Other Post Media Speculation

[Zofo]

Having read the puff and verbiage spouted by a lot of the "better quality" papers there seems to be a disturbing viewpoint that, to quote a lady from the American Enterprise Institute, Danielle Pletka, that Iran would not go away "force might be the only option" - nor would North Korea.
A lot of the papers lead with the Republican victory in the elections but the smaller columns, leaders and opinion sections tend to concentrate on these areas.
Here then is the question...having defeated the Taliban, arrived at a temporary impasse in Iraq, does President Bush have the balls, the money and indeed the support to go along and start shoving other people about?
For our US friends who are more than likely in the know or have a clearer understanding of this, what is the answer? Brits and everyone else, weigh in!

 

[Bombardier]

I dont think it would be a question of balls, more a question of without the full support of the UN, the USA would not have enough voluntary manpower to engage either of these two countries in combat. with that in mind, unless north korea and iran make some aggresive move against the UN and/or the USA I just dont think it will happen...........yet?.

 

[Zofo]

Bomber, you got it right by "balls". would he have the neck to do something that I am sure absolutely no one would support anywhere! Let alone the UN etc (which is pretty much a rubber stamp organisation now anyway after USA/UK ran roughshod over it 2 years ago).
Both N. Korea and Iran, on the face of it have done more to antagonise USA than ever Saddam did with his ficticious WMD. It was not so much the intelligence organisations whose facts where wrong, it was the political manipulation and "spin" given to it by politicians who created the furore.

 

[drywall]

Hi guys,
Mind if I throw in my 2 cents?

Media speculation is exactly as the word implies, speculation. In the just concluded election, the media exit polls made it look like a Kerry landslide victory was in the making. The big media outlets here are losing a lot of their credibilty with the average American. That being said, nobody knows what the futere holds. And there is no talk of either NK or Iran right now.

 

[Zofo]

Welcome back DW! Always glad to get your input!
I missed much of the election speculation as I was tucked up in my pit (bed) but I take on board what you say!
I've been on a couple of sites and these "speculations" are rife as it were. The trouble is with these sorts of rumours is that these ones do not tend to go away!

 

[drywall]

Hi Z, thanks for the welcome. I have been kinda quiet lately haven't I.

Don't read too much into what I say. I don't have anything other than my own opinions and observations. And I tend be skeptical of the press and the TV newscasts. They don't seem to be as objective as they used to be.

I think we should wander over to the bunker, what do you think.

 

[Zofo]

With luck, I'll see you there!

 

[rotorwash]

My friends tell me that the funnest part of the entire night was watching Dan Rather's face go from jubilation at about 4 PM to downright dejection at midnight. I don't know, I was watching Fox.

I did find an interesting analysis on a website named ORBAT.com edited by an Indian (from India, not a Native American) by the name of Ravi Rikhye living in Washington D.C. I will post it here for your perusal.

I hope you find it interesting.

One aspect is good for our non-US friends to examine. Many non-Americans and many Americans – get upset because the US is not a direct democracy. Let the majority prevail, what could be fairer than that?
· The thing is, those Founding Fathers had an uncanny understanding of the future. Majority rule is also tyrannical rule. The Fathers were careful to balance the needs of the majority with the needs of the minority. That is why the US has remained united, with the exception of the Civil War. If you will look at the red-blue electoral maps, you will be amazed at how wide the red (Republican) area is. To let New York and California decide how the rest of the country must live because these states together have a population much greater than most of the red states aggregated, would mean disaster. Look at what has happened in so much of the world because it follows the majority rule and the minorities won’t accept that. Think about it – and certainly those Americans who want to change to majority rule need to think about it. Its going to get terribly lonely for the US North East, New York, Florida, California and a few other states if they rule by majority and the minority doesn’t accept it.


