Iran War. How do you think it will lead to that and the possible outcome., page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 05:31 AM by spy66

Originally posted by slanteye
The US will start the offensive and take the lead...as usual. I see conventional weapons used. The Iranians will probably just fight the US and NOT shoot any missles at Israel to keep it out of the conflict. You cannot attack if you are not attacked. That way US will fight a war while Israeli pilots would sit in their fighter jets and enjoy the fight...as usual. There will be high casualties on both sides as in any conflict and the Iranians will try to hijack and crash as many "predator" drones as possible. War is meaningless..people die for their governments quarrel. Sickening when you think this is the 21st century

I dont agree. Israel is the reason the US is aggressive against Iran in the first place. If Iran wants to expand on its nuclear technology or any military technology in the future. They probably have to attack Israel and get rid of them.

Israel will bark at the US every time they feel threatened by a competitor.

But Iran wont attack Israel first. Iran just need the capability to attack Israel for defencive purposes if they want to expand. Because Israel might not want Iran to expand technologically.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 07:43 AM by DJW001

reply to post by spy66

I dont agree. Israel is the reason the US is aggressive against Iran in the first place.

That's just plain wrong. You've got the tail wagging the dog there. An Israeli-Iranian alliance is America's worst nightmare. Please think things through before asserting things like that.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 08:00 AM by sitchin

come on lets be honest ..Israel are a puppet country to the west,they would not be where they are today without Anglo american help.. Israel is what Britain was during the cold war

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 11:47 AM by spy66

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by spy66

I dont agree. Israel is the reason the US is aggressive against Iran in the first place.

That's just plain wrong. You've got the tail wagging the dog there. An Israeli-Iranian alliance is America's worst nightmare. Please think things through before asserting things like that.

Well if you put it that way, things could be very bad for the US. What if the UK joined up in that alliance. That would really suck for the US.

Man; what if the whole world allied against the US, Now that would really be a night mare for the US.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 11:54 AM by DJW001

reply to post by spy66

Well if you put it that way, things could be very bad for the US. What if the UK joined up in that alliance. That would really suck for the US.

First Iran would have to forgive the UK for the Mossadegh coup. Honestly, now, do you see that happening?

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 12:07 PM by ballisticmousse

Look, a conflict with Iran will quickly spread to an all out nuclear conflict. Whatever can stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons should be considered. I believe that there is only one way to do this. Iran needs to be shown exactly what a nuke is and can do. It would be better to nuke a city out of the blue and that way,, they can see the destructive power on facebook, see all the vapourised people, being incinerated, the tower blocks being flattened like cardboard boxes. This I feel is the only way and therefore we should launch an immediate nuke with a really powerful warhead on Buenos Aires and blow it into the stratosphere. They are begging for it, they want it and, by God they deserve it and it's only a matter of time before it has to be done as the current, thick aggressive Argie clown isn't going to stop. So let's get it over and done with and show the Iranians what will happen to them if they keep behaving like Argentina.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 12:13 PM by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by ballisticmousse
Look, a conflict with Iran will quickly spread to an all out nuclear conflict. Whatever can stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons should be considered. I believe that there is only one way to do this. Iran needs to be shown exactly what a nuke is and can do. It would be better to nuke a city out of the blue and that way,, they can see the destructive power on facebook, see all the vapourised people, being incinerated, the tower blocks being flattened like cardboard boxes. This I feel is the only way and therefore we should launch an immediate nuke with a really powerful warhead on Buenos Aires and blow it into the stratosphere. They are begging for it, they want it and, by God they deserve it and it's only a matter of time before it has to be done as the current, thick aggressive Argie clown isn't going to stop. So let's get it over and done with and show the Iranians what will happen to them if they keep behaving like Argentina.

Great idea , but from Argentina , it would get hardly any air time.

What you say we nuke Atlanta, its too hot there anyway.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 01:02 PM by spy66

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by spy66

Well if you put it that way, things could be very bad for the US. What if the UK joined up in that alliance. That would really suck for the US.

First Iran would have to forgive the UK for the Mossadegh coup. Honestly, now, do you see that happening?

It is probably as unlikely as Iran allaying them selves with Israel any time soon.

Although i know Brzezinski would like a much better friend ship between Iran and Israel.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 02:10 PM by oghamxx

US strength? A lot of past false flag operations.

If not us then an Israeli initiated false flag which could also be in the form of an 'Iranian' missile destroying the dome on the rock thus paving the way for the third temple.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 02:29 PM by spy66

reply to post by oghamxx

I think the false flag is the US and EU sanction. The gaol with the sanctions are to force Iran to either attack or do something else, like closing of the strait. So that the US can attack with full support of the EU/UN.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 03:03 PM by superman2012

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by oghamxx

I think the false flag is the US and EU sanction. The gaol with the sanctions are to force Iran to either attack or do something else, like closing of the strait. So that the US can attack with full support of the EU/UN.

Thank god they haven't, yet. They have shown (to me) tremendous patience with the sanctions. Now, with IAEA saying the meeting went well with Iran, who is the US going to make the boogeyman?

edit on 1-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 03:47 PM by spy66

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by oghamxx

I think the false flag is the US and EU sanction. The gaol with the sanctions are to force Iran to either attack or do something else, like closing of the strait. So that the US can attack with full support of the EU/UN.

Thank god they haven't, yet. They have shown (to me) tremendous patience with the sanctions. Now, with IAEA saying the meeting went well with Iran, who is the US going to make the boogeyman?
edit on 1-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

Yes, i think Iran has been very firm, and are so far navigating through this scam very well.

But now the US and the EU are scheduled to have talks with China about their oil agreements with Iran.
If the US and EU manages to strike a deal with China about their energy demands. Iran will be forced to make a new move. And it will most likely come in the form of a provocation against the US/EU in some form.

It will probably be the next big topic on ATS.

PS. These talks with China will most likely determine how China stand is with Iran. If Chine agrees with the US/EU. Iran is finished and the probability of war is very much imminent.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 03:51 PM by superman2012

reply to post by spy66

But now the US and the EU are scheduled to have talks with China about their oil agreements with Iran.

With Canada poised to sell oil to China (now that Obama blew it), I can see China turning away from Iran, but, I don't believe it because they are selling to China cheap. Plus, India has said they are not in favor of the sanctions and won't support them. With those 2, I believe the US will back down.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 04:02 PM by spy66

I can see China turning away from Iran, but, I don't believe it because they are selling to China cheap.

Well, this depends on what kind of deal China will get with the US/EU before and after the conflict is over.

I dont think China gets their oil that cheap from Iran that its worth the sacrifice of risking a conflict/war.

India is not a big game player in this event. Even though they are nuclear power.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 04:06 PM by superman2012

reply to post by spy66

Well, this depends on what kind of deal China will get with the US/EU before and after the conflict is over. I dont think China gets their oil that cheap from Iran that its worth the sacrifice of risking a conflict/war.

It depends on what kind of deal was offered I guess. If China is ready to throw Iran under the bus, North Korea, Pakistan, and China's other allies might not like that. IMO.

Edit: I don't think this would cause a war if China refused, I think it would just not help US/EU-China relations.

edit on 1-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 04:12 PM by spy66

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by spy66

Well, this depends on what kind of deal China will get with the US/EU before and after the conflict is over. I dont think China gets their oil that cheap from Iran that its worth the sacrifice of risking a conflict/war.

It depends on what kind of deal was offered I guess. If China is ready to throw Iran under the bus, North Korea, Pakistan, and China's other allies might not like that. IMO.

This is a grand chess game, its not always easy to know what will happen unless you are a player. And can take part and feel your opponents.

Pakistan haven't said much that has been mentioned on our news. And China's other allies probably will do their business with China as usual.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 04:18 PM by spy66

reply to post by superman2012

Edit: I don't think this would cause a war if China refused, I think it would just not help US/EU-China relations.

If China refuses the US ans EU deal, and still wants to buy Iranian oil. Iran can stand firm as they have until the US figures out what China really means with their move.

