BS: World War 3

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 10:57 PM

Headlines:

UKRAINE WARNS OF 'WWIII'...

Kiev Steps Up Offensive...

Russian jets cross into airspace...

REPORT: Putin halts all talks with White House...

For those of you who've missed it, Ukraine voted not to join the European Union. The EU and NATO responded by financing a fascist uprising in Ukraine. Now NATO has put troops in Poland and elsewhere, on the Russian border. Russia's foreign minister Lavrov said that any aggression would be met with a military counter response. He said this in English, so it wouldn't be misunderstood. The fascists are now blowing things up, so things don't look good. Russian ships are reconnoitering off the coast of Florida. Nuclear cruise missiles targeting the U.S.

This is how attention will be diverted from the bankers' looting of the western world, with thermonuclear war.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 01:58 PM

"BAGHDAD, Oct. 31 (Xinhua) -- Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi said Monday a U.S. plan to increase military presence in the Middle East after the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq shows lack of "rationality and prudence."

"The Americans are not following a rational and prudent approach. They always have a deficit, unfortunately, in rationality and prudence," Salehi said during a joint press conference here with his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari.

Salehi's comments came in response to reports that the Obama administration plans to bolster the U.S. military presence in the region after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year.

As part of its plans to keep eyes on Iran, the Obama administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman."

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 12:55 PM

Speaking of Tom Lehrer, that quote about If any songs are going to come out of WWIII we'd better start writing them now is his too.

From the intro to So Long Mom, I'm Off To Drop The Bomb, so don't wait up for me...

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Songwronger
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:16 PM

This looks ominous:

Three weeks after Tehran threatened action against any US aircraft carrier entering the Strait of Hormuz, Washington made two moves: US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta disclosed Sunday, Jan. 22, that the USS Enterprise Carrier Strike Group would steam through the strategic strait in March; a few hours later, the US Navy sent the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier through the strategic strait without incident, accompanied by British and French warships.

http://www.debka.com/article/21671/

The Enterprise is scheduled to be decommissioned after this deployment. I saw a figure a while back regarding how much it would cost to scrap the ship, and it was staggering. Be cheaper to just sink it somewhere over there and claim the Iranians did it. Don't forget that Dick Cheney talked about disguising U.S. boats to launch "surprise attacks" on larger U.S. ships.

The Debka website also reports that Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is massing troops in the Strait of Hormuz:

The article "Massive US Military Buildup on Two Strategic Islands: Socotra and Masirah" is an exclusive article and can be purchased.

I'm not a paying member, but I saw mention elsewhere that Obama's putting 50,000 troops on each island. They'll be in place by March, just in time for the Enterprise to make its trip through the strait.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 12 - 04:42 AM

The Anglo-American-Imperial Axis? Afghanistan? Try the United Nations Security Council they after all set up both UNAMA and ISAF at the request of and with the complete agreement of the Afghan Government - So much for "Imperialism".

April 1978 to October 2001 - Approximately 2.5 million Afghans lost their lives and the country was totally destroyed, none of which would have happened had the Communist PDPA exercised patience and constraint - that equates to an average of 292 people killed every day for 23.5 years.

October 2001 to October 2011 - Approximately 37,000 Afghans have lost their lives, the majority of those killed have been killed directly or indirectly by the Taleban (Source UN), the country is now largely peaceful and is being rebuilt with a massive influx of foreign investment. Due to the presence of the ANSF, ISAF and US-OEF troops charged with the protection of the general population that previous average death toll of 292 Afghans per day has dropped to 10 - a reduction of 96.6%.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 03:04 PM

Be patient. I'm having a fairly busy day here. I will have some interesting links for you to peruse presently, but it's going to have to wait for a little while. I hope the great Anglo-American-Imperial Axis doesn't decide to launch another needless Middle Eastern war in the meantime. Got my fingers crossed on that.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 01:23 PM

These books I take are considered by you to be Gospels? Or are they only expressing the opinions of their Authors? i.e. Their take on the facts as they interpret them?

No need to reply to the points I have raised, had you wished to refute them you would already have done so, but I do not believe that you can.

