Card Games & Politics

[jamwadmag]

Many ppl dont understand the similarity between card games (such as Poker, Bridge, Spades, Hearts, etc), certain board games like Chess, and the real world of Politics!!

Most card games require a certain amount of 'luck' to win---getting some 'good cards,' as they say. But the best card players can win consistently using a couple of techniques, both involving 'bluffing!' If one starts out raising immediately, the opponents think they got some good 'hold cards,' or cards good for drawing to. If one is playing a game where cards are shown to the other players ('up') then can use 'the strength of those cards showing' to bluff, even if the hand never fills!! Even in Chess, diversionary moves can throw an opponent off, having them concentrating on the wrong pieces so that a move out-of-no where can win!

Now what ruins a person's bluff are the following: facial giveaways, nervous movements, sounds as 'sighs', etc, or fake sounds that are discerned as such, blinking/wincing, and the worst of all, the 'tipping one's hand' or showing their cards!!

Now for Politics and 'dealing' with other nations: The U.S., if they had a sufficient military, as they did during the Afghan War initiation, had the overwhelming strength that they did have (no bluff reqd!!), no other nations would have taken us on following 9-11. But now, with a thin military, poor support for the Iraq war at home, Al-Qaeda & Iran both in the melt, we dont have that overwhelming winning hand on this deal!!

So, what can we do and 'win?!' We cannot broadcast what our plans are and our strategies in this war over in the Middle east!! The Libs and Demos want us to give a 'pullout time table,' what a foolish 'move!!' Why not just show everybody our 'cards,' and fold---same thing!! The Middle east knows these types of games for it is inbred in their culture---'jump on weakness!!' As we say, kick em when their down! So we need to strengthen our forces, use whatever power we have to 'impress' them to 'our resolve,' and play a hard-ball game of cards!! It will take a hard-nosed John McCain, former warrior, 'hardened by trial & tribulation, to accomplish something like this!!
Not a 'tiptoe-thru-the-tulips' Obama Liberal with 'Just Words'---he will play right into their hands...a SUCKER!

[nohil-billy]

Nor do we need the opposite party or the radical element publicly undermining the president and making our enemies bolder. Ie, shut your pie holes.

[jamwadmag]

There are so many analogies to this principle:

1) We beat Russia in the cold war by having 'a strong hand showing,' staying in the game with a strong Defense, and wearing them down where they eventually 'folded!'

2) We had 'the strongest hand' in Viet Nam, but allowing them to 'stay in the game' by tying our military's hands, and allowing them to 'keep on drawing cards' til they eventually wore us down (more so with public opinion at home!), and we 'folded!

3) Now, with Iran, we have the strongest hand, but they are calling our bluff because they think that we wont 'call them!' We have 'tipped' our hand showing weakness, and they are planning on us 'folding,'...but NO, we need to call them on it!!

[Herb Schaffler]

You just don't get do you, nohil-billy? In America we have something known as freedom of speech. If we don't agree with our government's foreign policy, we have a right and a duty to speak out against it. What we are calling our enemies were enemies created by our meddling foreign policy.

[Herb Schaffler]

Or Jam, why don't we just admit the war was a big mistake, cut our losses and get out?

"1) We beat Russia in the cold war by having 'a strong hand showing,' staying in the game with a strong Defense, and wearing them down where they eventually 'folded!'"

And neither side fired a single shot. Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. That's why I'm not so worried if Iran gets nuclear arms. They don't dare go after any other country with nuclear arms, because they know they can retaliate. As far as blackmailing non-nuclear power countries with their nukes, the US and Israel and other countries with nukes can be a balancer of last resort. We could tell the other countries to not knuckle under Iran's demands, because we will protect them and tell Iran that we will retaliate against them in kind if they use nukes on others. That should get their attention. In the meantime, I don't see anything wrong with negotiating with all countries, even Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria on friendly terms. There is no reason to have a beligerant foreign policy. Another thing we can do if we don't want Iran to get nukes is to allow them to develop nuclear power for domestic use, but to supervise and monitor them. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, countries are allowed to develop nuclear power for domestic energy.

"2) We had 'the strongest hand' in Viet Nam, but allowing them to 'stay in the game' by tying our military's hands, and allowing them to 'keep on drawing cards' til they eventually wore us down (more so with public opinion at home!), and we 'folded!"

I was a hawk at the time because I believed in the dominoe theory. Now in afterthought, we know that wasn't a very sound theory. Vietnam fell, but the whole world didn't fall to Communism. In fact, we are now on friendly terms with Vietnam. A loss of 60,000 young men for nothing. This is the sort of thing people need to speak out against. How many more lives would have been wasted if we had stayed any longer.

"3) Now, with Iran, we have the strongest hand, but they are calling our bluff because they think that we wont 'call them!' We have 'tipped' our hand showing weakness, and they are planning on us 'folding,'...but NO, we need to call them on it!!"

