Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WE ARE NOT ATTACKING IRAN BEFORE THE ELECTION

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:08 PM
Original message
WE ARE NOT ATTACKING IRAN BEFORE THE ELECTION
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 12:43 PM by LSK
Some people are trotting out 6 month old stories about how we are about to attack Iran. They say Bush will use it to save the election. REALLY? Just how exactly is Bush going to explain why he needs to attack Iran? I have not seen an Iran news story in weeks. There is NOTHING NEW in that situation. There is NO ESCALATION OR CRISIS regarding Iran.

Bush has a sub 40% approval rating. The 60% who dissapprove DO NOT BELIEVE BUSH ANYMORE. He cannot say that Iran is about to Nuke us. It will not work this time. The only way it can work is if there is a MEDIA BLITZ like there was in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion. Given Bush's incredibly diminished credibility, the media blitz needed to convince people would have to be far greater than the media blitz of 2002/2003 regarding Iraq. Yet, I see no stories in the news about how Iran is an imminent threat.

If Bush was truly going to attack Iran, he missed his window of opportunity when Israel attacked Lebanon. Bush could have pushed forth the theory that Iran was behind Hezbollah and attacked then, but he did nothing.

If Bush is going to attack Iran to save the election, he would need a legit reason for people to rally around the flag. But at this point in time, he would just seal his fate even further and drag down the entire country.

ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

edit: If there is some MIHOP event like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, then I retract my statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TAPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. ARE YOU O.K.? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. ???
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cspanlovr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. What I'm afraid of is that Iran will attack us (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
a la Gulf of Ton kin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oc2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. had the same discussion with a friend, and still not sure about it.

yes, it would be crazy, and insane...so, what part about attacking Iran did you not get?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. Where have you been?
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 12:12 PM by Texas Explorer
You've been caught up in the Foley diversion, haven't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. instead of snide remarks, how about a lucid rebuttal??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Apparently you have made your mind up so any "lucid" case
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 12:15 PM by Texas Explorer
presented by me would be a complete waste of time.

You have apparently seen all the threads on this subject on the board right now and have made up your mind.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. and I saw all the threads on the board 6 months ago
And I was awake prior to the Iraq invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. I have no desire to get into a pissing match over this. Fact is,
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 12:30 PM by Texas Explorer
I hope you are right. But this ain't "6 months ago" and the threads I'm referring to are current threads that discuss major military movements that are, indeed, NOT BEING COVERED BY THE MEDIA! An entire CARRIER BATTLE GROUP left Norfolk, Virginia, two days ago for the Middle East. It is joining another carrier group there, the USS Enterprise CBG. And not a single word about it in the MSM.

Here are some of the discussions going on now that have new information, NOT 6 MONTH OLD information. Sure, most of it is speculation. But you should be used to that watching the MSM.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2301544

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2840031

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2320781

There are SEVERAL more discussions on this POSSIBILITY going on right now that are using UPDATED information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. thanks for proving my point
Iran is not on anyones radar screen. So unless theres a MIHOP event, its not going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. what part of 20,000 sailors, Marines and a task force sent to the Gulf
Don't you understand?

Why are they deploying and spending hundreds of millions then to do this? Saber-rattling? I don't think so.

U.S. Strike Groups: Cargo intended for War?

The U.S.S. Enterprise a U.S. Navy flagship is under deployment to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. This includes all the warships and vessels that compose Carrier Strike Group 12 (CSG 12) Destroyer Squadron 2 (DESRON 2), and Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW 1). The stated objective for the deployment of the U.S.S. Enterprise, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and other U.S. Navy vessels is to conduct naval security operations and aerial missions in the region. The deployment does not mention Iran, it is said to be part of the U.S.-led “War on Terror” under “Operation Enduring Freedom.”

Originally the name for Operation Enduring Freedom was “Operation Infinite Justice,” which highlights the unlimited scope and intentions of the War on Terror. “Operation Iraqi Freedom” which envelops the Anglo-American invasion and the continued occupation of Iraq is also a component of these operations. A large number of U.S. warships are deployed in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea.

While this deployment is said to be related to ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the warships are carrying with them equipment which is not intended for these two war theaters. Minesweepers and mine-hunters have absolutely no use in landlocked Afghanistan and are not needed in Iraq which has a maritime corridor and ports totally controlled by the Anglo-American alliance.

Other warships in the Enterprise Strike Group include the destroyer U.S.S. McFaul, the war frigate U.S.S. Nicholas, the battle cruiser U.S.S. Leyte Gulf, the attack submarine U.S.S. Alexandria, and the “fast combat support ship” U.S.N.S. Supply. The U.S.N.S. Supply will be a useful vessel in confronting the Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf in close-quarter combat. Speed will be an important factor in responding to potentially lethal Iranian missile and anti-ship missile attacks.

