http://principiadiscordia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6237
The division was so sharp, and so even, that there can only be one solution:
The blue states cede from the red. We get The Northeast, California & Hawaii. Y'all motherfuckers can have the south & The midwest.
Cf: Mad Dog, Texas in Illuminatus! That's our gameplan. Let's get to it.
It's not like they'd want us around, anyway.
Quote from: LMNOThe division was so sharp, and so even, that there can only be one solution:
The blue states cede from the red. We get The Northeast, California & Hawaii. Y'all motherfuckers can have the south & The midwest.
Cf: Mad Dog, Texas in Illuminatus! That's our gameplan. Let's get to it.
It's not like they'd want us around, anyway.
Google: 1860-1865
Not gonna happen.
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: LMNOThe division was so sharp, and so even, that there can only be one solution:
The blue states cede from the red. We get The Northeast, California & Hawaii. Y'all motherfuckers can have the south & The midwest.
Cf: Mad Dog, Texas in Illuminatus! That's our gameplan. Let's get to it.
It's not like they'd want us around, anyway.
Google: 1860-1865
Not gonna happen.
If the democratic party started to weaken even more, it would be dangerous for the status quo. It would lead to the rise of the third party, or else we'll just live under republican rule for the next eight to ten years, until the youngsters get older and actually go out to the voting booths.
So the neo-cons will probably want to have a weak democratic president sometime in the future, but they'll be slinging rocks and discrediting him the whole time. Maybe not.
Anyway, my prediction is that the democratic party is indeed dead... and the republicans, well they're undead, they're hardly the republicans that we knew in the days of eisenhower. They'll probably want to keep the illusion of the democratic party alive as long as possible, but crippled and unable to effect change.
At least, thats what I seem to think is happening.
Quote from: Z¬?Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: LMNOThe division was so sharp, and so even, that there can only be one solution:
The blue states cede from the red. We get The Northeast, California & Hawaii. Y'all motherfuckers can have the south & The midwest.
Cf: Mad Dog, Texas in Illuminatus! That's our gameplan. Let's get to it.
It's not like they'd want us around, anyway.
Google: 1860-1865
Not gonna happen.
If the democratic party started to weaken even more, it would be dangerous for the status quo. It would lead to the rise of the third party, or else we'll just live under republican rule for the next eight to ten years, until the youngsters get older and actually go out to the voting booths.
So the neo-cons will probably want to have a weak democratic president sometime in the future, but they'll be slinging rocks and discrediting him the whole time. Maybe not.
Anyway, my prediction is that the democratic party is indeed dead... and the republicans, well they're undead, they're hardly the republicans that we knew in the days of eisenhower. They'll probably want to keep the illusion of the democratic party alive as long as possible, but crippled and unable to effect change.
At least, thats what I seem to think is happening.
I think you hit the nail on the head. They'll find another Jimmy Carter to take the hit when the bills come due, but it won't be like he will have any power.
Quote from: LMNOThe division was so sharp, and so even, that there can only be one solution:
The blue states cede from the red. We get The Northeast, California & Hawaii. Y'all motherfuckers can have the south & The midwest.
Cf: Mad Dog, Texas in Illuminatus! That's our gameplan. Let's get to it.
It's not like they'd want us around, anyway.
unfortunately, there's no way in hell they'd let Cali go, or New England (except maybe Maine, but we'd be fucked on our own anyway)...but Washington and Oregon could probably pull it off if there was enough collective resolve, which of course, there never will be.... 8)
We're gonna need a fucking montage to get through the next 4 years.
The hours approaching, just give it your best
You got to reach your prime.
That,Äôs when you need to put yourself to the test,
And show us a passage of time,
Were going to need a montage (montage)
Oh it takes a montage (montage)
Sure a lot of things happing at once,
With mind, everyone what,Äôs going on (what,Äôs going on?)
And when every shot you show a little improvement
Just Show it or it will take to long
that,Äôs called a montage (montage)
Oh we want montage (montage)
And anything that we want to know, from just a beginner to a pro,
You want a montage (montage)
even rocky had a montage (montage)
(Montage,Ķmontage)
Anything that we want to know, from just a beginner to a pro,
You need a montage (montage)
Oh it takes a montage (montage)
Always fade out in a montage,
If you fade out, it seem like more time
Has passed in a montage,
Montage
Quote from: agent compassionWe're gonna need a fucking montage to get through the next 4 years.
The hours approaching, just give it your best
You got to reach your prime.
That,Äôs when you need to put yourself to the test,
And show us a passage of time,
Were going to need a montage (montage)
Oh it takes a montage (montage)
Sure a lot of things happing at once,
With mind, everyone what,Äôs going on (what,Äôs going on?)
And when every shot you show a little improvement
Just Show it or it will take to long
that,Äôs called a montage (montage)
Oh we want montage (montage)
And anything that we want to know, from just a beginner to a pro,
You want a montage (montage)
even rocky had a montage (montage)
(Montage,Ķmontage)
Anything that we want to know, from just a beginner to a pro,
You need a montage (montage)
Oh it takes a montage (montage)
Always fade out in a montage,
If you fade out, it seem like more time
Has passed in a montage,
Montage
Just listen to Radiohead for the whole time. Or don't. You'll slit your wrists before the end of year 1.
Nah I wore out Radiohead in college. Now it's Franz Ferdinand and System of a Down.
so diverse...and yet, both so excellent! congratulations on having good taste!
8)
Thanks!
It's been very cheering to come here and rant and see how other people are doing after this "election" but now I gotta get myself off the compy for a while and get good and drunk like I was planning to do last night. It's good to have local breweries....fresh beer in Mason jars, yay!
lol at "election" in quotes.
no one can complain that this election got stolen. well at least not any mroe stolen than any election since tv got married to politics with richard m nixon's onvnetion where he got to become ike's runnign mate.
Bobdammit! Something's wrong with our genes on a massive planetary scale. Jesus needs to get laid or something.
or maybe eris does eh?
Right! Jessica, not Jesus. I meant to say Jessica!
Quote from: agent compassionNah I wore out Radiohead in college. Now it's Franz Ferdinand and System of a Down.
Franz Ferdinand does indeed rule; but for sheer, word-weary angst, I prefer my wail of Thom Yorke.
Quote from: Turd FergusonQuote from: LMNOThe division was so sharp, and so even, that there can only be one solution:
The blue states cede from the red. We get The Northeast, California & Hawaii. Y'all motherfuckers can have the south & The midwest.
Cf: Mad Dog, Texas in Illuminatus! That's our gameplan. Let's get to it.
It's not like they'd want us around, anyway.
unfortunately, there's no way in hell they'd let Cali go, or New England (except maybe Maine, but we'd be fucked on our own anyway)...but Washington and Oregon could probably pull it off if there was enough collective resolve, which of course, there never will be.... 8)
*cough* New Hampshire *cough*
*in drunken French accent* Viver la revolishun!
Gone but not forgotten. I do have this to say. and seeing as how my time is short I'd like to give you my thousand words in an image...
(http://photobucket.com/albums/v219/Trollax/Greyface-5.jpg)
Beware!
Quote from: PricklyQuote from: Turd FergusonQuote from: LMNOThe division was so sharp, and so even, that there can only be one solution:
The blue states cede from the red. We get The Northeast, California & Hawaii. Y'all motherfuckers can have the south & The midwest.
Cf: Mad Dog, Texas in Illuminatus! That's our gameplan. Let's get to it.
It's not like they'd want us around, anyway.
unfortunately, there's no way in hell they'd let Cali go, or New England (except maybe Maine, but we'd be fucked on our own anyway)...but Washington and Oregon could probably pull it off if there was enough collective resolve, which of course, there never will be.... 8)
*cough* New Hampshire *cough*
*in drunken French accent* Viver la revolishun!
no offense, but I view New Hampshire as an unfortunate strip of land that I have to pass through on my way to Boston....your entire state has betrayed it's motto...the only saving grace you have is that your liquor store is wicked, wicked awesome...but you are NOT living free, and yet, you still live...that said, it is (un)certainly not a reflection on you as a person...all those with a revolutionary bent are welcome in the NSRA...especially those who live less than a 6 hour drive from me... 8)
(http://cagle.com/news/BushWins2004/images2/davies.gif)
Eris needs to fuck Jesus. That would take care of both parts of the problem.
But rike everything erse, this whore goddam erection was just a rot of crock. Goddamn Mongorrians taking over the erection.
Tank you fo calling Shitty-Prez, you take my orders preaze.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger<snip>
This, to me, signals the beginning of the end for my party. Fact is, the Dems have been going downhill since 1963...
<snip>
Any thoughts?
I'm still struggling with the concept of you admitting to an actual party affiliation. You always struck me as a 'don't stick no label on me, dammit' kind of a guy...
-CF
Quote from: Colonel FailureQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger<snip>
This, to me, signals the beginning of the end for my party. Fact is, the Dems have been going downhill since 1963...
<snip>
Any thoughts?
I'm still struggling with the concept of you admitting to an actual party affiliation. You always struck me as a 'don't stick no label on me, dammit' kind of a guy...
-CF
When you have a force for evil like the GOP, you'd better support whatever group has the best chance of beating them.
Besides, the Dems are FUNNIER.
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: Colonel FailureQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger<snip>
This, to me, signals the beginning of the end for my party. Fact is, the Dems have been going downhill since 1963...
<snip>
Any thoughts?
I'm still struggling with the concept of you admitting to an actual party affiliation. You always struck me as a 'don't stick no label on me, dammit' kind of a guy...
-CF
When you have a force for evil like the GOP, you'd better support whatever group has the best chance of beating them.
Besides, the Dems are FUNNIER.
1. Point. Not exactly the Party of Lincoln anymore, huh? Hell, the party of Lincoln wasn't the party of... well, you know.
2. Well, duh... The dems have Barney Frank. The funniest guy the GOP has is the Idiot in Chief, and he doesn't mean to be... and anymore, I can't enjoy laughing at him, cause it's just gotten so pathetic...
5. Even so, though I might vote democratic more often than not, I wouldn't consider them 'my' party... I mean, it's not like they're actually going to be part of the solution. That notwithstanding, you get no argument from me about laying the current state of affairs squarely at the Grand Old Party's feet.
I just registered Democrat so I could vote in primaries too. I take "Vote early, vote often" very seriously you know. :lol:
I live deep in GOP country in SW FL. The dems don't have primaries here. They try not to draw the short straw.
Ah, Florida, America's Wang...
See, this is why we need a MASSIVE overhaul of the elections system in the US. Every time I turn around I find a new example of stupidity. So, in FL, Democrats don't have primaries?
And in OR, where I am, only Dems and Reps get to vote in Presidential primaries - if you're any other party, your ballot doesn't have that race on it.
And what's weirder, last spring, when people tried to go from Green to Dem or Independent to Dem so they could vote in the Pres primary, their registrations got "lost" or "goofed," a friend of mine got a ballot with the outer envelope having her current address, her ballot having an address she hadn't lived at in like, 7 years, and her party as Green, when she had sent in a card changing to Democrat, they said "oh we must have been working from old information there" and she said "then explain how you have my new ADDRESS but not my new PARTY" and they advised her to destroy the incorrect ballot, she said "Oh no, that's EVIDENCE." She still has it.
It's totally fucked, when every state can set its own rules and none of them have to jive with each other. France is laughing at us you know, because we have so many different methods of voting in all our different states and then we wonder why we have screwy elections...
We need to elect Cthulhu.
That is all.
i know it sucks that Bush got elected, but I hardly see this as the death of the democratic party. Almost half of the population expressed displeasure with Bush. this was by no means a landslide for him.
the pendulum has swung in the direction of the GOP, but this will not always be the case. The more things get fucked up in Iraq, the harder it will be to conceal it. When this happens, the GOP will get the boot and the Dems will take over for awhile.
there is nothing the GOP can do that we can't undo.
In some ways, I wouldn't mind seeing the Dems die, but only if it meant true multi-party reform was the end result of such a demise.
The Commander
DIA
Quote from: The Commanderi know it sucks that Bush got elected, but I hardly see this as the death of the democratic party. Almost half of the population expressed displeasure with Bush. this was by no means a landslide for him.
Yes, but that's saying they disliked Bush, not that they liked Kerry, or what's happened to the Democrats. Things are becoming too entrenched. I'd like to see a third party, too.
Quote from: Bob the MediocreQuote from: The Commanderi know it sucks that Bush got elected, but I hardly see this as the death of the democratic party. Almost half of the population expressed displeasure with Bush. this was by no means a landslide for him.
Yes, but that's saying they disliked Bush, not that they liked Kerry, or what's happened to the Democrats. Things are becoming too entrenched. I'd like to see a third party, too.
I'd like to see monkeys roll out of your ass on unicycles, which is just as likely.
HINT: You go NOWHERE in politics without funding, and the corporations that run Fat City sure as hell aren't going to pay off THREE of them, when they can just fund two, or even one.
We shall see, Roger, we shall see.
*cough* Vote Libertarian (http://www.lp.org) *cough*
we've already seen...how much more proof do you need? stop deluding yourself, go get a bunch of guns and grenades, buckle your seatbelt, and wait for the fun to begin....
8)
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerI'd like to see monkeys roll out of your ass on unicycles, which is just as likely.
HINT: You go NOWHERE in politics without funding, and the corporations that run Fat City sure as hell aren't going to pay off THREE of them, when they can just fund two, or even one.
Yeah. We need to mess with the laws of probability. Where's the Star Trek technobable when you need it?
Or we need to give Dubya a unicycle, so he kills himself.
I wish I could still delude myself into thinking a 3rd party could work.
Quote from: Turd Fergusonwe've already seen...how much more proof do you need? stop deluding yourself, go get a bunch of guns and grenades, buckle your seatbelt, and wait for the fun to begin....
8)
Okay.
You go first.
The Good Rev,
Knows that This is one reason there will be no revolution.
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: Turd Fergusonwe've already seen...how much more proof do you need? stop deluding yourself, go get a bunch of guns and grenades, buckle your seatbelt, and wait for the fun to begin....
8)
Okay.
You go first.
The Good Rev,
Knows that This is one reason there will be no revolution.
::hops on Roger's head::
you promised me an apocolypse!
where is my apocolypse?
Quote from: fluffyQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: Turd Fergusonwe've already seen...how much more proof do you need? stop deluding yourself, go get a bunch of guns and grenades, buckle your seatbelt, and wait for the fun to begin....
8)
Okay.
You go first.
The Good Rev,
Knows that This is one reason there will be no revolution.
::hops on Roger's head::
you promised me an apocolypse!
where is my apocolypse?
Is that some wierd calypso thing?
I mean, I know what an
apocalypse is.
Silly rabbit.
Quote from: Jimmy BuffettThey say this universe is bound to blow
But I say we crank up the calypso control
Apocalyp, apocalyp, apocalypso...
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: fluffyQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: Turd Fergusonwe've already seen...how much more proof do you need? stop deluding yourself, go get a bunch of guns and grenades, buckle your seatbelt, and wait for the fun to begin....
8)
Okay.
You go first.
The Good Rev,
Knows that This is one reason there will be no revolution.
::hops on Roger's head::
you promised me an apocolypse!
where is my apocolypse?
Is that some wierd calypso thing?
I mean, I know what an apocalypse is.
Silly rabbit.
speiling nazi
phhhfffffttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
u no wut eye ment
Quote from: AnonymousWe shall see, Roger, we shall see.
*cough* Vote Libertarian (http://www.lp.org) *cough*
Why, that sounds like a good idea!
Oh look, bleach! I think I'll DRINK it, before I VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
Fucking Libertarians.
Quote from: CannedLizardQuote from: AnonymousWe shall see, Roger, we shall see.
*cough* Vote Libertarian (http://www.lp.org) *cough*
Why, that sounds like a good idea!
Oh look, bleach! I think I'll DRINK it, before I VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
Fucking Libertarians.
Personally, I think I'll jam my head in a vise, and SLOOOOOOOOWWWWWLY turn it, just before I send my endorsement.
Is there an Apocalypse party? I mean a political party...not a get drunk and celebrate party....although I guess the two are not mutually exclusive.....
The Commander
DIA
Quote from: The CommanderIs there an Apocalypse party?
Yes, we call them "republicans".
Bringing armageddon to YUO!
I'm curious to see how the Bush administration decides to organize the political system in Iraq. How many political parties will there be? Will it be a winner take all, electoral college system like us? Or perhaps the administration will get crazy and let the Iraqis decide for themselves.
The Commander(Member of the Free Cabbage Party)
DIA
Quote from: The CommanderI'm curious to see how the Bush administration decides to organize the political system in Iraq. How many political parties will there be? Will it be a winner take all, electoral college system like us? Or perhaps the administration will get crazy and let the Iraqis decide for themselves.
The Commander(Member of the Free Cabbage Party)
DIA
I seem to remember that there are about 150 candidates. Might have been an exageration.
Quote from: The CommanderI'm curious to see how the Bush administration decides to organize the political system in Iraq. How many political parties will there be? Will it be a winner take all, electoral college system like us? Or perhaps the administration will get crazy and let the Iraqis decide for themselves.
The Commander(Member of the Free Cabbage Party)
DIA
There will be the 'haves' and the 'fucked' in Iraq. But then again, youknew that would be the score.
Quote from: The CommanderI'm curious to see how the Bush administration decides to organize the political system in Iraq. How many political parties will there be? Will it be a winner take all, electoral college system like us? Or perhaps the administration will get crazy and let the Iraqis decide for themselves.
The Commander(Member of the Free Cabbage Party)
DIA
(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/gay.gif)
(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/lol.gif)(http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/pipe.gif)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/11/19/saddam_chemical_weapons/index_np.html
QuoteHe and his coalition partners wanted a neat military coup to replace Saddam, not an uncontrolled revolt that could lead to chaos and the collapse of Iraq as a state, extending the influence of Iran. In an Iraqi vacuum, Bush and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, wrote in "A World Transformed" in 1998, the United States "could conceivably" be drawn into becoming "an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." They wanted a regime change, nothing more: a malleable general to take the place of the mercurial Saddam.
I don't know whether to laugh or weep. Saddam was the Good Guy against Iran, and the Utter Evil when he invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia (Good Guys, of course). So they wanted (and still do) a Good Guy (or at the least, a stooge) to take over. Of course, whoever he is, he won't be like Saddam. Why would he? It's not like being labelled Evil by your countrymen for being a tool of the Evil Invaders would lead to any stress, is it?
