PDA

View Full Version : What would a war with Iran do to the campaign?




VRP08
12-03-2007, 02:04 PM
I'm curious, would the elections still happen? Would this affect RP???

hawkeyenick
12-03-2007, 02:06 PM
I'm curious, would the elections still happen? Would this affect RP???

Give hillary a polling boost, which would lead us to taking it to the streets

AlexAmore
12-03-2007, 02:06 PM
It would help him....interestingly enough.

BLS
12-03-2007, 02:07 PM
It would give RP a HUGE boost.

Adamsa
12-03-2007, 02:12 PM
It's way too early at any point in Bush's presidency to bomb Iran, I really think he wouldn't, but if he did, it'd hurt most Republican candidates except Ron Paul. Hillary would get a boost from it, even though she is being vague about what she'd do about Iran.

klamath
12-03-2007, 02:21 PM
I think it would help RP especially if Bush used the congression resolution deaming the Iranian guards as terrorists, as the reason to launch a attack which I would do if I was him.
Almost all the Democrats are on board supporting that.

nist7
12-03-2007, 02:31 PM
Remember: Bush is still in office until January 2009

A war with Iran may not be too far off in the horizon as they may try to cook something up during 2008 to pre-emptively strike Iran.

Talldude1412
12-03-2007, 02:35 PM
President Bush is what I would call a Lame Duck. He has expended all his credibility on the Iraq war. Unless the democrats suddenly start advocating a war with Iran, we have nothing to worry about. Lets hope they don't, because historically Democrats have been the party of foreign intervention. Let's hope they don't realize that anytime soon.

Bigboyen
12-03-2007, 02:36 PM
It will end the campaign for Paul - it's always a huge support for a war in the beginning. It will be Rudy or Mccain that would benefit from a terror election. But I don't see any attack on Iran the coming months, so I'm not worried.

rational thinker
12-03-2007, 02:37 PM
President Bush is what I would call a Lame Duck. He has expended all his credibility on the Iraq war. Unless the democrats suddenly start advocating a war with Iran, we have nothing to worry about. Lets hope they don't, because historically Democrats have been the party of foreign intervention. Let's hope they don't realize that anytime soon.

The Democrats will support a war with Iran. At least Hillary does.

reaver
12-03-2007, 02:38 PM
Just remember if we bomb Iran and something bad happens elections can be postponed.

Kregener
12-03-2007, 02:42 PM
I believe you meant it is way too LATE in Bush's presidency...right Adamsa?

This would hurt every GOP candidate but Ron Paul. He would shine and soar!

Talldude1412
12-03-2007, 02:45 PM
I believe you meant it is way too LATE in Bush's presidency...right Adamsa?

This would hurt every GOP candidate but Ron Paul. He would shine and soar!

He would shine and soar with the anti-war crowd, and the rational crowd, and the intelligent foreign policy crowd..... but since when has that been a large contingent in our country?

atilla
12-03-2007, 02:48 PM
it would end ron paul's candidacy. it would happen after what is called a false flag operation. israeli mossad would launch a pseudo terrorist attack against U.S. forces in iraq, probably with a huge death toll. they would have to hit some sort of base probably with a high-tech fuel-air bomb inside a truck. evidence would conveniently be found in the area (like the 9/11 bomber passport found in the new york rubble) which did not get burned up in the fireball which would indict iranian military.

and they always say americans when attacked rally around the ***, which in this case would be guilliani, unless george w decided to suspend elections (for our safety of course).

ForLiberty-RonPaul
12-03-2007, 02:50 PM
h ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22083384/

Article saying diplomacy has helped with the nuclear Iran problem. Ron Paul has said that Iran has more right to be in Iraq, but they are not there in the numbers that Fox News has claimed. Therefore there is no reason to go into Iran. Also, it would be unconstitutional for Bush to just decide to attack Iran. He needs the congress to approve such and attack and I don't believe they will.

