Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[slidemansailor]

Lemmesee, if I want a provokation maybe I can get some Arabs to be responsible for running our major ports, then blow up an LNG tanker or cargo container or something. I'll already have the names and links... and even my speeches written and practiced (cuz my spokesman is so dang stupid it takes him months to memorize a 2 minute press release).

So I'll blow up Houston, Charleston, St. Pete .. not SF, cuz I like to visit it every decade or so.  Then I'll tie it to ... uh ... I guess Iran this time and boy, will everyone be with me on this one.


I expect the next one will be nukes or chemicals.  I also expect most of the details are already worked out.

[Mr. Dare]

Frankly, this old boy doesn't think that there is much difference between the parties. 

But they think they're different, which is what matters in this regard.  As long as partisan opposition exists, the Dems will look to thwart and obstruct anything the GOP wants to do, not on merit, but on partisanship.  They got elected by running against the Iraq bandwagon.  And the politically defining element within the Dems is dovish, so I doubt they would continue hostilities even with D POTUS in 2009.

  The Dems. actively oppose the GOP politically, true, but it is a power struggle not not necessarily based on the will of the voters. If a Dem win's the White house in 2 years, we will have the mirror image of what he had with the GOP controlling the Legislative and Executive branches of government. and the Dems won't oppose themselves. Neither party has shown a willingness to respect public opinion except when it comes to winning the election at hand. So even if the Shrub can't "git'er done", that is not to say the Dems wouldn't do it on their own hook. Not to mention  the afore mentioned observation that manufacturing of a 9-11 scale event such as the attack on US Navy ships strategically placed in harms way could EASILY make opposition untenable politically. It may not be by Christmas, but it could happen. If the Dems try to go into Iran without some precipitating event to sway the American People however, expect to see a decidedly "Doveish" Republican minority opposition in 3 or 4 years trying to cash in on the public opinion in the following election. My 2 cents.

[dgg9]

  The Dems. actively oppose the GOP politically, true, but it is a power struggle not not necessarily based on the will of the voters. If a Dem win's the White house in 2 years, we will have the mirror image of what he had with the GOP controlling the Legislative and Executive branches of government. and the Dems won't oppose themselves. Neither party has shown a willingness to respect public opinion except when it comes to winning the election at hand.

Yet elections are where it's at for them.  Don't think for a moment the DNC or RNC failed to notice the lesson of the last election (really, 2004, as well): you alienate your base at your peril.  Right now, the Dem's base is dovish.  Indeed, you could see Congressional Dems creaking under the strain of the pretense of supporting the war these last few years -- it really wasn't in their nature, but they went along to get along.  With no real need to support the war, why would they?

But let's say for a moment that the Dems will do what they want, voters be damned.  Why would they drum up a new war or intensify the old one?  It's simply not who they are.  The current crop of Dems was formed from the anti-Vietnam Left of the late 60s / early 70s.  Vietnam is the lens through which they view everything.

One could argue that the current GOP leadership is using the war to increase political/state power while at the same time giving limited government lip service.  Ok, fine.  But historically (well, any living history) the Dems don't bother with that.  They explicitly venerate the State, and openly clamor for increased state power.  They don't need the facade of an unpopular war.  Increasing state power is their candid platform.

My point is that the two parties have roles, approaches, strategies that they're comfortable with, and they tend to not use the other party's persona to any great extent.

[Mr. Dare]

True, it is all about elections for both parties, but witness Bush's "stands" in favor of his pro second amendment power base... the two largest parties are not afraid to offend their voter base once they achieve power, it's all about spin once they are in. If the Dems want to go in to Iran as part of their power consolidation plan, they will justify it (as Bush HASN'T, they will remember that much of the lesson) and ignore the pure doves in their party while courting the moderate "Hawks" in the GOP. In Vietnam, Dem's routinely stepped up America's involvement in the war, and it was Nixon who brought us out in response to public opinion. It's not about which party is the "peace" party, it's about winning elections, spin, and power consolidation at the Federal level. This is two groups competing for a lucrative contract to run the most powerfull nation in the world for their own intrests.

[dgg9]

In Vietnam, Dem's routinely stepped up America's involvement in the war, and it was Nixon who brought us out in response to public opinion.

The Dems of today have NOTHING in common with the pre-1972 Dems.  It was precisely Vietnam that changed the next generation's POV.  If someone like JFK were alive today, he's be a Reagan Republican, not a Democrat. 

It's not about which party is the "peace" party, it's about winning elections, spin, and power consolidation at the Federal level.

