Blog powered by Typepad

« Pheeew, glad I missed that one! | Main | Dammit, another life lived well and bravely »

Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I seem to recall that no one gave him a cat in hell's chance of beating Hills until the votes were mostly counted.
Let's see.
He's the incumbent. Only two of those have lost since the thirties.
Unemployment at record low for all classes of workers, pay rising faster than inflation and fastest since before the 2008 crash. May not last, but if it does, well no incumbent has ever lost in those circumstances.
Plus the Dem candidates are going to have to fight each other and appeal to Dem activists. Should give Mr. T plenty of ammunition for the actual election.
And why should he change a winning formula. Nobody thought it would work ever, but it always has.

I agree with Pat. As long as conditions are equal to or better than they are now at voting time, Trump has a good shot at reelection. Things that can spoil his chances are unfavorable changes in the economy or security-related events, his gratingly erratic behavior, or a good opposing candidate, which is something he definitely lacked in 2016.

He'll be facing someone like Billary's daughter I suspect, someone like Rory whatever-his-name over here, a complete outsider, but with a lot of 'support' from rags like Huffpo, Boston Globe etc', to piddle about with.

Radio5Dead will have a field day, and promote Rhod Sharpe over midget Sopel.

Prsident Trump will walk it (according to the dregs in this small but perfectly-formed glass at my elbow...)

Scrobs, look after your elbow.

He'll romp it in.

The Dumbocrats will probably endorse a candidate that will turn most off other than the unbiased [choke] media. That of course will be after the candidates tear each other apart in the struggle to be the anointed one and providing "the Donald" with an almost inexhaustible supply of arguments as to why he should be chosen above the alternative.

Glesga, I did, and will have another peer at the same view this evening!

As it's nearly the longest day, I suspect that you never really get any darkness about now. When I worked in Paisley, I was amazed at how light it was all the time, (we're in Kent, and there's so much of a difference)!

Elbows R Us again soon...

But back to the subject - the dark arts of politics are wriggling and squirming in anticipation methinks!

"have your twitter finger surgically amputated!"

As long as the US media is separated from the Democrats!

If Trump is at risk, and he is, it is from the 2A crowd that he is screwing over as they are likely to stay at home.

People love Trumps twitter comments and those that are getting upset are the vocal minority and as we can see everyone is ignoring them and every day more and more people are waking up to them.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jun/20/paternity-suit-lists-bidens-son-49/

Y'all grab yersefs a heapin' hepin' of popcorn and make yersev's comfortable. It's gonna be an interestin' next fifteen months.

https://joebiden.info/

I expect Trump to win handily, insh'Allah.

The one thing that could upset the applecart -- and I hesitate even to mention it, for fear that someone on the other side might overhear -- would be if Mooch got in the race. She might actually have a chance.

God help us if so.

I hardly dare ask, Malcolm, because I suspect I know the answer but who is "Mooch"?

A former "First Lady".

No doubt our host is "out there" celebrating summer solstice with the free spirits? Or, collecting weekly provisions.

If only his twitter finger was as absent as his trigger finger ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

He actually asked how many would die. When the answer came: 150, he stopped the attack.

1.8 x 150 = 270 children without a Mum or a Dad ...

https://financialtribune.com/articles/people/47413/single-child-families-challenge-iran-population-growth-rate

I wonder if Obama, Bush, Blair, Cameron, or Thatcher bothered to ask the question that any ordinary person would ask, ordinary as in not infested with the pol-gone, in weighing their judgement?

Perhaps the Don is just a business man after all, with no pol-gene actually in him? Running America like a business. Mercantilism, in dumbed-down words: "Sell more value than you buy at cost", is what you do when you run a business successfully. Sadly a state is one level up, where to be a successful prez you should instead adopt free trade and leave the mercantilism to your businessmen.

But for his simple, human, ordinary person's question and subsequent action I think I'm prepared to forgive him all his other sins.

SoD

SoD,

You probably know better. Trump isn't as simple as all that. He's president because he's a creature of salesmanship and public relations and the Republicans set up a system of governing based almost solely on PR. There's a good chance the noise about the tanker bombings and drone shoot-down was cherry picked from a lot of similar incidents and a "crisis" was created so Trump could "avert disaster".

Since he campaigned against stupid wars, the next best thing is one manufactured to "win".

Bob, Trump will have to fight a war or give up the Straits of Hormuz to Iran. It would seem the Western media are not asking who is funding and arming the Shia Houthi rebels but are concentrating on Saudi Arabia and Khashoggi who the media are reluctant to say was a member of the fascist Muslim Brotherhood. If the Yanks want the oil then they will fight.

Typical "Bob's Buds"

http://itaintholywater.blogspot.com/2019/06/so-who-is-psycho.html

It's that easy at this point.

***

60 hours ago I emailed a US Senator my thoughts, in part:

"[B]efore I delve into the possibility of a tactical strike on Iran allow me to emphatically state I am against any such occurrence.

But where to strike? Geographically Iran proper I don't consider a very smart move (collateral civilian damage and media). So then, where else?