Needless to say, CIA guys have been saying on the news that we sould be expecting some type of terrorist attack soon. This could just be fear mongering or not. Believe what you want on who orchestrates these attacks.

Talldude1412
12-03-2007, 02:50 PM
it would end ron paul's candidacy. it would happen after what is called a false flag operation. israeli mossad would launch a pseudo terrorist attack against U.S. forces in iraq, probably with a huge death toll. they would have to hit some sort of base probably with a high-tech fuel-air bomb inside a truck. evidence would conveniently be found in the area (like the 9/11 bomber passport found in the new york rubble) which did not get burned up in the fireball which would indict iranian military.

and they always say americans when attacked rally around the ***, which in this case would be guilliani, unless george w decided to suspend elections (for our safety of course).

I am not pleased with your unsupported accusations that the US gov't executed 9/11. I am no fan of what our current administration has done since that day, but to blame them for something like this is way out of line.

PatriotOne
12-03-2007, 02:52 PM
Personally, I have high hopes that Iran is not going to be attacked at this point. There are people in high places in the Military working on the inside stopping it at this point. Those so-called nuclear bombs that "accidentally" got loaded onto an airplane was no accident. Neither was the so-called "mistake" of the nukes being shipped "outted" by the Military.

Bush and Cheney and friends were stopped once bombing Iran already. The lines have been drawn in the sand by some of the Military. God help them win this battle.

I agree with the posters who say it will only help Ron Paul, but I sure don't hope it happens.

Talldude1412
12-03-2007, 02:52 PM
h ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22083384/

Article saying diplomacy has helped with the nuclear Iran problem. Ron Paul has said that Iran has more right to be in Iraq, but they are not there in the numbers that Fox News has claimed. Therefore there is no reason to go into Iran. Also, it would be unconstitutional for Bush to just decide to attack Iran. He needs the congress to approve such and attack and I don't believe they will.

Needless to say, CIA guys have been saying on the news that we sould be expecting some type of terrorist attack soon. This could just be fear mongering or not. Believe what you want on who orchestrates these attacks.

The CIA is just as much a political group as anything in Washington, and they aren't on GWB side.

ForLiberty-RonPaul
12-03-2007, 02:53 PM
man 9/11 truthers are retards.

That's what they say about Ron Paul supporters.

Sematary
12-03-2007, 02:55 PM
It will end the campaign for Paul - it's always a huge support for a war in the beginning. It will be Rudy or Mccain that would benefit from a terror election. But I don't see any attack on Iran the coming months, so I'm not worried.

I was reading a well thought out thesis on this point yesterday and it would help Ron Paul. If the U.S. were to attack Iran, the price of oil would skyrocket to $150 a barrel and that would FINALLY wake people up to what our foreign policy is doing to them directly in an economic manner.

Lord Xar
12-03-2007, 02:58 PM
you all forget that to "begin" this war, a situation must be created to validate this. You all the MSM will promote and create the circumstance an the population will buy into it.

Sematary
12-03-2007, 02:58 PM
man 9/11 truthers are retards.

1. Calling other board members "retards" is out of bounds and your post should be removed ASAP

2. There is a strong possibility that a Gulf of Tonkin type incident involving either a real, or contrived, occurrence, would cause the president to declare martial law, stop the elections and force the United States into a police state. I don't buy into the idea that our government was responsible for 9/11 beyond a huge amount of negligence, but that does not negate the possibility another lapse in security could allow another event to take place and force the issue.

Sarge
12-03-2007, 02:58 PM
I doubt he will do it with the news today.

Our own CIA said today that Iran stopped trying to make Nuclear weapons in 2003.

I think GB just lost that ability.

Google Iran and see the news.

They have been talking about it, on CNN, non stop.

GB would have the wrath put on him and the VP if they try it now.

Makes all other candidates look like schmucks.

Ron needs to take advantage of the lies we have been fed and sway the voters to get out of Iraq now.

Our own CIA said not until 2013 or 2015 if they do get there.

