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.

 

'US has no excuse to attack Iran'

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSam
 


It is not anything special, the point is that if US attacks, Iran can easily attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention give some support to both Iraq and Afghan resistance fighters and that is the end of US control in middle east..

People don't realize how easy it is for Iran to play a Proxy war against US, the same way ISI is playing that same game against in Afghanistan, and look how US is struggling..

[edit on 5-9-2010 by oozyism]




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


No, becuase in that case the US would finally act like a real Super power and turn Iran into a glass parking lot. Simply becuase it hasn't done so doesn't mean it isn't capable of it.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


What, they aren't doing that already? In my opinion, Iran has been supporting the Desert Monkey's for a while...

Ahmadinejad has no respect for the Iranian people, and doesn't listen to them. He looks to provoke tension with countries surrounding them, where as the Iranian people do not want war.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by oozyism
 


No, becuase in that case the US would finally act like a real Super power and turn Iran into a glass parking lot. Simply becuase it hasn't done so doesn't mean it isn't capable of it.


Ohh are you talking about nukes lol..

Haven't seen the US nuke Pakistan yet.. Like Ahmedinejad said, the days of nukes are over, it is merely used to Bully and undermine the rights of peaceful nations. And he also asked Americans whether it is a pride to have 5000 nukes lol.. I love that dude..

Anyways, if you are talking about full bombardment of Iran, yes that is what I was talking about also lol/Then what would be the objectives? What would happen after the bombardment?> Would there be a ground invasion? Because GOD better help the US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention other Middle Eastern countries, hell will go loose..

The public opinion of Arabs already tells us much..

Then again, according to your ideology, the whole middle east should be nuked right to submission like Japan right? Then what would happen after that? The oil that you guys are so desperately addicted to, not to mention the beautiful Afghan drugs


Very interesting indeed..



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NeutronAvenger
 




What, they aren't doing that already? In my opinion, Iran has been supporting the Desert Monkey's for a while...


Ohh did you hear that from the same people who told you Al-Qaeda = Saddam lol

OK my friend, OK.. If Iran was helping Iraqi or Afghan resistance the death of the occupiers would quadruple.. I'm not saying it isn't high enough right now but rather it would quadruple..



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
This guy is such a turdball LOL and on top of that, he is funny looking.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
Like Ahmedinejad said, the days of nukes are over, it is merely used to Bully and undermine the rights of peaceful nations



Yeah but we are talking about Iran here so that really doesn't apply.



Anyways, if you are talking about full bombardment of Iran, yes that is what I was talking about also lol/Then what would be the objectives? What would happen after the bombardment?>


In a real total war.

Iran would be left in ruin. No ground invasion just a smoldering pile of ashes. Forget about a ground invasion. Why bother. In a total war there would be no need. The surviving Iranians would tare themselves apart trying to find food and water. Is that what people want to see?



The public opinion of Arabs already tells us much..


Which Arabs? The ones you just stated were "Extremists" and that Iranian supported "Freedom fighters" were attacking? So what about them?



Then again, according to your ideology, the whole middle east should be nuked right to submission like Japan right?



Sorry ooz, Your assumptions of what I think and or believe is way off. I figure if people can make accusations and innuendo about the US then why not play the game.


Then what would happen after that? The oil that you guys are so desperately addicted to, not to mention the beautiful Afghan drugs


Don't you mean the Russians who are so addicted to Afghanistan heroin? Also who is the largest purchaser of Iraqi oil? Yup China.


Very interesting indeed..



[edit on 6-9-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



And he also asked Americans whether it is a pride to have 5000 nukes lol.. I love that dude..




Yup, he's one in a million



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



The oil that you guys are so desperately addicted to, not to mention the beautiful Afghan drugs


Just to back up SLAYER69, here is a article from Aljazeera in regards to China 's oil occupation in Iraq...


Iraq and China have agreed the terms of a $3 billion oil service contract, Iraq's oil minister says, announcing the first major oil contract with a foreign firm since the fall of Saddam Hussein. english.aljazeera.net...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Sorry ooz, Your assumptions of what I think and or believe is way off. I figure if people can make accusation and innuendo about the US then why not play the game.


This then =V=



Iran would be left in ruin. No ground invasion just a smoldering pile of ashes. Forget about a ground invasion. Why bother. In a total war there would be no need.


And here what I said:



Then again, according to your ideology, the whole middle east should be nuked right to submission like Japan right?


My assumption is kinda correct lol

And you missed the whole point.

And you confused the whole time line lol.. It was like this:

1. US attack Iran due to its nuclear activities (attacks nuclear sites) (doesn't turn it in to a pile of ash yet lol).

2. Iran funds Iraqi + Afghani resistance fighters, which will cause the US death rates to quadruple.

3. That is when you say US will turn Iran in to a pile of ASH.

4. That is when I say the Arab population (not talking puppet regime), will rise in numbers, and you will see the same revolutions you saw in South America.

CONCLUSION



Complete loss of huge and important, resource rich territory of Middle East.

