It's the midterm elections and aside from Americans, the Arab countries and Israel are watching closely. This is how important the United States is in terms of world affairs. Could the world care less who Canada elects as Prime Minister, much less their senators?
Our dearest Mr. Bush has roughly 2 years left. Iraq will be the #1 election issue in 2 years, unless Bush is "saved" by another terrorist attack, not averted but results in mass arrests and martial law. The Iraqi debacle can not be resolved before his office ends. The only way to stabilize Iraq is to install a dictator and implement martial law, but under the guise of "democracy". It's been done in many other countries, so why couldn't they do that in Iraq. Attempting to implement a real democracy there was a noble but foolish undertaking. I would not have recommended it... it wasn't the right way to go about it, aside from the fact that the underlying conditions for it were completely absent. Why Mr. Bush and team America are not installing a dictator is beyond my understanding. It is de rigeur for the United States to do so in overthrown governments of spent nations specifically, because it is so easy to do. Throw in a few kill squads and you've got stability for most of the population. Mr. Bush spoke from the heart when he said he was a compassionate conservative, and I am obliged to believe him. Heck, he's gone so far as to actually behaving more like a liberal. Anyway, history has shown he's a much nicer guy than Reagan... more noble and less cynical, and much less adept as an actor even in presidency.
The Democrats, if they can manage to win, might win if only the Republicans hand it to them. Their only hope is Obama, that charismatic quasi-Arab-negro dude who seems to embody the American dream of coming onshore with nothing and making something of himself, like his peer Arnie. In 2 years time, Americans will be so anxious about Iraq even the dumb hicks of the American midwest might feel comfortable voting for an Arab, that is, to deal with the Muslims of the Middle East. But true to the nature of Democrats, being liberals, will not be able to present a unified agenda in 24 months. Why? Because like most all liberals, they have an inherent belief that their principles are universal and only have to wait until everyone eventually will see it their way. Not so for conservatives, who believe that they must protect their principles under constant embattlement from outside forces. So it is with liberals that they try to embrace everyone under "universal" principles and forget that real politics is occuring before them. They either don't think they need an agenda because their agenda is everybody's, or are so stuck in their universal principles mentality that an agenda seems unnecessary. The most successful liberals are ones who realise that everyone else is stupid and they are going to force their ideas unto them. A little bit of charisma helps too. Take Canada's Trudeau as one of them. Unfortunately, Obama does not have the necessary arrogance to do it.
If the Democrats win, they'll inherit an America with huge losses in influence on the world stage, an America teetering on bankruptcy. American predominance in world affairs is going to be short all thanks to the current Administration. A Democratic government is going to have a very very hard time.
God forbid they win, because they'll lose even bigger - perhaps they might even lose their party as a result. They won't be able to repair the damage in 4 years, and the consequences of the current era will be felt in that time. By the end of 4 years, American public opinion will be resolutely against the Democrats for failure to be effective, and the damage will be blamed on them. However, a smart Republican won't want to see the Democrats eliminated, instead, it's more profitable for them to have a prostrate and useless Democratic party they can run circles around and keep their saucy contracts. The elimination of the Democrats means Republicans will splinter, not good for the money trough.
The answer to Iraq is beyond the ability of the current Administration to execute, because they don't have the necessary will to do so. It's beyond the Democrats because it would be against their principles. The answer to Iraq is to attack Iran in a massive military operation and install a new Shah, and create a dictatorial government with delicious economic contracts. Wealth generates wealth, and Iranians want this, as long as the war is short and relatively bloodless (as far as wars go). With a US-friendly Iran, America forces Israel out of Palestine because presumably Iran is no longer a threat. With Iran taken out, insurgents in Iraq will eventually capitulate. Furthermore, the Kurds no longer will have the clout that they do, and Sunnis will be put in their place. The United States can then do with Iraq as they wish. Problem completely solved. America rises in stature and predominance once again.
Our dearest Mr. Bush has roughly 2 years left. Iraq will be the #1 election issue in 2 years, unless Bush is "saved" by another terrorist attack, not averted but results in mass arrests and martial law. The Iraqi debacle can not be resolved before his office ends. The only way to stabilize Iraq is to install a dictator and implement martial law, but under the guise of "democracy". It's been done in many other countries, so why couldn't they do that in Iraq. Attempting to implement a real democracy there was a noble but foolish undertaking. I would not have recommended it... it wasn't the right way to go about it, aside from the fact that the underlying conditions for it were completely absent. Why Mr. Bush and team America are not installing a dictator is beyond my understanding. It is de rigeur for the United States to do so in overthrown governments of spent nations specifically, because it is so easy to do. Throw in a few kill squads and you've got stability for most of the population. Mr. Bush spoke from the heart when he said he was a compassionate conservative, and I am obliged to believe him. Heck, he's gone so far as to actually behaving more like a liberal. Anyway, history has shown he's a much nicer guy than Reagan... more noble and less cynical, and much less adept as an actor even in presidency.
The Democrats, if they can manage to win, might win if only the Republicans hand it to them. Their only hope is Obama, that charismatic quasi-Arab-negro dude who seems to embody the American dream of coming onshore with nothing and making something of himself, like his peer Arnie. In 2 years time, Americans will be so anxious about Iraq even the dumb hicks of the American midwest might feel comfortable voting for an Arab, that is, to deal with the Muslims of the Middle East. But true to the nature of Democrats, being liberals, will not be able to present a unified agenda in 24 months. Why? Because like most all liberals, they have an inherent belief that their principles are universal and only have to wait until everyone eventually will see it their way. Not so for conservatives, who believe that they must protect their principles under constant embattlement from outside forces. So it is with liberals that they try to embrace everyone under "universal" principles and forget that real politics is occuring before them. They either don't think they need an agenda because their agenda is everybody's, or are so stuck in their universal principles mentality that an agenda seems unnecessary. The most successful liberals are ones who realise that everyone else is stupid and they are going to force their ideas unto them. A little bit of charisma helps too. Take Canada's Trudeau as one of them. Unfortunately, Obama does not have the necessary arrogance to do it.
If the Democrats win, they'll inherit an America with huge losses in influence on the world stage, an America teetering on bankruptcy. American predominance in world affairs is going to be short all thanks to the current Administration. A Democratic government is going to have a very very hard time.
God forbid they win, because they'll lose even bigger - perhaps they might even lose their party as a result. They won't be able to repair the damage in 4 years, and the consequences of the current era will be felt in that time. By the end of 4 years, American public opinion will be resolutely against the Democrats for failure to be effective, and the damage will be blamed on them. However, a smart Republican won't want to see the Democrats eliminated, instead, it's more profitable for them to have a prostrate and useless Democratic party they can run circles around and keep their saucy contracts. The elimination of the Democrats means Republicans will splinter, not good for the money trough.
The answer to Iraq is beyond the ability of the current Administration to execute, because they don't have the necessary will to do so. It's beyond the Democrats because it would be against their principles. The answer to Iraq is to attack Iran in a massive military operation and install a new Shah, and create a dictatorial government with delicious economic contracts. Wealth generates wealth, and Iranians want this, as long as the war is short and relatively bloodless (as far as wars go). With a US-friendly Iran, America forces Israel out of Palestine because presumably Iran is no longer a threat. With Iran taken out, insurgents in Iraq will eventually capitulate. Furthermore, the Kurds no longer will have the clout that they do, and Sunnis will be put in their place. The United States can then do with Iraq as they wish. Problem completely solved. America rises in stature and predominance once again.
