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 officials: U.S., Israel wouldn't dare attempt a military strike

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Bush wanted to air strike Iran a long time ago after Iran opened up a third oil trading Bourse, hence undermining the total US oil monopoly.

Oil can now be bought and sold for currency other than US dollars in Iran, and the US administration did not like that.

Anyhow, Dubya had the Pentagon run computer war games to determine the best way to go about attacking Iran.
The Pentagon ran many computer war simulations, and the results were ALWAYS truly awful for American interests. The Generals took turns to play either side, they played it every possible way, but everything went desperately wrong very quickly no matter what.

The problem is that after a first initial air strike, the situation in the whole Middle East becomes very complicated, unstable, and unpredictable.

It is not just a military problem, but an economic and political problem that very quickly grows and grows, totally out of any hope of control or containment, on a world wide scale.

Suppose the straits of Hormuz were blocked, and many of the OPEC oil exporters bombed or sabotaged. America suddenly loses 60% of it's crude oil imports. That would devastate the US economy, without any way to solve the problem. That is just one example.

There were (back then), around 160,000 battle troops in Iraq that depend totally on a continuous supply of food, gasoline, water, ammunition, medical, and spare parts that all flow up from the Gulf by road, through a very long and vulnerable supply route.
That all suddenly stops if Hormuz closes, the supply route cut, and all those US troops trapped in Iraq are totally cut off without supplies, and nowhere to retreat to. You cannot fight for long without fuel and ammo.

And if then surrounded and attacked in force by Iran, they could not hold out very long.
That means roughly one third of the entire US military strength (worldwide) could be completely wiped out, no survivors.
The Iraqis would kill any American prisoners on sight. You have now killed 1.5 million of them. That is a lot of people for a small nation.
Every Iraqi has now had close family or relatives butchered by the US military. The vengeance the Iraqis and Iranians would take on any US wounded or prisoners would be horrific.
Can you imagine the catastrophe of that ?

The whole situation turns very nasty for American interests in the whole region very quickly, which is why Iran has not so far been attacked by American forces.
What Israel does is a whole different problem, because the results would be exactly the same for America.

While the initial strike would be devastating for Iran, it is what happens afterwards that has the US war planners so worried.
The whole thing could wind up into a full blown nuclear World War Three very easily if China and Russia become involved.

Israel has also said it will go full nuclear and wipe out cities in Europe if it is ever attacked.

There comes a point where your losses far exceed any possible gain, and the Pentagon and CIA do not like the look of the whole Iran war scenario and the uncertainty to which it leads.
So calmer heads have held both Bush and Obama in check so far.
But there is no accounting for what Israel may start.



[edit on 30/7/2010 by Silver Shadow]




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Silver Shadow
 


Silver, I would like to point out a small error, yet it completely changes your argument and makes you almost entirely wrong. You completely discarded the U.S. Navy and its force readiness. The strategy you put forth seems legit and horrific for U.S. forces, however the Iranians would also not have any supply since they import most of their goods and the U.S. Navy would be blockading any incoming shipments, not to mention any shipments by road that would get destroyed by our Air Force.

You also forget that we may lose the strait for a short period, but that our ships and naval vessels could take it back as soon as the missile batteries were destroyed in Iran.

You also forget that Iran cannot surround U.S. forces in Iraq b/c to do that they would need almost their entire military and if they left the protection of the Iran homeland we could invade from Afghanistan.

Thus they cannot attack us in Iraq and they cannot win in a Siege type of war.

If what you say about our intelligent generals and lifetime war artists is true, then they need to let me or someone like me come play their war simulations because it is simply infeasible for us to lose in that situation.

We get Israels support, we may lose Iraqi locals but every soldier I have spoken to that came home from Iraq has told me they love us there. We may lose Eurpean support but we gain France and Great Britain. Russia may threaten us and threaten to side with Iran, but in truth they have interests in the rest of the world also and will not get involved, they are only saber rattling. China, ooooh China. Well, they love Iran, but they love American Dollars more. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

If the Zamini is right and our politicians only care about getting rich then that too is a statement in favor of U.S. Success. We have all the best stuff, all the funest places, and all the worlds money. If anything the rich politicians will let Iran fall to save their plush lifestyles. Everyone hates the American Government, but EVERYONE loves America!

There is no scenario you can argue with these mind experiments that I cannot argue a better strategy that puts the U.S. back on top.

