'US deploys troops in Israel for Iran war'

Originally posted by Pervius
Iran wouldn't last more than 4 hours after shooting starts.

They don't even know how to take their own crude oil and turn it into gasoline.

They have no Air Force.

They have no Navy.
.

This is the Iranian military strength of 2011

Active Military: 545,000
Active Reserve: 650,000

Tanks: 1,793
APCs / IFVs: 1,560
Towed Artillery: 1,575
SPGs: 865
MLRSs: 200
Mortars: 5,000
AT Weapons: 1,400
AA Weapons: 1,701
Logistical Vehicles: 12,000

Total Aircraft: 1,030
Helicopters: 357
Serviceable Airports: 319

Total Navy Ships: 261
Merchant Marine Strength: 74
Major Ports & Terminals: 3
Destroyers: 3
Submarines: 19
Frigates: 5
Patrol Craft: 198
Mine Warfare Craft: 7
Amphibious Assault Craft: 26


So good luck with that no navy and no air force theory!

I'm going to remain skeptical for now. The source is kinda weak. I won't deny that a war with Iran isn't far off though and wouldn't be surprised.

Now a little off-topic I like how on ATS and the Internet in General the words War,greed, and power are thrown around so often and thrown at me that it basically as the same impact as someone warning me of global warming.

There is definitely some sabre rattling going on.

Here is a link to one source:

www.guardian.co.uk...

One of the reasons is: " alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US"

harummph!! Another trumped up excuse. There are other sentiments swirling in the cesspool too as noted in the article. It is a must-read piece.

I fully believe this is the next 'big' thing for the USA to get embroiled in. There is some jostling for position for emminence and power still going on, then the hammer will surely fall. (N.W.O.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Observor

 

Russia alone cannot stand upto the west all by itself. It should look more towards the east and make a defined bloc with China, India and even Japan and Koreas. That makes more sense both militarily and in economics.

Last time I checked, Japan and South Korea were the allies of the US. Don't see either of them jumping the fence just yet.

China and Russia have bad blood between them. Don't see that happening, either.

reply to post by Jerisa


The dialogue of mainstream media is eerily similar to the Iraq war rhetoric. But more people in America seem to care about pro football and college football.

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
reply to post by Jerisa

 

The dialogue of mainstream media is eerily similar to the Iraq war rhetoric. But more people in America seem to care about pro football and college football.

Honestly, at this point, I am throwing my hands up in the air, shaking my head, rolling my eyes and going back to my original belief that "this is why I like dogs, more than people"

reply to post by signal2noise


There is some truth to your comments regarding Korea and Japan. However, with China the matters for Russia are more in the understanding. China knows very well that without Russian support they cannot standoff against the west along with Japan and Australia on the western side.

Russia should also seek warmer terms with Islamic world. Iran, Iraq, Syria, and now muslim brotherhood lead Egypt, Libya and others.

Anglosaxons have some deep rooted hatred and fear of the Russians and they have been trying to keep them in check for several centuries now. For them, Russians are a mixed breed between Nordics and Huns/Tartars/Mongolians and hence call them Asiatic. Guess despite all the concessions given by Russia in last 25 years since Gorbochov, the attitude and dislike of Anglosaxons has not changed, it has even increased. For them, Russia is the obstacle to implementing the 'Hitlerian Supremacy' type policy of domination and silent hatred which results in colonialization, exploitation and looting of the resources of other countries. Hence Russia is much better off looking EAST and making more friends in various topics of defense, economics and culture.

Btw, Russia has technologies available even now to destroy the whole earth even without using nukes. So all this belligerence and hostility and waste of money on F-22s is only actions of the 'cry babies' which will yield no results for the west.

Iran will attack Israel and the U.S. will step in wihich will in turn cause Russia to side with Iran; When Iran and Russia attack Israel look to the skies my friends.... This is biblical and in the book of Revelation. Not a religious freak; but do believe in prophecy. This will signal that beginning of the end.

reply to post by victor7

You are right on all counts. Westerners don't know the concept of respect, only fear. They either fear someone or expect the other to fear them and cow down before them. Anyone who doesn't fear them scares them. So regardless of how much power and weaponry they acquire, they are in constant fear of anyone who isn't afraid of them and succumb to their dictates. This will never stop until they have devoured the whole world. Even then it won't stop. They will keep changing the rules of the game merely to test if anyone resists and anyone that resists will be finished off. No one is safe as long as these psychopathic animals have the power and willingness to harm others. It is not possible to remove their power, but it is certainly possible to shake them so hard that they will be terrified of ever using it again. Keeping them in perpetual fear is the only way to keep the psychopaths in check.

reply to post by Observor


www.boilingfrogspost.com...-10481

Why Putin?

The salient question is why Putin at this point? We need not look far for the answer. Washington and especially Barack Obama’s Administration don’t give a hoot about whether Russia is democratic or not. Their concern is the obstacle to Washington’s plans for Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet that a Putin Presidency will represent. According to the Russian Constitution, the President of the Russian Federation head of state, supreme commander-in-chief and holder of the highest office in the Russian Federation. He will take direct control of defense and foreign policy.

We must ask what policy? Clearly strong countermeasures against the blatant NATO encirclement of Russia with Washington’s dangerous ballistic missile installations around Russia will be high on Putin’s agenda. Hillary Clinton’s “reset” will be in the dustbin if it is not already. We can also expect a more aggressive use of Russia’s energy card with pipeline diplomacy to deepen economic ties between European NATO members such as Germany, France and Italy, ultimately weakening the EU support for aggressive NATO measures against Russia. We can expect a deepening of Russia’s turn towards Eurasia, especially with China, Iran and perhaps India to firm up the shaky spine of resistance to Washington’s New World Order plans.

It will take more than a few demonstrations in sub-freezing weather in Moscow and St. Petersburg by a gaggle of corrupt or shady opposition figures such as Nemtsov or Kasparov to derail Russia. What is clear is that Washington is pushing on all fronts—Iran and Syria, where Russia has a vital naval port, on China, now on Russia, and on the Eurozone countries led by Germany. It has the smell of an end-game attempt by a declining superpower.

The United States today is a de facto bankrupt nuclear superpower. The reserve currency role of the dollar is being challenged as never since Bretton Woods in 1944. That role along with maintaining the United States as the world’s unchallenged military power have been the basis of the American Century hegemony since 1945.

Weakening the role of the dollar in international trade and ultimately as reserve currency, China is now settling trade with Japan in bilateral currencies, side-stepping the dollar. Russia is implementing similar steps with her major trade partners. The primary reason Washington launched a full-scale currency war against the Euro in late 2009 was to preempt a growing threat that China and others would turn away from the dollar to the Euro as reserve currency. That is no small matter. In effect Washington finances its foreign wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere through the fact that China and other trade surplus nations invest their surplus trade dollars in US government Treasury debt. Were that to shift significantly, US interest rates would rise substantially and the financial pressures on Washington would become immense.

Faced with growing erosion of her unchallenged global status as sole superpower, Washington appears now to be turning increasingly to raw military force to hold that. For that to succeed Russia must be neutralized along with China and Iran. This will be the prime agenda of whoever is next US President.

reply to post by Observor


I hope your generalizations of Westerners not understanding respect is focused on the leaders and ones in power. We know what respect is, thank you.

reply to post by victor7

That was an excellent read but I suspect the analysis is a little off. I don't think the US is trying to save the US$, but quite the opposite, kill it.

You can find my analysis on another thread

reply to post by UltraDOSEcious

Don't you have representative governments? Fine job you must be doing, always electing those people who don't represent you, to represent you.

Originally posted by LonelyGuy
Obama may be the most war obsessed president the usa has ever had. Maybe the last if things dont change.

