It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:05 AM
attacking iran would be a big, big mistake. the iranians have a much stronger and more coherent military than iraq, for one. the loss of us lives would be considerable. but the main reason is simply that, like iraq, iran's contribution to al-qaeda is not large enough to justify an invasion of the country. we would be better off invading saudi arabia. or, even, better, spending the money on improving security in the US.

the best way to "deal" with iran is through diplomacy. iran is a flawed democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. many iranians share the ideals that the west holds in high regard. more can be accomplished, with less loss of life, by acting quietly behind the scenes (without doing anything rash, like we did with mossadegh).

-koji K.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:23 AM
Unlike Iraq, Iran has active nuclear weapons. It has a lot of current planes and tanks and even a few subs. When Russia had it's fire sale of military equipment, Iran was the number two buyer, behind China- now doesn't that make you feel good.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:45 AM
When did Iran make any threats to the U.S.
None just like Iraq.
Bush is a total c.u.n.t.
Posing a threat and making a threat is very different.
[edit on 20-7-2004 by Lexus Panther]

[edit on 20-7-2004 by Lexus Panther]

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by kramtronix
Ideology aside, please...

Everyone, including DEMOCRATS, voted for the war in Iraq. [Fact]

Not everyone did. Those who did were cowards, on the right and the left.

Now that we have strong evidence that ties al-Qaeda to Iran, do we attack them now?

There is no strong evidence. Those who can confirm the validity of the assertions are the Iranian government and the supposed hijackers. The Iranians deny it and the hijackers are supposedly dead.

What kind of message are we sending if we leave Iran be?

You're getting way ahead of yourself. The military option should be the very last. This administration has had its thumbs up its butt with regard to Iran. There are other options to explore first.

Seriously, don't bring your party affiliation into this. I just want homest opinions.

Here's an excellent article on this subject. Alternative methods of dealing with Iran are discussed.

Realists, Neocons in New Iran Argument

by Jim Lobe
A new round in the ongoing battle between realists and neoconservative hawks over Iran policy got underway here Monday with the publication by a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) of a new report urging Washington to engage Tehran on a selected range of issues of mutual concern.

The task force, which was co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under former President George H. W. Bush, argues that neoconservative and other analysts who are urging that Washington pursue "regime change" in Iran underestimate the staying power of the current government there.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:57 AM
Several power plants have been probed recently by small groups of middle eastern men. Problem is those men are all Iranian.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:59 AM
How do you know that? There have been numerous reports of Isrealis running around causing trouble posing as AyeRabs.

Do you have any proof?

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:24 AM
How about the Two Iranian guards that the FBI kicked out of the US like 2 weeks ago why cuz they were spying in New York city according to The FBI and trust me they are not sight seeing who goes around and photographs water treatment plants and power plants and police stations and fire stations.

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... let me get this straight we should risk letting them build nuclear material and possibly Iran selling it to alqada so we should risk all of that so we can gain some popularity in the middle east boy aren't you are smart I could care Security and protecting American interests come before some popularity in the middle east.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:27 AM
Please explain to us how we could possibly sustain a fighting force against Iran. I'm very curious as to how you suggest we go about taking the Iranian government out.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:21 PM

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.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:32 PM
I say sure if they are sponsoring our enemies then they are our enemy and should be delt with accordingly.

Yes it would take 1-3 weeks to get full air supremacy but it would happen with minimal US losses. There is no reason to invade Iran so war would be limited to holding the Iraq border (would be easy to do). Then we simply destroy their war fighting infrastructure C&C and of course Nuke plant. Then finally target the evil leaders.

Again there is no need to invade Iran. Just remove the threats.. If they have no airports, nuke plants. and factories it would take years to rebuild all that. But I think simply destabilizing the government, and the youth of Iran would overcome and build a free nation.

I do not in any way support a ground invasion though. I think simply demorializing their armed forces and attacing leadership through UAV's and air supremacy and backing the youth of that nation who are wanting change would be all that is required. It would take longer perhaps to do it this way but would result in less US casualties and money spent.


