So we see reports that Israel is likely making up plans to strike Iran, and now this:

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears

British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran's capability
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

Seems to me this would be his way to galvanize the public with some sort of operation against Iran to show his strength or possibly show that he is dealing with the situation (finally) - and shore up his Jewish support. Of course, this could backfire, or it could be that he is waiting for Israel and just has plans in case things go awry there - who knows. It is just interesting that we are seeing more of these stories. Assuming they were able to pull off a successful raid on Iran without significant retaliation issues, that might secure Obama's re-election. Then again, if it backfires he is a goner.

Thoughts?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I think you are a paranoid lunatic.

How many times did they play this up during the Bush administration? It must've been every year from 2004 to 2007.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you are a paranoid lunatic.

It is a question. Do you think it could happen? Or do you just want to avoid the question with your usual glib BS?

(EDIT: Note, I did not make up these stories - they are out there. It surely seems that if the UK is planning for an attack, then it is likely so are the Americans - as the article indicates. But I thought Obama had made it clear he wasn't going to do much of anything).

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2011 04:21PM by Registered Voter.

Les Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many times did they play this up during the
> Bush administration? It must've been every year
> from 2004 to 2007.

Well, they just made a big point of the war on terror every time they mentioned elections. Obama tried to do away with the concept, but they have even taken to reviving the spectre of it - even after they killed Bin Laden.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

RV-

Seems to me "Wag the Dog" was based on a made up threat. Are you saying a Nuclear Iran would not be a real threat?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV-
>
> Seems to me "Wag the Dog" was based on a made up
> threat. Are you saying a Nuclear Iran would not be
> a real threat?

Iran keeps stating they are doing peaceful research. Obama has made it clear he had no interest in using the military against Iran - and doing so would likely further destabilize the region. So in this case, it would be the fact that he would be starting a conflict with Iran before the elections to bolster his - "don't change course" mantra. Since he will have little to nothing in his regular record to run on at that point.

By the way, how is a nuclear Iran a real threat to the US when a WMD Iraq was not? We are still talking about Israel and potentially Europe in both situations - and before the war Iraq had a lot more influence in the region than Iran did. Now Iran is flexing it's muscle more since Iraq is no longer a viable threat, and they know the US is too spread out to do much about them.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV-
>
> Seems to me "Wag the Dog" was based on a made up
> threat. Are you saying a Nuclear Iran would not be
> a real threat?


So you would've been okay with Bush starting a war with Iran on late 2008?

When did liberals become such warmongers, anyway? You're either with RV or you're against him.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thoughts?

Well troops ... the good news is that you're leaving Iraq. The bad news is you're headed for Israel and Iran.

There will be no foreign boots on the ground ever. If Obama does anything it will covert.

Going to war with Iran has nothing to do with elections.

If anything, it will make the President less popular for doing so (because we're a nation of liberal White pussies and brown 5th columns).

Iran is our #1 enemy.

Their nation is based on 2 things:

1) Pisslam

2) Destroying America and the West

We should enslave them.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RV-
> >
> > Seems to me "Wag the Dog" was based on a made
> up
> > threat. Are you saying a Nuclear Iran would not
> be
> > a real threat?
>
>
> So you would've been okay with Bush starting a war
> with Iran on late 2008?
>
> When did liberals become such warmongers, anyway?
> You're either with RV or you're against him.

Not necessarily, but I wouldn't call it a "wag the dog" moment because there would be some real justification for it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm