Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I'm surprised no one mentioned the Foley scandal yet. Is this just a more intense version of Monicagate, or will this scandal have actual political consequences? This scandal is seems to be putting public corruption on the minds of many Americans, and this could generate political fallout in November. It seems like in general, the public is not happy at all. In fact, many news articles are stating that voters are getting more restless.

Of course, public anger is not limited to this scandal, but it likely involves a perception of public corruption, and a souring economy. Some people have compared the current period to the mid 1970s with recession, oil shock, scandal on Capitol Hill, and a restive public. 2007 is increasingly appearing to be a nasty year.

What do you think the ramifications of the Foley scandal will be?

Ms. Patty Wetterling (whose son was abducted years ago) has a better chance of going to Congress. She worked with Mr. Foley on these issues and felt personally betrayed. But, her opponent may still wwin the seat from Minnesota due to better communication skills. A University of Minnesota-Duluth teacher and poltical pundit says that the DFL make take 7 of 8 of Minnesota's House Seats. I'd say 5 of 8 (up 1 for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party).

I think the GOP Senate Campaign of Congressman Mark Kennedy is toast (but now burnt to a crisp). The outside players may withdraw their media buys (it was to be a $30 million campaign) and spend in VA or TN.

Who knew that the e-mission of semen would be such a vital part of Our Commercial Republic's politics. But, in an age of multi-tasking it seems reasonable (as it was with the Time of the Blue Dress) that duties are not the only thing discharged as the desks of Democracy.

The economy is not souring but has been given its traditional pre-election injection of joy. The Nodding Off comes in November.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I'm surprised no one mentioned the Foley scandal yet. Is this just a more intense version of Monicagate, or will this scandal have actual political consequences? This scandal is seems to be putting public corruption on the minds of many Americans, and this could generate political fallout in November. It seems like in general, the public is not happy at all. In fact, many news articles are stating that voters are getting more restless.

Of course, public anger is not limited to this scandal, but it likely involves a perception of public corruption, and a souring economy. Some people have compared the current period to the mid 1970s with recession, oil shock, scandal on Capitol Hill, and a restive public. 2007 is increasingly appearing to be a nasty year.

What do you think the ramifications of the Foley scandal will be?

There was a lengthy article in the Washington Post yesterday about this very topic.

ANOKA, Minn. -- Lynn Sunde, an evangelical Christian, is considering what for her is a radical step. Come November, she may vote for a Democrat for Congress.

Sunde, 35, manages a coffee shop and attends a nondenominational Bible church. "You're never going to agree with one party on everything, so for me the key has always been the religion issues -- abortion, the marriage amendment" to ban same-sex unions, she said.



That means she consistently votes Republican. But, she said, she is starting to worry about the course of the Iraq war, and she finds the Internet messages from then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to teenage boys "pretty sickening." When she goes into the voting booth this time, she said, "I'm going to think twice. . . . I'm not going to vote party line as much as to vote issues."

Even a small shift in the loyalty of conservative Christian voters such as Sunde could spell trouble for the GOP this fall. In 2004, white evangelical or born-again Christians made up a quarter of the electorate, and 78 percent of them voted Republican, according to exit polls. But some pollsters believe that evangelical support for the GOP peaked two years ago and that what has been called the "God gap" in politics is shrinking.

A nationwide poll of 1,500 registered voters released yesterday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of white evangelicals are inclined to vote for Republican congressional candidates in the midterm elections, a 21-point drop in support among this critical part of the GOP base.

The link to the full article is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100501763.html

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I don't think that the Blue Awakening ended abruptly in 1968. Rather, I think it changed focus to New Age spiritualism, environmentalism, and the counter culture. The 1970s may be back, but in a shadow form. The main difference will be the generational lineup, which should make our response to the problems much different from before.

I don't think the 1970s are back, just that we have an echo of the 'national malaise' running. There is a good deal of discontent with the status quo. This is the sort of mood where the old way of doing things might get significantly changed up. Agreed, the generational lineup could significantly change the nature of the response.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

S&H do say that the problems of the 4T catalyst will seem familiar to most Americans then alive. Of course, these problems are rather new to Millies, but probably most Xers would find some of the problems familiar.

I don't think that the Blue Awakening ended abruptly in 1968. Rather, I think it changed focus to New Age spiritualism, environmentalism, and the counter culture. The 1970s may be back, but in a shadow form. The main difference will be the generational lineup, which should make our response to the problems much different from before.

