If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   If you have spent the last few years saying you are going to do a surprise attack, can it still be a surprise?   (reuters.com) divider line 29
    More: Obvious, Western Allies, Ehud Barak, military operation plan, nuclear medicines, media blackout, Israel news  
•       •       •

1988 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2012 at 1:28 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-10 01:30:15 PM  
Hey this story again? GRREEEAAATTT.


Have fun kids, don't break anything.
 
2012-09-10 01:32:19 PM  
It's still a surprise if nobody believes you'll actually do it.
 
2012-09-10 01:33:19 PM  
Oh look, the Jews are using their media connections to push their Zionist agenda on everyone else, again.
 
2012-09-10 01:33:24 PM  
Analysis: Can Israel surprise Iran? Maybe not, but could still strike

Nomination for the "Ric Romero Most Obvious Headline of the Year" award. Also shoddy journalism.
 
2012-09-10 01:35:24 PM  
t0.gstatic.com

Israel doesn't have to attack Iran.

All they have to do is use their US political machine get Mitt elected, and he'll do it for them.
 
2012-09-10 01:45:01 PM  
Yes, but it's going to be a pie in the face, which is the surprise.
 
2012-09-10 01:45:38 PM  
They're not starting anything. Bibi has been reduced to begging Obama to draw more red lines.
 
2012-09-10 01:48:21 PM  

Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Israel doesn't have to attack Iran.

All they have to do is use their US political machine get Mitt elected, and he'll do it for them.


Exactly. Why strike before the election, when there's a chance that they'll have a stooge like Romney in the White House, who will be more than willing to get American troops killed at Israel's command?

Plus, Obama may be flexible on US involvement in a post-election attack, but if Israel strikes before the election and Obama wins anyway, he'll have political cover to tell them to fark off and deal with their own problems. If Americans wanted to get involved in another war in the Middle East, they would have voted for the vehemently pro-war candidate.
 
2012-09-10 01:51:07 PM  

imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Israel doesn't have to attack Iran.

All they have to do is use their US political machine get Mitt elected, and he'll do it for them.

Exactly. Why strike before the election, when there's a chance that they'll have a stooge like Romney in the White House, who will be more than willing to get American troops killed at Israel's command?

Plus, Obama may be flexible on US involvement in a post-election attack, but if Israel strikes before the election and Obama wins anyway, he'll have political cover to tell them to fark off and deal with their own problems. If Americans wanted to get involved in another war in the Middle East, they would have voted for the vehemently pro-war candidate.


Maybe they figure there's a chance that if they strike before the election, they'll get their stooge in the White House.
 
2012-09-10 01:55:31 PM  

qorkfiend: imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Maybe they figure there's a chance that if they strike before the election, they'll get their stooge in the White House.


www.nndb.com
Shemp 2012
 
2012-09-10 01:56:07 PM  

imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Israel doesn't have to attack Iran.

All they have to do is use their US political machine get Mitt elected, and he'll do it for them.

Exactly. Why strike before the election, when there's a chance that they'll have a stooge like Romney in the White House, who will be more than willing to get American troops killed at Israel's command?

Plus, Obama may be flexible on US involvement in a post-election attack, but if Israel strikes before the election and Obama wins anyway, he'll have political cover to tell them to fark off and deal with their own problems. If Americans wanted to get involved in another war in the Middle East, they would have voted for the vehemently pro-war candidate.


Americans have forgotten what the idea of israel represents to all people who have struggled.

/so have the israelis
 
2012-09-10 01:59:00 PM  
If it's an offensive attack, I see no reason to aid them. If they want to start a fight, that's none of our business, so far as i'm concerned.
 
2012-09-10 02:04:06 PM  
I have been telling my wife for almost a year now that I am going to paint the guest room. I know if I went home tonight and started painting she would sure be surprised.... not that I am going to do this mind you... maybe next weekend, maybe after the big game.... maybe.
 
2012-09-10 02:09:45 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: They're not starting anything. Bibi has been reduced to begging Obama to draw more red lines.


Even Barak has recently realized that Likudniks are not going to vote for him no matter how hard right he turns so he's starting to change his tune on Iran.
 
