War on Terror or WW III?


PDA






twenty711
August 19, 2006, 09:40 PM
I hope this doesn't get out of control; I'm hoping to have a honest discussion on this. I have heard some talkshow people starting to call the war on terror world war III and wonder how many of you agree with that? Now that Iran's actions are becoming more clear it appears that we are having a multiple country vs. multiple country war.. when does it become a world war?

If you enjoyed reading about "War on Terror or WW III?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
el44vaquero
August 19, 2006, 09:43 PM
Why when the french surrender of course! :neener:

Lone_Gunman
August 19, 2006, 09:47 PM
I think we have entered a never-ending war. There will always be terrorists, and there is no way to ever have a final victory. There will always be people in this country who are afraid of the terrorists, and be willing to let the government do whatever is necessary to keep them safe.

A state of constant "war" will gradually allow the powers of the federal government to expand, and civil rights will continue to diminish. Americans will give up these rights not only willingly, but also cheerfully in the name of safety. Ultimately, this will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic, and we will become an empire.

This is not World War III. This will end our republic, and begin in the next dark ages.

10-Ring
August 19, 2006, 09:48 PM
Let's see, we have an enemy whose mission it is to destroy all those who don't believe what they do...plain & simple. WWIII? :scrutiny: Oh, yeah! :cuss:

lacoochee
August 19, 2006, 10:04 PM
It's not WWIII yet, it more like 1935 when no one thought there would be a war and that Hitler was a relatively nice guy or at least not "our" problem. Just as in 1935 there is the peace at any cost crowd crowing about how we just need to understand our adversaries (Lamont's (of New Hampshire fame) father for example is a well known pacifist from this era). Ask this question after August 22nd, after we receive President Ahmadinejad's (I had to Google the spelling) reply to the UN resolution regarding Irans nuclear program, thing may be clearer then. I suspect our grandchildren will be completely floored by the fact that we didn't see this coming....

Kaylee
August 19, 2006, 10:10 PM
Well, given that the "War on Terror" was a PC misnomer to start with.. I'd say the rumblings you're hearing are more than anything else folks finally feeling able to say what a whole lot of people are thinking.. that it's a war against a particular genocidal flavor of fundamentalist Islam.

Given that said nutjobs have been blowing up folks in Russian schools and theaters, Indian cities, English trains, Israeli pizza parlors, and of course US airliners.. I'd say yes, it qualifies as a world war. It's just taken some of us longer than others to realize we've been declared war on.

mete
August 19, 2006, 10:13 PM
Hezbollah has said it will not disarm, Lebanon said it will not disarm Hezbollah, the French general in charge of the UN forces said they will not disarm hezbollah .Same old , same old .Israel once more has not completed the job. bowing the pressure, so will continue to be a victim.

Smith357
August 19, 2006, 10:15 PM
Iv'e been saying it's WWIII since 9/11. Make no mistake this enemy is engaged in a Holy War to turn the world into an Islamic theocracy.

MrZ
August 19, 2006, 10:24 PM
"A state of constant "war" will gradually allow the powers of the federal government to expand, and civil rights will continue to diminish."

Name one "right" that has been legally lost since the GWOT.


"Ultimately, this will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic, and we will become an empire."

What will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic is the lack of unity, on every spectrum, that we have been heading into since the 60's. It is now perfectly acceptable not to be simply an "American", but a "insert whaterver stupid adjective you desire here" American. That's fine. If we give our culture and our country away, than we don't deserve it anyway.

Zedicus
August 19, 2006, 10:39 PM
It may not be all out WWIII Yet, but it's rapidly approaching that point.

GT
August 19, 2006, 10:42 PM
This isn't just World War 3, it is a holy war.

Every few hundred years the Middle Eastern Moslems try to take over the Christian West. Usually by force of arms.
And every few hundred years they must be repelled.

The history on this is not exactly obscure or confusing.

This time, unfortunately, the Muslims have two new factors working in their favor:

1. They have planted their own 5th column of naturalized citizens within the countries of the West - with those countries' own collusion!
This 5th column desires nothing more than the destruction of their own adopted nation (check the opinion poll demographics on terrorist activity in the Western nations). This is taking non-assimillation one step beyond.

2. The majority of the West is now peopled by Godless heathen liberals, who, in a combination of misplaced generosity and condescending hubris are in the process of appeasing the religious army bent on their destruction.

Yes. World War 3 with a side of Crusades; except for the Democrat party, whose war seems to be primarily with Walmart.

G

ConstitutionCowboy
August 19, 2006, 10:48 PM
While Iran and any other country supports the terrorists, it's WWIII. When Ahm-the-dean-of-jihad and friends become our allies, WWIII will be over and it will then be the war against terrorists.

Not to put too fine a point on things, but it is not a war on terror. It is a war against terrorists. It is no different than the war on drugs. It is a war against drug dealers and users. It can't be a war against crime, but it can be a war against criminals. You can't stop corruption, but you can stop the corrupt.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

anotherinkling
August 19, 2006, 10:53 PM
Given the choices, I'll say WWIII but some have argued that it's probably WWIV. That's probably accurate. Time will tell. WWII was not referred to as such until '45 I believe.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 19, 2006, 10:58 PM
What will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic is the lack of unity, on every spectrum, that we have been heading into since the 60's. It is now perfectly acceptable not to be simply an "American", but a "insert whaterver stupid adjective you desire here" American. That's fine. If we give our culture and our country away, than we don't deserve it anyway.

Quite right, my friend. That is why I think I'll label myself as an "Absolute American". That is all the adjective I need, and I've got the arms to back it up.

Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

MidnightRambler
August 19, 2006, 11:08 PM
Smith357 is right. This enemy may be the most formidable our nation has ever faced. Growing followings worldwide, people born in our own country with sympathies to their organizations. In the past enemies have been regional/national, such as Germany, Japan, etc, but this enemy is worldwide and has far more than national followings. It's only going to get worse too, far worse. You can't defeat ideas with bombs and guns. And that's what the Islamic followings are based on, ideas. Whether theological, cultural or whatever, they are ideas. And ideas extremely hostile to the West. This may be a conflict in which we cannot prevail.

Art Eatman
August 19, 2006, 11:09 PM
Years ago I read a comment to the effect that people aren't happy with a situation unless they can put a label to it. Me, I don't see what difference it makes what we call it. WW III or WW IV if you think the Cold War was #3.

What I think I see, based on what's been publicly stated by those I consider to be Jihadists, is a sort of resumption of the expansion of Islam as in the early Middle Ages. The methodology is different; we don't have the screaming hordes on horseback with scimitars. What we have is this:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1183

There are other apparently worthwhile analyses at the Journal; I've not read all of them...

Art

Autolycus
August 19, 2006, 11:35 PM
It is going to be the war on Civil Liberties for those of us here in the USA. Patriot Act soon we will be disarmed and then we will be living under a big brother government. The tragic events of 9/11 are being exploited.

Think about it? We had Saudi Arabians fly the plane not Iraqi. Yet we (with the senate and house agreeing to it) went and attacked Iraq. We should have gone after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and focused on that. But we decided to go for an oil rich area and take over a country which had not been involved in the War On Terror.

The War on Terror has no clear definition of an enemy. We just know that they are terrorists yet we have no real definate information about them. The people who are fighting in Iraq are insurgents and not terrorists (I would call them guerillas). I am not saying they are good people or not but that they are not currently attacking the United States so we cannot call them terrorists.

The Al Quaeda organization that caused 9/11 is a terrorist group and not insurgent guerillas. They are who we should be after along with their financiers in Saudi Arabia. Yet we are not in Saudi? Why is this?