But it's all okay, it's going to be fine. Iran wanted Bush to be reelected, so it's not like they'll be any trouble, right?
Excuse me, I think I'll be going insane sooner than I'd planned. Thanks(http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/images/smilies/wall.gif)
So what is the groups assessment of things now? Are stooges running things? Is the US? Are the Iraqis themselves?
Are any of you familiar with Stratfor Intelligence Reports or with Michael Yon?
The Commander
DIA
Quote from: The CommanderSo what is the groups assessment of things now?
SNAFU.
You were expecting...?
True, but I wonder how much the public perception of things is skewed by media bias. i don't mean left bias or right bias...I mean infotainment bias. Apart from Michael Yon no one is really reporting how bad ass and amazing alot of the grunts on the ground really are. It doesn't sell. Not in the same way talking about how effective or uneffective the attacks by the insurgents are.
No one is talking about the real reason we went to war besides Stratfor and its founder Mr. Friedman. It's much easier to concentrate on how the administration lied about the reasons for war (which all administrations do)(not that that makes it any less wrong). No one is really talking about the successes of what is happening over there. Not that everything is rainbows and lollipops, but some things are going well. Not EVERYONE hates us, and while similar it is NOT another vietnam.
Of course, I'm approaching all this from my own bias. Sure, I'm a left wing radical, but in addition, not only am I in the Military, but I also work in Intelligence. So perhaps my filter on all of this is a little strange.
The Commander
DIA
Nope, its another Lebanon, if you want another analogy. They had alot of Shia too, and they originally backed the Israeli attack. If Sistani dies unexpectedly and al-Sadr's doctine gets wider recieval...
The Kurds love us and are dying to protect us. I didn't hear that from the news, are they covering that at all?
The Kurds want their own country, which they are never going to get from the USA, as it would mean destabalizing a NATO ally, which kinda looks really bad. They're sticking with the USA for now, because the US is wreaking havoc on the bastards who've hurt them for many years, but its stretching it alot to use the word "love". Its more like "put up with, for the moment."
I just really believe that the Dems failed because they suck at life worse than the Republicans nowadays.
Sad.
The republic is dead.
Who is going to play for Caesar's role?
Quote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSC
Who is going to play for Caesar's role?
Enrico will do it. He is learning to play violin right now.
Quote from: Enrico SalazarQuote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSC
Who is going to play for Caesar's role?
Enrico will do it. He is learning to play violin right now.
Good. Your audition starts next year. Prepare vigorously. (The winner of Caesar's role must be able to party for days on end in the old Roman style.)
Quote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCQuote from: Enrico SalazarQuote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSC
Who is going to play for Caesar's role?
Enrico will do it. He is learning to play violin right now.
Good. Your audition starts next year. Prepare vigorously. (The winner of Caesar's role must be able to party for days on end in the old Roman style.)
Which means fucking goats while rubbing wine all over face and puking periodically in vomitorium?
Done.
Quote from: Enrico SalazarQuote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCQuote from: Enrico SalazarQuote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSC
Who is going to play for Caesar's role?
Enrico will do it. He is learning to play violin right now.
Good. Your audition starts next year. Prepare vigorously. (The winner of Caesar's role must be able to party for days on end in the old Roman style.)
Which means fucking goats while rubbing wine all over face and puking periodically in vomitorium?
Done.
You got it. And don't forget the bath houses.
I'm voting for Enrico. At least, on the condition that I become leader of the new Praetorean Guard.
And that I get to have pie.
The Commander
DIA
Quote from: The CommanderTrue, but I wonder how much the public perception of things is skewed by media bias. i don't mean left bias or right bias...I mean infotainment bias. Apart from Michael Yon no one is really reporting how bad ass and amazing alot of the grunts on the ground really are.
It doesn't
matter how badass our troops are - and they are some hardcases - if they have no intel to work with.
Anytime you run a war from your capitol, you lose.
TGRR,
Knows it's all about the intel.
Quote from: CainThe Kurds want their own country, which they are never going to get from the USA, as it would mean destabalizing a NATO ally, which kinda looks really bad. They're sticking with the USA for now, because the US is wreaking havoc on the bastards who've hurt them for many years, but its stretching it alot to use the word "love". Its more like "put up with, for the moment."
Or "play like a B side".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Or "play like a B side".
That also. In our scernario, the USA was committed to a single, unitary Iraq, just as the Bush admin is now. When the shit went down in our game, the Kurds immediately jumped ship and worked with Syria and, to an extent, Iran to undermine the Iraqi republic. Something to consider (possibly different chosen partners, but similar outcome...)
Quote from: The Commander
No one is talking about the real reason we went to war besides Stratfor and its founder Mr. Friedman. It's much easier to concentrate on how the administration lied about the reasons for war (which all administrations do)(not that that makes it any less wrong). No one is really talking about the successes of what is happening over there. Not that everything is rainbows and lollipops, but some things are going well. Not EVERYONE hates us, and while similar it is NOT another vietnam.
How'd I miss THIS?
1. The real reason we went to war was to hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (KB&R, for example). Only this, and nothing more.
2. It doesn't matter if things are going well, if you can't beat the insurgents. That is ALL that matters, at this point. Everything else is bullshit.
3. It's not Vietnam. It's WORSE than Vietnam, from an operational point of view...ie, it took 7 years for the Vietcong to be able to hit us in broad daylight, as the insurgents were capable of doing after only 18 months.
Quote from: CainQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Or "play like a B side".
That also. In our scernario, the USA was committed to a single, unitary Iraq, just as the Bush admin is now. When the shit went down in our game, the Kurds immediately jumped ship and worked with Syria and, to an extent, Iran to undermine the Iraqi republic. Something to consider (possibly different chosen partners, but similar outcome...)
The Kurds are chumps, and Zarqawi is a cheap attention whore. The real danger is Al Sadr. I've been saying that since 2003, and only now is anyone starting to notice him.
Quote from: The CommanderOf course, I'm approaching all this from my own bias. Sure, I'm a left wing radical, but in addition, not only am I in the Military, but I also work in Intelligence. So perhaps my filter on all of this is a little strange.
Then you should know better than this.
Just saying.
Oh hell yeah, Zarqawi is the Pentagon's showman to make it look like its foreign agitators only who cause trouble (an outright lie) and the Kurds aren't an immediate threat, more a future problem which could draw Turkey into future Middle East conflicts.
And al-Sadr is definitly a problem. His insistence on US withdrawal will weaken the Republic no end, which will end up with people like his militia being called in to take up the slack. Not to mention Iran will be watching like a hawk and peddling its influence wherever it can once the US are going. They already are, of course, but they'll be far more open in the future.
Quote from: CainOh hell yeah, Zarqawi is the Pentagon's showman to make it look like its foreign agitators only who cause trouble (an outright lie) and the Kurds aren't an immediate threat, more a future problem which could draw Turkey into future Middle East conflicts.
And al-Sadr is definitly a problem. His insistence on US withdrawal will weaken the Republic no end, which will end up with people like his militia being called in to take up the slack. Not to mention Iran will be watching like a hawk and peddling its influence wherever it can once the US are going. They already are, of course, but they'll be far more open in the future.
1. If pressed, Turkey will fucking the Kurds royally. They don't screw around like we do, and nobody will lift a finger (other than to dictate a slightly nasty diplomatic note that is worth about half the value of the paper it is printed on.
2. Of course. With 18,000 regulars, and 32,000 other armed folks, Sadr WANTS the "republic" weakened. He will be in charge of Iraq within 5 years (probably a lot sooner). No shit.
Yeah, thats what happened in our scernario. I basically told the Kurds we were going to look the other way when the 200,000 Turkish troops poured into Iraq, unless they did exactly what they were told by us. Because of the situation with Iran though (who in our crisis had obtained nukes), they made secret deals and destablized Iraq through underhand means in return for Iranian protection. Not that it would work that way by a long shot, as the situation is now, but thats they way it played out.
Also, with us Al-Sadr declared his own Islamic republic in the south, backed again by Iran and their nukes. In our game, Iranian covert troops were assisting him in driving the British out of Basra and to the Iraqi border...again, not going to happen under the current situation, most likely. But the theme is common, Iran will be playing those two sides in Iraq with every chance it gets to further its aims, in whatever underhand method it can find. Once fragmented, its easy to take control, leaving them with at least an allied state bordering Saudi Arabia and with a hell of alot of extra oil.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
How'd I miss THIS?
1. The real reason we went to war was to hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (KB&R, for example). Only this, and nothing more.
2. It doesn't matter if things are going well, if you can't beat the insurgents. That is ALL that matters, at this point. Everything else is bullshit.
3. It's not Vietnam. It's WORSE than Vietnam, from an operational point of view...ie, it took 7 years for the Vietcong to be able to hit us in broad daylight, as the insurgents were capable of doing after only 18 months.
I don't know how I missed the Nam thing. I agree with Roger on this one. We traded jungles for sand.
The only addition is that GWBush and his cronies felt some kind of need to finish the job GHWBush didn't finish after Iraq invaded Kuwait. There is also the little Sadam assassination plot against GHWBush that 'they' didn't feel Clinton did a good enough job retaliating for.
Quote from: Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy
I don't know how I missed the Nam thing. I agree with Roger on this one. We traded jungles for sand.
The only addition is that GWBush and his cronies felt some kind of need to finish the job GHWBush didn't finish after Iraq invaded Kuwait. There is also the little Sadam assassination plot against GHWBush that 'they' didn't feel Clinton did a good enough job retaliating for.
1. We traded jungles for a hellish urban rat trap.
2. Excuses.
1 That too.
2 Plausible BS, yep, pretty much. Then there was the attacks on the Twin Towers, then there was the search for nonexistent WMD's. Near as I can tell, Bush and his cronies planned to invade Iraq as soon as they came into office and spent most of their time trying to find any excuse. And they still managed to suck at finding one.
I still say the Nam analogy is off. The Arabs were quicker on the attacks and the pathetic US/Iraqi presence in areas hasn't helped, but its still more Lebanon. Its way too familiar, the quick "conventional" victory, the drive to remove foreign agitators, whilst all the while the real threat is in their face and has a Shi'a name. The Sunni triangle insurgencey aint helping either, but I seriously think in the long run it'll be the Shi'a who are the largest threat. Remember, the proto-Hezbollah militias applauded Israels invasion to remove the PLO, but turned out to be hell of alot worse when they were ignored and abused in the long run.
This guy friedman is a bad ass analyst. He takes a very even keel view of the war and doesn't lean left or right, at least as far as I can tell. He has a pretty good objective take on the whole situation.
This article of his addresses the whole Vietnam/Iraq question and proposes why Iraq and Vietnam are not as similar as the press makes them out to be. It's a long article, but try to be patient and slog through it.
The Commander
DIA
Military Lessons Learned in Iraq and Strategic Implications
By George Friedman
Among the things that emerge from every war, won or lost, are "lessons learned." Each war teaches the military on both sides strategic, operational, tactical and technical lessons that apply in future wars. Many of these lessons are useful. Some can be devastating. The old adage that "generals are always fighting the last war" derives from the failure to learn appropriate lessons or the failure to apply lessons properly. For example, the lessons learned from the First World War, applied to the Second, led to the Maginot Line. They also led to the blitzkrieg. "Lessons learned" cuts both ways.
Sometimes lessons must be learned in the middle of a war. During World War II, for example, the United States learned and applied lessons concerning the use of aircraft carriers, the proper employment of armor and the execution of amphibious operations. The Germans, when put on the defensive, did not rapidly learn the lessons of defensive warfare on a strategic level. The Allies won. The Germans lost. There were certainly other factors at work in that war, but the speed at which lessons are assimilated and applied is a critical factor in determining the outcomes of wars. It has been said that success in war is rooted in the element of surprise; it follows that overcoming surprise is the corollary of this principle.
Lessons are learned and applied most quickly at the tactical level. Squads, platoons and companies, which are most closely in contact with the enemy and have the most immediate thing at stake -- their very lives -- tend to learn and adapt the most quickly. One measure of morale is the speed at which troops in contact with the enemy learn and change. One measure of command flexibility is the extent to which these changes are incorporated into doctrine. In addition, a measure of command effectiveness is the speed at which the operational and strategic lessons are learned and implemented. It usually takes longer for generals to understand what they are doing than it does sergeants. But in the end, the sergeants cannot compensate for the generals, or the politicians.