The U.S.S. Enterprise carries with it a host of infiltration, aerial attack, and rapid deployment units. This includes Marine Strike Fighter Squadron 251, Electronic Attack Squadron 137, and Airborne Early Warning Squadron 123. Squadron 123 will be vital in the event of a war with Iran in detecting Iranian missiles and sending warnings of danger to the U.S. fleet. Special mention should be made of the helicopter squadron specialized for combating submarines traveling with the strike group. “Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 11” will be on board the U.S.S. Enterprise. The Persian Gulf is known to be the home of the Iranian submarine fleet, the only indigenous submarine fleet in the region.

The Eisenhower Strike Group, based in Norfolk, Virginia, has also received orders to deploy to the Middle East. The strike group is led by the U.S.S. Eisenhower, another nuclear battleship. It includes a cruiser, a destroyer, a war frigate, a submarine escort, and U.S. Navy supply ships. One of these two naval strike groups will position itself in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea while the other naval strike group will position itself in the Persian Gulf, both off the Iranian coast.

Another Strike Group Performs Anti-submarine Drills and sets sail for the Persian Gulf

Another assault or strike group of U.S. warships, “Expeditionary Strike Group 5,” are setting off to sea too. This strike group is setting sail from Naval Station San Diego with the Persian Gulf in the Middle East as their final destination. Over 6,000 U.S. Marines and Navy personnel will be deployed to the Persian Gulf and Anglo-American occupied Iraq from San Diego.4 Approximately 4,000 U.S. sailors and 2,200 U.S. Marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Pendleton will make the bulk of the force. The warships and the servicemen they carry will reportedly have a tour of duty in the Persian Gulf and “possibly” Anglo-American occupied Iraq for half a year. They will also be joined by other ships including a Coast Guard vessel. A Marine air wing of 38 helicopters also is on board and travelling to the Persian Gulf.

The Marine contingent of the force is not destined for deployment in Iraq. It must be noted that the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is, however, able to “rapidly deploy” on “order” using large landing craft stowed aboard the strike group’s warships. If ordered this rapid deployment unit has the strong potential of being used as part of an invasion force against Iran from the Persian Gulf. The Marine unit would be ideal in being part of an operation with the objective(s) of securing Iranian ports to create beachheads for an invasion.

Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) is being led by the assault ship the U.S.S. Boxer as the flagship. Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) will also consist of the U.S.S. Dubuque, a “dock landing vessel,” the naval transport ship the U.S.S. Comstock, the battle cruiser the U.S.S. Bunker Hill, the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Benfold, and the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Howard. Once again, these vessels will all be deployed in the Persian Gulf, in nearby proximity to the Iranian coast.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15212.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. rotating troops???
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 12:27 PM by LSK
We are in a war somewhere around there already???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. The more I think about it
I think we'll need another 9/11 first. My second biggest tin foil fear is they have a mihop planned during 2007 as a contingency for if Dems win the house and Senate. "See we told you the dems would make us less safe." Bush declares martial law and hilarity ensues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. yep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. You Are Quite Right, Sir
However entertaining some people find it to frighten themselves, such amusements should not be mistaken for serious analysis, or viewed as sound predictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. The Bush administration has proven quite capable of
exceeding our imaginations when it comes to depraved jingoism.

Bush has a narrow set of options left. Attacking Iran, or at least rattling sabers, is about the only thing he has left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. It Is Not Going To Happen, Sir
Treat any wager offered against it, at any odds, as a gilt-edged investment opportunity....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Were I capable of being dispassionate, I would probably agree.
But, we are dealing with a cornered, wounded animal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
14. If the House leadership goes down the tubes...
We may attacke Iran, then suspend elections during the crisis. Something's got to save chimpy's ass.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. the point is that the public would know the attack was political
They would see right through it as a move to "save the election". You need months of a "Iran is about to kill us all" media blitz for it to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. THESE PEOPLE DON'T TAKE THE "PUBLIC" INTO
CONSIDERATION FOR ANYTHING!

What makes you think they give a FUCK about what the people think?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. because the whole reason is to "save the election"
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 12:33 PM by LSK
Doesn't that have EVERYTHING to do with it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. At this point
It all has to do with saving the Neocon Agenda. It's turning to shit faster than they can ignore it. I'm worried that desperate madmen will do something... mad.

The elections are near to the point where Dems win, Diebold or no Diebold. I don't think they'll give up now they're so close to fucking things up permanently. They've invested a lot to have this jerked out of their closing jaws.


They didn't accidentally disable our most important constitutional protections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marnieworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
15. I don't have links offhand but I disagree
Are you aware of the heavy recent buildup of ships and carriers in the Gulf off of Iran? They recently deployed the Eisenhower ahead of schedule. They are lining up equipment and troops exactly the same way they did in the buildup to invading Iraq- way before an invasion.

Also there has been steady propoganda about Iran. Talks about Sanctions. I saw a headline about the EU abandoning talks just within the past few days. I also have seen statements from Iran defending their access to nuke technology. There has been saber rattling. Rice has been travelling to build support. I am very concerned about them starting a war and no one stopping them. If it was going to happen it would look and sound like it does. We've been down this road and it looks familiar.

They are also extremely motivated to do this with the Foley scandal, Woodward's book, fear of being tried or impeached. They have proven that they stop at nothing to win despite loss of life.

I would love to be wrong but I think it is truly on the table in their minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marnieworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
16. dupe
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 12:21 PM by Marnieworld
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
17. Ahh... using logic to predict an ever increasingly desperate Bush*
might be a dangerous thing...

Bush* has messionic tendencies which allow him to justify nearly anything--that allows for the truly deranged around him to manipulate him to do even the most insane. While I hope you are right, I fear the danger is there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
20. You're a positive no
others are a positive yes. It matters not to me when but that we don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
23. It cracks me up...
That the people constantly going on about conspiracy theories drop the ball when there really is a conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I'd rather be wrong about this whole Iran thing than be caught
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 12:43 PM by Texas Explorer
off-guard by it...

If it turns out that this military posturing is benign, then so be it. I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

And, I hope to God I don't have to say those four words of finality - "I told you so!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. I agree. It's clear to world+dog that Bush is impotent wrt Iran
They were SO HOPING Syria and Iran would attack Israel during the Lebanon invasion--I would argue that was probably the entire purpose of the Lebanon Invasion. They weren't really making much a secret of it--all their proxies in the media were talking nonstop of the coming involvement of Syria and Iran. Iran was "scheduled" for the run-up to the '06 midterms way back when the Bushies thought everything would go smoothly in Iraq. Things didn't go smoothly in Iraq but they tried to keep to the schedule anyway because the primary factor in their "foreign policy" planning--or as legal experts prefer to call it, their warcrimes conspiracy--has always been our own domestic elections calendar. Syria and Iran declined to take the bait, Bush couldn't move on them, and the oil market which had anticipated catastrophically interrupted supplies promptly deflated. On top of that Israel's ostensible goal of wiping out Hezbollah also failed. They've only bid up Hezbollah's stock in Lebanon. From now on, Bushler and co. are in reactive mode trying to hang on in Iraq while it goes further and further down the drain. They are no longer able to orchestrate events in that region, much less to "run the table" as they had hoped, and unless Iran does something egregiously stupid, no pretext can be found to launch the "decapitation strike" on Tehran that they once planned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
30. trouting out
I know it's a typo but LOL

Is it a mixture between trotting and pouting (or shouting)?

I can't think of anything but the phrase "trouser trout" when I read that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. oops! thx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
31. Would he have to save the election if he declared martial law? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
33. Agree. It Will Take A 'Gulf Of Tonkin' Incident, Directly Attributable
to them.

Even an air assault carries a risk orders of magnitude greater than the Iraq invasion.

Iraq had a broken military with no means to project power beyond their borders.

Iran has an intact military with an ability to project power beyond its borders adequate to effect most of the worlds petroleum and natural gas export market.

A ground invasion of Iran will require raising a draftee army of 1M+.


I see the current action as a 'Falklands Fleet Action Redux'

The current fleet action has nothing to do with an imminent attack on Iran. It has everything to do with:

1) Ensuring a GOP victory in November. Remember the Falklands fleet action. The breathless reporting, the tension, the TV ratings. Same thing again. From mid-October up to the election this will be the serial story 24/7.

2) Following the GOP victory, the tensions with Iran will be used as the reason for run-up in petroleum product prices (Note 1).

3) The ratcheting up of tensions as units of the fleet bop around the Gulf will greatly increase the chance of a 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident providing the political leverage for continuing their strategy of turmoil and hegemony over the energy producing regions of the Middle East (Note 2).

Note 1: Phases 1 and 2 appear to conflict. However, with the duration of Phase 1 being relatively short, and with my understanding now of how they are artificially depressing the price of gasoline, I feel they will be successful in keeping the gasoline prices down until after the election.

Note 2: No action, by a sane military leadership, can be undertaken against Iran (including a bombing campaign) without a major increase in troop levels if for no other reason to be prepared for contingencies.

An Iranian unit damages or sinks a U.S. Naval, the Maximum Leader can then go in front of Congress, say that we are victims of an unprovoked attack, like Pearl Harbor, and call for a draft to raise sufficient military strength to deal with the rogue nation of Iran.

The purpose of the 'War On Terror' and all of it's subsidiaries are related to Peak Oil as follows:

- By maintaining a constant state of tension, high petroleum prices can be explained away as a temporary spike due to politics. This way, the publics attention can kept from the accelerating supply problems worldwide, thus preventing them from starting to make other arrangements for a post-carbon world (they can't have the addicts kicking too soon).

- Whoever controls the remaining (cheap) petroleum reserves stands to make a fortune in the years immediately following the peak of production. Even the most optimistic scenarios indicate it would take twenty years to mitigate the loss of petroleum production following peak. During this period of transition, the 'addicts' will have no choice but to pay, and pay, and pay.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC