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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
So am I to understand this? The vast majority of people on this site find no problems with iran aligning themselves with the group that killed so many Americans on September 11, 2001? We give iran a free ride because they would "put up a fight?"

I just want to make sure I'm seeing this correctly.




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
So am I to understand this? The vast majority of people on this site find no problems with iran aligning themselves with the group that killed so many Americans on September 11, 2001? We give iran a free ride because they would "put up a fight?"

I just want to make sure I'm seeing this correctly.


Well, you aren't. Stop being so confrontational, and read what people are saying.

No one said that we should give them "a free ride". What we said was that attacking them when our forces are alredy overworked and spread so thin is a bad idea. Plus, it would hurt our already low world opinion. What we all said was that diplomatic roads have to be taken, and they will work. There's is no reason for more people to die.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Which 'diplomatic roads?' The same 'diplomatic roads' that we traveled with Iraq? Or perhaps the ones we're still traveling down with Castro?

Or do you know of some different ones?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Bush War I
Afghanistan
----------------
Bush War II
Iraq
-----------------
Bush War III
Iran
excuse: Iran has links to Al Qaeda/Iran supports other terrorist groups/Iran is building Nukes/Isreal wants to see them detroyed/Iran is a threat to world peace therefor we must destroy it/Part of the AXIS of EVIL

Who disagrees or agrees that if President Bush is elected to a Second Term he will INVADE Iran?

Of course, he will wait until IRAQ's Terrorists are under control
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush War IV
Syria
excuse: Syria links to terrorists/Syria has chemical and biological weapons/Isreal would like to see the country destroyed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush War V
North Korea
(The best saved for last)
excuse: North Korea has Nukes/North Korea is a threat to their neighbors/Part of the AXIS of EVIL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Bush wants to destroy all the USA enemies like Iran, Syria, and North Korea like he did in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is enjoying war a lot, so he won't stop.

Besides Bush can award more GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS to his supporters like Halliburton and many others to REBUILD Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
You see Bush GIVES TAX PAYER MONEY to COMPANIES like Halliburton, etc., and those COMPANIES give money to the REPUBLICAN PARTY to make SURE that REPUBLICANS stay in the WHITE HOUSE.

Isn't life great?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
So am I to understand this? The vast majority of people on this site find no problems with iran aligning themselves with the group that killed so many Americans on September 11, 2001? We give iran a free ride because they would "put up a fight?"

I just want to make sure I'm seeing this correctly.


The 9/11 ties to Saudi Arabia are stronger.
Why go after Iran if you want punishment for Sept 11?
Go after the country that had the most to do with it.

Afghanistan had already been defeated because of 9/11
Iraq was taken out because of terrorism.

Saudi Arabia has been left alone.
So has Pakistan. The terrorist ties with Pakistan were stronger than Irans so why not go after them?

Why go to Iran?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Weren't 15 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Maybe it was 17. I do know this, not one of them was Iranian. Iran was bitterly at war with Iraq, they were enemies of the highest order. So is Bush/Cheney Co. finally admitting the al-Queada links to Iraq were incorrect, and it was actually Iran? Is the same thing going to happen with Syria, North Korea, and wherever else there are a bunch of brown people we can bomb?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   
War is the easy way out. avoiding diplomacy is a privlage only the powerful US has, they will not hesitate to exploit this. any evidence is enough evidence for this administration. iraq couldnt hurt a fly, yet we bombed them to hell. the US does what it wants when it wants. iran should really express a positive attitude towards the US since i think bush has an itchy trigger finger. if we bomb saudi arabia who would we trade with? o wait...if we conquer them we can steal all of their money...
i doubt they would stoop that low. they need a another 9/11 in order to pull off that one.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Iran's air force has F-14s and F-4s and while lacking parts from the US the Iranians have sufficient industry and technology to keep the aircraft running. The pilots are well-trained, since the original pilots for the F-14s and F-4s were trained in the United States when Iran was run by the CIA-friendly Shah. Those pilots who trained in the US up to 1979 were reinstated during the Iran-Iraq war and today form the core of the air combat instructors for Iran. The Iranian US-trained and equipped air force was a constant pain in the ass against Iraq. A serious US air assault would likely be victorious but it would by no means be a complete cakewalk.

Iran is slightly larger than Alaska, a country of mountains and deserts, with 69 million inhabitants and a standing army of just under 1 million troops.

Iraq's military ability in Gulf War 1 was largely hampered by Saddam himself. Iran's hierarchy is much more lenient and they allow their military autonomy in decisions. Their military is a much better force than the Iraqi military in Gulf War 2.

Calling up the national will to invade Iran needs some type of act of aggression from Iran. Another attack on American soil by 'nationless' (Saudi) operatives could be attributed to Iran just as easily as the soundbite association between Iraq and 9/11. A 'Tonkin Gulf' episode could also be created in which Iranians attack or defend against US forces - it really doesn't matter which.