2012-09-10 02:17:29 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Maybe they figure there's a chance that if they strike before the election, they'll get their stooge in the White House.

[www.nndb.com image 205x267]
Shemp 2012


Actually, they probably wouldn't. Americans generally won't switch presidents during an active war; so if we had boots on the ground in Iran BEFORE the election, Obama would probably have even more of a coast to victory than he already does, simply because switching Commanders-in-Chief mid-war is always a bad idea.
 
2012-09-10 02:17:59 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Israel doesn't have to attack Iran.

All they have to do is use their US political machine get Mitt elected, and he'll do it for them.

Exactly. Why strike before the election, when there's a chance that they'll have a stooge like Romney in the White House, who will be more than willing to get American troops killed at Israel's command?

Plus, Obama may be flexible on US involvement in a post-election attack, but if Israel strikes before the election and Obama wins anyway, he'll have political cover to tell them to fark off and deal with their own problems. If Americans wanted to get involved in another war in the Middle East, they would have voted for the vehemently pro-war candidate.


Americans have forgotten what the idea of israel represents to all people who have struggled.



You may be right, because I certainly can't remember "what the idea of israel represents to all people who have struggled".


Refresh my memory, please?

Thanks,
 
2012-09-10 02:20:55 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Maybe they figure there's a chance that if they strike before the election, they'll get their stooge in the White House.

[www.nndb.com image 205x267]
Shemp 2012

Actually, they probably wouldn't. Americans generally won't switch presidents during an active war; so if we had boots on the ground in Iran BEFORE the election, Obama would probably have even more of a coast to victory than he already does, simply because switching Commanders-in-Chief mid-war is always a bad idea.


img.timeinc.net
Unavailable for comment.
 
2012-09-10 02:28:41 PM  
I was watching a re-run of Miami Vice earlier, and Tubbs had a full beard. That was kinda surprising. Dickheads in the shiathole that is the Middle East attacking each other not so much.
 
2012-09-10 02:55:58 PM  
Okay, conspiracy theory time:

Sheldon Adelson is just about single-handedly bankrolling the GOP. Netanyahu is buddy-buddy with Romney. It's reasonable that Israel would see Romney as the more favorable candidate so they start a pre-emptive war to force Obama to play his hand, which would hurt him politically and possibly cost him the election. This might be the most important next two months in American history. Israel could single-handedly decide the next President of the United States.

So, then America is lockstep with Israel into another war. Can America afford one? ...of course not. Still haven't paid for Bush's three wars.

If the warhawks start saber-rattling, I would love it if Obama stood before Congress and said flat out: "You want to fight Iran? ....fine, effective immediately, all assets of anyone worth over $1 billion are to be seized, and the top marginal tax rate is 90%. Proscription, motherfarkers: You cannot keep fighting wars while continuing to not pay for them. In the past, we have always raised taxes to pay for wars. Our current fiscal mess stems from the naive notion that we could fight multiple wars for a whole decade without paying for any of them. That ends now."
 
2012-09-10 03:23:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Gyrfalcon: Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Maybe they figure there's a chance that if they strike before the election, they'll get their stooge in the White House.

[www.nndb.com image 205x267]
Shemp 2012

Actually, they probably wouldn't. Americans generally won't switch presidents during an active war; so if we had boots on the ground in Iran BEFORE the election, Obama would probably have even more of a coast to victory than he already does, simply because switching Commanders-in-Chief mid-war is always a bad idea.

[img.timeinc.net image 360x235]
Unavailable for comment.


Ha, I knew somebody would bring that up! Johnson didn't run in 1968....he refused the nomination.
 
2012-09-10 03:36:20 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Philip Francis Queeg: Gyrfalcon: Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Maybe they figure there's a chance that if they strike before the election, they'll get their stooge in the White House.

[www.nndb.com image 205x267]
Shemp 2012

Actually, they probably wouldn't. Americans generally won't switch presidents during an active war; so if we had boots on the ground in Iran BEFORE the election, Obama would probably have even more of a coast to victory than he already does, simply because switching Commanders-in-Chief mid-war is always a bad idea.

[img.timeinc.net image 360x235]
Unavailable for comment.

Ha, I knew somebody would bring that up! Johnson didn't run in 1968....he refused the nomination.


