Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

WW III ?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 2dogs, Dec 28, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/ce/Qisrael-iraq-syria.RNVw_CDR.html

    Is it me or is the world situation getting mighty creepy?

    Does anyone else think that this is not going to be just U.S and Allies. vs Iraq- but also Israel and U.S. vs several Middle East countries, N. Korea vs U.S. and allies and maybe more. Are we looking at World War III?

    Or is this paranoia? Reading too much alternative news?:rolleyes:
     
  2. MitchSchaft

    MitchSchaft member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    I get that strange feeling, too, sometimes. Except I feel WWIII's cause would not be anything like WWII and I would not want to contribute.
     
  3. Lennyjoe

    Lennyjoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,052
    Location:
    Southwestern Ohio
    Im feeling like my backside is hanging in the wind right about now. If we get involved in Iraq and North Korea gets aggressive who do you think is gonna get neglected.

    US here thats who. Nato aint gonna do crap about North Korea either.
     
  4. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    Im feeling like my backside is hanging in the wind right about now.

    Lennyjoe

    I assume you are in the military, thanks for being there.

    Seems lately I do hear talk of pulling U.S. out of S. Korea and letting them deal with their own- maybe your backside would be better off stateside.

    Anyway, I keep getting this Barry McGuire "Eve of Destruction" feeling.............................:eek:
     
  5. AZTOY

    AZTOY Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,078
    Location:
    Fort Wainwright Alaska
    I can see kids in 2050 reading in school how pres Bush and North Korea started WWIII:(
     
  6. Billll

    Billll Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    Location:
    Littleton, CO
    I admit up front that this is a nitpick, but I saw WW3 as ending in '92 with the collapse of the Soviet empire. We are now in to WW4, which started with the first of Bin Ladens attacks on US embassies. Or would that be '84 with the attack in Beruit?
     
  7. Gmac

    Gmac Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    114
    Location:
    You don't wanna know
    Paranoia

    2dogs, if you're paranoid that makes two of us. As a Vietnam vet politically somewhere to the the right of Attila the Hun I find myself strangely opposed to war with Iraq. I guess it's because I expect high American Casualty rates.
     
  8. Jack19

    Jack19 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    Eastern CSA
    I agree. But I see WW4 as having started in the late 60s/early 70s when Islamist terror went interntional. We're paying the price today for no one having the stomach to deal with them then. And, maybe we're still not......
     
  9. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Several month ago when Korea out of the clear blue announced it had violate a previous "agreement" with the US and that it had X nuke warheads, I'll immediately thought Sadaam just sent Bush an advisory to check his six.

    Can't think of a better way to distract a president who can't focus on more than one issue at a time.

    Problem is, Korea is a situation that could go real bad, real quick, and kill a lot of people in a short period of time. Lessee here 1 million armed and grumpy Koreans within 5 miles of one another along a 150 mile front. One major capital within artillery range of the bad guys. An estimated 12 million civvies within arty range. North Korea with a society starving itself to death yet making nuke, chem, and bio weapons. The south in an appeasement mode. US with 35,000 troops trained to act like speed bumps. A Japan officially claiming to be non-nuke (something I've never believed), China with nukes and an historic love-hate relationship Korea (you define North or South). The US with plenty of unseen assets in theater. Russia with its historic interest in Korea and its natural resources coveted by China.

    I get the willies just thinking how ugly it could get
     
  10. PATH

    PATH Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,844
    Location:
    Rockland, New York
    You can be sure we'll be fighting somewhere soon. Probably in several places. Iraq, Korea, amd God knows where else.

    We have been at war actually since 9/11! All Americans are now the enemy. We already are in WW4!
     
  11. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    Interest is due on the Peace Dividend

    We are about to pay the price for gutting our defense establishment right after we won the cold war. Sometimes I think I was the only one saying that instead of a safer place, the world was going to become a more dangerous place.

    Our armed forces, are at the lowest manning levels since before WWII. Even with the reservists that have been mobilized since 9/11. We are about to start the biggest mobilization since the first Gulf War to finish what we started in 1991. The other day Robert Strange Mcnamara err...I mean Don Rumsfeld told the world that we were capable of fighting two major regional conflicts simultaniously in response to the crisis on the Korean peninsula. My quaestion is, which conflict is he going to fight with conventional forces, and which with nuclear weapons? We don't have enough conventional forces to fight two major regional conflicts simultaniously, much less the airlift or sealift to sustain them.

    The current administration has lied to the American people and the military, when they promised that help was on the way, after the 8 years of neglect under the Clinton administration. At the same time they are calling up reservists, they are proposing strength cuts and base closings in their budgets for the active forces.

    We definately live in interesting times....

    Jeff
     
  12. JPM70535

    JPM70535 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Location:
    Sunny Florids
    As far as I can tell, this whole situation with Iraq stems from the US failure to finish the job started by Bush Sr. Had he listened to Stormin Norman instead of Colin Powell, Sadaam would be a distant memory, and we would have only N.Korea to deal with.

    I served during the Cuban missle crisis where we came within a whisker of Nuclear war. If Kruschev had not blinked none of us might be here toay. I get the same feeling when I view the situation today. One wrong step by any of the radical nations in the middle east, including Israel and Nukes are bound to fly.
    Add to that mix the always militant North Koreans who have no value for human life, and the independant militant sects and the scene is set for the final war.
     
  13. Deadman

    Deadman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    441
    Location:
    Australia.
    IMHO if global warfare is waged within the next few years ( cough, months, cough ), it won't just be the U.S. versus the 'axis of evil'.
    It will also be India vs. Pakistan, China vs. Taiwan, Russia vs. the next Russian whipping boy etc, etc.
    I.e. once something major occurs, it could well turn into a free for all across the globe.....


    But then again I've been accused of being a pessimist in the past.... :p
     
  14. Gordon

    Gordon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    8,116
    Location:
    central Kali.
    Taiwan will be invaded as soon as our hands are tied in Iraq and Korea. Why should we send one boy over anywhere when we have capability to totally eliminate threats from inside bunkers in mid west? Who will shoot back? Russia wont if we put them in Nato. I thought thats why we pay taxes for weapon technology since WW2? So that others may die for thier country! F*** sensitivity I want my moneyies worth.:mad:
     
  15. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Indiana
    Korea would love to do anything ugly they can. China would love to leap on Tiawan when we go after Iraq. China would love to leap into the Middle East if the conflict goes broad enough to involve Israel directly. The USSR(yes, I said the USSR) will happily jump to our aid against the hated Chinese. Then we still have to remember India and Pakistan. They haven't incinerated each other yet because the collective eye of the planet has been on their every stupid move. Give them the freedom of a moments' anonymity and watch them turn each other in to sheets of glass.

    We've had reports of various outbreaks of Ebola this or that and smallpox around the Pakistani borders and we know that various nations and groups are playing with various biologicals and chemicals.

    Let me see, who else is out there that would love to get in on this...

    I won't sit here and say anything like "this is it" but I'll go far enough to say that I don't believe we have ever been in a more precarious position across this globe than we are today. I will say that as the nuclear option is acheived by more and more "weak" nations it becomes more assured that there will, eventually, be a serious nuclear clash. Is this the time? If not I don't think we're too far from it and I don't believe Bush is going to do much for our military to help us deal with it.
     
  16. Frohickey

    Frohickey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,018
    Location:
    People's Republic of **********
    Seems like unfinished businesses of the past are now coming to haunt us... and all under GWB. Weird. :confused:

    Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been taken care of years ago. Maybe not immediately after the Gulf War, but as soon as first team of UN inspectors were being given the run-around. But by then, we had Clinton, who is big on appeasement.

    North Korea, also started on Clinton's watch, when he sent Nobel Peanut Prize winner Jimmuh Carter to mediate an agreement with North Korea. Another appeasement deal.

    Seems that people who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. Neville Chamberlain did the same thing with Hitler, and that got us WW2. If Chamberlain did not, and immediately got the English, French and Polish forces mobilized and chomping at the bit to kick some German posteriors, we wouldn't have had WW2. Even WW2 was a repeat of sorts... of WW1, when Germany was not fully dealt with.

    Thing is, we have double the trouble now, and who knows which country will join Iraq/North Korea. I think Iran and Syria will join Iraq, and drag us into a Israeli fight. China will covertly join up with North Korea; easier for China to go get Taiwan back when our attention is elsewhere.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2002
  17. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,882
    There have only been 50 or so years of "peace" in the last several millenia. "War" is a normal state for nations, and it seems to migrate willy nilly.

    When several large and militarily strong nations form opposing alliances and start mixing it up, we drag out the term "World War".

    I agree that "WWIII" ended with the Cold War, which had its hot spots, including Korea, Angola, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet), and Persian Gulf I.

    The Islamic nations don't rise to the level of "militarily strong" even if they have good equipment.

    China qualifies, but the ChiComs have never been direct antoganists in a war, preferring instead to adopt surrogates. Their detent and cold war with the USSR kept them on edge for decades as they smelled the Russian Bear's breath down their necks. They're also aware of how close they came to having the Soviets take them out in 1969 as they developed nuclear tipped missiles. Had Nixon not gone to China and shared our intel with the USSR, the Soviets may well have launched their planned prophylactic nuclear strike against China. Point is that China doesn't seem to have any history of world wide military ambitions. Why should it? It's become a major manufacturer of goods for the capitalist countries and become capitalistic in the process.

    Who else? Fact is that the U.S. alone qualifies as a large, militarily strong nation. The EU may achieve that status, but look what it requires. France and Germany agreeing? England and France agreeing? Europe is a bunch of nations who have never gotten along with one another, and the EU is an attempt to unify for economic reasons against the U.S. that formerly dominated their import markets. I wonder how many "Made in China" imports are floating around in Europe.

    There will be wars and rumors of wars just as there have been for millenia, but a hot World War? I think not. The U.S. would be obligated to use its nuclear arsenal against any viable enemy, and that first strike policy was institutionalized by Bush just last year.
     
  18. Billll

    Billll Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    Location:
    Littleton, CO
    Re: WW4: There's a really (!) good book covering the worlds current conflicts, including a detailed description of all the principals, overt and covert. It's called "A quick and Dirty guide to War" by Dunnigan and Bay. It's updated annually, and covers everything from the big and obvious, to writeups on fringe groups such as the Texas Independence movement. Well worth the money.

    Re: N.Korea: There's nothing in N.Korea that couldn't be taken care of for the forseeable future with, at most, 2 laser guided bombs into the Plutonium facility they're reopening. The Israilis did exactly that to Saddam a few years back. Did it "enrage Iraq and all the rest of the Arab world?" Sure. Were they noticibly more enraged than they were before? NAH!
     
  19. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Indiana
    Blackhawk, China has always been an introvert nation. With the arrival of a Capitalist veneer and the past threat of the USSR that has changed. They are looking outward much more today than ever before. You can no longer judge China solely on its' past. It's very much a new nation and a new game.

    As far as militarily strong nations, that's a big part of the problem. it's why things are so much less stable and impossible to predict today than ever before. "Weak" nations increasingly have ways of projecting force by unexpected methods. Methods that our world view would never consider legitimate. We have to think outside the box of our moral constraints and when you start to do that things start to look a lot more dangerous.

    I'd much prefer the days of a few strong nations holding sway over the rest who know their place, as much as they may have chafed against it. Today that "place", they increasingly believe, is where ever they wish to put themselves. Nukes and biologicals and "terrorism" open up the doors for them to accomplish just that. Add in simple opportunism and we have a volatile mix like nothing before.

    It's that double edged sword of technology.
     
  20. Drizzt

    Drizzt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,648
    Location:
    Moscow on the Colorado, TX
    I know how you're feeling on this, 2dogs. I remember, during the first go around over the the Gulf, wondering if Israel was going to respond to the Scud attacks. If they had, the coalition probably would have come apart, and the next big scuffle started right there. You gotta figure, the Soviet Union was in it's death throes, but could have easily stumbled into the whole conflict, if they thought it would put them in good with the Arab countries. When the Scuds started falling in Israel was the only time I got even mildly concerned during the whole shindig.
     
  21. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,882
    2nd Amendment,

    China may have a 200 million man army producing toys for the West, but they're basically going to have to walk to where China choses to deploy them. It doesn't have a blue water navy of consequence nor does it have the requisite air lift capability nor the capability of defending its transportation assets enroute.

    Irrespective, what would China's end game be? IOW, why bother military adventurism in the face of getting China turned into hot glass? Manaical despots aren't China's style, and those in power are doing quite well as things are.

    NK's nuclear braggadocio is sort of like the airhead who claimed to have cloned the first human baby. It makes no sense for NK to take the position it has except to bluff to get favored treatment. It's idiotic to claim you WILL have something the world fears beforehand. Keep it secret until you've tested it, then you're a power to be reckoned with.

    Iraq's regime is the target. Everything else is a distraction.
     
  22. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    It makes no sense for NK to take the position it has except to bluff to get favored treatment.

    Blackhawk

    Am I wrong - didn't N Korea have fairly favored treatment during the Klinton years?

    As for the Chinese, they do not seem to be reinvesting their "toy making" money into upgraded toy making facilities, but they do seem to be upgrading their military quite a bit while flapping their wings about Taiwan, and running the Panama Canal. They seem mighty busy for the impotent lot they are.:)
     
  23. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Indiana
    Blackhawk, you're discounting, if not underestimating, your enemies. That's an often fatal mistake. I'll just leave it at that.

    Nah, no I won't.

    How much mobility does China need to meddle in the Middle East? Exactly what it has now. To crush Tiawan? Exactly what it has now. To nuke Russia forward to the Stone Age? Exactly what it has now. Why? To control the Middle East and it's oil, thus directing a large amount of global policy. To kick the stufing out of the loathed Russians. To end the insult of Tiawan. To thumb their noses at the Big Kid on the block, US, and say "We are here now, deal with it".

    China can't hit us. Probably. That means little in the big picture. China has content old men. So what? The above reasons and more are better reasons than those for most of the aggressive moves made by nations over the course of history. And, again, you assign Western Values of contentment to these old men who find them alien.

    I don't know what's goign to happen but I guarantee you it's going to be outside the box we're accustomed to.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2002
  24. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    2nd Amendment

    "There is no greater disaster
    than underestimating your enemy.
    Underestimating your enemy
    means loosing your greatest assets."

    Sun Tzu

    Well put.
     
  25. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,882
    2nd Amendment and 2dogs,

    Your opinions are eminently credible, but like mine, they're just opinions.

    We are better erring on the side of your opinions than mine if we must err at all.

    However, I'm sticking by my opinion previously expressed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page