Will Bush Pull a "October Suprise" to be re-electe

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-07-09 01:37am

Lind Certainly thinks October will be an exciting month...

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-09 01:46am

Lind certainly is a fucking retard.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-07-09 01:51am

Howedar wrote:Lind certainly is a fucking retard.

Why do you say that?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-09 02:04am

Because I've plucked sounder theories out of my stool.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-07-09 02:06am

Howedar wrote:Because I've plucked sounder theories out of my stool.

Wow, thats two unsupported assertions in a row? Care to go for lucky number three?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-07-09 02:07am

Well I wouldn't be shocked if the Bushies have had bin Laden all this time and simply dust him off for the crucial days leading up to the election.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-09 02:08am

JME2 wrote:Well I wouldn't be shocked if the Bushies have had bin Laden all this time and simply dust him off for the crucial days leading up to the election.

You do realize the bin Laden would be able to talk if they released him in your scenario, correct?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-07-09 02:11am

Joe wrote:
JME2 wrote:Well I wouldn't be shocked if the Bushies have had bin Laden all this time and simply dust him off for the crucial days leading up to the election.
You do realize the bin Laden would be able to talk if they released him in your scenario, correct?

The US wouldn't parade him around; they'd kep him locked up to prevent such info from leaking out.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-07-09 02:15am

Joe wrote:
JME2 wrote:Well I wouldn't be shocked if the Bushies have had bin Laden all this time and simply dust him off for the crucial days leading up to the election.
You do realize the bin Laden would be able to talk if they released him in your scenario, correct?

Not if he's dead.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-09 02:23am

Not if he's dead.

Right. I guess I can't think like a conspiracy theorist.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-09 02:25am

Shortly before I left Washington for the summer (in the good old days whose passing I regret, few stayed in Washington in summertime), my informal intelligence network gave me an interesting report: Iran was beginning to mass troops on the Iran-Iraq border. Did this portend overt Iranian intervention in Iraq? I said I didn't think so. Events in Iraq are not unfavorable to Iran, and the risks of direct intervention would be great.

Uuup hold on, we'll come back to this later.

However, there is a potential situation that could lead to Iranian intervention: if it were in response to an American-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack may very well be on the agenda as the "October Surprise," the distraction George Bush desperately needs if the debacle in Iraq is not to lead to his defeat in November.

It is difficult to imagine such an attack on Iranian facilities given that both nations know full well that it would lead to escalation.

There is little doubt that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, one that is operating under forced draft to produce a nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible. Iran, along with everyone else in the world, knows that the best way to be safe from an American attack is to have nukes. Even the most howling neo-cons show little appetite for a war with North Korea.

That last bit ain't quite right, but I digress.

The problem is that, while an Iranian nuclear capability may be directed at deterring the United States, it also poses a mortal threat to Israel. Israel is not known for sitting quietly while such threats develop. It is a safe bet that Israel is planning a strike on known Iranian nuclear facilities, and that such a strike will take place. The question is when.

Here's where things start to fall apart. It is upwards of 600 miles one way between Israel and the Iranian nuclear facilities. This is pushing the ragged edge of the F-15E's range. Furthermore, Iran's air force is not a complete joke; said F-15's will require either escort or would have to carry AAMs on their own; unfortunately for the IAF they're already going to be at extreme range and quite unable to loiter or turn and burn for any length of time. Furthermore they're going to be outnumbered to a silly degree.

If Israel plans to act this year, the Bush Administration may see a political opportunity it cannot pass up. At the very least it is likely to endorse the Israeli action, and it may well participate. So long as the neo-cons remain in power, Washington is little more than a suburb of Tel Aviv. And, in the Islamic world at least, an American disassociation from any action by Israel would not be believed. Israel and America are now perceived as one country.

I'm sorry, this man needs to lay down the crack pipe. That's really all I need to say. Bush is struggling on the Iraqi "debacle" so he's going to openly support Israel in striking another Islamic nation? And this is supposed to help his standing here at home?

The question becomes, how would Iran respond? It might shoot some missiles at Tel Aviv, but absent at least "dirty bomb" or bio-engineered warheads, that is not likely to accomplish much.

