Hillary Has Zero Chance of Being Elected

[Caladan 19]

I think we'll invade Iran and the electorate will go 'well, maybe a woman wouldn't make us look tough enough to terrorists' (even though many other countries have managed to have female heads of state.)

But I think HRC would have a tough time of it anyway. She isn't a great Democratic candidate, she's just as much an authoritarian as this crowd, and the right wing has had twenty years of target practice. It's sort of fun to watch them wet their pants over it, but I think it'll end up sinking her because the middle 5% the Dems need to swing might be swayed a little.

Also, anyone who fouled up health care so badly should NOT get another go at it.

[no name 1]

I think we'll invade Iran and the electorate will go 'well, maybe a woman wouldn't make us look tough enough to terrorists' (even though many other countries have managed to have female heads of state.)

Or we'll invade Iran & Americans will finally say ENOUGH. Change of power.

Edited September 14, 2007 by devilette

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think we'll invade Iran and the electorate will go 'well, maybe a woman wouldn't make us look tough enough to terrorists' (even though many other countries have managed to have female heads of state.)

Or we'll invade Iran & Americans will finally say ENOUGH. Change of power.

I doubt there will be an invasion - certainly not before the Iraq issue is resolved. Given than there is no 'end date' in sight - it seems a very unlikely prospect. For reasons of simple practicality - without bringing back the draft they simply don't have the troop numbers to mount an effective assault, not to mention the additional cost of financing. And of course Iran has a far larger and stronger military than Iraq did in 2003. No question that the US could overpower them - but they'd suffer significant casualties, and they'd be doing it alone. I can't see the US' staunchest allies backing another unilateral mission - given the beating they've taken from their own electorate.

I'm sure there are some gung-ho, kill-crazy types in government who would much like an excuse to blow up more stuff, but I don't they can rely on milking 9/11 as a means to gain support for it.

My guess - if they do 'attack' it will be small scale - the usual aerial bombing of 'key targets'. More than likely however - they'll resort to diplomacy and sanctions.

[William33 110]

I think we'll invade Iran and the electorate will go 'well, maybe a woman wouldn't make us look tough enough to terrorists' (even though many other countries have managed to have female heads of state.)

Or we'll invade Iran & Americans will finally say ENOUGH. Change of power.

I doubt there will be an invasion - certainly not before the Iraq issue is resolved. Given than there is no 'end date' in sight - it seems a very unlikely prospect. For reasons of simple practicality - without bringing back the draft they simply don't have the troop numbers to mount an effective assault, not to mention the additional cost of financing. And of course Iran has a far larger and stronger military than Iraq did in 2003. No question that the US could overpower them - but they'd suffer significant casualties, and they'd be doing it alone. I can't see the US' staunchest allies backing another unilateral mission - given the beating they've taken from their own electorate.

I'm sure there are some gung-ho, kill-crazy types in government who would much like an excuse to blow up more stuff, but I don't they can rely on milking 9/11 as a means to gain support for it.

My guess - if they do 'attack' it will be small scale - the usual aerial bombing of 'key targets'. More than likely however - they'll resort to diplomacy and sanctions.

I was in agreement with you, until the highlighted point. If this scenario were to occur, the retaliatory backlash would be unprecedented. Iran is not Iraq; and thinking back to the “Iran hostage crisis”, when Iran had a stranglehold on the US, the Iranians may still feel that they are invincible. Some believe that the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, was one of the radical students intimately involved in the Embassy overrun and hostage crisis.

Covert action would be appropriate in this particular case. For example, The US funding of an insurgency to unseat Ahmadinejad. This strategy has worked well in the past.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Covert action would be appropriate in this particular case. For example, The US funding of an insurgency to unseat Ahmadinejad. This strategy has worked well in the past.

You mean like against Castro and Chavez?

[almaty 19]

Covert action would be appropriate in this particular case. For example, The US funding of an insurgency to unseat Ahmadinejad. This strategy has worked well in the past.

You mean like against Castro and Chavez?

worked great in chile...but failed in allot of places..

[Dan J 277]

Covert action would be appropriate in this particular case. For example, The US funding of an insurgency to unseat Ahmadinejad. This strategy has worked well in the past.

You mean like against Castro and Chavez?

worked great in chile...but failed in allot of places..

Yes we have used it against democratically elected leaders too. So much for our value of democracy

It will be pretty obvious who is behind any action. So even covert actions will generate a backlash.

[William33 110]

Covert action would be appropriate in this particular case. For example, The US funding of an insurgency to unseat Ahmadinejad. This strategy has worked well in the past.

You mean like against Castro and Chavez?

The information that is available to the public, typically highlights the failures of the Intelligence community. However, there are numerous examples of US funded insurgencies that worked.

For one, The US funded Muslim mujahideen insurgency against Soviet occupation.

Most success stories are classified. With nearly 20 years of insight, having held a high level security clearance, trust me when I say that this action will "most likely" work. No plan is foolproof.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

For one, The US funded Muslim mujahideen insurgency against Soviet occupation.

Yes, and we all know how our support of the mujahideen and their offspring (the Taliban) turned out, don't we?

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

When I was living in Russia for a year, with my fiancée, everyone there was thinking she not only will win, but will win by a big margin. But, yes, this is present thought. We are still a year away and a lot can happen in a year.

[William33 110]

For one, The US funded Muslim mujahideen insurgency against Soviet occupation.

Yes, and we all know how our support of the mujahideen and their offspring (the Taliban) turned out, don't we?

Taliban? Yeah right.

Origin of the perps:

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

UAE

Lebanon

Stop reading Wiki and listen to those that were in the middle of it, with factual information. Or not, your choice.

Speculation sucks.

Edited September 15, 2007 by William33

[Dan J 277]

For one, The US funded Muslim mujahideen insurgency against Soviet occupation.

Yes, and we all know how our support of the mujahideen and their offspring (the Taliban) turned out, don't we?

Taliban? Yeah right.

Origin of the perps:

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

UAE

Lebanon

Stop reading Wiki and listen to those that were in the middle of it, with factual information. Or not, your choice.

Speculation sucks.

I think he was implying that our actions over time in the middle east created the environment that lead to 9/11.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Taliban created a sanctuary for al Qaeda.

When we asked the Taliban to hand over Osama, they refused. Said he was their "guest". That's why we had to invade.

Am I the only one who remembers this???

[William33 110]

For one, The US funded Muslim mujahideen insurgency against Soviet occupation.

Yes, and we all know how our support of the mujahideen and their offspring (the Taliban) turned out, don't we?

Taliban? Yeah right.

Origin of the perps:

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

UAE

Lebanon

Stop reading Wiki and listen to those that were in the middle of it, with factual information. Or not, your choice.

Speculation sucks.

I think he was implying that our actions over time in the middle east created the environment that lead to 9/11.

Perhaps, considering Afghanistan. Iraq was not a party to that action.

[William33 110]

The Taliban created a sanctuary for al Qaeda.

When we asked the Taliban to hand over Osama, they refused. Said he was their "guest". That's why we had to invade.

Am I the only one who remembers this???

First of all, that covert action, pushed the Russian's out many years back. This is a perfectly highlighted example of US Intelligence community success.

Fast forward, the Taliban took over and hosted terrorist training activity. Were we required to continually “police" that state going forward? Nope.

Did they later host terrorist camps? Yep.

We cleaned it up though, later on. We still have problems there.

This is an apples and oranges comparison, considering the nearly 20 year gap.

Iraq? This is a completely different issue.