One of the tag lines for Portland's new Awakening-era music radio station runs something like: "You've spent your entire life working long, hard hours to BE somebody... when all the while, all you really wanted to do was go home. Welcome Home! We're K-106.7." The post-advertisement, back-to-the-program "jingles" consist of snippets of 60s/70s-era commercials and pop culture musings on pet rocks and walnut-grain vinyl veneer.

Hey, the music rocks... but this rings rather sad, doesn't it? The clear implication is that the adventures of the past two Turnings were all for naught... that at the end of the Saeculum, what's left are a bunch of sad, empty Boomers who survived all the bullshit with little to really show for it... and nothing else to do but pine away for a lost childhood and young-adulthood.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I'm surprised no one mentioned the Foley scandal yet. Is this just a more intense version of Monicagate, or will this scandal have actual political consequences? This scandal is seems to be putting public corruption on the minds of many Americans, and this could generate political fallout in November. It seems like in general, the public is not happy at all. In fact, many news articles are stating that voters are getting more restless.

Of course, public anger is not limited to this scandal, but it likely involves a perception of public corruption, and a souring economy. Some people have compared the current period to the mid 1970s with recession, oil shock, scandal on Capitol Hill, and a restive public. 2007 is increasingly appearing to be a nasty year.

What do you think the ramifications of the Foley scandal will be?

I think the combination of the Foley scandal blowing-up and the school shootings in the same week was a double-whammy. To me, they seemed linked. Very disheartening.

The Amish children being murdered by an (alleged) child molester, and the man who held hostage and molested the girls in Bailey, Colorado.....and then along comes Congressman Foley. A very bad week for America. I don't know if it will affect the elections (who knows how that works anymore?), but it definitley adds to an already negative feeling that is running through the country.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

If that's the case, what does CBS's new Jericho TV series tell us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_%28TV_series%29

BTW, I'm hooked.

I watched that show because of you. Very creepy cool.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Ms. Patty Wetterling

I was around collegeville when that went down. Tragic.

Now, one hour away the amish thing goes down.

Man, you gotta be twisted to mess with Amish school kids.

Originally Posted by antichrist

Man, you gotta be twisted to mess with Amish school kids.

You gotta be twisted to mess with anyone in that way, adults and kids alike.

Originally Posted by cbailey

I think the combination of the Foley scandal blowing-up and the school shootings in the same week was a double-whammy. To me, they seemed linked. Very disheartening.

The Amish children being murdered by an (alleged) child molester, and the man who held hostage and molested the girls in Bailey, Colorado.....and then along comes Congressman Foley. A very bad week for America. I don't know if it will affect the elections (who knows how that works anymore?), but it definitley adds to an already negative feeling that is running through the country.

At least there is NFL on Sundays to keep your mind off of things.

Young blacks might be the group most ready to vote for change, according to this article. Black Xers have been less reliably Democratic, and more Independent than their older counterparts. Black Millies are also more independent at this point.

Young Blacks "the Most Ready to Vote for Change"

By Vanessa Mizell
Black College Wire

Young black voters have placed domestic issues as their top concern, higher than the war in Iraq, according to a poll keyed to the November midterm elections.

The study by Young Voter Strategies, an organization affiliated with George Washington University, found that employment, the economy and education and its costs weighed heavily for 35 percent of black voters ages 18 to 30. When voters of all races in the age group were counted, 30 percent said the economy was the prime concern.

The poll also found that young black voters and their counterparts said candidates were not speaking enough about issues relevant to their demographic. Young voters of all races wanted to hear more about health care, job creation, college affordability, energy prices and homeland security. Job creation ranked slightly higher than college affordability within the black voting group. Among these voters, job creation ranked 8.8 on a 10 point scale; more than the 6.8 in the overall ranking.

African Americans also stood out in other findings of the poll, released Sept. 20. Eighty-five percent said they were registered, compared with 80 percent overall. Young blacks were rated the group most enthused about the elections and the strongest supporters of the Democrats. More than 60 percent identified as Democrats contrasted with just under 15 percent as Republican. Among young voters overall, 43 percent were Democrat and 22 percent Republican.

Joshua Ulibarri, vice president of Lake Research Partners, which helped conduct the poll, said young blacks' strong enthusiasm for the upcoming election was rooted in frustration about the direction of the country.

"Young African Americans are the most ready to vote for change," Ulibarri said. "There's a growing frustration with the president and they are the most disappointed in the direction of the country."

Nearly half the young black voters said they were against the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, compared with 30 percent of all voters in that age group.

Ulibarri added that universities have been a main target for campaigning and that voter registration teams were working heavily in African American communities.

The findings also foreshadow the war on terror as an Election Day concern for young black voters. The war in Iraq ranked third and homeland security fifth as the issue young black voters wanted to hear more about from politicians.

The poll findings may be good news for such Democrats as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee urged Howard University students to become more concerned about national security.

National security "needs to be a concern," Kerry said in an interview after his Sept. 14 speech. "You can't vote the issues one by one. You have to vote all of them." He explained that voting for a candidate supports not just his or her view on domestic issues but on national security as well.

"We need you to go out and connect the dots," Kerry said in the speech. "Join a campaign, talk to a neighbor, defeat the apathy and say, 'I believe in my country."

The president of Howard's College Democrats, Evan Brunson, said then, "I think it's erroneous to think that we should be focused on one issue and not the other," speaking of African Americans. "The fight against terrorism is our fight too."

Of the 500 surveyed in the poll, 12 percent were black, reflecting the African American percentage of the population. An additional 75 blacks were surveyed so the firm could "be more confident in the data," according to Ulibarri.

Translation: Americans are united behind the Republican agenda. They just appear otherwise now.

Wake me up when anyone running for president (or prime minister, or el presidente) in the next fifteen years gets more than 52% of the vote.

Curiosity is praiseworthy. I also admire powers of deduction.

Originally Posted by antichrist

I watched that show because of you. Very creepy cool.

Good description.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Good description.

YEAH, it is! And it's on again tonight. Last weekend I watched all six (?) previous episodes on CBS.com and was hooked myself. Particularly disturbing is that in the show Washington DC is gone... and Seattle may be.

Back to Story - Help
Youth turnout in election biggest in 20 years By Jason Szep
Wed Nov 8, 6:11 PM ET

Young Americans voted in the largest numbers in at least 20 years in congressional elections, energized by the Iraq war and giving a boost to Democrats, pollsters said on Wednesday.

About 24 percent of Americans under the age of 30, or at least 10 million young voters, cast ballots in Tuesday's elections that saw Democrats make big gains in Congress. That was up 4 percentage points from the last mid-term elections in 2002.

"This looks like the highest in 20 years," said Mark Lopez, research director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, which compiled the data based on exit polls. "Unfortunately, we can't say if it's a record because don't have good comparable data before 1986."

Rock the Vote, a youth-and-civics group, said young voters favored Democrats by a 22-point margin, nearly three times the margin Democrats earned among other age groups and dealing a potentially decisive blow to Republicans in tight races.

"The turnout was awesome," said 21-year-old Katryn Fraher, a political science major at the University of New Mexico who helped build a giant map of local polling stations for her school and was among a group of students walking the campus on Tuesday with a blackboard that counted down the time to vote.

But despite the big turnout, it may not be a record.

In the 1982 mid-term election during the Reagan administration, youth turnout reached 27 percent, but that was among voters aged between 18 to 24 instead of under 30 as measured by Wednesday's exit poll estimates.

Republican pollster Ed Goeas said young voters could have swayed a number of tight races on Tuesday, noting that of 28 seats Democrats picked up from Republicans in the 435-member House of Representatives, 22 were won by less than 2 percent of the vote and 18 were won by just 5,000 votes or less.

"The increase in the youth vote did come into play," he said.

GETTING OUT THE VOTE

As Republicans fought to keep control of Congress, both parties sought to rally young voters who turned out in record numbers in the 2004 presidential election.

At the University of Iowa, some students doubled as "Human Vote Billboards" with messages exhorting students to vote in the battleground state where Democrats won several races.

"It went well," said Brant Miller, 24, at the University of Iowa. "We got a bunch of students to get out there and vote."

Added Kelly Dolan, 24, at the University of Rhode Island: "The only way we can make politicians pay to attention to people our age is if we turn out in record numbers."

A poll by Harvard University's Institute of Politics last week showed that by a three-to-one margin, young Americans said the country was on the "wrong track."

Forty-six percent favored a total troop withdrawal from Iraq within a year, while a third said troops should be withdrawn after the Iraqis take full control.

Future elections could also be at stake. The "Generation Y" of Americans born from 1977 to 1994 -- shaped by the September 11 attacks, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina -- in nine years will make up a third of the electorate.

