Is War with Iran necessary for Pres Obama to win in 2012?

[rhett o rick]

I believe that Pres Obama will have to appease the war-crazed Neocons who will, along with Republicans and Beck, be clamoring for war with Iran as a campaign issue. Maybe the Pres will stop short of war, but I believe he must get tough with Iran to quiet the Neocons. Maybe recently hired Frederick Kagan, a top Neocon, can help with the planning.

[WI_DEM]

1. this is one of the stupidest threads of the day. Obama doesn't need to start a war with Iran

to win in 2012.

[harun]

11. No, it _is_ the stupidest thread of the day.

[grantcart]

15. You are correct. Do you realize how high a bar that is?

[rhett o rick]

18. Well the Pres will either have to get tough with Iran or with the Republicans. So far he has failed

to get tough with the Republicans. By the next election, Faux and the MSM will be pushing the Neocon/Republican clamor for a tough policy toward Iran.
I dont think the Pres will ignore them, nor challenge them.

[grantcart]

19. Or he can reestablish the dominant post WWII US practice of emphasizing

multilateral approaches to solve international crises which was more or less standard operating from 1946 until 2000 when Bush/Cheney completely undermined the broad bipartisan multilateral approach that Republican and Democrat Presidents had followed.

As the President has made significant strides in getting both Rusia and China to come much closer to the US position it would seem that the President's actual approach, which has nothing to do with the 'have you stopped beating your wife' poll that ridiculously charachterizes two non choices that the President doesn't support.


edited to add missing word

[rhett o rick]

22. I hope you are right. I am just a little twitchy when I see Glen Beck acting like Hitler, and the

tea-baggers acting like Brown-Shirts.

[grantcart]

27. Glenn Beck has about the same amount of influence as his mentor

Cleon Skousen had.


You probaby never heard of Cleon Skousen.



In thirty years nobody will remember Glenn Beck unless his own psychotic demise is captured live on TV.

[rhett o rick]

30. I quite agree that in 30 years he wont be remembered, but he may be a factor in 2012.

I see him as a useful tool for the Republicans much like the Christian Right was for George Bush. Of course he will be disposed of immediately.

[grantcart]

32. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are the Democrats best friends

They push the Republicans further into crazy land and will lose support of Republicans among independents.


This is clearly shown in the Senate race of Nevada where a traditional Republican would have won easy but by nominating 'crazy' Reid is the likely winner.



edited to add


The more likely scenario is that the Beck/Palin will so scare the traditional leaders of the Republican party that they will probably conspire to come to an early agreement around a new sensible candidate that will leave the crazy behind, hence my prediciton that Daniels of Indiana is a likely candidate for a large draft movement.

[rhett o rick]

33. I dont agree. They have great corporate backing so someone likes them.

I see them similar to Hitler's Brown Shirts. They will stir up hate and fear. Then, as you pointed out, the Republican Party will run a "sensible" candidate. Maybe like Jeb Bush. Main stream Republican's will rush to vote for the sensible candidate, but he will also get the Beckster's votes also.

Beck and Palin will be used to hammer and distract the Democrats, with the MSM a willing accomplice.

[Pirate Smile]

2. Are you kidding? Starting a war with Iran seems like a way to NOT get reelected.

[rhett o rick]

14. Between now and the next election, the Neocons and REPUBLICANS will start

clamoring for a strong stand against Iran. Based on his track record, I think he will feel he has to appease those demanding a strong position.

[mdmc]

3. It wouldn't hurt Obama

I don't think Obama needs a war with Iran. I think he will win re-election no doubt.

[Mz Pip]

4. The neocons won't vote for Obama

no matter what he does.

I don't think most Americans have the stomach for any more discretionary wars.

[rhett o rick]

16. I believe that the Republican propaganda machine will start pushing for a strong stand against

Iran. If Pres Obama doesn't respond, he will be portrayed as weak.

[babylonsister]

5. No! nt

[rhett o rick]

28. Do you find any significance in the hiring of Neocon Frederick Kagan? nm

[babylonsister]

34. Not really, certainly not to start a war in Iran. This isn't

idiot son anymore. I think this Prez recognizes this country is exhausted by war, and could use the money elsewhere.

[rhett o rick]

36. What he recognizes and what he does to get reelected may be two different things.

Of course I dont believe he will go to war, but he may have to take some strong actions to keep from looking like a weak President.

[FiveGoodMen]

6. If the answer is yes, do you support starting a war with Iran in order to secure the White House?

[rhett o rick]

42. Of course not. And I dont think the Pres will either. But he may be forced into

taking some strong actions to keep from appearing weak.

[FiveGoodMen]

43. And then those strong actions won't be strong enough to appease the right, so...

He'll take even stronger ones until we're at war.

All the tortures of hell go to those who would play with others' lives for political gain.

God damn anyone who even contemplates it.

[MilesColtrane]

7. What leverage do neo-conservatives have over Obama that they could wield to keep him...

from being elected?

[rhett o rick]

17. The Republicans will take up the chant as will Faux and the MSM. nm

[truebrit71]

24. Um...the entire corps of presstitutes in the M$M comes immediately to mind..

..

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Will killing ten or twenty thousand American soldiers be necessary for Obama to win?

Will killing a hundred thousand Iranians be necessary for Obama to win, or would a million be better?

Let's not wag the dog.

