BS: WW3

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 09 - 05:16 AM

If you are thinking in terms of World War I and World War II to determine the nature of the beast then World War III will never happen.

Why?? Because such damaging conflicts have been rendered unnecessary and undesireable - For those who have deep seated grievences, 9/11 with the added dimension of utilisation of WMD showed the way to proceed.

That was why your previous administration was right on the money when in the wake of 9/11 and the immediate fire had been damped down in Afghanistan, they addressed the core of what was the actual greatest potential threat (Rogue State with WMD technology), not the mirage of what was perceived by some as being the main threat (International terrorist organisation).

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: heric
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:54 PM

well that's a mouthfull

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:13 PM

Teribus,

"It started damn near forty years ago, it's only now that people are beginning to notice, the only topic for discussion is how severe its effects will be,"


Rather than WW III, let us say "the next phase of major conflict involving the larger part of those peoples known at the time, which started sometime after two tribes were formed and came into conflict."

As I will refer to WW I and WW II, without reference to the precursor activities, I think we can call it WW III when the WMD start being used, if two or three continents are being fought upon.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:39 AM

So saith...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 09 - 11:08 AM

All this talk about when WW3 is going to start.

It started damn near forty years ago, it's only now that people are beginning to notice, the only topic for discussion is how severe its effects will be, and oddly enough the last president of the United States of America went a long way towards mitigating the worst possible scenario and heading things off at the Pass. Your present incumbent will "Carter-like" screw everything up again.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:52 PM

CarolC,

A person can be wrong in one fact and still have an opinion that might be useful to consider. I even read what YOU post, in spite of the fact I often disagree with your opinion, and sometimes argue with your facts.

I DID NOT say I agreed with him in everything, just that others, such as him, have reached similar conclusions to what I have.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:09 PM

And by the way, Mousavizadeh also says that Iran is not in violation of the NPT. Do we still consider him credible?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 09 - 04:08 PM

Obama's already doing the things that Mr. Mousavizadeh suggests in the opinion piece. So Mousavizadeh is not suggesting a change in Obama's approach.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:24 PM

"His reason for softening us up for a war with Iran is transparent."


Of course, had CarolC READ the article, she would have seen the article was to try to CHANGE how Obama acted, and PREVENT the war.


I posted it merely to show that others, of quite different political persuasion, have reached about the same conclusion that I have.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 02:21 PM

CarolC

"Nader Mousavizadeh
Thursday, May 21, 2009

The writer, a special assistant to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan from 1997 to 2003, is a consulting senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 09 - 01:53 PM

I've done some reading recently on the Pakistani political situation, and what it indicates to me is that ALL the Pakistani political parties are so corrupt and dishonest that the country is actually better off under strict military rule by the army than it is under any elected government that might come forth through the political process. That's a sad thing to say, but in Pakistan's case, I think it may be true.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 09 - 11:15 AM

Surely the deteriorating situation in Pakistan is more worrisome? India is the one who will take direct action if things swing wildly out of western control there.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 21 May 09 - 10:59 AM

The Washington Post played a big hand in dragging us to war with Iraq, too. And we all know how that turned out. The opinion piece's writer, Nader Mousavizadeh, used to write for another neo-con publication, The New Republic. His reason for softening us up for a war with Iran is transparent.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 May 09 - 08:07 AM

"While the Obama administration appears likely to resist the near-term pressure for military action (not least because of its preoccupation with the creeping Talibanization of Pakistan, Iran's already nuclear-armed neighbor to the east), its mix of rhetorical innovation and policy continuation is unlikely to produce a different outcome.

This presents a timeline of a war foretold: Over the next few months, a set of U.S. diplomatic gestures will probably be met with skepticism and stalling in Tehran. New and alarming intelligence about possible covert nuclear programs will surface, accompanied by a step-up in Hamas and Hezbollah activity. The administration will conclude that its outstretched hand has been met with the familiar fist and will seek U.N. support for crippling sanctions. As Russia and China decline to join a meaningful sanctions regime, proponents of military action will argue that all other options have been exhausted. War will be upon us. "

Nader Mousavizadeh
Thursday, May 21, 2009

The writer, a special assistant to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan from 1997 to 2003, is a consulting senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.


