Originally posted by NGC2736
I don't know how many people here changed schools as a youngster, but I did it regularly. The new kid is always pushed some just to establish the pecking order. Other nations, and leaders, do the exact same thing to each new American leader that emerges when they have little history on him. Sooner or later the test comes.
With the limited amount of political history the world has on Obama, someone will step up and take a swing, of some sort, to measure his willingness to be firm. It is true that McCain might not face exactly that same testing, as most nations would expect him to act/react in the same manner as W has for the last eight years.
I am heartened to see that the Obama team has the foresight to recognize that such a thing is coming. It speaks well for our future that such thoughts and possibilities run through the minds of those responsible for framing a response.
And it is also a fact that the government runs such scenarios in "think tanks" all the time. Being mentally prepared for a wide variety of possibilities is not only prudent, but failure to consider such things is what the present administration has used as an excuse for the total lack of a plan when 9/11 happened.
I personally would rather our leaders expect trouble and be ready, than to do a double take and look shocked when TSHTF.
Glenn Beck was ALL OVER this on his show today (btw, he was immediately pulled off the air at CNN Headline when news broke last Thursday he's going to FNC -- said he'll now be at Fox in January, right after the election).
This morning he warned his listeners that ObamaBiden & Co. are softening the proletariat for a further weakening of our rights with the next "crisis", real or manufactured. And the Fairness Doctrine will be among the first to be implemented to quell any opposition to their "crisis-related" anti-Constitutional clamp down.
Beck predicts that when the federal power seizing begins, some individual states will recognize the out of control power grab and when that happens... look out. Urged his listeners to read the Constitution, know the founding principles. Critical that we understand what needs to be protected. Because the time is coming when they'll try to take them away -- and Biden's speech this weekend is the warning.
"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
So basically, 4 or 5 scenarios that have been brewing whilst Bush has been in office will come to fruition in the near future, after the election and when Bush is swinging on his tyre somewhere and out of the office?
It's bound to be some sorry # that's about to hit the fan as Bush leaves a pretty crap legacy behind him with foreign relations all over the place and the country's economy gone to pot.
So, when the new guy is handed the broom to clean up - like the new guy is always handed the broom as they got elected on the promise of cleaning up - but the mess looks to be bigger than people realised, people are going to be pointing the finger at the new guy for not sweeping fast enough or hard enough?
What do people expect, that he really is Superman or something?
[edit on 20-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]
Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by TheRooster
I also just don't see how this could be viewed as a good thing here.
Basically Biden is admitting that we are going to have hard times under Obama, and things won't be as peachy and bright as they have said. We will have to deal with the world "testing" this young, inexperienced man if he wins.
We won't have that with McCain though will we?
And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
This is a movie that needs to be seen by everyone now. A fascist dictatorship takes over the country in an "election" when everyone is scared by events. No longer called the president, he is now "The Leader" (which is what Der Fuhrer means) and has taken emergency powers voted in by a panicked Congress (a la' The PATRIOT ACT) and has created a Gestapo called the Internal Security Force (Homeland Security). People can't pass from one part of the country to another without an internal passport, a la' the old Soviet Union (and the proposed national ID cards now). A small resistance called the Society of Man learns from a patriotic Air Force colonel that the INF is going to launch terrorist attacks to blame on the resistance to take even more control and erode public support for the Society of Man. No wander this movie is never shown on tv and isn't available on VHS
Originally posted by star in a jar
Well to punish voters for voting for Obama, I can't imagine a better way to punish voters by hassling Obama with a generated crisis.
Think about if for a moment. Who has the most to lose if Obama is elected?
Wealthy people. People like TPTB.
How will they make Obama look weak or incompetent? They generate a crisis.
That prince is highly esteemed who conveys this impression of himself, and he who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for, provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty. For this reason a prince ought to have two fears, one from within, on account of his subjects, the other from without, on account of external powers.
Originally posted by nyk537
Israel depends on a strong President to stand by them in the looming face of nuclear Iran. I think with Obama in the White House, Israel would feel the need to be more proactive and go after Iran's nuclear facilities themselves. The threat then of a war between the two countries is very, very real.
If that were to happen, we would have Obama, the same man who fought so fiercely for defeat in Iraq, would be faced with 3 active wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.
Originally posted by roadgravel
Why, if Israel attacks Iran, does it automatically become a US war? I am sure there are those who would want the US to jump in but want and do are two different things. Could it be that the 'believed wrong action' that proves to be the correct decision is the US not jumping in against Iran.