Synopsis:
1. We attack Iran(And blockade them from air and water) and we are out of range of their missiles
2. Iran closes the strait Separating our Soldiers from their Supplies in Iraq
3. We bomb Iran some more and destroy any missile capabilities
4. Iran considers invading Iraq for an easy win but realizes we can invade from Afghanistan and so they decide to stay home for defense instead.
5. Without L.R. or M.R. missile capabilities Iran's Navy is like shooting fish in a barrell and the U.S. Navy takes the strait back and resupplies our land troops in Iraq.
6. Iran realizes they are in D.S. and start negotiating
7. Our soldiers finally do the Iraq Exit Strategy Bush had intended and invades Iran.
8. Iranian military surrenders much like the Iraqi's did in GW1.
9. War over
10. China gets oil rights to Irans land(as negotiated before the war began to keep them out of the fight)
11. Russia is upset but stays out b/c they get some pipeline contracts and also agreed to stay out.
12. U.S. Wins another un-necessary war and all you people saying the U.S. wouldn't win get to eat your shoes.

Thats the order of things, it has been that way since before the fall of the USSR and is even more-so now. Cold War Era over, Nuclear weapons are obsolete, and U.S. is the only superpower b/c we have a Super Economic War Machine as well as a drastically more powerful military b/c of all of our force multipliers.

U.S. Wins, Iran Loses, China is happy, Russia is happy, Europe sticks its tail between its legs AGAIN, and we all go on with our lives.



[edit on 30-7-2010 by memarf1]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
the iranians want israel to strike them more than the israeli government. they want war and they will get it.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 



10. China gets oil rights to Irans land(as negotiated before the war began to keep them out of the fight)
11. Russia is upset but stays out b/c they get some pipeline contracts and also agreed to stay out.
12. U.S. Wins another un-necessary war and all you people saying the U.S. wouldn't win get to eat your shoes.


Your whole plan seems correct enough, except you left out some key negotiation points and benefits for US, China, Russia, and world economy.

WWI and WWII resulted in forgiveness of many foreign debts. Right now China is the worlds production leader and the US is worlds consumption leader. The US does all the dirty work, China forgives the debts and takes over control of the strait and the resources. US economy rebounds instantly and we start consuming Chinese stuff again!!

Russia gets big lucrative contracts rebuilding Iran with 50 year old technology that they are experts at. Russia also gets to bypass a lot of headaches in cashing in its own lucrative resources. OPEC falls under stricter international control, the worlds economy is much more stable without looming war between Iran and Israel. The strait is more stable, the supplies are more stable, and everyone can go back to consuming, eating, and vegging in front of the boob tube. The money centers of the world would be thrilled.

And, as so many have said, nobody in power cares about the innocent lives lost, or the necessity of the war. They only care about debts, assets, resources, and power. A quick victory for the US insures that all parties benefit in those key areas!



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Yeh whatever...you feel so patriotic about being an American. When did you feel 'patriotic' about being a human? You can say I'm trolling until you're blue in the face, I just think you missed the point. Besides, we've all got relatives who died in wars, innocent god loving people, yet the talking suits remain alive, even without a pulse.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant if you think it's best for the Iranian government to remain quiet, because when the strings are pulled the puppets come to life.

When the people decide to stop giving in to this system is when war becomes impossible, that's when all these political games break down for the bull they really are. Time up = game over for them.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by memarf1
reply to post by Silver Shadow
 


Silver, I would like to point out a small error, yet it completely changes your argument and makes you almost entirely wrong. You completely discarded the U.S. Navy and its force readiness.


If the US loses a couple of carriers fairly quickly, (and the technology now exists to do that), that view of US naval invincibility might change.

You now have 160,000 battle troops in Iraq, supplied with fuel, food and ammo by a very long and especially vulnerable single supply route by sea and road.
Anyone familiar with military history will understand the full danger of that immediately.
Remember, this is very harsh open desert country.
Nowhere to hide.
No friendly borders to retreat over, no allies to call on for help.

You have been fighting the Iraqi people for SEVEN YEARS and still have nothing like any sort of control over Iraq.

The simple reason for that is, the Iraqi people are backed and resupplied by the combined resources and aid of the entire world, and will never be beaten by a US military occupation.
Countries like Canada and Australia are supporting the Insurgents, but you will never hear about that in the US media.
It would be unpatriotic to tell the truth.

If the US cannot subdue Iraq by force militarily, in seven years, you cannot do it ever.

When your enemy has unlimited resources flowing in from the entire world, AND the moral high ground (and that is very important) there is simply no possible way for the US to win in Iraq.

