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.

 

Invade Iran, Then What?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I put this in the "New World Order" area, because that's where i think this belongs, as what ever theory you have about the whys, and when, i believe this is all orchestrated to further an agenda, by the powers that be.

I see alot of talk about what will happen if we attack, so many discussions on the speculated scenario of how this will kick off, and reasons why its being done.

Putting that aside for a moment, i thought to myself today the simple question, ok Israel, and the US attacked Iran, knocking out what they perceive to be the "dangerous" nuclear facilities.

Now if we go along with the presumption that it wont start WW3, with Russia and China not starting anything directly themselves, what then?

If we look at Iraq, its a complete disaster, and that was with troops on land as well.

So if no world war, and no troops on the ground like in Iraq, what then?

After the dust settles, what do they really hope to achieve just by knocking out these key facilities?

Just was thinking about this today and wondered what people think about this too





posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
They systematically go after the next biggest threat until the last biggest threat is the worst people in its own country, at which point it will help a lot to be white and have a position of power.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
After Iran, would be an invasion of Syria.
Because Syria is Iran's ally.

The problem is they don't have the manpower to hold all these bases.
I mean going to Iran is another 5 year commitment, poor soldier, some of these soldiers who started fresh at 18 will have 15 years living over there.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by KingAtlas
 


Invasion is completely different to just destroying their nuclear facilities, that "they" keep on saying are the main threat.

I didn't want to go down the road of assuming they would occupy Iran, and Syria, because i simply do not think they have enough manpower to do it. (as you have stated)

Let alone control the counties, like in Iraq.

So to reiterate, if no occupation, what then?



edit on 20-3-2012 by Denied because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Invading our homes and our minds!!! hehe



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


They've are doing that already, for years...

edit on 20-3-2012 by Denied because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Denied
 


They may try to do things in the manner of Libya. Provide Air support and supplies only, supporting groups such as MEK to get the regime change they want.

I have yet to see how that works out though, as it only seems to put more of the same in power.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Exactly if you look at Libya, supporting regime change never works out in the long run, didn't Iran once have a more "accepted regime" in the past??

Because if the NWO or whatever you want to call them, plan agendas way a. in the future, regime change just would secure that.

Some say their agenda is to start a world war, then of course a one world government, centralization of power etc.

But if that was the case they could do that a lot easier than just blowing up some nuclear facilities.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Iran has been destablizing the region for sometime, so a strike on Iran would require a full invasion. The Middle East would restablize for a short time and the next play would be from China or Russia, because a stable, more democratic Middle East would only serve to further Isolate the two.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Denied
 


LOL True and when I got your reply it said Denied replied so I thought what? Why was my reply Denied? Sneaky lol



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


Yeah but in reality, does the US really have the capacity to occupy all these countries?

I found this which describes how it wouldn't be able to muster enough troops.

Even without this link below, im sure it could be shown further through other research that the US wouldn't be able to occupy and hold all these countries, so the likelihood is, if anything happened, it would be just air stikes on Iran, so i come back to my question, then what?


For US the only way to get rid of such Iranian harassment of it's occupying forces would be to completely occupy Iran, just as the US did it with Iraq 2006. The problem with this option is that Iran is much larger than Iraq, and has a lot more sophisticated weapons for guerilla tactics. When the US manages to occupy Iran, the Shia resistance could be organized from Kerbala in Iraq. If the US wants to stop that, the US would need to reoccupy Iraq again. And probably the US would also need to occupy Syria and defeat Hisbollah. O the northern front in Afghanistan the US would have to expect Iran to align with the Afghan resistance, the Taliban, and probably also Pakistan betting on Taliban victory all together against the US. So, if the US and a coalition of the willing would do all this, and I think the US is unlikely to do it, because it would need at least have a milion of soldiers in theater, how long the US could sustain such an operation? I think the maximum would be some ten or twenty years, even if the US would reintroduce the draft to get enough soldiers, and then the US would be completely bankrupt.


Source
edit on 20-3-2012 by Denied because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Denied because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Denied
 


They may try to do things in the manner of Libya. Provide Air support and supplies only, supporting groups such as MEK to get the regime change they want.

I have yet to see how that works out though, as it only seems to put more of the same in power.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


If you think that the people of Lybia will be as good off under the new regime, as they were under the old one, you are being optimistic, at least in the short therm. But we will see 30 years down the road.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I can speculate that it would involve regime change, installing western "friendly" people in power positions, but as others have correctly mentioned...that does not always happen nice and neat like.

I can also speculate that as long as the US secures the oil and is given a cheap price on it, that will help our economy greatly. I do think we potentially have the ability to invade Iran, as long as there are young men and women graduating high school with no job prospects, we will replenish our stocks nicely, Gen Y is a pretty large chunk of young people, much larger than Gen X, plus all the immigrants who join the military could help out a bit.

It would seem, if this does occur, that someone somewhere has decided it is in the "best interests" of our nation to attack Iran. These are the kind of people who are thinking long term, big picture down the road.....they are not so concerned with how many boots are on the ground or how many years it takes to "secure" the region, they are looking at the long term pay off for such an endeavor. The sacrifices we little people make to get there is minute compared to the long range benefits in their minds.

Just more speculation on my part though...



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Denied
 


They may try to do things in the manner of Libya. Provide Air support and supplies only, supporting groups such as MEK to get the regime change they want.

I have yet to see how that works out though, as it only seems to put more of the same in power.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


If you think that the people of Lybia will be as good off under the new regime, as they were under the old one, you are being optimistic, at least in the short therm. But we will see 30 years down the road.


Thats the way things seem to work out don't they?

Even the backward nation has access to 24/7 media these days and I think that it reflects that people want to see change NOW, not realizing that positive change takes time and growth.

It does not happen overnight.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
bomb

invade

build

control

train

find another country that "hates us for our freedoms...............but HAS oil/resources/drugs

rinse + repeat



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Iran, then create another "terrorist" threat, then invade there, then create another "terrorist" threat, invade there too... and so on and so forth until someone finally wakes up and says enough is enough and destroys the israeli-american empire...

it will never stop until Russia, China, Pakistan take a stand and stop israel and the us in their tracks... until then, more innocent people will needlessly die.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
They systematically go after the next biggest threat until the last biggest threat is the worst people in its own country, at which point it will help a lot to be white and have a position of power.



That was my reply but no matter whom says it it is bound to happen....


Frigging idiots the governments are...
Regards, Iwinder



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join