1: The military campaign waged by the Northern Alliance, backed up by Special Forces and latterly by US-OEF was rather short lived and minimal. Especially when compared to the Soviet invasion, which actually was an invasion.

2: Please provide an example of this "heavy bombing campaign" - any idea of how few aircraft were involved? Irrefutable fact - A heavy bombing campaign cannot get any heavier than the strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany which lasted over three years, involved thousands of Heavy Bombers, dropped over 1.5 million tons of bombs and managed to kill 600,000 Germans.

3: Foreign troops allowed into Afghanistan between October 7th 2001 and December 2001? Between 500 - 1,000 Specialist Advisors; two Companies of 40 Commando Royal Marines + RM SBS, towards the end 1,000 USMC to Fort Rhino and 1,000 men from 10th Mountain Division to the Mazar-e-Sharif. Not much of an invasion force when all said and done. primarily they all acted as mentors and provided back-up for the Northern Alliance forces. All of the above has been clearly detailed. I rather liked your term "Afghan proxies", proxies of whom? These so-called proxies of yours had been fighting the Taliban since 1994 and before that they had fought, and defeated, the Soviets.

The "War" you speak of is in fact an attempted insurrection that is running out of steam fast as far as the Taliban are concerned. Attacks down an amazing 80%, fewer and fewer incidents reported, any signs of the much sought after "defeat" of the "Big, Bad, West" are not very promising at all - in fact that ship left port and disappeared over the horizon a long, long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 04:25 PM

I'm delighted that I am keeping your energetic mind busy, Teribus. I know you enjoy it. I'll reply to your replies at some point if I decide to, so hang on hopefully for your next opportunity to respond in triplicate, okay? ;-D

(It would be easier to just refer you to some good reading on the subject...but given the fact that you would not agree with the authors, I suspect you wouldn't bother reading the books.)

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 12:53 PM

1: "There was a large military campaign launched against Afghanistan by an alliance of western nations"

No there wasn't. The only foreign "boots on the ground" amounted to less than 1,000 men and their presence was agreed with the leadership of the Northern Alliance. The military camapign launched against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was in fact remarkably small in terms of foreign troops

2: "a heavy bombing campaign"

No there wasn't. Air support supplied to the Northern Alliance forces was provided by the air group of at most two USN Strike Carriers backed up in the later stages by a couple of B-52's out of Diego Garcia. The air campaign did not have to be heavy to be effective, neither the Taliban or their Al-Qaeda guests had ever experienced being on the receiving end of an air attack and they had no defence against one, this lack of experience meant that their field dispositions made them extremely vulnerable.

3: "the introduction of western military forces together with Afghan proxies"

The only foreign troops allowed to enter Afghanistan were the ones that the Northern Alliance agreed to. Please remember that within the leadership of the Northern Alliance were the members of Afghanistan's last internationally recognised Government. Only those foreign governments backing the Taliban ever recognised them - the UN most certainly did not. The vast number of those fighting the Taliban were Afghans from the ranks of the Northern Alliance Forces who the US decided to assist.

4: The occupation of Afghanistan (A country two-and-a-half times the area of France with a population of some 28 million occupied by less than 1,000 men?? - Get real) Talking about invasions the Soviets went in in December 1979 with 154,000 men of their 40th Army - Their first act was to murder the Afghan Government in office - That Little Hawk is an Invasion and occupation force (by the bye 6th June 1944 the Allies opened the Second front in Europe by invading the Normandy beaches with 110,000 men on the first day - you mean to tell me that Eisenhower only needed 1,000).

5: "Afghanistan's majority cultural group: the Pashtuns"

Complete and utter arrant nonsense - Demographically Afghanistan is made up of four, NOT three, minority cultural groups. The Pashtu may be the largest of those minority groups but they do constitute any sort of majority - the three other groups (Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks/Turkomen/etc) will always outnumber them. The Pashtu are also internally divided on tribal lines (over 60 tribes with over 134 family/clan groups) aligned to either the Durrani or Ghilzai. The former, the most numerous are those who used to support the old King, and they support an Afghan Pashtun called Hamid Karzai. The latter support the Taliban (The Durrani and Ghilzai tribes have been sworn enemies since 1747).