Now suddenly take away the entire logistical support of the illegal US occupation forces in Iraq, even for a very short time, and have both Iran and the Iraqis surround and attack the US military in force, (that has nothing to fight back with), it would be a slam dunk.

Sure, the US navy would eventually break through Hormuz, but 160,000 dead Americans in Iraq would be the price to pay.

Surely Vietnam has taught you that technology and overwhelming fire power is just not enough to beat a determined entrenched enemy that has unlimited resources ON HIS HOME TURF.

The top brass at the Pentagon and CIA have looked at this from every possible angle for years.
You think you know more than the professionals, but the reality is, the situation is now extremely dangerous, and now essentially unwinnable for the US in the whole region.

An unprovoked attack on Iran, will have about the same effect on America, that the unprovoked attack on Perl Harbor eventually had on Japan.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Silver Shadow
 


Even if the tech exists to sink one of our carriers they will never be in range. Hence why if you read my above 1-12 you will see why we won't lose.

The 160k troops in Iraq will not be destroyed b/c the Iranian army cannot leave Iran since we would invade from Afghanistan.

You are right about our weakened supply line and the desert and nowhere to hide, but we are not concerned over that b/c we know the order of things and it would be suicide for Iran to invade Iraq to attack our troops. Even with our supply lines exposed, if they were to be cut off it would be a very short period. Plus, you say we have no friendly countries to retreat too, SAUDI ARABIA IS A CLOSE ALLY AND THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE REGION! We can retreat to the south very easily.

Iran's missile batteries will be destroyed in our first wave of attacks(in the night and in a few hours) and their long range capabilities would be gone. That is the only thing that endangers our ships and personnel, but our ships will stay out of range until the batteries are gone.

Our Navy may not be invincible if they are attackable, but they are not attackable and thats why we believe them invincible. I know my military history but I think you may have forgotten. Before GW1 the skies were thought to be a secondary strategy, not a primary way of winning a war. The U.S. Controls not only the skies but Space too!

So, with the skies and space we throw in the worlds most powerful and unattackable navy and most sophisticated, resourceful, and experienced land force on the planet with generals who have done nothing except fight and plan for wars in the past 3 decades, and you have a recipe for invincible.

Oh, and by the way, it is absurd to think Canada or Australia is supplying the insurgents. Your arguments have been pretty educated until you put that. Lets stick to hypothetical war scenarios and leave out the conspiracy speculation. What could Canada send? Horses and Muskets? lol. Canada and Australia are fairly close allies and have troops on the ground in Iraq, there is no way they would supply the enemy and put their own people in harms way.

Lets also not forget about U.S. technology that we don't know about. Those capabilities that you speak of from Iran may be obsolete compared to the tech we could possibly have. I can speculate about that b/c you are speculating that Iran has some sort of super weapon that has never been confirmed too.

OH yeah, and I didn't say I knew more than the guys at the Pentagon or the CIA. What I said was that IF you were correct about what you said about them, they should hire me. However, I did not believe you to be correct. I think our generals have played war scenarios on every field possible in the world and know exactly how to defeat Iran, AMONG others. In fact, I once read an article written by a 4 star general that claimed the U.S. military could attack, take, and control 2 hemispheres at the same time. I think he was probably pretty knowledgable and I believe he believed that. Iran is not even close to that so I think THAT is a slam dunk.

You will argue that we cannot control Iraq or Afghanistan and thus 2 hemispheres is crazy. Well, you are somewhat correct, however if we go into Iran it will be with the very clear objective to win against the military and destroy any nuclear ambitions they have. We destroyed Iraq in a few weeks, TWICE, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. We may not be good at population control, but we are VERY GOOD at destroying organized military units and brigades.

You may wanna bring up supply lines and history and the Korean War, or entrenched enemies like Vietnam, but these were in different times with different objectives. I must also remind you us losing in Vietnam was not a military blunder it was a political one. Untie the military and win the war. The Korean objective was completed and thus the war stopped(although never truly ended).

Iran Loses, U.S. Wins. AGAIN!

[edit on 31-7-2010 by memarf1]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
One question , if I may ?

Just how many well placed missiles would it take to bring Israel to it's knees ?

I have always been of the belief that Iran wants to be attacked just so they can hit Israel in a justifiable military response .



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by memarf1
Oh, and by the way, it is absurd to think Canada or Australia is supplying the insurgents.