I chose not to vote because it is neither. It would be closer to a War on Terror in my book. Just that terror is not clearly defined.

scout26
August 19, 2006, 11:38 PM
Art,

Reading that article you posted makes me think that my son (and/or grandson) will have to fight for the same ground that my father fought for in WWII and that I defended from the Russian hordes during the Cold War.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it - Jorge Santayana.

Which is funny in way, as it took the Spanish quite a while to finally kick the Moors out. and the direct Muslim invasion in the 1500-1600's is the primary reason for all the recent unpleasantness in the Balkins.

Europeans seem to have rather short memories.

Monkeyleg
August 20, 2006, 12:10 AM
We've been at war with terrorist armies since our surrender in VietNam.

It doesn't matter one bit whether the soldiers in these armies wear uniforms or not. They're still soldiers, whose job it is to kill whatever enemy their leaders tell them to. And they use unconventional tactics, the same way that special forces groups from "respectable" nations have used.

The groups we are fighting want the same thing that the Japanese, the Nazi's, the Italian fascists, the Soviets, and other enemies wanted: more control, more land, more valuable natural resources, and the elimination of any country that would stand in their way.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why some try to make a distinction between the soldiers of groups like Hezbollah and members of the SS. Is it that the SS had such snappy uniforms?

This is not "the war on drugs," or "the war on poverty," or any other government-proclaimed "war" on some social issue.

This is real war, with real bombs, real enemies, real dead people, and real consequences.

It's also a war with a clear end-game: disable the enemy's ability to fight.

The problem is that there are far too many people in the US who think this is some sort of social issue and that, if we somehow can set up a government program to deal with the "disenfranchised youths" in the affected ME countries, we can achieve the same sort of success that we've shown in dealing with gang violence, poverty, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, and other societal problems that have plagued the US for some forty years.

This is NOT an issue for police officers or social workers or psychotherapists.

It's an issue for our soldiers, and we ought to let them do what they've been trained to do best: kill the enemy, and destroy anything that's in their way.

This is WWIII. The longer the politicians allow it to be addressed as some sort of social issue, the more Americans, Brits, Spanish, French, Italians, and citizens of other countries will be slaughtered.

We lost the war in VietNam on the very day that we won it, when Walter Cronkite convinced Americans that the Tet offensive that we had won had been lost. I hope there's a special place in Hell for Cronkite, because his message cost the lives of millions.

I've never served my country by wearing a uniform. I've never been shot at. I've never seen one of my friends cut down in battle. I've never had to make the sacrifices that so many guys I know had to make.

But I know this with absolute certainty: we are at peace with the countries that were formerly our most despised enemies. With the possible future exception of China, we are not threatened by any nation or group of nations.

Except the Middle East.

Some say that it's not possible to bring some form of self-government to "these people," because they're not capable of self-government. They're accustomed to tyrants, kings, princes, and all other sorts of deities.

Really?

The same was said about Germany, Italy, and Japan.

And some would even say the same about African-Americans in the US today.

Compared to the world I was born into in 1950, things are pretty quiet. The only exception is the Middle East.

We have an opportunity now to perhaps bring about the peaceful world that so many of my generation thought could be achieved by merely lighting candles or singing Pepsi-cola songs.

The price for that opportunity will be paid with the lives of young US men and women who believe in what they are doing.

Those who take a long-term view of international issues will recognize the end-game, and give solemn thanks to the young men and women who sacrificed their lives to achieve that worthy goal.

Those who only look at the short term goals will likewise give thanks to those same servicemen and servicewomen, but will do to our country what Walter Cronkite did.

Lupinus
August 20, 2006, 12:21 AM
I think it is the build it to WW3. Not there yet but in the opening stages

WW3 will take a large attack by the muslims on a Western target. Large as is a nuke or some such that even the Frenchies will have a hard time not condeming.

What I hope for though is WW3 will mean unleashing on the enemy, and not more of the same crap we are seeing now. IE half assed attacks telling the dog to attack yet at the same time keeping it on a tight leash and scorning it every time it so much as hints at not playing nice, as well as infrindging on the people on the home front.

115grfmj
August 20, 2006, 12:27 AM
It isn't a war until we need to liberate france.;)

JBusch8899
August 20, 2006, 12:29 AM
conflict.

Its also unfortunate that this country still has enough Jimmy Carter types without the gahoonies to face reality enough to realize that the only way to save lives and property, is to attack the enemy without regard to anything but victory.

It seems that many in this country are more intent upon not losing "friends" than saving American lives.

So before this war on terror becomes a true global conflict, I would urge our leaders to finish the job as General George Patton would: Quickly, efficiently and decisively.

thumper723
August 20, 2006, 12:49 AM
I voted WWIII. Still in opening stages. The Iraq war and afghanistan is analagous to Spain and Manchuria in the 30s. Not that it is the same situtation, but a part of the conflict that is not considered WWII proper.

cbsbyte
August 20, 2006, 02:07 AM
Sorry, It is not a war, since congress never gave Bush war powers, though he has created his own powers by using the jingoistic, "War on Terror" title to scare Americans into freely giving up their freedoms. Militants of all stripes have been waging war for generations by conducting both military and terrorist acts. This time is no different. If USA would just leave the middle east alone, let them decide if they want to be democratic, without ramming our values down their collective throats, then most of out problems in the ME would be history. But sadly that will not be the case until we have an admistration that better understands the history of the world. If the rest of the world feels compassion for the Arabs and their plight then they should spend their tax dollars on rebuilding ME countries, and societies through public works projects.

Nitrogen
August 20, 2006, 02:13 AM
Holy Excrement. that brussels journal article was scary.

Glad we have 2nd amendment rights in case some toughs decide to take over our neighborhood.

As far as attacking the enemy with out regard to anything but victory, I don't see us currently doing that. I think we need to look to Israel to remember how to really fight a war.

To put it as one of my coworkers, an ex-marine from Desert Storm put it:
"You send in the marines when you want to completely destroy your enemy in an area. You don't send us in, then not let us fight with all our might."

Israel, when threatened, will not care what others think of her. Israel will do what it needs to do.
Not going to discuss wether or not we should be fighting right now, but if we decide to fight, we need to go forward like we mean it.

Prince Yamato
August 20, 2006, 02:31 AM
Actually, the liberal response to how we should fight the war on terror, reminds me of the British response to Hitler. They sent Neville Chamberlin who met with Hitler who promised Chamberlin that Germany wouldn't be aggressive. Chamberlin gets back England and declares, "Peace in our Time". One year later, the Germans are bombing the hell out of London. All Hitler wanted to do was unite the greater Germany (Lebensraum) all Ahmadinejad wants to do is unite greater Islam. Shortly before WW2, people said, "Oh that Hitler, he's not bad, he just wants to unite people with a common belief. Surely there can't be any harm in that" (starting to sound familiar?) "Why, some Jews in Germany enjoyed privilege under the Nazis". Notice how the press today says, "In Iran, some Jews enjoy privilege. They live in their own unique ethnic neighborhoods (we call them ghettos by the way) and some even hold political office (kapos anyone?). I believe that the press and the democrats play (as I call it) the "boogieman card". Noone talks of the boogieman because they're afraid if they do, they'll give him substance and he might really exist. Noone talks of the true nature of the war on terror and looming WW3, because they feel that if they do, they may give substance to their fears. I think the truth is that many people in our country are terrified (and rightly so) at the prospect of the next world war. Notice how the press refuses to make connections between jihad and US-based terror like the UNC student who slammed his SUV into his fellow students, or these Egyptian students the FBI just captured. "We don't think there's a connection they say." The fact that they all shared the same ideology is what makes them linked to the Jihadi's... but don't say that, or home-grown terror may really exist... And while I've been comparing the Iranians to the Nazis, the truth is, they fight more like the Japanese (If anyone saw the Mike Wallace interview, Ahmadinejad stated that Iran had over 52,000 members of a special suicide squad awaiting instruction- kamikaze anyone). Devotion to a diety? A special place for the war-dead in heaven- is this Bushido... nope, it's jihad.

