Seven Reasons Not To Bomb Iran

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This is from an article recently posted on Irans Press TV today.

An interesting article and view written by an American defense analyst, covering several key points as to why America should not get involved in an attack on Iran.

Many think that an attack on Iran will be over in no time. It will in my opinion drag on for possibly years with huge loss of life and massive expense. Two more things we really dont need in the world.

Below is his list.



Adam Lowther, a member of the faculty at the US Air Force's Air University, called on US politicians to consider options before deciding on a military attack against Iran.

1. Iran possesses what is likely the most capable military the US has faced in decades.

Lowther explained that Iran is not like Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq that the US invaded, adding that in all of these examples, the US military defeated an adversary incapable of competing with the US.

He also noted that the Iranian military is far more competent and capable and after watching the war in Iraq for a decade has a good understanding of US tactics and strategy.

The analyst said Iran's Navy is skilled in littoral combat and may be capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz for sufficient duration to wreak economic havoc. The recent naval exercises by the Iranian navy illustrate a clear strategy that would seek to close the strait while attempting to sink American combat vessels that enter the area. This would result in a significant loss of commercial shipping and cause the price of oil to skyrocket.


www.presstv.ir...

Mod Note: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS - Please Review This Link.








edit on 1/9/2012 by Mirthful Me because: EX Tags & Link.




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by D8ncer
 


What a load of BS propaganda!!


Is that supposed to be a deterrent? Sounds like a lot of chest beating to me.


The best deterrent would be to open its nuclear program up to inspection.


+7 more 
posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


They already do that. Havent you heard that the IAEA did not find anything. Where is your evidence that they are not opening up to inspectors?

Also you need to clarify on your 'nuclear program' are you speaking about nuclear energy program, as that is all they have, and what the inspectors determined.

Side question, did you find those WMDs that were in iraq?
edit on 9-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


How is it BS propaganda.

It was written by an American analyst warning the US politicians his views on what could occur if a strike on Iran was made. No chest beating, just his views.
edit on 9-1-2012 by D8ncer because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-1-2012 by D8ncer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
So, what are they going to use to shoot down B-2s doing precision strikes on their bases and important infrastructure?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 



Iran’s nuclear program is one of the most polarizing issues in one of the world’s most volatile regions. While American and European officials believe Tehran is planning to build nuclear weapons, Iran’s leadership says that its goal in developing a nuclear program is to generate electricity without dipping into the oil supply it prefers to sell abroad, and to provide fuel for medical reactors.

But a United Nations report challenged that claim. On Nov. 8, 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency released a trove of evidence that they said makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” and that the project may still be under way. The report said the I.A.E.A. had amassed “over a thousand pages” of documents, presumably leaked out of Iran, showing “research, development and testing activities” on a range of technologies that would only be useful in designing a nuclear weapon.

NY TIMES

Make sure you read this part again, OK?


On Nov. 8, 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency released a trove of evidence that they said makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” and that the project may still be under way.


You follow me around and denounce the Iranian threat every chance you get. Are you an Iranian disinformation agent? You’re not very good if you are!



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Who is Adam Lowther?

Sounds like he's been commissioned to write a feel-good article by PressTV, the Iranian State run media outlet. A media outlet where to paint Iran in a bad light is impossible.

Regards



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I was disappointed to see that "Many Innocent people will be killed or injured" did not make it onto the top 10 list.

Reading the list, I am reminded of Saddam Husseins classic quote prior to one of the Gulf Wars "This war will not be like a Rambo film - it will be long, bloody and terrible"



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




Make sure you read this part again, OK? On Nov. 8, 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency released a trove of evidence that they said makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” and that the project may still be under way. You follow me around and denounce the Iranian threat every chance you get. Are you an Iranian disinformation agent? You’re not very good if you are!


Once again, is there physical evidence of purported nuclear weapons being made? The report found no such evidence. The IAEA did not find any physical evidence. Please show me the pages on the report that delineate the evidence. The burden of proof is on the accuser.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

I really have to disagree on the idea of this being propaganda. The situation seems about accurate the way it's being presented. NO one in their right mind and sanity is suggesting Iran is capable of defeating the United States in total war. Without the active help of China and/or Russia, the idea is patently ridiculous. It's math..if nothing else.