Do you realize that twenty eight nations have (or had) military personnel stationed in Iraq, and none of those twenty eight nations are carrying out combined combat missions with the US against the insurgents ?

What are all those (non US) military people doing in Iraq ?

They are supplying the Iraqi people with humanitarian aid in the form of food, medical aid, training, and helping to rebuild the infrastructure that America is constantly destroying.

These are not radical Islamic countries either rebuilding Iraq, but former US allies such as Australia and Canada.

Now all that massive international aid pouring into Iraq from all around the world goes STRAIGHT TO THE INSURGENTS.

You still don't believe me huh ?

Google and find out what the Canadian military have been doing in Iraq over the last seven years, they sure are not carrying out joint military operations with America. They are not involved in combat missions in any way. They actually have no contact at all with the US military in Iraq.

The Australian and Canadian military in Iraq still have ZERO combat deaths in Iraq after seven years in a hot war zone.
Can you guess why ?
The Iraqi insurgents simply recognize us as allies and NEVER FIRE UPON US.

Go ahead look it up on the internet for yourself, find out how many military Australia and other nations have in Iraq right now, and you will find zero combat missions, zero combat casualties.
The US has lost well over 7,000 and the other twenty eight nations still have zero combat deaths after seven years.

Now stop and really think about this.
160,000 fully equipped US battle troops fighting against a few civilian insurgents.

You would expect the US to just take over the whole country in maybe a week.
But, no, the insurgents are fighting back very effectively, and have fought 160,000 US battle troops, with all the latest military hardware technology to a complete stalemate for seven very long years.

Now fighting "the most powerful military nation on Earth" for seven years in a war of attrition, takes a lot of planning, resources and manpower.

Where do you suppose all those vast resources are coming from to do that and keep it up ?

The US media will tell you none of this, but the truth of the situation in Iraq is all over the internet if you bother to even look.

There have been several past threads here at ATS about this exact topic, and long term posters here will probably remember them.
People started attacking me viciously, but that very quickly ended when Americans in trying to prove me wrong did their own research, and in the process learned the real truth.

The real truth about Iraq may really shock you, how the American general public have been so totally deceived and systematically lied to by your own media and your politicians for such a long time..

That is not your fault, but do your own research and discover the truth for yourself.

Any links I give here would immediately be disbelieved.
But start by researching the Canadian military in Iraq for yourself..
It may open your eyes.

Once you realize what has really been going on, and that the US is really fighting against the resources of the entire world in Iraq, not just against a few civilian insurgents, it may give you a whole different perspective about carrying out another illegal and completely unprovoked attack on Iran.

And more importantly, what it will almost certainly lead to.



[edit on 31/7/2010 by Silver Shadow]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Ok people I have to jump in.

This discussion is from the thread itself to the last reply about how the war between Iran, US and Israel would play out.

Judging on the name of the thread the discussion should be if the US and Israel would dare to attempt a military strike on Iran.

And the conclusion is: as long as there is no strike, the Iranian officials are right...



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mumbo jumbo
Ok people I have to jump in.

This discussion is from the thread itself to the last reply about how the war between Iran, US and Israel would play out.

Judging on the name of the thread the discussion should be if the US and Israel would dare to attempt a military strike on Iran.

And the conclusion is: as long as there is no strike, the Iranian officials are right...


LOL! Doesn't get any simpler than that!!

I do believe A-jad is a mastermind at the political game. If you are correct, and he knows of backdoor dealing, and negotiation, and he is certain that we are not planning an attack, then why not saber-rattle a little. Call out the biggest bully on the block when you know they are on house-arrest.
Gain some favor at home, put up a nice bluff to your Middle Easter neighbors, and have no real danger of ever being attacked.

A-jad is a world class politician. I don't like the guy, but I really, really hope that him and Obama never have a sit down, because he is light-years ahead of Obama in political savvy.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
A-jad Challenges Obama to TV Debate


Proof that A-jad reads ATS? Worst possible nightmare for any National Pride that US had left?

Of course all the smart money says there is no way in hell Obama would agree to this, but then again, he is very arrogant, and he loves a camera? Who knows?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Shadow

Originally posted by memarf1
Oh, and by the way, it is absurd to think Canada or Australia is supplying the insurgents.





Do you realize that twenty eight nations have (or had) military personnel stationed in Iraq, and none of those twenty eight nations are carrying out combined combat missions with the US against the insurgents ?