Up to a point.  But politicians are also human beings too, and as such they have ideology and biases, and are products of their formative years.  The whole Vietnam anti-war scene shaped most of the key Dems of today.  You seem to think they're able to completely reinvent themselves as hawks in order to get more power.  I see that as reversed.  They want more power for their agenda, which they already see as right.  They would be extremely ineffective being born again hawks after the election, when there's no reason for it.

Here again, I don't see things as the board does.  One of the prevailing theories here is that politicians completely invent their ostensible positions and personas and are really James Bond villains (in disguise their entire lives) who are after nothing but pure power and thus will invent any ideology for public consumption.  But that simply doesn't match human nature.  Politicians don't invent an ideology to gain power; they gain power to implement their ideology.  The currrent crop of Dems has an ideology and a persona.  They're not suddenly going to go completely against their identity to produce some result.  They're going to try to produce the result from the game plan they already have.

[Mr. Dare]

  While I don't think you are way off base or anything, I do think we have an honest disagreement about what motivates politicians in the two major parties. I do believe if there is anything to be gained from going into Iran, we will see it happening as soon as the powers that be can arrange it. Bush expended all of his political capital on the war in Iraq, and I don't look for him to do it without some galvanizing event occuring on the world stage. He obviously would like to. The Dems. haven't said they WOULDN"T do it, so I have to assume it is something they don't rule out. They are bashing Bush heavily over the Iraq fiasco because they can (he left himself open for it with his heavy handed policy and lack of apparent justification), but I don't think they oppose him on phlosophical grounds. I think it is political.
   Time will tell however, and certainly either party could come up in two years with a candidate who see's things very differently. I just don't expect it. In any event, the next six years should be very interesting for both of us. I for one wouldn't mind eating crow if the powers that be don't turn out to be as bad as I think they are. That's what A-1 sauce is for!

[dgg9]

  I for one wouldn't mind eating crow if the powers that be don't turn out to be as bad as I think they are.

Oh, they will -- but I think they'll do it in the manner that matches their ideology, that's all.

Thus, a Dem regime won't use war hysteria to ratchet up the Leviathan State; they'll use their time-honored methods of Nanny State laws, captive union votes, trial lawyers, victim disarmament, etc.

[Mr. Dare]

Thus, a Dem regime won't use war hysteria to ratchet up the Leviathan State; they'll use their time-honored methods of Nanny State laws, captive union votes, trial lawyers, victim disarmament, etc.

   Yes I agree, we can look for that as well. Which ever one proves right on Iran, I think we are pretty well screwed unless the Libs. or some other party with similar motivations can get into office soon. The Dems who campaigned so hard on the anti-war issue are claiming the last election as a great victory for their party aggenda, and are already downplaying the anti-war faction which put them in office, so it remains to be seen how this is going to fall out.

[dgg9]

Which ever one proves right on Iran, I think we are pretty well screwed unless the Libs. or some other party with similar motivations can get into office soon.

I compile this as: we're pretty well screwed.

[Dull'Hawk]

Never fear!  Just vote me into office at the earliest opportunity and I will solve everything.  Shut down the gooberment; call off all the current and scheduled wars; hold cops accountable for their murderous rampages.  I'll even repeal that silly "speed of light limit" so we can explore the galaxy in our lifetime. 

[/fantasy-mode]

Kent

[Mr. Dare]

I compile this as: we're pretty well screwed.

   Sigh... pretty much.

[Moleman]

It (the Iran attack) is going to happen in some way, shape, or form. No matter what you think of the parties involved, Israel is not going to let Iran have nuclear weapons. Especially after some of the threats that were made.

[Aviator]

Nobody is going to hit Iran before Christmas and if anybody hits them, it will probably be the Israelis and that wouldn't be for at least a year.  Their political leadership doesn't have the will to do it and Israel doesn't have the conventional forces by a long shot.  Israel taking out some of their facilities with air strikes like they did in Iraq won't stop them because the targets are very dispersed and hardened.

This Country does not have the will to do it and we don't have the conventional forces in place even if we did.  Look at how long it took us to ramp up to take Iraq.  Iran is a much larger country with a more dedicated military.  What are we going to do with it if we do take it?  Are we going to engage in another "nation-building" exercise like we're trying to do in Iraq?  I don't think the Iranians have the different factions that want to murder and subjugate each other the way it is in Iraq; they would be very focused on resisting us.  If we hit Iran and didn't occupy it, how long do you think it will take for China and Russia to come and help them rebuild everything good as new--after all, they have to be functional to sell oil to China and purchase weapons from Russia.