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.

 

Is the USA planning to attack Iran now?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Get over it Sminky..., brooding for 4 years over an election that wasn't even in your counrty. Iran is close enough to deploying its nukes that it can chance telling the IAEA to get lost should scare all of us into doing something.




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   


Leaders that think like Sminkey...

...Are leaders destined to hold their own populace hostage to rogue nations, like Iran. Sminkey, didn't you guys learn anything from WWI and WWII??? You sat back with this same "PROOF" argument in WWII while Hitler prepared himself to run amok over Europe, which he did... handily I should add. I'm not patting my country on back, merely pointing out a fact, that without the USA coming to your aid, Europe would look very different today... like almost everyone would be blonde with blue eyes... get the point?

The problem with your argument is by the time we have the "PROOF" that you so dearly need to make tough calls, we'll all already be hostages to Iran's theocratic government... got it? Or worse yet, given Iran's continued support of terrorism, the proof might arrive in the form of a 200+ Kiloton explosion in the heart of London... got it now?

Let's deal with reality here... Iran has kicked out the UN IAEA Inspectors... hmmm, why would that be... I mean, isn't their Uranium Enrichment Programme a peaceful one? They have buried under-ground all of their nuclear enrichment facilities... why is that? That are testing IRBMs and looking into acquiring ICBM technology... Now, why would that be? Given that IRBM and ICBM missiles are a.) far too expensive to launch given a conventional warhead b.) far too slow to elude radar and risk being shot down and c.) Much too costly to fire, store and maintain given the "Bang for the buck". In short IRBM and ICBM missiles are for nuclear warheads! Now come on, let's face reality here! If it walks like a duck, queacks like a duck... THEN IT'S A FRIKKIN' DUCK


Errr...what? Hitler was a mess up on our part, Granted, but that is because we are not so keen on War, especially after the horror of WW1. We where trying our best to avoid a repeat, and in the end we failed. But, we stood up too him, and I doubt very much if hitler could EVER have invaded Britain successfully, as that has happened only once in 1000yrs. We defeated his Luftwaffe and his whole Operation was fecked up...then he started on the Russians and the war was over. The Western Allies played little part in the defeat of Hitler, it was those "Evil" commies that did it in the end. The biggest thing the Allies did was bomb Germany to a pulp and slaughter thousands of innocent German civilians, preventing the Axis from effective re-armament after the disasters at Stalingrad and Leningrad

And the whole concept of blue eyes and blonde hair applied to Germanic peoples only, but Hitler never has a problem with French, Dutch, or English, as we still Aryan peoples per se.

As to your argument that Iran will give a bomb to terrorists to plant in London. Absurd! You can identify a nuke by its signature and we would know whose it was within hours of its use, and annihalate the culprit. And where is this proof of continued support for Terrorists?

And Iran has no beef with us either. We are quiet pally with them, and do not see there regime as some Evil Empire that needs destroying....

Jesus, stop with the paranoia America, ever think that if you stopped threatening everyone and blowing things up, people wouldn't need these to defend themselves from you!!??

IRBM for nukes not conventional? What about the Soviet Scuds? Or any other medium range missile? check your info and then come back once you have located some grey matter....

edit for spelling and grammar



[edit on 28/10/04 by stumason]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
DrHoracid, it's good to see you differ between the people and the Clerics but just as a logical thought.

If we were terrorists and trying to nuke a country that's superior than mine...what would we do?

I would remain as silent as possible, produce the bomb and bring it into the country of my choice. After the nuke went off, I would place traces to the my 2nd worst enemy so they start killing each other. It doesn't make sense to assume that Iranian clerics would favour a nuke strike on the States, they know that 30min later the desert will be a little more dust than before.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
stumason...two fools, same thought



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I don't pretend to understand Islam, however, the nukes are for Israel. If Iran can blackmail the US with H-bombs, then Israel is vulnerable to attack. Why would the US continue to protect Israel?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   


stumason...two fools, same thought


Please explain...

Also, that is a breach of board rules as it is not only a one liner, but possibly an insult.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
...Are leaders destined to hold their own populace hostage to rogue nations, like Iran.


- Nonsense. How is anyone 'hostage'?


Sminkey, didn't you guys learn anything from WWI and WWII???


- There is absolutely no parallel with WW1 or WW2 here.


You sat back with this same "PROOF" argument in WWII while Hitler prepared himself to run amok over Europe, which he did... handily I should add.


- This is utterly untrue. That is not what happened at all.

