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.

 

Do we attack Iran?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by electric squid carpet
What are the links between al-queda and Iran?


they both have lots of muslim men?




posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:54 AM
link   
If the US didn't step into Iraq when we did what # UN resoultion would we be on?


If they attack? No. It is when they attack.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zzub decent air-force.


youre joking right? they so do not, maybe in the 80's they did but it is a joke now...seriously their airforce could be taken out in days and without air superiority their army means nothing.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by castellammare78

If they attack? No. It is when they attack.



That's funny... the iranians are thinking the same thing..



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Feel free to believe Iraq was invaded due to "faulty intelligence". Some very fine men are falling on their swords to protect that fallacy, but it is, nonetheless, a fallacy.

We went into Iraq because it was the right thing to do. History will vindicate the decision.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I saw something on the Australian news that said 8 (?) hijackers drove through iran or something and that the government didnt know about it....how the f*ck does this warrent invading?



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
youre joking right? they so do not, maybe in the 80's they did but it is a joke now...seriously their airforce could be taken out in days and without air superiority their army means nothing.


I meant in comparison to Iraq, which has no air-force as we spent the last 10 years carefully taking out thier capabilities.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by electric squid carpet
What are the links between al-queda and Iran?


well i dont know about al queda but its a known fact they fund and help hamas and other groups.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zzub

I meant in comparison to Iraq, which has no air-force as we spent the last 10 years carefully taking out thier capabilities.


but they have old planes, they have not bought any since 1979...



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by electric squid carpet
What are the links between al-queda and Iran?


well i dont know about al queda but its a known fact they fund and help hamas and other groups.


Thats fine, i would have no objections against them trying to build a case for war against them with these reasons (even though im against war)....just dont try and blame it on al-queda or distort the facts to get more public opinion when there really is no or not enough creadable intelligence.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:04 AM
link   
What are these strong evidence you are talking about, it is the same kind of evidence that Powell showed in the UN before the attack began to Iraq, crappy Photoshop-pics, forgered reports,tapes etc?

Also I ask you this, how many wars have Iran started? How many wars have US started? Ok, everyone knows the answer, now, which of these countries are more dangerous ?

Yes, they fund Hamas and other but remember that CIA funded Al Qaida and Bin Laden. CIA/US has also funded numerous other groups and dictators and its past.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by Samiralfey]

[edit on 20-7-2004 by Samiralfey]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Again, I think it's probably beyond the scope of a thread asking whether or not we should attack Iran, but the point is worth presenting.

A single U.S. carrier battle group, with standard tactical and logistical support, could strip Iran of the majority of its defenses, establish air supremacy, and turn the entire nation into a U.S. "zone of control" in three months or less -- probably less.

This scenario has already been wargamed with the U.S. emerging as the decisive victor.

But again, the question is moot, because Iran will not be attacked militarily.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   
They Have F-16s or 14s, I can't remember. No spare parts. Bad training. Iraq flew thier crappy little figthers there in the first Gulf war. Sounds like a turkey shoot for the USAF. Nothing is ever easy. Iron Egale movie comes to mind, some sixteen year old kid shoots down like 30 jets in some gulf country. RIAF=0 USAF=every last one of the carpet riders.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by castellammare78
They Have F-16s or 14s, I can't remember. No spare parts. Bad training. Iraq flew thier crappy little figthers there in the first Gulf war. Sounds like a turkey shoot for the USAF. Nothing is ever easy. Iron Egale movie comes to mind, some sixteen year old kid shoots down like 30 jets in some gulf country. RIAF=0 USAF=every last one of the carpet riders.


It is not always what kind of equipment you have compared to other, remember Vietnam. US got their asses kicked all over the rainforests despite their better equipment. Sure you can bomb them to stoneage with the USAF but when you start fighting with your landtroops, then the story is different. I'm pretty sure the average Joe there doesn't like very much his country being invaded and destoryed by foreign troops.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   
They Have F-16s or 14s, I can't remember. No spare parts. Bad training. Iraq flew thier crappy little figthers there in the first Gulf war. Sounds like a turkey shoot for the USAF. Nothing is ever easy. Iron Egale movie comes to mind, some sixteen year old kid shoots down like 30 jets in some gulf country. IIAF=0 USAF=every last one of the carpet riders.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:35 AM
link   
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." -- Sun Tzu

Iran will not be taken by force of arms.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:38 AM
link   

It is not always what kind of equipment you have compared to other, remember Vietnam. US got their asses kicked all over the rainforests despite their better equipment.


Read up on some history. America lost the political aspect of the war, not the military aspect. America devasted the NVA and Vietcong militarily. The Tet Offensive especially was a major stratic loss for the communists. They were destroyed in every sense imaginable. We lost the desire to continue an indefinite defensive stance. But by no stretch of the imagination did the Red "kick our asses all over the rainforests." Not even close.



Sure you can bomb them to stoneage with the USAF but when you start fighting with your landtroops, then the story is different.


Completely erroneous. Read up on American military history.


I'm pretty sure the average Joe there doesn't like very much his country being invaded and destoryed by foreign troops.


That, in and of itself, is a meaningless statement. Criminals don't like being arrested and losing their freedom, either. Drug traffickers don't like having their shipments seized. Totalitarian governments don't like being overthrown. Tyrants have no business seeking sympathy when under attack.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 05:57 AM
link   
attack yes, invade no
at least the nuclear installations should be destroyed, including the 2 nuclear powerplants they are building.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by threebees
attack yes, invade no
at least the nuclear installations should be destroyed, including the 2 nuclear powerplants they are building.


I say just let Israel do that if it has to be done. We all no they have no problem taking out a nuclear powerplant in a country they feel is a threat.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Even an attack on Iran will further alienate the Muslim world. The US would gain nothing from it. I don't think Tony Blair would follow Bush into Iran...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join