Iran War About to Begin

[Warrior102]

Bring on the draft.....

Israel asks U.S. for arms that could aid Iran strike | Reuters

 

[FuelRod]

A front-page article in the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Thursday said Obama had told Netanyahu Washington would supply Israel with upgraded military equipment in return for assurances there would be no attack on Iran in 2012.

My guess is by August the President will be begging Israel to attack Iran.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would ruin his reelection. He's demanding it not happen.

 

[Peach]

obama thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would ruin his reelection. He's demanding it not happen.

***************************************
Again true Katz. No way to stop it though.

 

[BluePhantom]

obama thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would ruin his reelection. He's demanding it not happen.

Quite the contrary, it could put him over the top and he is demanding that it not happen because the timing is bad for him. He wants to make sure that nothing happens until...oh...August or September. Then:

If Obama is ahead in the polls nothing will happen until after the election.

If he is slightly behind in the polls he will authorize an Israeli strike and then go on TV saying how we stand by Israel in their time of need, we stand against the evil Iranians, etc. That will secure the Jewish vote (which right now seems to be in question) and gain support among some super-hawks due to a sense of patriotism.

If he is moderately behind we will strike Iran ourselves to further enhance the above point.

If he is far behind we will invade because the United States almost never changes Presidents in a time of war if it can be avoided. Which of course begs the question: "would Obama really invade Iran just to win the election?" IMO: "fuck yes, without hesitation, or a lost wink of sleep."


So the issue right now is that Israel wants to get this done, Obama is desperately trying to get them to wait until it's to his political advantage, and they are saying "fuck you" as he has not exactly been their best friend in the world for the last four years, and they argue that a November strike may be too late.

 

[Sallow]

No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.

 

[BluePhantom]

No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.

It would certainly start that way, sure. It might stay that way...it might not. Just depends.

 

[Sallow]

No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.

It would certainly start that way, sure. It might stay that way...it might not. Just depends.

You guys seem to forget..we've had this sort of fight with Iran before..

In any case..Obama's strategy seems to harken back to George HW Bush/Bill Clinton's way of using military might without troops on the ground.

Which is the way a technologically superior nation should fight third world cesspools.

 

[Peach]

You guys seem to forget..we've had this sort of fight with Iran before..

In any case..Obama's strategy seems to harken back to George HW Bush/Bill Clinton's way of using military might without troops on the ground.

Which is the way a technologically superior nation should fight third world cesspools.
__________________

BEST OPTION. Now about Iraq & being reelected....................

 

[Dot Com]

A ground war? Not likely.

 

[Mr Natural]

How are we going to pay for this one?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.

Definately agree with Sallow. Look for about 250 Tomahawks to start out with, probably delivered by submarine and missle cruisers. Probably looking to target anti-air, radar, and command and control first. Then you can count on B-2's and F-117's to drop JDAM's and Bunker busters.

If the Iranians bring their navy back to the gulf, look for Harpoons to put them on the bottom as quickly as possible. They have three? diesal powered submarines. Also look for ASW to take them out in the first couple hours or they will cause headaches for the carriers.

The first couple days will see an attempt by Iran to perform CAP, but Navy pilots will RULE the skies as always. Not sure where the Iranian Air Force will go, but they won't want to consign themselves to certain death by climbing into the sky. Hell, they might as well sit in the cockpit and put a gun in their mouths.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's going to come to this. Iran wants a showdown.

 

[BluePhantom]

No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.

It would certainly start that way, sure. It might stay that way...it might not. Just depends.

You guys seem to forget..we've had this sort of fight with Iran before..

In any case..Obama's strategy seems to harken back to George HW Bush/Bill Clinton's way of using military might without troops on the ground.

Which is the way a technologically superior nation should fight third world cesspools.

I think the the likelihood is that it will be an air/naval war yes. But let me clarify what I am getting at. It all depends on our stated goals and our stated goals will depend on Obama's polling.

If he is close then our stated goals will be "destroy Iran's nuclear facilities" and you will see a relatively short bombing campaign focused on a smaller number of specific targets. If he is way behind then the chances increase that our stated goal will be something like "to cripple Iran's military capabilities". Well now the door is opened for not just nuclear sites but any military target and that means a far more protracted campaign.

If the Iranian dissidents are smart they will launch another round of demonstrations right around that time. If that happens then Obama has the ability to change our goal to "support the rebels in Iran in an effort to curtail abuses against humanity" and now we really have a protracted war which would almost certainly involve more than just air and naval power.

Whether we have done it before or not is somewhat irrelevant. Obama has a bad habit of ignoring history to begin with and frankly, and I personally don't think the man has any problems whatsoever rolling tanks into Iran if he thinks it will score him a November win. That's my personal opinion. I could be wrong. Time will tell but the point is that Iran's treatment will directly depend on how Obama is polling....unless Israel says "fuck it" and does it anyhow.

I think a ground campaign is highly unlikely, but I think that because I feel this election will be close and, while it would be in their best interests to do so, the Iranian dissidents will probably not rise up again...therefore the chances of a ground war are very slim.....but not completely eliminated.

 

[Nosmo King]

I wonder why the Conservatives are calculating the impact of a war with Iran in political terms and making it seem so slimy. When Bush started, fucked up and continued his excellent adventure in Iraq, the Conservatives (always ready to send your kids to die in a war) pooh pooh'd the politicization of war. But then the 2006 midterms happened and suddenly Rumsfeld was fired.

And still, the Conservatives failed to see any political effect of warfare. But if it's Obama as C-N-C, the Conservatives always see politics...and nothing else.

