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.

 

US: Occupy Persian Gulf? USAF Lt. Col. On Russian TV

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
rt.com...




Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, who worked in the Pentagon and the National Security Agency, believes the tensions are a part of a long-term provocation by the West against Iran.

“In some way this is a continuation of a long, long, long provocation with that country. And certainly we work with Israel in doing that. When oil prices drop a little bit – stoke the fires.”

Kwiatkowski believes the US has no serious intention of putting any ground troops in Iran because Iran is a much stronger country than Iraq and Afghanistan.

“That would be an instant loss for the United States to do that,” she stated. “Iran is a very much different terrain. It has a very effective army. It can defend itself. Iran is not a sitting duck.”


Thread was deleted from the news forum so I hope I posted it in the correct place this time.

Man, you know it's sad when a retired officer has to go on Russian TV to get a message across...
edit on 13-1-2012 by YouAreLiedTo because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2012 by YouAreLiedTo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Don't think the War Mongers on this site will like what she has to say.

US and Israel provoking Iran.

Afgan and Iraq were sitting ducks with no military, now I know that must be untrue, because the Marines count Grenada as a win, and that was another military super-power.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Iran has an a effective army? Again. I love this website. I find humor in it everyday

Iran may have may more numbers than Iraq, but nothing our Air Force can not take care of in a single mission.


Does Iran have one of these?
en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

Does Iran have one of these?
en.wikipedia.org...

Does Iran have one of these?
en.wikipedia.org...

Does Iran have one of these?
en.wikipedia.org...

I could go on and on and on, but it might take all day.

All of these would elimate troops, lines of supplies, defense, storage, weapons, food, communication in the first week!

No need to send in troops


The day Iran poses a challenge to the US military is the day a bunny can take on Mike Tyson
edit on 13-1-2012 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Afgan and Iraq were sitting ducks with no military, now I know that must be untrue



i'm not sure if you understand the purpose of the invasion of afghanistan and iraq..

the reason for invasion was to eliminate a lot of the violent civilian opposition that would inevitably arise, take control of the area and create a perimetre for the corporations to go in and aquire/assess the value of the resources for sustainable future conflicts. it was never taking out Saddam Hussein or removing the Taliban, WMD's or 100% about oil. those were all things that could be achieved along the way. never top priority though.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


Good point. Really all Iran has to do is sit back and let us spend ourselves to death.

Warfare for the US has become nothing more than a video game. The best way to win is not to play.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
iraq was weakened by decades of sanctions. and bush 1 didn't invade in the first gulf war because of that.

saddam was in his prime, and a ground force invasion would have resulted in mass casualities.

they were still using 80's tech when bush 2 invaded.

iran is a fully functional army. it's not to say 1000's of abrams tanks wouldn't role right thru. but the iranian organized insurgency that would attack every single american patrol would be bloody and vicious.

the whole country would be the enemy. there would be no safe zones.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
Does Iran have one of these?
en.wikipedia.org...(missile)


Yes, although the Iranian (Russian) model is considerably faster, it has yet to be solidly field tested for accuracy.



Does Iran have one of these?
en.wikipedia.org...

Does Iran have one of these?
en.wikipedia.org...


Nope, but seeing as they haven't openly attacked another country in approx 300 years, I don't think they really see the need.



Does Iran have one of these?
en.wikipedia.org...


Nope, but they do have these:
en.wikipedia.org...

Which will cause a great deal of headaches for those A-10's, if not disposed of first.



I could go on and on and on, but it might take all day.

All of these would elimate troops, lines of supplies, defense, storage, weapons, food, communication in the first week!

No need to send in troops

The day Iran poses a challenge to the US military is the day a bunny can take on Mike Tyson
edit on 13-1-2012 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)


I would say that it is a very good thing that you are not on the US Mil planning teams. The fight doesn't start until the 'war' is 'over'.

Iran watched Iraq and they watched Afghanistan. They know full well that the actual war will be won or lost after the conventional army is done.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


en.wikipedia.org...
??? Really. That is the best you have to offer? Something from the 1950's?


And yes they will be dispossed of by the Tomahawk as previously stated. Or do I need to repeat that website again for you?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
This reply is to Randomname, are you sure we didn't invade Iraq in the first Gulf War????
Seriously, we invaded the south half and went almost to the outskirts of Bagdahd before we stopped... without any real opposistion also. I think we lost one plane and the pilot survived and was picked up within 48 hours... they did not resist in the slightest.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


The AK was invented in 1949, would you question it's ability to kill today?

I see you failed to note that those are mobile launchers, which are notoriously hard to hit with missiles.

Something about moving around, being undetectable unless in use, etc, etc.

If you need record of the effectiveness of mobility, just ask the original Gulf War.

Have they ever found all of the mobile SCUD launchers?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Now your comparing apples to oranges.

The evolution of arms is different than the evolution in aviation.


Ak47 is one of the best rifles. No question.

But you may remember in the first gulf war, George Bush did a simple assault on all missile defense systems and communication towers for the first 90 days. These are the primary targets in the beginning. They did not stand a chance in Iraq, nor Afghan, nor Bosnia. Why would they in IRAN? You think the US militaries strategy against missile defense systems has actually grown worse or weaker over the last 30 years? Logic would tell someone that you learn from your mistakes. This is the same with the US military. USA is like wine. Only gets better with age. All this would be is another chance for the USA to test its new toys out on a pathetic military.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by peck420
 


Now your comparing apples to oranges.

The evolution of arms is different than the evolution in aviation.


How is that apples to oranges? If I was in an A-10, and I had the unfortunate experience of running into a sam of any era, I would be mightly pissed for the short remainder of my life.

The unfortunate truth is that an A-10 was never designed to deal with or against ant-aircraft missiles. That is why they need to be removed prior to major air support activity.



But you may remember in the first gulf war, George Bush did a simple assault on all missile defense systems and communication towers for the first 90 days. These are the primary targets in the beginning. They did not stand a chance in Iraq, nor Afghan, nor Bosnia. Why would they in IRAN? You think the US militaries strategy against missile defense systems has actually grown worse or weaker over the last 30 years? Logic would tell someone that you learn from your mistakes. This is the same with the US military. USA is like wine. Only gets better with age. All this would be is another chance for the USA to test its new toys out on a pathetic military.


And this may shock you, but Iranians aren't stupid.

They have seen what happens when you stand and fight in a conventional war. And there in lies the problem for the US. Iran could just as easily leave the mobile sams fallow during the shock and awe phase, and put them in action during the occupation phase. They are easy to hide, easy to maneuver, and for the most part, self sufficient.

The American populous would not take well to loosing a a flight of fully loaded chinooks, and US ground troops would be none to happy to loose their close air support.

Both of which would be painfully easy to do during the occupation phase.

As for the US vs missile defence systems, I fear the US will be in for a little shock and awe of their own if they ever have to face a contemporary foe.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
What ever helps you sleep at night.

Sometimes I like thinking of a warm sunny beach when I go to bed. Helps me relax.

But in reality, Im in a cold area of the USA called Iowa.


Last statement I'll make. Feel however you want to feel about any country. Im simply trying to bring most of you back to reality. Im finding that is a hard task.

US doesnt want to fight anyone. This is not something we pride our selves on. However we are proud of those who protect us.

We pride in that fact that we are genuine, self sacraficing, caring, and always willing to protect the little guy when needed. Freedom is the ultimate goal for all. Iran doesnt see it that way. They think its ok to rape and beat their women. Send their children to diffse land minds. Execute and torture prisoners. Fix elections. Threaten democracy and freedom. If this is the country you want to stick up for, I have nothing more to say to you.

Good luck with all that. Let me know how it turns out for you



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
For anyone interested, there's a website that ranks countries based on their military strength and the financial power to back said military strength in the case of land, sea, and air conventional style warfare. Nuclear weapons are not taken into account for obvious reasons.

So the ranks of military firepower:

#1 - USA
#2 - Russia
#3 - China
#4 - India
#5 - United Kingdom
#6 - Turkey
#7 - South Korea
#8 - France
#9 - Japan
#10 - Isreal
#11 - Brazil
#12 - Iran

Iran actually ranks in front of other countries such as Germany, Pakistan, and North Korea. Also note how many potential Iranian allies are sitting in the top 12 rankings.

Afghanistan ranks at #51 and Iraq ranks at #36... just to give you an idea of how ugly a war with Iran could actually get in terms of stamina and duration which ultimately results in an increased number of lives lost on both sides.

Think about that for a minute.

This would not be a PS3 game of Call of Duty... this is the real deal folks.


GlobalFirepower.com (GFP) GFP provides a unique analytical display of data covering global military powers with statistics compiled through various sources. All manner of countries are considered in the ranking, a spectrum helping to produce a near-complete comparison of relative military strengths from across the globe. The user should note that nuclear capability is not taken into account for the final ranking for this listing is purely a "numbers game" meant to spark debate and including nuclear weapons would clearly defeat its purpose. Therefore GFP comparisons are for consideration in a conventional war based solely on each individual nation's capabilities on land, at sea and through the air while including logistical and financial aspects when waging total war. Sources are stated whenever possible though some statistics are estimated if official numbers are not available.

Full rank listing here : Global Firepower



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


Lol.

Can't come up with anything better than a pro USA infomercial?

Appeals to emotion mean jack squat while you government moves military assets in preparation to attack another country.

If you want anybody to believe your BS you may want to stop attacking little guys first.

Especially when your own Iran experts are telling you that military might wont make right.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Ive come up with a lot better. Ive listed examples. But you cant argue with facts so you have found other ways to wine and cry your point of view over on ATS while avoiding the facts. However I knew that last post would get under your skin. lol

But like I just said. Ive listed example after example on why this is a non issue. Why this discussion is pointless. There is no competition.

Iran does not match up with US. At all. Not in this life time or the next.

Now with China Russia Iran Africa Most of Europe and South America against the USA, now there is a challenge. Anything less, is a fish in a barrell.

Have a good evening.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


Well they do have this :
VA-111 Shkval

The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал - squall) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Soviet Union. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h)


And she said INVADING IRAN would be a whole another game because they can defend themselves. I'll remind you that Iran fought Iraq for 10 years.

Iran's navy will get wiped out for sure. Their military bases too. But an invasion and occupation of Iran is what the analyst said would be insane because Iran can defend itself from that. And Iran has 3 times the population and size of Iraq.

So unless the US got 5-6 million fresh troops and a few trillions to invest in that war, don't think about it.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43

But like I just said. Ive listed example after example on why this is a non issue. Why this discussion is pointless. There is no competition.

Iran does not match up with US. At all. Not in this life time or the next. .


The U.S. navy won't be facing another navy, but swarms of mobile antiship, antiaircraft missiles and "hoot" underwater missiles. Iran churns out these babies like the Leeland Farms Utah red trout breaded in pistachio nuts, and it has 2,750 miles of coastline to hide them.

You're too quick to goad when the fact is the U.S. navy has never been put to the test in a scenario of overwhelming numbers of stealth, simultaneous supersonic attacks. I give it 6 hours max before every single warship doubles as an artificial reef for marine life.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Brasov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


You might want to tell that to the thousands of dead American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Weren't they just cavemen with cell phones?

America will win a conventional war, no doubt, but Iran will not be a conventional war. It will be asymmetrical, and the US has never faced and asymmetric opponent that has prepared for asymmetry from the get go.

There is a reason that Iran's paramilitary is vastly larger than their actual military.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
One and only bump for justice.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join