Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Irrelevant, I wasn't asking about my thoughts.

No, I was asking you what your thoughts were, Not him.

No, not at all. I said that the US is unprepared for asymmetrical warfare.

True but you also said that asymmetric warfare was one of Iran's strengths.
No?

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Trying to trip me up?

Asymmetric warfare = terrorism?

Terrorism?

That's only one definition of it.

I wasn't trying to trip you up. On the contrary, I was asking you to clarify your views on the subject. You seemed pretty convinced that Iran would use their advantage if fighting the US in your thread

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

Here is where I see Iran's strengths:

1) home advantage
2) allies are close
3) their strategy of asymmetric warfare is proven against US (Afghanistan)

Originally posted by xavi1000

Originally posted by Rocky Black
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Last I remeber Irak invaded Kuwait. We came to the rescue don't you remeber.

And yes then Afganastan.

Remeber 911.
The taliban thumbing there nose to us ya we have bin laden. No you cannot have him he is innocent. Do you remember the videos of the taliban commanders before we went over there saying it weas not him.

Then we went over there and laid some smack down.

How soon we forget.

And Irak.

rember arfer we kciked there ass we backed out to let them take control. And then his own people in the north and south started to attack his own forces. And the UN had to set up the north and south parralells.

MNot to mentuion they took way to long and his own people suffered brutal attacks from his forces.

Go figure.

We forget all this but one thing you always for get.

We respond.

We did not initiate #.

Wow, this is most inaccurate and by far most ignorant post i have seen on ATS . CNN or FOX should hire you asap !.

AGAIN - it's one thing to CLAIM "inaccuracies" without being able to specify any, and quite another to actually point them out. Care to try, or are you another that will simply slink off into the shadows after firing an ineffective salvo?

reply to post by Melbourne_Militia

What Im trying to say as echoed by some people, is that they would not be stuoid enough to proceed with an "open" attack on the USA to justify instant retaliation against them

They would if they thought it would bring about the 12th imam

reply to post by Apollumi

I saw maybe, one or two people all the time I was in the Corps that was good an honorable. And they left because of the bull#. I don't feel like this land is good and plenty at all. A whole lot of people don't. Take your idealized crud and write some fairy tale books.

Dearheart, Quit your sniveling and get to work. You volunteered and picked your job. You are giving the Corps. a bad name. When you grow up you will know what the hell I am talking about. Until you do you might consider many have done what you have in a whole lot worse conditions.
snot nosed cry baby

reply to post by seabag

Of course I have…you refuse to acknowledge them.

There are fears there will soon be a second world missile crisis after it was reported that Iran, who are fierce enemies of Israel, are due to build a mid-range rocket base in Venezuela. In a dual partnership between Venezuela and Iran, the rocket bases will include measures to prevent air attacks on the South American country as well as commando and control stations.

The Iranian military will also build bunkers, barracks and oversea tower construction, as well as 20-metre deep rocket silos.

These preparations are all because Iran wants peaceful nuclear energy in IRAN, RIGHT?

Nothing to do with peaceful nuclear energy. Merely protecting their interests. Why does the US want a European missile shield? They aren't in Europe. Plus I'm sure you read the article you linked to right? RIGHT? They are talking about the Shahab-3. Range of 1,280 kilometres (800 mi), a MRBM variant can now reach 1,930 kilometres (1,200 mi). Now I'm sure someone as well educated as you can see that the closest distance between the US and Venezuela falls short of that right?

Distance between United States to Venezuela: 2841.86 km = 1765.85 miles

So, are they going to splash you?

We are arguing in circles because YOU fail to acknowledge the facts, friend.

The report, sent Tuesday to 35 nations on the IAEA's board, says Iran, which signed the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), is violating the pact. Congressional leaders called for crippling sanctions on Iran's financial institutions and oil industry and nations that do business with it.

"The IAEA has turned on a big, red, blinking light and siren and they're rallying attention worldwide to the Iranian threat," said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism and non-proliferation of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Natanz: Based on the results of the analysis of environmental samples taken at FEP since February 200712 and other verification activities, the Agency has concluded that the facility has operated as declared by Iran in the Design Information Questionnaire (DIQ).

Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant: Based on the results of the analysis of the environmental samples taken at PFEP18 and other verification activities, the Agency has concluded that the facility has operated as declared by Iran in the DIQ.

Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant: The Agency continues to verify that FFEP is being constructed according to the latest DIQ provided by Iran. As previously reported, although Iran has provided some clarification regarding the initial timing of, and circumstances relating to, its decision to build FFEP at an existing defence establishment, additional information from Iran is still needed in connection with this facility.21 26. The results of the analysis of the environmental samples taken at FFEP up to 27 April 2011 did not indicate the presence of enriched uranium.22

Reprocessing Activities: It is only with respect to TRR, the MIX Facility and the other facilities to which the Agency has access that the Agency can confirm that there are no ongoing reprocessing related activities in Iran.

I'm not going to go over all 25 pages of the IAEA report. So I'll just quote the "strong" language the report makes on Iran's nuke program.

The information indicates that prior to the end of 2003 the above activities took place under a structured programme. There are also indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.

Indications, some activities relevant to the development, some may. Wow. That's proof enough for me.

During my 8 years fighting your battles overseas in the Marine Corps I learned critical thinking. I was also taught critical thinking during my 4 years in college, and based on my knowledge of the subject you are exercising no ability!

You never fought my battles. It appears you were to busy and missed that class though. Everything is there and you just want to see what you were and are trained to see, an enemy wherever your government points to. Sad really. I bet you believed them when Iraq was building nuclear bombs too right?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Irrelevant, I wasn't asking about my thoughts.

No, I was asking you what your thoughts were, Not him.

No, not at all. I said that the US is unprepared for asymmetrical warfare.

True but you also said that asymmetric warfare was one of Iran's strengths.
No?

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Trying to trip me up?

Asymmetric warfare = terrorism?

Terrorism?

That's only one definition of it.

I wasn't trying to trip you up. On the contrary, I was asking you to clarify your views on the subject. You seemed pretty convinced that Iran would use their advantage if fighting the US in your thread

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

Here is where I see Iran's strengths:

1) home advantage
2) allies are close
3) their strategy of asymmetric warfare is proven against US (Afghanistan)

No you weren't asking my thoughts, you already know them from this thread. I don't mind you standing up for your buddy though. It is admirable.

Yes I did say I believe asymmetric warfare is one of Iran's strengths. What is your point? I don't know why you want to re-hash another thread.

Originally posted by superman2012
No you weren't asking my thoughts, you already know them from this thread. I don't mind you standing up for your buddy though. It is admirable.

Yes I did say I believe asymmetric warfare is one of Iran's strengths. What is your point? I don't know why you want to re-hash another thread.

This threads topic fits hand in glove with what you described in your thread [Linked above] as what Iran strengths are. Yet, In this thread you wont acknowledge that this threads very premise is exactly that [A great fit]

Now why is that?

It's one thing to talk hypotheticals but when it comes down to brass tacks [And possibly gets real] now all of a sudden Iran is no threat. Now which is it?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by superman2012
No you weren't asking my thoughts, you already know them from this thread. I don't mind you standing up for your buddy though. It is admirable.

Yes I did say I believe asymmetric warfare is one of Iran's strengths. What is your point? I don't know why you want to re-hash another thread.

This threads topic fits hand in glove with what you described in your thread [Linked above] as what Iran strengths are. Yet, In this thread you wont acknowledge that this threads very premise is exactly that [A great fit]

Now why is that?

It's one thing to talk hypotheticals but when it comes down to brass tacks [And possibly gets real] now all of a sudden Iran is no threat. Now which is it?

Thats because he knows,deep down inside, WAR (US/Iran) isn't going to happen.

But it makes a great hypothetical,and even a better movie,if you really want to see America fall.

reply to post by lacrimaererum


Except that on Hogueprophecy.com he say's that pretty much there will be no war.

More fear mongering from the US of A. We all know that Obeezy and his puppet masters along with Isreal just want justification to invade Tehran.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by superman2012
No you weren't asking my thoughts, you already know them from this thread. I don't mind you standing up for your buddy though. It is admirable.

Yes I did say I believe asymmetric warfare is one of Iran's strengths. What is your point? I don't know why you want to re-hash another thread.

This threads topic fits hand in glove with what you described in your thread [Linked above] as what Iran strengths are. Yet, In this thread you wont acknowledge that this threads very premise is exactly that [A great fit]

Now why is that?

It's one thing to talk hypotheticals but when it comes down to brass tacks [And possibly gets real] now all of a sudden Iran is no threat. Now which is it?

I believe that Iran would cause many casualties if the US invaded Iran. I don't think that Iran would start a war in the US. They are much stronger at home. It would make no sense for them to attack the US unless they were so far removed from it(attacks) that it would be circumstantial at best that they were behind it. Like I said earlier though, I don't think they will start attacking the US that far from home, even if they have bases (and missiles that could splash the ocean around the US) in Venezuela.

My main point is that, the US is forcing Iran into a corner. They have no valid reason to do so. Even though Iran is not following the NPT, neither is the US, so why is the pot calling the kettle black? There are other pressing issues than Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon (if that is what they are trying to achieve). This is further proof ( in my eyes) that the US will keep up the "war for oil" slogan that is synonymous with the "war on terror".

Please let me know if I haven't answered your question, I might need more clarification.

reply to post by sonnny1

Thats because he knows,deep down inside, WAR (US/Iran) isn't going to happen. But it makes a great hypothetical,and even a better movie,if you really want to see America fall.

No. No one knows if a war is going to happen or not. A lot of us just hope.

Edit: Hope it doesn't happen.

Glad to see your back with the regulars on these threads!

It should be common sense that the Iranians are capable of launching an attack in the US. No one should be surprised that Iran is a terrorist nation that is going to target unarmed civilians on purpose and without reason on a large-scale.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 - 3000 US civilian casualties. More civilians are more likely to die than combat personnel from the way i hear it.

2000 - 3000 US civilians are better than 20 - 30 thousand from a dirty bomb and another 20 - 30 thousand affected by the radiation through cancer or other means.

Being in the government isnt easy. Some times you simply have to choose the lesser evil and suffer the unknown of the possible greater evil. You lose either way.

Your damned if you lose 2 - 3 thousand civilians your damned if you lose 30000 thousand , but with a much bigger impact on your conscious that you stood there knowing the high risk / possibility of that something happening and you could have minimized it.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Thats because he knows,deep down inside, WAR (US/Iran) isn't going to happen. But it makes a great hypothetical,and even a better movie,if you really want to see America fall.

No. No one knows if a war is going to happen or not. A lot of us just hope.

Edit: Hope it doesn't happen.

Glad to see your back with the regulars on these threads!

edit on 31-1-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

Glad you clarified your slip of the tongue,BTW.........

And thanks for having me back.

Ironic......The support for Iran,and its "peaceful purpose" of secret nuclear Installations,holds no bounds......

Originally posted by seabag

During my 8 years fighting your battles overseas in the Marine Corps I learned critical thinking. I was also taught critical thinking during my 4 years in college, and based on my knowledge of the subject you are exercising no ability!

edit on 31-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Hahaha! What a brainwashed soldier! You didnt fought his battles, you fought the leaders battle. That is totally different dude.

If you learned critical thinking, you would not have been in the army. Soldiers are a bunch of brainwashed tools for the government, that's all. They make you believe you can think on your own but it isnt true. The proof is you think you fight for all the people of the USA. YOU DON'T. Just look at how many people disapprove these wars on foreign soil against enemys that aren't near your homeland?

I agree with the poster that said it was the soldiers fault. Just stay home and mind your own business. If all the soldiers stayed home, the world would be better IMO. Without soldiers tofight their wars, the ruling "elites" would have to find another way to extend their power.

Peace out.

From the article, and I quote...

"U.S. intelligence agencies believe..." Believe? Maybe? Kinda sorta?? Could be???.....

Here's what I believe. The only thing that is being threatened is the status quo. By that I mean the international
cabal's plans to lay a pipeline across Afghanistan without having to compete with Iran's OWN pipeline, or having to put up with Iran's threat of using gold as currency instead of fiat (faux) currency, and so threaten the banker's
control system, This is more BS warmongering, fear-laden propaganda.

Here's my prediction. If Ron Paul gets within smelling distance of the Republican nomination TPTB
will take us to war to ensure that Obama will win a second term. and all you'll hear from the media
will be the repeated soundbyte that "...No sitting president has ever been unseated during a time of war."

That way they won't have to pull the trigger on one of those messy assasinations, and can completely
sidestep having to deal with Paul actually having a chance. So if you don't want war with Iran you had
better vote either Romney Newt or Obama. Of course you'll be selling your soul and your children's
future freedom, but at least we won't be killing innocent women and children in the name of greed, disguised
as patriotic, preemptive strategic military insertion (or whatever nice sounding euphemism they come
up with this time.)

reply to post by sonnny1

Glad you clarified your slip of the tongue,BTW......... And thanks for having me back. Ironic......The support for Iran,and its "peaceful purpose" of secret nuclear Installations,holds no bounds......

Until they provide proof that Iran is building Nuclear bombs, I take everything the MSM and the US government says with a grain of salt. How anyone can believe the US government when they are using the same old, they are building nukes, argument is beyond me. I guess land of the free doesn't apply to thinking. So many are slaves to believing whatever the Government tells them.

Originally posted by superman2012
I believe that Iran would cause many casualties if the US invaded Iran.

ALL wars cause casualties.
Some worse than others.

I don't think that Iran would start a war in the US. They are much stronger at home.

Conversely the US isn't stronger at home? The possibility of an Iranian "Asymmetric attack" on US soil [Whether Pre or Post declaration of War] is out of the realm of possibility?

It would make no sense for them to attack the US unless they were so far removed from it(attacks) that it would be circumstantial at best that they were behind it

Clarify...
So no matter what happens in the future you are already sure they wont be behind it? Yet, it's something you yourself stated they are good at. .

Like I said earlier though, I don't think they will start attacking the US that far from home, even if they have bases (and missiles that could splash the ocean around the US) in Venezuela

One doesn't need bases and/or missiles to raise hell.
Ask the Vietcong.

My main point is that, the US is forcing Iran into a corner. They have no valid reason to do so. Even though Iran is not following the NPT, neither is the US

On the contrary, the US has drastically reduced it's arsenal and continues to reduce it's Nuclear stockpile. This was started decades ago.

There are other pressing issues than Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon (if that is what they are trying to achieve).

AND...

You are 100% sure they are not?

Please let me know if I haven't answered your question, I might need more clarification.

You're doing fine
let's just not both fall back on relying on the CIA Factbook again

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Glad you clarified your slip of the tongue,BTW......... And thanks for having me back. Ironic......The support for Iran,and its "peaceful purpose" of secret nuclear Installations,holds no bounds......

Until they provide proof that Iran is building Nuclear bombs, I take everything the MSM and the US government says with a grain of salt. How anyone can believe the US government when they are using the same old, they are building nukes, argument is beyond me. I guess land of the free doesn't apply to thinking. So many are slaves to believing whatever the Government tells them.

Maybe letting Inspectors into their hidden mountainside Nuclear facility,might do the trick?

Second,The US stated for years,that North Korea was trying to build Nuclear Bombs.

And Look at what happened?

Another country,hellbent on creating them,with the words,Peaceful nuclear ambitions,attached to the side of them.................


I know,what does that have to do with Iran,right?????

Sigh.....

reply to post by Tw0Sides


not only is he right, you are wrong. I don't know what planet you have been living on for the last 15 years but it obviously hasn't been on planet earth. you need to get real and stop lying to your self, it's just not healthy