I watched very carefully all 3 debates between US President Barack Obama and Republican Candidate Mitt Romney, as well as most of the Presidential campaigns. At the beginning I thought that it would be a walk in the park for Obama, even though he did not meet most of the expectations of all mankind for real change, during the last four years. Eventually I was wrong, as Romney is supported by different trusts.
It is well known that the American President did not succeed in cutting down unemployment, and the expected so called "Green energy revolution" never came through, while the biggest economy in the world is still floundering. Nevertheless Obama made a significant change in America's healthcare system, which he now wants to enforce, he took the US troops out of Iraq, as he promised, and bound to take them out of Afghanistan as well, in 2014.
In other words, the militaristic mood of the President is exactly opposite than the one of his predecessor, George W. Bush, and that's the most important issue at stake in these elections. I've heard many times the Republican challenger saying that he has no intention to attack Iran, or to get involved militarily with troops on the ground in the Syrian civil war. He has constantly spoken much more aggressively than Obama though about the role that the US should play in the Middle East, and by the way, he doesn't agree with any military spending cuts.
We have noted of course that the Israeli government and the Jewish lobby have decided to support Romney, and the Israelis are the first who would support an attack on Iran, not now but...yesterday. We also heard Romney claiming that the biggest threat for America is... Russia, bringing us back to the cult 80s' decade and its Cold War climate. Besides, the Republicans criticised Obama because he withdrew the so called missile defence system in Poland.
Russia and China are the 2 major supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad, and have blocked countless times at the UN security council the possibility of a foreign military intervention in the Syrian conflict. Apart from criticising their support to a regime that has killed more Arabs than the ones Israel has, throughout its history, the Russians and the Chinese are proving on the one hand that they are a lot stronger nowadays and on the other that the US is no longer the one and only superpower of the not so long ago past.
As we all know, every economic crisis during the last few centuries, comes to an end with a war, and I am under the impression that Romney is ... the man for the job. He says that he doesn't want a war, but to tell you the truth, I have no reason to believe him. If one connects the dots that I mentioned above, it is quite obvious that a possible victory for Romney on Tuesday (6th of November) could bring almost immediately a military intervention in Iran, supposedly in order to stop its nuclear programme and/or in Syria, supposedly to stop the bloodshed created by Assad. I say supposedly in both cases, as they would be just pretexts, in order to follow the commands the imperialistic capitalists demand, who of course want a war, as well as the Netanyahu regime.
Such a development in the turbulent Middle East could probably bring one of the following 2 scenarios. The... good one would be a new Iraq, perhaps a bit more difficult - ie: a long lasting warfare, with very strong resistance by the descendants of the Persian Empire and a huge displeasure to all the Shiite Muslim world. This could bring a new anti-american sentiment around the Middle East and the World, and so all the 4-year efforts of Obama to change the people's idea about the US could be flashed down the toilet within seconds. Also, we could not exclude the possibility of new rounds of the so-called "terrorist" attacks, that could take place in any country involved in such a war.
The other scenario, which is the most frightening, involves the possibility of China and Russia getting involved in such a conflict, militarily, in favour of Iran and/or Syria. Such a development could lead to WWIII (third world war) which unfortunately could involve the use of nuclear weapons, with unpredictable consequences for the planet.
Just to clarify, I am not saying neither that there is no likelihood of any US military involvement in Syria and/or Iran, in case Barack Obama gets re-elected, nor that the probability of a nuclear war would be non-existent, should he win. In any case though, a Republican government could give fewer guarantees for peace, and such a risk is not worthit...
Instead of a postscript, I would like to add a few more facts about both candidates, who are still very close in the most recent polls:
-Obama and Romney are undermining Assad's government in Syria, by supporting the rebels, to whom they never refer to as terrorists, no matter what
-Both candidates are supporting Israel without any hesitations and not the Palestinians
- Both of them do not say a word about Israel's nuclear programme - which the Israelis do not deny of having, illegally - while they condemn the nuclear programme of Iran.
-Both candidates applauded the cold-blooded assassination of Osama bin Laden, instead of accepting that he deserved a fair trial
-None of the two candidates are even implying that the US could recognise the International Court of Justice at the Hague in the Netherlands
-Both of them constantly criticise China and its economic methods
-None of the candidates have mentioned in any debate that Turkey is an important ally for the US
-Both candidates do not use the best language to describe the US-Pakistan alliance
-Neither Obama, nor Romney are expected to lift Cuba's embargo
-Finally, none of the two candidates are seeing optimistically the economic developments in Greece and in all the southern part of the eurozone
GreekRagnaroker
RSS Feed