The western powers attempted to resolve issues that they thought were fair and resonable grievances (at least to begin with) with Germany.

Given that Hitler announced his armed forces to the world years before WW2 how on earth was anyone attempting to find anything like this 'proof' you seem to find so objectionable?

Where are you getting this idea from? It's just nothing remotely even like what happened.


I'm not patting my country on back,


- Jeez, I should think not given the amount of trading some of you lot did with those villians - even after the war had started, by the way thanks friends. (including making the Bush fortune with grandpappy Prescot if I remember rightly)


merely pointing out a fact, that without the USA coming to your aid, Europe would look very different today... like almost everyone would be blonde with blue eyes... get the point?


- Nonsense, this is a daft flight of fancy, again.

Here's what would have most likely happened.

Germany would have attacked Russia after failing to subjugate the UK (as actually did happen) and would have eventually been defeated because there never was any way on earth Germany could ever have defeated Russia.


The problem with your argument is by the time we have the "PROOF" that you so dearly need to make tough calls, we'll all already be hostages to Iran's theocratic government... got it?


- What is all this 'hostage' nonsense? Are we 'hostage to nuclear armed Russia? Or China? Or they us?

....and - lets go with your assumption - how come nuclear deterrence is supposed to suddenly stop working with this imagined Iran with it's handful of nuclear weapons and a dodgy untested delivery system against our overwhelming destructive might?

It makes no sense at all.


Or worse yet, given Iran's continued support of terrorism, the proof might arrive in the form of a 200+ Kiloton explosion in the heart of London... got it now?


- Oh I see. You now imagine a different means of delivery? What now? It's not about missiles now is it? Now it's the scary terrorists who just so happen to be able organised to smuggle in and operate nuclear weapons without anyone noticing?

Well beyond the 'why would they anyway?' the fact remains that if they were to attack us (however they got it here) we would respond in kind only much worse. I believe those things are traceable and not easily sneaked about anywhere.


et's deal with reality here... Iran has kicked out the UN IAEA Inspectors... hmmm, why would that be... I mean, isn't their Uranium Enrichment Programme a peaceful one?


- Iran has also complied with everything asked of them. Maybe they feel that they are being threatened (in that ever so helpful manner) that whether they cooperate or not it makes no odds, so why should they?


They have buried under-ground all of their nuclear enrichment facilities... why is that?


- (if true......I mean US 'intelligence' and all) to make it less easy a target in this much talked about Israeli or US attack?


That are testing IRBMs and looking into acquiring ICBM technology... Now, why would that be?


- I already said why I think this. They frighten Israel and given that Israel is nuclear equipped and threatening Iran I imagine they see that as useful.


Given that IRBM and ICBM missiles are a.) far too expensive to launch given a conventional warhead


- I don't see why you think they're going for the expensive kind of missile. A ballistic missile does not have to be especially expensive compared to other military kit.


b.) far too slow to elude radar and risk being shot down


- Yeah ok, says you. But you'll excuse the scepticism over just how easy these things are to shoot down given what came out at the investigative hearings into Patriot in gulf war mk1. There was a major gap between the propaganda of the time and the actual effectiveness. My bet is they retain that scepticism.


and c.) Much too costly to fire, store and maintain given the "Bang for the buck". In short IRBM and ICBM missiles are for nuclear warheads! Now come on, let's face reality here!


- You can insist all you like but there are a host of missiles out there with conventional warheads the world over.


If it walks like a duck, queacks like a duck... THEN IT'S A FRIKKIN' DUCK!


- Yet only the current US right and Israel see ducks why is that?

Why should I have the slightest confidence in your analysis of the situation?

Sure, you are entitled like anyone to your opinion but you have demonstrated yourself to be utterly wrong about WW2 and it's origins and to have drawn a whole host of conclusions on that matter with totally erroneous 'facts'.

Me? I'd prefer we stick to starting or getting into wars on something at least approaching a sound basis through fact and truth.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



stumason...two fools, same thought


Please explain...

Also, that is a breach of board rules as it is not only a one liner, but possibly an insult.


Not at all. Sorry it's a funny german saying, didn't know it is completly unknown in other countries. You basically say this when you realise that you just did/thought/said the same as another person near you. We both had the same idea in our threads, just one minute post time difference


@DR
I just realised a mistake in my logic, sorry!

YOu are damn right about the danger of nukes being used. Extremist muslims WOULD actually risk the live of thousands of arabs if they know: We can destroy Israel.
Not good.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Ahhh....I see said the blind man


Sorry for the misunderstanding....



