WWIII on Sept 25 get them shelters dug....

http://www2.thestockmarketwatch.com/stock-market-news/former-state-dept-veteran-drops-bombshell-wwiii-starts-sept-25/34348#ixzz26phg1pzU


Pieczenik says it’s clear to him that Israeli prime minister Bibi Netanyahu has already planned to attack Iran and has been desperately trying to enlist the U.S. to back him up. But, with or without U.S. direct help, Pieczenik is certain that Israel will attack Iran.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www2.thestockmarketwatch.com/stock-market-news/former-state-dept-veteran-drops-bombshell-wwiii-starts-sept-25/34348#ixzz26phg1pzU


Pieczenik says it’s clear to him that Israeli prime minister Bibi Netanyahu has already planned to attack Iran and has been desperately trying to enlist the U.S. to back him up. But, with or without U.S. direct help, Pieczenik is certain that Israel will attack Iran.

Do you know what time on the 25th?
I have lunch plans and I don't want them ruined.

Well I also will not be able to attend because the 25th is my daughters birthday and we have birthday plans with her.

Teo,
The 25th is no good. Are any other dates available? The 27th works for me.

Let me check with BeBe and see if he can wait a day or two...you know how excited he is though about starting a Thermonuclear apocalypse. No guarantees.

Netanyahu is smart enough to know that if Romney wins the election Romney will give him a lot more support than Obama. So why wouldn't he wait at least that long to see what the outcome is.

Bob,

You are smart enough to know the answer. If a conflict does not happen prior to the election, Romney cannot possibly win. If President Obama gets a second term......do you think he is going to negotiate with Israel from weakness? No. Israel may in fact have objective concern to escalate the military time table. I suspect that this is an attempt to wag the dog....not only now, but for the next eight years. I do not find any of the Middle East discord to be an accident. I think it is clearly a manipulation which only gives a true advantage to one country. I am not T. I am a strong supporter of Israel, but I am a student of Geopolitical realities, and I am convinced that Israel is playing the American election cycle. I believe their fingerprints are on this recent spontaneous uprising, and I think they are blackmailing us into a military response to Iran, when it may not be timely or the correct course at this time.

Israel is having the current Prime Minister go all in.......I think many in that country realize that this is an error. I fully expect that Romney will attempt to leverage our historic support of Israel to win the election, but I think Americans are getting far too sophisticated and can distinguish our interests and that of another nation......and we will not have the tail wagging the dog.

I think the nebulus assolius has invaded earth and taken over the species.

It's never to late to shine your light and open up a cold one.

2seaoat wrote:Bob,

You are smart enough to know the answer. If a conflict does not happen prior to the election, Romney cannot possibly win.

I'm not sure how Israel bombing Iran would help Romney's chances of winning the election. Explain that first.

War by definition is the failure of diplomacy. President Obama has been getting an a+ in foreign relations and the polls clearly indicate on today's Wall street poll that folks think that President Obama is up to the job, and Romney is not. This trend has been growing. If Israel bombs, and we equivocate, it will first be seen as a sign of weakness, when in fact it is strength, but it will be spun as weakness.

If corresponding to those acts of war, there are acts of terror in America, again people will be afraid. They will question whether the President is up to the job, and the President will be caught in a catch 22.....he can foolishly let the tail wag the dog and pretend that this conflict is America's best interest, but he will be butchered in the debates as there will be disclosures that he got top secret memos from Israel of the threats of terror, and he failed to act, or he can simply say no.....we have a different national interest than Israel, and that will alienate voters in Florida, and will show him as being weak.

President Obama can attempt to preempt this obvious strategy, by talking frankly to the American people about what really is happening, but the danger there is that he will be seen as pandering for political gain, and it may involve discussing strategies which should not necessarily be in the public realm at this time.

Obama is being squeezed by a foreign nation and a leader who has ties to a presidential candidate.....I find this entire path to be treasonous and consistent with the character of Mitt Romney, and equally dangerous for America.

2seaoat wrote:War by definition is the failure of diplomacy. President Obama has been getting an a+ in foreign relations and the polls clearly indicate on today's Wall street poll that folks think that President Obama is up to the job, and Romney is not. This trend has been growing. If Israel bombs, and we equivocate, it will first be seen as a sign of weakness, when in fact it is strength, but it will be spun as weakness.

If corresponding to those acts of war, there are acts of terror in America, again people will be afraid. They will question whether the President is up to the job, and the President will be caught in a catch 22.....he can foolishly let the tail wag the dog and pretend that this conflict is America's best interest, but he will be butchered in the debates as there will be disclosures that he got top secret memos from Israel of the threats of terror, and he failed to act, or he can simply say no.....we have a different national interest than Israel, and that will alienate voters in Florida, and will show him as being weak.

President Obama can attempt to preempt this obvious strategy, by talking frankly to the American people about what really is happening, but the danger there is that he will be seen as pandering for political gain, and it may involve discussing strategies which should not necessarily be in the public realm at this time.

