"Is that right?" Thats pretty close, however, the Russians may attack first. They seem to be using the Islamists as proxies.
I've actually never watched "24." Occasionally I read Rick's summaries. I don't watch much tv.
While the Russians are engaged in a war with Chechnya, they actively support Iran, Syria, and other Islamic terrorist supporting nations. Vladimir Putin has stated that Russia is the best friend of Islam. The Russians could occupy the US. The idea would be to inflict as much damage as possible as possible during the initial attack. We would expect the Americans to respond vigorously but it may be too late.
Actually the world's largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal belongs to Russia not to the United States. MAD is not applicable here because due to the extremely poor state of US human intellegence assets the US would likely not have a chance to respond to the attack.
The US is in a fight for its survival. It should conduct itself in this manner. Underestimating one's enemies hs the potential to be suicidal. This is not a time for fear. It is a time to approach the situation with steadfast determination and resolve. We can win but it will require a supreme effort and likely supreme sacrifice. I hope and pray we get our act together here before it is to late.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 26.03.2007 @ 08:46
I meant: an (R) by his name.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 25.03.2007 @ 23:17
Thanks for the reply to my post. You are correct. President George W. Bush will ultimately be judged by the totality of his Presidency. It is too early to make a final determination yet on the Bush presidency. This is why I put the words "right now" in the sentence you reference. With that said, as I'm writing this, the Bush Presidency is not looking very good. It is looking like the worst presidency in American history, however, things can change. This is why I put the words "right now" in the sentence. When his presidency ends or 50 years from now we may look back on his presidency and reach a different conclusion than I have reached right now. I certainly hope he does better. If we have a failed presidency, we have failed as a country. This is so matter if the president has (D) by his name or an (R) by his name. Also, Rick is right that the many, if not most, of the critques offered by the main stream media, especially the far left are done to undermine rather than to improve. This is why I have no patience with leftists.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 25.03.2007 @ 23:13
The Islamic extremists do pose an existential threat to the US. This becomes especially apparent when one considers the fact that they are backed up by Russia and China. Russia and China are the two most powerful countries on earth now. If the Islamic terrorists were to detonate several nuclear weapons on American soil, this would significantly weaken the US. This would make it much easier to take it over to completely destroy it. The Islamists would likely be backed up by their allies of Russia, China, and Venezuela. The Islamic terrorists are already receiveing assitance from these countries in abundance. In any event, due to America's extremly lax border security, the invading Islamic force may already be in the country.
If Bin Laden detonated 10 nuclear war heads in the US, millions and possibly 10s of millions of Americans would die. At best, this would completely destroy the American economy. Yhis would make it all but impossible for the US to come to the aid of its Western European allies. In a situation such as this, Western Europe and any one else who had allied themselves with the Americans would be easy pikcings for the terrorists and their allies.
While the terrorists we are fightng do pose a major threat to us, they are not the biggest threats to American security. The biggest threats to American security are Russia and China.
As I stated earlier, Bush and his team may incompetent evil scumbags. I think they should all be impeached and jailed but even if we do this, this does not change the fact that the US is fighting an enemy who poses an existential threat to us. It is important that we not allow allow ourselves to become distracted.
Good post. I must say I have to agree with most of what you wrote. I think we both agree that Bush should be impeached, however, as I pointed earlier we must not allow the impeachment of the President or his minions to distract us from the fight we face with Islamic extremists and their Communist allies. This is a fight for our survival. We must not waver in our determination to confront this enemy. It is not a time to be fearful but a time for steadfast determination.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 25.03.2007 @ 15:55
The very best we can say about George W. Bush is he is an extremely poor judge of character. After all this is the guy who looked into the soul of Vladimir Putin, America's most dangerous enemy, and decided that this was a man he could trust. Actually it is probably much worse than George W. Bush simply being a poor judge of character. Right now I would have to say that George W. Bush is easily the worst president in US history.
I do not look for him to finsih out this term. He along with Dick Cheney will be impeached. Cheney may resign before this due to "health reasons" or something like that. Americans may very well be looking at the first female president very soon. If my understanding is correct, the Speaker of the House becomes President if the President and the Vice President are unable to perform their duties. Since the President and the Vice President are going to be impeached they will be unable to perform their duties. This leaves Nancy Pelosi, America meet your first female president. That is if the country survives long enough for her to take her position as Commander in Chief. After all, America's enemies have much worse plans for the country than simply impeaching an incompetent Comander in Chief, in the person George Walker Bush.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and the entire Bush Administration consisting of both past and present officials may be low life scum. They may very well be the most sinister group of Americans who have ever lived. That still does not change the fact that our Islamic Extremists enemies who are backed up by Russia and China pose an existential threat to the United States. Regardless what happens to George W. Bush or anyone else in his administration that will not change. The enemy we face will still pose an existential threat to the country and it will still need to be fought vigorously. It is of the utmost importance that we not allow ourselves to become distracted.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 24.03.2007 @ 14:20
Happy birthday Rick!!Comment Posted By B.Poster On 25.01.2007 @ 09:43
Merry Christmans Rick. May you and yours have a blessed Christmas and a happy new year.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 24.12.2006 @ 16:10
As I point out earlier, I want a diplomatic solution for the situation for Russia. In order to resolve the issue, American political leaders will have to acknowledge that at best Russia is a strategic competitor and at worst an enemy. I think it is probably the latter. Right now they are clearly not a "friend."
