If Bush wins.....

G

gburner

New member
If GW wins in November, look for the following possible scenarios:

Internationally...
Due to our impatience with and fear of their unbridled desire for 'the bomb', the US will be at war wth Iran with a years time...perhaps only airpower supporting an indigenous uprising along with 'advisors' on the ground or maybe a coordinated attack using troops pulled from garrison duty in Europe. We are on their flanks in Afghanistan and Iraq which gives us excellent position from which to attack or support an uprising. Bush will learn from the Iraq mess and coordinate with NATO and the UN. Forced regime change will also be sought in Syria. The Assad family's days are numbered. When Damascus falls documentation will show a longstanding partnership between Syria and Iraq. Evidence of transfer of WMD from Iraq to Syria will be uncovered. Oil prices will skyrocket and the world's economy will be shaken. Nuclear, chemical or bio weapons may be used as Islamists see this as a desperate chance to really injure 'the Great Satan'. We will respond with tactical nukes.

Domestically...
Bush will face an impeachment attempt by the left over Iraq dispite the cover that the 911 Commission gave him.
We will see continuing strangulation of individual rights to privacy, speech, movement, etc. but a broadening in society's acceptance of RKBA. The economy will limp along, wounded by higher energy prices. We will be struck again by terrorists, this time in the infrastructure, probably communications, energy or finance. School campuses will also be likely targets as will sporting events. We will see the rise of homicide bombers in our cities. Citizens will be encouraged to be armed as they go about their daily routines.

I'll go make some lunch...you folks discuss amongst yourselves.
 
I don't think it will be the US kicking it off with Iran first. My moneys on a Israeli airstrike/missile strike on Bushehr [ala Osirak].

Oil prices are going to skyrocket naturally thanks to peak oil. How fast it goes up depends on how much more unstable oil producing nations get. I reckon $50 a barrel by summer next year. Which would mean more wars between consumers/producers and civil unrest.

I do think that in the event of a NBC attack on continental USA would lead to martial law, the suspension of the constitution, etc. The cynic in me says that such temporary measures will be anything but.
 
I'll take Bush over Kerry any day of the week...

The fact of the matter is, President Bush is better at preserving our civil liberties then he is given credit for. First of all, as the original poster acknowledged our RKBA would only get better in a second term. The RKBA subtely but in a very real way influences how far politicians are willing to go in restricting other civil liberties. RKBA's effect on our other rights is not inefective for all of its being ineffable. On an active level we know that the RKBA empowers the people severally and collectively to get back their rights by peaceful protest and remonstration and, if that is interefered with or not heeded after good faith efforts, by force.
The other civil liberties everyone worries so much about have always expanded and contracted. RKBA is unique because in this country it is not a manifestation of disorder but a pillar of order. It allows our government to be powerful and yet less threatening to the liberty of its people than those of its closest counterparts around the world.
The fact that Bush did not use 9/11 as an opportunity to make a grab for the middle and an excuse to disarm marginalized gun owners (AW owners lets say) shows you that he may not agree with the gun owning community on everything but he remains the most powerful friend we have.
Al Gore (and by extension John Kerry) would have ruthlessly used the 9/11 attacks to push through security measures that would make the Patriot Act look good. Gun rights would have been targeted. That post 9/11 BS about "terrorists shopping at gun shows as seen in a terrorist training manual on lax US gun laws" provides us with disturbing shadows of what an Al Gore Presidency would look like.
My view is that if we want Bush to work with us lets stop electing watered down conservatives to the Congress and start putting in people who will make Bush's less bright ideas like immigration amnestys non-starters.
Look, if Bush actively pushed through the AW Ban Renewal then we could talk about very seriously about punishing Bush. But as it stands he's done a good job of fending off gun control and even creating a favorable environment for gun owners.
I'm a Florida gun owner and I can vouch for the fact that his brother Jeb has also been great for gun owners down here as well.
So for those of you want to vote for Kerry by not voting for Bush I say vote Freedom first.
If you can tell me, with a straight face that voting for an unknown third party candidate or no one at all will do more for freedom in the short and medium term then go ahead and do it. As for your long term projections of what punishing Bush might do for us...remember that the farther you make predictions in the future the more unknown variables will throw off your accuracy.
 
Iran and Syria I believe have the Moskit "Sunburn" missiles on their soil - along with Russian crews and other "advisers" - perhaps more. I do not think the Russians are going to sit idle if we make a move on either of these two countries. And if the State of Israel takes it upon itself to hit Iran - it's own major cities and assets might get nuked in less time than it takes to soft-boil an egg.
 
The Russians can be bought off...Iran and Syria are going down.

If Israel was gonna get nuked, it would have happened by now. Hatred against the Jewish State in general and Sharon in particular is sufficient for this to happen without the pretext of pre-emptive airstrikes on Iranian nuke facilities.

Besides, Israel would be helping moderate Arabs who really don't want to see the bomb in the hands of fundy Islamofascists.
 
If Bush/who ever is re-elected

I look for the DRAFT to go into effect.
Some form of "Minute Man"/Militia legislation to go into effect.
 
Well, nostradomus, I think you may be right about a lot of that - regardless of who's elected, hang onto your wallets. I'd still take the lesser evil bush over the ketchup couple that will bring us gun "control" (bans) and terrible fed judge appts vis a vis gun rights. The main question is, will we, at some point, wake up and address the root causes of the terrorism, and work to eliminate same with policies and diplomacy and other means, IN ADDITION TO simply waiting around, then performing a kneejerk reprisal when terrorism happens, which ends up going hand in hand with further eroding our free society with the (anti-) Patriot acts 1-627? (i.e. will we or will we not, re-consider our financial and military support of Israel, etc. - these basic things that make crazy religious zealot towelheads turn into crazy religious zealot towelhead WITH BOMBS.......IN OUR COUNTRY.....SETTING THEM OFF?)

P.S. My pet peeve re the terms "homocide bomber" and "suicide bomber". Yes, I understand the reason given for describing as a homocid bomber, a person who blows themelves up along with other people (the victims). However, this reasoning is weak and the better term by far for this type of individual is still "suicide bomber", not "homocide bomber", IMO, because: Pretty well ALL bombers are in fact "homocide bombers" because they intend to wrongfully kill another human (unless the target is simply an unoccupied building, which is exceedingly rare as a target for the modern terrorist). Therefore, calling someone a "homocide bomber" is not descriptive - taken literally, it means anyone who bombs to kill another, whether planting the bomb and detonating remotely, or killing themselves as well. Timothy McVeigh for example, was in fact a homocide bomber - but he was not a suicide bomber. Using the phrase "suicide bomber" is in fact more descriptive (although not perfect perhaps) because it indicates explicitly that it was "one of those guys who strapped a bomb to themselves and set it off", and it indicates implicitly quite strongly, "and also blew up and killed innocent victims, for the purpose of terrorism". Thus, the latter is better. Spread the word. :)

P.S. If we *do* have a shooting war with Iran, at least it will be for a much better reason than going into Iraq (actual intelligence of nuclear in the hands of a zealous Muslim THEOCRACY, rather than speculation and/or bogus intel of nuclear in the hands of a SECULAR dictatorship that posed no threat to us whatsoever).

Racoon, I agree with what you say. Except that I no longer fault those who vote their conscience, for an "unelectable" third party. If we don't vote for 3rd parties, then the terrible old 2-party system will never change, and even without change, the 2 parties will converge more and more toward the middle than they already are, if we don't rattle some cages by voting for 3rd party candidates. Since my state is safely Bush, I will vote for ANY 3rd party on the ballet, including the Green Party candidate. Would be much more of a mental battle if I was in FL, MI, PA, OH, or other big-vote swing states.
 
Folks,

These were a few idle predictions meant to generate discussion and speculation among our learned peers. Please don't infer from them that I am in any way a Kerry fan. I'd sooner have an incurable disease than support that weasel.
 
Yeah, gburner, I didn't mean to tarnish your good name by implying that I thought that you were espousing Kerry. I just wanted to throw onto the pile that this here social moderate-liberal also thinks Bush is better for the people, long run, than Kerry, though not by a landslide. This is important to point out, since so many "independents" such as myself who traditionally lean conservative at the POTUS and other fed level are FAR more disgusted with THIS "conservative" - Bush - than other past conservatives, due to the deficit spending, Patriot Act, unneeded war in Iraq, etc. It's definitely a hold-our-nose-and-vote proposition when it comes voting Shrub, even though Kerry is essentially the devil. To put in in numeric terms, compared to 1996, I'd have given Clinton a 1.5 out of 10, Dole a 7.5, and a 3rd party candidate such as one from the Constitution party (if one had been on the ballot) a 10. Now, in 2004, I'd give Bush a 0.7, and Kerry a 0.3 out of 10, and a Constitution party candidate (if there was one), a 10 (green party candidate I'd give a 6, some 9 times better than Bush, and some 20 times better than Kerry). Yeah, bush sucks hairy testes, but he's still a good twice as good as Kerry would be, IMO, yet still under 1 out of 10 as far as ideal goes, IMO. Kerry's got the waffle disease worse than even Clinton (no convictions whatsoever), and he's voted for every gun ban that's ever come down the pike. And yes, I *AM* stating that Clinton was better than Shrub, because at least the Congress could block his gun buns, whereas shrub won't veto anything at all, and so instead of using the bully pulpit to be fiscally responsible, he's using it to be fiscally disastrous, to finance a war that we have no business being in (now that we're there, we'll have to stay awhile, but....). And you know, since Bush literally never vetos anything, then whatever we get in gun bans is 100% co-extensive with whatever Congress passes, right? Well, isn't that the exact same state of affairs as when Clinton was POTUS? Yes, we would get whatever gun ban the congress would pass (since of course clinton would sign ANY gun "control", and since no gun "control" REPEAL acts EVER pass under any administration or congress). Therefore, the level of gun control being 100% co-extensive with what the congress does is the exact same as the Clinton situation, and so, since we can control who we elect to congress independently of the POTUS, then and now, it is congress and congress alone that is determining our gun rights. After all, didn't shrub go on the record and say that he would in fact pass the HDR and standard cap mag ban if presented to him? (the answer is YES). So unless someone can point out otherwise, we can thank bush exactly NADA for the lack of bans since he took office. We can and should thank gawd for the likes of Tom DeLay et al, and NRA and GOA, but not Shrub. But at least under Clinton we had a balanced budget. And I suppose one could argue that if Shrub never vetoes, then what we get war-wise is also co-extensive with what congress does. BUT that is distinguished because, unlike gun control, the terrorism/homeland security/wars is 90% of what shrub stumps about (or at least a strong majority), and uses the bully pulpit to urge congress to do. Contrast this strongly with gun control, which is almost never brought up on the stump or talking head shows, because it's such a third rail issue with either party, esp. to the Dems - so therefore the "bully pulpit" idea does not really matter with guns - it's more behind the scenes with NRA vs. brady bunch in congress, coupled with an occasional burst of energy following a school shooting. But getting any party's position on guns is like pulling teeth. So Clinton, though he was a demon in Kerry's entourage, at least had more going for him in terms of actual results, such as a balanced budget and welfare reform than shrub, IMO. Remember, it was our good buddy Gingrich who sent the 94 gun ban to Clinton. ERFN.
 
Last edited:
If the President wanted a gun ban passed, it would be passed.

As far as the increased spending, I seem to remember something about an attack on 9-11.

Iraq should have been finished in 1992 but his father lacked the political will. There is hard evidence that WMD were moved into Syria prior to the war. Iraq was harboring terrorists (IE, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas) and was providing $25,000
a pop to Palistinian bombers.

AQ also have access to large amounts of chemical weapons in the aborted attack on the US Embassy in Jordan. I wonder where they came from??

Lastly, there has been binary chemical weapons found in Iraq by the Poles.

The war was justified..
 
I like Bush

I believe that President Bush is an excellent president.
We may go to war with Iran, but if so it will be the thing to do, and I will support it. I will not be surprised if it happens.

While I have never been completely satisfied with any president in my lifetime, and that goes back to FDR, Bush is one of the better ones. I have disliked most of them, especially JFK, Johnson, and Carter, and Clinton who is a complete reprobate.

Reagan was the best.

The problem today in the nation is a moral one. A nation that approves abortion, homosexuality, and such things is a nation which is getting weaker.
Accordingly, I could never vote for the Libertarian Party with its godless philosophy.

I believe that the most important thing that will happen in the next few years is the choice of federal judges, and Supreme Court Justices. If Kerry gets in forget gun rights, and forget the moral standards which made this country great.
 
"...actual intelligence of nuclear in the hands of a zealous Muslim THEOCRACY, rather than speculation and/or bogus intel of nuclear in the hands of a SECULAR dictatorship that posed no threat to us whatsoever.."

And this "actual" intelligence would differ from what the CIA, the UN, the Clinton administration, Russia, the UK, and every other supposedly credible intelligence source provided...how?
 
gburner
The Russians can be bought off...Iran and Syria are going down.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on that. Russia is not likely to be bought off on such a major and strategically significant chunk of mid east real estate.

If Israel was gonna get nuked, it would have happened by now. Hatred against the Jewish State in general and Sharon in particular is sufficient for this to happen without the pretext of pre-emptive airstrikes on Iranian nuke facilities.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The secular State of Israel is indeed very unpopular - but not unpopular enough to inspire the Russians to nuke it without a good cover.

Besides, Israel would be helping moderate Arabs who really don't want to see the bomb in the hands of fundy Islamofascists.
Click to expand...

I do not think that "moderate" Arabs figure largely in this picture. But in Iraq there were perhaps more "moderate" Arabs per capita than any other mid east country, and they were able to live, practice their religions, raise their families, walk about freely and conduct their business. Now there are the radical Islamists and communists walking all over them - as they are still doing in Serbia after ten years. I do not think that the Arabs watching this pattern are so stupid as to think that a similar exercize in Iran is going to help them.
 
The RUSSIANS?!?!?

Good gaawd the Ruskies are way more concerned with putting in Casino's and "Amercian style" gambling than foreign affairs.
 
I agree...the Russians seem to be more interested in matching funds than matching throw weight. The art of the deal, rather than saber rattling will be our basis of bargaining with them, dealing in hard currency and investment credits. Their southern flank will continue to be protected as long as they maintain hegemony over the former soviet satellites in central Asia, which is assisted greatly by our suppression and eradication of Islamofascism worldwide. Syria and Iran offer nothing of interest strategically to the Russians. In fact, the destabilizing influence of Syria and Iran in the region only detracts from Russian security. They are just as at risk from a nuclear armed Islamofascist regime as we are...perhaps moreso as they are in the same general ballpark and we remain thousands of miles away.

My comments re: the possibility of Israel being nuked were pedicated on Islamofascists doing the nuking, not the Russians. A Russian nuke or nukes in Israel would mean WWIII as we all go glowing back to the stone age.
Ain't gonna happen. A rogue nuke pops and all hell breaks loose as everyone scrambles to keep WWIII from starting.

I believe that the moderate Arabs are essential in this equation. I don't believe that they will continue to tolerate the yoke of oppression. Right now, the struggle in Iraq is over who is going to be the next 'strong man'. Wanna be dictators are trying to play the old game while we have put new rules in place. I don't believe that the people there will turn back. It won't be democracy as we have known it here, but I guarantee that the Iraqi National Soccer Team won't be put in the wood chipper when they return home from Athens without the gold medal. That's a start.
 
The Russians are at the moment militarily a non-entenity.

The best it can do is police actions within its borders and even then it struggles.

An Arab talking head on the news was saying that insurgents/terrorist/whatever label of the month were going to increase attacks across the middle east on oil infrastructure as a way to hit the West and their own rulers hard. It seems to be working; oil just hit $48 a barrel.
 
gburner,

Iran has threatened to hit the State of Israel's Dimona site if any of theirs take a strike. At the moment our own forces are too weak to even consider an incursion into Iran, even with troop withdrawls from europe and elsewhere.

As for the Russians, it seems that many people are under the false impression that Russia has no army, navy and air force just because they are under economic pressure. This notion seems to come about as a result of mainstream press treatment of the particular subject - or lack thereof.

The Russians were not going to back down at Pristina airport in Kosova, and it was only the sane thinking of Britain's General Jackson - who disobeyed Clark's reckless orders to confront them - that something worse didn't happen.

If the State of Israel were to launch strikes into Iran, and Russia were to nuke Tel Aviv, Haifa etc from sites in Iran who would know it was even the Russians? They going to excavate a crater that once was a city and find "traces" they can say were Russian? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top