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 admiral says forces prepared to confront Iran

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Puddles
Why does the US feel the need to get involved in a war


You just spent big money on a new flash bike...you wanna get to ride it don't ya ?




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
War is coming, it solves too many problems.

Very Cool Avatars btw.


And what problems would that be?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


armageddon for the Christians and Jesus 12th Iman for the Arabs, Russia gets to war again and try to prove history wrong and China hasn't been to war in thousands of years and has a shiny new war machine.

Americans that say bring it, think some kind of an apocalypse will mean they wont have to work or pay taxes again and this fits also with a currency collapse Which will not be the case, and to add that it was just Abe Lincoln that ordered people shot for not paying taxes.

what else?
edit on 12-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)

USA gets to say without a doubt that any country not paying for oil in US Dollars will be squashed
edit on 12-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


Iran has a more organized military than Iraq did, however, it still doesn't in any way compare to the power of the US Military. The initial invasion would be extremely swift, just like Iraq.. however.. Iran isn't stupid, they know that under no circumstances can they stand toe to toe with the power of the US Military. They likely have contingency plans set in place to create a shadow government in the event of invasion, and to organize a much more efficient guerrilla force for a hardened insurgency. They've likely learned a great deal from Iraq, hell they probably assisted in the insurgency there.. I think the actual occupation of the country, if we were to invade, would be much more deadly at first. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.. but it seems we are relentless, I've been waiting for war with Iran since we invaded Iraq, the constant propaganda against them has never ceased. And it's very evident that our "friends" in the ME, Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, want Iran toppled as well.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


If US attacks Iran or Syria, then Russia and CSTO nations can simply shut down the NDN route to supply the NATO troops in Afghanistan. More than 2/3rds of goods to troops pass through this network. This is Russia's strong card and all the nations combined do not earn too much only $500M a year. But the pain and extra costs to NATO would be much higher if NDN shuts down.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
We definitely should not use ground forces. We can completely devastate Iran with an air campaign. Just level everything and come on back home. IF they are building nukes, then I see no problem with nuking those facilities.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
We are ready is under estimated.

When an admiral goes ready with any contingency - that means we are prepared to deal with any country we suspect to get involved with the Iranian conflict

Russia is definitely on that list.

All of our supply needs will be met in Afghanistan. Easily. It will just cost tax payers more money which will barely register a blip if we go to war with Russia.
edit on 12-2-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonFire1024

Originally posted by rebellender
War is coming, it solves too many problems.

Very Cool Avatars btw.


And what problems would that be?


Really annoying Shia.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


If we invade Iran we would no longer need a route into Afghanistan.. Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan would all be connected by US / NATO controlled forces.
Which ..... may have been the long term plan to begin with?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Good thinking, but for that you need boots on the ground and via Iran you will be shipping goods amid relentless attacks on the cargo by the 'angry and defeated' mullahs. In Pakistan, attacks happen once every 3-4 weeks, in this case the attacks will be like once every 3 days.

I do not think US is ready for boots in Iran. That would be another $1T or more adventure.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


What is 1T dollar more at this point?!

Seriously, it's all a game as far as the USD's perceived value is concerned.

The monetary abstraction that is the USD is but a means to twist the will of the people of this nation and others, to do the bankers bidding.

If they want war, they will print the money for the war.

As long as the war machine keeps going, and if this is our last card to be played, it will be spun until it hits the floor as a joker.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


That would be an economic suicide, USD cannot afford to lose anymore value.

Also, right now Iran is quiet on Afghanistan. After attack, insurgencies will come also from Iran in addition to Pakistan. What is Iran starts to give mere $100M to AQ a year. That would rejuvenate the AQ and US will be stuck in Afghan mountains for next 10 years more at the cost of $10-15B a month. Talk about war economy!

edit on 12-2-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


So you want to go to war with Russia over the NDN or if Russia comes to help Iran under attack. I doubt Russia will help Iran or Syria in military sense. However, going to war with a nuclear power is not advisable. That is why US has not attacked Pakistan as of yet.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I wonder if Russia has any of those unpleasant gigantic tunnels between Iran and Afghanistan from when they occupied Afghanistan.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
idunno russians aren't scared of nuclear weapons anymore. they have chernobyl. if we get nuked and know how do handle ourselves that's one thing we can be better prepared for


you do know chernobyl is in Ukraine right?



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 





If it happens, I picture something like WW3 and it is my belief that nuclear weapons of some fashion will be involved. The more "news" i hear related to any possible strike on Iran chills me...literally.


Don't worry you have bush, obama, ect, ect, whatever current leader will be in power to come and rescue everyone. By proceeding to paradoxically perpetrate withing its parameter a perfect plan, of that same peculiar procrastination.


Everybody has heard of the cold war, but how many have heard of the silent war.
I know what your thinking how can you hear of something that is not making noise?....And if your not thinking that! Then maybe you should.


And remember it's pronounced Nu-cu-lar.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by unityemissions
 


That would be an economic suicide, USD cannot afford to lose anymore value.

Also, right now Iran is quiet on Afghanistan. After attack, insurgencies will come also from Iran in addition to Pakistan. What is Iran starts to give mere $100M to AQ a year. That would rejuvenate the AQ and US will be stuck in Afghan mountains for next 10 years more at the cost of $10-15B a month. Talk about war economy!

edit on 12-2-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

the whole game plan is to ruin the worlds economy and then start fresh.

