Strategofr's 2006 Passover Analysis of the U. S. and the World

April 18, 2006 | Strategofr

[spanalot]

"They are starting to pull it out of the ground in Canada, where most of it seems to be, but no one is predicting it will cost $30 a barrel."

I listened to the mantra of the petro salesmen in the 70's saying we are running out - its starting to sound like the Stones saying this is their "farewell tour".

I'll say with confidance that it will see $20 again. And yes - Alberta has enough oil for us for the next 100 plus years - and then there's the US shale oil deposits.

[strategofr]

"I'll say with confidance that it will see $20 again."

Sounds good. But you know Russia and Iran will be keeping the price up as long as they can by doing bad things---maybe a long time! And we can suspect the Saudis may be helping as long as they can hide it.

[strategofr]

Addendum to 2006 Passover analysis.

I have been thinking about the incident the Russians would need to stage in the fall of 2008 to tip the US elections in Hillary's direction.

While widespread violence and a breakdown of civil order in Iraq would be helpful to Hillary, what is needed in addition is an incident that kills a significant number of American troops. Believe me, I would not be posting this if I thought there was any chance at all the Russians had not thought of this already.

Because US casualties in Iraq are extremely low and the efficiency of our military forces is extremely high, the bar has been set pretty low for the definition of a significant number of American military fatalities. I believe 10 to 15 fatalities on the right day would be sufficient to tip the election in Hillary's favor --- set against the background of widespread civil disorder and an apparent failure of our policy in Iraq.

Been thinking about how the Russians would go about achieving this, the obvious answer is to threaten a target the Americans cannot ignore. Ideally, they would like to target Americans, such as in the Green zone, but this is not practical.

The answer is to target either the Iraqi Prime Minister or Sistanni. Both will have security based on Iraqi forces. I believe the Russians (or the Iranians, who I believe in this instance would share) have probably achieved some level of infiltration into all Iraqi forces--- hence, the key defensive force will be at least partially compromised at the moment of truth.

Since the Iranians are now well known to be smuggling military ordnance into Iraq at a rapid rate, and the Russians are known to be supplying Iraq with weaponry of various sorts, we can expect a new type of Russian weaponry to appear in this crucial attack.

Of course, it would be inappropriate for a Soviet helicopter (flown by Soviet volunteers) to appear on the scene. The Cold War is over and the Russians are now our friends, and allies in the war against terror, so such behavior would not be permissible. Nonetheless, considerable lethality can be obtained via machine guns, mortars, and shoulder-fired missiles, any of which it seems could be transported via an ordinary car. I suspect panel trucks driving around in Iraq would draw attention, though I don't really know the details on that.

I present addendum this with apologies to those whose sensibilities it will offend, but it seems to me that posting this might conceivably have some benefit for us.


To exit from my Ping list, just send me one request to that effect, public or private.

[Marine_Uncle]

I can appreciate what goes behind weaving such a web. There are two many variables one must deal with in the case for me to reach a similiar conclusion.
The 2008 election period is far off in respect to how much can change in Iraq. I continue to believe the Persian influence is going to drop off once a government is put into place.
For one thing, this government cannot be viewed as supporting any given religious faction. To many players have been working toward introducing a secular form of rule. They now have check and balances that may come into play.

One has to consider, the republican runners for the POTUS and the RNC are not going to stand by in idle and allow the demos to distort what has gone down for the past five years in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. There is so much that now can be put into simply statements, that in effect can nullify what demos may try to distort.
For all we know, we may actually end up having a small footprint in Iraq by mid 2008 range. If Iraq changes for the better in the next year, the government succeeds to really eliminate most of the remaining insurgency, and the coalition loss of life stays low, it is going to be hard for the demos to cry about there being a quagmire etc..
Sure the Russians are always playing many hands in the ME. And the dynamics of the region allow for many scenarios to develop.
One could write some optimistic scenarios based on much of the ground info we have at this point. At any rate, an interesting scenario you paint.
One thing is for certain. Many Iraqi leaders across the spectrum are saying they want nothing to do with the Persians. In fact they want them totally booted out.

[hosepipe]

Lovely except for one thing.. The Chinese.. you've left them out of the picture.. The evil twin sisters ploting for global socialist world hegemony.. Them girls are quite evil.. China has much more impact than Russia does at least overtly.. Between them both the American MsM and MsP, and maybe Congress too are serious tools..

Suggest interfacing China into the picture.. Those sisters, I think, are using the Muslims as a lever.. quite well too.. Islam is mired in the 7th century but the girls are mired in the 20th.. So much so that the U.S. is proposeing a democracy for Iraq and NOT a republic.. when Iraq needs a republic(with at least three states) NOT a democracy..
---------------------------

Democracy is the road to socialism. -Karl Marx

Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. -V.I. Lenin

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Just a couple of thoughts to add and some difference of opinion.

Although the United States is always in the back of the minds of all tyrants, as a possible military adversary and to use as a bogey man to keep their subjects distracted, when the Shah was deposed the Ayatollah Khomeini had similar ambitions to Saddam, to be the biggest influence in the ME. They were immediately competitors and it was well known that Saddam was aggressively trying to get nuclear weapons. So, that was part of the early motivation of the Ayatollah.

Russia always supports anyone who is an enemy of the U.S. so they supported both Iraq and Iran but since Saddam was better established and more aggressive they backed him more. In addition, Russia had armed Saddam and we had armed the Shah so Iraq was easier for them to support and more likely to succeed. Rearming Iran was going to take time and patience.

We also now know that the Russian departed Iraq only after the war began and after the WMD were spirited out of the country. Now Iran seems their best choice in the ME.

As far as the present situation at home I disagree some. I think the Democrats are concentrating heavily on 2006 and 2008. They are still smarting over the impeachment of Slick and are determined to get revenge by impeaching Bush. To even try they need control of the House and they need it as a run up to 2008. Their culture of corruption strategy is backfiring because of their own malfeasance so they will try everything else they can.

As they have been doing since Bush took office they will continue to block him everywhere and to create issues on which to discredit and impeach him.

The reason for Iran's seemingly irrational actions, as well as those of Chavez, is to try to force Bush into a move that can be roundly condemned by the left/Democrats. The agitation of the illegals is another but separate issue with the same goal. They are also hoping to make a big stink over any meaningful immigration reform to pander to illegals for their illegal votes. Multiple accusations from many different directions will be mounted against Bush in order to defeat the Republicans.

We are still too strong militarily for Russia, China, and the Muslims to take on in battle. Therefore, a takeover by the Democrats is the next best thing, probably even better as they are all in the same camp, as you say. Bush will oppose them. The Democrats will cooperate with them.

[Gipper08]

bttt

[strategofr]

"The 2008 election period is far off in respect to how much can change in Iraq. I continue to believe the Persian influence is going to drop off once a government is put into place."


As with most things, this comes back to the Russians, in my view. No doubt, the Kurds and Sunnis are strongly opposed to any Iranian influence. They combine with many of the Shi'ites in this regard.

My problem here is my belief in deep Russian penetration into the Sunni group---based on their historical influence in Saddam's government. Therefore, at critical times, I anticipate the Russians selling the Sunnis out---and allowing the Iranians to cash in. Admittedly, this strategy might be blocked---it could fail. But that seems unlikely to me.




"For one thing, this government cannot be viewed as supporting any given religious faction. To many players have been working toward introducing a secular form of rule. They now have check and balances that may come into play."

I think most Iraqis now are thinking in fairly simple terms as far as goals are concerned. It seems clear that the US military will withdraw before a very long time. When that happens, many people are going to die. I think people are trying to figure out how they---along with their families and communities---can be one of the ones who survive the transition.

[strategofr]

"Lovely except for one thing.. The Chinese.. you've left them out of the picture.. The evil twin sisters ploting for global socialist world hegemony.. Them girls are quite evil.. China has much more impact than Russia does at least overtly.."

As I see it, the Chinese are willing to play second fiddle to the Russians in the Middle East. There's certainly been almost nothing in the news about Chinese involvement in the Middle East, so I presume if their involvement is significant it is covert. One thing that fascinates the hell out of me is that China shares a tiny border with Afghanistan. Personally, I believe that Osama bin Laden is perched just across that border---in China---most of the time.

" Between them both the American MsM and MsP, and maybe Congress too are serious tools.."

Certainly the MSM is a tool of the Russians, in my opinion. So is the Democratic Party, including most Democrats in Congress. I would not characterize all of Congress this way at this time.

"Suggest interfacing China into the picture.. Those sisters, I think, are using the Muslims as a lever.. quite well too.. Islam is mired in the 7th century but the girls are mired in the 20th.."

I agree that the Muslims are being used as a tool, but it does seem to be that it is primarily the Russians who are wielding that tool as opposed to the Chinese.


"So much so that the U.S. is proposeing a democracy for Iraq and NOT a republic.. when Iraq needs a republic(with at least three states) NOT a democracy.."

Your idea is probably right. Unfortunately, the US is on the way out and not going to try to institute a new form of government there at this time.

Personally, I wish the Kurds could break away and form an independent nation. I think it would be well worth America's while to defend such a country, if it formed. I believe the Kurds are good group, as nations go, they have that loyal allies and would provide a superb permanent inland base for America. However, unless the Republicans win the 2008 presidential election, such an event cannot possibly happen. And currently, I see Hillary as the likely victor. Hopefully, my assessment will change over time and this prediction will prove to be wrong.

[strategofr]

"As far as the present situation at home I disagree some. I think the Democrats are concentrating heavily on 2006 and 2008."

Here we disagree, and I have moved this point to the top because I want to address everybody in this regard. I believe I have heard that the Democrats are ahead of the Republicans in fund raising for 2006. Part of my analysis indicates that the Democrats will throw the election in 2006. As indicated above, I think this optimizes their chance to win in 2008, where it will be more important to the Presidency. I base this on a kind of pendulum affect, combined with the fact that the Democrats did not have a single program to propose in terms of what they might actually do.

In this regard, I have developed a specific 2006 prediction to test out my larger analysis. I think it's possible the Democrats may hold back on some of their spending of money they raise in 2006---so they can spend it in 2008. We will see if I am correct.



"Although the United States is always in the back of the minds of all tyrants, as a possible military adversary and to use as a bogey man to keep their subjects distracted, when the Shah was deposed the Ayatollah Khomeini had similar ambitions to Saddam, to be the biggest influence in the ME. They were immediately competitors and it was well known that Saddam was aggressively trying to get nuclear weapons. So, that was part of the early motivation of the Ayatollah."

Good point. I hadn't realized that.

"Russia always supports anyone who is an enemy of the U.S. so they supported both Iraq and Iran but since Saddam was better established and more aggressive they backed him more. In addition, Russia had armed Saddam and we had armed the Shah so Iraq was easier for them to support and more likely to succeed. Rearming Iran was going to take time and patience.

We also now know that the Russian departed Iraq only after the war began and after the WMD were spirited out of the country. Now Iran seems their best choice in the ME."

We agree here.




"The reason for Iran's seemingly irrational actions, as well as those of Chavez, is to try to force Bush into a move that can be roundly condemned by the left/Democrats. The agitation of the illegals is another but separate issue with the same goal. They are also hoping to make a big stink over any meaningful immigration reform to pander to illegals for their illegal votes. Multiple accusations from many different directions will be mounted against Bush in order to defeat the Republicans."


Your statement may be correct. But think about it, if it is, does this necessarily contradict my analysis? I understand that you did not believe my reasons for these events and have proposed an alternate set of reasons. All I'm saying is, if your scenario plays out, it is still another way out of achieving the same thing.

The only big difference in our thinking is that you believe the Democrats will strive for victory in 2006 and 2008, I believe they will concentrate just on 2008. but in regards to 2008, are thinking is almost identical. I see these actions as an attempt to distract the Repubs, you see these actions as an attempt to lure the Republicans into mistakes that will backfire. Upon reflection, I will concede that you are probably correct, but the core of the analysis, it seems to me, remains the same.

Even in regards to 2006, I suppose you would agree that the Democrats see 2008 as more important.






"We are still too strong militarily for Russia, China, and the Muslims to take on in battle. Therefore, a takeover by the Democrats is the next best thing, probably even better as they are all in the same camp, as you say. Bush will oppose them. The Democrats will cooperate with them"

We agree also on this core issue. In fact, it seems to me that we essentially agree.




To exit from my Ping list, just send me one request to that effect, public or private.

[hosepipe]

[ However, unless the Republicans win the 2008 presidential election, such an event cannot possibly happen. And currently, I see Hillary as the likely victor. Hopefully, my assessment will change over time and this prediction will prove to be wrong. ]

Interesting times eh!.. The democrat party AND the republican party agree on ONLY one thing.. A WIDE OPEN Mexican border.. And as the demographics of the United States change dramatically before our eyes.. Whats happening in Iraq, Russia and China are of secondary importance.. Since the very makup of the electorate is changing before our eyes..

Our EYES, which are concerned with far less important things than the demographics of the electorate.. I would say there are MANY diversions for our eyes to see Iran, Iraq, China, Russia, Scooter Libby, DeLay, Mary McCarthy, the PORTS deal.. Could be all are to water down any proper outrage on the Mexican Border issue.. Because THATS the primary issue.. the Trojan Horse(illegals and legals) disgorging electoral troops as we speak..

ALL arrainged and bogaurded by the White House.. By the way, did I say that.. The democrat party AND the republican party agree on ONLY one thing.. A WIDE OPEN Mexican border.. OH! and the White House..

Rush yesterday posed that we have a shadow givernment.. I agree.. The Coup D-Etat might have already happened.. And the sheeple bleat but shearing has not even begun yet..

[Just A Nobody]

Inside the U. S., odd things were happening as well. Here, people who do not know me must simply realize that I believe the Russians/Communists essentially control the American Left.

I totally agree with the corrected statement, however, I believe they have made great inroads into the "right" as well. It was all part of the master plan.

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Even in regards to 2006, I suppose you would agree that the Democrats see 2008 as more important.

Only because the Presidency is involved.

[strategofr]

"Only because the Presidency is involved."

Yes.

[strategofr]

"Interesting times eh!.. The democrat party AND the republican party agree on ONLY one thing.. A WIDE OPEN Mexican border.."

I disagree. The President, the Senate and the Democrats agree on that. House Republicans disagree---as proved by their recent bill. And Republican sentiment is building on this issure. I am somewhat hopeful in this regard.

[strategofr]

" I totally agree with the corrected statement, however, I believe they have made great inroads into the "right" as well. It was all part of the master plan.

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963"

A great reference. Unfortunately, the Russians don't drop such "gems" anymore.

[Marine_Uncle]

"When that happens, many people are going to die. I think people are trying to figure out how they---along with their families and communities---can be one of the ones who survive the transition."
Perhaps it will come down to Iraq going ballistic once we leave. Then again, after all so many of them have been through (in areas that the insurgency has effected) if this new govern turns out to attempt to get their industries/banking systems/services etc., obvioulsy based on how well they can improve their capacity to sell gas/oil to the world, I maintain they just could end up settling down and perhaps actually stayed allied with the US.
Obviously a lot has to do with how well this government will crack down on the insurgency and the militias.

[hosepipe]

[ House Republicans disagree---as proved by their recent bill. And Republican sentiment is building on this issure. I am somewhat hopeful in this regard. ]

Hmm the recent bill TRUMPED by the Senate.. the fly in the ointment.. as ALWAYS happens.. There is another fly in the ointment.. that fly is the President of the United States.. An ointment with two flys.. Sure one fly is enough to make the bill unpalatable but two flys makes it downright ichy..

Not only that but Hillary is swimming pretty close to the presidency (jaws theme) and shes hungry.. Oprah and the MsM and MsP and Academia and Hollywood has not even started the brain wash yet.. What is ALWAYS unmentioned is wherever Hillary goes, Bubba goes too.. many of those that hate Hillary love Bubba... Any that say "Comealot" is not possible again is whistling past the brothel.. Democrats may not be able to "win" the chessmatch today but they can check the King will abandon.. makeing him seem weak.. which of course he IS....

[Marine_Uncle]

I'm staying neutral on the many things going back and forth about the elections. I rather at this time simply read and learn. Thanks for the ping.

[Just A Nobody]

"Unfortunately, the Russians don't drop such "gems" anymore."


Ahhh, of course not. They are within...and leaking (think CIA, STATE) like sieves if only the sheeple will listen.

http://www.congressionalprogressivecaucus.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=27

http://republicanmainstreet.org/

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1777/for.htm

http://www.cpusa.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA

http://www.workersworld.net/wwp/cat_index_20.shtml

I'll leave you with this quote:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
-Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate and one of the founders of the ACLU.