• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Predictions for the Final Year of Bush II

Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
I will bookmark this thread, and come check it once the final calendar year comes for Bush's term.

What do you predict will happen? Personally, I think he'll be more dangerous than ever, and that this will cause a rift between him and the Republican candidates (aside from possibly Thompson/Giuiliani).

I think that he will try to expand the war in the ME so that the next President will have no choice other than to continue a wide theatre of operations just to maintain a semblance of stability. This will obviously make the parasites that profit so handsomely from this venture happy, but will be a hard sell to Americans in the midst of a shaky economy.

The expansion itself? Look no further than the usual suspects from PNAC desperately trying to make a case for expanding the war to Iran. And guess what? If US forces try to forcibly change regimes in that Islamic state, you can bet that Musharraf will lose Pakistan in a heartbeat. And that means hardliner Islamists with a working and deliverable nuclear arsenal. Whee!
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Arkaign
And that means hardliner Islamists with a working and deliverable nuclear arsenal. Whee!
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure this isn't already the case?
Click to expand...

I think Musharraf is a pragmatic and intelligent leader, with one of the most difficult jobs in the world. He's survived numerous assassination attempts, some with the handprints of military officials. I also think that hardliner Islamists would be notably more aggressive with their weapons, such as attacking Israel or other allied nations. If Musharraf loses his grip, then I'd expect that the next leader to be a LOT more dangerous. The next leader won't be doing spots on 'The Daily Show', you can take that to the bank. It stands to reason that those nuclear weapons may even be used against our forces in the event of our invading Iran, if the new leader(s) of Pakistan are that insane.
 
Surgical strikes or all out war with Iran. Global uproar against our foreign policy. Other nations taking a stronger stance toward U.S. imperialism/nation building. Iraq becomes a haven of destruction, many surrounding countries will have people fighting in that area. Iraq will be the biggest disgrace to bush's presidency while attacking Iran will be his worst mistake. We will pay for many years to come for his agenda, financially and with American lives. Thinking that an attack on Iran would weaken it, it only strengthens the resolve of those who already hate us, creates more hate against the U.S. , our attack pushes them over the edge.
 
I'd say about a 65% chance that he doesn't go quite as all out insane spreading war everywhere as he would otherwise because PNAC will manage to get the 22nd ammendment nullified, and he'll plan to steal another "election".

If that doesn't happen, I agree with Arkaign's predictions, and think we will also be bombing Syria, & possibly North Korea.
 
We are going to do something about Iran.

But I doubt it will lead to all out war. Iran would be stupid to start a 'real' war with us.
 
I predict Bush will do his best to simply run out the clock on Iraq, which will see little-to-no progress, and we'll continue our empty rhetoric against Iran.

I'm sure he's got a crapload of pretty awful executive orders ready to go as he's packing up his office.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We are going to do something about Iran.

But I doubt it will lead to all out war. Iran would be stupid to start a 'real' war with us.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment of the average Iranian citizen not being warlike. I do think, though, that a US attack on Iranian targets would probably put enough of these citizens behind the government to make things very difficult for us. On the flipside, it could also increase resistance in certain quarters against the hard-liners. The question is, who currently holds the keys to power over there? And what would their actions be in the case of a foreign attack?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We are going to do something about Iran.

But I doubt it will lead to all out war. Iran would be stupid to start a 'real' war with us.
Click to expand...

Then I guess it would be about who would be "starting" the war. Our "pre-emptive" attack could be the "start". Anyone with a brain can see "pre-emptive" as a straw mans reason for military conquest.
 
I predict he will stop any progress by the deadlocked Congress to stop Dems at anything they want to get accomplished by the most most Vetoes in his 8 years.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I predict he will stop any progress by the deadlocked Congress to stop Dems at anything they want to get accomplished by the most most Vetoes in his 8 years.
Click to expand...

Also a fairly safe bet. Seeing as he never once vetoed anything other than a stem cell bill before the GOP lost control of Congress.
 
I predict Bush will do his best to simply run out the clock on Iraq, which will see little-to-no progress, and we'll continue our empty rhetoric against Iran.
Click to expand...
I agree. Iraq will be status quo with no substantial progress. An attack on Iran will not happen without a clear smoking gun, which we're not close at all to seeing yet.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We are going to do something about Iran.

But I doubt it will lead to all out war. Iran would be stupid to start a 'real' war with us.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Isreal. They have less patience than we do.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We are going to do something about Iran.

