Warrior102
Gold Member
- May 22, 2011
- 16,554
- 4,126
- 183
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
***************************************obama thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would ruin his reelection. He's demanding it not happen.
obama thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would ruin his reelection. He's demanding it not happen.
No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.
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.
No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.
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.
How are we going to pay for this one?
obamabucks
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.
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.
How are we going to pay for this one?
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.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.