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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by XevenIf 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.


Why would you want to destroy their country?
Why do you want the people of that country to suffer devestating poverty and possibly death from starvation?

What has the population of Iran done to you or the United States?
Probably nothing at all.
Certainly much less than the US has done to Iran.




posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
If there is concrete evidence (not like Iraq) that Iran is helping or associated with Al-Qaeda, then according to our Global War on Terrorism, we should attack. But we should only attack the targets where Al-Qaeda are housed, or use for training. Iran is roughly 4 times the size of Iraq.

Now, if we need 250,000 plus troops to combat terrorism, how many will we need if we attack Iran.

What happens if/when we attack Korea. Can you say big time draft? No one would be safe then. They will take anyone from 18 to probably 35.

How many more soldiers/sailors must die before this government realizes, that we, the American people, are not the Police of the world. What is the U.N. for? All they do is occupy some land in NY. Big whoop.

Yes, the U.S. should supply a limited number of troops to the U.N. for security around the wolrd, but not a quarter of a million. Don't get me wrong, I love this country. I just can't stand the people that are running it.

If a one-world government would solve this stupidity of some politicians, then by all means count me in.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   
We don't need to worry about attacking Iran. Israel is going to do it for us in the very near future, along with Syria and Lebanon. Look no further than Syria for Sadam's WMD. Israel can't afford to take a WMD hit from Syria or a nuke strike by Iran. They will hit first.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Iran is an evil regime who kills its own people based on Islamic fundamentlism. [Fact]

Iran supports terrorists. [Fact]


Should we go to war? Lets see...

Saudi Arabia is an evil regime who kills its own people based on Islamic fundamentlism. [Fact]

Saudi Arabia supports terrorists. [Fact]

Syria is an evil regime who kills its own people based on Islamic fundamentlism. [Fact]

Syria supports terrorists. [Fact]

Palestine is an evil regime who kills its own people based on Islamic fundamentlism. [Fact]

Palestine supports terrorists. [Fact]

Pakistan is an evil regime who kills its own people based on Islamic fundamentlism. [Fact]

Pakistan supports terrorists. [Fact]


Obviously, you see where this is going. I could go on and on. Why is it that we all support the Bush admistration when they tell us "Oh, now we found out that Iran is bad! Lets get 'em!" We've known that all along. Before we attack Iran, or any other Arab country for being "evil", we should cut all ties with all such countries, begining with Saudi Arabia, and go from there.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
You would vote 'no' because they would put up a bigger fight than Iraq?

OK.

What about going after terror? This is a country that has aligned themselves with the group that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.


LOL. Which country are you talking about? Because as far as I'm concerned, the people that American citizens choose to lead them, backed by the US military, comprise the largest terrorist group in the world.

If we attack Iran, we risk further unrest in the middle east and within North Korea. Didn't your mother ever teach you that bullies will get their justice in the end?



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I think we would make a BIG mistake to attack Iran. Hindsight is always better than foresight but Bush and his cohorts should have learned long ago that Iran is more of a threat than Iraq ever was. He had his own reasons for going into Iraq...nothing to do with WMD.

However...Iran is NOT Iraq and there would be a major conflagration in the middle east like we have never seen before. Go into Iran and then deal with Russia, China and North Korea.

Please don't give Bush any ideas.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 71LSPC
If there is concrete evidence (not like Iraq) that Iran is helping or associated with Al-Qaeda, then according to our Global War on Terrorism, we should attack.


My question is this. After the rock solid evidence that was used for the case aginst IRaq, I am skeptical of any claim. Moreover, have there really been any reforms or improvement of our inteligence capacity since we invaded Iraq.

here is my concern: Trying to do the same in Iran as Iraq is impossible. You think the Sunni triangle is bad wait till you try to pacify Theran. You have a people that are unhappy with thier leadership, but not on the level that Iraq had. You are talking about almost 3 times the population. How do you pacify that? Recall that the current regime in Iran is one of our creation. For more details on that. Do a search on Operation AJAX for a thread I strted on that.

Before I go to war again, the proof had better be more substantial that a few grainy photos and the words of a few exiles......



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   
As much as I should come to expect it, it still amazes me when so much polarized thinking gets major airplay.

Should we attack Iran militarily? No.

Does that mean we should do nothing? Hell no.

Iran needs to be dealt with. Only now is information about Iran's activities and very well documented ties to Al Qaeda starting to fall under the beam of the world news spotlight, right on cue. But it's not news at all. It's been known for years.