But I doubt it will lead to all out war. Iran would be stupid to start a 'real' war with us.
Click to expand...

That's not how things work. We attack Iran. They retaliate, THEN we declare war on Iran. What we do at that point I can't say, but we (Bush) will insist on calling it one if for no other than political considerations. By using the word "war" he feels free from traditional Constitutional restraints.

 
it's all about money and power and the control that comes with it.

along those lines, i see bush giving away our tax dollars (collected and uncollected) to his rich neocon buddies at an even more frantic pace than when he first took office to give them even more control over our nation and i will adjust my portfolio accordingly.

the neocon agneda that got us into iraq will get us into iran to some degree and the candidates now running will all try to pull pre-emptive reagan-esque end arounds with those nations most affected by the neocon agenda if they're not doing it already, to get elected and hit the ground running once he or she takes office.

bush will try to make things as advantageous as possible for the next repub pres. candidate to win to insure that those who are now in control will stay in control. look for bush's end game policies to reflect that angle and the contradictions that will arise in his policies when he tries to choose among the needs of his party, the needs of those who control him and the needs of his legacy-driven misguided ego.

gas prices will go down in the third quarter as usual, diebold stock prices will show early gains, and carefully timed terror alerts will gain/lose momentum the closer elections and/or the races get.

the folks that bought us the swiftboat crew will find new and imaginative ways to prey on their own kind and others in the primaries and will get into a really nasty feeding frenzy in the general elections, especially if clinton gets picked to run.

bin laden's name will regain prominence and the repubs will be selling terror terror terror fear fear fear at an even more feverish pace because of the present weak position that they put themselves in..



 
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We are going to do something about Iran.

But I doubt it will lead to all out war. Iran would be stupid to start a 'real' war with us.
Click to expand...

That's not how things work. We attack Iran. They retaliate, THEN we declare war on Iran. What we do at that point I can't say, but we (Bush) will insist on calling it one if for no other than political considerations. By using the word "war" he feels free from traditional Constitutional restraints.
Click to expand...

Ouch. Hopefully it won't come to that, but these days, it's hard to doubt that kind of possibility/probability.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I predict he will stop any progress by the deadlocked Congress to stop Dems at anything they want to get accomplished by the most most Vetoes in his 8 years.
Click to expand...

eh? If the congress is as you say deadlocked, then it must be assumed no progress will be made with or without GWB. You arent making much sense...expand a little maybe?
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We are going to do something about Iran.

But I doubt it will lead to all out war. Iran would be stupid to start a 'real' war with us.
Click to expand...

That's not how things work. We attack Iran. They retaliate, THEN we declare war on Iran. What we do at that point I can't say, but we (Bush) will insist on calling it one if for no other than political considerations. By using the word "war" he feels free from traditional Constitutional restraints.
Click to expand...

Ouch. Hopefully it won't come to that, but these days, it's hard to doubt that kind of possibility/probability.
Click to expand...

Agree its hard to tell what will happen. Especially when you throw in all the doublespeak by congress, they probably would authorize funds for an invasion. Of course it will be all Bush's fault they do this, but still.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We are going to do something about Iran.

But I doubt it will lead to all out war. Iran would be stupid to start a 'real' war with us.
Click to expand...

That's not how things work. We attack Iran. They retaliate, THEN we declare war on Iran. What we do at that point I can't say, but we (Bush) will insist on calling it one if for no other than political considerations. By using the word "war" he feels free from traditional Constitutional restraints.
Click to expand...

Ouch. Hopefully it won't come to that, but these days, it's hard to doubt that kind of possibility/probability.
Click to expand...

Agree its hard to tell what will happen. Especially when you throw in all the doublespeak by congress, they probably would authorize funds for an invasion. Of course it will be all Bush's fault they do this, but still.
Click to expand...

Heh, no doubt. As much as I'm agonized over Bush's blunders, congress has had it's hands in the problems from the word go, and it comes from both sides of the aisle in SPADES.
 
I don?t think Bush wants to invade Iran though, to expensive and risky.

What we can do is bomb them from 60,000 feet ala Kosovo war and decimate their military.

Now if Iran wants a war they can start launching missiles at us in Iraq. That might do some damage until we can destroy enough of their launch centers and such. But long term they can?t ?win? a war like that. And if Iran was really stupid they could try to attack our forces on the ground in Iraq, but that would be suicide. The second their military moved out into the open our air power would eliminate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top