Having said that..It doesn't mean we can't be VERY badly bloodied in the process of coming out on top again. Daddy Bush appreciated the risks of war and went with total Overkill in 1990. It worked..and we were finally victorious without any asterix in the record books. Baby Bush had an arrogance problem and thought he could one 'up 'ol Dad by doing more, with less and much faster. 10 years later, we're leaving in what can only be called a 'draw' at the VERY best.


Now Obama is looking to take on a country FAR more capable than Iraq ever was and who has had the benefit of watching our every weapon system and tactic on display, up close, for years. Oh we'll win....and in the end, we'll probably be just a bit worse off than we are today while Iran is a smoking ruin of what they are today. However, we lost thousands in the wars leading to this point. I foresee 10's or hundreds of thousands lost THIS time in Iran, and not a damn thing more to show for the sacrifice in the end.

It's just Madness....to say otherwise leaves me really questioning the line of logic being used. ?
edit on 9-1-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by seabag
 


Once again, is there physical evidence of purported nuclear weapons being made? The report found no such evidence. The IAEA did not find any physical evidence. Please show me the pages on the report that delineate the evidence. The burden of proof is on the accuser.


What country moves its “peaceful nuclear energy” program underground?



Iran has begun uranium enrichment at a new underground site well protected from possible airstrikes, a leading hardline newspaper reported Sunday in another show of defiance against Western pressure to rein in Tehran's nuclear program.

Iran says the higher enrichment activities — to nearly 20 percent — will be carried out at Fordo. These operations are of particular concern to the West because uranium at 20 percent enrichment can be converted into fissile material for a nuclear warhead much more quickly than that at 3.5 percent.
link

No reason for that….unless of course it’s NOT a peaceful nuclear program.

Name one country with a “nuclear energy” operation underground….I’ll wait….



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

We should not invade, and absolutely should not try to occupy Iran. Why do we need to? Just pound them to rubble and go home.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Along with 7:50



Doesn't take a #ing genius to figure out they're up to something.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




What country moves its “peaceful nuclear energy” program underground?


In defense of the possible bunker busters that may be coming its way to protect its civilian population from radiation fallout. You cannot state 'moving programs' as evidence of a supposed nuclear weapon program. Surely you have to be kidding..


Once again, I am asking for physical evidence in the report. Could you please provide the page numbers, and when I have time I will review it, and if there is any evidence I will recant my statement
edit on 9-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Can you prove they do not? We don't need proof as we have not invaded them. Stop acting as if we have. There is more suspicion that they DO, than there is otherwise.
edit on 9-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
How many ships would Iran need to sink to close the straits or hormuz?

Im no talking navy ships, i mean.. If I took 5 freighters and sunk them in the straits, physically causing a blockage... would that be enough to stop ships flowing through?

I know its narrow and shallow.. is it possible?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 




give this post a star posted on 9-1-2012 @ 16:24 this post reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL Can you prove they do not?


Umm, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Once again, burden of proof is always with the accuser, always has, always will be.

Can you prove you are not planning an attack on the USA?

edit on 9-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)





There is more suspicion that they DO, than there is otherwise.


Suspicion does not constitute evidence
edit on 9-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Then why couldn't Ahmadinejad just say no when he was asked repeatedly if they would weaponize nuclear arms? (see video above)

Why have they obstructed IAEA inspections?

Again, there is more suspicion to point that they are weaponizing. Of course the burden of proof is on the accuser. Why do you think we haven't bombed the # out of them yet?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 




Doesn't take a #ing genius to figure out they're up to something.


Are you saying that refusing to answer a question constitutes as evidence? Anyone has the right to refuse to answer ridiculous questions. Our politicians do it all the time. If someone asked you something like: Are you planning to attack the USA, and you refuse to answer, would you take that as evidence that well since he didnt answer he must be planning to attack.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Let me ask how that is a ridiculous question? I think it is valid, as it was his chance to tell the world that he was innocent of what they accused. He has no problem telling the IAEA that it's only for medicine or wtf ever. He could have said yes for defensive purposes, but he chooses to be evasive and not give a direct answer.

He also could have said no comment.

I never said evidence, so don't put words in my mouth. I said suspicion.
edit on 9-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join