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.

 

A United Middle East

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
What if nearly all the countries in the middle east were to unite against the US. Now I relize this is impossible but lets just pretend this could happen. Would the US truly win a war. I don't think that the US could truly win depending on your idea of a victory. Sure we could invade and annilate half the fighting force in a matter of days. But would they be able to use old soviet weapons in a new way. A cordinated guerilla army. We had a hell of a time in Vietnam so it just makes me wonder are our weapons really sutied to take on a coordinated hit and run force? Can any one name a few effective anti-guerilla type weapons or forces.




posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
We had a hell of a time in Vietnam so it just makes me wonder are our weapons really sutied to take on a coordinated hit and run force? Can any one name a few effective anti-guerilla type weapons or forces.


You are talking about two different scenarios.

In Vietnam we were trying to prop up a failing government and not repsonding to a threat.

You are proposing a threat of a united Middle East. Therefore if it is a threat we would destroy the threat IE conventional forces. We would not sit around waiting for the guerilla warfare of an occupation.

Either reformat your scenario or leave Vietnam out of this as we have both updated our response to guerilla warfare so we wouldnt have "a hell of a time", and we wouldnt even be fighting a Vietnam like situation in your scenario.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The trouble is, there's not just one type of guerrilla. Desert guerrilla isn't the same as mountain guerrilla. So the larger the terrain, the more varied anti-guerrilla warfare has to be.

And things would have to get pretty bad for the Middle East to unite. I think Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan could unite - possibly with Lybia - but it would still be a patchwork. Jordan would not join unless a revolution overthrew the Hachemite monarchy there, Lebanon has too strong a Christian minority, Saudi Arabia has too many interests in remaining with the West, and Egypt is still the peace broker in all this.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
Lebanon has too strong a Christian minority,


I'd throw in Lebanon in with your orginal United Middle East States Otts because of the strong connections/puppet relationship Lebanon has with Syria ever since the Lebanese Civil War. I think the continued presence of Hezbollah in the Beeka Valley would suggest the possibility of Lebanon identifying with an Islamic war against the west.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Even with the Maronites? Don't remember what proportion of the population they form, but aren't they a sizeable minority?



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
Even with the Maronites? Don't remember what proportion of the population they form, but aren't they a sizeable minority?


Even so Syria still has the authority to quash whatever popular support a movement by the Maronites may raise.

If I'm not mistaken Syria still controls the outcome of Lebanese elections indirectly through back channel political pressure and the obvious threat from the pronounced Syrian military presence remaining in S. Lebanon.

I havent' heard much concerning the Maronites out of Lebanon lately, but I could be mistaken.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Although... something interesting... the Francophonie (the world French-language equivalent to the Commonwealth) was supposed to hold its summit in Beirut in September 2001... for obvious reasons they chose to postpone it for a year.



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
Although... something interesting... the Francophonie (the world French-language equivalent to the Commonwealth) was supposed to hold its summit in Beirut in September 2001... for obvious reasons they chose to postpone it for a year.


Yes and I remember catching a snippet off of Headline News while awaiting a flight a while back concerning Hyatt or Hilton opening a new hotel in Beirut.

I think foreign investment is finally returning to the area much like what happened to Belfast in Northern Ireland.

Update Edit:
Link
Not exactly what I remembered but I believe its the story I mentioned.


[edit on 26-6-2004 by Agent47]



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   
if they did unite against us rhen we dont have a problem of what countrie to nuke in the middle east so we would just nuke the whaole place.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   
This war is America's to lose. My gut feelins is that America would screw it up. We'd probably destroy Egypt first, then become bogged down in occupation while conducting air operations against saudi arabia. America could launch a second front from Turkey, taking out Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq with ease, and stabilize the front most likely at the Euphrates against Iran, and hold Saudi Arabia powerless, while not being able to invade Saudi cities with the resources on hand. At this point we would get bogged down in urban warfare and likely end up with Iran as the new Iraq. (meaning we wouldn't take their capital and change their government and starving them to death would be our new hobby).


What myself or William T Sherman would want to do, is to roll into a country and crush their army, then rather than fighting in the cities, you bomb them intensely for 24 hours to clear the streets. Exactly 60 seconds after the last bomb falls, tanks and troops advance into the town with orders to be out again in 6 hours. They destory every public building, gas station, water well, fuel refinery, power plant, large truck, aircraft, etc. You leave the country dying of hunger and thirst, with no way of harvesting its own resources and no way of transporting and distributing any aid it recieves. You tell the people you're going to nuke the cities soon, so that they'll leave the area. That way the population is adrift and hard for aid to reach. You have your airpower interdict aid shipments as well. Once you're finished with the last country, you drop a single nuclear weapon on the largest concentration of refugees you can find.
You announce the to the world, especially France, that if you dick around with us, we'll declare Jihad on you, and add that since there is no longer an Arab race to speak of, jihad is to become an American term, referring to the type of warfare just employed against the Arab coalition.

-PLEASE NOTE- This post has been a GROSS exageration of my actual beliefs. I believe in dealing firmly with enemies and attacking their weaknesses to make them suffer into submission. I do not believe in protracted urban wars which torture both sides without ever coming to clear resolution. I don't want to commit genocide on Arabs. I want to see them act more like Turkey and Pakistan, and to be prosperous in doing so.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Sorry to tell you but the population you're bombing will become the guerilla fighters you're trying to kill, so you won't know who's who.
This tactic will make more anti-american enemies so terrorist attacks on US soil will become very frequent ( and if you would arrest all arabs and muslims in the US it won't help neither ).
And don't forget the peace activists in the US population : In fact they've always been the US's main weakness.

