About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Truman's Bluff

 

All right class! Sit up...pay attention; we're about to pose a thought-provoking historical question:

 

What if President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had lived 6 more months? Would he have dropped the BOMB? And would we have witnessed the end of World War 2 by August, 1945? 

 

And could the war have evolved into a worse conflagration? Raise your hand if you know.

 

After Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta in early 1945 to Josef Stalin, the Red Army had a "green light opportunity." With eastern Europe in hand, Stalin directed them to head south, and by August 1945 the Red Army was massing on the border of Iran.

 

So what would Roosevelt have done? In all probability-- nothing.

 

Stalin would have then proceeded straight to Tehran, and installed a new Tudeh (Communist) regime in no time.

 

But most fortunately, it was Harry Truman at the helm, who would literally terrify Stalin out of Iran-- purely on a bluff. 

 

Truman-- immediately upon being sworn-in-- recognized Stalin's true intention: Communist expansion, not only into eastern Europe, but also into the oil-rich Mideast.

 

But Stalin believed that America was ready to follow the lead of the late, liberal, trusting FDR, calculating that Truman would not at all want to risk extending the war onto a new front (Mideast). Stalin would be proven wrong-- very wrong!

 

Truman immediately had made up his mind; he would send Ambassador Walter Bedell Smith to personally meet with Stalin in the Kremlin, to deliver the most "strongly worded" message in presidential history.

 

But for the sake of historical context, a little backround on the country formerly known as "Persia." 

 

In 1908, British colonials discovered oil in Persia, and formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company-- later evolving into British Petroleum.

 

After World War IPersia's ruler, Ahmad Shah, proved to be grossly incompetent, and in 1921, the pro- British "Reza Khan Merpanji" (1877-1944) was put on the throne, who then changed his name to "Pahlavi" (in deference to an ancient Persian language translation).

 

But the "Reza Khan move" eventually backfired on the British.

 

Ol' Reezy turned out to be a political weathervane, and in betrayal, he decided to entreat Adolf Hitler in Germany, even going so far as to decree that Persia would henceforth be known as "Iran," meaning..."Land of Aryans".

Hitler felt genuinely complimented that the country had re-named itself as home of the "Master Race", and recognizing Iran's strategic importance, a German-Persian alliance was formed in 1939 after the start of the war.

 

The Allies, greatly alarmed, invaded Tehran in August 1941 and deposed the pro-Nazi Reza Khan, installing his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1917-1980) as the next leader.

 

The Russians stayed in Iran until Autumn, l942 when they were forced to withdraw and reinforce their army against Hitler's invasion into Stalingrad

 

To this day, historians question Hitler's stubborn refusal to allow his huge Stalingrad force to surrender. But if one examines the world map in mid-1942, it reveals expansionist Nazi armies; one moving east toward the Suez under Rommel, and a huge, 600,000 man force moving south on Stalingrad under von Paulus.

 

If Hitler had struck at Stalingrad only 3 months earlier, he would have taken the city, moved south to hook up with the Iranians, and could have met Rommel closing in from the west--possibly winning the war as early as mid 1943.

 

Stalin (like Hitler) understood Iran's strategic importance, so upon meeting with FDR and Churchill at the Tehran Conference at the end of 1943, Stalin conned the trusting Roosevelt, and agreed..."In exchange for continued U.S. aid, I will make no post-war move on Iran." 

 

This was one of many of Stalin's big lies, which set the stage for Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta.

Four months after Roosevelt's death, Stalin dispatched a Red Army column to march from Soviet Azerbaijan across the border to Iran, with orders to seize the capital, Tehran. 

 

Now enter the firebrand, no-nonsense persona of Harry Truman, who--via his ambassador-- then delivered his fateful "ultimatum" to Stalin, which in so many words had said:

 

"Dear Mr. Stalin; we think you're just a bit out of bounds, and have violated your agreement at Tehran. Thus, if you recall the 2 big bombs we recently dropped on Japan, if your army doesn't withdraw from the Iranian border within 48 hours, I will immediately dispatch ANOTHER atomic bomb mission from our bases in Libya, and drop the next one right on their fur-capped Soviet heads!" 

 

Stalin complied--and rather quickly.

 

But liberal, revisionist historians have downplayed Truman; so you hear little of the heroic stand he took against Stalin at the end of hostilities in 1945, when the U.S. actually had no THIRD atomic bomb.

But what if Truman had not bluffed Stalin? The entire Mideast map of post-World War II might have gone all Communist, and to this very day, the Russians might be the ones we would be paying for imported oil, instead of OPEC.

 

Indeed, history has completely ignored Truman's sheer cunning;

 

The U.S. was at least 6 months away from assembling a third atomic bomb. But the media despised the blunt-talking, monotone-voiced Missourian, being the reason why it took so long for Truman to take his rightful place in history as perhaps the boldest and most intuitive president of the 20th century.

 

And on the flip side of fate, what if FDR dies a month EARLIER, say around March 12, 1945?

 

It's not the least bit of a stretch that a highly-aggressive George Patton would have told a newly sworn-in Harry Truman..."Mr. President, l can chase these Russkies all the way back to the Ukraine-- just gimme the green light!"

 

By March '45, given the arrival of the newly-upgraded, General Pershing tanks, replete with a high-velocity 90 mm. main gun, and the legions of B-24 & B-17 bombers-- plus heavily-armed P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt fighters (6 or 8 .50-caliber Browning machine guns)-- the United States was indeed the most powerful war machine the world had ever seen.

 

And despite the numerical superiority of the Soviet armies on the ground, the Americans could have thrown 10 times as much steel as the backwardly-armed Russians (particularly the Red Air Force), and General Patton, and 8th Air Force General Curtiss LeMay, could have blasted the Soviets all the way back to the Ural Mountains-- and beyond.

 

And  the Cold War? it would have been nothing but a figment in Winston Churchill's imagination.

 

But what would FDR have done if he had lived 6 more months? Let's pontificate:

 

In his trusting liberal heart, FDR may have told his generals..."Oh, let Mr. Stalin go; he can have Iran, it's only fair; the Russians did most of the anti-Nazi fighting; they're our allies; no sense in arguing; bring our boys home; we have no interest in those deserts; we've got plenty of oil back here at home"... etc.

 

And in a perverse way of reasoning, if not for Roosevelt's April,1945 cerebro-vascular accident (stroke), what then? In retrospect, it may have been one of the most fortunate "accidents" in modern world history.

 

Beginning with FDR (and his Yalta fiasco) liberal presidents have always trusted our enemies, and have had a compulsion to be "fair" to them. But  fortunately (for America) a conservative president came along every time to sweep up the mess.

 

In the post-war era, it was the liberal Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), who decided to escalate a regional overseas conflict into a full blown war (Vietnam), for reasons that are only known to him.

 

But Johnson not only blundered America into an unnecessary conflict, the LBJ presidency was also germane in debasing our currency.

 

In the late 60's, Vietnam war costs were spiraling out of control. The Pentagon's war budget was exploding; inflation was bubbling up. The dollar was sinking.

 

So Mr. Johnson 'cleverly' decided to set a economic precedent that has flourished to this very day-- unleash a new federal reserve strategy-- run the printing presses.

In all its previous wars, the U.S. had enacted either tax hikes, or selling what the old timers refer to as "war bonds". But LBJ had the fed crank out approximately 80 billion in unbacked paper currency, to keep his Great Society ship of state afloat.

 

So by March of 1971, the wolf was at the Whitehouse door, and with inflation spiraling out of control, Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard, and the irreparable damage to the U.S. dollar had been done-- never again would it be pegged to the price of gold-- it would float up or down in relation to the other currencies of the world.

 

Then in 1977, liberal democrat Jimmy Carter (Mr. Human Rights), immediately began his naive destruction of our foreign intelligence agencies, approving the firing of 400 of our best CIA agents(many of them in the Mideast)-- an ongoing disaster that has affected America calamitously to the present day.

 

Carter intuitively MISUNDERSTOOD the depths of hatred that the radical Islamist movement would have toward America.

 

Once the surprise revelation became known that the Shah of Iran was in trouble, Carter actually sided WITH Ayatollah Khomeini, because he, like himself, was a "religious man", and would "never violate the human rights of the Iranian people" as the Shah had done with his secret police force (SAVAK).

 

Carter foolishly failed to realize that Khomeini could actually be more "unfair" than the Shah; and would employ Iran's oil revenues AGAINST the United States.