There is no need to get involved in war with Iran as I've pointed out before. It will be an economic and bloody disaster. Even if Iran does get nukes, they would be stupid to use them, when they know that the US could "obliterate" them as Hillary said. Brent Snowcroft said he didn't think Bush would start a war with Iran because he doesn't think Bush is stupid enough. Time will tell.

[jamwadmag]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

Or Jam, why don't we just admit the war was a big mistake, cut our losses and get out?

"1) We beat Russia in the cold war by having 'a strong hand showing,' staying in the game with a strong Defense, and wearing them down where they eventually 'folded!'"

And neither side fired a single shot. Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. That's why I'm not so worried if Iran gets nuclear arms. They don't dare go after any other country with nuclear arms, because they know they can retaliate. As far as blackmailing non-nuclear power countries with their nukes, the US and Israel and other countries with nukes can be a balancer of last resort. We could tell the other countries to not knuckle under Iran's demands, because we will protect them and tell Iran that we will retaliate against them in kind if they use nukes on others. That should get their attention. In the meantime, I don't see anything wrong with negotiating with all countries, even Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria on friendly terms. There is no reason to have a beligerant foreign policy. Another thing we can do if we don't want Iran to get nukes is to allow them to develop nuclear power for domestic use, but to supervise and monitor them. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, countries are allowed to develop nuclear power for domestic energy.

Russia, post Kruschev, appeared to be 'responsible' with their nuclear power. If you remember the 50's drills of getting under your desks in school, we expected a nuclear war at any time!---and, you cant compare N. Korea and that maniac or Iran who want to be martyrs, die, and go to 70 virgin heaven while propagating their religion of killing the infidels!

"2) We had 'the strongest hand' in Viet Nam, but allowing them to 'stay in the game' by tying our military's hands, and allowing them to 'keep on drawing cards' til they eventually wore us down (more so with public opinion at home!), and we 'folded!"

I was a hawk at the time because I believed in the dominoe theory. Now in afterthought, we know that wasn't a very sound theory. Vietnam fell, but the whole world didn't fall to Communism. In fact, we are now on friendly terms with Vietnam. A loss of 60,000 young men for nothing. This is the sort of thing people need to speak out against. How many more lives would have been wasted if we had stayed any longer.

We were in S. Viet Nam to support an ally of democracy, and to make what we saw as a stand against Communism! Nothing wrong with that! How the war was conducted (half-azz) and the shock of a first time guerilla warfare in a jungle we werent prepared for!

"3) Now, with Iran, we have the strongest hand, but they are calling our bluff because they think that we wont 'call them!' We have 'tipped' our hand showing weakness, and they are planning on us 'folding,'...but NO, we need to call them on it!!"

There is no need to get involved in war with Iran as I've pointed out before. It will be an economic and bloody disaster. Even if Iran does get nukes, they would be stupid to use them, when they know that the US could "obliterate" them as Hillary said. Brent Snowcroft said he didn't think Bush would start a war with Iran because he doesn't think Bush is stupid enough. Time will tell.

I'm a bottom line guy, and look at history, recent events, and End-time prophetic scriptures to summarize my thoughts: There is no solution to the Middle East problem---pulling out would just delay the inevitable! There will be wars and religious genocide in that area of the world, and will culminate with the confrontation of nations of the West and the nations of the East over Israel! As time goes by, I can see this scenario even more vividly---I would give it all less than 20 years to wind down....

[Herb Schaffler]

"you cant compare N. Korea and that maniac or Iran who want to be martyrs, die, and go to 70 virgin heaven while propagating their religion of killing the infidels!"

Kim Il Sung and Ahmadijenad are full of bluster. When it comes down to it, cooler heads will prevail. Iran actually approached us in 2003 through a European ambassador to Iran to work out a deal where they promised not to develop nuclear weapons and would recognize Israel's right to exist in exchange for normalization of relations and lifting of sanctions, but Bush would have none of it. It appears Bush has other plans in store for Iran as part of the neocon scheme of remaking the Middle East.

"We were in S. Viet Nam to support an ally of democracy, and to make what we saw as a stand against Communism! Nothing wrong with that!"

We had no business there. There was no clear and present danger to the US.

"I'm a bottom line guy, and look at history, recent events, and End-time prophetic scriptures to summarize my thoughts: There is no solution to the Middle East problem---pulling out would just delay the inevitable! There will be wars and religious genocide in that area of the world, and will culminate with the confrontation of nations of the West and the nations of the East over Israel! As time goes by, I can see this scenario even more vividly---I would give it all less than 20 years to wind down...."

