Why I think moron* will attack Syria...

[Javaman]

It appears that there is a pattern, but not the one that you think.
Not the one of: plans on the table, nothing has been ruled out, fabricated evidence of weapon systems...blah blah blah.
No, something more obvious, that would define moron* in such terms as being, well a pussy.

Let's take a quick look at the various axis of evil he spoke so openly about years ago and how he has come to define each with there own special brand of bushtopian diplomacy. And also why I truly believe that he knew that Iraq had no WMD's (a now over used term that I truly despise).

First, Iraq: That didn't have WMD's so he felt safe and secure as to a win for the team here. He tauted all sorts of bullshit, paraded his various minions before the world stage, ran roughshod over the UN, pissed off half, if not all, of Europe for what? To find nothing that he knew was there. So with Iraq, he was safe to set the stage for how he could go around saying he was protecting the US by invading Iraq. Once the messy issue of no weapons being found was disposed of (when was the last time you heard anything about it in the news?) He changed the story to promoting freedom and democracy. Just bullshit.
Level of difficulty: Easy.
Level of brainwashing the public: High
Level of Political usefulness: Extreme

Next, Iran: Maybe they do, maybe they don't have nukes. Who knows? Given the on again off again dealings this Administration has been having with this other member of the "axis of evil", they really don't know and don't want to find out anytime soon, but they are willing to play along for Europe's sake. Why? Moron* knows he's in deep shit in Iraq and can't press this issue of another war (Iran would be bigger and much more costly in lives and money)without Europe's help, so given the circumstances, he's willing to let diplomacy work or should I say, his bizarre brand of diplomacy. Going it alone yet again would be political suicide.
Level of difficulty: moderate
Level of brainwashing the public: medium
Level of Political usefulness:Moderate to High

Lastly, Korea: The forgotten brother in this crazy axis. Yup they got Nukes, nope we don't want to poke the hive over there, yup they would use them, nope we don't want to be on the receiving end.
So what is the deal with Korea anyway? As long as they are kept isolated and out of the spot light, joe blow average American will be left with the concept, "I don't know what to think until moron* tells me to think it". So Korea is left off the burners completely, back, front or otherwise, so John Q. Public doesn't ask any ugly questions like, "hey Korea does have nukes, why aren't you going after them, if you are so tough??" Can't have the public questioning the obvious. So they will be left alone for a while, probably until a hit squad can kill Kim or he finally croaks of old age waiting to be accepted as a world leader.
Level of Difficulty: High
Level of brainwashing the public: Your guess is as good as mine.
Level of Political usefulness: very low indeed.

So Why do I think he will invade Syria? Because they don't have nukes, WMD's or any other potential nasties they could throw at us. Also, it would be another easy win for the gipper.
Level of Difficulty: Easy
Level of brainwashing the public: High
Level of Political usefulness: Extreme

What does all of this show about our fearless leader*? He's what as known on the concrete playgrounds of Brooklyn NY as a pussy bully. He only picks on the ones he knows he can beat and make himself look good.
So he's going through the motions, going through the UN dance, going through the PR bullshit, going through bushtopian diplomacy, etc, but I have a feeling some sort of bomb, ordinance, or just something that goes boom really loud, will be dropped sometime early to mid summer.
By the way, what ever happened to condi, I have never had an original thought ever, rice, now changed to: condi, I don't have a clue, rice, and her doing the diplomat dance??

It's easy to pick on the little guy, it's tough to call the big guys to the mat and show you have a pair. When was the last time, this so called tough on terrorism prez* did that?

So while Saudi Arbia, Egypt, Pakistan continue to host, provide help, and fund the various terrorists, moron* will continue to fire his peashooter at the wrong targets, thus pissing off an already pissed off world that much more.

The single track mind to war is fraught with danger.

[BrainRants]

1. Breaking: Bush Demands Syria out of Lebanon by May

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050308/pl_nm/bush_dc

Seems your analysis has merit, well done!

[Kikosexy2]

2. excellent...

analysis...my brother in law keeps saying Moron* will go after Syria also. Very interesting read and so true.

[TNOE]

3. Agree - except for 1 thing

Iraq has been ANYTHING but easy - we still do not have that country anywhere under control - although you'd never know it. But I think the true loss of dead and wounded soldiers - when and if that true number is ever revealed will be staggering.

[Javaman]

5. You are correct, but...

my little rating system is based primarily upon how "they", the administration see things, not what reality dictates.
But that just dovetails into: at what point has reality ever been important to moron* in the first place?

[TNOE]

7. Yes, I see what you're saying

but I still think THEY know the true costs and THEY have got to be freaking out - unless of course they are stupid enough to hurredly shove Iraq under the rug and move on - which no doubt they are that stupid and then some. They know we don't have the troops, no way, but it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to create another 9/11 and blame on Iran/Syria and get the draft going. That's probably what they really want.

[Javaman]

9. You have a point.

I think in the beginnning they were all riding high on their own rhetoric, but was quickly replaced by reality when the first IED killed a US soldier.
Yeah, I do believe that they want to sweep this under the rug and move on to "better things".
I honestly believe that moron* diplomacy is useless and pointless, that's what really scares the hell out of me.
So lacking that, yes, I also agree that there will be yet another 9/11 type incident to "refocus" their agenda.
Scary times, indeed.

[tubbacheez]

4. I agree with you, but for different reasons than you gave.

I think * is a wimpy weakling for embarking on this stupid makeover of the world in the first place. It takes courage and strength to be a team-player with other nations, but he just can't hold off the corporate lobbyists and do that.



But from a strategy point of view, it's often recommended that one attack what is weakly defended and one avoid attacking what is well-defended. Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" even advocates this.

Historically, the evenly matched wars generally turn into grotesque stalemates that severely weakened both sides. No sane commander wants that.

The notion of a "fair fight" is mythical, in my opinion, something the winner of a duel says after his opponent has died. When survival is at stake, very few people have the discipline fight "fair". Far fewer have the skill to win when the opponent stops fighting "fair".

So I think * has no choice but to pursue this strategy. It's the only practical way to go about being an international bullying baddass.





My beef is with his decision we should become an international bullying baddass.

[Javaman]

6. I agree with you and Sun Tzu's...

Any military wants to have the odds on it's side. Goes without saying.
I don't have an issue with our military or the people who lead or soldiers, I have a problem with a world leader invading weak countries to forward his grand political agenda of conquest based upon lies.
Granted this is nothing new, but when we are supposed to be a democracy promoting the ideals of equality and freedom, I find it ironic that those two qualities are so desperately lacking in morons* drive to fame and legacy.

[tubbacheez]

8. Agreed.

"I have a problem with a world leader invading weak countries to forward his grand political agenda of conquest..."


Yep, you and I are in 100% agreement on that.





"... based on lies"


And the lying just makes * even more despicable.

[applegrove]

10. Iran is too big. They don't take on the big ones - that might cause

a tax increase.

I say 75% chance that a draft comes before a tax increase on the elites in the USA.

[Cleita]

11. I brought up the fact that he was going to attack Syria last year

and everyone said, "Huh"?

But my reasons weren't the usual logical, well researched, thoughtful ones. My reason was that I was listening to a lot of these nutjob religious shows on the radio at that time mainly for the entertainment value. This was before AAR was launched in my area and I just couldn't listen to Hannity, Rush etc., anymore. They kept saying in between the Jesus talk that we had to go into Syria because this is where all the Al Queda were infiltrating into Iraq from.

Now I don't consider those Jesus guys prophetic, but I do consider the fact that they have a red line to the Oval Office and they are very much in the loop of this Middle East Armageddon, which is what's in the plans that the BFEE and the Moonies don't want us to be privy too until the right time.

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

12. Pretty good analysis...

seems more and more likely that Syria is next. Although I hope we don't go down that road. I really don't.

However, I also share your feeling that something that 'goes boom really loud' is going to occur in the next few months. I suppose we shall have to wait and see what happens.

[cire4]

13. I agree....except I think Iran belongs in the "high" level of difficulty

I don't see how any invading force could possibly control that country. Bush invading Iran would be the equivalent of Hitler/Napoleon invading Russia. There's just some lands that you don't attempt to conquer and Iran is one of those lands.