 

[del]

How are we going to pay for this one?

obamabucks

 

[Sallow]

How are we going to pay for this one?

obamabucks

 

[Sallow]

It would certainly start that way, sure. It might stay that way...it might not. Just depends.

You guys seem to forget..we've had this sort of fight with Iran before..

In any case..Obama's strategy seems to harken back to George HW Bush/Bill Clinton's way of using military might without troops on the ground.

Which is the way a technologically superior nation should fight third world cesspools.

I think the the likelihood is that it will be an air/naval war yes. But let me clarify what I am getting at. It all depends on our stated goals and our stated goals will depend on Obama's polling.

If he is close then our stated goals will be "destroy Iran's nuclear facilities" and you will see a relatively short bombing campaign focused on a smaller number of specific targets. If he is way behind then the chances increase that our stated goal will be something like "to cripple Iran's military capabilities". Well now the door is opened for not just nuclear sites but any military target and that means a far more protracted campaign.

If the Iranian dissidents are smart they will launch another round of demonstrations right around that time. If that happens then Obama has the ability to change our goal to "support the rebels in Iran in an effort to curtail abuses against humanity" and now we really have a protracted war which would almost certainly involve more than just air and naval power.

Whether we have done it before or not is somewhat irrelevant. Obama has a bad habit of ignoring history to begin with and frankly, and I personally don't think the man has any problems whatsoever rolling tanks into Iran if he thinks it will score him a November win. That's my personal opinion. I could be wrong. Time will tell but the point is that Iran's treatment will directly depend on how Obama is polling....unless Israel says "fuck it" and does it anyhow.

I think a ground campaign is highly unlikely, but I think that because I feel this election will be close and, while it would be in their best interests to do so, the Iranian dissidents will probably not rise up again...therefore the chances of a ground war are very slim.....but not completely eliminated.

Unlikely?

Try impossible. It's not going to happen. But you have a point with Iranian dissidents. Then you might..and I repeat might..see something like Libya.

But that really would be a geopolitical nightmare.

 

[BluePhantom]

I wonder why the Conservatives are calculating the impact of a war with Iran in political terms and making it seem so slimy. When Bush started, fucked up and continued his excellent adventure in Iraq, the Conservatives (always ready to send your kids to die in a war) pooh pooh'd the politicization of war. But then the 2006 midterms happened and suddenly Rumsfeld was fired.

And still, the Conservatives failed to see any political effect of warfare. But if it's Obama as C-N-C, the Conservatives always see politics...and nothing else.

You misunderstand. I am fully in favor of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities into oblivion as most Republicans, I might even say most people in general, are. But to suggest that there is no political motivation behind Obama's timing is flat our ludicrous.

If Israel bombs today a) people will have forgotten about it by November so any positive benefits will be lost, b) Obama can be portrayed during the campaign as a war monger, c) Obama will lose support among the super-doves, d) Obama's resistance to bombing can be portrayed in such a way that he appears, or is completely exposed as, not supporting Israel and there goes the Jewish vote, or e) some combination of all of the above.

For Israel to say "fuck you" and bomb now is a political nightmare for Obama. No, no, no...he wants to wait. If he is ahead he won't authorize a strike because it will piss off the super-doves and he will lose votes. In that case he will do it after the election, if he does it at all.

If he is behind then he will need emotionally patriotic voters so he will want it fresh in their minds when they go fill out their ballot and that means "wait until the election is closer" to do anything.

So that act of bombing is not the question or what is being looked at from a political perspective...it's the timing and who does it that is pure politics.

 

[Dot Com]

How are we going to pay for this one?

True "43" put all of his war-spending into "emergency supplementals" (off-budget" ) years after they were started.

 

[Nosmo King]

I wonder why the Conservatives are calculating the impact of a war with Iran in political terms and making it seem so slimy. When Bush started, fucked up and continued his excellent adventure in Iraq, the Conservatives (always ready to send your kids to die in a war) pooh pooh'd the politicization of war. But then the 2006 midterms happened and suddenly Rumsfeld was fired.

And still, the Conservatives failed to see any political effect of warfare. But if it's Obama as C-N-C, the Conservatives always see politics...and nothing else.

You misunderstand. I am fully in favor of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities into oblivion as most Republicans, I might even say most people in general, are. But to suggest that there is no political motivation behind Obama's timing is flat our ludicrous.

If Israel bombs today a) people will have forgotten about it by November so any positive benefits will be lost, b) Obama can be portrayed during the campaign as a war monger, c) Obama will lose support among the super-doves, d) Obama's resistance to bombing can be portrayed in such a way that he appears, or is completely exposed as, not supporting Israel and there goes the Jewish vote, or e) some combination of all of the above.

For Israel to say "fuck you" and bomb now is a political nightmare for Obama. No, no, no...he wants to wait. If he is ahead he won't authorize a strike because it will piss off the super-doves and he will lose votes. In that case he will do it after the election, if he does it at all.

If he is behind then he will need emotionally patriotic voters so he will want it fresh in their minds when they go fill out their ballot and that means "wait until the election is closer" to do anything.

So that act of bombing is not the question or what is being looked at from a political perspective...it's the timing and who does it that is pure politics.

But the only option you are considering is bombing Iran's nuclear facilities into oblivion. No consideration at all for the colateral damage. No consideration of how endless war and bombing paints the United States as an aggressor in the Middle East.

Are there options available that don't include these drastic situations? Or am I right in thinking that most Republicans cannot think any further than the red phone and a call to arms?