Obama is being squeezed by a foreign nation and a leader who has ties to a presidential candidate.....I find this entire path to be treasonous and consistent with the character of Mitt Romney, and equally dangerous for America.

an A+ in foreign relations

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[img][/img]

2seaoat wrote:War by definition is the failure of diplomacy. President Obama has been getting an a+ in foreign relations and the polls clearly indicate on today's Wall street poll that folks think that President Obama is up to the job, and Romney is not. This trend has been growing. If Israel bombs, and we equivocate, it will first be seen as a sign of weakness, when in fact it is strength, but it will be spun as weakness.

Reuters/Ipsos Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. March 8-11, 2012. N=1,084 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.



Pew Research Center. March 7-11, 2012. N=1,503 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.








.

Your poll questions are not asking the correct question. How do you think we can stop of Iran from acquiring the nuclear bomb?

How can you ask a question as to the timing of an action, when there is no consensus as to an intelligent strategy to stop the development of the bomb. Our CIA found out Pakistan had the bomb by reading the paper. Do we now suggest that we have a universally recognized path to stop the development of Nuclear weapons in third world countries.......we do not, so the question should we act on a fantasy quickly or should we delay, does not answer how we are going to deal with the fantasy. There is no rational course of action other than diplomacy, covert actions, and economic sanctions which can slow the process, but I would suggest as we speak at least five countries in this world are closer to developing nuclear weapons and we will read about it in the paper before our intelligence nails it.

Do you really think Japan has made no strides toward being a nuclear power? Do you think Brazil is silently not doing the same? Do you think Argentina or the Saudis do not have active programs? I would suggest that putting 1940 technology back in the bottle is not easy, and asking the public about which timing is better for doing the same is simple idiocy.

At least we know Israel will get the job done without any..... glitches.

*****SMILE*****

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4589216224511504&pid=1.7&w=168&h=155&c=7&rs=1

2seaoat wrote:Your poll questions are not asking the correct question. How do you think we can stop of Iran from acquiring the nuclear bomb?

How can you ask a question as to the timing of an action, when there is no consensus as to an intelligent strategy to stop the development of the bomb. Our CIA found out Pakistan had the bomb by reading the paper. Do we now suggest that we have a universally recognized path to stop the development of Nuclear weapons in third world countries.......we do not, so the question should we act on a fantasy quickly or should we delay, does not answer how we are going to deal with the fantasy. There is no rational course of action other than diplomacy, covert actions, and economic sanctions which can slow the process, but I would suggest as we speak at least five countries in this world are closer to developing nuclear weapons and we will read about it in the paper before our intelligence nails it.

Do you really think Japan has made no strides toward being a nuclear power? Do you think Brazil is silently not doing the same? Do you think Argentina or the Saudis do not have active programs? I would suggest that putting 1940 technology back in the bottle is not easy, and asking the public about which timing is better for doing the same is simple idiocy.

The poll was not polling for my personal opinion.
The poll was polling the collective opinion of Americans.

Your claim was that Obama's election chances would be hurt by Israel taking military action against Iran before the election.
The poll says that in March (and I don't see why it would be that different today), that Americans were 2 to 1 in favor of Israel doing this.
And not only that but another poll says Americans would support this EVEN if it meant escalating oil prices.
Which doesn't lend credibility to your claim that Americans would think less of Obama if this happens.

2seaoat wrote:Your poll questions are not asking the correct question. How do you think we can stop of Iran from acquiring the nuclear bomb?

How can you ask a question as to the timing of an action, when there is no consensus as to an intelligent strategy to stop the development of the bomb. Our CIA found out Pakistan had the bomb by reading the paper. Do we now suggest that we have a universally recognized path to stop the development of Nuclear weapons in third world countries.......we do not, so the question should we act on a fantasy quickly or should we delay, does not answer how we are going to deal with the fantasy. There is no rational course of action other than diplomacy, covert actions, and economic sanctions which can slow the process, but I would suggest as we speak at least five countries in this world are closer to developing nuclear weapons and we will read about it in the paper before our intelligence nails it.

Do you really think Japan has made no strides toward being a nuclear power? Do you think Brazil is silently not doing the same? Do you think Argentina or the Saudis do not have active programs? I would suggest that putting 1940 technology back in the bottle is not easy, and asking the public about which timing is better for doing the same is simple idiocy.

Japan, Brazil, and Argentina, are not promising to obliterate another country through some jihad as a long past historical motive of revenge either.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI&feature=related

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Japan, Brazil, and Argentina, are not promising to obliterate another country through some jihad as a motive long past historical motive of revenge either.

That's a valid point, seaoat. In March we hadn't had all those muslim radicals killing our ambassador and storming our embassies. Today we do.
If those polls were run today I think it's likely the margin would be even greater to support Israel taking military action in Iran.