A far better response lies right next door: attack the Americans in Iraq. America has about 130,000 troops in Iraq, a formidable army by local standards. But their disposition makes them vulnerable. Confronted by a guerilla war, they are spread out in penny packets all over the country. If Iran could mass quickly and use effective camouflage and deception to conceal at least the scope of its concentration, then suddenly attack into Iraq with two or three corps, we could face a perilous situation. Iranian success would depend heavily on how Iraqis reacted, but if Iran called its action "Operation Iraqi Freedom," promised immediate withdrawal once the hated Americans were beaten and waved the Koran at Iraqi Shiites, it might win the cooperation of Iraq's resistance movement. That would make American efforts to concentrate all the more difficult as convoys would come under constant attack. Logistics would quickly become a nightmare.

But but but, I thought that the risks of direct intervention would be great?

Such an action would be perilous for Iran as well. The danger with threatening a nuclear power with conventional defeat is that it may go nuclear. America might choose to do that through its Israeli surrogate or, on the theory that the bigger the crisis the stronger the "rally around the President" syndrome, directly. Either way, Iran would have no effective response.

Translation: Iran would be fucked up the ass for doing something so fucking stupid as attacking a hundred thousand US troops.

But the mullahs now running Iran are, like Mr. Bush, in a steadily weakening political position. If they did not respond powerfully to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, they might well lose legitimacy with the hard-line base they now depend on. It is risky to count on them doing nothing, and they have few opportunities to do anything that would be effective. Unfortunately for us, their best chance lies right next door, and the party favor has our name on it.

Hint to bonehead: Much like Bush's situation, the weakening political position of the Iranian government is not strenghtened by engaging in a war that one cannot win.

I'm really failing to see any reason for the US to openly aid Israel in striking a sovereign nation in an unprovoked attack. This would certainly not help Bush get reelected since it would shitcan Iraq even more than it is already (remember, these actions are ostensibly taken to help Bush). If something so stupid as this were done, I see even less reason for Iran to invade Iraq and attack several divisions of US troops - such action could only lead to further destabilization of Iranian government when the bombs start falling over Tehran en masse.

Unless you can think of an alternate outcome for Iran.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-07-09 02:26am

fgalkin wrote:
Joe wrote:
JME2 wrote:Well I wouldn't be shocked if the Bushies have had bin Laden all this time and simply dust him off for the crucial days leading up to the election.
You do realize the bin Laden would be able to talk if they released him in your scenario, correct?
Not if he's dead.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Pfft they could just say he's lying and fabricate some evidence to "prove" their case.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-09 06:22pm

Okay Blkberry, you've been making a great many posts in this forum today so I doubt you've abstained from rebuttal for lack of time. Care to defend this tripe or are you just going to run away?

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-07-09 07:48pm

Howedar wrote:Okay Blkberry, you've been making a great many posts in this forum today so I doubt you've abstained from rebuttal for lack of time. Care to defend this tripe or are you just going to run away?

I wasn't the one making unsupported assertions- I just posted the article for discussion. However, if since you wish it, I'll give you my opinion.

It is difficult to imagine such an attack on Iranian facilities given that both nations know full well that it would lead to escalation.

Isreal does not care about escalation. An Iran in possession of nucelar weapon is a far greater strategic threat then the condemnation it would recieve from "world opinion" for "escalating" with Iran. Why do I say that? Simply because Isreal can count on the US to veto any UN resolutions directed against it due to said "escalation".

Here's where things start to fall apart. It is upwards of 600 miles one way between Israel and the Iranian nuclear facilities. This is pushing the ragged edge of the F-15E's range. Furthermore, Iran's air force is not a complete joke; said F-15's will require either escort or would have to carry AAMs on their own; unfortunately for the IAF they're already going to be at extreme range and quite unable to loiter or turn and burn for any length of time. Furthermore they're going to be outnumbered to a silly degree.

An accurate assessment. However, it is dependent upon a neurtal US- which would likely not be the case if Bush is attempting to use the strike as an attempt to distract the public from the war in Iraq directly prior to the election. I think outright military support, in the form of USAF Jets supporting the attack, would not occur as it would be seen as Bush attempting to start ANOTHER war right before the election. If I had to guess the form the support would take would either be:

1. Refueling mid-flight for the Isreali jets- either mid-air or allowing them to land in Iraq and refuel.

2. B-2 Stealth bombers. The Isreali airforce would act as a distraction to draw the Iranian AF away from the nuclear sites while the B-2s fly in and take the sites out. After the operation is finished complete credit for the successful airstike is given to the Isrealis while any American involvement is denied.

I'm sorry, this man needs to lay down the crack pipe. That's really all I need to say. Bush is struggling on the Iraqi "debacle" so he's going to openly support Israel in striking another Islamic nation? And this is supposed to help his standing here at home?

He wouldn't be attacking another Islamic nation. He would be supporting "pre-emptive" actions against one of the members of the "Axis of Evil" that support international terrorism and anti-American terrorism. At least that is what he would likely say anyway.

In addition, you should stop mirror imaging. Most Americans are not as well informed as you are about the Middle-East. They beleive Isreal has been the blameless victim of terrorism for decades; that Iran is a Islamic/facist hell that is the sworn enemy of the US- they would likely support the strike.

But but but, I thought that the risks of direct intervention would be great?

Translation: Iran would be fucked up the ass for doing something so fucking stupid as attacking a hundred thousand US troops.

The risks of intervention WOULD be great for Iran. However, given the benefits of a successful attack, the Iranian's might be willing to gamble that the US would not go nuclear is their attack succeeded. Just as the Isreal and Bush might be willing to gamble that due to the risks involved in such an action, Iran would do nothing after an attempted (regardless of the success/failure of the mission) air strike. However, an attack by the Iranians, after an ISRALI airstrike, would likey give Bush a HUGE surge in the polls. Its win-win for him.

Hint to bonehead: Much like Bush's situation, the weakening political position of the Iranian government is not strenghtened by engaging in a war that one cannot win.

Historically, most governments expirence a surge of loyalty during a war. I doubt Iran would be an exception- since the reason the war started would be Isreal, a country seen as the greatest threat to Islam in the Mid-East.

I'm really failing to see any reason for the US to openly aid Israel in striking a sovereign nation in an unprovoked attack. This would certainly not help Bush get reelected since it would shitcan Iraq even more than it is already (remember, these actions are ostensibly take n to help Bush). If something so stupid as this were done, I see even less reason for Iran to invade Iraq and attack several divisions of US troops - such action could only lead to further destabilization of Iranian government when the bombs start falling over Tehran en masse.

Unless you can think of an alternate outcome for Iran.

As I said, the point of an Isreali strike would be to get Iraq out of the news before the election. Regardless of the success or failure of that mission, an attempted strike would do so. Any hostile actions taken towards the US following an ISRAELI strike would benefit Bush.

Anyway, with the polls as close as they are I think its likely that we'll see SOME sort of October suprise, even if its not this one.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-07-09 08:42pm

JME2 wrote:Well I wouldn't be shocked if the Bushies have had bin Laden all this time and simply dust him off for the crucial days leading up to the election.

I wouldn't even trust Bush not to fuck *that* up.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-09 10:36pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Isreal does not care about escalation. An Iran in possession of nucelar weapon is a far greater strategic threat then the condemnation it would recieve from "world opinion" for "escalating" with Iran. Why do I say that? Simply because Isreal can count on the US to veto any UN resolutions directed against it due to said "escalation".

Israel cares about escalation because an attack on US forces directly due Israeli action would once and for all remove Tel Aviv's cock from Washington's mouth.

An accurate assessment. However, it is dependent upon a neurtal US- which would likely not be the case if Bush is attempting to use the strike as an attempt to distract the public from the war in Iraq directly prior to the election. I think outright military support, in the form of USAF Jets supporting the attack, would not occur as it would be seen as Bush attempting to start ANOTHER war right before the election. If I had to guess the form the support would take would either be:

1. Refueling mid-flight for the Isreali jets- either mid-air or allowing them to land in Iraq and refuel.

This is bordering on silly.

2. B-2 Stealth bombers. The Isreali airforce would act as a distraction to draw the Iranian AF away from the nuclear sites while the B-2s fly in and take the sites out. After the operation is finished complete credit for the successful airstike is given to the Isrealis while any American involvement is denied.

...and this is no longer bordering anything.

I'm sorry, you think the US is going to carry out an unprovoked attack on the most powerful nation in the region when our military is already overcommitted because Israel wants us to?

He wouldn't be attacking another Islamic nation. He would be supporting "pre-emptive" actions against one of the members of the "Axis of Evil" that support international terrorism and anti-American terrorism. At least that is what he would likely say anyway.