Now, maybe I'm wrong and maybe I read too much into history, but this all seems to fit together a little too well. Whenever I question myself, I watch one of the beheading videos on the internet so that I am reminded, "no, these people really are evil." and "no, they can't be reasoned with and they can't be talked to."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this (at least that's what I get from reading conservative blogs). I seriously believe we need to be more vocal about this. It shouldn't even be a partisan issue. I always tell my liberal friends (who naturally oppose the war on terror), "you know the jihadis aren't going to stop you and ask who you voted for before they saw your head off or blow you up with a room full of people"

Well, that's my rant for tonight. Maybe you'll all think I'm a nut, in which case, you can ask that I be banned from THR, but do at least consider what I have to say.

Incidentally, how many of you knew that Iran means "land of the Aryans?"

Shweboner
August 20, 2006, 03:11 AM
"Let's see, we have an enemy whose mission it is to destroy all those who don't believe what they do...plain & simple. WWIII? Oh, yeah!"


Its funny that this statement is true no matter which side you are on.

Monkeyleg
August 20, 2006, 03:27 AM
cbsbyte, you must be trying to kid me.

The War Powers Act hasn't been used since WWII.

We HAVE an administration that understands the world. In fact, we've had many since the late 1930's.

FDR understood that, if we just let the Nazi regime go about its ways, it was only a matter of time before they brought their Europe stuff (otherwise known as European *#@$) to us.

"If USA would just leave the middle east alone..."

The fight with the radical and violent elements of the Islamic movement have nothing to do with our involvement, presence, or even commentary about their countries' affairs.

We are infidels. We are to be hated, no matter what we do.

You mention "history of the world."

Ok, let's start with history of the last century.

Most of the Arab countries sided with the Nazi's. Patton won, Rommel lost.

An incaluable number of Jews died at the hands of the Nazi's. Burned, shot, whatever...my point is that the percentage of Jews alive at the end of WWII was a fraction of what there was at the outset.

The Arabs backed the murderers. And the Arabs lost.

"To the victor goes the spoils," as the old saying goes.

Well, from my comfy chair, it's always seemed like it was a good idea to create the nation of Israel.

We helped create a country in a region that was hostile to us. Even the Saudi's are not our friends.

And we're never, ever going to be the friend of the Saudi on the street. Or the Iraqi on the street.

Get that buried in your head.

The best that the US will be is a strategic ally. But that's a huge step.

If we can have bases in Iraq, we can pressure Iran. If we can pressure Iran, we can pressure every other tyranical regime in the area.

We have to do it. If we don't, we're roadkill. Our biggest mistake was letting Jimmy Carter try to negotiate the release of over 300 hostages. That embarassment cost not just the lives of hostages killed, but the subsequent loss of servicemen and innocent civilians.

Understand this, too: the hostility from the Arab world toward the US is not just a relgious one. At one time, back in the 13th century or so, the Arab world was the center of commerce.

Because of their "traditions," they are no longer the center of commerce. Spices and camels don't exactly trade on NASDAQ.

The leaders of the Jihadist movements--including Hezbollah, the PLA, and Al-Queda--promise a return to the "glory days." Read "Mein Kampf." I think you'll find many similarities in the appeal to the disenchanted.

strambo
August 20, 2006, 03:28 AM
"Let's see, we have an enemy whose mission it is to destroy all those who don't believe what they do...plain & simple. WWIII? Oh, yeah!"

Its funny that this statement is true no matter which side you are on. haha:fire:

Really? The US military executes foreign policy. I have never heard of, nor seen any mission statement that has anything to that effect. "Destroying people who don't believe what we do" Heck, we give $$ and aid to whomever, irregardless of their belief system as long as they aren't shooting at us, our allies or blowing up innocent civilians.

Statements like that and the belief that all cultures have value and we are all the same is why we keep under-reacting to these evil, evil people. And why it's hard to get support to fight those that wish to destroy freedom at any cost. We only target our self-declared enemies and it don't matter what they believe. We fight and bleed next to our middle eastern allies who have a copy of the same koran that the terrorists do.

Vitamin G
August 20, 2006, 12:09 PM
Why when the french surrender of course!


Uhh... Remember the muslims rioting in france with a generally apathetic response to the violence and destruction?

longeyes
August 20, 2006, 12:26 PM
The world war-in-development is about really about liberty versus collectivism. The fight, in the end, will be with all those, East and West, who hate free men.

Robert J McElwain
August 20, 2006, 01:56 PM
If, indeed, we are either heading toward, or already in WW III, shouldn't we be working on re-instituting the draft?

It's it's WW III, we're not ready for it.

Bob

PressCheck
August 20, 2006, 02:28 PM
It can't be WWIII until France surrenders.

Low-Sci
August 20, 2006, 02:39 PM
Drafts come later. We're just getting into the swing of this in earnest. Islamists have been at it for centuries, but I think its been only in the last four years where the west has decided that it better put up some game.


I think we're still in an escalation stage, but I think much more of this war than folks may imagine will occur through the media rather than on the battlefield.

And a fight on the battlefield is to be preferred, because they haven't got a shot. Its on the pages of newspapers where the Islamists and their dhimmi friends are really dangerous, because there they can make a handful of mistakes look like large-scale barbarism, and they can make their large-scale barbarism look like a handful of mistakes. The media is really good at that.

I would say that we're just starting to swing into WW3, which is why I'm not getting all worked up about permanent bases in Iraq. This is a world war, it will take a long time, and when it really gets going, we'll be glad we have them there.

For the islamists, they've been in world war three since the end of the cold war, maybe even earlier. But its only recently that the west has really recognized that it's not just a handful of maniacs, and that its really on now.

Kim
August 20, 2006, 05:14 PM
Shewboner-------Do you really have the world view you allude to. Can you not get out of the post modern mind set of I'm O:K Your O:K to see that there really are alot of people whose ideas are not good and should not be accepted.( Yes I mean can you make a JUDGEMENT) Do you really think the USA is out to force our way of things(other than stopping terrorism ie. The murder of people here). Really. The only ones I see that would force our culture on the Middle East will be the liberals. How long (it is already going on) before you really hear that we must force women's rights on this other culture. You know ABORTION rights. Yea I've already heard the squeakey wheel. Who writes of the burka as being all oppressive. Is it really. Yes if forced. But I would bet alot of women would still want to dress that way. Would that be O:K for the international push for so called womens rights. I doubt it seriously. Oh I know you mean Capitalism.... Yea that would be a bad thing instead of Government ownership of most everything as it is now. Sure let us keep them poor and oppressed with socialism. After all Saddam was a good dictator. I VOTE FOR WWIII. I dread it. I am not sure how many will die before all heck breaks loose. But I expect the worst.

crazed_ss
August 20, 2006, 05:18 PM
If, indeed, we are either heading toward, or already in WW III, shouldn't we be working on re-instituting the draft?

It's it's WW III, we're not ready for it.

And who is this massive Army of the Republic going to fight?

If the extremists had vast, well-trained, organized armies like Hitler did, I'd truly be concerned. As it stands, all they can do now is blow random stuff up and scare people into not wanting to fly.

longeyes
August 20, 2006, 05:53 PM
Yeah, random stuff. You mean like London, D.C., New York, a few major harbors here and there...

Not to worry.

Shweboner
August 20, 2006, 05:56 PM
Well, I knew that I would get a few reactions with my statement... Regardles of its truth, its just enough to rile up people's emotions.
Keep in mind that all I was saying is that both sides of any conflict feel that they are in the right. Otherwise they would not be fighting.

I was not taking any particular side. It is true of all sides in every conflict.


"Terrorists" are attacking us because they hate our freedom? Well they must be winning! Afterall our rights have been crapped on at a much faster rate since the beginning of the 'war on terror'. I fear thegov more than I do terrorists. Terrorism doesnt even cross my mind, it is not going to happen to me, ever in my life. The gov restricting me and taking my rights away.... that I am sure will continue.... to keep me safe of course. So you can have your patriot act and the nsa screening your calls... I hope you feel safer.

Under-reacting? Tell me how you would solve the problem? I am all ears.


Kim, well I guess that is how I think in this particular case. Not because I have some ridiculous utopian view that we can all live together in peace..... blah blah blah..... I may lean left sometimes, but not that far. Get real. Its amazing how one vague comment can open a window into my mind for you people. But to respond to your post...

Do you not think that the USA is trying to force our ways on them? We wont accept anything less then a governing system the mirrors the US/UK systems. So yeah, I think we are trying to bring these people in line with our western systems, whether they want it or not. Anything else is labelled a terrorist regime or similar. The US wants what is best for the US/busine$$ not what is best for the people of any one country. You can opress the hell out of people, but dont be surprised when they lash out. If you were a Palestinian, how would you react to Israel.

The US wants to make these people accept US culture/systems and we will blow the crap out of those who resist. The 'terrorists' want to keep their ways and for us to accpet their ways, and they will continue to fight until it happens....

That is where my original comment comes in. Same means, different ends... side doesnt matter on that level.



Terrorism = Bull$#!^
War on Terror = War on Civil Liberties & Rights

Take it or leave it, but that is the truth as I see it. And no left or right wing emotional crap is going to change that.

Frog48
August 20, 2006, 06:17 PM
Its not WW3... yet.

However, even when it does become WW3, which I believe is in the not-so-distant future, I'll be damned if I give away my rights without a fight.

Hollowdweller
August 20, 2006, 06:20 PM
NOT WW3 but could be if we wanted it to be.

There are terrorists that must be stopped but really the actions of our government at this point is not really to do that.

The actions of our gov't at this point involving taking all the old rhetoric from the cold war, crossing out "Communist" inserting "Terrorists" and then using it just like the cold war to funnel money to the same military, commercial and political interests that made a lot of money at the expense of everybody else during the cold war.

With the end of the Cold War these people were losing money.

There are things we can do as a country to fight terrorists, but 99% the stuff we are doing is making it worse. Reminds me of the British marching in lines and the Colonists shooting them from behind rocks. We are stuck in our cold war mindset and the whole preventing terrorist act thing requires a lot more intelligence and finesse.

crazed_ss
August 20, 2006, 06:33 PM
Yeah, random stuff. You mean like London, D.C., New York, a few major harbors here and there...

Not to worry.

Ill worry when these guys start overrunning Western Armies or start taking and holding ground. Right now their tactics and attacks amount to no more than... well.. terrorism.

Phantom Warrior
August 20, 2006, 06:34 PM
Alright, I'll try to have a resonable discussion.

But how can the vote be 2-1 for WW III????? Are we fighting several other countries? Are millions of soldiers involved? Have we suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties? Are we on a real war time footing? Are we drafting people?

No. We are fighting insurgencies in two small Middle Eastern Countries. Sure, it not smooth sailing right now, but if we had fought Korea and Vietnam at the same time would that have been WW III?



If the extremists had vast, well-trained, organized armies like Hitler did, I'd truly be concerned. As it stands, all they can do now is blow random stuff up and scare people into not wanting to fly.


I think crazed_ss put it well. We are fighting a terrorist organization with a world wide base. And there is no direct head to strike at, so the going is slow and we have more work to do winning hearts and minds to deny them support. But we are no where near another World War. Not even close.

dracphelan
August 20, 2006, 07:03 PM
I say it is both. Terrorism is a global problem. Therefore, it involves fighting all over the world, thus World War III.

longeyes
August 20, 2006, 07:06 PM
I think crazed_ss put it well. We are fighting a terrorist organization with a world wide base. And there is no direct head to strike at, so the going is slow and we have more work to do winning hearts and minds to deny them support. But we are no where near another World War. Not even close.

Too bad the other guys see it differently.

ilbob
August 20, 2006, 07:09 PM
Its a world war in the sense that it is not confined to one specific area. Anywhere there are Muslims there is war going on. they want to take over and force the rest of us into their 11th century theocracy.

It is going on in the UK, in France, Germany, and Scandanavia. In much of the former Soviet Union and large parts of China. Indonesia, the Phillipines and Australia. Can't forget the US and the Middle East.

You have just two choices.

One option is to surrender. This is the option being pushed by the American left these days.

The other is to defeat it. Some battles can be won on the battlefield. others in the court of public opinion. maybe some economically.

if you do not defeat the enemy, surrender will be the eventual result.

John-Melb
August 20, 2006, 07:10 PM
Not sure it's relevant to this debate, but I read this over on Google:

"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it reminds them of their responsibility."

I replied with

“Absolute bulls***.......

The mongrels who flew hijacked Jumbos into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were all intelligent, articulate young men who had their lives ahead of them. They could have chosen to live succesful lives anywhere in the world. They chose evil.

Have you ever read "Die like the carp", it tells the story of the mass
breakout attempt from Cowra POW camp by Japanese prisoners in
1943. The Japanese conspired to not only escape, but to kill as many Australians as possible. This is despite the fact that they were, in many ways, (food, clothing, provision of recreational equipment and medical aid) treated better by the Australians as prisoners of war, than they had been as serving soldiers of the Japanese Army.

The Japanese mistook this kindness for weakness and fear, and held the Australians in contempt because of it. When the bugle sounded and they made their last banzai charge, they discovered, too late, that the same hands which tended their wounds and handed out blankets could also work a Vickers gun.

Today's terrorists are exactly the same, you see kindness and
compassion, they see nothing but weakness, fear and contempt.

By all means provide all the assistance you suggest, AFTER the last
terrorist has been sent to Paradise by a soldier”

longeyes
August 20, 2006, 07:12 PM
fear thegov more than I do terrorists. Terrorism doesnt even cross my mind, it is not going to happen to me, ever in my life.

The rise of Muslim radicalism is just accelerating what would otherwise be a predictable power grab by our Government over time. But it is possible for two threats, or more, to exist at the same time.

You live in Newberg, OR. I guess you think that if something Goes Wrong Bigtime in Portland you will be unaffected? Or if I-5 gets "interrupted?" You'll have more to worry about than traffic congestion from weekend vineyard-hoppers wanting to tipple some Cab.

crazed_ss
August 20, 2006, 08:28 PM
Too bad the other guys see it differently.

Who cares how they see it? They're insane.
They can have all the delusions of granduer that they want.. it doesnt mean anything since they dont have the power to make their goals a reality.