P.S: Not all of the Middle East is a desert! U have a lot of Mountain Chains some covered by jungles: mostly in Lebanon.

And about the Christian populace in Lebanon: it previously formed the majority
yeah ever heard of people breading like rabbits
( no offense but it's the case of shiites muslims in Lebanon) but still an event like this one will pull the country in another civil war (although the syrian influence is high the christians won't accept this) and the outcome will decide if the country joins the united middle east.( when Syria and Egypt did unite in 1958, the muslim population rose in a mini revolution to join the new country but it wasn't successful)

Furthermore Israel will be more than glad to join in and it's used to such types of warfare.
But I don't think there will be any military stand-offs: military leaders will resort immediatly to guerilla tactics



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I think people are missing the point, the middle east controls our fuel supply, yes we have our own but not enough to support ourselves and an invasion.
We would have to worry about being invaded not us invading them

WestPoint23 nuking the middle east would be pointless as we wouldn't be able to get at the oil as it would be contaminated with radiation



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
Although... something interesting... the Francophonie (the world French-language equivalent to the Commonwealth) was supposed to hold its summit in Beirut in September 2001... for obvious reasons they chose to postpone it for a year.


it was postponed because of 9/11 the francophonie was due to begin late september.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
If I'm not mistaken Syria still controls the outcome of Lebanese elections indirectly through back channel political pressure and the obvious threat from the pronounced Syrian military presence remaining in S. Lebanon.


In fact it has forces all over Lebanon, especially in the christian region, plus the syrian intelligence service has eyes and ears everywhere.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Well we would have enough oil for the war then after that we would have to make and find another source of energy they are there we just don't want to use hem now. also if we go without nukes we would have air superiority then we could bomb them so much until there are craters every 5 feet then we would roll in with the Abrams or an amphibious assault to secure the oil sites then coninue with the bombing until there is nothing left there is no need for any infantry just moabs and bunker busters.







West Point
Out



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bl00D_Th0rN
Sorry to tell you but the population you're bombing will become the guerilla fighters you're trying to kill, so you won't know who's who.
This tactic will make more anti-american enemies so terrorist attacks on US soil will become very frequent ( and if you would arrest all arabs and muslims in the US it won't help neither ).
And don't forget the peace activists in the US population : In fact they've always been the US's main weakness.

P.S: Not all of the Middle East is a desert! U have a lot of Mountain Chains some covered by jungles: mostly in Lebanon.


How closely did you read my post? My whole point is NOT TO ENGAGE the guerillas. Destroy the military hardware and 100% of the nations infrastructure, then move on. There will be no way for them to support most of their population, and guerilla or not they will starve. You don't have to be in the desert to starve or even to die of thirst either. I never said the middle east was all desert. Without the proper infrastructure, you can't water a large population in the wild.
You are making the mistake of thinking that this is about a war on conquest. it isn't, although it would be possible to set up fortifications near vital resources and keep guerillas from entering the small area around that, so limited conquest is possible. My point though is simply that America could utterly destroy the ability of arab nations, not only to make war, but to EXIST. I believe that the tactics I have described could be used to kill off maybe 1/2 of the arab population very quickly. The moral of the story is that if the Arabs ever become a real threat and we take the gloves off, it could be the most horrible thing that's EVER happened to ANY nation.

As for protestors in the US... when you don't bog down, but simply roll through blowing up vital infrastructure, it could all be over before the war powers act 60 days expired. Short of you being assassinated, it would work, although you'd have to leave the planet to avoid war crimes charges. Any politician who can't spin even the worst attrocity for 60 days doesn't belong in the presidency.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Sorry Vagabond my mistake.

But doing this in 60 days??!!??


Well if there's no firefights and anti-air weapons, it'll take u more than 60 days, u r talking about thousands of infrastructures and a vast patch of ground to cover.

And this tactic is a universal one, sadly it could be applied to any nation u want to destroy. But unless it's another world war it wouldn't be applied.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bl00D_Th0rN
Well if there's no firefights and anti-air weapons, it'll take u more than 60 days, u r talking about thousands of infrastructures and a vast patch of ground to cover.



well, today the military has nowhere near the thousands of bombers it did in ww2 and it did take a few months(mind you germay had equal air power for awhile and arab countries have been proven to be less capable against air power) to bomb half of europe with over 10,000 bombers.

so, 60 days might be possible(if faced with no resistance).


[edit on 28-6-2004 by namehere]



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I think people are overestimating guerillas combat power. The only reason why guerilla fighters in Iraq are still active is that US are trying to rebuilt and democratize the country - that means softer aproach. Look at the Tibet for example. The Chinese didn't give the guerillas the chance.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
What if nearly all the countries in the middle east were to unite against the US. Now I relize this is impossible but lets just pretend this could happen. Would the US truly win a war. I don't think that the US could truly win depending on your idea of a victory. Sure we could invade and annilate half the fighting force in a matter of days. But would they be able to use old soviet weapons in a new way. A cordinated guerilla army. We had a hell of a time in Vietnam so it just makes me wonder are our weapons really sutied to take on a coordinated hit and run force? Can any one name a few effective anti-guerilla type weapons or forces.


Its an interesting scenario. It would be the best weapon the extreemist could possibly have. Imagine a ME version of the EU with protectionist policies and more importantly, a straglehold on oil. In that type of scenario, it would be costly but possible to say secure the oil fields, but to invade every country in the ME and take it over would be impossible. Even if NATO threw its combined strength aginst the problem. Perhaps if the Russians and China helped out (Esp China with its oil needs) you might be able to take over, but I sure would not relish humping a pack in the mountains of Iran looking for insurgents to root out. You would have to wage a campaign of genocide that would make the Bosnians and Israel look pale in comparison



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join