My Fear Going Foward Is That *Co Will Get Israel To Hit Iran.......

[global1]

and draw us in.

I think that this is why we've seen * go to Israel recently - to begin the set up. Think about it - Israel hits Iran - there will be retaliation that will draw the U.S. into the fight.

Barack Obama is backed into a corner in that he wouldn't have wanted to get into it with Iran - but - he will have to support because he has said that he would protect Israel at all costs in his campaign speeches.

The losers will be the American people and the Dems - because it this attack on Iran goes down this way - IMHO it strengthens McCain's chance for winning the '08 GE. It rally's the Jewish vote around the Repugs.

The Repugs will launch a fierce campaign that will tout McCain's toughness and military experience as being the best candidate to handle this because we know that this will go on long after the GE.

This will happen before Nov and be the catalyst to get McCain elected.

I believe I heard that Israel has recently threatened Iran. Sorry but I don't have the link - but I think the wheels have been set in motion. Maybe that is partly why oil went up $11/barrel yesterday and the stock market went down so hard.

Any other thoughts on this

[Andy823]

1. They might

But after Scott came out with his book, it's going to be hard to convince the public they "had" to do it! I do agree that the saber rattling is all about jacking the price of oil up again so that Bush's base, the super rich, can make a big killing before he leaves office.

[gateley]

3. Not only McClellan's book, but the Senate Intelligence Committee report which

supports McClellan's claims.

HOWEVER, I don't think Bushco is worried about convincing the public of anything. "So?"

[global1]

4. Scott's Book And The Intelligence Comm. Report Won't Apply If Israel......

is the one that initiates the attack. *Co will have cover then and will be able to rally(force) the American people and military to support. It will also force the Dems to back the attack under the auspices of protecting Israel - otherwise if they came out against it would piss off the Jewish voting block.

[magellan]

13. Checkmate. n/t

[gateley]

2. I'm thinking that's a big topic at the Bilderberg meeting this weekend in Virginia, too. nt

[Wizard777]

5. That would make them a loose cannon. People run from those.

If they attack Iran Unilaterally. They are on their own. That's what unilateral is all about. The more they prove they can unilaterally defend themselves. The less protection they need from us. Go ahead and attack. We will be more than happy to slash their aid packages.

[global1]

6. Slashing Aid Packages & Funding Won't Happen........

the Dems can't risk not supporting Israel and pissing off Jewish voters. The Repugs will back them into the corner and they'll have no choice. Israel is our ally - and the U.S. will be forced to come to their aid no matter who attacked who.

[anonymous171]

12. Agreed. This would strengthen the case against Israeli aid.

Because obviously they can take care of themselves if they can unilaterally attack other countries without incident.

That being said I really, REALLY, don't want any more wars.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. My fear is illogic like this leads to more anti-Semitism.

You have set up a lovely "Let's blame the Jews" for a possible upcoming war. I am so fucking tired of seeing this BULLSHIT on a supposedly liberal board!

[global1]

10. Please Don't Take It Like That - I Was Simply Reacting To An Article I Saw......

today. Here is the link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080606073645.fjrccoo1&show_article=1

After I saw that - my mind went into high gear and started thinking Rovian.

How should I have reacted to this article?

[Behind the Aegis]

18. You can react anyway. However, some ways will produce comments like mine.

I understand you weren't throwing down anti-Semitic remarks. I hope that is not what you thought I was saying. To help you understand, I am going to use an analogy. If you have been here for any length of time, you've probably seen something similar.

"The idea of gay "marriage" needs to be on the back-burner. Yes, I believe in equal rights for all, but this is an election year. It will offend the more moderate democrats and we will once again lose for something that could wait until we have the presidency and the Congress."

Now, look at that argument and the one you presented. The above shoves the gays to the proverbial back of the bus. Your scenario shows the dems losing because the Jews would abandon the party should the US or the dem candidate, Obama, not prove to be strong enough in his support to "defend" Israel. It basically places blame on gays and Jews (the two different scenarios) for a loss/potential loss. With the Jewish equation, we get more of the dual loyalty charges, "move to Israel," "Fuck Israel," "AIPAC owns Congress," "the Jews will shut down the government." And yes, all of these things have appeared at DU on more than one occasion. So while the minister, with no real power to declare war or even an attack, is war-mongering (no surprise there), but notice how the attention turns to the Jews. Jews make up a mere 2% of the US population and ALWAYS vote OVERWHELMINGLY democratic.

So how should you react? Well, again, anyway you desire, but understand the implications.

(If this is not clear enough...I just got off a double shift, let me know and I will respond here or you can PM me.)

[magellan]

14. I don't blame the Israelis for the war drums

I blame their government and its supporters/enablers here in our government.

I'm effin' tired of the fact that we can't discuss Israel outside of I/P without someone jumping on the thread and shutting the conversation down with accusations of anti-semitism...or in this case, pre-emptive accusations.

And I won't be surprised if my post is deleted or the entire thread is removed to the dungeon.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Well, then perhaps you should explore more of DU.

Because you clearly are unfamiliar of the anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli bigotry that emerges in situations like this at DU. Perhaps you should be more concerned with bigoted reactions and not so fucking worried about conversations be shut down (as this one has not been).

[magellan]

22. I'm concerned with both

...rather than just one or the other. Because making the topic too sensitive for healthy discussion and debate is as bad as poisoning it with hate.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. There is a difference.

It isn't a matter of making a topic too sensitive by saying it is setting up anti-Semites, especially when I showed how it would be done. Personally, I am more concerned with hate. It is the reason that we have so many problems as it is.