Malone LaVeigh
August 20, 2006, 08:41 PM
I hope this doesn't get out of control; I'm hoping to have a honest discussion on this.
Then you should have included an option that reflects reality.

twenty711
August 20, 2006, 08:45 PM
Quote:
I hope this doesn't get out of control; I'm hoping to have a honest discussion on this.

Then you should have included an option that reflects reality.


Hi, It's 2006. Not 9/10/2001. I can see where you were confused.

longeyes
August 20, 2006, 09:24 PM
They can have all the delusions of granduer that they want.. it doesnt mean anything since they dont have the power to make their goals a reality.

I didn't say they could win; they can't unless we roll over like puppies. But if they get modern weapons and we don't treat their threat realistically we can be gravely, if not mortally, wounded.

Kaylee
August 20, 2006, 09:24 PM
let's all remember our manners now. :)

mljdeckard
August 20, 2006, 09:41 PM
Without reading all the thread, this may be already mentioned,

Some people say the Cold War was WWIII, and THIS is WWIV. I could certainly see an argument for that. America and Russia were smart enough to let third world nations fight for them, and many millions of people died as a result.

This is as world as war gets. Sorry for the disappointment. Some people would love to have a conflict so grave, that every single person in America must sacrifice if we hope to win, as happened in WWII. In these situations, it's easy to see black and white, and believe in what you are doing. But in THIS era, the problem is, technology has made the world much smaller. You notice, the only nations causing conflicts are the ones with restricted media access. Everyone else is well enough informed that their government can't lie to them well enough to convince them they should fight and die.

They other way technology has made this different, is it takes a lot less manpower and machine to accomplish a mission than it used to. I remember a comparison I saw from an Air Force general referring to destroying a ground target. Back in WWII, to drop one bomb on a specific piece of real estate, it took multiple missions, many heavy bombers, support fighters, casualties, prisoners, and shot-up bombrs limping home. Now, the vast majority of such missions are one plane, one bomb, no casualties, satellite confirmation, no follow-up necessary.

The world is smaller. While the missions aren't exactly easy, they require much less sacrifice to accomplish than they used to. The only way I see something as big as WWII happening again is to interpret Revelations literally, and I think something of that proportion is a LONG way off. Like I say, people WISH it was as passionate as WWII, but this is as big as war gets for the forseeable future.

StrikeFire83
August 20, 2006, 09:46 PM
You need a 3rd Option, Global war for OIL.

The world is addicted to an antiquated power source, and the developing nations need it to expand and attempt to attain parity.

Unfortunately, a vast amount of the remaining accessible petroleum happens to be located in a backward toilet known as the Middle East. Because our scientists and corporations aren’t smart enough or are unwilling to develop an alternative, we have to continue to do business with greedy, tribal fiefdoms stuck in the 10th Century.

We have a growing China, Oceana, Eastern Europe, and Latin America all craving petroleum to elevate their standards of living. To secure the oil to maintain OUR standard of living, we are increasingly going to have to fight wars against those who would constrain our access to it. This also mean doing battle with non-traditional combat forces, or terrorists, who attack out civilians and then blend into the civilian population.

Calling terrorists “evil people who hate our freedom” is stupid, simplistic, and it accomplishes nothing. We obviously need oil and access to it until we can develop another energy source, so these people need to be killed. Also, they threaten our civilians, so they need to be killed.

Once we get off oil we can let the middle east burn, but for right now we need what they have.

david_the_greek
August 20, 2006, 10:01 PM
I'm going to side mostly with shweboner on this. I'm becoming much more afraid of the government than I am of any terrorist. and I whole heartedly believe that the government should be nothing to fear and infact they should be the ones watching their steps. and not so much the left as the right. They both have their evils but it seems to me that our current admin is looking more into my life and business than anyone has in the past. I find myself more likely to hear a mandatory registration of long arms for the sake of "national security" to prevent terrorism coming from the current gov. personally I'm really starting to lean torwards the true liberals.... yes I do mean the libertarians. being a michigander maybe I'll stop by ted nugents place and see if he'd like to run. haha oh my I think i'm going to go to the range tomarrow and and pretend like the world doesn't exist

longeyes
August 20, 2006, 10:28 PM
Ill worry when these guys start overrunning Western Armies or start taking and holding ground. Right now their tactics and attacks amount to no more than... well.. terrorism.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in Europe these days?

Hayward Juhbuzzoff
August 20, 2006, 10:47 PM
Not WWIII...

Why even want to call it WORLD WAR III?... it doesn't come close to the scale of warfare of the two World Wars. Just because it is an international problem, doesn't make it a world war. Drugs are an international problem... maybe the War on Drugs is actually WWIII and the War on Terror is WWIV?

I suspect that some might see political advantage to calling it WWIII, and I'd bet Al Qaeda would be flattered to have inspired such hyperbole.

crazed_ss
August 20, 2006, 10:52 PM
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in Europe these days?

I'm not aware of any battles where armies of Islamic extremists have won decisive victories against European militaries.

crazed_ss
August 20, 2006, 10:54 PM
Al Qaeda would be flattered to be have inspired such hyberbole.

Exactly. Everyone running around with these "OMG, THIS IS IT.. WORLD WAR 3!!!" attitudes just give the extremists more ammo.

longeyes
August 20, 2006, 11:08 PM
I'm not aware of any battles where armies of Islamic extremists have won decisive victories against European militaries.

You know, you're right. They take out their rage by bravely torching Peugeots and gangraping Swedish girls.

.41Dave
August 21, 2006, 01:29 AM
Ok, let's get this straight:

WW III was the cold war (I used to think we won that one, but as we continue our metamophosis into a soviet-like state, I rather doubt it)

WW IV was the war on poverty (poverty and it's ally socialism won),

WW V was the war on drugs (we lost, the drug lords and the power-hungry Fed.Gov won)

WW VI is the "War on Terror".

Of course, all of them are merely proxies for the real world war, The War on Liberty. Liberty is losing, because many of it's would-be defenders have been distracted and bamboozled into the belief that Liberty's enemies are a handful of radical muslims, and a billion of their peaceful co-religionists, instead of the Governments that actually do have the power to destroy liberty as long as they can keep the people clamorous to be led to "safety"

Are the terrorists a threat? Absolutely. Are they the greatest threat we face? Absolutely not.

Shweboner
August 21, 2006, 01:44 AM
You live in Newberg, OR. I guess you think that if something Goes Wrong Bigtime in Portland you will be unaffected? Or if I-5 gets "interrupted?" You'll have more to worry about than traffic congestion from weekend vineyard-hoppers wanting to tipple some Cab.



I wasnt saying that I feel safe from terrorism because I live in little ol' Newberg. Only a total idiot would think such a thing... There wont even be an attack on Portland. I would put $$$ on it. Its not going to happen because there is no benefit to it. Besides domestic terrorist attacks happen at the whim of of the gov when it is best for their purposes. I believe that any attacks on US soil happen with the approval and direction of some part of our gov. There is nothing dramatic enough in the area to attack, thus the masses wont be drawn to the gov for protection... so why bother.


So you can guess what I think all you want... bottom line is I think that nothing will happen, therefore I do not waste my thoughts on it. Just keep a standard level of preparedness at all times. not out of fear that Abdullah is going to crash a plane into the US Bank tower. because like I said... its all Bull$#!^

twenty711
August 21, 2006, 07:01 AM
Besides domestic terrorist attacks happen at the whim of of the gov when it is best for their purposes. I believe that any attacks on US soil happen with the approval and direction of some part of our gov.

