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
all things are coming full circle. i read that the missing Iran nuke scientist was payed 5mil.,by none other than the CIA, and now this nuke scientist is on his way back home. i wounder what the 5mil was for? would the Israels launch an air strike? would we help? would it turn into a ground war? i would like to create our own think tank. what do you think? it is just a thought. as far as an attack on Iran, in my own view, yes it will be a very long drawn out war, one that could start ww3 with nukes. would we go that far, would Israel risk it? would NK get involved? would Castro be a player, as well as Chavez , what part would they play? the list is endless, want to play a game?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


China, Europe and Russia would never allow the Iranian plateau to be nuked because of the energy exports from that region. It could severely endanger the oil and natural gas coming out of that region. I don't believe that an all out nuclear strike on Iran would ever happen, though I wouldn't discount smaller tactical nukes in the south or even Tehran.

--airspoon


I can see where you are coming from 100% but you have to realize, believe it or not, that life is worth more than energy resources lol...

Israeli, nor the US, have the initial striking capability to destroy all of the Iranian missile silos... So once attacked Iran will launch all they got and there is no way the US warships in the region can defend themselves against 1000 missiles...

Once the Iraqi green zone is leveled, US warships destroyed, Tel Aviv in flames.. You still cannot see USrael using nukes to destroy the Iranian military backbone??

Okay okay, I KNOW everyone here at ATS has seen this video 100x but it's still relevant:



[edit on 15-7-2010 by CanadianDream420]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Every where the US has gone to war they maintain permanent militay bases and domination.
Even Germany and Japan still have the bases...they have obliterated no one totally.
Most of these wars are still like the Koreas, ongoing.

This is why I have tried to show the history of the empire of the republic... so that extrapolating the plot of the next war would just be pattern recognition.

(my apologies for complicating your post Airspoon)



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Polls don't much matter when there's crowds of people revolting over supposed support for the president. I cannot see how he has support after the last election and he's nothing short of a lie of a leader.

Also, it's not the same as Bush and 911 because Bush did not spend a whole lot of time in office and for all accords he didn't do much before 911. He was a boring president until 911. This Iranian president has been in longer, said more, taken sides, and done more. It would not be the same. Do you really think Bush would have support to invade Iran in 2008 with 30% approval?

There's plenty of evidence of anger towards their president in Iran and fear of losing support, and making excesses to avoid elections again.

www.heraldsun.com.au...

www.independent.co.uk...

www.tehrantimes.com...

www.iranfocus.com...:iran-delays-local-elections&catid=4:iran-general&Itemid=26


here is evidence of internal strife, and attempts to maintain justice who take the law into their own hands.

www.google.com...

However, I support this, lol.

www.israelnationalnews.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Don't forget the water too...that is a HUGE factor for both the ME and Asia. And the water pipelines run right along side the oil and natural gas ones.

Did you see this thread yesterday?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Somebody said in this thread that life is worth more than energy resources.

I wish that was true.

Tell that to the Iraqis, who have had their country invaded and occupied for a certain black liquid that lies under their land, and for other geopolitical and geostrategial reasons.


'A lengthy war' as the think tank puts it, does not begin to describe the absolute and complete horrific loss of life, maiming and destruction that would ensue from such a war.

Iranians will rally around their government and flag if attacked. Many Iranians who disliked their government rallied behind it when they were attacked by Iraq in 1980.

Americans would if they were attacked, as on September 11th 2001. The British did when faced with the Blitz in 1940.


It's their country's government, a government that would be tasked with defending them and their country, and many people would see no other choice.

Yes, there are Iranians who dislike their government, but if Iran is attacked, the cause of those Iranians who seek change will be undermined, their cause set back generations, if not forever. All those Iranians who say "Do not trust America! Remember Mossadegh!" and cite other historical examples of western interference in Iran will be proved right again.


Seeing your loved ones be maimed and killed, your homes destroyed, tends to undermine the argument of Iranian reformists as well.


If Iran is attacked, it will defend itself, it will respond. 'Surgical strikes' a mythic phrase of military jargon, actually causes a lot of mess, tends to kill people. Tends to leave destruction in it's wake.


Such a war would engulf the region, and such a war would see Iran trying it's very and quite justifiable hardest to strike back at those who attack it, and those who are seen to support it's attackers.


It's what America would do if they were attacked.


Those who say a war would be short and nice and clean simply do not understand the consequences of this war, the geopolitics of the region.

Shias in Iraq and Lebanon and elsewhere, seeing their fellow Shia being killed, will feel compelled to Iran in striking back.

As will Iranians who see the ones they love most bleed and die.


'A lengthy war' means a long, perhaps neverending war that would engulf the middle east, and possibly beyond.


Some people forget that war means alot more than just killing people 'over there'.

It means ending life. It means destroying. It means making people who suffer this want to do the same to those who attack them.

That's war.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Regensturm]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


All of that hoopla with the rioting after the elections was just that, hoopla. It was provoked by the CIA/Mossad and made to look a lot worse by the western MSM. Remember that the Iranian government is a democratically elected government with consent of the people. Some would even argue more so than the US.

You shouldn't always believe what the MSM tells you.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Most of those sources were from Iran, not MSM. In addition to that, You can put a trillion dollars into something, or 1 dollar. It does not affect how many people join a group. The idea that just because something is funded discredits the people in it is a major fallacy. People still have to join it. Same rule applies to the tea party, the pink protesters, or anyone else. They all get funding. But there are organizations that fail at life because no one wants to join them, and others which do great because people want to join them.


Also, It was Iran who photoshoped protesters in their state media, not the west.

And finally, Iran is a fake democracy. IE, you can vote, but only for the people whom the supreme leader and council agree upon allowing to run.

It is not more democratic than the US. It is a theocracy with a puppet presidency. If anyone steps out of line, the Supreme leader and his council knocks them off.

That said, they usually side with what the people want. But for the last few years have not.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Even tho you skipped over my last post towards you, I'll reply to this...


Originally posted by airspoon Remember that the Iranian government is a democratically elected government with consent of the people. Some would even argue more so than the US.


I'm pretty sure the last Iranian election was HIGHLY disputed... Remember the riots?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


I wouldn't say that it was highly disputed. I would say that it was disputed and then played up to make it look worse than it actually was. I also think a lot of people joined the *movement due to a lot of bucking up by Mossad and CIA assets.

For the most part, the majority of Iranians support their government, even the Jews. I would also like to argue that I think their elections are much more "fair" and less corrupted than our own.

During the '04 elections when I volunteered with the LP and went to NH, I actually saw police threatening college students with jail if they voted and didn't have an in-state ID (with the bogus charge of not switching your address on your DL, though students don't have to). It was basically BS and the police were full of crap but it scared many student away, students who would have otherwise not voted Republican or GWB. Sadly, this played our all across the country.

I also noticed that many urban areas had very few voting machines, causing extremely long lines that discourages urban voters from actually voting. In smaller, rural districts, they had more machines than in the urban areas. Well, it's widely known that urban areas usually vote left while more rural folks vote right.

It's these kinds of tactics that skew the outcome of elections and this happens all across the country, though more often in swing states and more important and critical areas.

Then we get to the issue of electronic voting machines with no way of ensuring an accurate and truthful count. I might even go as far as to say that our elections don't matter anymore, even to choose out of the two puppets presented. The politics are so corrupted here in the States, that it doesn't really even matter.

I would say that our elections and political system is far more corrupted than that of Iran.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


eh again i don't think people get it even if they hit our WHOLE fleet in the gulf or even nuke them WE wont use nukes back its far more likely that "if" we get pushed into a war there obama will not use nukes WE care at least a small part about what our allies say and where the radiation will go.

whats far more likely in my opinion is that if they strike the fleet or insanely nuke it we will go in conventional with B52's,b1,b2 Cruise Missile strikes etc and start carpet bombing them conventionally striking there infrastructure, AA sites SAM's and what ever else pokes its head up for a limited time using those cluster bombs smart bombs etc to crush there ability to launch against the IDF saudi etc and probably try to whack old AMJ(i cant for the life of me spell the president of irans name so i wont even try) and some of the mulluhas,if the iranians launch more then one or hit america then the bets are off and the nuke gloves come off



closest time we came to nuking another nation(after japan) was probably the cuban missle crisis wont happen unless alota people screw up IMO though



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Again, tell me. What does the amount of money put into an organization correlate to how many people join it?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


We may not use nukes (though I'm not entirely with you there) but Israel wouldn't hesitate. Israel would nuke another country, laugh about it and then try to spin it as if that country nuked itself.

--airspoon

 
 
 


reply to post by Gorman91
 


Money has a lot to do with it. Money can either buy resources, opinions in some cases and certainly propaganda. Money can also buy you an image, whether accurate or not.

Just take a look at the political climate here in America. Money is everything and will often be the deciding factor. Whoever has the most money, will sway the most minds. It's all a game and we are the pawns.

--airspoon

[edit on 15-7-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 

about isr
oh yeah definatly if any one in that region is gonna toss around nukes like there candy its the IDF me and u may not agree on everything about isreli actions but as far as what happens when the idf gets "scared or backed into a corner" nukes are far more likely to fly from there country then any one elses in the region EVEN Iran im not even anti war perse(military history is one of my favorites) but the solomon(sp?) plan scares the crap outa me



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
i have a question thats kind of related to this post: what are the odds of the USA or Israeli's of using a EMP like attack in the region i know people talk about how bad that would screw us over but how vulnrable to an emp strike is iran?sorry if this is the wrong place im just curious and saw enough informed people here that i hope one of them could give me a answer

tried to make a thread about it but failed miserably so ill just wait tell theirs a reply here

[edit on 15-7-2010 by KilrathiLG]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


The two are tactically different. We are not going to try and occupy Iran or for that matter even attempt to overthrow their government. What we are going to do is target Iran's Military, Political, and nuclear infrastructures. The tech infrastructure needed to sustain let alone manufacture nuclear weapons is expensive, vulnerable, and difficult to rebuild.
Extensive, well targeted air strikes along with target specific attacks by special forces units can and will set back Iran's ability to build and support a nuclear weapons program by 5 to 6 years. Combine that with strikes on their military, and political leadership and the destruction of their military hardware and It would be a good bet that the people of Iran will do the overthrowing for us.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


But people still have to chose. They're not going to give out pamphlets to millions of people without the government knowing, nor paychecks without the government knowing.

Money only buys image. And image has nothing to do with if people want it or not. People will join things if they see an image they want. That does not mean the people are bought nor wrong. It means they did not know that there was such an organization, and now they do.

The same thing is true with the unions in America. Unions are bought and sold on elections. But people still have to vote. Its frowned upon, but people I know don't care what the union says. They vote how they want.

So sorry, but you can pour a lot or a little money into something. people still have to show up.

That's how movies work, btw. They probably have more lies in their propaganda machines than anything, and yet the bad ones still fail and the goon ones still win, with the very rare exception.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Personally i dont believe there will be a attack on Iran any time soon not by Israel any way. Israel usually attack without warning if they have a reason to or feel threatened. This time Israels window of opportunity is gone. Iran has been warned. Israels opportunity went out the window when Iran first was warned some 7 years ago.

Israel wont stand a chance attacking Iran with their F-15s and F-16s. If they do they wont have any of them returning home.

If Israel attacks Iran and looses their air superiority, Israel will be vulnerable on the ground. Israels strategy is much like the US and can't afford to loose its air superiority.

PS. When it comes to the US. The US have said they will use every needs necessary to have influence in the middle east. But that does not mean they have to support a Israeli strike on Iran.







[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join