I suggest Syria if it regrettably comes to a military strike. Preferably by TLAMs. ... Too, tip off the Russians. Pick an airfield where a re-supply of missiles (or parts) to either the IRGC or Quds Force are in the process of a delivery - or both IRGC and Quds. Doing so "ought" ensure local media film crews will be barred from being anywhere near the strike area. ... The environs of Idlib proper perhaps?

At any rate - someplace where a message to the Turks to the effect that "Maybe going with that S-400 system isn't such a hot idea afterall" [might] effectively be delivered."

***

From this morning's NightWatch (0200 US Central Timezone):

Iran/US

"Comment: Iran’s downing of the US drone comes close to admitting responsibility for a program of escalating harassment of US assets, interests and those of US allies. With this attack, the US or its allies have experienced recent attacks on land, sea and air. The symmetry strikes us as no accident. The evidence points mostly to Iranian instigation, if not instrumentality. Major General Salami of the IRGC appears to have ordered all IRGC assets to participate in the harassment.

[This person] judges that the goal is to entice the US to overreact or to not react at all. In either case, the US looks bad – a bully in the former case and sheepish in the latter. [Person] posits that Iran’s leaders are pursuing a long-range strategy to influence the 2020 US elections in favor of a new more sympathetic US administration.

In their myopia, Iranian leaders tend to misjudge the US in crisis management mode. In 2003, their leaders were convinced that Iran was the real target of the US forces that attacked Iraq. As a tripwire, they begged for air deconfliction rules so the US air forces would not accidentally shoot down Iranian aircraft. They begged in English.

This time their goals would be satisfied if they could ensnare the US in another Middle Eastern conflict. Not a war, but a set of limited engagements that they judge will stir Iranian patriotism and which Iran can survive. Iran must be perceived as the victim so the US electorate votes in a new administration.

The Israelis have been responding to Iranian provocations in Syria for nine years. Israeli air forces and missiles have destroyed repeatedly Iranian missiles and other weapons delivered to Syrian bases and Iranian installations. In some of those attacks, Iran has acknowledged that the Israelis killed Iranians.

The Iranians invariably rage at the Israelis, but they do not retaliate. Since 2011, we could find only one instance in which an Iranian proxy fired a rocket into the Golan Heights as an act of retaliation.

The Israeli action-reaction sequence is instructive. The Israelis attack quickly after they detect an Iranian delivery or a buildup. The attack is calibrated so it achieves the primary tactical objectives without losing Israeli pilots. That is one model the US might follow.

Israeli tactics tend to be appropriately reflexive of the provocation. They have retarded Iranian cultivation of Syria as an Iranian base. Strategically, they have failed to deter the Iranians from delivering more weapons to Syria and from working to consolidate their presence in Syria.

US military options are limited for deterring, much less preventing, the harassment campaign without making Iran look like a victim. Plus, the evidence of responsibility for the land attacks points towards Islamic State fighters as often as it points to an Iranian-backed Shia militia.

Nevertheless, the judgment that a campaign is in progress on land, sea and air provides a more comprehensive and predictive approach to readiness and response options.

The US also has the option of continuing to tighten the economic screws and thus sidestepping the trap the Iranians are trying to lay. “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” according to Sun Tsu. The impact of sanctions added to Iranian economic mismanagement has been shortages, hardships and high unemployment.

We concur with [Person] that time is not on the side of the Iranian leadership.

This is a model that the US already is using and can intensify to destabilize the Iranian system and cause it to devolve. It turns Iran’s long-range strategy back on itself but is a form of collective punishment against everyday Iranians. It won’t stop the harassment campaign, but it visits on Iranians the consequences of their leadership’s poor choices.

Clever planners should be able to devise a mix of Israeli tactics and Sun Tsu's strategy."

***

Bob's assertions notwithstanding there will be a strike.

Of course 'Quivering Merkel' might demand a re-count.

Responding militarily is exactly what the mad Mullahs want, of course ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/21/donald-trump-has-confounded-iranians-refusing-launch-military/

The age old tactic of deflecting a critical adverse public away from the state and onto a foreign adversary.

Currying global opinion against the aggressor and justifying their response - which would be to unleash the numerous sleeper cells abroad the West.

Even re-uniting the two factions of Islam against us that have been doing us such a favour by knocking six bells out of each other rather than us for the last couple of decades (and more).

The Don has dodged a bullet, literally and metaphorically, for us, good on him.

Time to stoke up that ancient factional enmity again now Syria has gone quiet. What is that cowardly douche MBS doing, FFS? All macho fine and dandy with chopping up hacks but nowhere to be seen when the big job comes calling.

The trick is for the US to get the mad Mullahs to kick it off, if it has to kick-off at all, by attacking the Saudis. Meanwhile tighten the sanctions to induce them to make the mistake.

SoD

This is a reality show card Trump has played before. He called out Kim Jong-un and threatened "fire and fury" the world has never seen. Next, Kim wrote Trump "beautiful" letters and they "fell in love, OK?"

There's a pattern here that has nothing to do with actual world events and everything to do with Trump treating the presidency as a reality TV show. He ordered the strike knowing what the casualties would be because presidents are always advised about the consequences of any such action before hand. Or he ordered a strike without consulting the military first. Either way, it stinks.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)