6: "The nation of Afghanistan did not attack the USA on 911, they did not plan the 911 attacks, they were not responsible for the 911 attacks."

Who said they did - but it is undeniable that the Taliban in Afghanistan did shelter those who did organise and plan the attacks not only of 2001 but of those carried out in 1996, 1998 and 2000. In 1998 the Taliban Government told the USA point blank that no Al-Qaeda member would EVER be surrendered to face US justice.

7: "suppose the USA had said to another country, "Okay, you say these people hiding in the USA were responsible for a terrorist attack on your country. Fine. Show us the evidence, and we'll charge these people and try them under USA law"

More arrant nonsense. What would the US legal system charge them with? What US laws would they have broken? What would have been requested would be extradition to face charges in the country where the crime was committed.

8: "They did respond to the Bush administration's demands to surrender Bin Laden and his people by asking for the USA to present the incriminating evidence, and they said that if such evidence was presented, then Bin Laden would be charged and tried in a normal Afghan fashion under the existing Sharia Law, a law which provides different penalties than western law, but is similarly setup up to prove or disprove a given charge."

Yes Sharia Law does provide different penalties and irrespective of what evidence was provided and substantiated Bin Laden having warned the USA of his intention to attack US citizens whenever and wherever they may happen to be, and having offered the population of the USA the opportunity to convert to Islam to avoid any hostile action, would have been found "Not Guilty" in a Sharia Court of all charges.

The small matter of the Taliban not forming the officially recognised Government of the country was another stumbling block.

Today ask Mullah Mohammed Omar knowing what he knows now - would he hand over bin Laden - My guess is that bin Laden and his entire crew, lock, stock and barrel, would have been despatched to the good ol' US of A so fast their heads would be spinning.

The operations conducted between October 7th 2001 and the summer of 2002 were offensive military operations targeting Al-Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. These operations were carried out under the umbrella of US-Operation Enduring Freedom which was agreed by the UN as a proportionate response to the attacks of 9/11. From December 2001 there were also operations relating to the reconstruction of Afghanistan as part of the United Nations Assistance Mission Afghanistan involving 43 countries contributing to ISAF whose troops were present and continue to be present inside Afghanistan at the express invtation of the duly elected and internationally recognised Government of the Islmic Republic of Afghanistan - NO INVASION - NO OCCUPATION.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 01:39 AM

Ebarnacle - Yes, I'm aware of the sect which you are referring to, and that they refuse to recognize the State of Israel. What I found really interesting in their testimony, though, quite aside from their religious beliefs, was that they said their community had gotten along far better with their Muslim neighbours in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel...and that the creation OF the state of Israel had been disastrous for Jewish-Muslim relations in Palestine and elsewhere, therefore had been what amounted to a disaster for both Jews AND Muslims. And I tend to agree with that.

It would have been similarly disastrous if in 1948 a large piece of Brazil or India or Argentina or the Phillipines or France or Madagascar or Mexico or any other place in the world had been forcibly turned by terrorism, European emigration and war into an officially Jewish political state after WWII.....and you would see an interminable conflict still occuring between the local indigenous population and the European Jewish emigrees in any of those places if it had happened.

It happened as a world emotional reaction to what Hitler did to the Jews. Just like the Afghan War happened as a world emotional reaction to the horror of the 911 attacks.

Horror produces violent counter-reactions.

In both cases, the emotional reaction to the horrible events was out of proportion and it led to illogical and irrational decisions, and disastrous political consequences with longterm effects that have been of benefit to practically no one...except the international arms manufacturers.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 12:59 AM

There was a large military campaign launched against Afghanistan by an alliance of western nations, a heavy bombing campaign, the introduction of western military forces together with Afghan proxies, and followed by an occupation of Afghanistan and an extended conflict there carried out by their western forces and their Afghan proxies (composed mostly of Afghanistan's 3 minority cultural groups who are fighting against Afghanistan's majority cultural group: the Pashtuns, formerly called "Pathans" during British Empire days.)

