WWIII might have been started by Anthony Weiner...you decide.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Sometimes, a pebble becomes an avalanche. Let's see if you agree with my logic.

1) Anthony Weiner has a little too much fun on the internet, leading to his resignation after scandalous pictures emerge.

2) He resigns his seat in the 9th Congressional District of New York, prompting an election where Republican Bob Turner defeats Democrat David Weprin in a heavily Democratic district at least partially because of Jewish defections pushed by Ed Koch and others (even though Weprin is Jewish and Turner is not!)

3) In response, President Obama receives pressure from Democratic donors and takes a more accepting view of Israel's policy while seeking not to alienate the various "liberation" movements in the Arab world.

4) Knowing that any victory in 2012 would be razor thin, Obama seeks to regain the confidence of the Jewish vote, and therefore has no desire or ability to refuse Israel's requests.

Here's where the projections begin.

5) Operating from a position of weakness, Obama bends to Netanyahu when he is informed Israel intends a strike on Iran. Seeking to avoid the catastrophe that war would be, Obama pushes America toward an attack on Iran to forestall an Israeli action and to mollify the same voters who showed themselves to abandon Weprin after the fall of Weiner.

6) The United States attacks Iran, leading to a wider regional war that spreads out of control.

So, if World War III breaks out, remember that it all began with a little internet porn. These are the things history sometimes misses.
edit on 4-11-2011 by cassandranova because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-11-2011 by cassandranova because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
yes this could be but then to fulfill the word , the word must be broken" US promise to Israel" No more, your on your own, is all obama has to say, then that will be the last war.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
He'll never say that. Obama's big problem is he is indecisive because he's a diplomat and not a leader. It's a case where being thoughtful is a mistake.

So his hand will end up forced, because everyone knows (especially Israel), that if Israel acts, the US will get drawn in either way. And Israel knows that if they wait for a few years, this may not be the case because the US troops will not necessarily be in harm's way, so they will push the envelope and do it now. Here's how I imagine Israel sees it.

The best case scenario for Israel is a war with Iran started by the US, where they don't pay for the consequences of their own militant policy but where the nuclear threat is removed.

A less good scenario is where Israel has to begin the war, leading to fighting against Syria, Lebanon, and various groups surrounding the country, but where America is drawn into fighting by Iranian retaliation against an Israeli attack whether tacit approval is given or not.

But the worst scenario, where Israel has to suffer the consequence of its own actions, will never be allowed to happen during this administration because of Obama's desire to lock down the Jewish vote, and because the troops are there right now.

It's why I believe it is now or never if Israel is going to do this, independent of how far advanced the nuclear program may or may not be. And given their history, I'm not betting against that.

As an aside, it's depressing to be such a realist.

edit on 4-11-2011 by cassandranova because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by cassandranova
 
well sense you put it that way , obama still could say no and yes at the same time "No we will not send troops in but we will give you arms logistical support, and supply's, just give us x time to be in place" I say with in 2 weeks from now, the 4th or the 5 is today depending on time zone, some time around the 15th -20th



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Interesting observation...

War started by Internet Pr0n... That's kinda comical in itself. I love it when people are able to think deeply enough to realize that there is more to any event than just the obvious flashpoints.

It's a sign of high intelligence.

In any event, think harder on the actual scenario that's suggested...

Netty is a war monger, no doubt. However, imagine how Israel would perform that sucessful preemptive strike. ½ assed would cause global outrage, so it would have to be ALL OUT, OBLITERATION of the Iranian gov't.

What would it look like; strategically...

Many, many units/assests would need to engage enemy targets and execute perfect 100% destruction of gov't/military objectives.

Collateral damage would have to be ignored for the sake of 100% destruction.

IF a 100% elimination of military/gov't targets was achieved... What then? What happens to the Iranian people?

Imagine, 24 hours after a surprise, MASSIVE (perhaps nuclear), offensive that completely devastates Iran.

ALL Israeli forces are have returned safely to their bases. Now what?

Seriously, what's in it for Israel? Perhaps a death sentence from the rest of the world?

Syria has issues, but Syria, sharing a border with Israel would be the first to land a crushing blow.

Sorry, I believe the outrage (even US couldn't help them) would devastate Israel.

Attacking Iran would be suicide. Thus, the Neocons attempted to drum up support in the US for attacking Iran just recently... FAIL.

We are ALL wise to the gov't ruse's.





 
0

log in

join