Readers will know the US Electoral College vote hangs on Ohio with its 20 votes. Mr. Bush has, of course, won the popular vote by a clear margin, but it is the electoral vote that counts. The popular vote is nonetheless reflected in the gains made by the already dominant Republicans in the Senate and the House, because these seats, as is the case for other elected offices, is decided by majority vote
· Provisional ballots were introduced in 2002 to avoid a 2000 repeat. If a voter’s name is not on the rolls for her precinct where she is registered, she can file a provisional vote. After verification she is indeed registered but due to a glitch her name was not on the precinct roll, her vote is counted. Else it is rejected. This process, understandably, takes time.
· The editor’s youngest had to cast a provisional ballot in his first ever opportunity to vote after coming of age. Fortunately, he had proper identification plus a letter from the authorities saying they had been informed by a government agency that he had registered.
· Provisional ballots need not be counted. Presuming that your editor’s boy cast his vote for an independent candidate, as he is registered as an Independent, his vote for his candidate will not be counted. No independent had any chance of winning anyway.
· We explain this for the benefit of our overseas readers who might wonder what the fuss about the provisional ballots in Ohio. In theory, the provisional ballots, if all have been cast for Mr. Kerry, could give him Ohio. Now, this is unlikely to happen because many provisional ballots will have been cast for Mr. Bush, and many others will be ruled as improperly cast. But it could theoretically happen, which is why Mr. Kerry is pushing the issue.
· There is another problem. In some of the precincts that voted for Mr. Kerry, the old punch card system is still used. So a recount could show that some ballots counted by hand that were rejected or counted as not for Mr. Kerry could be given to him. The process of verifying each ballot by hand can take several days. But the process can cut both ways: Mr. Bush would also gain votes, as every contested card cannot be for Mr. Kerry.
· Legal challenges could extend the uncertainty. The Democrats would be taking a big risk, however. If they still lose Ohio, they will be in trouble with Mrs. Jane Q Public, because the process is by its nature contentious and mean-spirited, and Americans are fed up after Florida 2000.
· That vote fiasco made America a bit of a laughing stock worldwide. The truth of the matter is, however, that given the size of the vote – second largest in the world – it is astonishing the extent to which the Americans go to ensure that every vote is counted properly.
· Usually imperfections in the vote process do not affect the outcome because the vote is clearly in one candidate’s favor and no amount of recounts is going to change that. These flaws are normal worldwide. And there is no moral law that permits a voter to say: “I’m stupid or uneducated, I thought I was voting for Mr. Kerry even though my card shows I voted for Mr. Bush”. The punch card system is actually quite accurate, and democracy presupposes a duty on the voter’s part to educate herself on the machine’s use. There is plenty of help available at each station in case anyone is confused.
· In general, our non-American readers should note that Mr. Bush has won the popular vote because “moral values” do matter to the majority of Americans. Had a less controversial person stood in place of Mr. Bush, using the same simple “moral values” appeal, he would have won hands down. Foreigners think America is the west and east coasts. Your editor has to explain to Americans in the Washington area that this is not so. The majority of Americans are pious and social conservatives. They have had it with the “morals values are relative” approach of secular people, and they voted for Mr. Bush.
· Fareed Zakaria, the Newsweek editor who is South Asian, is absolutely right when on ABC-TV he noted that when it comes to religion, Americans are right there with Saudi Arabia. This scares the daylights out of the Europeans, who tend to be secular. Mr. Bush really, really frightens Europeans and the elites of the 3rd world when he uses a moral values framework through which to view the world. But lets not blame Mr. Bush: he merely espouses the values of most Americans.
· As for should we worry about what America values, keep this in mind. America is a huge conglomeration of peoples from every part of the globe. So is it that most of the world actually believes in moral values or is it that moral values people tend to migrate to America?
· And if one wants to be really frightened, what if the majority of America is right, that really truly, God, patriotism, modesty, chastity, fidelity, etc etc is what matters? What if secularists (your editor is a secular pantheist) are simply wrong in saying: I have my moral values, you have yours, and lets leave it at that, because this process becomes a race for the bottom, to the point there are no values? Can civilization still continue?
· Your editor has no answers. Nonetheless, the world has to get used to the idea that America is a religious country. And the fight against the “terrorists” is a true crusade, not against Islam itself, but against its fundamentalists. Americans may be socially conservative, but they are still tolerant of different beliefs – there would be no America otherwise. There are few fundamentalists in the sense of Islamic fundamentalists. And also nonetheless, it is becoming ever clearer Islamist fundamentalists only use the guise of religion to force the world into their vision of correctness, one that would bring us all back to the values of the medieval world. And the reason they want this is, they cannot compete in the modern world, so they want the world to change so that they would be the honchos. Talk about losers.

 

[rotorwash]

After that long post let me bore you some more on the strategy side of the issue.

Iran and NK have been antagonistic but under the present situation they are neither one worrisome. I think in the future you will see US troops pulled out of S Korea. If perchance the N Koreans were to invade the South, even using nukes, their striking capability is negligible. Within 48 hours we could return some 14,000 pinpoint strikes delivered with relative impunity. This is much more economical then an infantry division, particularily when the S Koreans are so capable. A second factor about N Korea is that stronger economic relations with China undermine any war like rhetoric of N Korea. If you notice, they are always trying to trade something for not developing their weapons program.

One rational for controling Afganistan is to isolate Pakistan from the extreme Muslims. Pakistan has nukes and by squeezing them between Afghanistan and India (who has had their own problems with Islam) the nukes are kept out of the equation. Osama can hide in the hills till Hell freezes over, he is largely a non player, only the media can't get that. Funny how quickly your fortress becomes your prison.

Taking Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with oil and a lot to do with isolating Iran. Iraq is no longer a threat to Saudi Arabia, the Jordanians, Syria and Iran now have two fronts to worry about. Look at it this way, we now have two big feet planted in the middle of the Muslim world. To a people that understand nothing but a big stick this is intimidating and it makes them mad as hell, thus Iraq becomes an insurgent magnet. This is cool, gather together all ye fools wishing to die for your cause, we will accomodate you and when our kill ratios are better then a hundred to one, it eventually gets difficult to recruit, ask al Sadr. He's having trouble convincing his militia Allah has made them invincible.