 

And yes US is paying its huge depth by allowing China to operate in Iraq. That is not something new



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NeutronAvenger
 


Interesting story here. Maybe ooz should read a little more and post less. Oh wait he'll or somebody else will mention how the CIA is drug trafficking.


But that's even more off topic.

Russia is 'world's biggest consumer of heroin'

Heroin has become a large threat to Russia's national security after seizures of the drug rose 70 per cent, anti-narcotics police have said.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Last I checked US was the biggest consumer of drugs, the Afghan drugs thingy was metaphorical if you didn't get it



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
1. US attack Iran due to its nuclear activities (attacks nuclear sites) (doesn't turn it in to a pile of ash yet lol).


Hasn't happened. So right off the bat your pathetic scenario doesn't apply. But I'll play along.


2. Iran funds Iraqi + Afghani resistance fighters, which will cause the US death rates to quadruple.


There wouldn't be any supposed freedom fighters outside of Iran. Iran would be too busy trying to stop the masses of Iranians who hate the Government from overthrowing them.











3. That is when you say US will turn Iran in to a pile of ASH.


True power is not doing what you're capable of.


4. That is when I say the Arab population (not talking puppet regime), will rise in numbers, and you will see the same revolutions you saw in South America.



And follow whom?

This puppet?


[edit on 5-9-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
People always forget that Iran is not alone if conflict breaks out.

The NATO war machine could possibly end up at war with China and Russia if they were to pursue action against Iran.

These countries have heavily invested in Iran, mostly in the energy sector. With the growth of both nations, China and Russia cannot afford to loose a substantial amount of their fuel supply, even if only temporary.

Russia, China, Iran redraw energy map

The above is date Jan 2010

Russia, China, Iran Warn U.S. at Summit

This one earlier this year in May.

The US will have to convince these two and get a green light and cooperate with them.

As far as the US not being capable of leveling all of Iran, well that's just silly.

Iran is not a force issue, it's a logistical/tactical one as far as I can tell.

~Keeper

[edit on 9/5/2010 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



Then what would happen after that? The oil that you guys are so desperately addicted to, not to mention the beautiful Afghan drugs


You need to do more research...


The UN's new "World Drug Report 2010" shows that while Afghanistan remains the world's largest opium producer, it is neighboring countries like Iran, Pakistan, and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia where a majority of the world's opium is consumed. www.rferl.org...


Drug production/sale/use by country: www.nationmaster.com...



[edit on 6-9-2010 by NeutronAvenger]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


You are refusing to accept your own words now lol, nothing wrong with that, change and adapt

Let's continue:

1. Iran supports Iraqi/Afghani resistance.
2. US support the Green Movement, is that what you are implying or you don't want to imply anything so you can always be correct because you never said anything to begin with lol..
Last I heard the Green Movement told the US to F off, they don't want to be demonized by being in the same bed as the US

3. Just like the last attempt against Iran like the photos, it will fail again


Last I checked another US soldier got killed in Afghanistan.. Everyday I wake up, at least one or two dies, what do you think will happen with Iranian help??



And follow whom?

This puppet?

Heard of independence



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Russia has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. They like the sanctions on Iran to stay in place, they are playing both sides of this card. If Iran stays confrontational with the West then Russia does not have to worry about dealing with Iran competing with their Fuel Sales to Europe.

If Iran complied then the sanctions come off and Iran would be free to compete with Russia for fuel sales to the EU and others. China is building their pipeline through another troubled area to get into Central Asia which also has more oil than Iran or Saudi Arabia combined. They have huge oil deals with Iraq, in the end neither side would risk millions killed over Iran.

China for the time being is happy growing economically they wouldn't want a war to ruin their drive for wealth and Russia doesn't want to fight another war in the ME they are still stinging from their tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Russia didn't come out to play while the USSR was collapsing what makes people think they would risk all those lives for Iran.

It's not logical at all



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


What you say is true. It would not be logical for them. With what we know of the behavior and history of both those nations, isn't more likely that they won't allow the US to control that much more of the ME.

PTB wise, what's the better scenario? NATO vs Iran, which would be relatively short considering the military capability factor, or NATO vs Iran/China/Russia war machine?

I don't want to be a pessimist about it, but I'm sure they will protest in some form or another, either way it's a bad thing.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


What you say is true. It would not be logical for them. With what we know of the behavior and history of both those nations



Great point tothetenth, [Good to see ya buddy]


Now when was the last time that either country ventured far from their respective borders?

What does history tell us about Russia in Afghanistan or China in it's disastrous misadventure into Vietnam?


[edit on 6-9-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



PTB wise, what's the better scenario? NATO vs Iran, which would be relatively short considering the military capability factor, or NATO vs Iran/China/Russia war machine?


Remember this:


President Obama’s biggest foreign policy gamble appeared to pay off last night as Russia opened the door to punishing new sanctions on Iran to halt its nuclear programme. www.timesonline.co.uk...


In my opinion, the people of Iran will be the decider's of Ahmadinejad's future, as he has done them a lot of displeasure.




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join