I call that a war between sovereign nations, I call in an invasion, and it is a war that has not yet ended. It will inevitably go on for quite some time yet, as the Pashtuns will continue attempting to recoup their former dominant position in Afghanistan and to eject foreign forces.

The nation of Afghanistan did not attack the USA on 911, they did not plan the 911 attacks, they were not responsible for the 911 attacks.

They did respond to the Bush administration's demands to surrender Bin Laden and his people by asking for the USA to present the incriminating evidence, and they said that if such evidence was presented, then Bin Laden would be charged and tried in a normal Afghan fashion under the existing Sharia Law, a law which provides different penalties than western law, but is similarly setup up to prove or disprove a given charge. Sharia Law WAS their normal legal system at that time, but the USA has absolutely no respect for it and does not recognize it as legitimate. Well, suppose the USA had said to another country, "Okay, you say these people hiding in the USA were responsible for a terrorist attack on your country. Fine. Show us the evidence, and we'll charge these people and try them under USA law." Suppose that the other country then said, "We have no respect for USA law. It's not legitimate. It wouldn't be a fair trial. We do not accept your offer, and we will bomb and attack you if you don't hand those people over to us by such and such a date."

The USA would say what Afghanistan basically said: "You don't respect our laws? Then go to hell. We will fight you if you do that."

The Afghan response, from their point of view, was the same response most other countries would have given if put in the same position...unless they could be bribed or blackmailed into giving in and basically surrendering both their dignity and their sovereignty.

I'm sure that would have worked in a good many cases. It didn't work with the Afghans. They were too proud.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 04:33 AM

"Acts of war are committed by sovereign nations with armed forces, upon other sovereign nations"

Neat little definition for describing events in history. Unfortunately it completely ignores what history all to often has shown us - nothing remains constant and war like all other fields of human endeavour changes and evolves.

Taking the definition above I would doubt very much that there will ever be a Third World War of the classic conventional WW I or WW II type. The development of nuclear weapons put paid to all of that.

The "Cold War" was indeed a "War". As far as the UK went 1968 was the only year in which a British serviceman did not lose his life on active service. The two main opposing blocks fought each other by proxy in numerous insurrections, attempted insurrections and bush-fire wars.

If a Third World War is to be considered then it started in the 1970's - The 20th Century saw the defeat of the evils of Fascism and Communism (Please do not attempt to put the Peoples Republic of China forward as the example of a surviving Communist State it has not been that for many decades now). The 21st Century will see the defeat of fundamentalist Islam.

Little Hawk - Your parallel example of an anti-communist group actually perpetrating attacks against the Soviet people ignored one link in the process. Having identified the groups and located the countries in which those groups had their "bases", the Soviets would have demanded that the perpetrators be handed over to face Soviet justice. There might have been some debate over that point but action would have been taken by the US or Canadian authorities to arrest and detain those responsible. The U.S.S.R. would have gone to the UN Security Council to ensure that action was taken and that would have been supported unanimously more likely than not. As to the Soviets treating the attacks as criminal acts and following legal procedures? Well recorded events and past track record shows exactly what form that would take - the despatch from the Soviet Union of assassination squads.

After the attacks of 9/11 GWB did ask that the perpetrators or those who sent them be surrendered to face US Justice - that request was refused by those harbouring Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. GWB did go to the United Nations and US intended actions were sanctioned against the unrecognised regime in Afghanistan in order that Al-Qaeda could be rendered harmless. This was in marked contrast to actions taken by Bill Clinton in 1998 who did not go to the US Congress, who did not go to the UN when he lashed out rather ineffectually at Sudan and Afghanistan.

Last and by no means least - There was NO US Invasion of Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: EBarnacle
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:04 AM

By the way, these are the same sects which in Israel, have gotten themselves exempted from military service.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: EBarnacle
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:03 AM

LH, most of the orthodox you see protesting belong to sects which refuse to recognize the State of Israel. Yhey believe that until the destruction of Israel the Messiah cannot arrive. In this respect, they are similar to many evangelistic sects which are awaiting Armegeddon.