Incorrect. Many of those nations are carrying out military campaigns or have done so already before pulling their troops out to go home. Many of those nations do not have the size of the military needed to stay there perpetually like the U.S.
en.wikipedia.org...




What are all those (non US) military people doing in Iraq ?



Fighting!




They are supplying the Iraqi people with humanitarian aid in the form of food, medical aid, training, and helping to rebuild the infrastructure that America is constantly destroying.



True, but so is the U.S.! We do not have a problem with the Iraqi Nationals, we had a problem with The Bathist Party and now with the insurgents. When they stop fighting we will stop fighting!(Which is a major issue b/c I would never stop fighting if I were an insurgent fighting off an invasion of U.S. soil and I am sure they feel the same way)




These are not radical Islamic countries either rebuilding Iraq, but former US allies such as Australia and Canada.



I think you meant Current U.S. Allies. If they were not helping us they would be in violation of the NATO Treaty since they are NATO countries.
www.nato.int...




Now all that massive international aid pouring into Iraq from all around the world goes STRAIGHT TO THE INSURGENTS.



If it is then its only in the form of Humanitarian aid and even though they are our enemies I think thats okay. As I said before, a siege is very difficult to win but I would never say someone does not deserve to eat or drink.




You still don't believe me huh ?



No! I did my own research, I read about this all the time, and I have a very very informed opinion. You say you can provide links, I have done so to the contrary of your claims, I challenge you to do the same. My guess is you, in truth, cannot.




Google and find out what the Canadian military have been doing in Iraq over the last seven years, they sure are not carrying out joint military operations with America. They are not involved in combat missions in any way. They actually have no contact at all with the US military in Iraq.



Fighting! They have carried out air strikes, among other combatant activities! I did fail to find Canadian casualties however. There have been Canadian hostages, Canadian war protestors, etc etc. They have been involved, ON THE U.S. SIDE FROM THE BEGINNING!
en.wikipedia.org...




The Australian and Canadian military in Iraq still have ZERO combat deaths in Iraq after seven years in a hot war zone.
Can you guess why ?
The Iraqi insurgents simply recognize us as allies and NEVER FIRE UPON US.



Really? Thats just entirely wrong. Australia may not have had many, but if you look at this link you will see they have had 2 deaths and that does not list wounded. Those deaths occurred while FIGHTING INSURGENTS!
en.wikipedia.org...

And here is a link to the Australian involvement, their casualty explanations and why THEY ARE involved!
en.wikipedia.org...




... You would expect the US to just take over the whole country in maybe a week.



We did. As I said, we are very good at fighting organized militaries. We are getting better at fighting insurgents.




But, no, the insurgents are fighting back very effectively, and have fought 160,000 US battle troops, with all the latest military hardware technology to a complete stalemate for seven very long years.



True, but no amount of tech can help you find what someone is thinking, at least not yet. We are getting better though.




Now fighting "the most powerful military nation on Earth" for seven years in a war of attrition, takes a lot of planning, resources and manpower.

Where do you suppose all those vast resources are coming from to do that and keep it up ?



Iran, Syria, Yemen, and whatever other middle east nation doesn't like us, not to mention North Korea. That doesn't even account for Al-Qaeda having vast resources of its own, excellent planners, and loads of U.S. made weapons.




...There have been several past threads here at ATS about this exact topic, and long term posters here will probably remember them.
People started attacking me viciously, but that very quickly ended when Americans in trying to prove me wrong did their own research, and in the process learned the real truth.



Somehow I doubt this. I know the threads are there but I doubt long term posters found you to be correct. Most ATSers do their research, and like me A LONG TERM POSTER, they would have found you to be incorrect.




The real truth about Iraq may really shock you, ...



Lots of things about Iraq would shock me, the WHOLE truth would for sure, but the real truth is that we and our allies are fighting alongside each other, not against each other as you claim.




Any links I give here would immediately be disbelieved.
But start by researching the Canadian military in Iraq for yourself..
It may open your eyes.



I did and you were wrong. I doubt you have the links to provide.




Once you realize what has really been going on, and that the US is really fighting against the resources of the entire world in Iraq, not just against a few civilian insurgents, ...



First, its not a few insurgents, its a krapload. Second, to fight the way they are fighting doesn't take that many resources. Bullets and improvised bombs are cheap and apparently manpower is easy to come by. They are not buying tanks and helicopters!

Lets get back to Iran though. We would destroy their military and I don't know what happens with insurgents. I feel sorry for the Iranian people.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by memarf1]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join