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.

 

U.S vs Iran

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Sorry, I didn't know where to post this.

If Iran/Iraq fought in the 80's for almost a decade with 1,000,000 deaths only to end up with a stalemate...
Then the U.S walked into Baghdad and dismantled their Army in 3 weeks 20 years later, why do people think Iran would put up such a fight?

Is it because they have thousands of more missiles and rockets aimed at US/Israeli sites in the Middle-East?
Is it because they've "Advanced" so much since the 80's? (lol)
Is it because China/Russia may proxy with Iran like U.S did with Iraq?

Just a question.....




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Because Iran is getting sick and tired of being told what to do and how to act by a dictatorship calling the kettle black.

They will have nothing to lose and will not stand down as easily as other Nations have done. More and more people are aware of the propaganda machine against them and will not support another senseless war for profit.

They also have a few more friends than Iraq did.

IMO.

Peace



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
It's all hype. MSM create these nightmare WMD/Nuke scenarios, to get the public hating and scared, then we go in and spend trillions of dollars and waste good lives, and for what?

OIL

Dont believe all you read about Irans Military might. Thats what the Globalists would love us to believe .



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I always hear Ron Paul talking about how iran poses no threat



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
I always hear Ron Paul talking about how iran poses no threat


In the manner of them not having enough oil to even sustain their own demand, after they sell what they need to draw income, plus them having no AirForce and how U.S talked with Russia when they had 30,000 Nuclear Bombs... So why can't we talk with Iran?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


We cant talk to Iran because they pose no threat...but they do have something we want...OIL....Oil....and more oil.

If Iran actually were a big threat, we would certainly talk to them like we did the Russians.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Iran would get crushed , they're a boogeyman...just like North Korea (Who would get annihilated by South Korea alone) I'm a "Fortress America" guy... bring everyone home , beef up the borders and mind our business. No need to play world police and involve ourselves in matters that don't concern us.

The people are now smart enough to understand that our military is being used for purposes other than its original intent. WE'RE TIRED OF WAR!!! TPTB are going to have to do something drastic to get the public behind any action towards Iran , they've run out of plays in their playbook and at this juncture even a false flag is going to be scruitinized heavily because people are awakening to the fact that our government is no longer serving us, but has become self serving and engaging in actions that are not in the intrests of the American people, but in the intrests of something nefarious.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Well for one, Iran has a larger military then the United States. It has two powerful allies in Russia & China, who have already stated that they would defend Iran. Russia has been supplying military technology to Iran for some time now. They are a highly religious nation would be on the defensive, defending their homeland.

If i was a betting man... USA / Israel VS. Russia / China / Iran ... id take the second group.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ztruthseeker
 


They are not a threat on the offence, but would put up quite a fight on the defensive, especially since ALOT of people are really getting tired of the USA stomping around all over the place stealing natural resources and spouting their BS to make it seem alright. Iran would get alot of help. Even i, as a Swedish guy would root for Iran in case the US attacked. And i know alot of people over here that would. The US need to stop attacking the "little guy" all the time.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Its all about the natural resources now, and we will be seeing much of this as the resources continue to exhaust rapidly



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ztruthseeker
Well for one, Iran has a larger military then the United States.


no they don't. we have the largest air force, navy, and mechanized force. infantry wise, yes Iran has a larger army. but bullets and flesh do little to stand up against steel and fire.

i do not support a war with Iran.. just wanted to toss that out there...

if youre talking about russia/china/iran all as one mass army, then by all means you are correct, sir.

edit on 11-12-2011 by XelNaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
no... im talking about Iran has a larger military then the united states, as in number of soldiers. Not only that... i think the difference is about 4 million (Iran) to 2.8 million (US), Iran is on the defensive having all of its resources at its disposal. The military lesson learned from WWI defense wins wars. It costs the attacking country 10X the amount of the defending country. The US is currently involved in many conflicts right now (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, ignoring of course all the covert wars...) and its military is spread really thin. You have a religious fanatical society (well so is the US...) who would be defending their homelands against a force that has clearly become the tyrants of the world.

Then on top of all of that... you add in China and Russia...

If anyone thinks that invading Iran will be a cakewalk... you are either ignorant and uninformed... or fooling yourself.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
In the coming decades you will see wars in Brazil and Paraguay. This is also the reason why China took over Tibet.

Water is far more valuable then oil.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ztruthseeker
If anyone thinks that invading Iran will be a cakewalk... you are either ignorant and uninformed... or fooling yourself.


It would be. The US could just stand back and plaster the country and any military target within with missiles. Follow it all up with airstrikes. Pound their military into jelly. Would we take losses" Yes, we would. But we'd still win.

It's the "peace" that would be terrible. The Iranians would probably just fall back and resort to doing the same thing being done in Iraq; IEDs and suicide vests for every kid and dog.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
It is not that the Iranian military will have sufficient capability to defend Iran from a US/NATO invasion. In-fact Iran would fall pretty quickly and Revolutionary Guard would be dissimated with great speed and efficiency. America has proven its capability to destroy the military capability of a foreign country time and time again. What it hasn't proven is that it can mobilize to engage in a prolonged military and political engagement which often requires more troop numbers than the initial invasion. It has proven that even with the most advanced Counter Insurgency doctrines and tactics, it is still extremely difficult (almost impossible) to fight an insurgency with no defined goals other than to kill as much of the enemy as possible. So the initial invasion will be quick but after the US topples Tehran (this is of course a hypothetical situaiton) it would have another world of problems it would struggle to deal with. All in all, the US wouldn't be able to afford to occupy Iran.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


hey calgarian i dont often reply to posts i mostly just lurk though i do frequent this website and have become quite familiar with the alternative topics discussed here but i couldnt help myself when i saw your username

this is an interesting thread since there has been numerous recent talks of an iranian invasion though it is still currently unlikely
others have already stated that iran itself would not really put up a fight, its more a worry if china/russia would get involved and that america has already thinned out its military. i find it iran irrelevant though really just another stage of TPTB for their global domination agenda, america could invade them easily but as others have said it lacks support (for good reason) and china/russia could get involved

the real reason im replying to this thread tho is i am a student of international relations at the university of the city of your username
been born n raised here n its good to finally find a fellow calgarian denying ignorance

maybe if the NWO knocks on our door we can help start the resistance movement in albera



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Actually Iran has a Great Deal to Lose.
It is called Oppression.
Every grain of sand of it will be lost in time.
Furthermore, Storming Embassies is not only Low Class, it is an obvious
beacon of Desperation.

With all due respect to the Iranian People, it is time to properly acknowledge your
righteous position within the International Community, and move on.

The People of The World Welcome you with open arms.
Turn away from Tyranny, and embrace us.
Change the World



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Those who think the iranian army is anything like the iraqi army are sorely mistaken the iraqi generals were put the because of last names and social status, the iranian generals are put there because of their skill to divise advanced strategies on the fly.

Iran has had nearly a decade to see what went on in iraq and devise strategies to counteract and expose the enemy's weakness, before the iraq war the Iraqi army was effectivly useless it wasn't untill late 2002 when invasion seem'd inevitable that saddam finally did something about it and throw money at a problem...lol iran is not iraq it has it's own cruise missiles and uses more advanced tech then iraq don't get me wron it ain't going to sink a carrier or anything like that but it CAN and will hold it's own for about a month and that will be a shock to the G.I. joe's on the front line.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I do not subscribe to the theory that Iran is a threat, or that it should be invaded.

However when push comes to shove, the US and NATO will decimate the Iranian military machine. Sure in the inital few weeks missles will rain down from Iran on various targets, but the conventional military might of Iran will be reduced to a non threat. The more conventional your forces, the more the US is going do wipe them out. The US is geared toward this.

Now, as was previously stated the Iranians have studied what happened in Iraq and their unconventional/asysmetric response will no doubt have impact globally, but it will not change the strategic outcome.

I think the US will never put boots on the ground in large numbers within Iran.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I believe it is because of Russia and China.
Iran itself could not compete in a conventional war with the United States of America. They just don't have the resources of the USA.
The Iranians are not to be sniffed at though, there is a reason they havn't been conquered since the days of the mongol hoardes. Islamic fighters are exremetly protective of 'theirs' and are very very feared soldiers. When you're crouching behind that wall with bullets ripping over your heads, or through your mate's heads, you're afraid, you're worried and you're scared.
The islamic fighter is not. He may be angry, he may be eager, he may be reloading. But he is not fearful and this way-of-thinking makes them a force to be reckoned with.
Combine their fanatasism with the political Correctness of the west and they may very well win many-a-battle. The liberal westerners think it's unacceptable to lose a small number, like 4000 soldiers, to win a war. Which is pathetic when you think about the 60 MILLION who died fighting in the great war of last century. But the Iranians will gladly fight down to the last man to defend their lands.
That said, if the USA was to fight a full-blown WAR with Iran, and Iran alone, it would win that war, if the liberals had no say.
The reality though, is that Iran would be backed by the super-powers known as Russia and China, which includes all those countries that bend to the will of Russia and China.
Now, wether or not the USA would win is no longer the issue. The issue becomes: how many TENS OF MILLIONS of lives will be lost in THIS great war?

Because if you think losing 4000 soldiers in Iraq over a ten year period is bad, then you're a fool. A REAL war takes millions and millions of lives. Upwards of 150,000 were dying in a single day, in a single battle in the 2nd world war. In a mere seven years 60 MILLION were killed. That's no joke. What would the gutless lefties have been squealing back then?

Well, unfortunately for Adolf Hitler, there WERE no gutless, left wing, politically-correct do-gooders back then.
I sincerely hope the weak liberals are silenced when the next great war breaks out, I don't want the western way of life to be extinguished during my lifetime.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join