One more note about Iran, With the Shiite centers of power in Iraq having to bow to governmental authority, the Shiite power shifts to Iran. They don't care about Iraq, but they do care about being top dog in the Shiite world. The Iranians know full well that we could hit North Korea hard one day and a week later smack them with the same stick. We would not bother to invade, we would just let them march in the streets burning American flags, they would be largely impotent. Don't be fooled by their talk, listen to their words behind the rhetoric and assess their capabilities. Never try to guess what an opponent will do, just be aware of what he has the capability of doing.

One thing Bush will not do is let the media set the victory terms for the war. They do not understand that you don't win an insurgent war the same way conventional wars are won, you must be in the insurgents face when he wakes, when he eats and when he sleeps. The way to know if you are winning is by where he attacks you. No more attacks in the US, decreasing attacks in Europe, more attacks in Iraq probably means he has trouble reaching any farther then down the street.

As for the UN, they have never done anything successfully, and being located in New York City, we Americans have a front row seat to the collective stupidity. We know we can't trust our security to that organization. We would end up like the refugees in Chad.

Sorry if I rambled on and was tedious. Any questions?

Rotorwash

Rotorwash

 

[Bombardier]

we would just let them march in the streets burning American flags, they would be largely impotent. Don't be fooled by their talk, listen to their words behind the rhetoric and assess their capabilities. Never try to guess what an opponent will do, just be aware of what he has the capability of doing.

Regarding the above quote, is this based on their "Military" strength or their strength of resolve to cause havoc amongst the west?. What Im trying to say is that we 'the British' know from experience that a small yet well organised group of people can cause havoc within a larger more strategically powerful force. Take for instance the IRA, they were a small force but always found unique ways to kick us up the arse in NI and the UK mainland. Also consider the effect that smaller more specialised forces like the SAS had on Hitler during the 2nd WW. Allied forces would be tied to Iraq for an eternity. Back to the hearts and minds Campaign me thinks?.

Just thinking out loud!
Great post buddy and I like the the philosophy about being in Iraq and the threat from NK. Good stuff army;

 

[rotorwash]

Good point Bomber, but I'll have to respond when I get back from work.

Have a good one.

 

[rotorwash]

Sorry for letting it hang Bomber. This work stuff is getting tedious man, I've got to retire.

In NI you guys were like we are in Iraq, tromping on what they considered was their turf. The key to getting Iran's attention is not to put troops on the ground but hit them with the long punch. If you don't put troops on the ground they don't have anybody to shoot at, the cement that holds them together, and being Arabs, will start fighting among themselves.

Like many third world countries they think that every citizen as a capable motivated dedicated soldier and reality says it ain't so. Look at the Mercs of EO in Africa in the 80's, Sierra Leone wasn't it?

Iran does have some conventional military capability, but so far the apex of their achievements has been some hang on ballistic armor for T-72's. The have also mass produced their own tank using parts from old Russian and American tanks, the road wheels look suspiciously like an M-48.

I was in Isfahan in the 70's (probably not supposed to say that) and had two very good friends there. I only hope they jumped on the "hate America" bandwagon, survived the Iran-Iraq War and have lived to bounce their grandchildren on their knees. I apologize Zofo, I think I lied to you and said I had never been to that part of the world.

More to think about on Iran: I think they are playing the EU for time and position and to keep the US off their backs, I don't think they will stop planning bombs. And what if they are not making a uranium bomb but a plutonium one? Then all this talk about enriched uranium is crap.

Want some more sobering thoughts? If the EU fails with Iran that leaves just the US, because if Iran builds a bomb, Israel (or the EU) is the target and if Israel feels threatened, they will take the Iranian program out and then what happens?

By the way, I heard a good one the other day, the French quietly asked the US for help in the Ivory Coast. Seems none of the EU members are in a position to help them. Last I heard was, we are still thinking (or laughing) about it.

As for the US and UN, don't expect the US to ever EVER get involved in a UN operation unless we completely run it. Most Americans would like to see the UN moved off our soil, say to Haiti. We provide the majority of the money yet most of the rhetoric is anti-American. They come to our country yet have diplomatic immunity where our laws are concernced. Except for a few remaining Massachusets liberals, we hate that organization. To understand our position, just imagine if England had allowed the UN to run the Falklands operation. Let's see, there will be a Russian in overall command, one brigade commander will be Indonesian, another from Chile. Air support will be controlled by an Angolan, naval command by a Turk. But of course, the people who do the fighting will be British. Of course, there won't actually be any fighting, the Argentinians will be talked into leaving. Get the picture?

Well hell, lets just rewind Benny Hill for the sixteenth time and settle down with a good cup of coffee now that we've solved the problems of the world.

RW

 

[Zofo]

Don't worry about your slight fib about not being in this part of the world - I hate to say it but I was in this country too - not where you were but in Khormshar - Abadan to be nearly precise - oil etc!

A point to note on your Iran piece, it seems they have stopped their nuc enrichment programme http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031055.stm

I enjoyed reading your posts, instructive and, in the case of the politics, is this a form of proportional representation? It seems this way.

I can't really get back at you because I tend to agree with what you've put (makes a bit of a change!) so I'll have to wait for something really sneaky!