[rhett o rick]

12. Self delete. Dupe post nm

[rhett o rick]

13. No of course not. I assume your exaggeration is to make a point.

It may be necessary to appear as a strong president to counter the clamor the Neocons AND REPUBLICANS will undoubtedly bring re. the danger of Iran.

[Ozymanithrax]

35. Neocons will not follow Obama even if he goes to war with Iran.

It is not in our interest to go to war with Iran, our economy isn't in the best of shape.

I wasn't exaggerating. Iran has a very large army. They fought the longest conventional war in the 20th century against Iraq and won, lost about a million people.

If we tried it with a concentrated bombing campaign, a hundred thousand is probably a good estimate. A million dead Iranians would be from an Invasion and a stupid attempt to occupy the country while we attempted to put a friendly government in power.

I am surprised that someone would even ask the question. I mean, it was such a winning issue for John McCain, though I'd bet Obama could sing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran better than that crazy old fuck whose ass he kicked.

[rhett o rick]

37. Of course the Neocons wont follow Obama. However, their voices combined with

the republicans will be blasted continuously by the media. Pres Obama may have to do some heavy posturing to not appear weak.

[Ozymanithrax]

44. No he won't, and there are many reasons why.

(1) Since inauguration, he has been using diplomatic means to deal with Iran. Going to war would destroy everything he has achieved.

(2) He doesn't have the forces in theater to go to war. He would need to have a lot of heavy armor, and stage an invasion force along the Northern Border of Iraq and the Western Border of Afghanistan. He has not done that and it can not be done in secret. We moved all the heavy forces out of Iraq and the 50,000 thee are not set up to invade. Also, considering the status of forces, it would violate our agreements with Iraq to invade Iran from their country.

(3) He has not attempted to convince the American people to go to war. That takes time.

(4) He has not asked for an authorization to use force from Congress.

It simply is not going to happen.

But the biggest reason is this. We are having a midterm Congressional eleciton in November that will be influenced by bread and butter issues, not foreign diplomacy or war. It will be won and lost on the economy.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Crazy talk. That is a sure way not to win and not to deserve to as well.

[doc03]

10. Not that I would approve of a war with Iran but as things

are at present I think that is the only way Obama has a chance of being re-elected in 2012.

[TheKentuckian]

20. Oh well then. No insane devil's bargains for me.

[deaniac21]

21. jobs...economy

[rhett o rick]

25. I think he will establish a new bubble on the back of Social Security. nm

[deaniac21]

29. SS and medicare are gonna get hit hard no matter who is in charge.

[ThomWV]

23. If it is I'm in the wrong Party.

[Iggo]

26. To win what?

Warmonger Of The Year?

[Posteritatis]

31. Meh, the US has been going to invade Iran next week for the last five years. (nt)

[Bucky]

40. We MUST stop them NOW! Before they RUN OVER our ally, Persia!

OMG!

[proteus_lives]

38. Tinfoilhat time.

:tinfoilhat:

[IndianaGreen]

39. Is Obama running for Prime Minister of Israel?

Appeasing the fascists didn't work in Munich in 1938.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. If he starts a war with Iran, I definitely will not vote for him in 2012,

because then he will be exactly the same as the Republicans.

He has two years to highlight the differences between himself and the Republicans, and he needs to look at what happened to Labour in Britain when they tried to play nice with the warmongers and the banksters. Yes, the Conservatives are worse, but Labour has no one to blame for their defeat but themselves.

[Drale]

45. heres my question

Does Iran accually have an army I know they claim they have 100 ships for every 1 of the US's but we all know thats bullshit. Im guessing they only have "security forces" aka religous police. Sooo is it really a war if the country doesnt have an army? I really dont know were im going with this sorry just kind of rambling.

[TheKentuckian]

46. They have a real military. Iran is not a backwater country like Afghanistan or militarily depleted

one like Iraq.

Before Desert Storm Iraq had a top 10 military and Iran was able to fend them off. Their capabilities have grown considerably since the conflicts with Iraq.

You sound pretty arrogant and disdainful, to be honest. Going into Iran would not be dealing with a few stray "religious police", though they would be out gunned and out teched but so would Sweden but we don't talk to them like they are cave dwellers.

These people ruled the world when many of our forebearers probably couldn't write.

[Drale]

47. Well

The UK ruled the world for a while to and so did Rome does that mean they still have the greatest navy and army respectivly anymore?

[TheKentuckian]

48. No, but they have way more opposition to offer than a few Celtic warriors or Oracle guards

You probably wouldn't leap to such disrespectful estimations of those folks in a million years.

[denbot]

49. Face-palm.. Really?!? Only security forces?

Brushing aside the morality issues, they have an Army, Navy, and Air Force. The cost of rolling over them will be greater then Iraq, and that definitely left a mark.

Do you remember the scud hunt???

They have their little pinky on the Straights of Hormuz. That section of the country is mostly ravines pockmarked with caves and tunnels over looking a maritime choke point. Any ship trying to run a blockade would be an easy target.

I rode a guided missile destroyer there during the Iranian Hostage crisis and defending commercial shipping i.e. slow, huge, ridiculously flammable oil tankers would be incredibly difficult if everything went our way. Do you feel lucky? I don't care how hard and wide we hit them, the straights will be closed for months or maybe a year or more. World wide economic chaos would result from that little misstep.

Seriously, are you kidding?