so...if we attack Iran on halloween...

[Lerkfish]

either just outright or through some false flag operation (like sinking our own Eisehower and blaming Iran).

It would be exactly one week before the elections. what would this mean, and shouldn't we at least have some strategy if they do?

to the point: If they do a "shock and awe", or any other convential attack, it will still be going on DURING elections.

headlines will be held hostage to the Iran war, and what, if anything, can our dem leaders do about it?

Personally, I think anyone who'd vote FOR bush after preemptively invading another country is an idiot, but at least where I live, I'm surrounded by idiots.

My concern if its a false flag operation, is that we would not know immediately, or ever.

I've been thinking about it, but I can't come up with countering strategies for the election period.

I guess this thread is hoping someone out there sharper than I could preload some ideas and strategies, talking points and tactics that our dem leaders could or should use in that sort of situation.

I don't want a repeat of the patriot act getting shoved up the dem's rears from threats of being called "unpatriotic". We have to be absolutely ready for them this time.

thoughts? suggestions?

[Junkdrawer]

1. My money's on AFTER the election.

If they want Iran, they need the "Consent of the Governed", not just the "Acquiescence of the Governed".

The troops are stretched so thin that a move on Iran will require a draft. Even with a new terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin incident, I think Bush and an All-Republican congress will have a hard time getting the kind of support they will need. But if a new conscription law were passed by a Democratic congress in response to a terror attack....

Remember: They (the Big Oil guys) get one shot to get Iran right. A "just before the elections" attack would be stupid in an environment where 9/11 questions are getting more and more attention. Look for the shit to hit the fan next Spring - with a "Democratic" Congress.

[Sir Jeffrey]

4. I don't think you're right re: conscription...

Sy Hersh has stated repeatedly that the first wave of attacks on Iran will be a Naval/Air Force campaign. The Navy is there to keep oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and the Air Force is there to bomb the sites.

Maybe six months from the time they start the bombing they'll have to conscript because of some unforeseen massive retaliation, but not in the current plans.

[rogerashton]

6. right

They use the false-flag operation to "win" the election and then reinstate the draft within hours after the election -- necessary, you know, to defend ourself against the (faked) attack.

The one thing that gives me hope is that everybody on this message board is way smarter than "they" are.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Bombing Iran will not change their influence on the ground....

Big Oil can't pump Iraqi oil until the Mullahs are gone from Iran. Now, as long as Saudi Arabia has lots of oil, Big Oil wants Iraqi oil to stay in the ground.

But, when that Saudi oil starts to dry up, that's when they want to start up Iraq. How long will that be? The Saudis say 20+ years, other analysts say as early as a year or two from now.

[Sir Jeffrey]

2. The problem with "false flag ops"...

is that if you challenge the official version you are IMMEDIATELY labeled a conspiracy lunatic and you're marginalized.

Honestly, our only hope at this point is that the military would refuse to follow orders. The MSM won't cover the hearings held by Dems (like the one where the military guys didn't bother to show up) and if they gave speeches or whatever it would be ignored too. I literally had to stumble across Kucinich's page to see that he is actually doing something about the upcoming war on Iran. I haven't heard anything about it in any MSM source (tv or online).

Why I think it will happen (aside from all the evidence of military buildup, reporting, leaked information, etc.) is that in the immediate aftermath of the first strikes there will be no real room for criticism. The coverage will be all about tactics and sympathy for fallen soldiers when Iran actually fights back.

After the elections, the bombing will stop and it will be too late to do anything...unless when the dust clears we've got one chamber of Congress.

[Double T]

3. There will NOT be another preemptive attack..........

as the USA would NOT want to chance starting WWIII. Iran and its other supporting countries have plenty of BIG GUNS and WEAPONS; the USA governed by bushco has little credibility left with the rest of the world and would have little support from ANYONE ELSE with the exception of Israel.

[Parche]

5. iran

If they sink the Eisenhower, that would be the biggest blunder in Presidential/Military history.
That is over $5Billion in cost to build

[Lerkfish]

8. it was scheduled to be scuttled in a few months regardless.

at least, that's my understanding.


who knows, though?

[Sir Jeffrey]

10. Hmmm...

The Navy just christened the USS George H.W. Bush nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

The USS Eisenhower was christened in 1975.

The Bush dynasty represents never-ending war for profit...the very epitome of the military-industrial complex Ike warned us about in his farewell address.

The symbolism here is overwhelming. Bush arranges a false flag op against a symbol associated with the one man who issued the last very public warning against the threat to democracy posed by the military industrial complex. This symbolically murders american democracy and replaces it with something new and far more sinister: a symbol of the one man who represents the electoral triumph of war for profit and never-ending corporate cronyism (the father not the son).

Wait and see what happens.

[HuffleClaw]

9. i think if they ARE going to go for the iran gambit

it'll be before halloween. i'm surprised they haven't done it yet.