In addition, you should stop mirror imaging. Most Americans are not as well informed as you are about the Middle-East. They beleive Isreal has been the blameless victim of terrorism for decades; that Iran is a Islamic/facist hell that is the sworn enemy of the US- they would likely support the strike.

Congratulations, the point has passed completely over your head.

The original theory is that Bush is doing all of this because Iraq is hurting him. You think that launching an unprovoked attack on a large, powerful Islamic country is going to help him in Iraq? If the current situation is a debacle, attacking Iran would turn it into a rout of US forces. Even assuming for a moment that Iran took no direct action, you can bet your ass the insurgents would become much more numerous and well-armed.

Hmm, so many many more dead US forces. Golly gee, sounds like a sure way to help Bush on the Iraq problem!

The risks of intervention WOULD be great for Iran. However, given the benefits of a successful attack, the Iranian's might be willing to gamble that the US would not go nuclear is their attack succeeded. Just as the Isreal and Bush might be willing to gamble that due to the risks involved in such an action, Iran would do nothing after an attempted (regardless of the success/failure of the mission) air strike. However, an attack by the Iranians, after an ISRALI airstrike, would likey give Bush a HUGE surge in the polls. Its win-win for him.

You fucking dipshit, I suppose rising casualties in Vietnam helped the sitting president too

The American people are not quite as fucking boneheaded as you make them out to be. If US troops came under direct attack from Iran as a direct result of the actions of the President, he could kiss his ass goodbye.

Hint to bonehead: Much like Bush's situation, the weakening political position of the Iranian government is not strenghtened by engaging in a war that one cannot win.

Historically, most governments expirence a surge of loyalty during a war. I doubt Iran would be an exception- since the reason the war started would be Isreal, a country seen as the greatest threat to Islam in the Mid-East.

Historically, most governments experience a drop in loyalty when they're being bombed into the fucking stone age.

As I said, the point of an Isreali strike would be to get Iraq out of the news before the election. Regardless of the success or failure of that mission, an attempted strike would do so. Any hostile actions taken towards the US following an ISRAELI strike would benefit Bush.

I'm sorry, this is just too fucking rich. Attacking a sovereign nation in the Middle East and causing the deaths of untold numbers of US servicemen is going to take Iraq out of the news?

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-07-09 11:47pm

Israel cares about escalation because an attack on US forces directly due Israeli action would once and for all remove Tel Aviv's cock from Washington's mouth.

Yes, because we all know how critical the T.V. news media is of Isreal. Oh wait.....

This is bordering on silly...

...and this is no longer bordering anything.

I'm sorry, you think the US is going to carry out an unprovoked attack on the most powerful nation in the region when our military is already overcommitted because Israel wants us to?

No, I think Bush would do it if he thought it would get him re-elected. Regardless, the US would not be OPENLY attacking Iran AS I ORIGINALLY STATED. READ CAREFULLY.

Congratulations, the point has passed completely over your head.

The original theory is that Bush is doing all of this because Iraq is hurting him. You think that launching an unprovoked attack on a large, powerful Islamic country is going to help him in Iraq? If the current situation is a debacle, attacking Iran would turn it into a rout of US forces. Even assuming for a moment that Iran took no direct action, you can bet your ass the insurgents would become much more numerous and well-armed.

Hmm, so many many more dead US forces. Golly gee, sounds like a sure way to help Bush on the Iraq problem!

As I stated earlier IN MY PREVIOUS POST the US would not be openly attacking Iran. In addition, any consequences of such an action would likely occur after the election had been decided.

You fucking dipshit, I suppose rising casualties in Vietnam helped the sitting president too

Oh yes, a war of attrition lasting several years with no apparent end, moral justification, or tangible goal is OBVIOUSLY the equivlent of a nation state declaring war on US as a result of the actions of ISREAL.

The American people are not quite as fucking boneheaded as you make them out to be. If US troops came under direct attack from Iran as a direct result of the actions of the President, he could kiss his ass goodbye.

I repeat, the actions would not be undertaken by the the US, they would be undertaken by Isreal. If the US came under attack after an action taken by the Isrealis then Bush could play the role of blameless victim.

Historically, most governments experience a drop in loyalty when they're being bombed into the fucking stone age.

Bullshit, every government which was the victim of strategic bombing in WWII expirenced a RISE in loyalty.