Unlike Iraq, Iran is an Theocratic Republic. It's 89% Shi'a Muslim. The Iranians have strong memories of the US-backed Shah and the cruelties of his regime that allowed a religious revolution in the country. It's highly doubtful that the population would welcome a US invasion, especially after non-stop Al-Jazeera news montages of American abuses at such places as Abu Ghraib. Unlike Americans seperated by land and an ocean, Iranians have a perfect window to into what's happening to their neighbor. Iraq is currently a country under the law of local gangsters and tribes, with a budding central government constricted to Baghdad's green zone, with a few US troops who leave their bases to escort convoys or retaliate against insurgents. It's not a really pretty picture, despite good intentions.

While Bush2 and the neocons he's aligned with might be willing to give Iran a whirl, they'll first have to stabilize Iraq, which will probably be accomplished by turning a blind eye to the law enforcement and intelligence services of the new government and using the US military to stamp out any serious armed threats. Even if this condition isn't quite met, the US can launch the Iran ground invasion out of the Shatt al Arab in southern Iraq, essentially out of Kuwait. They could also do a land or amphibious invasion to secure Bandar-e Emam Khomeyni, a port city, or even Bushehr.

Whether or not the US recieves international condemnation for an invasion of Iran doesn't really matter. All the vested interested (ie countries that are keyed economically and politically into the US) won't raise a finger, even though their leaders might say something to appease the masses.

Whether by coup or invasion, the conquest of Iran is in the works. Read "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former security advisor to Carter. His book talks about how great it'll be if the sole remaining superpower turns the world into fiefdoms, and Central Asia is key to this plan. Despite the book being ultimately anti-American in values, Cheney has repeatedly cited the book and admires it.

Of course, Brzezinski also signed off on "Operation Eagle's Claw" - the ill-concieved and ultimately disastrous hostage rescue operation.



[edit on 22-7-2004 by taibunsuu]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:46 AM
link   
They want to find an excuse to attack Iran.
Because now they already have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in position.
If they really want a war with Iran, they can´t wait ´til the troops are out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If they do, they would lose an advantage. So they might do whatever it takes to create a situation which "justifies" an attack on Iran. That´s my guess anyway. This would most likely happen before any troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq obviously...

And yes, it would be a big big terrible mistake to launch another war.


When all these troops and carriers and stuff is not at home, who is defending US?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
So am I to understand this? The vast majority of people on this site find no problems with iran aligning themselves with the group that killed so many Americans on September 11, 2001? We give iran a free ride because they would "put up a fight?"

I just want to make sure I'm seeing this correctly.


No one has proven that iran was involve in 911. Just because some al-ghade members passed through iran doesn’t mean $hit. Some of these people went to US from Canada, does this mean Canada was involve too? And lets not forget that basically all of these hijackers got visa from US.

[edit on 22-7-2004 by persian]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Kramtronix:

So am I to understand this? The vast majority of people on this site find no problems with iran aligning themselves with the group that killed so many Americans on September 11, 2001? We give iran a free ride because they would "put up a fight?"

I just want to make sure I'm seeing this correctly.


Er, don't they have a right as a people to hate America, since it's TOTALLY screwed them over for over 30 years? Look it up and educate yourself.

And by saying "Iran allied itself with Al Qaeda" do you mean the government or the civilian population? Because guess who dies when the US bombs drop?


If you want to get MORE of the world against you, and endanger American lives worldwide, then invade them.

If you want to try and negotiate a peace, using diplomacy and common sense, umm, get a new President.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Jakomo is right.
For 50 years and until iran’s revolution, US been involve in Irans’s internal affairs. You can search on Yahoo under “CIA in Iran”



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by persian
Jakomo is right.
For 50 years and until iran’s revolution, US been involve in Irans’s internal affairs. You can search on Yahoo under “CIA in Iran”


So the fact that we interfered with their development justifies any assistance they gave to the 9/11 terrorists, the Iraqi insurgance, or their continued nuclear weapons program?




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
So the fact that we interfered with their development justifies any assistance they gave to the 9/11 terrorists, the Iraqi insurgance, or their continued nuclear weapons program?


Bah, stop it. There is still just no proof that the government supported the 9/11 terrorists and that's important. Not if a few religious maniacs in Iran supported them.

Their continued nuclear weapons program?
You are talking about a program similiar to the Saddam Husseins nuclear program with thousands of ready to shoot WMDs? You might remember that exactly the same type of vague information was used to justify the war in Iraq and turned out to be false information and now you want to justify a war against Iran with that?