I really hate to get in a religious discussion at this site, but I believe that fatalistic attitude is just as extreme and dangerous an idea as the ideas of the mullahs in Iran. Hopefully sounder judgement will prevail from both sides and such an extreme religious based destruction of the Middle East won't prevail. The prophetic and apocalyptic parts of the Old and New Testament were mearnt for those times. They were talking about their enemies of those times and expected the end and the setting up of the Kingdom of God for those times. Millenarian minded people pick things out of the Bible and make connections with events in these times.

Jam, there is a book that you might be interested in reading. It is call "War and Christianity". It is an antiwar book written from a Christian standpoint. All Christians aren't warmongers.

[jamwadmag]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

I really hate to get in a religious discussion at this site, but I believe that fatalistic attitude is just as extreme and dangerous an idea as the ideas of the mullahs in Iran. Hopefully sounder judgement will prevail from both sides and such an extreme religious based destruction of the Middle East won't prevail. The prophetic and apocalyptic parts of the Old and New Testament were mearnt for those times. They were talking about their enemies of those times and expected the end and the setting up of the Kingdom of God for those times. Millenarian minded people pick things out of the Bible and make connections with events in these times.

Jam, there is a book that you might be interested in reading. It is call "War and Christianity". It is an antiwar book written from a Christian standpoint. All Christians aren't warmongers.

To really understand scripture, one must not only study it, but also the history that coincides with the books as they were written. That part is correct..however, too really understand God's plan is that he reveals it over-and-over again, with what Biblical scholars call 'Types & Shadows.' These are 'types' of the actual events that are prophesized, but not the real thing. Scripture does this over and over!! I.e. for example, Abraham was a type of God the Father who was going to sacrifice his son; Moses, Joshua (name means 'Savior') were types of Jesus Christ setting the ppl free and taking into the Promised Land (spiritually, is 'Heaven), Nero & Hitler were types of the Antichrist, etc. ...there are almost too many to count!.

And, the end-time Armageddon has already been 'typed' when the Crusaders, or Nations of the West (remnants of the Roman Empire--see statue of Daniel, 'toes of Iron'--Rome--'mixed with clay'--loose federation) went into the Holy Land against the Ottoman Empire (Arabs, or descendants of Ishmael & Esau---the Nations of the East). This part of history was NOT the battle of Armageddon, but a 'type' or forerunner pointing to the actual event!!

And as far as 'fatalism,' there you are wrong! The scripture is plain, that when all these events spoken of in the scriptures come to pass, then "Look up for your redemption draweth nigh' (just to quote the old familiar KJV). I look forward to living in this great period of history!! As for me...I'm a happy camper.....ha ha

[Herb Schaffler]

"Nero & Hitler were types of the Antichrist"

John, the writer of Revelation had Nero in mind as the Antichrist. Neron Caesar in Hebrew has a numerical value of 666. Some apocraphal books use 616 as the symbol of the Antichrist. Nero Caesar in Hebrew has a numerical value of 616.

Most Biblical scholars believe the four beasts of Daniel are Babylon, the Median Empire, Persia, and Greece. It's obvious that Daniel was written around 165 BC with Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the evil one who defiled the temple by putting up a statue of Zeus during the middle of the 7 years. The writer of Daniel believed the end would come at the end of those 7 years. The details match in the 11th chapter of Daniel match Antiochus to a tee that many fundamentalists have had to admit it was talking about Antiochus. When you read Daniel, the further back in time, the less detail you find and the more errors. As you get closer to the time of the writer, there is much more detail and much more accuracy.

'toes of Iron'--Rome--'mixed with clay'

This refered to the Greek empire which was strong under Alexander the Great, but became weak when it was divided between Alexander's 4 generals after his death.

"As for me...I'm a happy camper.....ha ha"

You're a religious nutcase full of self-delusion.

All we have here are cases of people making connections with writings in the Bible with current events. People have been doing this throughout the ages and applying the events of their times with the writings of the Bible.

[jamwadmag]

Originally Posted by Herb Schaffler

You're a religious nutcase full of self-delusion.

All we have here are cases of people making connections with writings in the Bible with current events. People have been doing this throughout the ages and applying the events of their times with the writings of the Bible.

Your wrong on the 'toes of iron mixed with clay' at the bottom of the statue of Daniel..Iron always represented the Roman Empire..the toes followed the legs of iron of the original Roman Empire---was called the 'one to come!'

Again, not only are you wrong again, Herb, but insulting with the attitude of a 'sore looser!' But...no offense taken.

[PPl like you and other head-in-the-sand folks are the very reason an Antichrist will get into power---most likely a Liberal, homosexual man (says in Danial that 'he has no desire for women'), economic savior, and 'a false man of peace.']

You are the deluded one, Herb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, to the remainder of this thread's viewers, this is the typical outrage, tantrums, and name-calling that Liberals exhibit when they are exposed and supposedly being 'open, compassionate, etc.' I rest my case...