In the Iraq war, both sides have experienced pleasant and unpleasant surprises. For instance, the Americans were pleasantly surprised when their worst-case scenario did not materialize: The Iraqi army did not attempt to make a stand in Baghdad, forcing the U.S. military into urban attritional warfare. And the Iraqi insurgents were pleasantly surprised at the length of time it took the Americans to realize that they were facing guerrilla warfare, and the resulting slowness with which the U.S. military responded to the attacks.
On the other hand, the Americans were surprised by the tenacity of the insurgency -- both the guerrillas' ability to absorb casualties and the diffusion of their command structure, which provided autonomy to small units yet at the same time gave the guerrillas the ability to surge attacks at politically sensitive points. And the insurgents had to have been surprised by the rapid tactical learning curve that took place on the U.S. side, imposing a high cost on guerrilla operations, as well as the political acumen that allowed the Americans and others to contain the insurgency to the Sunni regions.
In a strategic sense, the Iraqi insurgents had the simpler battle problem. Insurgency has fewer options. An insurgency must:
1. Maintain relations with a host population that permits for regrouping, recruitment and re-supply. While this can be coerced, the primary problem is political, in the need to align the insurgency with the interests of local leaders.
2. Deny intelligence to the enemy by using the general population to camouflage its operations -- thus forcing the enemy to mount operations that simultaneously fail to make contact with insurgents and also alienate the general populace. Alternatively, if the enemy refuses to attack the population, this must be used to improve the insurgents' security position.
3. Use the target-rich environment of enemy deployments and administrative centers to execute unpredictable attacks, thereby increasing the enemy's insecurity and striking at his morale.
The guerrillas' purpose is to engender a sense of psychological helplessness in their conventional enemy, with the goal of forcing that enemy to abandon the fight or else to engage in negotiations as a means of defense.
The guerrilla does not have to win militarily. His goal is not to lose. The essence of asymmetric warfare is not merely the different means used to fight the war, but the different interests in waging the war. In Vietnam, the fundamental difference between the two sides was this: The North Vietnamese had a transcendent interest in the outcome of the war -- nothing mattered more than winning -- whereas for the Americans, Vietnam was simply one interest among a range of interests; it was not of transcendent importance. Thus, the North Vietnamese could lose more forces without losing their psychological balance. The Americans, faced with much lower losses but a greater sense of helplessness and uncertainty, sought an exit from a war that the North Vietnamese had neither an interest nor a means of exiting.
Now, Vietnam was more of a conventional war than people think. The first principle of insurgency -- drawing sustenance and cover from a local population -- was a major factor before the intervention of main-line North Vietnamese units. After that, these units relied more on the Ho Chi Minh Trail than on the local populace for supplies, and on terrain and vegetation more than on the public for cover. It was at times less a guerrilla war than a conventional war waged on discontinuous fronts. Nevertheless, the principle of asymmetric interest still governed absolutely: The North Vietnamese were prepared to pay a higher price than the Americans in waging the war, since they had greater interests at stake.
The United States fought a counterinsurgency in Vietnam. It should have tried to reformulate the conflict as a conventional war. First, the Ho Chi Minh Trail was the strategic center of gravity of the war, and cutting that line would have been a conventional move. Second, operating in a counterinsurgency mode almost guaranteed defeat. Some have argued that the U.S. difficulty with counterinsurgency warfare is its unwillingness to be utterly ruthless. That is not a tenable explanation. Neither the Nazis nor the Soviets could be faulted with insufficient ruthlessness; nevertheless, the Yugoslav Partisan detachments drained the Nazis throughout their occupation, and the Afghan guerrillas did the same to the Soviets. Counterinsurgency warfare is strategically and tactically difficult.
The problem for occupying forces is that -- unlike the insurgents, who merely must not lose -- the counterinsurgents must win. And because of asymmetric interests, time is never on their side. The single most important strategic error the Americans made in Vietnam was in assuming that since they could not be defeated militarily, they might not win the war, but it was impossible that they could lose it. They failed to understand the principle of asymmetry: Unless the United States won the war in a reasonable period of time, continuing to wage the war would become irrational. Time is on the side of guerrillas who have a sustainable force.
The United States did not expect a guerrilla war in Iraq. It was not part of the war plan. When the guerrilla war began, it took U.S. leaders months to understand what was happening. When they did understand what was happening, they assumed that time was at the very least a neutral issue. Having launched the war in the context of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Americans assumed that they had interests in Iraq that were as great as those of the insurgents.
But as in other guerrilla wars, the occupying power has shown itself to have less interest in occupying the country than the resistance has in resisting. It is not the absolute cost in casualties, but rather the perception of helplessness and frustration the insurgent creates, that eats away at both the occupying force and the public of the occupying country. By not losing -- by demonstrating that he will survive intense counterinsurgency operations without his offensive capabilities being diminished -- the insurgent forces the occupier to consider the war in the context of broader strategic interests.
One of two things happens here: The occupier can launch more intense military operations, further alienating the general populace while increasing cover for the insurgents -- or, alternatively, attempt to create a native force to wage the war. "Vietnamization" was an attempt by the United States to shift the burden of the war to the Vietnamese, under the assumption that defeating the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong was more in the interests of the South Vietnamese than in the interests of the Americans. In Iraq, the Americans are training the Iraqi army.
The U.S. option in Vietnam was to impose a conventional model of warfare -- much as the United States did in Korea, when it ignored the guerrillas and forced the war into a battle of conventional forces. It is even more difficult to impose a conventional war in Iraq than it might have been in Vietnam under an alternative American strategy. Here, attacking the insurgents' line of supply is a tenuous strategy -- not because the line does not exist, but because the dependency on it is less. The insurgents in Iraq operate at lower levels of intensity than did the Vietnamese. The ratio of supplies they need to bring into their battle box, relative to the supplies they can procure within their battle box, is low. They can live off the Sunni community for extended periods of time. They can survive -- and therefore, in the classic formulation, win -- even if lines of supply are cut.