 

Carter let the Shah fall in ignominy. And just as history blames Roosevelt for the Cold War, Carter could be considered the defacto founder of radical Islam.

 

And what about the liberal Bill Clinton, and his baseless trusting of our "ally," the Chinese?

 

In February of 1996, President Clinton authorized the export of critical booster-rocket and satellite technology to China, undercutting the Justice Department's investigation that it would greatly harm U.S. national security.

 

A New York Times reporter uncovered the actual plot:

 

In an admission by Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, it was revealed a quid-pro-quo had occurred-- Clinton had received nearly $100,000 in Chinese "contributions" for his re-election campaign of 1996.

 

Currently, China is practicing how to shoot down orbiting satellites; and to our peril, the media has deliberately ignored Clinton's responsibility, having saved China approximately 15-20 years of difficult research-- all for campaign contributions. 

 

And now that the Chinese are flush with cash (most of it ours) they are going all-out to develop a threat the U.S. hasn't witnessed since Stalin acquired our hydrogen bomb secrets in 1949: the DF- 21 missile, a  'kill weapon' to target & destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

 

The DF-21 rises above the atmosphere at Mach-10, then plunges rapidly with "smart bomb" guidance capability to strike a large moving target at sea-- thereby rendering the U.S. naval carrier umbrella almost useless.

Imagine all American carriers-- going the way of the World War II battleships-- becoming obsolete almost overnight; all through the courtesy of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton's reckless actions with China may now have now greased the skids for a possible future war, but you'll never hear about it in the pro-liberal media, who-- ever since the days of FDR-- have covered up the sinful mistakes of democrats, and the reason why the U.S. military is as necessary now as it was in 1941, or at any other time in America's storied history.

 

But despite all the negative slant of the media, the United States has been an honorable country, and has never kept territory, or plundered any land we've conquered.

 

It's all part of our "good karma" as a truly blessed nation. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gobal warmongering? Climate changers? Islamic aggressors? When the U.N. attacks!


Almost 65 years ago, in September of 1944, U.S., British, Soviet, and Chinese representatives met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington to draft the charter of a postwar international peacekeeping organization based on the principle of collective security. It provided for a General Assembly of all member states, and a Security Council .

Voting procedures were finalized at the Yalta Conference in early 1945; and finally, representatives of 50 nations met in San Francisco in June 1945 to complete the final Charter of the United Nations.

And after this promising post-World War II beginning for the U.N., things have gone south ever since.
 
Today the United Nations has morphed from the world's peacemaker, to universal rabble rouser, sticking their collective noses into everything but making peace.
 
Exhibit A-- Islamic countries recently won United Nation's backing for an anti-blasphemy measure, which Canada (and other Western critics) said, "risks being used to limit freedom of speech".

This measure, "The Defamation of Religions," passed 85-50, with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the U.N. plenary council later this year.
 
It's an obvious (and ominous) victory for Muslim religious fascists -- they can now exploit a human rights approach towards silencing any dissent of which they disapprove.
 
And already the resolution has stirred controversy within Europe: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, recently condemned as “offensively anti-Islamic,” a Dutch lawmaker’s film that accuses the Koran of inciting violence.

The film, which was launched by Islam critic Geert Wilders over the Internet, caused enough resentment that the Sec. General appealed for calm to those “understandably" offended by it....“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is NOT at stake here.”
 
An ominous statement indeed, and a possible violation of our First Amendment right to free speech in the United States.
 
Actually, what's being proposed is not just some campaign for religious freedom of expression, but rather a sinister collective movement-- the parallel government of the entire world.

But while the draft's sponsors say it (and earlier similar measures) are aimed at preventing violence against worshippers regardless of religion, religious tolerance advocates warn the resolutions are being accumulated for a hidden ulterior motive... providing international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws.

While the current resolution is non-binding, the anti-blasphemy decree would impose its terms on signatory states.

So here's the good ole, peace-keeping, peace-loving UN, busy at work in a back door ploy of upholding the tenets of radical Islamic fundamentalism, which purports: "An Islamic believer must be serious in every field...There are no jokes in Islam...There is no humor in Islam... There is no fun in Islam".                 

And the trend in America (should we become a signatory) is more ominous; more religious segregation; more Muslim demands within the public schools: the permission to wear headscarves; the demand for prayer rugs; special cafeteria provisions; separate gymnasium classes; and ultimately, classroom Sharia law, begetting a parallel society within a supposedly melting pot country-- our Unites States.
 