Any possible diplomatic solution would involve the concept that I think is commonly known as "realpolitik." Russia is probably the only country on earth who is capable of defeating the US in a military confrontation. In a case such as Russia, a "realpolitik" solution, while I don't like it, might be the best we can do.
Part of a negotiated settlement with Russia could include the US agreeing to withdraw all support from former USSR republics. In return for this concession by the US, Russia will agree to withdraw all support from Iran, Syria, Hamas, Venezuela, and all of the other terrorist supporting states and organizations that they currently support. If this type of agrement can be reached, the GWOT becomes much easier to win. Without the support of Russia Iran and the other Islamic terrorist supporting states can be defeated much easier.
I don't really like this solution. Some of the former USSR republics are willing to work with the US and the West becuase they don't want to fall back under the totalitarian rule of Russia. Under this agreement they would be sacrificed. Also, the US would have to give up legitimate business interests with these former Soviet Socialist Repblics. These are mainly oil interests. This would have a huge financial cost for the US.
Russia would lose its weapons sales to Iran, Syria, Venezuela and others. The US and the West could compensate Russia for this loss by some type of financial arrangement. Russia certainly does not need Iranian oil. They have plenty of that. Yhis type of agreement will cost the US more than it costs Russia. If Russia has any interest in peace, this should be an acceptable agreement to them or at least it should be a good starting place from which to negotiate.
We should develop more of our own oil and natural gas resources. This will give us more leverage at the negotiating table.
Before we can do anything constructive it is necessary to recognize that Russia is not a friend nor or they an ally in the GWOT. It seems to me that the Cold War is back on. In fact, I don't think it ever really ended.
As stated previously, I don't like the agreement. I specifically don't like the part about sacrificing people to the tender mercies of Russia who don't seem to want any part of that. To be honest, I don't think this agreement would work any way. I think Russia would either not agree to it or they would promptly violate it.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 23.12.2006 @ 23:53
What I meant by my last sentence is I'm glad you recognize that the US is not some sort of "hyperpower." I just wanted to be sure the last sentence was clear.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 23.12.2006 @ 12:08
I agree. Option number 1 seems to be the best option. One way to cripple the Iranian economy would be to commit enough troops to secure Iraq. As I understand it, the lift cost per barrel of oil is lower for Iraqi oil than it is for Iranian, Russian, or Saudi oil. This would enable us to neutralize the threats of our enemies. Unfortunately this policy cannot be implemented right now. The political climate would never allow it.
In any event, what we are currently doing is contributing to the instability in the Middle East. This drives up the price of oil. To date, the chief benefactor in the GWOT has been Russia. We will need to alter some of our policies or at least execute the ones we have better.
A good place to start would be to actually recognize Russia for what it is. It is not our "friend." It is our most dangerous enemy. Simply recognizing it for what it is does NOT necessarily we go to war with them. If we can use diplomacy to get them to withdraw support from Iran, winning the GWOT becomes much easier.
You write: "Your arrogance is breathtaking. Its about time people in this country realized we're not running the show any more." It is clearly in America's interest to formulate an effective policy to deal with the threat posed by Russia. Part of this policy will be strategies on how to fight a war against them should it become necessary. Naturally we hope to avoid it but it may be inevitable. In any event, a successful policy to counter Russia, will go along way toward neutralizing those who you say "run the show." Refusing to capitulate before one's enemies is not arrogance. It is prudent policy. It begins with recognizing one's enemies for what they are. Russia is the most dangerous enemy of America and the free world.
You write: "China holds our dollars." This is true. It is also true that their economy would be seriously hurt if they were to lose access to the American market. This at least gives us some leverage. We can get even more leverage against them, if we would be willing to abolish the highly expensive well-fare state that currently exists in the US. If China unloads our dollars, this hurts their economy making it more difficult for them to invest in their vast military machine. Also, it would mean the end of deficit spending in the US. This would mean the end of the well-fare state. To that I say, GOOD RIDDANCE!!
"Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have oil." This is true. We do also. we have huge oil and natural gas fields that we are unable to tap into because enviro-whackos have to much control over American energy policy. We also need to build more refineries and we need to invest more in nuclear power plants. We have been unable to do much of this becuase of the concerns of the same enviro-whackos. In any event, by developing more of our own resources this will give us more leverage when dealing with these people.
"China and Russia have veto powers in the UN." So do we. Most countries act in their best interest regardless what the UN says or does. Only the US is expected to capitualte before the UN. The UN cannot do anything to stop China's raping of Tibet. The UN could not make Saddam Hussein cooperate with weapons inspections. The UN could not stop the genocide in Rwanda. The UN cannot stop Mexico's illegal alien invasion of the US. The UN cannot or will not do anything to stop the Palestinian Arabs from trying to annihilate the state of Israel. The UN is a hopelessly corrupt entity. It should be abolsihed. I would not be opposed to withdrawing from it entirely.
"...the list goes on" A prevailing myth is that the US is some sort of "hyperpower." I'm glad you recognize this.Comment Posted By B.Poster On 23.12.2006 @ 12:04