I know you dont want to beleive it but the US armed forces would quickly and without difficult completely overwhelm and destroy the Iranian military in a matter of weeks. I am not going to explain this as there is plenty of information on the web available to read about the US Armed Forces.

It is very close to sticks and stones versus m-16's. Sorry to break your heart but truth is truth.


[edit on 20-7-2004 by Xeven]

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 01:04 PM
Read about the military? I fought with the 101st Airborne Division in the Persian Gulf War. Maybe YOU should go read about it.

Anyone who thinks we could just waltz right in and take Iran's government out doesn't know jack shizzit about Iran or the middle east.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain just how exactly we could pull that off. You can't. Why? Because our ground forces are stretched to the breaking point. The NeoCon fantasy has been effectively SHATTERED.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Read about the military? I fought with the 101st Airborne Division in the Persian Gulf War. Maybe YOU should go read about it.

Anyone who thinks we could just waltz right in and take Iran's government out doesn't know jack shizzit about Iran or the middle east.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain just how exactly we could pull that off. You can't. Why? Because our ground forces are stretched to the breaking point. The NeoCon fantasy has been effectively SHATTERED.

Its not like we could not do it .One simple word ''Draft" This would solve the numbers problem. During WW2 we fought on a larger scale then we are now you can't under estimate the american peoples power .

Im not saying that the military option in Iran is the way we should go or that we should use the Draft unless we are attacked but it is a option. If we are ever attacked by another countries military you will see the US military swell to record numbers.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 01:58 PM

Its not like we could not do it .One simple word ''Draft" This would solve the numbers problem. During WW2 we fought on a larger scale then we are now you can't under estimate the american peoples power.

There were 16 million Americans who served in WW2, which I believe was second only to the USSR. It makes sense considering much of the war was fought on their soil. The US population in 1940 was 130 million (can you believe we've more than doubled in 60 years?!?). That means over 12% of the entire population was serving in the military. If that same percentage were to serve in the military with America's current population, almost 34 million would be doing so!

[quote[Im not saying that the military option in Iran is the way we should go or that we should use the Draft unless we are attacked but it is a option. If we are ever attacked by another countries military you will see the US military swell to record numbers.

According to the World Factbook, the military manpower available in United States today is (males age 15-49) 73,597,731, more than most countries' entire populations.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 02:00 PM
The US and British armed forces would have to gamble with the fact Russia has a key stake in that region of the Middle East as do China. Russia has deployed a nasty missile called the N-22 "SunBurn" which can be nuclear tipped not only in Iran but its key ally in the region Syria.
The Coalition will start World War 3 if not careful they have Iraq for the short term the US and British energy needs have been satified cut and run boys while you still can

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 02:31 PM
I feel certain Iran will be the recipient of some firepower with the United States Seal attached thereto. It is merely a matter of time. Truth is, the game is over. The U.S. will not sit idly by and be destroyed. A quote, I think Patton said it, the object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his. There are many peace loving people on this board. That is fine. But when it comes to defense of the homeland, sitting in the middle of the road chanting kumbaya, and smoking whacky weed won't cut it

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 02:40 PM
How many of you have ever served? It sure is easy to pontificate on war when you've never even worn the uniform. Here's a nice quote from an article on Colin Powell:

Arriving at the State Department in 2001, Powell was no stranger to the political battlefield; if it seemed inevitable that he would clash with neocons at the Pentagonmen like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, who had never been in uniform but were often eager to deploy troopsit seemed equally inevitable that Powell would squash such adversaries under the broad thumb of his experience.

Oh, he would say, it's easy to talk about "ending states" when you've never been sent to end one, when you've never watched a man split apart in a rain of shrapnel. But for an old grunt who's been on the front lines, who tromped through the elephant grass in Vietnam, who took a punji stake through the foot and saw ears cut off as trophies, who had slept beneath the aching odor of a fifty-five-gallon oil drum stuffed with burning human feces, for a man like Colin Powell, the path of diplomacy had a battle-born allure that no draft-dodging neocon could possibly comprehend, and he meant for them to know it.