Yes, give 'em an inch and they take a society hostage by their own form of cultural jihad--subversion of America's schools and colleges-- religious aggression under the guise of cultural awareness.
 
And where does it stop within our domestic borders? Separate schools? Separate laws? Separate cultures? Parallel societies?

As those old timers in Flatbush used to say at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn... "throw da bums out!" Should we expel the U.N., before they exploit America to the point of no return?
 
How much more do we yield to these deceitful aggressors before they have their own Muslim governing bodies within America? This is where we're headed if this liberal, fascist aggression isn't stopped dead in its cultural tracks.

But fostering controversy instead of peace has been the UN's stock in trade for the last two decades.

So now, we move to exhibit B-- U.N. radical environmentalism-- the attempt by the organization to become the power center of the world's political universe.

And demonstrative of the UN's covert strategy has been their insatiable, chicken little attempt to convince the world that the climatalogical sky is falling: the global warmongering drumbeat of climate change.
 
Armed with "expert" climate models, the UN's IPCC maintains that, "Global warming will continue and even intensify in the 21st century."

Vladimir Katsov, the head of a geophysics laboratory in Russia (and member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), agreed with the IPCC's estimate that the temperature would rise by 1.8 to 4*Centigrade by the end of the century.

Katsov said..."Warming is likely to influence the intensity of precipitation, floods and droughts, affecting crops and probably triggering migration...and future conflict for ever scarcer water and fertile soil resources.

In a report published in Paris, the UN climate panel - a group of 2,500 scientists from 130 countries tasked with assessing climatic changes-- pronounced its latest chicken little post over the internet: "Humanity might face a rise in global sea levels of 5 to 7 inches in the coming years, saying this climate change was, "very likely, man-made".

IPCC scientist Chris Field of Stanford University also weighed in: "Without decisive action, global warming in the 21st century is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than predicted".

Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri added that...
"Concerns about climate change and public awareness on the subject are at an all time high."

Established by the United Nations in 1988, the IPCC brings together hundreds of so-called "experts" from around the world, to assess the science and policy implications of climate change. And In 2007 the IPCC, and the beloved Al Gore, were simultaneously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Ah yes--who else-- Al Gore!

But besides Gore, who are all rest of these pretenders who claim that a 3 to 4 degree increase will burn our good earth to a cinder in this 21st century? They are nothing more than an assemblage of self-appointed "experts", at odds with thousands of true scientists and physicists who know climate change is a hoax, but are silenced by the one thing that perpetuates this entire sham --the liberal media.

It's the media, who will plaster any report all over the front pages, whenever the IPCC chooses to come out with yet another of its many gloom-n-doom scenarios; portending that the climate apocalypse will soon be at a threshhold level.
 
So according to this IPCC cast of characters; what are we do about it?

Should we be filling up sandbags to stop the rising oceans from invading our doorsteps...or preparing to live underground to escape the inevitable temperature holocaust? Or how about mandatory flood insurance for every household along the seacoasts?

Yes-- were in the good hands of the IPCC-- here  to save us from the impending disaster. And like the robot from "Lost in Space", it's, "Warning -warning -warning...doomsday ahead! We are the IPCC; and don't you forget it".

But curiously, the heralded members of the IPCC panel conducts no scientific research of their own.
 
But with Al Gore behind it all, you know there's an ulterior motive hidden in there somewhere. And why would the UN persist in these baseless, phony warnings if there wasn't some master plan behind it all?
 
And that motive, of course, is cap and trade-- the scam of the century-- based on the dumbed-down scientific ignorance of the American population, demonizing the very life gas all humans exhale, and plants inhale for their photosynthetic processing of chlorophyll-- carbon dioxide!

Yes-- demon carbon dioxide-- supposedly the cause for the nonexistent global warming, that is scientifically at odds with nearly all other mainstream scientists.
 
So what’s the endgame?

It's the hot air from our good buddy Al Gore, who's been concealing his true interest in stubbornly promulgating the scam--Generation Investment Management.

Question: If his motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessary for the already wealthy Gore to establish this multi-million dollar corporation in England?
 
Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of a probe by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.
  
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management through which he (and others) pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe.