I'm sorry, this is just too fucking rich. Attacking a sovereign nation in the Middle East and causing the deaths of untold numbers of US servicemen is going to take Iraq out of the news?

For the last time, the US WOULD NOT BE OPENLY INVOVLED.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-07-09 11:59pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:For the last time, the US WOULD NOT BE OPENLY INVOVLED.

Offering basing or mid-air refueling to Israeli warplanes engaged in an attack on Iranian soil is a definite act of war. It's as bad as attacking with our own planes--and the use of stealth bombers is equivalent to the Pentagon's signature in triplicate. Nobody else has them, and when you get bombed by a stealth bomber, it's kind of obvious. Because the bombs are falling despite the lack of a detectable bomber.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-07-10 01:02am

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:For the last time, the US WOULD NOT BE OPENLY INVOVLED.
Offering basing or mid-air refueling to Israeli warplanes engaged in an attack on Iranian soil is a definite act of war. It's as bad as attacking with our own planes--and the use of stealth bombers is equivalent to the Pentagon's signature in triplicate. Nobody else has them, and when you get bombed by a stealth bomber, it's kind of obvious. Because the bombs are falling despite the lack of a detectable bomber.

Right-which is why the Bush would deny any involvement and call the Iranian's liers if they claimed differently.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-10 02:19am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Yes, because we all know how critical the T.V. news media is of Isreal. Oh wait.....

Many US soldiers dead = population angry

Am I going too fast for you?

No, I think Bush would do it if he thought it would get him re-elected. Regardless, the US would not be OPENLY attacking Iran AS I ORIGINALLY STATED. READ CAREFULLY.

Your own posts disagree.

As I stated earlier IN MY PREVIOUS POST the US would not be openly attacking Iran. In addition, any consequences of such an action would likely occur after the election had been decided.

See above.

Oh yes, a war of attrition lasting several years with no apparent end, moral justification, or tangible goal is OBVIOUSLY the equivlent of a nation state declaring war on US as a result of the actions of ISREAL.

The deaths are what people care about, retard. You talk about how clueless the people are, then in the same breath claim that they'd differentiate between two somewhat different wars of attrition?

Please make up your mind.

I repeat, the actions would not be undertaken by the the US, they would be undertaken by Isreal. If the US came under attack after an action taken by the Isrealis then Bush could play the role of blameless victim.

Oh yeah, he could sure pull that one off well. I suppose nobody would see the US aircraft attacking, or the Israeli aircraft refueling at US bases, etc etc etc...

Bullshit, every government which was the victim of strategic bombing in WWII expirenced a RISE in loyalty.

Of course if you look at a more analagous example, the bombing of Iraq in 03, you would realize that people basically just hid in their houses while the US shitcanned the government.

For the last time, the US WOULD NOT BE OPENLY INVOVLED.

Uh huh.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-07-10 03:10am

Many US soldiers dead = population angry

Am I going too fast for you?

YOU ARE COMPLETELY RETARDED. An Iranian suprise attack on American forces due to an ISREALI attack on Iran would be seen as another Pearl Harbor. OR ARE YOU TOO FUCKING DENSE TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

Your own posts disagree.

OPENLY means PUBLICALLY and OBVIOUSLY. B-2s and/or refueling could all be plausibly denied- and there would be little evidence to say otherwise.

See above.

OPENLY DUMBASS OPENLY. Bush could deny any involvement in the senarios I outlined- or are you too fucking stupid to understand that?

The deaths are what people care about, retard. You talk about how clueless the people are, then in the same breath claim that they'd differentiate between two somewhat different wars of attrition?

Please make up your mind.

YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. A suprise attack by a nation state is NOT the same thing as a drawn out guerilla war. Just because the American populace is largely ignorant of world affairs does NOT mean they are too stupid to grasp the diffence between the two. However you obviously are since you think the two are identical.

Oh yeah, he could sure pull that one off well. I suppose nobody would see the US aircraft attacking, or the Israeli aircraft refueling at US bases, etc etc etc...

Because B-2s in midair stand out like an eyesore.

And because there a pleanty of witnesses available to report a refueling in mid-air or in the middle of a desert.

Of course if you look at a more analagous example, the bombing of Iraq in 03, you would realize that people basically just hid in their houses while the US shitcanned the government.

Yes, obviously a populace living in fear of a brutal dictator who had repressed them for decades is analogous to a government which came to power through a popular revolution which overthrew a brutal dictator that came to and remained in power due to the actions of the USA.

Regardless of all this, the fact remains- this is not my theory, I posted it for discussion, and I do not think its all that likely that it will come to pass (due to the risks involved- there are many less risky "October Suprises" he could pull off). However- you have a habit of popping into threads and making assertions unbacked by ANY sort of reason or fact. When I called you on it, you automatically assumed I was defending him, when, in fact, I was simply calling you on your bullshit posts which state nothing of substance.

Anyway, if you REALLY think that the article in question is so irrational, why don't you email the author? Who knows, he might respond to your criticisms or even change his mind. For the record its: jfarrell@freecongress.org

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-10 03:37am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:YOU ARE COMPLETELY RETARDED. An Iranian suprise attack on American forces due to an ISREALI attack on Iran would be seen as another Pearl Harbor. OR ARE YOU TOO FUCKING DENSE TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

1. It would not be a surprise attack - it would simply be an invasion. No large degree of surprise would be possible. We're talking about a ground invasion, not an airstrike.
2. As I've explained, it could not be an Israeli attack. It would require American assistance.

OPENLY means PUBLICALLY and OBVIOUSLY. B-2s and/or refueling could all be plausibly denied- and there would be little evidence to say otherwise.

Jesus fucking Christ. I suppose nobody would notice the B-2's sortieing from their one base in the fucking world, then coming back a day later, which would just HAPPEN to coincide with a nuclear site in Iran blowing up for no apparent reason! Or even better, nobody would realize that the Israelis have magically extended the range on their F-15's several hundred miles!

Holy mother of God, how stupid do you think people are?

OPENLY DUMBASS OPENLY. Bush could deny any involvement in the senarios I outlined- or are you too fucking stupid to understand that?

Let's follow this chain of events for a moment.

1. Iranian nuclear facilities are struck. This occurs either by Israeli planes openly attacking or by US B-2s. Either way, it will be very clear that the attack occured from the air and that Israel and/or the US are responsible.
2. The entire Islamic world decries these events. Things get worse in Iraq from people hating the US more, and Iran supposedly might invade.
3. Hmm golly gee, those Israeli airplanes can't fly that far. Or there weren't any airplanes around at all. Hmmm, what allowed the attack then?

Oh yeah, the US.

If you can propose a way in which the IAF can strike Iran without any US assistance whatsoever, give them a call. I bet they'd like to know.

YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. A suprise attack by a nation state is NOT the same thing as a drawn out guerilla war. Just because the American populace is largely ignorant of world affairs does NOT mean they are too stupid to grasp the diffence between the two. However you obviously are since you think the two are identical.

And yet again the escalating guerilla war that would result flies in one ear and out the other.

Because B-2s in midair stand out like an eyesore.

Bombs falling from open sky sure as hell do, you fucking dipshit.

And because there a pleanty of witnesses available to report a refueling in mid-air or in the middle of a desert.

Since Israeli aircraft could strike Iran no other way, they don't need to be seen. Do you need to visibly confirm the presence of gasoline in the tank of your car to figure out how the engine is running?

Yes, obviously a populace living in fear of a brutal dictator who had repressed them for decades is analogous to a government which came to power through a popular revolution which overthrew a brutal dictator that came to and remained in power due to the actions of the USA.

But but but, I thought Iran is going to strike because they're losing power?

The comedy fucking writes itself sometimes.

Regardless of all this, the fact remains- this is not my theory, I posted it for discussion, and I do not think its all that likely that it will come to pass (due to the risks involved- there are many less risky "October Suprises" he could pull off). However- you have a habit of popping into threads and making assertions unbacked by ANY sort of reason or fact. When I called you on it, you automatically assumed I was defending him, when, in fact, I was simply calling you on your bullshit posts which state nothing of substance.

I say this in all honesty: I thought these problems would be obvious to anyone with a brain.

Of course your failure to comprehend does not in any way change that. I still think anyone with a brain knows this is bullshit.

Anyway, if you REALLY think that the article in question is so irrational, why don't you email the author? Who knows, he might respond to your criticisms or even change his mind. For the record its: jfarrell@freecongress.org

Frankly I have better things on which to waste my time.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-07-10 04:06am

1. It would not be a surprise attack - it would simply be an invasion. No large degree of surprise would be possible. We're talking about a ground invasion, not an airstrike.