Haha, put yourself in his shoes for a moment.....

Interesting video , worth the watch...




I hope this video works, if not, well its on youtube...

Iran War Reality Check; U.S going to war with Iran, what to expect.(1/2) this is the Title.

Originally posted by steveknows
For the same reason that the west kept israel out of the 1st gulf war even though Iraq was throwing scuds at it. They don't want it to turn into a holy war. And if Israel gets involved it would become a holy war. The Muslims just won't take Israel being involved.

Your argument is a complete joke. So I guess that means that even more Americans and folks from other nations can put their lives on the line and have their families deal with the outcome?

If you expect people to believe that if Israel stood side by side with every other countries armed forces that somehow that would be a bad thing, then you insult everyones intelligence. Then you make this pathetic arguement that somehow it would cause a holy war? LMAO! I thought it was a holy war! As if they could hate the israelis anymore than they already do. Nothing but a weak minded arguement that doesn't have much gas left in the tank my friend. ~SheopleNation

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by steveknows
For the same reason that the west kept israel out of the 1st gulf war even though Iraq was throwing scuds at it. They don't want it to turn into a holy war. And if Israel gets involved it would become a holy war. The Muslims just won't take Israel being involved.

Your argument is a complete joke. So I guess that means that even more Americans and folks from other nations can put their lives on the line and have their families deal with the outcome?

If you expect people to believe that if Israel stood side by side with every other countries armed forces that somehow that would be a bad thing, then you insult everyones intelligence. Then you make this pathetic arguement that somehow it would cause a holy war? LMAO! I thought it was a holy war! As if they could hate the israelis anymore than they already do. Nothing but a weak minded arguement that doesn't have much gas left in the tank my friend. ~SheopleNation

Israel should be kept out of any war so that the Muslim states will not join Iran. In fact, the Saudi's may actively oppose Iran without Israeli involvement. Iran with a nuke would certainly unbalance the region and that makes everybody nervous. For historical reference, see the first Gulf war with Daddy Bush and Stormin' Norman.

I thought Israel has already attacked targets in Muslim countries ?

Iraq (1980's), Syria (2007?)

maybe others (reactors) ?

including Gaza etc.

What else would be considered a "holy war".

And what about the wars before.

LOL.

Iran's army couldn't defeat the Iraqi army in a decade, when they each had their armies deployed on the borders! It had to end in stalemate.

US made the Iraqi army disband in 3 weeks and they had to send their military over to the region.

(Sure the insurgency lasted a decade, BUT it's not as if US will be sticking around)

reply to post by CALGARIAN

Almost correct, my friend. The reason Iran did not beat the Iraqi army was the United States. Remember that the great democratic policeman of the world was still smarting from the very public bottom spanking the Iranians had given them when the Revolutionary Guards stormed their embassy in Tehran, supported Iraq with WMDs and conventional weapons but also trained the the Iraqi army, the Republican Guards and the Immortals.

On the other hand, we Brits were not slow to get our mitts grubby either. No Sir! We did exactly the same to Iran, even building the ill-fated Shiran MBT (Challenger I) for Iran who by then had replaced the Shah and preferred the Russian MBTs as there was a plentiful supply and they got them cheaper.

We Brits also supported the Iranian armed forces, especially their special forces and air force who were trained by our very best. The plan such as it was, was to install a moderate cleric who favoured the UK who, unlike Rouhollah Mousavi Khomeini, would toe the UKs party line thus edging the area towards moderation and the eventual recognition of Israel.

Unfortunately for all concerned, all the scheaming, plotting and back-stabbing fell apart when eventually in 1988, after 8 years of toe to toe fighting, at a tremendous cost to both countries, the Iraqi armed forces - much to everybodys surprise, defeated the Iranians.

The Iraqi prize for defeating the Iranians? Well, could it have possibly been another oil rich and ever so small country to her south-east? I think so.