Bringing Iran In From the Cold

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:45 PM

Excellent point, Carol.

As a citizen of Canada I am also in a somewhat similar position, because Canada is, in effect, a cultural and economic colony of the USA...an unofficial part of the great American empire...and usually complicit to a considerable extent in US foreign policy. We're like one finger on the American fist.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:13 PM

However, to address the specific passive aggressive effort itself, in threads about the US, I have on many occasions brought up our use of false flag operations to initiate illegitimate wars. So that bit of hasbara sleight of hand happens to be quite false. I have not brought up the use of that tactic by other countries because it is only the US and Israel for which I am responsible, so I have a responsibility to fix what's wrong with those two countries before I go pointing fingers at other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:08 PM

I didn't bring the subject of Israel into this thread. I do notice, however, that people who think that every country in the world except Israel should be discussed like to try to make it look like I did. But that's just part of the whole hasbara shell game, eh? Try to divert attention away from stuff they don't want people to see by smearing the people who bring it to others' attention, as we can see in that weasely, passive aggressive effort a couple of posts back.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 10:55 PM

"False flag" operations have been used by many countries to justify going to war. It's all about getting your own public onside, and that's easy if you can convince them that someone ELSE has attacked the nation. Hitler had the Germans convinced in 1933 (Reichstag fire) and 1939 (supposed Polish attacks on German radio station and German nationals in Poland). The USA has done the same kind of thing from time to time to initiate wars or to enlarge a war (as in Vietnam). The Japanese did it to get their public onside for a war against China in the late 30's (they provoked a border incident, then pretended that the Chinese had provoked it). It's the oldest trick in the book, you might say, and it's a trick that is generally believed by almost everyone in the aggressor nation...because they believe their own media and their own political leaders, and they don't even get to HEAR from the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: robomatic
Date: 18 May 09 - 10:55 PM

And Carol you make sure that doesn't happen, sometimes to the exclusion of all else!

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 10:12 PM

I didn't isolate Israel. Israel was the topic of the discussion, along with the US and Iran. I find it very bizarre that in threads in which Israel is the, or one of the topics of discussion, some people expect everyone to drag every other country in the world into the discussion every time someone mentions the name 'Israel'. They don't expect people to do that when other countries are being discussed, just Israel. (I expect such people are engaging in verbal sleight-of-hand.)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: robomatic
Date: 18 May 09 - 09:28 PM

Iran is due for 'elections' in June, which I think will have some impact on the bellicosity of the region.

Personally, I think there is LESS danger of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel than of a lot of other things happening. Nations do not wish to be targets, so nations limit their vulnerability. Ahmadirtyjob is a nasty piece of work, but he is not insane.

Ethnically, Persians are distinct from Arabs. I've heard some Mideast experts opine on the perception of danger from Iran being comparable in Saudi Arabia as with Israel. Saudi Arabia is populated by Wahhabi Sunni Arabs and in many cases may have less commonality with Iran than, well, Israel.

I would say that WW3 is going on right now, this worldwide, ideology fueled and internet moderated concatenation of nasty behavior. Not to mention a significant American presence in Iraq and a commitment by the current US administration to prosecute military operations in Afghanistan with tie-ins in Pakistan.

The only issue I'd take with Carol's false flag comment is that it isolates Israel for some reason while in fact it applies to pretty much every actor in the Middle East, Europe, North and South America, Al Qaida, El Segundo, and the Midwest (I'm thinking about YOU, OHIO! I know those designs you have on Kentucky!)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 08:57 PM

But surely that person is saying that no matter who became president, we would have such a war by August, because they have now said that it doesn't matter whether or not the US or Israel attacks Iran, there will be a war regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: pdq
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:39 PM

No, Ebbie...bb's first post to this thread was:


"Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 08 May 09 - 08:15 AM

I predicted a war involving WMD by both sides, between the US or an ally and other parties, by August, 2009, IF the Democrats won the election ( this was BEFORE Obama was a candidate).


No reason yet to change my prediction."