Chest-beating about why we shouldn't attack Iran with our military is a pointless exercise, because we aren't going to do it. You may just as well argue about whether or not the U.S. should invade France.

Of more relevance would be observing how we go about achieving our political objectives in Iran. I suspect it will be similar in many regards to how we're already doing it in North Korea.

On that note, if you happen to see Kim Jong-Il, tell him he has a package waiting.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   
This is a POINTLESS DISCUSSION
------------------------------------------
BUSH will ATTACK IRAN in his 2nd TERM (if he is elected again). He will do it around his 2nd year of his 2nd TERM. At that time, IRAQ should be more peaceful and IRAQ military should be bigger to take care of those TERRORIST blowing crap up and murdering people. USA military would be then free to DESTROY IRAN.

I would bet you everything that it will happen because it is a SURE THING.

BUSH is ENJOYING DESTROYING COUNTRIES like Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon IRAN. Bush is on a role, why stop?




posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
There have certainly been some interesting developments of late.
While I'd say the US is stretched too thin ATSNN is reporting a story about Russia submitting 40k troops to Iraq. (A while back Bush Sr. was in Russia on a private visit, never learned what it was about. hmmm). Iran is being discussed in this 9/11 commission. Recently, that bin laden aide surrendered. If I'm not mistaken he came to S. Arabia from Iran. Months ago it was said there were high ranking Al Qaeda members, possibly Bin laden's son, in Iran. Iran even admitted to some of it then back tracked. Their nuclear program is suspicious and has brought about international condemnation and Israel has talked about taking out their reactors. Iran is sandwiched by 2 nations which have a large, large chunk of US military forces.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   
also...there are indeed some crazy mullahs running Iran at the moment AND a large majority of the population hate them. Getting back to the original question (do we attack), I don't know that we'd have to. The government could fall on it's own.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Hello everyone I am new member here and I believe I need to explain something to everyone here. As couple of you have mentioned, iran is not iraq or afghanstan. We have over one million train soldiers; this is not include reserves and volunteers. We make our own tanks, fighter plains, ships, submarines, and reader systems and believe it or not, our missile development is among the best in the world. I would post some pictures in future for you to see.
Remember, when iraq attacked iran, he had the fifth largest army in the world. All the arab countries where supporting iraq financially and all western countries provided iraq with all the weapons saddam needed. Two of US AWACS was rented by iraq and US were giving iraq satellite information about our troops position. So we were not only fighting iraq but the whole world and still managed to kick ass.
Now some of you mentioned what will happen if iran occur atomic bomb. Iran already got atomic bomb. The last two earth quick that happened in iran was because of the underground nuclear test.
We have the right like any other country to have nuclear bomb and just because US government calling us terrorist doesnt mean we are.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:25 AM
link   
What i want to know is what made America the world's nuclear police? why is it that when they decide a country is a terrorist regime, it has to be true

i read somewhere in the newspaper that america had TWO agents, TWO,
collecting information on Iraq before it was attacked. hah no wonder that the intelligence proved out wrong.

if America attacks Iran, it will be suicide politically, and eventually a militarily in the long term. even if you overthrow the regime, there will be years of guerilla warfare twice as bad as in Iraq.

Britain aint gonna join if you attack and if Israel get attacked Iran can retaliate too dont forget that.

so what if Iran has nuclear weapons?? Israel has 200 publically, and as for America, who knows, 2000+. And anyway the mullahs are having a hard time with staying in power, give it a couple of years and they will be overthrown by the Iranian people.

For the moment, the mullahs are power hungry and even if they have nuclear weapons its not like they will do anything, they wont even sell to Al-qaeeda, most probably because it doesnt even exist anymore.

EVERY COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO GO NUCLEAR, the only think Iran will do with Uranium is use it for generating power so it can sell more of its oil for money.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
You would vote 'no' because they would put up a bigger fight than Iraq?

OK.

What about going after terror? This is a country that has aligned themselves with the group that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.


I'd say we should constraint on securing our boarders before we start making wars over seas. But were a little past that points currently arent we.

[edit on 21-7-2004 by oconnection]



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Kam, you made a statement on the first page of this thread in which you stated that 2500 US troops died on D-Day. Zub, you made a statement when you said it was 2500 Allied troops not US troops. Unfortunately, both of you are mistaken.

www.channel4.com...




According to the D-Day Museum at Portsmouth, US casualties totalled 6,603; the Canadians suffered 946 casualties, including 340 dead; and British casualties were approximately 2,700. The British suffered about 1,000 casualties on Gold Beach and a similar number on Sword Beach. The US casualties included 1,465 dead, 3,184 wounded, 1,928 missing and 26 captured, most of them at Utah Beach, where German resistance was particularly fierce.