I believe that, for the time being at least, we are still heavily in 3T mode. The reason I believe this is that, while the voter results last week indicated a mandate for change, it seems that most Americans are still very snug with the moneycentric. corporate driven, auto dependent lifestyle they have become so very accustomed to. A part of me believe that this won't change until or unless something happens that would render us no choice. In the book the authors stated that when we get into 4T mode many choices will be taken out of our hands. This obviously hasn't happened yet except in a few cases regarding reaction to the threat of terrorism.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I believe that, for the time being at least, we are still heavily in 3T mode. The reason I believe this is that, while the voter results last week indicated a mandate for change, it seems that most Americans are still very snug with the moneycentric. corporate driven, auto dependent lifestyle they have become so very accustomed to. A part of me believe that this won't change until or unless something happens that would render us no choice. In the book the authors stated that when we get into 4T mode many choices will be taken out of our hands. This obviously hasn't happened yet except in a few cases regarding reaction to the threat of terrorism.

I agree that sweeping change has not yet become mandatory, although I'm still (or again) with the 9.11 as catalyst crowd. The big question I have is what happens here if another foreign intervention (a war with Iran, the seizure of Arab oil fields) becomes something like inevitable. The Iraq War didn't require hard choices, or sacrifice. There was no draft, or tax hikes, or resource rationing.

Originally Posted by Linus

I agree that sweeping change has not yet become mandatory, although I'm still (or again) with the 9.11 as catalyst crowd. The big question I have is what happens here if another foreign intervention (a war with Iran, the seizure of Arab oil fields) becomes something like inevitable. The Iraq War didn't require hard choices, or sacrifice. There was no draft, or tax hikes, or resource rationing.

I'm more inclined than ever to equate September 11th timing wise with the 29 stock market crash, though the former was part of an external conflict while the latter was economic. September 11th isn't alone. It was just the most spectacular single incident in a larger spiral of violence, while Katrina and assorted political scandals contributed to climaxing the unraveling as well.

I'm still willing to compare Bush 43 with Buchanan and Hoover as conservative presidents not embracing large enough changes, and thus not being remembered well. Iraq might fit in the same mold as the Spanish Civil War and Bleeding Kansas, serious precursor fights which none the less fell far short of the total wars that followed.

The 2006 mid terms might or might not start a regeneracy depending on whether the Democrats can move their populist centrist for-the-people agenda, or whether they revert into partisan stagnation. Too soon to tell. If no regeneracy has created vision and values for the crisis resolution it isn't surprising that resources haven't been shifted from luxury and selfishness towards problem solving and crisis resolution.

It isn't clear, though, that a major war is necessary or inevitable. Internal to the United States, there is no spiral of violence. In the greater world, we are as close as it gets to an aggressor power intending to expand by force. I still have vague hopes that the lessons learned in Iraq might discourage exporting values or controlling resources by force. During the Industrial Age, from Columbus through Hiroshima, Imperialism was the accepted wisdom. Major powers increased their stature and power by seizing territory from minor powers and from each other. Vietnam, the Soviet experiences in Afghanistan, and Iraq are challenging the wisdom of using armies as an extension of politics.

It is still possible that the primary focus might be economic, ecological and ethnic rather than military. Security can't be ignored. We won't have the other three if we forget Freedom from Fear.

But I wouldn't assume the crisis need inevitably be centered on a conventional war. The lesser powers know they can't take on the major powers in open battle. The major powers might prudently develop an allergy to occupation and insurgency. There might be no options left but equality and justice. These might be more difficult goals than subduing aggressor powers.

You all have good points. I have no doubt that 911 and Katrina are triggers to the coming 4T. I agree with Brian, we are not there yet because of the reasons that Linus wonders about. Like Bob, I see these harbingers as more like 1929 and the Bush years (like Hoover's) were misguided attempts to respond (or not) to crises and warning signals.

I think we are seeing deterioration and challenge at many levels.
-Oil and the need to develop reliable, clean, available, affordable energy
-Environment, the deterioration of the planet, over-population, climate change
-Infrastructure, the need to build communities where people do not have to travel so far to work and can better sustain each other emotionally
-Globalization and the "war on the middle class". The old industrial age is passing but we need to cushion the blow to our people and keep some of our industrial sector alive (as we have our agrarian sector despite the fact that we no longer live in an agrarian age)
-The shift from cold war politics to the new global threats. Bush hasn't helped NATO any, and the Arab resurgence threatens Turkey, Europe, Russia, China, India a whole lot more than it does us. All we have to worry about is the destabilization of the world economy (smile). They have to live with and next to a very hostile and unsettled group of "folk".

I am also very concerned about our democracy. DC has become a cesspool of greed and corruption, and worse, they are completely cut off from the rest of the empire. They haven't a clue what is going on out here. No thanks to a main stream media that is as cut off from the real world as they are. Thank God for the Internet, who I give full credit (no, not Rahm Emmanuel) for slamming through some of the denial and stupidity in the msm ... and for publishing the truth and disseminating information on the astounding corruption and decay at the core of our empire. We need election reform, the return of the bill of rights and habeas corpus, anti lobbying reform, and what the heck does the OMB do??? Is there any oversight over there whatsoever???

I was shocked that the American people saw past their SUVs and general comfort levels to vote for change. I think the real reason this 4T seems delayed is because we were on top of the world in 2000. Rich, fat and sassy ... masters of the universe. But Bush, the Cooler, has turned our luck and sooner or later winter will arrive. I just wish the housing bubble hadn't burst, I want to move somewhere where I won't have to use so much energy when it hits.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm more inclined than ever to equate September 11th timing wise with the 29 stock market crash, though the former was part of an external conflict while the latter was economic. September 11th isn't alone. It was just the most spectacular single incident in a larger spiral of violence, while Katrina and assorted political scandals contributed to climaxing the unraveling as well.

I'm still willing to compare Bush 43 with Buchanan and Hoover as conservative presidents not embracing large enough changes, and thus not being remembered well. Iraq might fit in the same mold as the Spanish Civil War and Bleeding Kansas, serious precursor fights which none the less fell far short of the total wars that followed.

The 2006 mid terms might or might not start a regeneracy depending on whether the Democrats can move their populist centrist for-the-people agenda, or whether they revert into partisan stagnation. Too soon to tell. If no regeneracy has created vision and values for the crisis resolution it isn't surprising that resources haven't been shifted from luxury and selfishness towards problem solving and crisis resolution.

It isn't clear, though, that a major war is necessary or inevitable. Internal to the United States, there is no spiral of violence. In the greater world, we are as close as it gets to an aggressor power intending to expand by force. I still have vague hopes that the lessons learned in Iraq might discourage exporting values or controlling resources by force. During the Industrial Age, from Columbus through Hiroshima, Imperialism was the accepted wisdom. Major powers increased their stature and power by seizing territory from minor powers and from each other. Vietnam, the Soviet experiences in Afghanistan, and Iraq are challenging the wisdom of using armies as an extension of politics.

It is still possible that the primary focus might be economic, ecological and ethnic rather than military. Security can't be ignored. We won't have the other three if we forget Freedom from Fear.

But I wouldn't assume the crisis need inevitably be centered on a conventional war. The lesser powers know they can't take on the major powers in open battle. The major powers might prudently develop an allergy to occupation and insurgency. There might be no options left but equality and justice. These might be more difficult goals than subduing aggressor powers.

I agree with everything you say Bob, more or less.

Perhaps we won't have a conventional majority party during this crisis, but to the extent we do either the Republicans need to stop being insane (and I see little evidence of that), or Democrats need to start being more serious about America's obligations in the world (don't see much evidence of this either, but at least the party is divided whereas the GOP is almost unanimously in favor of its own insanity).

(Anyone who doubts that the Republicans are losing their minds should note this little gem from Professor Reynolds re: Iran: "my speculation that Iran has some method -- nuclear or otherwise -- that has deterred us from taking the kind of action that both Bill Quick and I expected in 2004 is seeming better-founded." What do we think the otherwise is: death rays? mind control?).

Originally Posted by Linus

(Anyone who doubts that the Republicans are losing their minds should note this little gem from Professor Reynolds re: Iran: "my speculation that Iran has some method -- nuclear or otherwise -- that has deterred us from taking the kind of action that both Bill Quick and I expected in 2004 is seeming better-founded." What do we think the otherwise is: death rays? mind control?).

I wouldn't say the Republicans are losing their minds. It is just that the reality which created their values and world view is changing. It is unfortunate, but the world seems quite able to change faster than human values and world views. It is really hard for humans to change their minds.

Death rays and mind control wouldn't be necessary. While Iran may not have the means to produce a true A-bomb, they have lots of radioactive waste suitable for dirty bombs. It wouldn't be that hard to build devices capable of producing Chernobyl style 'no walk' zones. It might be a bit tricky to deliver them, but I'd rather have the problem of getting a bomb into the States than the job of keeping them out.