But Chinese troop movements haven't suggested that they have any future plans of supporting Iran in a conflict. Not if you compare it to what the US have mobilized.

EDIT:
It wouldn't surprise me at all if China actually went a head and financed the US in this war, so that the US would bleed even more financially.
The US war with Iran would probably cost more than the Iraq and Afghan wars put together.

And in the end China gets everything without a fight. Hypothetically.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 05:34 PM by superman2012

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by superman2012

Edit: I don't think this would cause a war if China refused, I think it would just not help US/EU-China relations.

If China refuses the US ans EU deal, and still wants to buy Iranian oil. Iran can stand firm as they have until the US figures out what China really means with their move.

But Chinese troop movements haven't suggested that they have any future plans of supporting Iran in a conflict. Not if you compare it to what the US have mobilized.
EDIT:
It wouldn't surprise me at all if China actually went a head and financed the US in this war, so that the US would bleed even more financially.
The US war with Iran would probably cost more than the Iraq and Afghan wars put together.

And in the end China gets everything without a fight. Hypothetically.

If China still buys Iranian oil, why would they have to support a conflict in Iran? The US is not prepared to go to war with Iran with the potential for China to enter, along with Russia, India, etc. The US does not need to bleed more financially, if the US were a human, it would only have 1/4 of a liter of blood in its economy.

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 10:24 PM by spy66

reply to post by superman2012

If China still buys Iranian oil, why would they have to support a conflict in Iran? The US is not prepared to go to war with Iran with the potential for China to enter, along with Russia, India, etc. The US does not need to bleed more financially, if the US were a human, it would only have 1/4 of a liter of blood in its economy.

Why?
Because China is playing a bigger game. The US doesn't really know what intentions the Chinese actually have. When it comes to their geopolitical strategy.

If the US bleeds more financially. The US might not be capable of being the protector it has sworn to be.
The US might have the military numbers and technology, but what if the US cant afford to use it or sustain it, after a conflict with Iran?
A war with Iran will go further than just bombing. Iran will go all in if they are attacked.

This US conflict with Iran might open more doors for China than it will for the US.

When it comes to India and Pakistan. I dont know, it might be clearer what intentions they actually have when the conflict really begins.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-2-2012 @ 11:38 PM by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by spy66

I dont agree. Israel is the reason the US is aggressive against Iran in the first place.

That's just plain wrong. You've got the tail wagging the dog there. An Israeli-Iranian alliance is America's worst nightmare. Please think things through before asserting things like that.

Well if you put it that way, things could be very bad for the US. What if the UK joined up in that alliance. That would really suck for the US.

Man; what if the whole world allied against the US, Now that would really be a night mare for the US.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I can say this because I have actually read the projections by the computer systems that PLAY WAR GAMES....24/7....under all conditions , enviroments and surprises....the scenarios run into the Hundreds of Thousands and this is what these Super Computers come up with.

In the most Highly Unlikely Event....that being....a sneak attack on the United States by it's enemies AND ALLIES....using EVERY POSSIBLE WEAPON in their inventory....and remember...this is a SNEAK ATTACK...the United States has a 87% chance of overall victory.

In the event that it is NOT a sneak attack....the United States has a 98% chance of overall victory.

The main reasons for these projections was the Geographic Location of North America and CANADA is included in as a part of the U.S. Military....as there are thousands of U.S./Canadian Bases all over Canada as well as ABM sites and TWO Free Electron Laser Nuclear Powered Systems located...one in Canada and another in Alaska.

In every simulation....the U.S. and Canada were able to shoot down or Lase incoming ICBMS in Space before MIRV seperation. Not all...but the vast majority.

Also...the immense size and capabilities of the U.S. Naval Carrier Groups which are all carrying Nuclear Weapons as well as Subs that carry Nukes make it near impossible for any enemy to cross oceans on all sides of North and South America for any possibility of a land invasion.

This report did not factor in Super Secret Weapons development as it was prepared for a Senate Sub-Committee.

Split Infinity

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 >> ^^TOP^^