Oh and by the way, as to your earlier claim that you believe Israel was behind the protests. I see nothing to substantiate that, it's pure conjecture.
No different than the "controlled demolition inside job" claims of tinfoilers.

The bottom line is muslims are nutters. Everything they believe is nutty. Everything they do is nutty.
Did the U.S. government help contribute to their being nutters? Yes. But that does not take away from how nutty they are.
Jeffrey Dahmer was probably influenced by his surroundings too. But that didn't make him any less crazy.

Again, you are using a poll to compare apples to oranges. First, it is a generally held principle of politics that the creation of an external threat can bring solidarity where there is domestic turmoil. So some have argued that bombing would pander to the poll numbers you have quoted. However, this assumes many things. First, it assumes that we would have a leader who would put their political career over the best interests of the nation. If a person was willing to sacrifice Americans for a questionable foreign policy direction being dictated by another nation's interest, you are completely correct, and the polls would reflect growing support for the president during an attack on Iran by America and Israel. This assumes the President is a fool and he has no integrity. It assumes he is a pushover, and so cynical that he would abandon America for election victory. Second, it assumes that the nation of Israel favors Obama over Romney....or at least their Prime minister does.....and if this actually was to happen how much ground would need to be given for this country not to undercut the current President. No, if war breaks out, or Israel initiates any offensive attack in Iran's territory, it will not be the six day war, and it will be much closer to the Iraq war, and they know that this will require a long term commitment to their national interests.....so who will better serve those goals.....Obama or Romney. So do you think Israel in any action is not going to have long term goals, and those goals may be inclusive to seeing the President lose the election.......now do I really have a choice of dropping bombs or not.....I think not, and the polls do not reflect the issues, the choices of policy, or the path fraught with risk for President Obama if bombs are dropped and war breaks out. Can you say Chamberlin.

Bob wrote:And finally from the same Reuters poll in march.



2 to 1 in favor of Israel taking military action

What was the demographics of the polls when taken?

You mean like bombing three or more countries without Congressional approval, approving the sale of weapons to people who shouldn't be able to buy them then saying you're going to trace them and don't, allowing intimidation at voting areas and allowing the intimidators to go free, or signing/approving a contract without reading what's in it?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI&feature=related

seaoat,

I think an equally good argument could be made that if Israel goes to war with Iran shortly before the election, the electorate will probably be too scared to change the American commander-in-chief while this is occurring.
If anything, it could be just the opposite of what you're suggesting and this could be Obama's version of an "October Surprise" which would push him over the top if needed.

I can only tell you after years of Latin American studies and writing my thesis on economic integration in Latin America 35 years ago, that covert actions by intelligence agencies were critical in regime change and advancing American economic interests. It was precise and organized. In 1974 the Church committee shined some light, but it was 25 watt bulb.

Israel has the most successful intelligence apparatus in the world. To suggest that Seaoat sitting behind a computer is going to prove Israel is behind destabalizing nation states who are their immediate neighbors and are behind state sponsored terrorism is like asking me to prove the world is not flat. Of course they are actively advancing their national interests. Of course you are correct that radical Islam wants to destroy their very existence, and I have posted links to the 1929 British mandate riots and the pathological need to expel infidels from the middle east, but the fact remain that Secretary State Clinton, her husband, President Bush, his dad, and President Obama have been frustrated by the clear distinction in their interests and ours......so I can suggest to you that certain things prove the world is round.....I can argue that when I go out 20 miles out the buildings in Pensacola disappear, I however may not have access to a satellite photo of earth, but I can look at the moon, and I can extrapolate. So of course, it is possible that Israel has come to the conclusion that a stable Syria who has been sponsoring state terrorism is a good thing and we must support the dad, and now the kid.....or they will be actively bringing that nation down and allowing chaos and civil war to replace a real threat on their northern border.....where t and I differ is that I never was concerned about explosives in a building....silliness......who instigated the plan to bring those buildings down. What did bringing those buildings down accomplish? That becomes much more difficult, but it does not in its complexity not reveal that some interests gained and some lost. So I ask the simple question, if it is established fact that there is consensus in the Muslim world that Israel has to go, is it a policy of Israel to destabalize the nation states in the region which impact their effectiveness to execute a modern war which requires incredible coordination and contingencies.......

It is clear to me that Israel has a strategic goal of destabalizing Middle East nation states. That the fervor of hate will not grow or lessen by puppet dictatorships, but the ability of the nation state to effectively wage war will be conditioned by domestic tranquility. As a student of international relations for over fifty years it is obvious that Israel is actively involved in the process and that the world is round, and it is equally obvious that I could prove neither to you if you were sitting in my front yard and I had to prove the same without the photos, data and other proof.

Bob wrote:Netanyahu is smart enough to know that if Romney wins the election Romney will give him a lot more support than Obama. So why wouldn't he wait at least that long to see what the outcome is.

If Netanyahu is really smart, he knows to start a war with Iran ignites the whole mid-east against Israel. He may be able to accomplish what Hitler and Heinrich could not.