I am not saying this is logical, it's doctrine.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 07:42 PM

Don... indeed they do. Stay home, work hard, earn a penny, save a penny. Pennies count. They got a shitload a pennies.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 07:58 PM

to the tune of Tom Lerhers' National Brotherhood week


We got pot wars
We got drug wars
We got whatever you got we want wars
We got class wars
We got poor wars
but we don't got world war 3.

Lets hear it for, Con ventional war
Plain ol Conventional war.
Thats the war with no holds barred
cept for all out nuclear horror.

Both sides aren't satisfied that
only thousands died
but at least we got more arm sales
for our tribe.

We got race wars
We   got space wars
we got whatever sect you are is crazy wars
we got terror wars
We    got error wars
but we ain't got world war 3.

Let's hear it for, Con ventional war
Plain ol Conventional war.
That's the war with no holds barred
cept for all out nuclear horror.

Both sides aren't satisfied that
only thousands died
but at least we got more arm sales
for our tribe.

We got land wars
We got sea wars
We got just shut up and trust us why wars
We got whatever will be will be wars
but its clear to all those who see
we won't have a chance to sing about 3

We got culture wars
We got sculpture wars
We got all God's chillun got war wars
We got Storage wars
We got toy wars
But we don't got world war 3

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:03 PM

Ed we have held ourselves out as mercenaries for hire for many purposes... a bit less for profitless humanitarian help but we try.

The difference between China and the USA when it comes to war...
The US merely reads the Art of War. China understands it.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 05:53 PM

""I think invading Afghanistan was an enormous and profitless error, and would not achieve the stated objectives of defeating Al Qaeda at all, but would in fact play directly into the hands of Al Qaeda and would do great and lasting damage to the USA and Afghanistan....and Osama Bin Laden would get what he reputedly wanted, the financial ruination of the USA through a series of small and lengthy wars in the Third World"".

Right on

And, China was the "financial, lady in waiting", willing to finance the lofty war effort (possibly doing so o many fronts), and "buying out" the USA economic advantage.

Possibly, China learned this tactic from the USA itself, who was the financial (and arms) broker of many wars, like WW2 (when it financed the Allies earlier, at a profit, and entered later).

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 05:47 PM

Good spur.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 05:02 PM

We got pot wars
we got drug wars
we got whatever you got we want wars
we got class wars
we got poor wars
but we don't got world war 3.

Lets hear it for, Con ventional war
Plain ol Conventional war.
Thats the war with no holds barred
cept for all out nuclear horror.

Both sides aren't satisfied that
only thousands died
but at least we got more arm sales
for our tribe.

we got race wars
we got space wars
we got whatever sect you are is nuts wars
we got terror wars
we got error wars
but we ain't got world war 3.

Lets hear it for, Con ventional war
Plain ol Conventional war.
Thats the war with no holds barred
cept for all out nuclear horror.

Both sides aren't satisfied that
only thousands died
but at least we got more arm sales
for our tribe.

we got land wars
we got sea wars
we got just shut up and trust us why wars
we got whatever will be will be wars
but its clear to all those who see
we won't have a chance to sing about 3






( written on the spur of the moment.)

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM

Bruce - I have seen video of a large number of orthodox Jews in New York City protesting against modern Zionism, against the policies of the modern state of Israel, and personally testifying to the far better relations their families had with their Muslim neighbours in Palestine before the state of Israel came into being.

Their testimony is what I base my comments upon.

I also personally know Canadian Jews who deeply disapprove of Zionist policy as carried out be the state of Israel.

Since they ARE Jews, they are able to escape the usual witless accusations of anti-Semitism over their anti-Zionist views.

Teribus - I think you're probably dead right about why members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the USA immediatly after 911.

Possibly because they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what had happened on the 11th September 2001, and getting them out of the country was the only way to guarantee that some "lynch-mob" didn't make a terrible situation a damned sight worse.

It seems pretty plausible to me.

As to whether 911 as an act of war...a criminal/political organization certainly issue what they term a "declaration of war" on anyone they want to...but that doesn't make it a war between nations. Mafia families, for example, have declared war on each other from time to time...and have fought bloody turf wars following that declaration. They have also declared war on police departments at times. There is a drug war occurring in Mexico right now between Mexican drug cartels and the Mexican government, but it's not a war between nations. It's an internal matter.

Now, let's say that a privately run group of anti-Communists in the USA or Canada issued a manifesto declaring war on, say, the Soviet Bloc back before 1989. The Soviets wouldn't have liked that, but it would not have led to them invading the USA or Canada...because the USA or Canada would not have been the entity making the threat.

If that privately-run group of anti-Communists had then blown up some buildings in Moscow...which they might manage to do if they were well organized and clever enough...what would the Russians have done? Would they have invaded the USA or Canada? No. They would have considered it a criminal act, and they would have turned to international legal means of dealing with it...not engaged in a war with another sovereign nation over it.

I believe the correct response to 911 should have been to treat it as a criminal act, not an act of war, and to respond to it with international legal action, international police action, and diplomatic and financial action to bring members of Al Qaeda to justice. I think invading Afghanistan was an enormous and profitless error, and would not achieve the stated objectives of defeating Al Qaeda at all, but would in fact play directly into the hands of Al Qaeda and would do great and lasting damage to the USA and Afghanistan....and Osama Bin Laden would get what he reputedly wanted, the financial ruination of the USA through a series of small and lengthy wars in the Third World.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:49 PM

Well, they got along better...

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 09:59 AM

"Jews and Palestinians (and Christians) got along fine together in Palestine prior to the creation of the political state of Israel...a state which was born out of terrorist acts on the part of European Zionist emigrees to the region"

False statement. Please look at the history of Mandate Palestine, and the reasons for the creation of the Arab Palestinian Homeland of TransJordan.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 09:30 AM

I have a weakness for science fiction.

I'm waiting for the first galactic war!

Isn't it interesting that we assume that if there are other life forms out there, we assume they settle differences over territory in the same way we do.

When two blokes I knew got into a fight over a woman and both ended up attending accident and emergency, the police said they weren't being civilised. Ironically, the young lady in question dumped them both and found two other blokes to fight over her. (Tell me about it...) She found out that they tossed a coin the pub one night. Most of her friends agreed that these two blokes weren't being civilised either.

You can't win. You might as well pick up a club and go and twat someone. At least we seem to understand war...

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 09:22 AM

If you take account of the Seven Years' War, the Hundred Years' War, the Naploeonic Wars and the Crusades I reckon we're already up to World War 6, at least. Unless anyone can think of any others.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Jim Martin
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 07:15 AM

Obama's sending 1,500 Marines to Australia:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45318987/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-us-boost-asia-pacific-military-presence/#.TwblsnphuSo

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 07:11 AM

"A friend of mine thinks we have a right/duty to kick Iran's ass if they close the Strait of Hormuz. I don't." - kendall

Your friend's thinking aligns itself with what the UN Security Council's take on it (closure of the Straits of Hormuz) would be - Closure of an international water-way is considered to be an "Act of War".

No need to worry though as the Iranians will not close the Straits of Hormuz for two very simple reasons:

1: They do not have the capability to carry out that threat for longer than 24hours.

2: The regime of 12 "Old Gits" + Ahmadinawhat knows full well it would lead ultimately to their destruction and not one single foreigners boot would have to set foot on Iranian soil.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:59 AM

"why were members of Usama bin Laden's family allowed to fly home from the US?"

Possibly because they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what had happened on the 11th September 2001, and getting them out of the country was the only way to guarantee that some "lynch-mob" didn't make a terrible situation a damned sight worse.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:52 AM

"911 was not an act of war. Acts of war are committed by sovereign nations with armed forces, upon other sovereign nations." - Little Hawk

From your personal perspective that may be your take on things, it is certainly not the view taken by those who thought up the attacks of 11th September 2001, planned them, or carried them out. They even went to the extent of formally declaring war firstly in 1996 and secondly in 1998. I do not know of any criminal organisation that forewarns their intended victim of the crime about to be committed.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:25 AM

Jews and Palestinians (and Christians) got along fine together in Palestine prior to the creation of the political state of Israel...a state which was born out of terrorist acts on the part of European Zionist emigrees to the region. I've seen videos of Jews who grew up in that region in the prewar era protesting what has happened since the creation of the political state of Israel...saying that they used to be good friends with their Muslim neighbours in Palestine and used to even babysit each other's children in the old days (prior to 1948). What has happened since 1948 has been an utter disaster for those 3 communities and has imperilled the entire region...and to a considerable extent, the rest of the world as well.

I don't believe it has served either Jews, Christians or Muslims well. I think it was a huge mistake. However, we must live with it now, mustn't we? So solutions need to be found which bring about an improvement of relations between all parties.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: EBarnacle
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 09:13 PM

There is some hope. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to meet. Bear in mind that, when Israel withdrew from the Sinai, all the infrastructure was handed over intact. When Israel left Gaza, all the infrastructure was left behind for the benefit of the Palestinians--and promptly destroyed. Maybe, jusy maybe, things will be different this time.

As to the question of Apartheid, who would you rather be occuoied, the Israelis or the Palestinians? At least there is a high probability of living wsith the Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 03:07 PM

People who follow a messianic plan of world domination such as you are describing, Akenaton....ARE following a religion! (It's a political religion which they invented and subscribe to). They will, of course, be intent on wiping out any competing religions while they consolidate power in theirs. Note what Pol Pot did in Cambodia...in the name of his version of Communism (which was a political religion of a very dour sort, a materialist religion utterly opposed to traditional religions of a spiritual sort).

You can have Gods of any sort: spiritual, financial or political.

You can have holy books of any sort: spiritual, financial or political.

You can have a ruling priesthood of any sort: spiritual, financial or political.

They all believe in their favorite chosen myths. They all practice some sort of special "magic" to impress their followers. They all engage in complex rituals and set up complex hierarchies of power. They all seek power and control over the minds of their subjects. They are all equally dangerous to anyone who wishes to be free.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 02:05 PM

There will be no WW3.

There will be an amalgamation of the powerful....Russia China USA, will take whatever they wish in the way of natural resources....small weak nations will be absorbed...all the present pretence of "democracy" will be abandoned...minorities will be liquidated....might will rule.

Dangerous elements like religion will be obliterated.....Muslim countries will be bombed into oblivion....other cults like Christianity will be banned on pain of death.

Mr Orwell will have been proved correct, our children and grandchildren will be slaves to build the last great Empire

And the joke is that we will have brought it all upon ourselves, our dream of equality will at last be realised.......

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 12:48 PM

Yes, that's right, Ebarnacle. It's a disturbing precedent, seems to me. I can't imagine why anyone would want to follow a "God" who would instruct His "chosen" people to commit genocide.

Israelis are also engaging in ethnic cleansing as they expand their settlements into the West Bank, they are practicing what amounts to Apartheid, and they are seeking what the Nazis termed "lebensraum" (living room), and they are behaving as if they were the Master Race.

And they are the undisputed masters of blitzkrieg warfare in the present era.

And they have more undeclared/unadmitted-to nuclear bombs than anyone else in the world, and no one even troubles them over it!

Quite an amazing set of circumstances, if you ask me. They either ARE God's Chosen (which I highly doubt!) or they are something else entirely.

Note: I am NOT talking about Jews. I have no problem with Jews. I am talking about Israeli government policy...and Zionism. There are many Jews who actively oppose both Israeli government policy and Zionism.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: EBarnacle
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 12:27 PM

If we wait a little while, the war will be over potable water.

LH, there are several incidents where the Israelites are ordered [by God, supposedly] to wipe out an entire tribe.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 12:02 PM

The question I see is

Does one acknowledge that human beings are capable of another WW, and work to prevent it?

OR

Deny that human beings will act against their own interests and deny that it could happen, and thus help cause it to occur by that "gentle slope" that pushed us (the world) into WW I and WW II?




I think that all agree it would be a bad idea- but does refusing to acknowledge the possibility help or hinder the prevention of it?

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:46 AM

A pig will fly in an airplane if you want to ignore the entire meaning and context of the expressions about pigs and machines flying.

Likewise, If you ignore or cherry pick current politics and economics and history to this point, WWIII might seem likely.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:53 AM

The War to End All Wars

Someone mentioned earlier on the thread that WW III would not happen, a triumph of hope over experience if WW II is anything to go by.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 08:32 AM

"LH is right on. 9/11 was pulled off by a gang of mostly Saudis."

And within days while aircraft were still grounded, why were members of Usama bin Laden's family allowed to fly home from the US?

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: kendall
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 12:56 AM

LH is right on. 9/11 was pulled off by a gang of mostly Saudis.


They got fed up with the way we have been treating them for so many years.Bush needed a war to get a second term and he got one.
I love America, but I sure don't like our foreign policy.

A friend of mine thinks we have a right/duty to kick Iran's ass if they close the Strait of Hormuz. I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:50 PM

A pig will fly if you hurl it from a trebuchet or blow it up with several pounds of high grade explosive. It won't fly skillfully...it won't fly happily...and it won't fly for long...but it will fly.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 07:03 PM

""We saw while the Iraq War was happening that Halliburton (and subidiaries) was profiteering. No one cared. We knew it. Didn't change a thing"".
That was a company, not a country. (And, Iraq was hardly a WW).

Big companies often profit from conflict. Just look at the oil industry and the guys in the stock market.Profiting of this type would be a hard one to link to anything, except rich people and political corruption.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 06:49 PM

They also said that pigs won't fly.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 06:16 PM

Don't forget that Russia exports a lot of crude. And with the Arctic Ocean warming it wouldn't be difficult to ship it from Siberia to Alaska to Canada to the US via a pipeline or by tanker. In fact, I've already read of such a proposal somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: goatfell
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 01:38 PM

then said machines would never fly but...

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 01:36 PM

I don't think Taiwan is a huge target for China right now. I think that they'll just buy them out one of these days.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:12 PM

Ok, not Arabs, then Moslems. I was trying to generalize but got out of whack.

Who was killing whom over communism during the Cold War? Which China apparently won?

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:03 AM

"So, one should look beyond the obvious (the never ending signs of regional strife) for the potential signs of who could/would profit."

We saw while the Iraq War was happening that Halliburton (and subidiaries) was profiteering. No one cared. We knew it. Didn't change a thing.

Search

Halliburton Watch

on the web.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 10:31 PM

Be a shame about Seattle, too. They have a good artistic base with many fine musicians. Near enough there are Bob Nelson and Mary Garvey.

Mary Garvey is a gem of a songwriter. I don't always understand her when she posts on Mudcat, but that gal can write the most beautiful and poinent/poinant/poingyent touching songs, and sing them well.

Bob is both a good folk musician/singer and a person who donated much of his life to a love of the folk genre, thus providing a university with tapes and I think writings that will ensure this 'thing' we call folk music has a life after we have all left it.

We are none of us so cold that thoughts of annihilation have an appealing ring. Kinda like lead bells: we don't make them.

Subject: RE: BS: World War 3
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 10:30 PM

Lemme see if I remember the situation as I last knew it.

Aggressor force SANT LAURENKO had already captured the St. Lawrence Seaway, nuking Chicago, Detroit, Duluth, Buffalo, Montreal, Toronto, Cleveland, Toledo, Blind River, Saginaw -- had pretty much turned the whole Great Lakes area into radioactive debris.

Meanwhile, other groups had parachuted into the Midwest and had taken control of the Mississippi and Missouri River valleys.

All major US cities with a population greater than 100,000 had been nuked; all major dams and railroad centers had been destroyed.

Aggressor forces, landing on the West Coast, had fought their way inland as far as the Eastern border of Nevada; other forces had attacked up the Rio Grande Valley.

That's all I remember about it -- the situation is from the US Army's "Aggressor Manual" of about 1967. By the way, the aggressors spoke Esperanto; their symbol was a triangle inside a circle ("Circle Trigon") and the salute was done with the right fist touching first the forehead, then the chest, and then flung out ("Head and heart for the Fatherland").

I like being an aggressor -- we were winning.