Elections 08 - Could another war change public opinion?

[boracay]

Let's speculate:
Both Obama and Clinton are weak in case of war vs any republican candidate.
Let's say public opinion in early spring 2008 is 55% for democrat candidate and 45% for republican candidate (sorry all libertarians here).
Dems demand soldiers home from Iraq, reps would keep them there.
Any probable situation in Iraq wouldn't turn public opinion at home.

How likely would it be that Israelis suddenly attack Syria or Iran?

It would be in their interest.
It would be in the interest of the current US administration.
But of course they would never do it without getting a green light for action from Washington before.

Could this turn public opinion at home?

[hmkpoker]

I think that we have learned from history that Americans aren't as warmongering as we used to be.

The last time America was attacked on a 9-11 scale, eleven million Americans were drafted to fight a war overseas and no one argued over it. Almost 300,000 Americans were killed.

The last time there was a military draft only a tiny fraction of Americans got drafted, only 60,000 died, and America exploded into a peace-loving, values-questioning, counter-cultural revolution.

Less than thirty years later, the largest and deadliest terrorist attack on American soil took place, killing thousands, in plain view and full color. This should have been the most spectacular, vengeance-inspiring war catalyst in the history of mankind, yet just a few years, no draft, and barely four figures worth of military casualties later, President Bush became one of the most unpopular presidents in US history. Major mainstream media lambasts him for being a warmongering idiot pig. A quarter of America actually blames him for what happened on 9-11.

America has spent the last half a decade living in fear of WMD's, a never-ending series of new bad guys, a sensationalist media telling us that we are on the brink of WWIII, and all after witnessing the biggest terrorist attack on US soil to date. Americans are bored of it. We're burnt out. If this doesn't unite Americans in the cause against us, what does? Propaganda ain't what it used to be.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
The last time America was attacked on a 9-11 scale, eleven million Americans were drafted to fight a war overseas and no one argued over it. Almost 300,000 Americans were killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that Pearl Harbour is on the same scale as 9/11.

I am sure if a Sovereign State launched a massive sneak attack on an American Naval base tomorrow immediately indicating its desire to embark on utterly aggressive military expansion in Asia and the Pacific, I am sure we would see some pretty hefty mobilisation in Yankland (and beyond) regardless of what party the Pres belonged to.

Comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbour is just ridiculous. 12 or so Allah Fans is not the Imperial Japanese army/Navy.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that we have learned from history that Americans aren't as warmongering as we used to be.

The last time America was attacked on a 9-11 scale, eleven million Americans were drafted to fight a war overseas and no one argued over it. Almost 300,000 Americans were killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing Pearl Harbor to 9/11 is absurd.

Also, there wasn't really any argument over the invasion of Afghanistan, so even there your point fails.

[hmkpoker]

True, I didn't think this through very well.

Alex, TOAFK, I retract that example.

[boracay]

i guess US public wouldn't accept a straight attack on iran too easy. so, my question was if a sudden attack by proxy could change the public opinion and determine the result of elections 08.

[iron81]

I don't see how a campaign by any foreign government could dominate the news enough to cause a 5 point swing unless it was WWIII or otherwise involved nukes. American's don't care enough about what happens "over there".

[lozen]

Never realized Iraq attacked the USA or that they were behind 9/11 The people would be more supportive if they attacked Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how a campaign by any foreign government could dominate the news enough to cause a 5 point swing unless it was WWIII or otherwise involved nukes. American's don't care enough about what happens "over there".

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree about the last sentence. however every war started in history was always represented at home as a self defense.

in case US administration would need this war it would be represented as the only possible answer. in case iran would attack US bases in iraq/region - it would be a question of self defense and no doubt people would support it.

of course iran wouldn't do that unless it is attacked first. so, here comes israel as a proxy - it wouldn't be hard for them to find reasons for their self defense, but they would never attack iran without getting a green light from washington before. so, israel attacks, US authorities allow the attack over iraq and iran is defending. since iran's planes/rockets would be brought down by US forces in the region, the only way for iran would be to attack those forces.

no doubt media would produce a horror stories caused by iran's attacks and public would demand a self defense (=entering the war; a revenge). since it wouldn't be a short war, voters in elections might change their opinion by voting for a better candidate in a state of war and probably find any republican a better choice than either obama or clinton.

wouldn't this be enough for a 5 point swing on elections?

[ QUOTE ]
Never realized Iraq attacked the USA or that they were behind 9/11 The people would be more supportive if they attacked Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia

[/ QUOTE ]

totally agree. but here comes the media effectively producing a self defense motive (to the degree everyone questioning that war would become a non-patriotic, non-american and almost insane at that point).

[TimWillTell]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's speculate:
Both Obama and Clinton are weak in case of war vs any republican candidate.
Let's say public opinion in early spring 2008 is 55% for democrat candidate and 45% for republican candidate (sorry all libertarians here).
Dems demand soldiers home from Iraq, reps would keep them there.
Any probable situation in Iraq wouldn't turn public opinion at home.

How likely would it be that Israelis suddenly attack Syria or Iran?

It would be in their interest.
It would be in the interest of the current US administration.
But of course they would never do it without getting a green light for action from Washington before.

Could this turn public opinion at home?

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, nice question, I'm sure that you know that indeed a war can turn the public.
Starting a war to turn the public is a very old trick that still works.
The most powerful people behind the scenes are those in control of the military/weapon industry.
To their despair the first cold war ended, but never-mind they've managed to start a new one.
There's even rumour that 9/11 could have been prevented but that those in power behind the sceenes choose not to, to enable the starting of war and cold war.

Wether this be true or not, they're now making billions again as before!