The Romney presidency: The worst-case scenario

[marmar]

from Salon.com:


The Romney presidency: The worst-case scenario
War with Iran. An ultra-conservative Supreme Court. Death to Social Security. Romney could be an epic disaster

By Alex Pareene


A few moderates and liberals have lately taken to arguing that, you know, maybe a Romney presidency wouldn’t be too bad. He might turn out to be more moderate, or at least pragmatic, than he’s acted in the campaign so far. He might make a point of reaching out to Democrats in Congress. Republicans might regain their trust of Keynesian economics and actually do things to boost the economy out of naked political self-interest, instead of sabotaging the economy out of same.

I am not really convinced! Mitt Romney will be working with a Congress full of Republicans and his Cabinet and administration will be full of Republican political appointees, and that adds up to disaster, especially with the current, insane Republican Party.

As it’s the spooookiest time of the year, it seems appropriate to ask: What’s the Romney presidency worst-case scenario? If Mitt Romney turns out to be exactly the severe conservative he says he is, what can we expect?

War

Obviously we’re bombing Iran. They might be spinning some uranium around in a mountain, and we can’t let that continue. As Wired recently reported, bombing Iran isn’t actually as easy as it sounds. If we want to do it right, it’ll take a massive strike against Iran’s ability to launch a counterattack on Israel or Kuwait, followed by the much more massive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. ...................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/29/the_romney_presidency_the_worst_case_scenario/

[yurbud]

1. war with Iran could escalate to a world war if Russia & China don't want us controlling so much oil

nukes, religious fundamentalism and every other embarrassing fairy tale our politicians spew doesn't mask the strategic truth from everyone else.

Breaking Iran would give our government and oil companies hegemony over the top three oil reserves in the world: Saudi, Iraq, & Iran, which we could use to dictate price and supply, and their economic development.

[Martin Eden]

3. We can't take over Iran's oil resources

War with Iran would not entail a ground force invasion & occupation because that would be orders of magnitude more difficult & expensive than Iraq was/is.

However, a bombing campaign aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities could spark a wider war, depending in part on how Iran responded. The conflict would almost certainly disrupt oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, which would cause considerable economic pain for all oil importing nations.

[yurbud]

4. we could not occupy them but taking out their nukes is a way of saying we have a veto

over anything they do.

[Martin Eden]

5. An implied threat after "taking out" (delaying) their nuclear program ...

... that we will bomb Iran over "anything they do" (such as what they do with their oil resources) is very unlikely to intimidate Iran into doing our bidding. More likely they would strike back any way they can, including shutting down the Stait of Hormuz and sponsoring terrorist attacks inside the US and/or against American civilians abroad. It would be a reckless gamble on our part that could do our own country considerable economic harm. However, I wouldn't put it past the neocons advising Romney to advocate such a strategy.

One can only speculate what Romney would actually do; who knows what the picture will look like when that etch-a-sketch is shaken.

One thing is for sure: putting Romney in the Oval Office is a reckless gamble no matter how you shake it.

[yurbud]

6. "reckless gamble" is a good description of the bipartisan war on Iraq

it's hard to see any positive outcomes of that, but it hasn't dampened Washington's enthusiasm for regime change in Libya, Syria and whoever else is on the hit list.

[Martin Eden]

7. The launch of war in Iraq was less bipartisan than most people think

Slightly less than half the Democrats in congress voted for the Iraq War Resolution that gave GW Bush the authority to invade Iraq if necessary to defend the United States. Given that Iraq allowed the UN inspectors back into the country with access to every site -- and they were finding that the extensive infrastructure necessary for a nuclear weapons program simply wasn't there -- it's fairly obvious that the invasion was not neceassary.

But it should have been known that once given the authority, Bush/Cheney would launch that invasion no matter what. The real imminent threat was that their public rationale for the war -- biochem weapons and nukes -- would soon vanish along with the "mushroom clouds" they conjured up to manipulate the public through fear.

The Democrats (some, not all) were more spineless than bipartisan with the initial agenda, though once we were at war most supported it. I was especially disappointed with John Kerry, who rose to prominence as the leader of Vietnam vets against that war. He should have led his party in insisting that any war resolution oraq must first come back to Congress before the president could pull the trigger. His failure to provide leadership in this, I believe, cost him the 2004 election (along with more Republican electoral theft).


I don't think there will be a corrolary between Iraq then and Iran now, but if Romney becomes president we'll likely bomb Iran at some point. And that will be good for no one except war profiteers and demagogues.

[yurbud]

10. even the "threat" if he actually had nukes or chemical weapons was a lie

it would be suicidal for him to use them against us, national suicide.

The world knows it since we are the only country to ever use nukes in war and wouldn't hesitate to use them in retaliation to a nuclear attack, and Saddam knew it as the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate said before before struck that part, and as the CIA director was forced to say in closed door testimony and ultimately release in a public letter.

Anyone who lived through the Cold War when we stared down the Soviets who had roughly the same number of nukes as us who says Saddam could threaten us with one or even a thousand nukes is an idiot or a liar.

[SunSeeker]

2. Meanwhile, Romney would send us into a double-dip recession at home.

[Macoy51]

8. The change in the Supreme Court worries me the most

The change in the Supreme Court worries me the most. If he adds just a few young (40’s) hard core conservative judges, we can see a lot of rulings over turned for decades to come.


macoy

[SunSeeker]

9. I agree. That is the most damaging thing about a Repuke Presidency....other than wars.