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.
Originally posted by Soshh
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Well whatever, my point is that America and allies have carried out numerous 'acts of war' against Iran and Syria.
We aren't at war and if Iran/Syria hasn't declared war in response to something that we have done, then it wasn't an act of war.
Around here I quite often read that "sanctions are an act of war" and other such bollocks. How is it that acts of war are supposedly being committed all over the place without there being any actual war to speak of.
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Well if that is the case, please address the OP's title which says an 'Act of War'.
I mean you guys take not understanding context to a whole new level at times.
That was my ENTIRE point, the OP is saying 'act of war' yet people jump in with pedantic comments when you try and point out another side of the story.
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
my point is that America and allies have carried out numerous 'acts of war' against Iran and Syria
Originally posted by Evanzsayz
It's only an act of war if harm is brought upon them or if they are not released.
Originally posted by Soshh
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Well if that is the case, please address the OP's title which says an 'Act of War'.
There is a question mark behind "Act of War" in the thread title. I don't know exactly what he/she meant because I don't live inside their brain but my interpretation of the thread title is the OP posing the question of whether or not Saudi Arabia would decide that whatever the Iranians were up to constituted an act of war. I don't necessarily think that it is a good question and I'm not a fan of term 'act of war' either.
I mean you guys take not understanding context to a whole new level at times.
That was my ENTIRE point, the OP is saying 'act of war' yet people jump in with pedantic comments when you try and point out another side of the story.
I thought that this was your point:
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
my point is that America and allies have carried out numerous 'acts of war' against Iran and Syria
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Yes, in the context of how the OP used the term 'act of war'.
You brought out the technical details but please be aware the context I used the phrase.
Not only that, acts of war can be carried out without war being officially declared.
Hence, armed conflict is regarded as an act of war- as is happening in Syria as the US and her allies continue to send rebels into Syria to fight the regime they want to topple. That constitutes quite literally, an act of war.
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
but I am sure if Jimmy Carter had waged a war against Iran then you would call him the first worst president of USA !
He approved a rescue mission that was an utter failure. It was I'll-conceived and poorly planned, which made execution impossible.
Ross Perot, on the other hand, was instrumental in rescuing people in his employ that were trapped in Iran (albeit under different circumstances) during the same time period. He was a businessman, not the POTUS, and he did not have the entire US armed forces at his disposal.
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
Not being the POTUS, it is easy for me to say, I know, but....
I would have delivered an ultimatum to Iran within three days of their taking of our embassy and personnel.
'Release our embassy and personnel within 24 hours, or suffer the extreme consequences of your failure to do so.'
He never delivered extreme consequences.
Originally posted by maes2
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
Not being the POTUS, it is easy for me to say, I know, but....
I would have delivered an ultimatum to Iran within three days of their taking of our embassy and personnel.
'Release our embassy and personnel within 24 hours, or suffer the extreme consequences of your failure to do so.'
this is what Carter did ! or you mean a large war, but I think in that time Iran itself was the only USA's military base in the middle east, so USA was not ready to start a large war, however it supported the enemy of it's enemy (Saddam) to wage a war against Iran but after eight years nothing special happened, instead Saddam attacked Kuwait after Iran, like a knife that is cutting it's own handle !
Originally posted by butcherguy
He never delivered extreme consequences.
Originally posted by maes2
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
Not being the POTUS, it is easy for me to say, I know, but....
I would have delivered an ultimatum to Iran within three days of their taking of our embassy and personnel.
'Release our embassy and personnel within 24 hours, or suffer the extreme consequences of your failure to do so.'
this is what Carter did ! or you mean a large war, but I think in that time Iran itself was the only USA's military base in the middle east, so USA was not ready to start a large war, however it supported the enemy of it's enemy (Saddam) to wage a war against Iran but after eight years nothing special happened, instead Saddam attacked Kuwait after Iran, like a knife that is cutting it's own handle !
He sucked.
You don't think that we had any military bases to launch effective strikes on targets in the Middle East at the height of the Cold War?
We also had aircraft carrier battle groups back then.
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by maes2
Hello.
I mean, knock knock.... HELLLLLOOOOO in there.
You realize that we had planned missile and B-52 strike plans against the Soviet Union during that time period. The thing that prevented us from striking Iran hard was a wooosy-butt Jimmy Carter.
reply to post by maes2
middle east is complicated, it is always boiling and you should always expect anything unbelievable !