The Sunni guerrillas in Iraq have all of the classic advantages that apply to insurgency, save one: There are indigenous forces in Iraq that are prepared to move against them and that can be effective. The Shiite and Kurdish forces are relatively well-trained (in the Iraqi context) and are highly motivated. They are not occupiers of Iraq, but co-inhabitants. Unlike the Americans, they are not going anywhere. They have as much stake in the outcome of the war and the future of their country as the guerrillas. That changes the equation radically.
All wars end either in the annihilation of the enemy force or in a negotiated settlement. World War II was a case of annihilation. Most other wars are negotiated. For the United States, Vietnam was a defeat under cover of negotiation. That is usually the case where insurgencies are waged: By the time the occupation force moves to negotiations, it is too late. Iraq has this difference, and it is massive: Other parties are present who are capable and motivated -- parties other than the main adversaries.
The logic here, therefore, runs to a negotiated settlement. The Bush administration has stated that these negotiations are under way. The key to the negotiations is the threat of civil war -- the potential that the Shia, the main component of a native Iraqi force, will crush the minority Sunnis. There is more to this, of course: The very perception of this possibility has driven a number of Sunnis to cooperate in efforts to put down the insurgency, looking to secure their future in a post-occupation Iraq. But it is the volatility of relations between the ethnic groups underlying the negotiations that can shift the outcome in this case for the United States.
All war is political in nature. It is shaped by politics and has a political end. In World War II, the nature of the combatants and the rapid learning curve of the Allies allowed for a rare victory, in which the outcome was the absolute capitulation of the enemy. In Vietnam, the nature of the war and the failure of the American side to learn and evolve strategy led to a political process that culminated in North Vietnam achieving its political goals. In Iraq, the question is whether, given the combatants, the complete defeat of either side appears likely. Even if the United States withdraws, a civil war could continue. Therefore, the issue is whether the conflict has matured sufficiently to permit a political resolution that is acceptable to both sides. As each learns the capabilities of the other and assimilates their own lessons of the war, we suspect that a political settlement will be the most likely outcome.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
1. The real reason we went to war was to hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (KB&R, for example). Only this, and nothing more.
What about Rumsfeld with a hard-on in his pants, extra-eager to test his "new military" theory of "we don't
really need as many troops as everybody else in the entire world says we do, becasue we have these neat new toys of death"?
Quote from: eroticQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
1. The real reason we went to war was to hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (KB&R, for example). Only this, and nothing more.
What about Rumsfeld with a hard-on in his pants, extra-eager to test his "new military" theory of "we don't really need as many troops as everybody else in the entire world says we do, becasue we have these neat new toys of death"?
I thought it was "We dont need as many troops because we can use private military companies which I have stocks in".
Also, I felt that analysis was way off in its understanding of guerrilla warfare and terrorism and how those work. The US will not win by conventional means, pure and simple. To fight guerrillas, you need excellent intelligence. More intelligence is going
to the insurgents (who have infiltrated the army and police) then it is to the CIA and DIA etc.
Also, you need to stop playing up to the media and making "shows of force". Guerrilla warfare is a nasty battle of ambush, counter-ambush and attrition. Actions like Fallujah are only made worse when you telegraph the attack months in advance.
The Shi'a and Kurds aren't going to get involved and help either, to a great degree. Al-Sadr hates everyones guts and probably holds a party everytime a platoon gets blown up, whereas the rest are willing to let the US soak up the damage while they run the country and get rich off oil profits.
Its going to go the way of a classic third generation war. No side will have a clear advantage, it will be messy with lots of civilian casualties and it wont fizzle out for about 10-15 years, minimum. If we leave Iraq, expect some hotheads wanting to bring some payback to our shores.
[jingoistic]
But we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here!
[/jingoistic]
That logic kind of broke down after
Madrid
London
Amman
And all the others I forget....
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: CainQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Or "play like a B side".
That also. In our scernario, the USA was committed to a single, unitary Iraq, just as the Bush admin is now. When the shit went down in our game, the Kurds immediately jumped ship and worked with Syria and, to an extent, Iran to undermine the Iraqi republic. Something to consider (possibly different chosen partners, but similar outcome...)
The Kurds are chumps, and Zarqawi is a cheap attention whore. The real danger is Al Sadr. I've been saying that since 2003, and only now is anyone starting to notice him.
Unfortunately, Al Sadr is the only one who stands to know how to really run the country. The areas under his control are some of the most prosperous and least wracked by bombings.
Quote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: CainQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Or "play like a B side".
That also. In our scernario, the USA was committed to a single, unitary Iraq, just as the Bush admin is now. When the shit went down in our game, the Kurds immediately jumped ship and worked with Syria and, to an extent, Iran to undermine the Iraqi republic. Something to consider (possibly different chosen partners, but similar outcome...)
The Kurds are chumps, and Zarqawi is a cheap attention whore. The real danger is Al Sadr. I've been saying that since 2003, and only now is anyone starting to notice him.
Unfortunately, Al Sadr is the only one who stands to know how to really run the country. The areas under his control are some of the most prosperous and least wracked by bombings.
And this is because...
TGRR,
IS leading up to a point, here.
It it because he speaks God's Word?
Sorry guys, but you are all off the mark. Sistani is the real power broker over there. The only reason the whole country didn't rise up against us is that he told them not to.
The Commander
DIA
So, he speaks the word of God, then?
Sistani is the supreme Ayatollah of Iraq (or whatever he's called), its true. However, last time I checked, he didnt have thousands of armed men doing his bidding. If its a choice of following the one who is more sincere in his theology, or the one who is similar but has lots of guns and weapons, I know where my alleigance would go.
Dammit, I just want to know who has the Word of God!
I do. And it can be yours, for only $49.99! (doesnt include post and package).
Quote from: CainSistani is the supreme Ayatollah of Iraq (or whatever he's called), its true. However, last time I checked, he didnt have thousands of armed men doing his bidding. If its a choice of following the one who is more sincere in his theology, or the one who is similar but has lots of guns and weapons, I know where my alleigance would go.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Sistani does have armed men by the thousands doing his bidding. For now his bidding is that the Shia seek a peaceful colution with the Sunni's and Kurds and tolerate our presence there. If said otherwise that country would go up in flames. While the Kurds might stand a chance, the Sunnis would be wipped off the face of the earth, or at least pushed out of Iraq, and the US would have a hell of a time holding on to any semblance of power projection there.
Sorry guys, if anyone has the Word of God in Iraq, it's Sistani. We're quite lucky he is on our side...sort of.
The Commander
DIA
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: CainQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Or "play like a B side".
That also. In our scernario, the USA was committed to a single, unitary Iraq, just as the Bush admin is now. When the shit went down in our game, the Kurds immediately jumped ship and worked with Syria and, to an extent, Iran to undermine the Iraqi republic. Something to consider (possibly different chosen partners, but similar outcome...)
The Kurds are chumps, and Zarqawi is a cheap attention whore. The real danger is Al Sadr. I've been saying that since 2003, and only now is anyone starting to notice him.
Unfortunately, Al Sadr is the only one who stands to know how to really run the country. The areas under his control are some of the most prosperous and least wracked by bombings.
And this is because...
TGRR,
IS leading up to a point, here.
Al Sadr delivers the fucking goods, unlike all the other factions or politicos who keep talking shit and not once ever preventing anyone from getting vaporized on the highway.
Quote from: eroticQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
1. The real reason we went to war was to hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (KB&R, for example). Only this, and nothing more.
What about Rumsfeld with a hard-on in his pants, extra-eager to test his "new military" theory of "we don't really need as many troops as everybody else in the entire world says we do, becasue we have these neat new toys of death"?
Bullshit. He did it on the cheap, so that it wouldn't gouge the money set aside for the tax cuts.
We wound up spending far more than we would have if we did it right, of course.
The thing to remember is that these assholes are not evil geniuses...they are just thugs. I deal with people like these every day, except the shitheads I deal with weren't born rich.
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: eroticQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
1. The real reason we went to war was to hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries (KB&R, for example). Only this, and nothing more.
What about Rumsfeld with a hard-on in his pants, extra-eager to test his "new military" theory of "we don't really need as many troops as everybody else in the entire world says we do, becasue we have these neat new toys of death"?
Bullshit. He did it on the cheap, so that it wouldn't gouge the money set aside for the tax cuts.
We wound up spending far more than we would have if we did it right, of course.
The thing to remember is that these assholes are not evil geniuses...they are just thugs. I deal with people like these every day, except the shitheads I deal with weren't born rich.
Well, sorry I couln't be there, but I got stuck in Chicago dealing with Irish American tards from the S. Side. Fuckers!
Don't worry. We'll give it to them.
Roger, are you a parole officer?
The Commander
DIA
Quote from: The CommanderRoger, are you a parole officer?
The Commander
DIA
Not exactly. :lol:
Bail bondsman?
The Commander
DIA
Quote from: The CommanderBail bondsman?
The Commander
DIA
Um...no. I guess you could say that I'm in "collections". :lol:
Your a REPO man!!!!!
Isn't that sort of like being a bounty hunter...except for stuff instead of people?
The Commander
DIA
Quote from: The CommanderYour a REPO man!!!!!
Isn't that sort of like being a bounty hunter...except for stuff instead of people?
The Commander
DIA
Um...Nope. I'm not that cool.
Nor do I have an alien corpse in my trunk.
Let's just say that I "facilitate interactions between downwardly mobile 'entrepeneurs'".
TGRR,
Thinks you're being deliberately obtuse.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Nor do I have an alien corpse in my trunk.
I was about to make that reference.
Thats intense.
Quote from: MillerThe life of a repo man is always intense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: The CommanderYour a REPO man!!!!!
Isn't that sort of like being a bounty hunter...except for stuff instead of people?
The Commander
DIA
Um...Nope. I'm not that cool.
Nor do I have an alien corpse in my trunk.
Let's just say that I "facilitate interactions between downwardly mobile 'entrepeneurs'".
TGRR,
Thinks you're being deliberately obtuse.
I swear, I am that dense. I have no clue what you do. Stock Broker? Tax man? Rehabilitation Counselor? Unemployment Case Worker?
The Commander
DIA
I think Roger somehow became a sheriff.
Quote from:
Let's just say that I "facilitate interactions between downwardly mobile 'entrepeneurs'".
TGRR,
Thinks you're being deliberately obtuse.[/quote
Lol, well, i've got two ways of translating that one, and neither of them come out to any sorta profession that's legal in most countries...
My first guess was that yer a drug dealer...then I sat and thought about it, and thought perhaps yer a seller of stollen goods on the black market...
Heh, either one makes ya sound all cool and dangerous as fuck, so even if I am WAY off base, you could just sit back and go with saying you're either one, just for the sake of sounding all cool n' mysterious.
Read Millions of Screaming Yahoos, the answer shall become clear...damn, thats at POEE now...
I ensure a positive cash flow in a market which trends away from legal synergies.
Usually by buffaloing people.
....yer a bounty hunter?
You did say you don't have any alien corpses in your trunk...you never said anything about not having human ones...
Quote from: Chylde o' Kaos....yer a bounty hunter?
Nope.
No. He's a sherriff.
Or a shereef.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2004, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: Z¬?Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: LMNOThe division was so sharp, and so even, that there can only be one solution:
The blue states cede from the red. We get The Northeast, California & Hawaii. Y'all motherfuckers can have the south & The midwest.
Cf: Mad Dog, Texas in Illuminatus! That's our gameplan. Let's get to it.
It's not like they'd want us around, anyway.
Google: 1860-1865
Not gonna happen.
If the democratic party started to weaken even more, it would be dangerous for the status quo. It would lead to the rise of the third party, or else we'll just live under republican rule for the next eight to ten years, until the youngsters get older and actually go out to the voting booths.
So the neo-cons will probably want to have a weak democratic president sometime in the future, but they'll be slinging rocks and discrediting him the whole time. Maybe not.
Anyway, my prediction is that the democratic party is indeed dead... and the republicans, well they're undead, they're hardly the republicans that we knew in the days of eisenhower. They'll probably want to keep the illusion of the democratic party alive as long as possible, but crippled and unable to effect change.
At least, thats what I seem to think is happening.
I think you hit the nail on the head. They'll find another Jimmy Carter to take the hit when the bills come due, but it won't be like he will have any power.
MAD PROPHET WINS AGAIN.