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:13 PM

It strikes me that someone is weaseling. The first prediction - repeatedly made - was that it would be NUCLEAR war, not just WMD. WMD could mean not only biological, chemical or nuclear, it could be something as basic as napalm or possibly rapid-fire projectiles.

But, bb, if you are actually predicting a NUCLEAR war between the US and its allies against anyone else by or in August 2009, I'll take the bet: NO!. Make the bet as large as you like- I'd be happy to make my fortune.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 05:45 PM

So we are being told that no matter what Obama does, there will be war? We are not being told that he should attack Iran, or support an attack on Iran by Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:30 PM

Polls predict that Ahmedinajad is liable to be voted out as President in the Iranian elections on June 12th.

Not a good time to help him win by hyping up the prospect of war. Of course there are probably some people who would like to do precisely that, because he is a very convenient enemy...

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 18 May 09 - 04:25 PM

Whats more, the mongols were driven by Ghengis Khans testosterone, which was responsible for his genes being the most prolific of any others in history in subsequent generations.

Kill Rape Kill Rape ...

my testosterone freezes up in the winter.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:52 PM

Okay.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:41 PM

WMD- nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

The "standard" definition.

Althought the planes hitting the WTC were declared to be WMD, they are NOT included in the definition.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:37 PM

heric - Yeah, well, the Mongols didn't have to deal with motorized transport. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:27 PM

How are we defining "WMD" at the present time? What is your definition of the term, BB?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: heric
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:25 PM

Weather is for sissies. The Mongols could slaughter a European army in winter, immediately ride through snow for 130 miles nonstop for three days (that's nonstop), and level another city. Then eat breakfast.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:21 PM

CarolC,

"So we are being told that if we don't wage war against Iran before August, there will be a war sometime before August."


No, no-one except you have said that.



I predicted a war involving the US or someone we have a treaty obligation with and another party, which involves the use of WMD by two or more opposing parties.

Feel free to make any predictions you want: You are certainly entitled to your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 May 09 - 01:03 PM

BB, you are correct that the summertime is a prime time for wars, and that's both a subliminal AND practical thing that occurs for natural reasons. Summertime is the time of highest energy in nature...the most energy coming from the sunlight pouring down, so it is also a time when the risk of human conflicts becomes heightened to some extent because people feel that energy in themselves.

It was traditionally considered the best time for launching military campaigns because the weather and soil conditions were most favourable to armies, air forces, and navies in the summer. The spring is too wet and muddy. The fall is okay, but winter is on its way with stormy weather and the campaign may not be over by the time the cold sets in. Winter is the absolute worst time for weather and climate, therefore the least propitious time to be fighting wars.

Many of history's great battles were fought at the height of the summer. The Civil War, for instance reached its apex of fighting at the battle of Gettysburg, July 1,2, and 3rd.

This doesn't mean it has to be that way. The Germans attacked Poland in September 1939. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in December (but Hawaii weather was perfect in December).

Anyway, in a general sense you are correct that summertime is a high risk time for wars and major battles.

****

If some major incident occurs during the first year of the Obama presidency, it will not be because of Mr Obama. It will be something that would have happened regardless of WHO got elected president in 2008, because there are much larger controlling forces than mere presidents behind what happens in this world, and they set the agenda.

That's the part you don't get, BB. It's not about Obama or McCain or the Democrats or the Republicans. It's about the unseen and unacknowleged ruling power $ySStem that owns them both and keeps them in its side pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 18 May 09 - 11:26 AM

So we are being told that if we don't wage war against Iran before August, there will be a war sometime before August.

If we do wage war against Iran, or if Israel does, I predict the use of WMD by either the US or Israel, so waging war against Iran absolutely guarantees a war involving WMD, but using diplomacy carries a chance of no war of any kind.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 09 - 10:39 AM

Not at all, Ebbie- I had not considered that, or I would have picked a date AFTER 9/11, to prove that point. July/August seems to be when a large number of conflicts occur.

August is BEFORE 9/11, so I am sure that, should any conflict happen, it will be declared to be Bush's fault.


But ANY nuclear/WMD war is a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 09 - 05:43 PM

I think I have it figured out: The prediction is that nuclear war will be instated by August, thereby beating by one month the new administration's inauguration the 9/11 disaster.

See, if we feel that the Bush administration was lackadaisical in ignoring the warnings they had received (Al Quaeda determined to strike inside US) then we have to accept that it's the Obama administration's complicity or responsibility in allowing nuclear war.

Is that right?

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 04:32 PM

"is just as likely, as there is no proof for or against.
...
no proof for or against so it should be recognized as possible. "





The POSSIBILITY exists: the LIKELIHOOD is somewhat less: the first part of your statement "Is just as likely" has no validity, but it does have a non-zero possibility.



It is "possible" for a coin to land on edge, rather than heads or tails- but far less likely.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 May 09 - 04:07 PM

By the same logic, my worrie about skarpi and the possibility of a negative experience involving little green men is just as likely, as there is no proof for or against.

This reminds me of the whole "church of the flying spaghetti monster" debate in kansas.

no proof for or against so it should be recognized as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 03:43 PM

BY August- It might happen sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 09 - 01:40 PM

Oops. Not the person who started this thread, but the one who has been predicting war in August.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 09 - 01:39 PM

Hell, I'm not the one who has been calling the government of Iran insane. That's the main argument of the poster who started this thread, and is that person's main argument in favor of attacking Iran. Looks like that argument cuts both ways though. If we can use it to justify an attack on Iran, we can also use it to justify an attack on Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 09 - 11:02 AM

Whatever whoever is saying...there is no justification for attacking another country on the mere suspicion that it might one day attack you.

There is also no justification for saying, "Well, we had to do it, you see, because they're insane..."

That sounds to me like the kind of feeble BS excuse that someone like Hitler or Goebbels would come up with for invading another country. Only the person who utters the excuse himself can be blind to the innate hypocrisy of taking such a position to justify his own premeditated act of murder.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 07:27 AM

I guess what the above poster (CarolC) is saying is that the Iranian government is insane and is willing to attack Israel even if it means that Iran will be utterly destroyed as a result.


I have the same basis for my statement as she has for hers.


She has the right to whatever guess she wants to make- as do I.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 05:22 PM

Who knows? The experts are saying they can't rule out the possibility that Iran has a bomb already. I guess what the above poster is saying is that the Israeli government is insane and is willing to attack Iran even if it means that Israel will be utterly destroyed as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 05:09 PM

CarolC,

Since you have promised me that there is no such Iranian nuclear program, I know that Israel is safe from Iranian nuclear attack.

Of course, if there is such a program, then I guess we will have WW III, and there will not be any Palestinian problem in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 05:02 PM

But what if they only know about some of them and Iran has others that would continue operating after such an attack? And to make it even scarier, if Israel attacks the sites they know about but misses others, they will think they've taken care of the problem even though they haven't.

In fact, the Iranians might even be devious enough to create decoy sites that they allow Israel to think are real, so Israel will attack those and think it's done the job, all the while Iran is continuing its program in sites that nobody except the Iranian government knows about.

Or it could even have a nuclear weapon right now, and it's using secrets sites as a decoy to entice Israel to attack it, and then it can nuke Israel as a defensive measure against Israel's attack.

All of this speculation ignores the real threat to Israel, which is this...


http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/28/the_treason_of_the_hawks

The real threat to Israel's future is the occupation, and the conflict with the Palestinians that it perpetuates. To see that, all you have to do is look at current demographic trends and poll results and then ponder the consequences for Israel. There are presently about 5.6 million Jews in "Greater Israel," (i.e., the 1967 borders plus the West Bank) and about 5.2 million Arabs (of whom nearly 1.5 million are citizens of Israel). Palestinian birth rates are substantially higher, however, which means they will be a majority of the population in "Greater Israel" in the not-too-distant future.   To put it bluntly, it is Palestinian wombs and not Iranian bombs that pose the real threat.

Netanyahu ought to be equally concerned by signs that the Zionist ideal is losing its hold within Israel itself. There are reportedly between 700,000 and one million Israeli citizens now living abroad, and emigration has outpaced immigration since 2007. According to Ian Lustick and John Mueller, only 69 percent of Israeli Jews say they want to remain in the country, and a 2007 poll reported that about one-quarter of Israelis are considering leaving, including almost half of all young people. As Lustick and Mueller note, hyping the threat from Iran may be making this problem worse, especially among the most highly educated (and thus most mobile) Israelis. Israeli society is also becoming more polarized -- which is one reason Netanyahu had such trouble forming a governing coalition -- with the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox at odds with secular Israelis, to include the more recent immigrants that form the core of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's support.

So what are Israel's options? One alternative would be to make the West Bank and Gaza part of Israel, but allow the Palestinians who live there to have full political rights, thereby creating a binational liberal democracy. This idea has been promoted by a handful of Israeli Jews and a growing number of Palestinians, but the objections to it are compelling. It would mean abandoning the Zionist vision of a Jewish state, which makes it anathema to almost all Israeli Jews, who want to live in a Jewish state. The practical obstacles to this outcome are equally daunting, and binational states do not have an encouraging track record. If the choice were between this option and a genuine two-state solution, there can be little doubt about which Netanyahu would prefer.

A second option would be for Israel to retain the West Bank and expel the Palestinians by force, there preserving its Jewish character through an overt act of ethnic cleansing. A few Israeli extremists have proposed something akin to this, but to expel millions of Palestinians in this fashion would be a crime against humanity. The Palestinians would surely resist being driven from their homes, and such a heinous act would take place in full view of a horrified world and damage Israel's reputation far more than the recent carnage in Gaza did. No true friend of Israel could support such a course of action, and one hopes that Netanyahu has the good sense to recognize that it would be a tragic mistake to go down this road.

The only other option to a genuine two-state solution is some form of apartheid, in which the Palestinians are granted limited autonomy in some disconnected and economically crippled enclaves whose borders, airspace, and aquifers are controlled by Israel. The Palestinians' fate, in other words, would remain in Israel's hands, even if some modest efforts were made to improve their living conditions. This outcome seems to be what Netanyahu has in mind, but it is not a viable long-term solution either. The Palestinians are not going to accept being permanent vassals -- especially once they are a majority in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean -- and they will continue to demand either a viable state of their own or full political rights within Israel. Over time, this option is going to be an increasingly difficult sell around the world, and especially in the West.

That is why former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Ha'aretz in 2008, "if the day comes when the two-state solution collapses," Israel will face "a South-African style struggle for voting rights." Once that happened, he warned, "the state of Israel is finished." Despite his long career as a Likud Party stalwart, Olmert finally recognized that if the two-state solution becomes impossible, Israel will be stuck defending a political order that is anathema to prevailing Western and American values. Although lots of other democracies have behaved abominably towards minorities in the past, such behavior is not legitimate in the 21st century. Americans favor self-determination and our own political traditions emphasize liberal values and the virtues of a melting-pot society. Even a lobbying group as powerful as AIPAC will find it hard to defend Israeli apartheid.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:40 PM

"it won't matter what the US or Israel does to try to stop them, even if they attack the enrichment facilities that we do know about."

Unless they DO know about them, and are keeping quiet to avoid letting the Iranians know that they know.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:29 PM

If Iran has a secret stash of uranium that is being enriched in secret locations, it won't matter what the US or Israel does to try to stop them, even if they attack the enrichment facilities that we do know about. So attacking Iran hasn't got the possibility of solving anything. Looks like diplomacy is the only option.

Subject: RE: BS: WW3
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:22 PM

Lox,

My predictions are based on possibilities.

We do NOT know the "facts" about the Iranian uranium program, because of the several times that it was NOT under IAEA observation. If it is now, that does not change the possibility that there was a diversion of material in the past.

I gave a scenario that I think ( far too )likely: I do not need to "prove" it, since I offered it as one ( of several) way(s) that we could have the predicted war by August. YOU will have to look objectively at the real world, and see if the predictions that I make are possible or likely.

Looking at likelihoods does NOT mean that I desire the outcome that I see, just that I see enough basis to consider that it may well occur, and try to determine if there are actions I can/should take to lower it's likelihood, or reduce it's impact.


Just because I wear a seatbelt does not mean I intend to have an automobile accident.