Because he knew he wasn't going to win the primary. let alone the general election.

Which is beside the point. Switching from Johnson as Commander in Chief to a number of the other candidates (Not necessarily the one who won) was not a bad idea.
 
2012-09-10 04:24:48 PM  
It's kind of like the Ariel Sharon saga. If Ariel has spent the last 6 years in a coma after a stroke...
 
2012-09-10 04:43:42 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Philip Francis Queeg: Gyrfalcon: Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Maybe they figure there's a chance that if they strike before the election, they'll get their stooge in the White House.

[www.nndb.com image 205x267]
Shemp 2012

Actually, they probably wouldn't. Americans generally won't switch presidents during an active war; so if we had boots on the ground in Iran BEFORE the election, Obama would probably have even more of a coast to victory than he already does, simply because switching Commanders-in-Chief mid-war is always a bad idea.

[img.timeinc.net image 360x235]
Unavailable for comment.

Ha, I knew somebody would bring that up! Johnson didn't run in 1968....he refused the nomination.



Indeed.

" I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

- - LBJ, March 31, 1968
 
2012-09-10 05:03:40 PM  

Ishkur: If the warhawks start saber-rattling, I would love it if Obama stood before Congress and said flat out: "You want to fight Iran? ....fine, effective immediately, all assets of anyone worth over $1 billion are to be seized, and the top marginal tax rate is 90%. Proscription, motherfarkers: You cannot keep fighting wars while continuing to not pay for them. In the past, we have always raised taxes to pay for wars. Our current fiscal mess stems from the naive notion that we could fight multiple wars for a whole decade without paying for any of them. That ends now."


Obama doesn't actually have the power to do that. Until he overthrows the government with a hand-picked group of Community Organizers and Kenyans, of course.

More seriously, I agree that we don't need more wars, especially under-funded ones.
 
2012-09-10 05:19:24 PM  

imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Israel doesn't have to attack Iran.

All they have to do is use their US political machine get Mitt elected, and he'll do it for them.

Exactly. Why strike before the election, when there's a chance that they'll have a stooge like Romney in the White House, who will be more than willing to get American troops killed at Israel's command?

Plus, Obama may be flexible on US involvement in a post-election attack, but if Israel strikes before the election and Obama wins anyway, he'll have political cover to tell them to fark off and deal with their own problems. If Americans wanted to get involved in another war in the Middle East, they would have voted for the vehemently pro-war candidate.


Obama has flat out stated that a nuclear armed Iran is intolerable and that military force isn't off the table. He is in fact, a vehemently pro-war candidate.
 
2012-09-10 06:12:40 PM  
Yes. Please refer to the paradox of the unexpected hanging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
 
2012-09-10 06:32:27 PM  
What if the reason Israel really fears Iran may develop nuclear weapons is that Israel really doesn't have any nuclear weapons of their own? Has anyone ever seen and verified the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons? Could this be one of the biggest bluffs of all time?
 
2012-09-10 06:51:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Gyrfalcon: Philip Francis Queeg: Gyrfalcon: Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: imontheinternet: Amos Quito: [t0.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Maybe they figure there's a chance that if they strike before the election, they'll get their stooge in the White House.

[www.nndb.com image 205x267]
Shemp 2012

Actually, they probably wouldn't. Americans generally won't switch presidents during an active war; so if we had boots on the ground in Iran BEFORE the election, Obama would probably have even more of a coast to victory than he already does, simply because switching Commanders-in-Chief mid-war is always a bad idea.

[img.timeinc.net image 360x235]
Unavailable for comment.

Ha, I knew somebody would bring that up! Johnson didn't run in 1968....he refused the nomination.

Because he knew he wasn't going to win the primary. let alone the general election.

Which is beside the point. Switching from Johnson as Commander in Chief to a number of the other candidates (Not necessarily the one who won) was not a bad idea.


Given how awful Johnson was as CiC, it's possible you are right...but the other options weren't any better, as evidenced by who we did get: that slick California pol who assured us he had a secret plan for ending the war quicker.
 
2012-09-11 12:54:19 AM  
Isreal will anhialite Iran. One thing about them, they don't screw around when they fight, unlike the US.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report