Iraqi insurgence. Most of the rebells came from Jordan, Syria, Egypt etc. - Irans population is young and not that religious anyway. If some of the rebells turned out be from Iran it is a pitty but certainly not a proof for any government involvement.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47

Originally posted by persian
Jakomo is right.
For 50 years and until iran’s revolution, US been involve in Irans’s internal affairs. You can search on Yahoo under “CIA in Iran”


So the fact that we interfered with their development justifies any assistance they gave to the 9/11 terrorists, the Iraqi insurgance, or their continued nuclear weapons program?



- Who said anything about 'justifying' anything? A degree of understanding why and explaination is a good idea though wouldn't you say?!

Also the evidence of Iranian 'assistance' in 9/11 looks pretty thin, certainly compared to Saudi and, as previously said, if it amount to mere transit what sort of 'assistance' is that?!

As for the 'Iraqi insurgence'? Show me a country anywhere in the world under foreign interference and occupation that didn't end up with locals resisting the occupation or interference. Had things been done right (a wide genuine coalition as with gulf war mk1) things might well have been better.

True, there are Arabian/Muslims from outside involved but that's partly thanks to hatred of a global economic system where the west consumes such a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth - necessarily at the expense of the world's poor in these regions - and also a consequence of western powers divvying up the region with rulers and straight lines and ignoring the composition of the peoples there. Should have known better.

What Iranian nuclear weapons program by the way? I know they have a power program - is that the key now? Everyone the USA doesn't approve of having any nuclear technology is now a legitimate target?

If Iraq is anything to go by I'd be pretty sceptical about the 'intelligence' on Iranian intentions or capability.....you see that's what happens when you manipulate countries and people, they eventually find out, get angry about it and boot your people, your eyes and ears out; then your intel becomes deeply suspect, capable of being manipulated by those at home with their own agandas and the world gets an additional dose of unhelpful paranoia.

But beyond all this one can be certain that, in any new 'venture', the USA is on it's own if it cannot secure full UN approval and sanction. Even the UK would not back a new further war without such backing.

....and as far as certain US attitudes to that go.....

.....I find it difficult to believe America has genuinely gotten to a position where the so-called 'leader of the free world' has saddled itself with a group of 'leaders' who have quietly encouraged a large section of US society to basically say to hell with the rest of the world as if this were a normal and reasonable stance to take and that this situation is not widely seen for the gross insanity it is.

Hopefully sufficient Americans vote to change things come november and that the election is not stolen, again.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
didn't bush say something to the effect that 'if you are not with us you are against us'.....



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
So am I to understand this? The vast majority of people on this site find no problems with iran aligning themselves with the group that killed so many Americans on September 11, 2001? We give iran a free ride because they would "put up a fight?"

I just want to make sure I'm seeing this correctly.


are you reading the same thread i am?

the majority of posts here seem to conclude that a.) iran IS a problem, but b.) war is not the best solution.

what exactly do you consider a 'free ride'? i hardly think we're giving iran a "free ride". the country has no diplomatic ties with the us, and we have sanctions in place (which certain presidents choose to ignore when convenient). saudi arabia, on the other hand, the country which funded 9/11 and provided the manpower for it, DID get a "free ride". literally and figuratively. iran should not be top of our list of concern.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
Ideology aside, please...

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

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

We took on Saddam with less evidence.

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

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

No we dont attack Iran, because we dont want to start another war, kill more people... I thikn the CIA should first arrest, and inprison the terrorists they have contact with before going to Iran.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K


the majority of posts here seem to conclude that a.) iran IS a problem, but b.) war is not the best solution.


War would be an appropriate solution had Bush not screwed up and gone after Iraq instead. Now the question is not "do we attack Iran?" but rather "can we attack Iran?" And the answer is no, not in the manner in which we handled Iraq.


saudi arabia, on the other hand, the country which funded 9/11 and provided the manpower for it, DID get a "free ride". literally and figuratively. iran should not be top of our list of concern.


Iran should be at the top, WITH Saudi Arabia.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback

Originally posted by koji_K


the majority of posts here seem to conclude that a.) iran IS a problem, but b.) war is not the best solution.


War would be an appropriate solution had Bush not screwed up and gone after Iraq instead. Now the question is not "do we attack Iran?" but rather "can we attack Iran?" And the answer is no, not in the manner in which we handled Iraq.


saudi arabia, on the other hand, the country which funded 9/11 and provided the manpower for it, DID get a "free ride". literally and figuratively. iran should not be top of our list of concern.


Iran should be at the top, WITH Saudi Arabia.


i agree that iran should be a high priority, perhaps alongside saudi arabia, yes.

i don't think war would have been effective even had we not invaded iraq. i think the consequences would be much like we're seeing in iraq now, only much worse. also, i think iran, much more so than iraq, would have been amenable to a relatively more peaceful regime change through non-military means.

my two cents.

-koji K.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join