[RedCappedBandit]

23. It isn't "let's blame the Jews"

imo.. it IS about the Israeli government.
Israelis protest their government's actions just as we do. I fail to see what is "anti semitic" about that. :shrug:

[Behind the Aegis]

29. read...

"The losers will be the American people and the Dems - because it this attack on Iran goes down this way - IMHO it strengthens McCain's chance for winning the '08 GE. It rally's the Jewish vote around the Repugs." That is in the OP. Therefore, G-d forbid, an attack takes place against Iran by Israel (unlikely, IMHO), then "the Jews" will damage the Dems in the election because they will go to the Repubs side. This implies the Jews are only concerned with Israel and are unwillingly, though overwhelmingly Democratic, to vote for Democrats in the GE because the only issue of concern on our mind is Israel.

Protesting the Israeli government in not anti-Semitic, per se. But, it does occur, even here.

[Earth_First]

8. I'd need to consult to moon charts first. n/t

[DFW]

9. If Israel attack Iran, it will be out of both desperation and self-interest

Neither is currently the case. In Iran, for now, cooler heads prevail, as they do
in Israel. Just because cooler heads are NOT the norm in Cheneybush's Washington,
does not mean that Israel will fulfill their macho fantasies for them.

Don't hold your breath.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Fully agree!

[mdmc]

11. thats how I would do it.

:shrug:

[L. Coyote]

15. If Israel attacks Iran, maybe they should be wiped off the map!!

They would only be proving that the Iranians were right about them all along.

Thanks for the fear mongering. Are you trying to raise the price of oil.

In full disclosure, do you own oil futures, or are you paid to say this shit by someone who does?
Damn, I hate crystal ball politics!! It is the worst kind of paranoid politics.

[Fearless]

16. Israel invading a soverign people... that would be ironic.

[HuffleClaw]

20. they might PRETEND Israel will attak on its own

but it isnt' capable of doing so without US assistance

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. Israel doesn't have enough long range bombers to carry out a massive sustained attack against Iran

Their Air Force is designed for such an ability against only immediate neighbors. Iran is about a thousand miles away. And given the massive deep-earth tunneling system the Iranians have developed, probably with North Korean assistance - it is highly doubtful that air power alone could neutralize any perceived threats. In the case of Iran it is not simply a matter of knocking out a reactor or hitting a few key sites. Their system is considerably more complex than that, far harder to locate targets and deeply buried under ground.

Furthermore if Israel is directly involved in initiating such attacks, Israeli intiation would make it politically improbable if not impossible, to get the Gulf States on board - That would be a absolute necessity for the U.S. to carry out a sustained campaign. As much as most Gulf Arabs may fear and loathe the Iranians, they have no desire to put themselves in the direct line of fire from Iranian retaliation - which they do indeed have the ability to do in a very big way. Although Iranian weaponry is antiquated by Western standards..they have lots and lots and lots of short and medium range missiles - which are deeply embedded in hostile terrain - and very difficult to knock out - and more than capable of wrecking a great deal of havoc and carnage on the oil infrastructure in the Gulf States - which are just across a relatively modest body of water from Iran.

And escalating oil price on the world market does create a certain degree of deterrence against such an attack. It is probable that oil would shoot up to $300 a barrel within one week. It is also quite possible that oil extraction, refinement and transport out of the Gulf would be greatly crippled thus creating a REAL economic crisis for the whole world.

[DemoTex]

24. The US would "tanker" Israeli attack jets (in-flight fueling).

That's the only way Israel can attack Iran by air. Even then, the Israeli over-flights for such an attack on Iran (not to mention the attack itself) will launch tremendous blow-back in the region (see map).

[Wizard777]

25. This would solidify the Arab world against us. They could do to us what we did to Japan.

Cut off the flow of oil to our war machine. OPEC could say not one drop will be sold to the USA. Personally I think our current gas prices are UN like sanctions against us by OPEC. For Israel to attack Iran. That would undoubtedly be the start of WW III. The christian fundies would seize the opportunity to destroy the Al Oxa Mosque to rebuild Solomons Temple. Once the Armies gather at Megiddo. Welcome to Armageddon!

[kimmerspixelated]

26. We must have faith that cooler heads prevail in Israel.

My first suspicious thought has to do with the report.." Israel may attack or is thinking about attacking Iran." Question the source. It might very well be fabricated from the Bushits. Look how many other piles of crap they have manufactured!

However, it certainly does look like a checkmate could occur for McCain, and the rethugs. It does sound like the perfect set-up for them. A very scary setup.

But who, in their right mind(no pun intended) would think another war of any kind would be a good thing, given the price of gas? If a world depression happens because of lack of oil due to the war, it effects everyone! Do each of the republicans have an electric car or something? How will they get from one bank to the other if there is no gas? World emergencies effect everyone-not just the rich!

Because they are so in love with making money and profiteering, do they not see the end consequences of declaring war by defending Israel?

Weren't they supposed to be the conservative party?

How can you make money on oil, when there is no oil coming into the country?

What will they do with all the war profiteering money, during the end? You can't take it with you!

[blues90]

27. Mike Malloy talked all about this last thursday

From what I gather there is a ramp up to do this attack on Iran.

Seems to me like it's the governments of Israel and the US and not the people who want this.

I really don't know what to think anymore since this topic seems to keep coming back and each time it does it appears they are closer to doing it.

There is really nothing anyone of use can do to stop it other than hope it never happens. Protests do nothing and contacting reps does nothing.