Now that's the craziest thing I've ever heard. So all bad things come from the governmet? The government tells its own people when to attack it? I didn't even get the newsletter on that one.

sterling180
August 21, 2006, 07:09 AM
There are many people in the UK,who believe that these trouble-making extremists,should be put in concentration camps and made to do hard Labour-for the rest of their lives.Others want them dead,by firing-squads and by hanging.

A psycho called David Tovey,was going to blow up a mosque and kill as many of the worshippers as possible.V for Vendetta,might not be far away,from the future-either.

If WW3,occurred and the BNP party took over,amongst the chaos-then certainly,you will get a fascist GB.

gc70
August 21, 2006, 08:53 AM
I believe that any attacks on US soil happen with the approval and direction of some part of our gov.So you can guess what I think all you want... That certainly proves that I would never have guessed what you were thinking. :what:

karaya
August 21, 2006, 09:17 AM
I voted for WWIII, but I think we should better call it WWI.

WWI started in the year 622, when Muhammad and his followers began to convert or massacre neighbouring tribes and to conquer the arabic peninsula.

Since then there was never peace at the borders of Islam (only temporary ceasefires) and Europe was at least 2 times in danger of being completly overrun.

Nowadays the bloody borders of Islam are running right through the hearts of West Europe's major cities.

birddog
August 21, 2006, 11:02 AM
I believe that any attacks on US soil happen with the approval and direction of some part of our gov.

And with this quote, I think I hear the clock ticking on the closing of this thread. Too bad, it was a good discussion.

mike101
August 21, 2006, 11:27 AM
Invading Afghanistan was part of the War on Terror. The War in Iraq is, for our part, a war to keep that oil coming out of the ground at $2.50 a barrel. For their part, it is a civil war already. World War III will start when Iran refuses the incentives offered by the UN and US to stop their Uranium enrichment program. We are going to bomb the hell out of them, wait and see. That should give them some incentive.

I'm afraid we will have to, if the Israelis don't beat us to it. Can you imagine these people with nukes?
:what:

karaya
August 21, 2006, 11:45 AM
The War in Iraq is, for our part, a war to keep that oil coming out of the ground at $2.50 a barrel

Most people in my part of the world believe this. I don't. Simply buying that oil from Saddam Hussein - just like all the years before 1991 - would have been definitly cheaper.

longeyes
August 21, 2006, 11:49 AM
Of course, all of them are merely proxies for the real world war, The War on Liberty. Liberty is losing, because many of it's would-be defenders have been distracted and bamboozled into the belief that Liberty's enemies are a handful of radical muslims, and a billion of their peaceful co-religionists, instead of the Governments that actually do have the power to destroy liberty as long as they can keep the people clamorous to be led to "safety"


A) You don't have to have a formal government behind you to do grave damage. B) In Islam there is no separation between religion and state. C) Handful of radical Muslims? Clearly you didn't read the recent poll in Great Britain asking the Muslim population about their attitudes toward 7/7.

The Deer Hunter
August 21, 2006, 12:00 PM
Its not really WW III because war has not been declared on a sovereign nation.

Its also not realy the war on terror either.

Its more like a big gang war and were there to stop it.

Gordon Fink
August 21, 2006, 01:00 PM
It is neither. We are not fighting a wide-scale global war, but we are not really fighting terrorists either.

~G. Fink

mike101
August 21, 2006, 01:53 PM
Yes, it would have been cheaper, but then, Saddam tried to have Bush's Dad killed. It bothered him so much, that after 9/11 he had his people bending over backwards trying to establish a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

mljdeckard
August 21, 2006, 03:16 PM
I absolutely agree with karaya. If all we wanted from Iraq was the oil, all we had to do was recomment that the U.N. drop all sanctions, and BUY it from them. It would have cost a LOT less than $400,000,000,000.

Colt
August 21, 2006, 03:36 PM
Because our scientists and corporations aren’t smart enough or are unwilling to develop an alternative, we have to continue to do business with greedy, tribal fiefdoms stuck in the 10th Century.

Not entirely. The tree-huggers, and the legislatures that listened to their liberal crap are mostly to blame. They used to be merely annoying, pining about human interference in Caribou mating habits, and farmer's "destroying" spotted owl habitats. By now it should clear to everyone that 30 year-old refineries and the lack of drilling in .04% of ANWR (an area no American is likely to ever even see) has been the single biggest contributing factor to our foreign oil dependency.

Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc, etc, They're the ones putting your family at risk. And that's when they stop being merely annoying.

Research alternative fuels. But in the mean time, it makes sense to drill for oil here in the US. Stop funding terrorism.

The rush to alternative fuels is also going to serve to motivate the islamofacists. They realize that our dependency on their oil is going to end, and with it the funding necessary for their jihad. They will become more and more aggressive as they begin to feel the pain of their withering power. We don't want them to have Nukes <cough, N. Korea, cough, Iran> when that happens.

Ezekiel
August 21, 2006, 04:37 PM
But if they get modern weapons and we don't treat their threat realistically we can be gravely, if not mortally, wounded.

Frankly, I don't think that "they" can do any more to "us" than what we have already begun doing to ourselves due to the existence of a series of ongoing, metaphorical, bloody noses.

The United States, as a nation, is chopping off its head to save its face.

Incredibly, insanely, stupid.

They can only gravely, or mortally, wound us if we change our way of life in the face of them.

"Oh, wait..." :banghead:

Nio
August 21, 2006, 04:47 PM
What is happening is NOT a war about terror. It's not a war about oil. Whether or not anybody realizes it, we are a number of years into the third world war - and WWIII is a religious war. The two most militant religious positions on the planet Judeao/Christianity and Islam are very specifically TRYING to bring about Armageddon. For the most part right now, it's a war about propaganda.

First of all, watch these videos:

http://www.seconddraft.org/streaming/pallywood.wmv

http://www.seconddraft.org/streaming/aldurah.wmv

The second series of videos is called The Power of Nightmares. They are each an hour long. Watch all three in order as you have time. These answer the question I've been asking since 9/11: If the terrorist are such a threat, then where are they? Why haven't they hit us? The answer is that they aren't as organized as we have been lead to believe.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7930933565201168

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649090417189127240

After you've watched the videos, read this:

http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/

It's going to get pretty scary in the next few years around here.

There is no doubt that almost all the governments of the world are run by religious zealots of some flavor. I really think it's coming to a head. In the next 20 years or so the Zionists and the Islamists are going to slaughter one another wholesale. At the end of it, they might figure out that they've been stupid all along. Not likely, though.

In the end, Radical Christians are going to dupe average people in to hooking it up with average people egged on by radical Muslims. Lots of people die on both sides. Mostly gullible people.

The anti-civilization is coming to a head.

Nio

50 Freak
August 21, 2006, 05:12 PM
I'm actually starting to think this will be the next "Crusade". Hell they already call us the Infidel crusaders...

Well instead of carrying a broadsword, our "crusaders" will carry M-16s.

Shame for all the middle eastern people that don't want war. Maybe they should have spoken up more instead of cheering when a bunch of sicko nut jobs strap on bombs and start blowing away women and children and causing planes full of innocent civilians to rain down on our buildings.:fire: :fire:

Waitone
August 21, 2006, 06:17 PM
World war? Nope!
Worldwide war? Yep!