Regardless- Americans would see themselves as being the victim.

2. As I've explained, it could not be an Israeli attack. It would require American assistance.

You admitted earlier that the possibility existed that they could pull it off indepently. Which is it?

Jesus fucking Christ. I suppose nobody would notice the B-2's sortieing from their one base in the fucking world, then coming back a day later, which would just HAPPEN to coincide with a nuclear site in Iran blowing up for no apparent reason!

If they said anything about that they would claim that it was coincidence, they were undergoing a training exercise; the Isrealis pulled off the bombing. Anyone who stated otherwise would be a "conspiracy nut".

Or even better, nobody would realize that the Israelis have magically extended the range on their F-15's several hundred miles!

Deny and Lie. "This is not the case- what you see is evidence fabricated by the Iranians."

And yet again the escalating guerilla war that would result flies in one ear and out the other.

Which would occur after the election had been decided.

Since Israeli aircraft could strike Iran no other way, they don't need to be seen. Do you need to visibly confirm the presence of gasoline in the tank of your car to figure out how the engine is running?

See above.

But but but, I thought Iran is going to strike because they're losing power?

The comedy fucking writes itself sometimes.

This isn't hard to understand.

Doing nothing after being bombed- loss of credibility and power.

Terror bombing by the "Great Satan"- rise in loyalty

I say this in all honesty: I thought these problems would be obvious to anyone with a brain.

Of course your failure to comprehend does not in any way change that. I still think anyone with a brain knows this is bullshit.

Translation: Since I can't refute your point I'll just say its obvious and then insult you.

Frankly I have better things on which to waste my time.

In other words, you have pleanty of time to go through said article point by point and aruge about it indefinatly on this forum; but your too scared to go the the source and do the exact same thing you've already done.

Would hate to waste your time further- better get back wasting it on your one line contentless crap.

Faqa · Post by **Faqa** » 2004-07-10 04:25am

One point, guys - Israel wouldn't exactly need some risky Iraqi or mid-air refueling, nor Stealth Bomber help:

Earlier this week, the Israeli government announced it is purchasing 50 US F-161 fighter planes at a cost of $2.5 billion. Israel already has 320 F-16s that make up the backbone of its fighter fleet. The new F-161s will be able to strike further, reaching Iran and Libya, and will be equipped with a more advanced US-made radar system.

23 June 2001

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jun20 ... -j23.shtml

The article isn't ABOUT that, but it does mention it.

We've had em' since before 9/11!!

All Bush has to do is greenlight Sharon.

Though, truthfully, I'd figure they won't try it. If public outcry starts over Israeli aggression, that would put it at the WORST possible time. I'd say the plain old "We caught Bin Laden!" surprise will be enough, if we're delving into conspiracy theories...

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-10 06:55pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Regardless- Americans would see themselves as being the victim.

Concession accepted.

You admitted earlier that the possibility existed that they could pull it off indepently. Which is it?

The chances of Israel being able to pull off the attack independantly are virtually nil, and the chances of them doing it without detection by both the US and Iran are nil.

If they said anything about that they would claim that it was coincidence, they were undergoing a training exercise; the Isrealis pulled off the bombing. Anyone who stated otherwise would be a "conspiracy nut".

Coinciding with

Deny and Lie. "This is not the case- what you see is evidence fabricated by the Iranians."

The range of the F-15 is virtually a matter of public record. Nothing could be done.

Which would occur after the election had been decided.

What makes you think it would take more than days to escalate the violence? Indeed, if we're so close to the election that insurgents can't up their operational tempo, precisely how will any of this affect the election?

See above.

Likewise.

This isn't hard to understand.

Doing nothing after being bombed- loss of credibility and power.

Terror bombing by the "Great Satan"- rise in loyalty

Ah, precisely what happened with Saddam

Translation: Since I can't refute your point I'll just say its obvious and then insult you.

Um, I did refute the points. You know, that's what the last three or four posts have been about. You do know I've been posting, right?

In other words, you have pleanty of time to go through said article point by point and aruge about it indefinatly on this forum;

Point of fact: I have spent a total of about 30 minutes on this thread.

but your too scared to go the the source and do the exact same thing you've already done.

Would hate to waste your time further- better get back wasting it on your one line contentless crap.

Ehm, why don't you go email O'Reilly about all the shit he's peddled?