I've always been a hawk on defense, but my experience informs me that war should be the absolute last option, not a strategy to get elected.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:09 PM
We could do it...but we couldn't hold it, not with our present military, and not with surgical strikes...

As some have mentioned....military might should be the LAST option, used after diplomacy fails. Right now, we're in the "rhetoric" stage. This stage has already worked well with some (see Libya).

It is true that we could effectively knock out Iran's air force, anti-aircraft, and most armored divisions in a matter of days, maybe two weeks....but the big problem comes with ground troops. This was a major mistake made during the Iraqi war (as they went in with these too soon). There was a reason of course...securing the oil wells, for the financial security of a future Iraq (mostly to avert the inevitable cost of rebuilding), as well as environmental reasons...and they were noble, but stupid strategically...(and of course, to lessen the disruption to the world price of oil)

Even if this mistake wasn't made with Iran, you still have the problem that right now the US ground forces are too thin to wage another war without finishing the current ones (this is why you see the large troop pullout of South Korea, even with Krazy Kim right there...) as eventually you'd have to send them in.

As another mentioned, it is on pretty good authority, that Iran does have some nuclear capability (due to old purchases from Russia during the shakeup)... While this could likely be neutralized...(though I'd hardly trust the Bush team's intel guys to know where they are), we'd still have to contend with their use of WMD's of other types (which they too have used in the past)....

Then there are the political ramifications of how much more this would make us hated in the middle east, and indeed, the world. You would be playing right into the hands of those who preach such hate.

Iraq NEEDED the military solution. We tried diplomacy for 12 years, and it failed...enough was enough, but we also gave the world false reasons. We could have spent more time, (about 6 months) and gotten more on our side, and waged it for the right reasons (ignoring every single UN mandate against it). Instead, he got impatient, like a child, and our global image has suffered for it.

NO, attacking Iran is NOT the answer. Diplomacy CAN and likely WILL work with Iran, but likely not from this administration.... Is it November yet?

[edit on 20-7-2004 by Gazrok]

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:09 PM
i think the very fact that people are seriously considering an attack on iran is sickening. it says a lot about the state of the american public, how they have been brainwashed into thinking that war is an acceptable means of pursuing policy, and that it is easy to do.

what is wrong with this country, when all it takes to have people condone war are a few news articles about terror? terror is a crime people, and it should be dealt with accordingly. it is not a military threat.

an invasion of iran would produce no good. if we occupied iran, you can expect something many times worse than iraq, with the added tragedy that many young iranians actually respect america, and we would lose them to extremists after bombing and occupying their country.

and if we didnt occupy iran, well. that would be just sick. we would destroy their infrastructure- telephones, electricity, sanitation, roads, courts, police- and then watch as various militias rise from the ashes to kill and destroy whatever is left?

i don't know the best way to fight terror. but invading every country on the state-sponsors of terrorism list is not going to help, in the long run.

-koji K.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:46 PM
My hat is off to you, at least you are trying to talk some sense into warmongers. I myself just don't know if it is possible. I find it amusing/sad how people don't want to listen to veterans, as if they know nothing of which they speak. So let me add my voice to the debate, as another Gulf War era veteran saying NO. Not that it will help.

To all of you who think you know something about war, and the middle east. It is in the United States best interests, that your wet dreams don't become a reality. If you want to start WWIII because you think we will win, you are sadly mistaken. No one wins in a war, do you get that? Look at Iraq for a good example of what I mean. They are just dieing to be liberated, or haven't you heard?

For those who don't get that point, this whole war against terrorists is a tit for tat game. Nothing more, and nothing less. Do you think it would be impossible for there to be a terrorist attack in the US tomorrow? How about in the time that has passed since 9/11. Do you think that the reason there hasn't been another attack on our soil, is because we stopped them from taking place? If you do, I highly doubt you will see the light here.

Here's a real life example for you all to ponder. A couple of years ago, I had a neighbor here in Colorado. He was from Iran, and had "gone AWOL from the Iranian military". Some strange conversations had taken place between myself and him on a couple of occassions before 9/11. One day he came over, and told me that he needed to borrow some money. He said that he needed $10,000, to get a friend of his out of Iran, and here to the US. (He was also in the Iranian military, and no I didn't loan him any money.)

After 9/11, I saw a news report that stated the Iranian military was funding their special forces to come to the US, and carry out terrorist attacks. Then there was another report stating that they were getting their passports in Yemin for $10,000. As soon as I heard about it, I called the FBI and told them about the conversations I had had with my neighbor. I even offered to take a lie detector test, to verify the information. I never heard back from the FBI, so I called them a few times. My phone calls were never returned. A few months later I ran into my neighbor again, after I had moved. He was still working at the same job, etc.. My point is, there is no way for myself, or our government to know wheither he is a sleeper or not. Yet he is able to roam freely, where and when he wants. The fact that the FBI didn't call me back, should tell you how busy they probably are with things like this.

Everyone knows about how easy it is, to get across our borders and into the US. Anyone can enter the US, whenever they want. Something like 2% of cargo ships actually get inspected before they enter our country. Every piece of baggage doesn't get inspected before it is put onto an airplane. If you can't see how vulnerable we are in this country, you have your blinders on. So if we can all agree, that a terrorist attack could happen, and could have happened on our soil at any time. Then how in the world do you explain, why there hasn't been another one since 9/11? I would hope that you can see how "we stopped them from occuring" is a flawed response. They haven't happened, because they haven't been ordered. Or they aren't ready yet, which means it could be as big or bigger then 9/11. To think that terrorist attacks don't serve a purpose for the terrorists is naive. The purpose is to influence governments. Usually in retaliation for something that that government has done against them. That's why they have demands to be carried out, before the attack actually takes place.

So to all of you that blindly follow your warmonger leaders. Keep it up. Don't listen to people who know first hand. Keep on treating the world like one big nail, just because we have the biggest hammer. You don't want to listen to people, who actually know what they are talking about. You want to live in your pipe dreams of being able to do anything we want to whomever we want, and get away with it. I would hope that you would listen to people who have been there and done that. But experience has very little value in our society anymore.

Right now, the US is more vulnerable than any other time I can think of in our history, with the exception of the Civil War era. Our troops are spread across the globe. Our navy is all out to sea, and we have sleeper cells here on our soil waiting for the signal. Yet the warmongers want to start another war. Do any of you realize, that all it will take is one good terrorist attack on our soil to criple the US economy? Yellowstone has been brought up before, and is a valid example of how it could take place. Or how about when our navy is facing off with China's. We are literally walking a tight-rope here. My suggestion to the warmongers would be, wake up! We as a country are not invincible. Everyone gets tired of the school yard bully after awhile. Sooner or later, the bully gets put in his place. It may be one person or the whole school that finally stands up and says enough is enough.

So go ahead and attack who you wish. Just remember, that just because you can start a war, doesn't mean that you can stop the retaliation for your actions. I would have hoped that 9/11 would prove that point to anyone paying attention.

I appologize for the long post, ignorance is my enemy,

Tom Sawyer

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:29 PM
I do not see a reason to attack Iran.
Iran is not a dictatorship, it's not a full democracy, but is moving in the right way.

The only reason may be the fact that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. If that is a good reason to attack a country, then the international comunity should attack all countries that are trying to make nuclear weapons, but only if this is forbidden by international law. If it is legal to make nuclear weapon, then any country that has the possibility to do it should be allowed to do it, is just a question of attacking ONLY the countries that are against the law, and attack ALL the countries that are against the law.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in