October Surprise?

[RickSp]

From Time:

A flurry of military maneuvers in the Middle East increases speculation that conflict with Iran is no longer quite so unthinkable. The first message was routine enough: A "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again. What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed—but until now largely theoretical—prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

Nothing like starting another war to expand Presiential power and keep Republicans in office.

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp From Time: Nothing like starting another war to expand Presiential power and keep Republicans in office.

You know, Rick, I have been expecting this for sometime now. The constant drumbeat of Iran and Nuclear weapons and another reprise of WMD's in the hands of "terrorists" has been sending a message for anyone willing to listen with regard to this matter for over a year now.

The UN is useless. NATO is a joke. Europeans refuse to get involved with regard to their relationship with Russia and its role in the UNSC, and China sits idly by, tacitly reinforcing Iran's nuclear development. American sabre rattling is loud and clear, and has been for months. King George will address the UN and reinforce this idea that Iran is stalling for time in order to finish the enrichment of weapons while Iran insists that it is only developing peaceful nuclear power.

This war is coming. I personally believe Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons, but I temper that with, who are we to stop them? What right do we have to stop them? Let the UN do it. Let NATO do it, all minus the participation of the US. The US needs to get out of the MIddle East and this widening war that is coming.

We can defend ourselves when and if the time comes. Those who are neither willing, or can't defend themselves, tough sh*t. Don't call us, perhaps we will call you. And then promptly send everyone a copy of the Three Little Pigs instead of Military Troops.

[grandpa]

Quote by: brien You know, Rick, I have been expecting this for sometime now. The constant drumbeat of Iran and Nuclear weapons and another reprise of WMD's in the hands of "terrorists" has been sending a message for anyone willing to listen with regard to this matter for over a year now.

I have said it before: We may outsource this one to Tel Aviv. Not only are they more capable of launching faraway missiles, but also for a ground and air invasion of Iran.
Meanwhile, if anything goes wrong in such a policy, "Arab terrorists did it.”
If anything good happens, we'll take credit for it. It's an age old formula. Just replace "Arab terrorists" with another term and there you go.

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

Wonder if they're planning on gathering the troops around Meggido?


You know, any farther North, and the Lebanese might be able to strike at them with missiles.


Then add to that the Pope's fau paux, and one begins to wonder what this "war on Terror" is going to look like in a few years.


I suppose we could hope that people won't retain all these incumbents, and the funding for the War on Terror will decrease, or we could click our heels, and wish we were back in Kansas.

[RickSp]

Pakistan and North Korea, who actually have nukes, are each greater threats to the United States than Iran yet I do not hear any of the neocons shouting for new and bloody wars with either of these countries. Iran is no threat to the United Ststaes, unless we are stupid enough to start a war. Iraq is a fiasco but compared to attacking Iran would be a cakewalk.

I agree with you grandpa. I suspect that the US will use Israel to start the war and then jump in to support our "loyal ally". All the US preparations for war will just be coincidental.

The insane neocons keep ranting about WWIII. They just might succed in starting it.

[brien]

[quote=grandpa;283845]

Quote by: brien You know, Rick, I have been expecting this for sometime now. The constant drumbeat of Iran and Nuclear weapons and another reprise of WMD's in the hands of "terrorists" has been sending a message for anyone willing to listen with regard to this matter for over a year now. QUOTE] I have said it before: We may outsource this one to Tel Aviv. Not only are they more capable of launching faraway missiles, but also for a ground and air invasion of Iran. Meanwhile, if anything goes wrong in such a policy, "Arab terrorists did it.” If anything good happens, we'll take credit for it. It's an age old formula. Just replace "Arab terrorists" with another term and there you go. Grandpa h.

Yes, they can do this also. And probably will if they can get away with it..

[grandpa]

[quote=brien;283855]

Quote by: grandpa Yes, they can do this also. And probably will if they can get away with it..

Unfortunately, I think they can and will get away with it.
A way to get away with crime is to rent someone else's actions.

Grandpa h.

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp Pakistan and North Korea, who actually have nukes, are each greater threats to the United States than Iran yet I do not hear any of the neocons shouting for new and bloody wars with either of these countries. Iran is no threat to the United Ststaes, unless we are stupid enough to start a war. Iraq is a fiasco but compared to attacking Iran would be a cakewalk. I agree with you grandpa. I suspect that the US will use Israel to start the war and then jump in to support our "loyal ally". All the US preparations for war will just be coincidental. The insane neocons keep ranting about WWIII. They just might succed in starting it.

I fully agree about N Korea and Pakistan, however, I don't see them as Nuclear threats to the US, no more so than Russia or China in this respect. I think they know better than to intimidate the US with a nuclear strike.

I further think it is precisely because Iran doesn't have Nuclear weapons yet that King George is spoiling for the fight. Just like Saddam and his supposed WMD's, perhaps the current Adminstration requires its bogeyman to gin up the support of a "patriotic" turnout in November.