Kregener
12-03-2007, 02:59 PM
70% of America is all for ending our wars of aggression.

Regardless of what Faux Snooze says to the contrary.

Midnight77
12-03-2007, 03:00 PM
There's not going to be a War with Iran. Their plan was foiled. Congress has warned Bush that if he attacks Iran, then impeachment proceedings will begin immediately.

That's why he's no longer addressing the issue.

ForLiberty-RonPaul
12-03-2007, 03:00 PM
Listening to Carol Paul right now!!!!! :D

atilla
12-03-2007, 03:03 PM
I am not pleased with your unsupported accusations that the US gov't executed 9/11. I am no fan of what our current administration has done since that day, but to blame them for something like this is way out of line.
mossad is not the U.S. government, it's the israeli government.;)

Talldude1412
12-03-2007, 03:06 PM
1. Calling other board members "retards" is out of bounds and your post should be removed ASAP

2. There is a strong possibility that a Gulf of Tonkin type incident involving either a real, or contrived, occurrence, would cause the president to declare martial law, stop the elections and force the United States into a police state. I don't buy into the idea that our government was responsible for 9/11 beyond a huge amount of negligence, but that does not negate the possibility another lapse in security could allow another event to take place and force the issue.

1. There I fixed it. Its just frusterating to me sometimes.

2. It is always possible that such an event may occur. I would pray that the people in this country were able to be rational enough to step back and think about their reaction as well, but it frequently seems that many of our fellow countrymen are driven by emotion and intent, instead of rationale and consequence. I would love for their to be evidence to the contrary. I am not sure about martial law, but delayed elections are certainly possible, and a poorly thought out reaction by the admin is almost certain.

Talldude1412
12-03-2007, 03:08 PM
mossad is not the U.S. government, it's the israeli government.;)

Right. In any case, I see no way in which Isreal has gained ANYTHING from our actions in the ME. They weren't worried about afghans or Iraq.

ForLiberty-RonPaul
12-03-2007, 03:35 PM
1. There I fixed it. Its just frusterating to me sometimes.

2. It is always possible that such an event may occur. I would pray that the people in this country were able to be rational enough to step back and think about their reaction as well, but it frequently seems that many of our fellow countrymen are driven by emotion and intent, instead of rationale and consequence. I would love for their to be evidence to the contrary. I am not sure about martial law, but delayed elections are certainly possible, and a poorly thought out reaction by the admin is almost certain.

To be the devil's (or heaven's) advocate, the 9/11 Truth movement is not driven by emotion and intent. For all purposes, it is much like this movement in that it is driven by facts and logic, otherwise known as "truth".

On the other hand your reaction "9/11 truthers are retards" is a great example of emotion and intent.

Friend, I challenge you to try and understand why someone would risk their friendships, job, money, etc to spread the word about 9/11. I challenge you to figure out why the movement hasn't gone away after 6 years and most importantly why 9/11 truthers support Ron Paul for president.

Revolution9
12-03-2007, 03:51 PM
I am not pleased with your unsupported accusations that the US gov't executed 9/11. I am no fan of what our current administration has done since that day, but to blame them for something like this is way out of line.

HARDLY.. Stomping your magic feet won't make the anomalies disappear. I see you made it off the sinking ship in time though..

HTH
Rady

derdy
12-03-2007, 04:18 PM
I am not pleased with your unsupported accusations that the US gov't executed 9/11. I am no fan of what our current administration has done since that day, but to blame them for something like this is way out of line.

I didn't see where he said "US gov't executed 9/11."

To blame them for 9/11 isn't way out of line. This is one of the most criminal and despicable administrations of all time. You've never heard of false-flag terrorism? There's quite a history of it in the world.

Start out with the Joint Chiefs of Staff planning terror attacks on the US to start a war with Cuba in the 1960s. Declassified in 2001

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Anyways, an attack on Iran would only help Paul as far as I'm concerned. The economic tremors would be felt worldwide and people are sick and tired of all the war-mongering.