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income and will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stock in the company.
  
Fascinating -the great Gore green delusion.

Gore's carbon credits scam, and the IPCC warnings, are based not upon climatalogical factors, but on economic ones-- a third world wealth transfer done incognito through the U.N.
 
And once the Obama administration mandates that the U.S. government establishes an overall emissions cap, and assigns specific emissions allocations, it will not tell industries and companies what to do or how to meet their allocations.

Each company is free to make their own choices. They can reduce their own emissions-- or pay someone else to lower them--drastically raising the utility bills of every American household, and the slow and inevitable draining of the wealth of the middle class.

And beneath the surface, this climate-change guilt trip will ultimately result in nothing more than an excuse to tax energy users and providers, with the U.N. as the ultimate beneficiary.

Cap and trade will assure that America will shrink its economy, on the absurd premise that fossil fuel energy usage emits far too much CO2, and companies will end up purchasing these cap and trade credits from smaller drone nations, which emit miniscule amounts of CO2, because they have no industry-- they produce nothing.

And all these carbon credit payments may ultimately end up being distributed to third world dictators abroad.

The goal? Increasing the worldwide political power of the UN, and projecting the influence of the Obama administration to all the world's continents...thereby assuring Barack Obama eventually arises as the defacto president of the entire world, with buddy Al Gore standing at his side, as one of the world's wealthiest men.
 
And ironically, if one were to attach the word "American" after the initials "U N", it would read-- UN-American.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"WHAT??? George Bush Jr. was a great president?"

 

It’s no surprise that the pro-liberal media has all but abandoned the Iraq war. The surge worked; Obama and the Democrats are stymied. Victory in Iraq has removed a big cog of their political haymaking machine. Lame duck Bush Jr. will be mostly be remembered for 4-dollar gas, but his post presidency rank may be another story. Jesus once said, "The last shall be first, and the first shall be last". Maybe the good Lord had George Bush in mind.

 


Besides Dick Cheney, it would be curious to know how many Americans think the Iraq war was worth it. Probably another 14 people, plus the Halliburton employees. But take heart fellow citizens, in 5 more years, Osama Bin Laden might be ready to shave his beard in frustration; and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini may be rolling over in his grave. Big news is coming from Iraq. And you can blame it all on the once-almighty American dollar.

 


In Baghdad, foreign investors are preparing a surge of their own...a United Arab Emirates developer will soon break ground on a 30-story $270 million hi-rise tower. It will house shopping malls, office space, and apartments. The cessation of sectarian tensions, and the dramatic improvements in security have attracted developers worldwide to Iraq, with dollar signs in their eyes. There are grand plans for the city's downtown, which one day might resemble Main Street USA. Blame it on George-Dubya.

 


The Mayor of Baghdad, Saber Nabat el-Essawy, is positively exuberant: His vision is to one day look across the city and see billions of dollars worth of malls, luxury hotels, apartment towers, outdoor amphitheaters, gardens, stadiums, and parks. Baghdad's leaders are jumping on the bandwagon, envisioning a city they'd never imagined now that the surge has removed the scourge of car bombs, and roaming armed militias.

 


In just one year, Iraq's economic turnaround has been nothing short of remarkable. And the groundwork laid by the U.S. military is the prime reason. At an 80-acre military base at Rashid, a massive 5 billion dollar development has already attracted 16 foreign bids. This will include a state-of-the-art hospital, apartment complexes, hotels, shopping centers, and a sport stadium. Sports stadium? Apparently the Iraqis are planning on some long term stability. At the Baghdad airport, the surrounding area has plans for a $17 billion package of five star hotels, a commercial park, golf course and conference auditorium. 

 


People are dreaming big about Iraq. Plenty of investors are eager to get in on the ground floor of an economy that has nowhere to go but up. In the post-Saddam era, the Iraqi economy has rapidly begun to expand. After all the years of war, Iraq will see a predicted growth of 7% in 2008.  Lending by private banks to small businesses has also risen dramatically since Oct 2007, when the surge took hold. Iraqi bonds are producing some of the biggest returns in the world. Bloomberg has rated their risk premium as safer than Cleveland municipals.

