BS: War in 2009?

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 10:00 PM

BB--

You seem to be the one who does not enjoy having his chain pulled. I hold to my view that your quote is in fact purple prose of the most entertaining variety.   I salute you for providing it. And I look forward to more.

As Amos points out, we have had "looming international crises" since about 1774.

Which makes the term--you guessed it--meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 06:47 PM

Sure, sure....but one does not really bet for the money, one bets for the satisfaction of being right and saying to the other guy, "There, see? I told you so." ;-)

I know this going right back to my primary school days. It's all about proving the other guy wrong. The money is just to provide some material risk on top of the possibility of humiliation...kind of like putting the cherry on top of the cake. Betting is a game of ego enhancement at the expense of the other guy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 06:14 PM

LH:

"Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:26 PM

Dick-

If I win, the money will not be worth anything.


How would you account for a 30% chance of war? Who decides ( actual discrete value will be either 0 or 100%)?"

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 05:22 PM

There is no way of winning (or losing) a bet that is based on a 30% probability forecast.

Things either happen or they don't. If they do...or if they don't....neither way would prove the initial assertion of a 30% probability.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 03:28 PM

"Sorry, BB, a "looming international crisis"? That sounds an awful lot like a direct quote from "The Headline Writer's Book of Purple Prose"."

Since I did not write it, but merely bring it up in support of my original posting, I fail to see why the style gets you so upset. If the style is to be the sole means by which you judge comments, you had best let others here know that you have established yourself as God, and Amos, Bobert, and others need no longer dare have opinions.



"And I'm afraid you won't be able to convict Obama of dereliction of duty unless Bush turns all his power over to Obama tomorrow."

NOT what I am trying to do- I have stated that there would be an increased chance ( from 10 to 30%) OF A WAR IN WHICH TWO SIDES USED WMD, should the Democratic candidate win this election.

So, LH, the present wars do NOT qualify, and I have not yet "won" my "bet".

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 11:31 AM

We already have war in 2009. Two of them. Both of them launched by George Bush. Both of them unnecessary, in my opinion, and both of them unjustified. Let's hope that we see a beginning to ending them ASAP.

It will be Obama's unpleasant task now to deal with the catastrophic mess that Bush has left him. I wish him the best of luck, because it won't be easy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 10:26 AM

I do so expect. But the truth is, he IS having to gear up to an international crisis. This is not anything new--we're been facing international crises since 1774 almost without let.

A

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 07:39 AM

One thing we now know about Obama, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that he is a visionary. He finds ways of doing things that nobody expects or anticipates. That's how he won the election. Expect him to come up with solutions to foreign policy issues that have not been anticipated by anyone, and don't be surprised if they cause all of the above articulated concerns to simply become non-issues.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 10:29 PM

Sorry, BB, a "looming international crisis"? That sounds an awful lot like a direct quote from "The Headline Writer's Book of Purple Prose".

And I'm afraid you won't be able to convict Obama of dereliction of duty unless Bush turns all his power over to Obama tomorrow.

I'm sure we all agree it would be far better for the country if he did so.

But unfortunately it looks like we're stuck with GWB til January. Perhaps you can convince GWB to go back to Crawford tomorrow for good. Let us know how it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 09:45 PM

Day One: Obama faces a Cold War threat and a warning from Israel
By Joe Murphy
Last updated at 1:39 AM on 07th November 2008


Barack Obama was confronting a looming international crisis just hours after his White House election triumph.

The U.S. President-elect faced a triple threat with Russia, Israel and Afghanistan all threatening to test his mettle.

Locked away in his Chicago home, Mr Obama received his first national security intelligence briefing yesterday as he wrestled with appointments for his Cabinet.
He ventured out twice, once to visit his local gym and then his downtown offices.

Each time he was escorted by a convoy of black vehicles carrying heavily armed secret service agents.

Aides said he planned no public appearances until later in the week.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was first to lay down a challenge to America's new leader - by increasing tension in a stand off reminiscent of the Cold War.
In a provocative speech from the Kremlin, he threatened to base warheads along the Polish border if Mr Obama goes forward with a Bush administration plan to create a missile shield in Eastern Europe.

Then Israel warned last night that the new U.S. Commander-in-Chief's campaign claim that he was ready to open talks with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness.

After eight years of staunch support from President Bush, the Israelis are now watching Mr Obama closely - even though he does not take power until January - looking for indicators as to how he will handle the nuclear threat from Tehran.

'We live in a neighbourhood in which dialogue - in a situation where you have brought sanctions and you then shift to dialogue - is liable to be interpreted as weakness,' said Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni.
Asked if she supported any U.S. talks with Iran, she quickly said: 'The answer is no.'
In a step that will further increase Israel's anxiety about Obama, Tehran announced last night that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had broken a 29-year tradition and sent his congratulations to the President-elect - the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Ahmadinejad congratulated the Democrat on 'attracting the majority of voters in the election'.

He said he hoped Obama will 'use the opportunity to serve the (American) people and leave a good name for history' during his term in office.
Iran and the U.S. have had no formal diplomatic relations since 1979 when militant Iranian students held 52 Americans captive 444 days.
President Bush has repeatedly clashed with Tehran over its nuclear program and its opposition to the U.S.-led invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai demanded that Mr Obama 'put an end to civilian casualties' by changing U.S. military tactics to avoid airstrikes in the war on the Taliban.

He spoke out after seven wedding party guests were accidentally killed by an American airstrike in the southern Kandahar province. Afghan officials said last night 13 gunmen were killed in the attack.
Mr Obama has vowed to switch the U.S. military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and is reportedly planning to ask Britain to send 3,000 extra troops to bolster extra American forces in the region.
But his aides fear a public backlash if he moves swiftly in Afghanistan before acting on his pledge to start a withdrawal from Iraq.

Gordon Brown became one of the first world leaders to congratulate Obama in a ten-minute telephone call last night. Aides said they discussed Obama's plans for a phased withdrawal from Iraq and his commitment to boost forces in Afghanistan.
Speaking from the South Lawn of the White House, President Bush said he would be meeting Mr Obama next week and is making 'unprecedented efforts' to make a smooth transition during his final 74 days in office.

As if the instant foreign policy tests were not enough, Mr Obama was also facing more economic problems with the Dow Jones Index dropping for a second successive day.
Wall Street greeted his election win by plunging nearly 500 points on Wednesday and it was down again by 274 points in afternoon trading.
Enlarge    Regime change: Mr Obama has offered the role of Chief of Staff to controversial Rahm Emanuel in his first selection for the new administration

While new presidents often take weeks before naming their Cabinet, Mr Obama was quick out of the blocks yesterday, offering the chief-of-staff job to tough-talking congressman Rahm Emanuel, a veteran of the Clinton administration, and more appointments are expected next week.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 10:30 PM

Well gee if you caint trust the New York times who can you trust?

Are they lying about what Obama said?

I didn't see you posting all of what Liddy said.

Sides what difference does it make what Mac said. He is out of tha piccure now.

Now we need to shine the big 5000 million candle power spotlight on what Obama and Joe said so we can whup a big impeachment movement. And find some dingba er courageous Barney Firfe type person to whine incessantly about it.

First of all he has pissed away all that money that could have been spent on education for his personal needs.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:17 PM

Come on, Sawz... With the reems and reems of right wingerd blogacrap you post every day, you are tellin' me that you don't have the pudder knowledge to find Biden's complete remarks???

Come on, man... That is bull... Hey, you posted the rightie bull and now it's time to get with the rest of the quote... Dig deeper... It ain't like Holy Grail stuff here... Maybe you could just Google in "Half truthts that McCain has told"... Yeah, that would be a start...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:09 PM

Well Mr Bobert Sir Don't beat me no mo but I can't find it. If you will show me where it is at, I will post it. I don't want no Hillbilly ass whuppin' from you, please.

During my unfruitful search I did find this in the New York Times where O was doing damage control fer Joe:

Obama Chides Biden for "Rhetorical Flourishes"
By Jeff Zeleny

RICHMOND, Va. – With his candidacy already buoyed by how voters believe he would handle the economic crisis, Senator Barack Obama on Wednesday sought to turn the focus of the presidential race back to national security and the threats facing America.

"A period of transition in a new administration is always one where we have to be vigilant, we have to be careful," Mr. Obama said. "We have to be mindful that as we pass the baton in this democracy that others don't take advantage of it – that's true whether it's myself or Senator McCain."

A new line of criticism from the Republican ticket that Mr. Obama is not ready for the presidency has been fueled this week by comments from Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic vice presidential candidate. Mr. Biden told supporters at a Seattle fund-raiser on Sunday that if Mr. Obama were elected, the world's leaders would surely test him as a young American president, just as they did President John F. Kennedy.

Mr. Obama gently chided his running-mate, saying: "I think Joe, sometimes, engages in rhetorical flourishes."

"But I think that his core point is that the next administration is going to be tested, regardless of who it is. The next administration is going to be inheriting a host of really big problems," Mr. Obama said. "The question is will the next president meet that test by moving America in a new direction, by sending a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are no longer about bluster and unilateralism and ideology?"

Mr. Obama said that while the economic crisis has dominated the national conversation, a range of international challenges also faced the next president, so he convened a meeting of his top national security advisers for a briefing here. Mr. Biden joined the closed-door session by telephone from Colorado, where he was campaigning on Wednesday.

Mr. Obama said that he did not convene the meeting of his national security team in response to the criticism that has stirred since Mr. Biden's comments were reported. He said it was simply an appropriate moment for him to receive a briefing about the developments across the globe since the economic crisis dominated the conversation.

"We actually had this planned about two to three weeks ago, and it was prompted by the fact that we focused single-mindedly on the financial crisis," Mr. Obama said. "I think it's very important at a time when we are so focused on the economy – and rightly so – that we not lose sight of the fact that we remain threatened and that there are a whole host of international challenges that we're going to have to deal with."

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said the Obama national security meeting was nothing more than an attempt to gloss over the comments from Mr. Biden.
"It's not leadership for Barack Obama to promise to be straight with Americans, only to dismiss serious statements and concern from his own running mate as simple rhetorical flourishes," Mr. Bounds said in a statement. "Joe Biden guaranteed a generated international crisis if Barack Obama is elected, and a smile-for-the-cameras press conference isn't going to mitigate the risk of an Obama presidency."

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:57 PM

((((Yawn)))

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:36 PM

Cat gotcher tongue, Sawz???

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:58 PM

Still waitin'....

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM

Well, Sawz...

How about finishing the quote???

Yeah, mighty easy to take someone outta context...

So, I challenge you to go back and finish what Biden said...

But you won't because it doesn't fit your little sicko partisan world...

And you can take that to the bank... The odds in Vegas are 10,000 to 1 that you won't finish the quote because it makes the entire partisan bullcrap of yours and yer buddies look like, ahhhhh, partisan bullcrap....

Finish the quote, Sawz, or shut the "F" up...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:47 PM

Was that Bobert facts or brain farts?

Two years for Mac and 6 months for Obama as per Joe, the foreign relations expert:

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America."

"Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"He's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen."

"We're going to face a major international challenge. Because they're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him. And they're going to find out this guy's got steel in his spine

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 07:28 PM

Well, bb, you can make fun of my "Bobert Facts" but yer "bb facts" fall squarely in the middle of what is know as mythology...

Proclamation = Mythology...

That is all you have done here, bb... You have proclaimed... You say you are a scientist??? Well there are hypothesises which are "proclamations" and nothing more and then there is emperical evidence... That's what make science stuff work... Or not... So far you are stuck in the hypothesis stage whcih falls sorely shy of the evidence phase of science...

In other words, you are blowin' a bunch of partisan smoke...

Try another tack... If you need a jump start, I'd recommend buyin' up a few recent issues of the National Observer... That all they do for a livin'...

(((BeardedBruce Gives Birth to His Own Grandfather"...)))

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 06:30 PM

82.846% of all statistics are flawed and can be discounted. The remainder cannot be identified.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 05:37 PM

The "burial in bullshit", according to the latest polls,has a probability of 97.8%, with a possible error of 97.7%. I love statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 12:43 PM

If you want to worry about nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands. Try worrying about Pakistan, which has the bomb, and an awful lot of Muslim fundamentalists too. Along with a tradition of assassinating leaders they don't like much.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 12:29 PM

The nuclear armed country which is most likely to attack a neighbour within the next year would be Israel. Hopefully not using those nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:43 AM

"There's a 27.6% chance that we'll all be smothered in bullshit, no matter who's in power"

Dick, you're my kinda guy! Except I'd say 100%! (Or would that turn it from 'chance' into 'certainty'? SawZaw, help me out here?? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:07 AM

No, I get the point. My point is that I can't be accused of scare mongering in any case, because I was just giving an opinion in response to the discussion started by the opening post to the thread. That's not scare mongering. The scare mongering would be the one who started the discussion on the subject of whose presidency would be most likely to result in nuclear war.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:04 AM

Sorry, Bobert- as Ubermensch you still need to get a few more people to agree that open discussion is to be ridiculed before doing so...

Unless you are making this a "Bobert Fact"- then you do not need any basis other than your own imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:03 AM

Sorry, Bobert- as Ubermensch you still need to get a few more people to agree that open discussion is to be ridiculed before doing so...

Unless you are making this a "Bobert Fact"- then you do not need any basis other than your own imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:57 AM

This thread is the silliest political thread of the year and for that I think bruce deserves ***The Silly Political Thread Award***...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:50 AM

1. CarolC, please actually read my post of 03 Nov 08 - 09:00 PM

2. CarolC, you have not gotten the point that my use of your statement intended- perhaps it is too subtle.

*** I *** am criticised as a scaremonget for making a statement that Obama ( IMHO) would increase the risk of a war with both sides using WMD ( from 10% to 30%)- YOU make the comment that McCain would be CERTAIN to start such a war. Seems like if I am to be considered a scaremonger than you are something worse.

Simple application of logic- address the point instead of attacking me for stating it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:32 AM

I hope those couple of quotes above that are in the same post with my prediction aren't being attributed to me, because I never said those things.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 05:24 AM

Merely disagreeing with your rhetoric Bruce, without resorting to calling you names.

¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:32 AM

Cultures, such as the Chinese, and middle eastern, have a longer frame of reference than that of the immediate, self gratifying frame of reference, that we, the USA is known for. For them, its just a matter of time, before we decay away, from within...which is well underway. All they have to do is just wait, a little agitation here, a little agitation there...if the American public gets bored with it, on their T.V.'s, we go crazy. It's just a matter of time..
Damn! My microwave popcorn is taking too long!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 02:01 AM

"100% chance" ?????????????

100% is not a chance.

It means there is no chance that it will not happen.

Anyway, wright it down in the big Mudcat prediction book.

Along with these:

"I will listen to her speech with great interest. I am also betting that she [Palin] bows out before Election Day"

It is now election day.

"if you vote Dem and the Derms take back either house of Congress, yer gonna find out that what I've been able to get against the boy [GWB] wil pale in comparision to what the Congressional comittee, with supena powers, will get"

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 12:50 AM

Dickie Boy, that's why this is posted below the BS Line!!!

BB, did you forget the "Mutually" part of MAD?
MAD does not apply to terrorist and smaller rogue states, just AD!

CarolC you should write a book teaching logic. It would be unique!

Bobert! You gave me the laugh of the day, calling bb a partisan Republican! That would make you a ....?

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 11:59 PM

There's a 27.6% chance that we'll all be smothered in bullshit, no matter who's in power.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 11:34 PM

"The use of WMD against any ally without drastic action by the US would lead to further use of WMD by many parties.

The ENTIRE principle of MAD is that ANY use would be met with the destruction of the other nation."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good grief! YOU are assuming implicitly that any incursion or attack would BE WMDs, and likely nuclear!