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahsa




You sound like young man back in the days of the "hitlerjugend". Passionate for fighting in the front line, dying for a lunatic mind!


Passionate to fight? Absolutely!!!!!!!!! Am tired of dealing with these a**holes. Am tired of them trying to BLUR the line between Right and Wrong.

Lunatic mind? Are you f'in kidding me? What world do you live in?

Nuke, nuke, nuke. Some of you guys talk about killing thousands of people like it's empyting the windows recycle bin. I wonder what you would think about such opinions if born in Iran or another "evil" country.
But lucky you! Savely born in a western country, shouting tough words to compensate a lack of humanity.

Nuke? only as a last resort!!

Killin' thousands? I said anything about killin thousands? Kill the leadership and the people who teach Anti-American and Anti-West views and I will be happy as a pig in s***

And Yes " safely born in a western country "

" Shouting tough words to compensate for a lack of humanity"


Again are you f'in kidding me? lack of humanity? WTF is SO inhuman about wanting FREEDOM? What is so inhuman about wanting the "people" to pick their OWN leaders?



Go back to Iran or Syria or wherever your from and tell your boss if he wants a fight to stop Pus'ing around and Bring IT!!!!!



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by DrHoracidElection

Get over it Sminky..., brooding for 4 years over an election that wasn't even in your counrty.


- "Brooding"?
You are kidding, I hope.

I'm simply stating what almost everyone in the world - outside of that merry deluded band of US republicans - thinks......you do know that is no exaggeration and that that is really how it is don't you?


Iran is close enough to deploying its nukes that it can chance telling the IAEA to get lost should scare all of us into doing something.


- Er, except they have been complying with IAEA and have not been found to have anything in the way of a weapons program at all.

Your repeated assertions just do not make it so, sorry.


Originally posted by DrHoracid
I don't pretend to understand Islam, however, the nukes are for Israel.


- So even if this situation did arise 2 unfriendly nuclear armed countries would be facing each other....just like India and Pakistan....so why is deterrence suddenly not going to operate like it has done everywhere else in similar circumstances?


If Iran can blackmail the US with H-bombs, then Israel is vulnerable to attack. Why would the US continue to protect Israel?


- This just doesn't make sense to me. How would Iran threaten the US with "H-bombs"? By simply having them? ....and where does the USA's H-Bomb arsenal come into the reckoning then?

IMO this stuff simply assumes that because certain individuals are prepared to suicide themselves then the leaders of certain countires are prepared to suicide their nation. That's just stupid as is the notion that they'd supply any terrorist who fancied having a 'go' with one or two.

I do not believe that for one minute.

(.....and for your information Iran is....or was, liberalising - oh is "liberal" ok in this context?
- the one way to halt the process and put power back into the hands of the hardliners is to threaten and abuse the country.....but then I think that is part of the point of what is going on....I mean if people start being reasonable and peaceable where are the profits going to be in that!?)



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Isn't it funny how history repeats itself.

Remember all the hype about Iraq's WMD, and how it was crucial to invade to "protect freedom". As it turns out, it was all a total fabrication.

Now we see the same people hyping up about the "Iranian nuclear threat", with the same non-existant evidence.

Realistically speaking, Iran doesn't need WMD's. Russia played a large part in helping Iran with the Nuclear power plant, and when Israel/U.S pre-emptively bomb it, the Russians will be cheesed off. Iran is an ally of Russia, so before we get all gung-ho, maybe you should consider the ramifications of such a strike on the Iranian power plant.

Now look at North Korea. We know they have WMD's because NK came out and told us, "We have them, and if you try and intimidate us or launch pre-emptive strike, expect some nukes in downtown USA". The reason U.S hasn't pushed NK is because they know that NK is ready and willing to nuke.

Bullies generally only pick on the little kids, the ones they know they can beat up without to much trouble.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Er, except they have been complying with IAEA and have not been found to have anything in the way of a weapons program at all.


Iran does indeed have a nuclear weapons program.


A nuclear facility on a military base is all the proof i need. I have a picture if you would like to see.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardCore American
Iran does indeed have a nuclear weapons program.


- This is mere assertion.


A nuclear facility on a military base is all the proof i need. I have a picture if you would like to see.


- So what that they have sited this facility at a military base? That's how most of ours started.

That proves absolutely nothing....except that you choose to take it as proof for what you want to believe anyway.......oh, and that they have taken steps to attempt to secure and protect their facility.


Originally posted by Psychoses
Realistically speaking, Iran doesn't need WMD's. Russia played a large part in helping Iran with the Nuclear power plant,


- Did you know that Irans first two nuclear reactors were American?

Funny how things work out indeed.

Of course back then questions about why they needed then and all the rest were hardly on the agenda.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


Originally posted by Psychoses
Realistically speaking, Iran doesn't need WMD's. Russia played a large part in helping Iran with the Nuclear power plant,


- Did you know that Irans first two nuclear reactors were American?

Funny how things work out indeed.

Of course back then questions about why they needed then and all the rest were hardly on the agenda.


No, actually I didn't. But it seems par for the course.

U.S gives Iraq WMD's to use on it's people then invades to disarm.

U.S gives Iran Nuclear plants, now wants pre-emptive strikes to prevent them from completing power plant.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Why would the US Continue to protect Israel.......if for no other reason than to convince them not to use the 200 nukes out of Dimona.............

I think an isolated Israel, with seared in memories of the last time they got screwed and sold out by western democracies, would have hardliners who would go down with a bang and F***k the rest of us.

This is a viewpoint based on something I'm unsure of myself, but it is still valid. Israelis beleive like hardliners in the USA beleive they made the right choice using 9/11 and WMDs as the basis to hit Iraq.

But I digress.

May I say I like the USA, like Americans and support the coalition. But..

USA will not hit Iran or anyone else. Iraq has proven you can be as hi tech as you like and still stuff up if you dont have the troops on the sand to secure the territory. And Irans a lot bigger than Iraq.

The US might be able to bomb it into the stone age but troops would be needed to occupy and make sure it gathered up the nuclear materials, otherwise they could never be sure about the risks of hi cost payback down the road.

The US cant do this. They have enough manpower problems as it is. I give a draft in an expanding war two years top before it the US tears itself apart politically and emotionally and calls it quits.

For these if for no other reason I dont beleive the US will be invading anyone else. It might mean a change in tack....the rebirth of tact maybe.

For Irans part I dont beleive thier nuclear program is solely domestic. Anybody listed as an Axis of Evil after Iraq would have to be nuts not to make the most of trying to develop a deterence.....The reason I beleive the US did not hit NK before Iraq.....because NK got to the bomb before the US got to NK. Not because the US was making a show of sabrerattling. NK didnt get hit not because it doesnt have oil, but because it already has the bomb.

If Iran can get the bomb they will feel safe too.

But if thier nuke program is just civil I can understand WHY they are not happy about suggestions they don't make thier own fuel for the reactors and buying it from, and recycling through the west.

They spend all this hard to comeby cash to develop nuclear power generation to provide all thier needs for a massive population, and now thier being told they have to buy the fuel outside the country and pay for someone else to reprocess it.......and probably get gouged in the process.

Whos the likely contractor....a Halliburton subsiduary?

If you told a Japanese energy businessman to do the same thing, he'd probably politely tell you to get stuffed too.

I dont think America can afford to attack Iran and most likely won't.


[edit on 28-10-2004 by craigandrew]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
To answer originial post:

I do believe the US government has contingency plans in place for any country at any given time. Why would they not? Always be prepared.

After Bush's comment on the Axis of Evil, a safe assumption can be made that the administration has the plans for those three countries updated constantly.

Will the US attack Iran before January? Doubtful. Infantry Assault is out of the question due to troop shortage. However, special forces and airstrikes are possible at anytime if the need arise.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
My point is the US may have contingency plans (hell it makes sense to plan before hand) and stated Iran was on a hit list too, but an attack is not going to come now or any time soon after the election.....God if anyone has any sense left ti better not. You are tied up in Iraq for what? five ten years before one side or the other gets tired of it?

Because the US is too entrenched in Iraq and learning that being clever and hi tech and 50% under strength is not going to make everything a cake walk.

"Hold one, Win one" Force structure my arse!



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I did not mean to imply an attack would come immediately after inauguration. The main wild card right now in this scenario is Israel. Israel did bomb Iraq's nuclear plant because they felt threatened in the past. So Israel targeting Iran's nuclear facilities is very possible.

Yes, technology and cleaverness does not guarantee an easy ride. The administration did not think controlling the masses of Iraq would not be met with resistance.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   
It is kind of funny that during the cold war everyone thought that nuclear weapons would bring the end of the world by the massive power of their blast.
Looking at the current picture it appears that this may be true but not like we once thought I mean it seems as though all of the latest skirmishes and wars are being fought over nuclear power and weaponry maybe the psychological effects have more power than the blast of one of these behemoths.

just a thought
geo




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join