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.

Being prepared for an incident is fine. I agree with you. Telling the people of the United States that within 6 months something WILL happen is telling the people that we know something is going to happen and that we are going to let it happen so we can see what Obama is made of.

As far as expecting trouble so as not to looked shocked when "TSHTF". I would expect anyone of us prepared or not to look shocked for a few seconds if something as horrible as 9/11 happened to us (and we all did have a look of shock on our faces). After all we all are human, including the POTUS.

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]

Yup its been brewing for years. Bush just kept it patched together. The latest was the bailout. Not nearly enough.
Its going to take a good 2 years (if things last that long) to get our # back in order. People are going to hate Obama just as they did Clinton when he first was in office.
But one thing you have to consider. Being elected the first black man in office....Obama has a lot to prove. If he fails its not going to look good for blacks and the presidency.

This is either the first installment of the O'Bama administration's fear-mongering campaign, or an admission of a self fulfilled prophecy, that Biden intends to stick his foot in his mouth on a global scale.

Yes thats a pretty bizaree statement comming from him,what gives it credence is that Colin Powell made the same statement,sounds like they know something they aren't making public,typical case of keeping the citizens like mushrooms,keep them in the dark and feed them crap

Treat them like a mushroom until the mushroom clouds bloom, as it were.

In all seriousness though, I expect that if Obama wins Israel will attack Iran within days of the election before Bush is out of office just to ensure that Iran will (hopefully) not have any nuclear capability during Obama's time in office.

I feel that perhaps that is what he was truly alluding to - either that or Russia might decide to pick back up a couple of wayward islands from Japan and US in the northern seas.

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.

Who has the power to generate a crisis? TPTB.

What do they hope to accomplish? They hope to establish the reality that Obama is a failure as a president by generating crisis after crisis to weaken his standing or prestige as president. They did it with Kennedy, a Democratic President with the Cuban missile crisis, for example.

They can do it through the military, the banks, the police, because they have the money.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by star in a jar]

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.

I hear what you're saying, but it's his own running mate doing the warning, does Joe have a vested interest in BHO's failure? You may be on to something here...

The very election of Obama is a crisis...

So what kind of Nostradamusesque prediction is this anyway?



Biden...

Just wants to be the next LBJ anyway...

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.

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.

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.

I certainly don't feel that way. I feel if they attack while Bush is still in office he will do a laissez-faire "Oh I am a lame duck and can't really do anything" and let Israel take care of business.

In an Obama style thing, I would see them stepping in on the side of Iran and pressing for sanctions against Israel which the rest of the UN would quickly back.

the excuse of economic colapse and the Inability to do anything about it has already been implemented.

Isreal fights alone... this is a done deal, we will have to withdraw due to our own issues and when Isreal fires nukes... we get the remainders of those we oppose devestated, probably havoc in Russia too because if it asists or aids against Isreal it..will never be a super power again...


always I say... who is geting the oil, who benefits from this scenario the most? who's puppet are we really in seeing to it the "silk/oil road" between China and Europe is complete, the mideast and Russia fall?

China

It is highly convienient that the whole mideast is softened for a real inasion to "secure Peace/Oil" and that Iran, Russia and Isreal blow nukes...

as we have, paid for chinas rise, supplied it the oil, softened the region, set this all up, bough tons of thier crappy merchandise

all as our economy fails and we go into a place where... we have to withdraw and have every reason in the world (on paper) to have to back out of the whole situation...

very convienient... very convieninet indeed

only question I have is what the real deal is with Russia, does it take a few Isreal Nukes and China stands the region in as the main body of UN peace keepers... OR, does it occupy in alliance with China

I'm guessing the first...

But USA involved...

no, no, no... our own personal troubles appear at the very right moment now to assure we don't face down those who wil really wear the Blue UN turbans in the region after the Nukes fly

We will sacrifice Isreal to accomplish our goals, been the plan for decades