Former Clinton Advisor says only a terrorist attack will save Obama

[HubbaHubba]

. And, incidentally, what concerns, if any, do either of them possess for the deplorable state of the citizenry of Iran, especially its female population? I just thought they might like to let the rest of us know.

I'm glad you asked...I certainly won't be using the big technical terms you do but let me tell you what I think of Iran....Iran is f*cked, as is any place that has extreme DICKtators. I actually have a female Iranian who cuts my hair and still has family back there. She tells me of how great Iran USE to be and how much fun it was. Now she does not even want to go back because of the DICK and his regime.

Now do I have the answers to fix the problem? Nope. The one thing I do know is, there are a lot of beautiful people that live there and they all can't be painted with the same brush because of the DICK. As for the female population there.....one could probably not imagine how bad it is.

 

[juniper]

Thanks for your post, Hubba. At one time, Persia encompassed a major civilization whose cultural feats were extraordinary. This implies (to me) that the background to rebound from its current deplorable state is more, rather than less, possible. As to the Iranian people, it is my understanding that many, perhaps most, are highly alienated from its present governing coalition. This further suggests that a revolution is altogether possible.

Incidentally, why the disdainful remark about "technical" language. I thought my writing was quite clear. I took a fair amount of time to express my thoughts out of respect for the (English) language and for my Readers, such as you. Were there some phrases or words unnecessarily complex? Please identify.

 

[juniper]

Alin Burnaby: What did you mean, exactly, when you wrote that It wouldn't surprise many people if Iran plans and delivers a "Nuclear Package" at their proving ground in Tel Aviv? the statement was interesting (on the surface) but not altogether clear (to me). I'd be interested in further explication.

 

[virginjohn]

In this article former Clinton advisor Robert Shapiro predicts that only a terrorist attack will save Barack Obama's presidency. I remember a fellow by the name of Bush that had the same boost when 9/11 happened. Nah, must be a coincidence http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=9682

This guy is plain wrong and the fact that he was twice defeated by Bush (he was part of the Gore team in 2000 and part of Kerry's team in 2004) does not add to his credibility in my opinion.

In case of a major successful terrorist attack Obama would certainly lose the 2012 election. FOX news/Talk radio/Dick Cheney would have a field day. They would rant on how Obama's policies (closing Guantanamo, trying terrorists in civilian courts, opposing wiretapping, ...) made US less secure and lead to attack. Obama would not come back from that. A major reason Scott Brown won the senate seat in Massachusetts was due to his opposition to Obama administration on national security.

 

[HubbaHubba]

Thanks for your post, Hubba. At one time, Persia encompassed a major civilization whose cultural feats were extraordinary. This implies (to me) that the background to rebound from its current deplorable state is more, rather than less, possible. As to the Iranian people, it is my understanding that many, perhaps most, are highly alienated from its present governing coalition. This further suggests that a revolution is altogether possible.

Incidentally, why the disdainful remark about "technical" language. I thought my writing was quite clear. I took a fair amount of time to express my thoughts out of respect for the (English) language and for my Readers, such as you. Were there some phrases or words unnecessarily complex? Please identify.

Easy Tiger, your English is very good, fantastic in fact...Sorry for the disdainful remark, my bad.

 

[juniper]

Thank you for the compliment, Hubba; much appreciated.

 

[HubbaHubba]

Thank you for the compliment, Hubba; much appreciated.

My pleasure my man! Have a great evening!

 

[juniper]

Thank you for the clarification, Alin. Israel is very very nervous about the threat from Iran. Israel is capable of taking out much of the nuclear threat if it strikes first. If Iran strikes first, however, there will be undeniable mideast mayhem. When Israel has defeated other mideastern nations in war, these nations continue to exist, i.e., Jordan and Egypt; if Israel loses, however, its very survival become problematic. Most Israelis are aware of the threat from Iran; it is often on everyone's lips. So the situation in the mideast remains exceedingly fragile and tentative.

 

[juniper]

You do not comprehend the mideast, "Peace Guy". There is no bargaining with respect to Israel and its neighbours except through threat of force. That is a fact which Israel has had to learn the hard way including most recently after its complete exodus from Gaza in 2005. The missiles and rockets continued to be launched. Between 2000-2008 (Shin Bet statistics), there were 9,500 unprovoked attacks by Hamas and other terror organizations resulting in thirty-seven Israelis murdered plus countless wounded and maimed, extensive property damage and a large number of cases of PTSD, especially with children in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. The situation in the mideast is vastly different than what the normal Canadian can possibly understand. A good starting point to learn would be mideast expert Barry Rubin's article entitled "Mideast 101". It can be found on his website or through the Gloria Centre. I learned much from reading it and I certainly recommend it.

 

[juniper]

There are a number of holes in your thinking, "Peace Guy" but first let's talk demographics. The number of Palestinians, according to Yoram Ettinger, a demographer with an unconventional perspective, indicates that the Palestinian population figures are highly (purposely) distorted. Furthermore, the Palestinian birthrate has been significantly diminishing with the advent of modern life. I have given you the reference; go check it out.

As to "occupied" lands, from an Israeli perspective, the Westbank, referred to as Samaria and Judea (in English), are the seats of the ancient civilization and remain so, i.e., Joseph's Tomb in Hebron. The question I would ask you is: If 1.5 million Arabs reside in Israel proper, why must Samaria and Judea be free of Jews? Currently, there are 300,000 Jews in what is known as the Westbank (Samaria and Judea). And given the fact that each time Israel pulled out it was attacked, formerly from Lebanon and later from Gaza, why should Israel pull out of the Westbank or from the Golan for that matter? As noted, "Peace Guy", you don't really understand the politics of the mideast nor of the Israel/Palestine region.

As to what you identify as "conventional warfare", you are so totally ignorant of the structure of the military and the kind of warfare which has gone on in the region other than nuclear warfare (has not occurred) that I can't even begin to educate you. I have referred to Barry Rubin's "Mideast 101" which did not seem to make any impression whatsoever. Your "analysis" about "conventional warfare" is empty. Here's a hint: There is no such thing as "conventional warfare" in the mideast!

 

[uncleg]

You do not comprehend the mideast yourself there, juniper. It's been a monopole of power by Israel for over forty years & that is Israel's motivation in this. If any Arab state develops a viable nuclear capability, they can no longer use theirs except against an existential threat & they must then rely solely upon conventional forces to hang onto their occupied lands. They no longer have an overwhelming conventional force & the populations of their neighbours has risen much faster than the Jewish population in Israel. Without the ability to threaten offensive nuclear war, they are unlikely to win a conventional war at a casualty rate that could be accepted by the current citizens of Israel.

The fact that they cannot seem to realize that if they are to survive as a jewish state and a democracy, they must rid themselves of ALL the occupied territories ASAP for demographic reasons. Again, the population of Arabs within the claimed borders of Israel is growing faster than the Jewish population. If they don't act soon, the Arabs within will vote for a "One State" solution and reform Palestine. Israel would then be in the position of taking way the votes of Arabs, becoming a non-democratic, but still Jewish state, or accept the democratic vote and vanish as a Jewish state. The American Voters would have a much harder time unconditionally supporting a non-democratic Israel.

But if they oust most or the Palestinians by contracting back to their pre-1967 borders, the demographic time bomb goes away. The Palestinian problem goes away for places like Jordan and Syria because they can send the refugees 'home' to Palestine. It isn't perfect but they would likely not have to fight a conventional war or face the existential threat to Israel that they now face through plain demographics.

After 40 odd years, the Palestinian refugees & their much more numerous descendants in Jordan and Syria really have little popular support in those countries & will be deported. Palestine will be a hell hole of factional fighting for a while as the balance of power adjusts to the new reality. But Israel is likely to still be around as a democratic state. That is about all one can really hope for in the near term.

While the pre 1967 borders issue has been a bone of contention for a long time, it won't happen. There would still be a large number of Palestinians living within those borders and if Israel attempted to deport them it would the beginning of the end for Israel. Most countries would and could not support a deportation of that many people and no matter how strong the Jewish lobby is in Washington, no sitting President could allow that and survive politically. Remember that Saudi Arabia is still technically at war with Israel, and they are the second largest supplier of oil to America. If America allowed Israel to deport any Palestinians within the 1967 borders the oil would stop and it'd bring America to it's knees. Another consideration is that Israel considers Jerusalem to be the capital of a Jewish state and now that they have it, they are not going to give it up.

As long as there is an outside enemy, Israel can/will survive. If that goes away, I believe Israel will as well. The Knesset in the past week proposed a bill that defines who is a Jew. If it becomes law, the Law of Return goes out the window. Under the proposed law most of the worlds Jews would not be recognized as Jews. With that you would see a serious reduction in immigrants to Israel and I suggest a serious drop in support for the country by "Jews" outside the country. As the leader of one American Jewish group put it, he is recognized as a Rabbi everywhere in the world except in Israel. How long do you think the country would last if that becomes the law ?

 

[Shakerod]

I never indicated that I was in favour of the nuclear option vis a vis Iran although I did present how that option is now within the realm of possibility. I think both Shakerod and Hubba Hubba have made conclusions based on an incorrect analysis of my description of the external and internal perils of the current regime in Iran. Both of their replies are what might otherwise be defined under the rubric of "yellow journalism". They have taken my presentation out of context to suit their own opinions and initiatives. And, incidentally, what concerns, if any, do either of them possess for the deplorable state of the citizenry of Iran, especially its female population? I just thought they might like to let the rest of us know.

I am of the belief that you should stay out of other countries affairs unless you have a damn good reason to intervene. The United States has been looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran for over a year, and I suppose if they really want to attack them they could fabricate an excuse. But to think that Iran is a threat to the U.S. is nonesense.