A worldwide war will erupt when any of the following happen:

A>Iran decides to solve the Jewish problem again by trying to nuke Israel. All this nonsense about Iran developing nukes is merely good chess on the part of the Persians. The Persians already have nukes courtesy of the Russkies and delivery courtesy of the Norks.

or

B>Iran decides to emphasize its power by sinking tankers in the Straits of Hormuz. The world will not tolerate a shut down of a high percentage of petroleum supplies.

or

C>The arab world finally convinces the ignorant west that Persia (Iran) ain't arabic. Iran want regional hegemony and the arab states are not that impressed with the idea. Any number of scenarios can be constructed ending in Persian and Arab in conflict.

or

D>The US loses a few cities at which point the US public will demand the gloves coming off. We will then learn islamofascist terrorism is in fact state sponsored terrorism just like in the good ol' days of the cold war with the soviets. Suddenly we will learn and believe and then act on those states who allow islamofascists to prosper. At that point we will then truly carry the battle to the enemy. And then we will begin the great moral debates just waiting to commence.

50 Freak
August 21, 2006, 08:41 PM
You know, I thought by losing the Twin towers would be enough for the US to go balistic and nuke any country even closely associated with Osama. Saudi Arabia included.

Guess we'll have to lose some states before this America wakes up and realize we're at war....

crazed_ss
August 21, 2006, 08:45 PM
Luckily the people in charge of the nukes arent a bunch of irrational madmen.
EDIT: And how exactly are we going to "lose a few states" ..? If these guys have the capability to capture/destroy entire states, why are they wasting their time flying planes into buildings and blowing up trains?

PRCalDude
August 21, 2006, 08:56 PM
They're accomplishing everything they want to demographically. It's a world war when the West actually starts fighting back, i.e. repatriating Muslims to their home countries. Until then, they're ahead. Look at how our 'leaders' pander to CAIR et al. We have a real problem on our hands if that immigration bill passes and we start allowing them en masse into our country. Wait a minute, do I sound paranoid? :uhoh:

ctdonath
August 21, 2006, 09:06 PM
WWIII
- because everyone (including pacifists) is itching for a fight, and is just looking for an excuse.
- because enough extremists of a billion-plus-member religion have decided the other four-billion have just got to go.
- because the bored populace of first-world countries want something more amusing to fill the TV.
- because France, as some wags note, has already surrendered.
- because Israel, most fiercely interested in survival, surrendered.
- because standing armies need something to do, and nothing sufficiently interesting has happened for 60+ years.

Shweboner
August 21, 2006, 09:07 PM
Now that's the craziest thing I've ever heard. So all bad things come from the governmet? The government tells its own people when to attack it? I didn't even get the newsletter on that one.


I dont think there was a newsletter circulated buddy, so dont feel too left out.


There are many times in history that a government has done something horrible as a means to a particular end.

In this case? Tighter controls on the population, less rights? Patriot act anyone? A reason to roll into the ME? Take your pick, I am sure you can find something.

You guys are funny, always so quick to lash out at the gov and be so suspicious of their motives when they are trying to steal your guns... But turn a blind eye and swallow everything else they give you, even justify the taking of your other rights. As long as they give you a brown skinned foreign, non-christian enemy to fear... oh yeah and make it into a right/left issue to keep us divided. Sure, remember that they are the government and they are here to help.

Say what you want, think of me what you will. But mark my words, and spare me the emotional garbage.

twenty711
August 21, 2006, 10:14 PM
Quote:
I believe that any attacks on US soil happen with the approval and direction of some part of our gov.


Quote:
Now that's the craziest thing I've ever heard. So all bad things come from the governmet? The government tells its own people when to attack it? I didn't even get the newsletter on that one.



I dont think there was a newsletter circulated buddy, so dont feel too left out.


If there is no newsletter then how do we know when to attack? I have met people in the government at many levels and to be honest with you, I think your consipiricy theories are mostly just that, theories. Why? Our government is not clever enough to play all sides of the field and turn everyone against everyone in some kind of worl-wind that could end up as an end of the world end game scenerio. What kind of goal would that be for any human being really? I can understand world domination but ending the world is another story. We the people elect our officials and I'm sure that once they get into office they instantly change into some kind of monster that would turn in on itself with the help of those who elected them? If they were to do so, they would have certainly sent out a newsletter.

Shweboner
August 22, 2006, 02:22 AM
Well you keep an eye out for that newsletter, post me a copy as I am sure I am not on that mailing list.


Not that I made a lot of sense from your post, but I think you are asking why the gov, or those connected to it would plan/allow such atrocities?????

Power, Control, and Money... why else.

Unless you believe that these guys are in office for the greater good of the country and to spread world peace through the miracle of democracy?

Just like an addict has to be ready to accept treatment and quit their vices... people must be ready to accpet a democracy... freedom must be earned in order for it to be lasting. You cannot force a democratic system on a populace that is not prepared for it.... it wont work.

I love how people are fearful of an Iraqi civil war. I say let them have at it. Everyone has to go through it, we did it, just as most of the free world has.
The US/UN brokering peace deals is only a bandaid on a bullet hole... and if the alternative means killing eachother thats what it means... These people need to settle their differences amongst themselves,. as there will never be peace until they have fought and died for it.


We can go round and around with this trading arguments and one-liners, we should agree to disagree. I do not trust the gov's motives, means, or methods and that the ultimate goal is more power for them and more control over us. And as long as you have an enemy to fear and focus on, you are content with what it is the gov does in the name of defeating that enemy.


~

mike101
August 22, 2006, 06:15 AM
I would just like to point out, to anyone who hasn't seen the news for the last year or so, that Iraq is already having a civil-war. Remember Viet Nam, anyone? I wish we would get the hell out, and let them go at it.

Of course, we won't do that. It might interfere with the ability to pull that $2.50 a barrel oil out of the ground.

If Muslims can't get along with eachother, they will never get along with the west.

cbsbyte
August 22, 2006, 01:04 PM
Of course, we won't do that. It might interfere with the ability to pull that $2.50 a barrel oil out of the ground.

Where are you getting your info. It is more like $70+ for a barrel of oil. $2.50 is the price paid at the pump, though that is alot cheaper than I am paying.

Gordon Fink
August 22, 2006, 01:28 PM
Guess we’ll have to lose some states before this America wakes up and realize we’re at war.…

If we’re at war with terrorists, you would think that we might, you know, kill some terrorists or something … but that’s not what we’re doing.

~G. Fink

Phetro
August 22, 2006, 02:10 PM
You can't defeat ideas with bombs and guns.

Yes you can. No man, no idea. Boom! :D And if he has descendants who support his idea...boom. Remember...Carthage was once an idea.

Islamofascism will run its course. It will either prevail, or it will be destroyed. With the political center shifted as far left as it has, I doubt it will be destroyed. And thus, it is only a matter of time before we are overwhelmed by the numbers of our enemy on one side, and our own government taking our rights away "to fight them" on the other.

mike101
August 22, 2006, 10:49 PM
It costs $2.50 to produce a barrel of oil in Iraq, $4.00in Saudi Arabia, and $10.00 in the US. $78.00 is what the oil companies are selling it to themselves for. I saw these figures on CNBC.

And those record profits keep rollin' in! :D

gc70
August 23, 2006, 12:35 AM
It costs $2.50 to produce a barrel of oil in Iraq, $4.00in Saudi Arabia, and $10.00 in the US. $78.00 is what the oil companies are selling it to themselves for. I saw these figures on CNBC.Do you think Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other countries are donating oil at the production cost so the oil companies can make bigger profits?

mike101
August 23, 2006, 06:45 AM
I am going by what I see on these market analysis reports. Evidently, the oil companies are in cahoots with these countries, since they did all of the development work that enables these countries to access their oil. Hence, they are "selling it to themselves". These are not my words. They are the words of the market analysts I am seeing.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

Art Eatman
August 23, 2006, 02:21 PM
mikeburk, the oil may cost the Saudis $4/bbl, but they sell to the oil companies at the contract price or the world spot price as a function of the grade of oil. "Sour", or high-sulfur oil sells for less than "light, sweet crude", for instance. The discount for sour is appreciably below the world spot price.