And you want to base an entire policy on the possibility that a couple of nations, one of which has no known nuclear capability, and another which has very little...with limited delivery ability...'might' try something stupid?

Your 1st sentence is totally wild speculation. Inside that sentence is the assumption that 'drastic action', if needed at all, MUST include something like nuclear.


There are so many unwarrented hypotheticals, both explicit & implicit, in those 2 sentences that unraveling them takes .....well...more time than I have right now. I made a start...but...sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 10:23 PM

Posterity.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Naemanson
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 10:01 PM

Every once in a while I like to read through these futile threads to warm myself by the flames.

Why do any of you even get involved in these things? Nothing will be settled and nobody even cares.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 09:08 PM

Considering the fact that I was responding to the points made in the opening post, I don't think it's accurate to say that there has been any unfairness in this particular case. The person who opened the discussions about the percentages of the likelihood of nuclear war ought to expect some people to offer alternative points of view about the percentages involved. In fact, it seems quite unreasonable for anyone to offer their opinions about such things and not expect anyone to offer alternative opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 09:00 PM

John MacKenzie: "You are a scaremonger Bruce, and it's shameful that anyone should seek to influence how people vote, by using such underhand scare tactics.."

CarolC: "Please show me the exact post in this thread where I said anything about anyone being a scaremonger. "

beardedbruce:"Why should I show you something I have NOT claimed to have said, or even believe??? I NEVER said YOU said the statement in quotes about scaremongering. "


If I use a large club, it is because many here have demonstrated they cannot understand anything more subtle.




You have some kind of problem with me making a point about the unequal treatment of those whose opinions differ from the majority?????????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:54 PM

I see. Making a point using a large club. Not surprising, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:52 PM

"CarolC,

The comment was made that by even discussing my opinion, I was out of line:

"You are a scaremonger Bruce, and it's shameful that anyone should seek to influence how people vote, by using such underhand scare tactics.."

Since you gave a higher percentage, without any reasons given, it would seem to me that any shame would apply to you as well.

Since **I** see nothing shameful in discussing the dangers of future administrations, ** I ** amd not accusing you of anything except the expression of your opinion. Go complain to those who think it shameful, not to me."

"CarolC,

Why should I show you something I have NOT claimed to have said, or even believe??? I NEVER said YOU said the statement in quotes about scaremongering.

I thought you were a scientist, bb. Instead, it appears that you are a politician. *g*

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:44 PM

"Iran has no nuclear weapons, and there seems to be no possibility of it having nuclear weapons in 2009,"

Unsubstantiated, and probably false.

"North Korea from its "terror blacklist", and it seems very questionable whether it actually has any usable nuclear weapons. "

Again, no basis to make this decision on- they have both material and knowledge, and a tested delivery system ( as does Iran)


CarolC,

Why should I show you something I have NOT claimed to have said, or even believe??? I NEVER said YOU said the statement in quotes about scaremongering.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:22 PM

You do not consider North Korea or Iran to be any threat to anyone???

Iran has no nuclear weapons, and there seems to be no possibility of it having nuclear weapons in 2009, unless these were supplied by some other country, which does not seem likely to happen.

The USA has announced it is removing North Korea from its "terror blacklist", and it seems very questionable whether it actually has any usable nuclear weapons.

Any country can of course in principle be a threat to other countries. I know of no reason to see why these countries are particularly likely to start a war.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:18 PM

Unless I had a sex change, changed my name, and moved to the United Kingdom without telling myself about it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:16 PM

Please show me the exact post in this thread where I said anything about anyone being a scaremonger.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 08:01 PM

And, let's look at "Exhibit A" which is the recent Georgian/ Russain flareup...

Both candidates were critical of Russia but one, McCain, went over the top with his "We are all Georgians"... That statement was far more emotional and dangerous that Obama's statements... Wars get started because of emotionalism and given "Exhibit A" I'd say that McCain is ***5 times*** more liekely to get US into a nuclear war that Obama...

(Well, Bobert, why "5 times"???)

Heck, like bb, I just made it up...

See, bb, how silly yer assertion is??? Yeah, okay, mine is equally silly but I "Exhibit A" is there for everyone to consider when they go into that voting booth asking themselves "Which guy is gonna get US in a nuclear war???"

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 07:45 PM

BillD,

The use of WMD against any ally without drastic action by the US would lead to further use of WMD by many parties.

The ENTIRE principle of MAD is that ANY use would be met with the destruction of the other nation.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 07:43 PM

Not really, bb...

Just because your favorite myth is covered in cobwebs doesn't make it valid...

Hey, I could have said a long time ago that McCain would pick Elvis as his VP but, unlike wine, time isn't a factor when it come to mythology...

This is ***your*** opinion and we all know that you are a ...

...partisan Republican so...

...keep on firin' but at the end of the day it's just ***your*** opinion and isn't based on any real facts....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 07:41 PM

"...any threat to anyone?"

They might be a small danger to 'someone'...the question is, are they a threat to us? And how hard should we press to prevent ANY mischief?

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 07:35 PM

McGrath,

You do not consider North Korea or Iran to be any threat to anyone???


Can I get an insurance policy from you- the rates should be next to nothing ( since there is no risk).

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 07:32 PM

LH,

I did NOT say that any of the WMD would be used on the US- If they are used on our allies ( Or even Canada), we will respond and there would be a nuclear war.

Bobert,

Since I brought this up before the Democratic convention, and have valid reasons for the sopecific numbers that I have stated. I will have to assume that all of your comments come under the definition of "Bobert facts": IE, they represent your opinion without regard to the facts.



CarolC,

The comment was made that by even discussing my opinion, I was out of line:

"You are a scaremonger Bruce, and it's shameful that anyone should seek to influence how people vote, by using such underhand scare tactics.."

Since you gave a higher percentage, without any reasons given, it would seem to me that any shame would apply to you as well.

Since **I** see nothing shameful in discussing the dangers of future administrations, ** I ** amd not accusing you of anything except the expression of your opinion. Go complain to those who think it shameful, not to me.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 07:24 PM

Your prediction was a war between nuclear armed nations, bruce. I can't see a likely scenario for that (aside from the always present risk of a cock up in the Great Deterrent, which always exists, though it's probably a lot less than it has been for much of our life).

An assault by a nuclear armed nation on one without nuclear weapons, using some of those nuclear weapons is of course always a possibility. But I can't see a scenario in which the chances of that are greater with Obama in the White House than McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:33 PM

Well, well, well, bb...

Sorry your favorite fear story didn't gain much traction but it's really purdy crowded at the top of the fear stories/mythologies but it's at least gettin' a little respect... Not that there is any level of emperical evidence on the percentages, mind you, but it seems to be the last of the McCain fear mongering vectors...

But people, IMO, aren't buying it any more than the other dozen or so fear mongering myths...

As for the percentages, this is pure partisan opinion based on, ahhhhh, absolutely nothin'... Why not make it 50%??? Or 150%???

It is a rediculous hypothesis not founded on any facts on the ground...

But I would be disapppioted if you didn't float one last myth in the hopes that all Mudcatters will see the light...lol...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:29 PM

About time.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:26 PM

Thank you CarolC; it's all so clear now....

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:21 PM

There are no enemies of the free world. Just people who are tired of the "free world" imposing its will on other people's countries and denying them the same freedoms that the "free world" likes to brag so much about.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,Slag, trying again!
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 06:15 PM

War 2009? Why should 2009 be any different? You mean the Great Messiah Obama will not immediately dissuade all hostiles? Wont everyone of ill-will instantly recognize this Man of Peace and lay down his body-bomb? How could they not?

Or a McCain Presidency? We are already at war on two active fronts and while 2009 may see the end to one or both it will certainly began with war.

Yes LH, America DOES have its enemies (both foreign and domestic) and at times we ARE hard put upon. Boston Massacre, 1812, the Maine, Pearl Harbour, 9/11. Meanwhile we try to keep a lid on things around the world through diplomacy, foreign aide, charities both private and public. We attempt to keep a free market going despite all the enemies of that concept. We are busy here in these United States. Plus we do it with the benefits and negatives of a democracy, wherein we all have a share in the outcome. I'm glad to say that even Canada has had some positive contributions it has made.

Will there be war? Unfortunately, yes! Regardless of who gets to be at the masthead. Will it be nucular? Or even nuclear? We know that certain elements in the world at large are desperately trying to make that happen and if the US is clever enough and lucky enough and interested enough we will CONTINUE to keep that from becoming a reality.

I think the enemies of the Free World will see an Obama regime as a soft target, ripe for a BS campaign or an outright attack. Obama would be perceived as a statement that Americans have no more grit to stay and fight our sworn enemies where they stand. If this is so and we retreat to "Fortress America" there is little to prevent them from following our troops home, harassing us as we withdraw. They will seep through our virtually non-existent borders and introduce the US population to life as it is in Afghanistan and Israel and Syria. I could be wrong. I would HOPE that I am wrong but I don't want to find out if I am wrong. I have, I HAVE to vote for John McCain for that reason alone. And it's a damn poor choice at that. I care not for McCain or his long arm reaching across the aisle. I can't understand why the Dems are against him. Except for the party name he IS a Democrat!

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 05:45 PM

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:59 PM

Oh, BB, your poor little nation is so hard done by! So many threats. Dear me!

Reminds me of the Romans complaining about those detestable barbarians lurking out there somewhere beyond the walls, just waiting to destroy "civilization"...

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:54 PM

I fail to understand why something I said was paired up with something someone else said as if the two had any kind of relationship to each other.

An opinion was given by the thread originator about the probability of war for each candidate if elected, and I gave my opinion in response. One has to look to the thread originator if one wants to determine motives for discussing such probabilities.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:47 PM

The far-flung assertions in your reference about all oir enemies far and wide, and the bogey-man image of their insidious preparations for the post-election world, are not substantiated, even by an explanation of the terror-monger's instincts, which is probably all he has to support them.

IRan and North Korea are both suffering from severe economic decline and both have extremely unpopular governments, according to articles I have read recently about conditions. I seriously doubt the worst-case scenarios depicted by this arm-waver are grounded in likelihood. and it would behoove someone using a national medium to be more considerate of his readers by providing them with facts rather than brassy panicked assertions about the great evil that is everywhere which should be frightening everybody.

LEt's get some facts. I have no interest in being terrotrized, thank you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:31 PM

"I give the likelihood of nuclear war in the next two year a 100% chance if McCain wins"

"it's shameful that anyone should seek to influence how people vote, by using such underhand scare tactics"

Unless of course you are trying to scare people into voting for the correct candidate, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:28 PM

"it's shameful that anyone should seek to influence how people vote,"


I doubt VERY much if ANYONE here on Mudcat is still undecided, and capable of being influenced by my repeating a point I made BEFORE Obama was even selected as the Candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:26 PM

Dick-

If I win, the money will not be worth anything.


How would you account for a 30% chance of war? Who decides ( actual discrete value will be either 0 or 100%)?

I have stated this previously- in regards to ANY democratic candidate with the present Party Platform.






"You are a scaremonger Bruce, and it's shameful that anyone should seek to influence how people vote, by using such underhand scare tactics"

"Four more years of BUSH!!!"


Tell me which side is using scarier scare tactics...

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:21 PM

Are you willing to put up some money on that, BB?

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:16 PM

You are a scaremonger Bruce, and it's shameful that anyone should seek to influence how people vote, by using such underhand scare tactics..
Wish I had a vote there, I'd vote for Obama just to spite nasty rumourmongers like that.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: War in 2009?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:16 PM

I give the likelihood of nuclear war in the next two year a 100% chance if McCain wins.

Subject: BS: War in 2009?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 03:13 PM

Continueing on my comment that I expect a 30% chance of nuclear war by August 2009, IF Obama wins- ( about 10% if McCain wins....)


Washington Post:

A Test That's Sure to Come

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, November 3, 2008; Page A21

Of course Joe Biden is right -- there will be an early international crisis to test the new president. There almost always is. In April 2001 -- long before Sept. 11 -- George W. Bush had to react when a U.S. military surveillance aircraft was forced down in China and its crew detained for 11 days. The episode started as an accident, but Beijing used it to measure a new executive with scant international experience. In 1993 Bill Clinton was blindsided by the "Blackhawk Down" firefight in Mogadishu. After 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in an ambush, he abruptly withdrew U.S. forces from Somalia -- and taught Osama bin Laden not to fear American power.

Chances are the next administration's first test will be a surprise. Yet some probes are predictable. For the past few months several familiar U.S. adversaries have been waiting out the Bush administration while painstakingly setting up traps they can spring on the incoming president. A few other actors are thinking about the ways they can get their problems onto what will be, from inauguration day on, an impossibly busy White House agenda.

Take North Korea -- please, as Condoleezza Rice might want to say. The State Department's efforts over the past year to negotiate the nuclear disarmament of that charter "axis of evil" member has deteriorated into something very like the status quo the Bush administration repudiated when it first took office. In exchange for not restarting its bomb production line, the regime of Kim Jong Il extracts bribes, like its recent removal from State's list of terrorism sponsors.

It's not difficult to predict that sometime in 2009 the North will trigger another crisis when it refuses to honor its disarmament promises, threatens to fire up its plutonium reprocessing plant and demands new concessions from Washington. Would a fresh Obama (or McCain) team flinch? Not just in Pyongyang but in Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo, any such probe will be minutely observed.

Next is Iran, another stop on the axis that will remain roguish even after Bush's departure. In recent months, the military fronts controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and southern Iraq and on the Persian Gulf -- have been almost eerily quiet. But they've not been abandoned. On the contrary, Israeli sources say long- and short-range missiles are pouring into Lebanon, despite a U.N. ban on arms deliveries to Hezbollah. Since a cease-fire began in late June, Hamas has imported through tunnels from Egypt an estimated 20 tons of explosives; dozens of anti-tank missiles; and tons of metal, fertilizer and chemicals used to build the rockets aimed at Israeli cities. U.S. officials say the camps in Iran where the Guard trains "special groups" for attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq are still busy.

The question is when, not whether, this firepower will be put to use. By the spring Tehran will be seeking the measure of not only a new U.S. president but also a new Israeli prime minister -- who could be the hawk Binyamin Netanyahu. It will be preparing for its own presidential election, in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- health permitting -- will seek reelection. Will the Guard -- the most hard-line of Iran's competing factions -- judge that a flare-up in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq or the Persian Gulf is the best way to intimidate the new U.S. and Israeli leaders, undermine any move toward negotiations with Washington by Iranian doves, and bolster the campaign of Guard patron Ahmadinejad? Though Iranian moves are always hard to predict, that one would not be a surprise.

Beyond the rogues are the regulars: the countries that depend on American attention, positive or negative, to fuel their own political cycles -- and are good at finding ways to grab it when they feel ignored. There are Latin American demagogues such as Hugo Chávez, who need a Yanqui enemy, and small Eurasian countries such as Georgia, which need a U.S. shield against Russia. There are the Russians themselves -- who measure their country's power by its ability to thwart American initiatives.

And then there are the Israelis and Palestinians. At the annual Weinberg conference of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in September, two senior surrogates for the McCain and Obama campaigns agreed on one large point: that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would rank far down the new president's list of priorities. Don't bet on it. "Both the Israelis and the Palestinians will want to elevate their issues on the agenda," says Shibley Telhami, a Middle East scholar at the University of Maryland. One way to do that is to create a crisis -- for example, a collapse of the Palestinian Authority or an Israeli strike on Gaza. Another is a positive surprise -- maybe, an agreement by Hamas to a referendum on whether to accept a two-state solution. Either way, if the next president does not soon call on the Middle East, it will find a way to call him.