Altogether, more than 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. Allied casualties totalled around 209,000, including 37,000 dead from the ground forces and almost 17,000 from the airborne forces.


I'm not trying to be a jerk, I was just trying to correct your mistake. We all get facts wrong sometimes.

There are three reasons why I feel going to war with Iran is not a good idea:

1. Their military is much-better trained and armed than Iraq or Afghanistan's. Plus, their country is not broken up with the infighting that Iraq was. Tehran is much more stable than Baghdad, and attacking Iran would piss off a lot of people who are very protective of their nation.

2. If you think the U.S.'s world opinion is low now, watch it plummet if we did this. To those of you who are thinking, "Who cares about world opinion?" I want you to find me 5 items around you that were made in the U.S. that you bought at a store. Having a world economy only works if other countries don't have incentive to raise prices because they are pissed at us. Bought gas lately?

3. What's going on right here. The last thing we need is another huge move by the U.S. that divides us even more. Look at us. After 9/11 every single person on this board would have gladly served dinner to everyone else and held each other while we wept and greived. Now we are bitching at each other, pissed off because we disagree. Not that we should change our opinions, but we should change how we accept each other's opinions. You feel you're right, and I feel I'm right, and neither of us is wrong for that. Being different is what got us here, if you hate me for my opinion, then we aren't a nation. We're just a bunch of kids having a pissing contest in the living room.

Iran is a bad idea. We don't need more war. What we need is to be able to say to a country, "We feel what you are doing (nuclear weapons, in Iran's case) is bad for the world community, and we want you to stop, and here's what we will do if you agree. Imagine the problems we could fix, and the inraods we could gain if we did this. Instead of making threats and telling them what we would take, let's offer something in return. These aren't evil people, they are just other people, with different ideas. We have to find a way to come together before we are ripped even further apart.

I understand if you don't agree, please do your best to understand why I don't



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 04:37 AM
link   
This question is invalid. It's more "Do we attack Iran and provoke a massive response by the whole muslim community and set ourself into the most worse diplomatic position ever."

Anyway. No. They won't.

Else I will directly belief that some crazy aliens are controlling the US government who just want war everywhere.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Iran's nuclear arsenal will not be permitted to stand. Either the United States or Israel will destroy it. There will likely be no invasion of the Iranian homeland.

Many on this board have a serious misunderstanding of the capacity of the free worlds military might. It seems they judge it based on the Iraqi situation. This is folly. Iran could, if the West wished, be destroyed, without doubt, in short order, to believe otherwise is quite delusional.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
Iran's nuclear arsenal will not be permitted to stand. Either the United States or Israel will destroy it. There will likely be no invasion of the Iranian homeland.

Many on this board have a serious misunderstanding of the capacity of the free worlds military might. It seems they judge it based on the Iraqi situation. This is folly. Iran could, if the West wished, be destroyed, without doubt, in short order, to believe otherwise is quite delusional.



Many on this board have a serious misunderstanding of what is the free world. Freedom includes the freedom to choose the way you want your military equiped, if its not forbiden then why just some few chosen countries can have atomic weapons?



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
Iran's nuclear arsenal will not be permitted to stand. Either the United States or Israel will destroy it. There will likely be no invasion of the Iranian homeland. .


Based on what eveidence? Smokeand mirrors is an apt handle as it describes this situation perfectly. Should we go to war because Israel want to attack another neighbor? I really want to see way more proff this time around. I took George on his word last time... Fool me one shame on you fool me twice shame on me...... Again, were is the proff that Iran has a nuclear weapon ready to go? They may be trying to produce one, but do they have one right now? Who knows? If that is our criteria for going in NK and Kin Il (I be Illing) Jong should be next on the list as he seems to be close or already at production.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   


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.


Air superiority means nothing and Iran's army means nothing either. Look at the situation in Iraq and tell me that an organized military is responsible for recent US deaths, it is now a guerilla warfare enviroment in Iraq with willing participants coming from a lot of different Arab countries. If you think that the current situation in Iraq is bad wait until an invasion of Iran takes place if it does.

Those of you that are willing to topple Iran can rest assured that a silent war to do just that is already underway and any snippet of information you may get that relates to that subject is months if not years old. That is just the way that dirty wars are won, not with superior militaries but with financial clout and political strongarming the likes of which you will probably never know about.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join