Political Jigsaw
The political jigsaw is now slowly forming, becoming mortal, tangible. A thing that you can discuss and more importantly, at this stage, before the Primaries, pundits can stake their repute upon predictions. Hey, its a grand lottery if millions of websites predict all sorts of possibilities, a certain percentage are right, and the media heroes of the moment can be automatically paid the grace of attention for a few eye flicks before they digg else where, but that's life on the Web 2.0 internet superhighway. New types of applications are appearing in the digital world, with each passing month a new fad erupts, is bought by google.com or Microsoft and becomes superbly self absorbed into its own new reality and method of doing things. Oddly, this specialisation will lead to a fracturing of talent into new streams, thus a very powerful force that is going to influence the next presidential election are profoundly not to do with the relatively simple story that is Iraq, but how to evolve a new world.
We have to, letting the current world continue means more boring news blogs about the fucking war. Excuse the "French". But, really, who has an actual stated intention in this war?
It seems that by making the military blunder of acting when one simply should not, has inveigled America into the matrix of threat. Iran was threatened by Sunni forces of Iraq, admittedly it was under Saddam Hussein, but the Shiites are also threatened by the Sunni fundamentalist suicide bombers. Some criminals are hard to reform. But punishment is as much a salve to stop retaliation. Suicide leaves little idea of target so it becomes generalised.
If a presidental candidate solves the Iraqi crisis enacted by George Bush so that American interests are protected (Saudi Arabia) from threat (Iran), it does not matter who they are, they will win.
America will wait for Israel to act against Iran in any kind of Nuclear fashion, unless George Bush has one final fatal stab at the map with his deadly pen. His belief in a foreign military "solution" to a local Iraq problem is supported by the troop "surge". The President is probably increasing rotations in Baghdad because his conscience got the better of him, watching 3000 Americans die for his own admitted miscalculation. He believes in the muscle of the most effective military, but he can not sustain an attack beyond something far more dangerous. Senator John McCain may well position himself to accept the mantle, and the Republican gamble could be to expand the war, and this is of great concern.
It would benefit the American people to impeach Bush before a war against Iran erupted from an increasingly fragile cage. Therefore it is not a prediction, but it is more likely to happen this year than any other so far.
If the war in Iraq were to be somehow "won" - well - somehow I find the concept hard to form. What does it mean? An end to death squad militia murdering civilians? If the American army were to follow a strategy that stopped that, there would be a point in their existence there. Just what is their strategy? What is their goal?
We have to, letting the current world continue means more boring news blogs about the fucking war. Excuse the "French". But, really, who has an actual stated intention in this war?
It seems that by making the military blunder of acting when one simply should not, has inveigled America into the matrix of threat. Iran was threatened by Sunni forces of Iraq, admittedly it was under Saddam Hussein, but the Shiites are also threatened by the Sunni fundamentalist suicide bombers. Some criminals are hard to reform. But punishment is as much a salve to stop retaliation. Suicide leaves little idea of target so it becomes generalised.
If a presidental candidate solves the Iraqi crisis enacted by George Bush so that American interests are protected (Saudi Arabia) from threat (Iran), it does not matter who they are, they will win.
America will wait for Israel to act against Iran in any kind of Nuclear fashion, unless George Bush has one final fatal stab at the map with his deadly pen. His belief in a foreign military "solution" to a local Iraq problem is supported by the troop "surge". The President is probably increasing rotations in Baghdad because his conscience got the better of him, watching 3000 Americans die for his own admitted miscalculation. He believes in the muscle of the most effective military, but he can not sustain an attack beyond something far more dangerous. Senator John McCain may well position himself to accept the mantle, and the Republican gamble could be to expand the war, and this is of great concern.
It would benefit the American people to impeach Bush before a war against Iran erupted from an increasingly fragile cage. Therefore it is not a prediction, but it is more likely to happen this year than any other so far.
If the war in Iraq were to be somehow "won" - well - somehow I find the concept hard to form. What does it mean? An end to death squad militia murdering civilians? If the American army were to follow a strategy that stopped that, there would be a point in their existence there. Just what is their strategy? What is their goal?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Home