SFAIK, the daily Spot Price you read of is based on West Texas Intermediate.

In the US, the owner of the well sells to a refining company at either a contract price or spot price. The owner of the well pays the royalty to the owner of the land. (The driller might be the owner; he might not be, if he's sold the well or been on contract for the job. There are all manner of variations in the awl bidness.)

And now, back to the thread--and try to stay there? Pretty please?

Or else. :)

Art

mike101
August 23, 2006, 02:29 PM
Thanks for clearing that up.

buzz_knox
August 23, 2006, 02:49 PM
WWIII started when a certain group decided that the way to achieve its political goals was by killing/kidnapping anyone they chose, anywhere around the world. It's been going on since 1972. The only difference is that the rest of the world (outside of Israel who's been fighting this battle since at least '72) is actually fighting back rather than trying to negotiate or only playing hard ball when a nation-state makes themselves an easy target (i.e. Libya in '86).

iapetus
August 23, 2006, 04:40 PM
WWII didn't consist of Germany, Italy and Japan simply sending agents to commit acts of terror/sabotage/murder, and supplying a few militias to harrass a country who's people they hate.

Until Iran, AQ, etc form an overt allience, and have thousands of tanks and combat aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of troops storming across Europe, and carrier battle-groups threatening the US (or even just the capability to do so), I don't think it is valid to say we are currently in "WWIII" (or IV).

twenty711
August 23, 2006, 05:17 PM
Do you need thousands of tanks and planes to have a war? Or do you just need to kill/disable your enemy?

bowfin
August 23, 2006, 06:06 PM
/*If USA would just leave the middle east alone*/

Oh, for Cripes sake! Let's put a few more of these up...

...If the British would have left the middle east alone...
...If the French would have left the middle east alone...
...If the Italians would have left the middle east alone...
...If the oil companies would have left the middle east alone...
...If the Israelis would just leave the Arabs alone...
...If India would just leave the Kashmir alone...
...If Russia would just leave the Chechens alone...
...If the Serbs would just leave the Bosnians alone...
...If the Chinese would just leave Xinjiang province alone...
...If Indonesia would just leave the Tamil Tigers alone...
...If the Phillipines would just leave Abu Sayaff alone...
...If the infidels in the Sudan would just leave the Moslems alone...
...If the Somali government would just leave the Moslems alone...
...If the Ethiopian government would just leave the Moslems alone...
...If the Nigerian government would just leave the Moslems alone...
...If the Canadians would just leave Sharia alone...
...If the Lebanese would just leave Hezbollah alone...
...If the Palestinian Authority would just leave Hamas alone...
...If Australian tourists would just leave Bali alone...
...If Dutch journalists would just leave Islam alone...
...If Afghan women would just leave the Taliban alone...
...If Sunni Moslems would just leave the Shiites alone...
...If Shiite Moslems would just leave the Sunnis alone...
...If the Kurds would just leave...
...If Thomas Jefferson would just have left the Barbary Pirates alone...
...If Charles Martel would just have left the Moors alone...

I am sure I missed at least two dozen more, but I think the point is made.
By the looks of it, I'd say World War III, or IV, depending how you viewed the Cold War.

Art Eatman
August 23, 2006, 06:50 PM
I still wanna know what difference it makes what anybody calls this "Modern Problem". Jihadists want to kill those who are not Islamic. That's their publicly stated goal. They merely have priorities about who's first, and who's of lesser importance at any given time--and that varies with location and date.

I gotta believe it's a world war, since the Jihadists are at least philosophically allied and are working in the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and on west into Israel. Then add in western Europe and the US where Jihadist violence has occurred. Seems like a world-wide war to me.

Art

Phantom Warrior
August 24, 2006, 12:40 PM
WWII didn't consist of Germany, Italy and Japan simply sending agents to commit acts of terror/sabotage/murder, and supplying a few militias to harrass a country who's people they hate.

Until Iran, AQ, etc form an overt allience, and have thousands of tanks and combat aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of troops storming across Europe, and carrier battle-groups threatening the US (or even just the capability to do so), I don't think it is valid to say we are currently in "WWIII" (or IV).


THANK YOU. I'm glad someone recognizes the difference between a world wide "war" and a no **** World War (notice the capitals).

With that, I'm done with this thread.

karaya
August 24, 2006, 03:39 PM
Macrauchenia #1: "Well, why don't they call it The Big Chill? Or The Nippy Era? I'm just sayin', how do we know it's an Ice Age?"
Macrauchenia #2: "Because... of all the ice."
Macrauchenia #1: "Well, things just got a little chillier."


:D :D :D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

buzz_knox
August 24, 2006, 03:47 PM
THANK YOU. I'm glad someone recognizes the difference between a world wide "war" and a no **** World War (notice the capitals).


That's largely a semantic debate among historians. Some say the Cold War was WWIII, others the War on Terror, while many say neither count. With the emphasis on war by other means (including proxies), I'd say the debate will continue and will be of little importance to nonscholars. Those who are fighting and dying probably don't see much of a difference between a battle in the ETO and in Fallujah . . . except that people tended to support those fighting in the ETO more.

Rugerlvr
August 24, 2006, 03:53 PM
Really, to call this WWIII is an insult to world wars. Until we forsee MILLIONS of combatants dead, like the previous two world wars... I wouldn't even dare to call it that.

My Grandpappy the Marine who fought in the Pacific Theater would probably laugh at this being called a World War.

ctdonath
August 24, 2006, 04:16 PM
Methinks the point is that what is going on now is only the beginning of something really big, world-spanning, and vastly lethal. A no **** Big Cast Of Characters is being introduced to this conflict, and many are expecting a blockbuster performance that will kill millions and wreck entire cultures. We're talking one side involving a 10-digit number of participants, and the majority of the world's energy supply.

This is only the beginning. Lots of people want to get their $0.02 worth in so they can say "see? I called it!"
This is only the introduction. Once there's a bright flash, it's on bigtime.

xd9fan
August 25, 2006, 02:22 AM
Its One nation under fear....

Mark Whiteman
August 25, 2006, 02:51 AM
I don't think its too difficult to see this as a World War. The Islamofascists as much as declared holy war against the rest of the world, did they not? Well, there you go. The only thing left for the Allies (I use the term loosely) to realize is that they are under risk of attack. I see some idiot hacksawing the cables on a bridge, he better know how to swim. :rolleyes:

iapetus
August 25, 2006, 04:07 AM
There have been other wars fought in and by multiple countries all over the globe (mostly the various old European empires fighting each other) that are not considered to have been WW-1, -2 ... etc.

bowfin
August 25, 2006, 09:02 AM
/*My Grandpappy the Marine who fought in the Pacific Theater would probably laugh at this being called a World War.*/

Well, the ayatollahs in Iran have far exceeded the butcher's bill that the United States suffered in World War II. There were more than a million casualties int the Iran-Iraq war, so adding all the little "side adventures in U.S. occupied Iraq and Lebanon, they have certainly presided over more dead soldiers than FDR did.

I guess the problem with this war is (so far) it doesn't have a starting date, although 1979, when the Iranians attacked the U.S. embassy would have been the starting of a war for most anyone but Jimmy Carter.

Art Eatman
August 25, 2006, 01:30 PM
I think we've picked enough nits over what really wasn't very much on topic to start with. :)

Five pages? Enuf.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "War on Terror or WW III?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!