But I doubt that is the real deterrent. Iran is bigger than Iraq. The US could no doubt take Tehran as easy as they took Bagdad. They just haven't got close to enough troops to occupy both Iraq and Iran.

Originally Posted by Linus

my speculation that Iran has some method -- nuclear or otherwise -- that has deterred us from taking the kind of action that both Bill Quick and I expected in 2004 is seeming better-founded." What do we think the otherwise is: death rays? mind control?).

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Death rays and mind control wouldn't be necessary. While Iran may not have the means to produce a true A-bomb, they have lots of radioactive waste suitable for dirty bombs.

There's an even simply "otherwise" deterrent than a "dirty bomb" (which has never been demonstrated). No doubt, the Iranians simply provided, in back-channel negotation, sufficient detail regarding their contingency plans to block the Strait of Hormuz to convince BushCo that they were not only serious, but capable of blocking the worldwide crude supply.

Since BushCo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil, the calculus was easy enough for even W to figure out.

Originally Posted by Finch

There's an even simply "otherwise" deterrent than a "dirty bomb" (which has never been demonstrated). No doubt, the Iranians simply provided, in back-channel negotation, sufficient detail regarding their contingency plans to block the Strait of Hormuz to convince BushCo that they were not only serious, but capable of blocking the worldwide crude supply.

Since BushCo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil, the calculus was easy enough for even W to figure out.

All too true. The entire Persian Gulf is a giant trap of sorts, and Hormuz/Bandarr Abbas is the choke point. It's a natural hunting ground for small diesel-electric subs, and the Iranians have them.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

All too true. The entire Persian Gulf is a giant trap of sorts, and Hormuz/Bandarr Abbas is the choke point. It's a natural hunting ground for small diesel-electric subs, and the Iranians have them.

On the issue of what the Iranians have over us, there is also the issue of Iran being very aggressive of creating "Hezbollah" groups in countries around the world and perhaps not just in the Middle East.

One must remember that there is a huge Persian expat community in the States, esp. in the LA area. In fact, some portions of LA are refered to as "Tehrangelis" by Persian-Americans and others. There are up to a million in the LA area alone.

How many Iranian agents could be interspersed among those expats?? How could there NOT be a significant number? I think that might be a can of worms Dubya wasn't willing to open, not to mention the other things brought up in this thread.

Qualifier: I am not saying Persian-Americans, as such, are a threat to our nation. Far from it. Most of them strongly dislike, if not outright hate, the mullahs' regime in Iran. Most of them a good Americans. I am NOT advocating rounding them up in camps or anything remotely like that. I am just saying that logic dictates that there is a strong concern of what Iran may be able to do here. In fact, I fear a nightmare scenario for Persian-Americans if war with Iran comes to pass and Iran unleashes Hezbollah in America.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

On the issue of what the Iranians have over us, there is also the issue of Iran being very aggressive of creating "Hezbollah" groups in countries around the world and perhaps not just in the Middle East.

One must remember that there is a huge Persian expat community in the States, esp. in the LA area. In fact, some portions of LA are refered to as "Tehrangelis" by Persian-Americans and others. There are up to a million in the LA area alone.

How many Iranian agents could be interspersed among those expats?? How could there NOT be a significant number? I think that might be a can of worms Dubya wasn't willing to open, not to mention the other things brought up in this thread.

Qualifier: I am not saying Persian-Americans, as such, are a threat to our nation. Far from it. Most of them strongly dislike, if not outright hate, the mullahs' regime in Iran. Most of them a good Americans. I am NOT advocating rounding them up in camps or anything remotely like that. I am just saying that logic dictates that there is a strong concern of what Iran may be able to do here. In fact, I fear a nightmare scenario for Persian-Americans if war with Iran comes to pass and Iran unleashes Hezbollah in America.

The questions are, of course,

(1) how good could the mullah's regime be in getting infiltrators into the US?

(2) how successful would those infiltrators be in avoiding conflicts with Iranian expats who loathe the Iranian regime?

(3) how many intended infiltrators would remain loyal to their bankrollers?

It is worth remembering that the 9/11 conspirators avoided Arab communities. Americans as a rule know little Arabic other than "Allah Akbar" and perhaps "As-salam alaikum". They scrupulously avoided Dearborn, Michigan, where some waiter or barber who understands Arabic might hear something that the FBI might find interesting.

Iranian agents would avoid "Tehrangeles" as long as possible.

American law enforcement doesn't tell people "Vee haff vays to make you talk"; it prefers to find people who will talk. I'd squeal about a murder plot -- wouldn't you?