PostHeaderIcon Waiting and Wondering

I find myself with little comment to offer as we all watch the worldwide political circus, waiting for shoes to start dropping, yet compelled to say something.

The center ring of our circus is the GOP race for the presidential nomination, eventually to be replaced by the general election which promises even more all-star performances.

In ring 1 we have the European Union, desperately trying to find a way to avoid the inevitable collapse of socialism,

While in ring 3 we have Iran… well, being Iran.

Once again, I will try to gather my fading analytical skills and prognosticate.

→ In the United States, the selection of a GOP candidate is beside the point because Obama is going to stay in power. A sitting president, especially one who is half way toward being a dictator, simply has too many options for manipulating world events to favor his continuation in office. For sure, Jimmy Carter blew his big chance for manipulation with the Iran hostage crisis – but, while Carter was an incompetent, he was not essentially evil. That is not the case in the current situation.

→ In the European Union, they will “kick the can” down the road as long as possible. Yet, this is not an endless road. At the end of this road, the only option seems to be a wiping clean of the financial slate, an action usually accomplished by a general war.

→ Iran seems determined on war for reasons that are not clear to any sane person. I see it as inevitable that a) Iran will complete its first nuke and lob it toward Israel, or, b) Israel will see this coming in time and will try to blow up Iran first. Or, maybe Iran will provoke the war it seeks by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz. Either way, a fuse will have been lit.

In summary, there are lots of powers with lots of reasons to want/need to blow up other powers. With ringmaster Obama in center ring, manipulating his way toward a dictatorship, how can he resist getting the United States involved in World War III? This is a proven method for gaining/retaining power, used with great personal success by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt, two of Obama’s mentors.

Bottom line, the most likely scenario at the moment seems to be a general conflagration, starting around mid-2012, so that, at a minimum, the United States will be either on a total war footing and/or under martial law by the time the general election would have been held.

The way this is all coming together, one has to wonder if those old Mayans weren’t onto something after all. However, I still reject this. As I have said before, mankind may well destroy itself but the Earth has been through far worse than anything we puny creatures can cause and it came out of them just fine.

End of ramble. Never in my life have I been so eager to be mistaken.

Troy L Robinson

9 Responses to “Waiting and Wondering”

  • ◄Dave► says:

    It is hard to argue with your analysis, Troy; but I will try… It is not really an argument, but an addition. The war footing we will be under, here in America, will be a civil war. There are just too many Patriots who are now awake and expecting the martial law ploy. Another 1.5 million individuals went through the background check to purchase at least one new gun for Christmas, and ammunition sales are still through the roof. Any attempt to impose martial law, whatever the pretext, is going to get very bloody.

    Even if our troops fall in line and obey the Obamunist’s orders, they are woefully outnumbered by veterans, who have not forgotten how to shoot. The moment they start trying to confiscate weapons or round up Patriots, anywhere in the country, for whatever reason, shame on anyone caught in public wearing a military uniform. That is an utterly distasteful thought; but that is just how it is going to have to be, like it or not. I feel sorry for the kids who have been brainwashed with altruistic collectivism, authoritarianism, and the absolute requirement to follow orders, but Liberty cannot perish on our watch without a damn good fight. ◄Dave►

    • Troy says:

      Dave, You are probably right about a civil war. Then we may well find ourselves in the dilemma faced by the Russians in WW I when they, at the same time, had an army engaged in the field and a revolution brewing at home. Obviously, one consequence was a collapse of the fighting forces in the war. Not sure what that would mean to us since we share no land boundaries with those most likely to be at war with us — plus, none of the combatants in WW I followed up on the Russian collapse by invading the nation. For sure, it would mean the loss of our overseas empire but I could live with that. Of course, there may be a good side to being in a major foreign conflict when the civil war starts — there would be fewer military forces initially available to the government to counter the civil unrest.

      The darkest scenario of all would be an all-out nuclear exchange between the big powers, but surely none of the major powers are that insane because such an exchange would produce only losers.

      Thinking more about Iran… could it be that their leaders might actually be willing to sacrifice their nation in the name of eliminating Israel? Could they (the leaders) actually be so drunk on Allah that they would expect some celestial reward that would justify such madness?

      It seems awful to admit it — but — a good civil war might be just what our nation needs to cull the herd and get back to honest business. But, that is much easier to think when one is nearing the end of life anyway.

      We each have our theories but most everybody who is truly paying attention seems certain the dung is about to hit the whirligig one way or another.

      Troy

      • ◄Dave► says:

        No, I am not worried about the MAD scenario between the big powers, for the same reason; but you are correct to suspect otherwise regarding Iran. They absolutely would start one if they are allowed to acquire a nuke. Their apocalyptic end-times prophesy is very similar to the Christians, except instead of the battle of Armageddon commencing after JC returns, they think they must start it before their ‘twelfth imam’, the Maddi, can return. It is insanity to even consider allowing one of these suicidal fools anywhere near the button. This naivety is my biggest reservation regarding Ron Paul.

        Yes, we lived in the best of times, and it is a blessing that we won’t be here to see the final death rattle of our terminal republic. I still think my “Divided States of America” strategy, of just letting it die so we can start over, is the best option, rather than civil war; but we don’t have any power to affect in what manner the fertilizer hits the ventilator. ◄Dave►

  • Troy says:

    The idea of two competing sub-nations within a United States, one free-market capitalist and the other progressive would certainly be something to behold as it would prove, once and for all, which approach leads to greater liberty and prosperity for the largest portion of the population. However, getting there would require considerably more rationality than exists.

    Dare we hope that the dust from a civil war might settle in such fashion?

    Troy

    • ◄Dave► says:

      I can’t imagine it being resolved any other way, Troy; but to be accurate, I was not advocating two ‘sub-nations’ within one ‘United States.’ I was suggesting that the disintegration of the current federal government would result in 50 individual sovereign nations, which would then probably create at least two (but likely more) new federations on a regional basis. Their commonality would then simply be their sharing of the North American continent, nothing political – unless they eventually decided to enter into treaties with each other. ◄Dave►

      • Troy says:

        Dave, I fully understand what you are advocating, and, if we existed in a vacuum, it would seem a great idea. The problem I see with a total and sudden disintegration is that the 50 new republics might look like easy pickings to our enemies. Indeed, I am not even comfortable that our enemies would sit idly by while we hash out a good civil war.

        I know not how, but somehow our national defense has to stay mostly intact during whatever turmoil we must go through. For instance, were we to attempt somehow to distribute our military capability, especially the nuclear portion of it, to the states, what would keep the more corrupt/more desperate states from using these resources against other states in a civil war?

        One potential answer I can imagine would be for our collapse to be part of a general, worldwide collapse.

        Another potential answer, the one I personally favor, is a rather quick overthrow of our government followed by some severe housecleaning. Yet, it would seem that only our military is capable of such an action and I am not sure they can be trusted either.

        This is the dilemma we always face when we seek a good way to do a bad thing.

        Troy

      • ◄Dave► says:

        All excellent points, Troy. ◄Dave►

  • Daedalus says:

    “none of the combatants in WW I followed up on the Russian collapse by invading the nation.”
    Britain landed 5000 troops in Archangel in 1919 and was actively involved in trying to overthrow the Bolsheviks.

    Obama may not be with us in 2013. See Fox News Sunday, Jan 22nd, 9PM Eastern.

  • Daedalus says:

    I think I’ve been had. I got an e-mail on a fox expose on O’Bama. I checked the schedule today–nothing at 9E. Sorry about that.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links