GOP heavyweights are supposed to tell us why the Democratic cnadidate cannot win. Does anyone take them seriously? Probably very few people actually take anything a Republican leader says seriously anymore. The piece by a so called Republican heavy weight probably should be taken with a grain of salt.
With that said, with all of the fawning press coverage Mr. Obama has recieved and with the general disgust that most Americans seem to feel toward Republicans I would expect Mr. Obama to be way ahead now but the polls seem to indicate a close race. It does seem strange.
What I think may be going on is the pollsters are shading the results of the polls to make it appear that Mr. McCain is closer than he actually is. In other words, Mr. Obama probably has a big lead. If they can make the race appear closer than it actually is, this will probably generate higher ratings for the political pundits and the news analysis shows than if it appears one candidate has a lopsided lead.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 5.08.2008 @ 15:19
During the olympics we should expect to see massive anti-American protests. These protests will range from protests over American foreign policy, protests over American environmental polices, protests over American "racisim", to so called American predatory trade practices, and anything else they can think of. These massive protests will be appear to be spontaneous but in actuallity they will be organized and led by Chinese intellegence officials. This will be done by the Chinese to deflect attention away from their policies.
The American government should be prepared to counter this. Unfortunately given the inept response of the Aemrican government to anti-Americanism to date I hold out little hope that they will be able to mount an effective response. I hope and pray I'm wrong this time.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 5.08.2008 @ 09:52
I agree that the idea of semi-permanent bases will be abandoned. It was a bad idea to start with. They would not have any marginal utility. The restrictions the Iraqis would place on how they could be used would make them worse than useless and as Rick mentions they would cause friction with the populace.
There will not be a residual force in Iraq in three years. All troops will be out within the sixteen month timeframe that has been laid out by the Iraqi PM and Mr. Obama. This will be the case regardless who becomes the next American President or whether or not the Iraqi PM meant to say what he said. The only thing that would alter this would be if Islamic terrorist begin using Iraq as a base to attack American interests. If I turn out to be wrong, I'll come here and admit I was wrong.
Iran will not allow us to leave in 16 months. If we leave according to a timetable that goes off like clockwork, much of our tattered reputation would be restored. This is not in Iran's interest which is why common sense says they will let loose the militia commanders under their control.
That goes double for al-Qaeda although they may be too widely scattered and weak to mount much of an offensive - or attacks of any kind. This has always been the best argument against a timetable - telling your enemies when you are leaving is just bad strategy. And dangerous to boot. This is why I don't think we will be able to stick to a timetable.
ed.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 23.07.2008 @ 16:15
"...intergalatic fleet of ninja equiped battleships." Its curious you would bring up something like that. To the best of my knowledge, ninjas are cartoon characters. I don't watch much tv. In any event, I don't see the relevalance to that here.
Think about what the two phrases mean. I have. Iran is a greater threat to the United States than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever were or likely ever could have been.
Many American and Western European leaders lack imagination. This was cited as one of the major things that allowed the 911 attacks to happen. People simply did not imaginae that method of attack. One area of attack that the Iranians might proceed on would be the use of computer viruses to disable the American military system all accross the board. This in conjunction with the use of multiple dirty bombs and perhaps multiple suit case nuclear weapons, as well as EMP weapons and the use of conventional forces could be all that the Iranians would need to conquer America. I hope and pray the American military is preparing for this contingency.
Btw, I finally thought of how the intergaltic fleet of ninja euqipped battleships might play a role. The Iranian leadership may be telling theri people about the Americans have a simillar type of technology. America is typically portrayed as a much more powerful country than it actually is. This makes it much easier to vilify.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 26.07.2008 @ 11:26
I think it is you who needs to get some perspective. I think you are over estimating the power of Great Britian, America, and Israel. It would be very dangerous to overestimate one's own power and to underestimate the power of a mortal enemy.
I'm not making any thing up. As to how any Iranian plans would be implemented, I think I partially explained how they could carry out their goals in the previos post, however, for a detailed plan one would need to ask the Iranian leadership.
Rather than being paranoid I think I am showing a healthy respect for a very dangerous enemy.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 25.07.2008 @ 15:26
"Honestly, you can't see what other nonsense it is?" Its not nonsense. As to how it would be implemented, the Iranian military and its leaders have had almost thirty years to plan this out. Hopefully the Americans have done the same. Unfortunatley many of them lack the imagination to think about these things. That was cited as one the major things that allowed the attacks of 9/11 to take place. "Lack of imagination."
You suggest the British and the Israelis would come to the aid of the US. I don't think so. Israel might be willing but they are a little busy with their own issues right now. With that said I think Israel will be destroying Iran's nuclear facilties within the next few months. I don't look for them to sit around and wait for Iran to destroy them. I don't think Britian is willing to come to the aid of the US in this regard, however, they should be. The goal of the Iranians, as one Iranian leader said a few years ago with regards to Britian "we need to take it over." They are more than capable of doing this. So the British military and civilian leadership should make it among their top priorities to prvent this.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 25.07.2008 @ 08:59
Thanks for the reply to my post. I made no mention of the rapture or of alien abductions. i find it curious that you did.
How would an invasion of the US take place? First of all you assume incorrectly that the American population is well armed. This is not the case. Not only are they generally not well armed, very few of them have been trained in any kind of civil defense. The US has been lax in who it lets into the country. This continues to be the case even post 911. Given Iran's enimity toward the US, it seems likely they would have had invasion force already in place even before the 911 attacks that would simply be waiting for the proper moment. The attack would likely involve the use of multiple dirty bombs in major cities. Perhaps some of those tacticul nuclear war heads that are missing from the Russian arsenal would be used. Some type of EMP weapon or other cyber attacks could be used to disable the US command and control system. Also, Iran possesses very sophisticated anti-ship missles that could conceivable take out the American forces in the Persian Gulf. Also, I think the Iranian arsenal includes submarines. The Iranian attack could come before American officails even have a chance to respond. No this is not paranoia. It is the reality and it would be in the interests of American officials to prepare for this.
Finally, setting off a nuke in LA does qualify as an invasion. It may not be an invasion in the manner that we think of as a traditional invasion but it is an invasion none the less.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 24.07.2008 @ 09:40
Thanks for the reply to my post. (# 24 You may well be correct. I think allot of it would have to do with how much media publicity Maikis pleas for help receive. In other words, does saving the Maliki government or preventing Iraqi genocide fit the agenda of the main stream news media. If it does, then they may give his pleas some publicity which could lead to a groundswell of support to go back in. If not, then his pleas will not receive much publicity and their will be no ground swell of support.
Even if his pleas do get wide publicity, it really will not be up to Obama or Maliki whether or not the US military goes back in. I don't think the American people will support sendig the military back in to prevent genocide or to prop up the Iraqi government.
Besides by the time we withdraw, which will likely be by 2010, the Iraqi military will be up to the task of handling internal security. I really don't look for sectarian violence to flare back up to the level that it was. I think the only way the US military goes back in is if Islamic terrorists start to use Iraq as a base for attacking American interests.
If this does happen perhaps a President Obama or a President McCain will be better able to get other nations to assist us than the Bush Administraion has been. I'm not a supporter of either Obama or McCain but whoever gets elected I wish them well. The challenges are daunting and we will need assistnace.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 23.07.2008 @ 21:27
I find nothing nizarre or Gobsmacking about anything I wrote. In fact there is nothing bizarre about it. For the record, in any invasion of the US Iran would probably have Russian and possibly Chinese assistance but it really isn't necessary. The Iranians are perfectly capable and willing to pull it off without their assistance.
I think the attitude you demonstrate here has alot to do with why the Americans find diplomacy extemely difficult. You completely ridicule and dismiss out of hand a very real concern that many Americans have. This is also a concern that an American diplomat would and should have. When the concerns of one side are completely dismissed out of hand, diplomacy is very difficult, if not impossible.
While I'm not an Obama supporter, there would be a very real benefit if he were to be elected president. That is he seems to be favored by most foreign governments. If we elect him this would help our standing in other countries. Regardless of who wins the Presidential election one of the top priorities of the next President sjould be to fix America's standing within other countries. Perhaps then we can get others to take our very legitmate concerns seriously.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 23.07.2008 @ 21:07
If the little Iranian loving Shia sh*t thinks he can cry for help and the American army will come running, he is sorely mistaken. Once the withdrawl starts the only thing that will stop it will be if terrorists should decide to use Iraq as a base for attacking American interests. In other words, sectarian violence will not be enough to bring the American military back in.
You are correct. If Obama is president. Even then, it won't be up to him, I don't think a public call from Maliki for assistance would be ignored.
ed.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 23.07.2008 @ 09:58