Its so simple, currently the value of the dollar is based on oil, the next value will be based on carbon, every country is implementing or going to implement some form of carbon tax which will be the new currency.
A central world bank in control of carbon credits which every country is obligated to work through, the old system is breaking down because it was designed to.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 



Saber rattling or a 'quiet' way of saying the US is going to war with Iran?


The thing is - a single DDG can neutralize almost any standard military threat Iran could levy against it. ROE allows the use of force to protect U.S. HVAs - which means its entire battle group is allowed to respond and neutralize the threat levied against our forces; within the authorizing official's confidence in their ability to articulate justification for action.

Basically, what I'm saying, is that we could practically wipe out Iran as a military contender in a single return-fire event.

That's largely depending upon what they are willing to gamble (we can't tomahawk their version of the Pentagon because a few aircraft make a strafing run at an LHC without authorization from the President and/or declaration of war from Congress - or an official declaration of war from Iran) - but it's really just an issue of how much they expose to our ability to smash.


Fox even emphasizes "lethal weapons" like they don't plan on taking any hostages. And this article from Reuters sounds more like propaganda than a warning about suicide boats.


We won't invade Iran. There will be no opportunity to take prisoners; spare for the special forces operatives; but they don't often take prisoners unless it is their mission to do so (they simply don't have the resources to manage it during the operation or the assets to exfiltrate them).

Don't get me wrong - the media markets sensationalism. They'll talk a yard sale up to sound like a bankruptcy liquidation orchestrated by child labor.


I don't want a war with Iran.


We didn't want a war with Japan or Germany, either. Thing was; if we wanted there to be a Britain, China, or a host of other nations we were developing relations with... then we kind of had to deal with the prospect of a war with them. This was highlighted on December 7th, 1941.

We have to be able to prioritize our own interests. Currently - my interest to see and interact with Israel is a hell of a lot higher on the list of priorities than that of visiting/dealing with Iran. Given the choice of one or the other - I'd wipe Iran off the face of the planet before I'd allow the same with Israel.

People are free to agree or disagree with that. It's what humans do. The issue, then, becomes whether or not others disagree to the point of choosing to interfere with and/or eliminate a U.S. response to Iran, and whether or not we are resolved enough to a response to counter-interfere and/or eliminate.

It's not a hateful or shameful process. It's pure attritionary logic. What are you willing to sacrifice, and what are you immovable on? When two parties conflict over an immovable subject, a physical altercation will occur if locality is demanded (the two must occupy the same 'space' - in a literal or figurative sense; ideological wars are often far worse than resource and territorial wars - as they battle over social/influence-territory... human souls, if you want to get down to it). The most capable/adept (or just lucky) will subjugate the other party(s) and execute their will.

If you don't wish to submit, then you have to fight. Any true warrior understands this concept, and is capable of respecting another individual's will to see their vision continued. You may not think much of what their vision of things is... but at least you can respect their integrity to it.


If it happens, I picture something like WW3 and it is my belief that nuclear weapons of some fashion will be involved.


Not likely. While it is possible that Iran would utilize nuclear weapons (if available) in a limited fashion - they do not have an arsenal capable of directly intimidating the U.S.; Hurricanes do more damage than even China could possibly do with a full on nuclear barrage all successfully hitting their primary targets under optimal conditions. Iran lacks a delivery system, and would really only be able to leverage us by threatening European and Persian nations considered allies.

Russia has said they will defend Iran - but, honestly, that's posturing and an attempt to show good will and testament to the old USSR. They wouldn't get involved beyond selling Iran weapons and contracting military advisers out to them. Russia is starved for cash and doesn't want to admit they are still a shadow of the power they once were. They are still a serious contender, but won't be sticking their own necks too far out on the line for anything not in direct defense of their homeland.

China is the same way - they are emerging, but they don't have the force projection to be a real player. They don't even hold the economic cards, anymore - as India would greatly appreciate our industry turn to them for manufacturing needs.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


Most people do not and have not wanted war for a long time but we are all still allowing ourselves to be presumed citizens to their rule. We all need to stop this, we need to be human again and not xxx-xx-xxxx. Stop allowing paper currency to run our economy and the only way is for us all to take note of the ways we are being deprived of our rights to control our government. And come together in one large force to let them see we are who is in charge and we know how to take care of our affiars.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by sykonot
 



Most people do not and have not wanted war for a long time but we are all still allowing ourselves to be presumed citizens to their rule. We all need to stop this, we need to be human again and not xxx-xx-xxxx. Stop allowing paper currency to run our economy and the only way is for us all to take note of the ways we are being deprived of our rights to control our government. And come together in one large force to let them see we are who is in charge and we know how to take care of our affiars.


The problem is that there are a lot of average people out there who presume they not only have the ability - but the authority (and even 'social responsibility') to run my affairs under the somewhat comical assumption that I am exactly like them.

Which is where the whole concept of "coming together in one large force" falls apart.

I think we should return to a metal-backed standard of currency and get rid of the FDIC, Federal Reserve, Social Security, and Income Tax. That's my proposal for moving away from fiat currency.

But you, on the other hand, may look for a "no money" system (which is a fanciful idea, if there ever was one), where no one is allowed to own or 'be' 'more' than another individual, economically. (if you don't - there are plenty of others out there who vomit Marxism with and without realizing it).

We agree on one concept... but have two completely different ideas on where to go to get away from the current implementation that we agree is a problem.

Which is why this whole: "99%" concept that keeps getting thrown up by sensational activist groups is utter male bovine feces.

I'm me, and refuse to be pigeonholed by some douche with a megaphone.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join