[RickSp]

Quote by: brien I fully agree about N Korea and Pakistan, however, I don't see them as Nuclear threats to the US, no more so than Russia or China in this respect. I think they know better than to intimidate the US with a nuclear strike. I further think it is precisely because Iran doesn't have Nuclear weapons yet that King George is spoiling for the fight. Just like Saddam and his supposed WMD's, perhaps the current Adminstration requires its bogeyman to gin up the support of a "patriotic" turnout in November.

Pakistan is one bullet away from having nukes controlled by radical Islamists. Osama is hiding in Pakistan and if Mubarek's regime falls who knows what could happen. Kim in Korea is probably not an immedaite threat but is certainly more dangeorus than Iran.

The irony is that King George's war in Iraq has made Iran vastly more powerful and influential in the region than it ever was and has helped assure the rise of Ahmadinejad. Bush and his co-conspirators wants to dominate the Middle East and cannot with a newly powerful Persia. Iran has to be taken out, at least from their twisted world view.

[grandpa]

Quote by: RickSp Pakistan is one bullet away from having nukes controlled by radical Islamists. Osama is hiding in Pakistan and if Mubarek's regime falls who knows what could happen.

Their populations will pay a price, as will ours.
Radical Islam and radical American right wing extremism must be rejected in all its forms.

Grandpa h.

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp Pakistan is one bullet away from having nukes controlled by radical Islamists. Osama is hiding in Pakistan and if Mubarek's regime falls who knows what could happen. Kim in Korea is probably not an immedaite threat but is certainly more dangeorus than Iran. The irony is that King George's war in Iraq has made Iran vastly more powerful and influential in the region than it ever was and has helped assure the rise of Ahmadinejad. Bush and his co-conspirators wants to dominate the Middle East and cannot with a newly powerful Persia. Iran has to be taken out, at least from their twisted world view.

Yes, you have a very astute view of Pakistan. But even if the Islamic terrorists gain control of Pakistan, does this trigger the much dreaded WW III ? I agree the world's balance of power would change, but it would provide all of the more reason(s) for the US to fully and completely disengage from the Middle East. Then, I woud still send everyone the story of the 3 Little Pigs. I am sick and tired of the US playing the bad cop around the world. It will eventually destroy this nation.

[grandpa]

Quote by: brien Yes, you have a very astute view of Pakistan. But even if the Islamic terrorists gain control of Pakistan, does this trigger the much dreaded WW III ?

The trigger event can be anything.
That's a crazy thing about this world.

Grandpa h.

[brien]

Quote by: grandpa The trigger event can be anything. That's a crazy thing about this world. Grandpa h.

That said, the US is pefectly capable of defending itself when under attack, or even the imminent and validated threat of nuclear warfare. The US shouldn't be rattling sabres around the Middle East, nor should the US be involved in the Middle East at all. That could be the crazy action(s) that could trigger the "event."
:eek:

[RickSp]

Quote by: grandpa The trigger event can be anything. That's a crazy thing about this world. Grandpa h.

World War I was triggered by an anarchist with a pistol.

Pakistan, Israel and India all have nukes. Saudi Arabia is not an overly stable regime and its oil fields might be destroyed early on. Iran has a potentially large army, a functioning air force and an arsenal of missles. If a war breaks out there are dozens of possible scenarios where things go really badly. The potential for chaos and destruction is huge.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: RickSp Osama is hiding in Pakistan and if Mubarek's regime falls who knows what could happen.

Musharraf?

[RickSp]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Musharraf?

Of course. Thanks for the catch. Evidence of a caffiene deficiency.

[RickSp]

Of course it is from NewsMax so it is targeted for the brain dead knuckle draggers but it is interesting neverthless:

In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections. Rove is not saying what the October surprise will be.

[rmnunez]

I wonder whether anyone thinks an attack on Iran would improve Republican chances in November. I know the critical left believes Bush acts militarily to boost his ratings and in theory this would suggest an attack on Iran would infuse patriotic zeal and presumably republicanism, but it sure doesn't seem to me an attack on Iran would be well-received.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I wonder whether anyone thinks an attack on Iran would improve Republican chances in November. I know the critical left believes Bush acts militarily to boost his ratings and in theory this would suggest an attack on Iran would infuse patriotic zeal and presumably republicanism, but it sure doesn't seem to me an attack on Iran would be well-received.

You keep using the term "critical left," as though opposition to Bush is only a leftist thing.
I just think someone needs to intervene on that point.
Some suggest Bush goes to war to improve his approval ratings, but I don't think that's too important.
As you point out, it would be much easier to explain his actions some other way.
Well before the war in Iraq, symptoms of public hatred of Bush were already emerged.

You tell me: If an attack on Iran qwouldn't be well-received, how does that make Bush a President for the people?

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: RickSp Nothing like starting another war to expand Presiential power and keep Republicans in office.

{{Hangs head in dispare}} Dear gawd... IF this is true -- Bush has yet again arrogantly overestimated our military dominance. IF this is true, I predict that Iran will offer their own October surprise, such as sinking a couple of U.S. Navy ships. Thus committed to an open conflict, where does Boy George go from there???

.