 

 

The bonds are providing capital for the necessary infrastructure. A $1 billion project to refurbish Bagdad's water treatment facilities drew an astounding 23 foreign bids. A $70 million sewer project drew 9 bids. There is a flurry of competition to get into Iraq, because the country is about to be transformed from a third world ex-Bedouin society into a first rate modern country,

 


Things here are poised for take off. The Iraqis have oil, which is liquid wealth in the ground, good as gold. Besides oil, the country has two rivers to generate electricity, cheap raw materials, and cheap labor, all ingredients for profitable investment, and boffo economic expansion. Cement makers ,construction companies, and other heavy industries are sending representatives to Baghdad. They are surprised by the clean and functional airport, and the proliferation of mobile phones used by the populace.

 


Now that the war is over, people are demanding cars, satellite dishes, phones, I pods, computers, and high definition TV's. Cell phone use has surged from 6% ownership in pre-war Iraq, to over 70%. Many Iraqi's are ponying up to $550 to purchase topline Samsung camera phones, and expensive, feature-laden Nokias. A new $100 million GSM cellular network recently opened up in the country. Cell phone towers outnumber minaret steeples by 20 to 1. Shops selling once forbidden satellite dishes cannot keep them in stock.

 


The Iraqi people are about to experience a boom remarkably similar to America's 1950's. Many Iraqi's are buying cars, and are getting hooked on American music, movies, and soap operas. Oprah is the most watched show by Iraqi women. Old Clint Eastwood westerns are especially popular. Seinfeld and the CBS morning show have a huge following. Lost remote controls, stuck between the sofa cushions, are a new fact of Iraqi homelife. Computers and the internet have been predicted as the next great Iraqi techno-frontier.

 


Once American culture "invades" a country, there's no turning back. No Muslim will ever admit it, but down deep, everyone wants to live like the "occupiers"-- the nasty "satanic" American infidels. We are the envy of the world, but lately, we've had trouble realizing it because of all our domestic travails. But in a few short years, the American economy might be seeing more than a little payback for pulling Saddam out of his rathole.

 


Curiously, many U.S. soldiers may one day have a chance to return to Iraq, and work in developing cities where they once were sent to fight. Sooner or later, the entire country will be "westernized" (i.e. American-ized). Shell Oil recently opened up its first office there. If you look well beyond the horizon, George Bush's trillion dollar Iraq war, may end up returning us many times over that amount.  

 


The future posibility of Iraq growing into our one of our main export markets is there for the taking. The abundance of Iraqi oil is a resource for the capital they would send us to buy American goods...appliances, software, hardware, prescription drugs, airplanes, food, beverages, and whatever other markets we could develop. Cheap gasoline in Iraq could no doubt fuel a boom for imported cars from America. John McCain's vision of being in Iraq for a hundred years, could be a reality, but not in the way he envisioned. 

 


This could eventually translate into job growth in America. Job growth? Boy, that sounds foreign these days. Our moribund stock market could see an eventual rise from the many franchise chains and other American companies, that are certain to one day proliferate in the newly democratic Iraq. Pop American culture cannot be held back from anywhere it takes hold. American entertainment and fast food are like the Sherwin-Williams logo-- they're destined to cover the earth.

 

 

The future political map of the entire Mideast could eventually transform into something virtually unrecognizable in just a generation from now. A prosperous, democratic model in Iraq would undoubtedly attract an influx of neighboring Arab immigrants from Jordan, Syria, Palestine, or anywhere poverty is rampant. After all, how would a camel ride to the local cafe for a fig salad, compare to the drive up window at a Baghdad McDonalds for a double cheeseburger?  Like crossing our border with Mexico, the immigrant invasion would be on into Iraq.

 


Even hardcore countries like Iran would be under presure from the modernizatin in Iraq. It could inevitably project pro-American politics throughout the entire Middle East region. Democracy and prosperity are contagious. Imagine the political pressure from the next generation of young people in Iran..."We want what the Iraqi's have!". The triumph over radical Islamic fundalism may one day be accomplished by the defacto westernization of the entire area. The war on terror would end in a sense of Al-Qaida futility. The entire political climate of the world would experience "global cooling", with Russia as the only possible standing foe.

 


Yes indeed, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. Much of the cash we've sent to OPEC, and spent on Iraq, may one day be coming back . George W. Bush, the least popular president in history, could be vindicated and go down as the Harry Truman (who was also a blundering speechmaker) of the twenty first century.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »