T1B

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:53 pm**

Will it happen? When will it happen?

The current situation in the MidEast makes me think it is not far away!!

IRAN is now threatening the US!

France, Germany and Britain, which spearheaded the Feb. 4 IAEA resolution clearing the path for Security Council action, warned that what is known about Iran's enrichment program could represent only "the tip of the iceberg."

**
Some historians have suggested that the War on Terrorism, in retaliation to the September 11, 2001 attacks, may become known by future generations as the third of the world wars due to its global impact and the number of countries involved. However, others say this is hyperbole and argue that it is highly unlikely that the current military conflicts in the Middle East and central Asia will escalate to the point that the USA would be engaged militarily with at least one other major military alliance, such as Russia or China becoming allied with Iran. In either case it is noteworthy to point out that the war on terrorism marks the first time since its creation that NATO has unilaterally opted to enact its war action and participation articles.

What do you think the possibilities of World War III happening in your lifetime are? and do you think (as I do) that we are getting awfully close to it (within 3-4 years if nothing changes)?

We need to be very careful with China and we need to be very careful not to weaken our selves in the mideast and leave us vulnerable at home!

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:48 pm**

If Russia gets into a real war any time soon they are severe trouble because much of their military will desert pretty damn rapidly.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:41 pm**

Iran made threats because, whodathunkit, Cheney made threats.

Super. Now we have a clash of egos and war is inevitable. Maybe we'll ask the rest of the world to help, or maybe we won't. Either way, this one will rally the Muslim world and start WWIII; Muslims vs. anything that isn't already rubble.

We'll meet again
Don't know how
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:46 pm**

Nothing is inevitable, that is why we play the game.

Well, 'cept for Tardownsyndrome. Capitulation is always a sure thing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:14 pm**

mvscal wrote:It began on September 11, 2001.

bin Laden made his move to start a Muslim vs. Christian war on 9/11/2001.

America doesn't have to play into his hand, but seems rather eager to do so.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:17 pm**

mvscal, or other who might know:

what is your assessment of the Chinese nuclear arsenal?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:21 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:mvscal, or other who might know:

what is your assessment of the Chinese nuclear arsenal?

They don't have a delivery system capable of delivery throughout the continental United States though they likely could hit the West coast.

They believe in more convential warfare though and that would be their downfall because the military has understood for over a decade now that the only way to defeat mainland china would be through tactical nuclear weapons. Their military is almost the size of entire population.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:21 pm**

mvscal wrote:I'll bet you think we just should have ignored him, right?

Nope. We should have gone after him, taken him prisoner to rot in a prison and left as little of a footprint on Islamic soil as possible. Instead we're all over there and giving plenty of photo ops for al-Q.

Walked right into that one, idiot. Just like your GOP idols keep walking right into bin Laden's punches.

~assorted bluster~

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:24 pm**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
mvscal wrote:I'll bet you think we just should have ignored him, right?
Nope. We should have gone after him, taken him prisoner to rot in a prison and left as little of a footprint on Islamic soil as possible. Instead we're all over there and giving plenty of photo ops for al-Q.

Walked right into that one, idiot. Just like your GOP idols keep walking right into bin Laden's punches.

~assorted bluster~

Bill Clinton had the chance to nab him twice and never allowed the military or CIA to do it; even after the first WTC bombing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:42 pm**

mvsbluster wrote:
Instead we're all over there and giving plenty of photo ops for al-Q.
Yes, we are giving their blasted corpses and orange clad failures plenty of photo ops.

Failures? There are new bodies to replace the bloated corpses. The radical religious leaders are getting tens of thousands to attend their cartoon burnings. Iran sees that our threats are nothing more than bluffs.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:43 pm**

SunCoastSooner wrote:Bill Clinton had the chance to nab him twice and never allowed the military or CIA to do it; even after the first WTC bombing.

Got some proof?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:52 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote: There are new bodies to replace the bloated corpses.
And there are new bullets to shred those new bodies.

But our hosts have little patience left. If you think sticking around Iraq just to kill Arabs is fun, then you and the other 28% of America who agrees can foot the bill.

Iran making a mistake...
How did we finally win the Cold War, mvscal? Think Islam has learned that bankrupting the competition is just as good as bombing them?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:54 pm**

How about Russia's nuclear arsenal? Are our cities still in the targeting system? Who controls them?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:58 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:

Yes.
The Russians.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:41 pm**

BSmack wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:Bill Clinton had the chance to nab him twice and never allowed the military or CIA to do it; even after the first WTC bombing.
Got some proof?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 3637.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/inter ... ssuserland

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030901 ... -9067r.htm

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/bin ... ae-royals/

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040 ... -1495r.htm

Enough for you? Or are they all not left wing enough for you?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:43 pm**

From the NYT Article SCS Posted wrote:Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

Would you like to kick your own ass again?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:47 pm**

Yet Another Self Administered Asskicking by SCS this time from MSNBC wrote:In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

I'm sure Trent Lott would have be right there to back the President had Clinton decided to invade Afgahnistan.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:48 pm**

mvscal wrote:Clinton himself admitted it.

Then prove it.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:50 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Yet Another Self Administered Asskicking by SCS this time from MSNBC wrote:In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.
I'm sure Trent Lott would have be right there to back the President had Clinton decided to invade Afgahnistan.

Yeah rightttttttttt. Nice way to pull a snippet and it wouldn't have been very difficult, at all. We can put a frigging missle down a chimney and hit dead on mobile SAM sites with radar protection but a piece o shit 1980s Volkswagon is difficult.

Keep smoking that shit Bsmack. For someone who has no experience with the military you sure do seem to know a lot about its capabilities.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:53 pm**

SunCoastSooner wrote:Yeah rightttttttttt. Nice way to pull a snippet and it wouldn't have been very difficult, at all. We can put a frigging missle down a chimney and hit dead on mobile SAM sites with radar protection but a piece o shit 1980s Volkswagon is difficult. Keep smoking that shit Bsmack. For someone who has no experience with the military you sure do seem to know a lot about its capabilities.

I'm simply citing the sources YOU referenced. If you think it would have been so fucking easy to take out bin Laden, it is on YOU to show how that could have been done. And don't give me that bullshit about how easy it would have been to drop a misslile on his ass. After the recent fiasco in Pakistan, you should know by now that "smart bombs" are only as smart as the intelligence that guides them.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:55 pm**

mvscal wrote:That's all it takes, asshole.

I'll bet you think we just should have ignored him, right?

No, we should have caught him.

It doesn't matter, though. Any group of people who will incite riots that end up killing some of their own over cartoons are bound to be in a world war eventually. There is no compromise.

Look at the palestinians for example. Their muslim terrorists blow people up in israel. Their new government threatens to destroy israel. Israel closes gazas main cargo crossing at Karni, citing security reasons. Palestinian authorities are crying foul now that the apples and raisins are running low, but they STILL won't back down off their threat to destroy israel.

Without negotiation, there will be war.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:59 pm**

BSmack wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:Yeah rightttttttttt. Nice way to pull a snippet and it wouldn't have been very difficult, at all. We can put a frigging missle down a chimney and hit dead on mobile SAM sites with radar protection but a piece o shit 1980s Volkswagon is difficult. Keep smoking that shit Bsmack. For someone who has no experience with the military you sure do seem to know a lot about its capabilities.
I'm simply citing the sources YOU referenced. If you think it would have been so fucking easy to take out bin Laden, it is on YOU to show how that could have been done. And don't give me that bullshit about how easy it would have been to drop a misslile on his ass. After the recent fiasco in Pakistan, you should know by now that "smart bombs" are only as smart as the intelligence that guides them.

No sited oppertunities that Bill didn't even make an attempt to make a move at during. Whether we would have been successful or not is different matter but Bill Clinton did not even make the attempt to try doing so when he had the oppertunities to do so.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:04 pm**

SunCoastSooner wrote:No sited oppertunities that Bill didn't even make an attempt to make a move at during. Whether we would have been successful or not is different matter but Bill Clinton did not even make the attempt to try doing so when he had the oppertunities to do so.

The opportunity you cite was nothing more than a mirage. It was all Clinton could do to get the Republicans to go along with the actions in Bosnia and Kosovo. A unilateral decision to invade Afghanistan to extract bin Laden would have gone over like a fart in church in a GOP led Congress. Give me something real or STFU.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:07 pm**

mvscal wrote:At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

God forbid our Presidents ever start locking people down for their thought crimes.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:08 pm**

mvscal wrote:We killed a bunch of AQ pukes and their enablers in that strike. The fact that we missed the target doesn't make it a "fiasco".

That's what Bush would like you to believe.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:14 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:We killed a bunch of AQ pukes and their enablers in that strike. The fact that we missed the target doesn't make it a "fiasco".
That's what Bush would like you to believe.
Riiiight. But you know better. Is that it?

Dumbfuck.

Is that all you have? Some ad hommeinims and a "I know you are but what am I?"

Seriously, you have zero, nada, zip.

However, you did give me a sig.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:17 pm**

Without negotiation, there will be war.

Historically, wars were fought over things like territory, resources, the quest for power, meglomania, etc.

What we are seeing in modern Islam (and in places like North Korea) is the rise of cultism, something that is immune to logic, rational thinking, and negotiation. More often than not, cultism results in suffering, destruction, and death.

If anyone has the antidote I'd like to hear it.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:25 pm**

I'll disagree, Fester.

Wars are always fought over resources. Wars are always actually fought by cultists - and not by those who have planned them.

Nothing new here.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:32 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:I'll disagree, Fester.

Wars are always fought over resources. Wars are always actually fought by cultists - and not by those who have planned them.

Nothing new here.

But the upcoming war with the muslims will be a religious based one. Not over land, not over resources, but over their belief that their religion and way of life is under attack or threatened, (the cartoons sparked worldwide riots) and they will defend to the death, but most likely the more fanatic among them will get hold of some level of WMD and unleash a world war.

They've already sworn to destroy isreal, the US, and Denmark. Obviously the muslim leaders have no control, and in some cases are behind the fanaticism.

They're bringing up their children to hate. when you live to die defending your faith nothing will stop it but total victory or total defeat.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:05 pm**

Because we can't. Someone has to act / be civilized, even if it means we or our allies take the first hit.

Annihilation based on desire to do so is not the answer. That's part of why I believe a secure America is a safe one. We do not have the manpower to traipse to all 4 corners of the globe to fight muslims. Unfortunately it will take a first strike by them - and a bad one - to start the process. I have little doubt that will occur. It's only the where and when that is unknown.

With 11 million muslims spread out all over the world, we'd better be justified in our response.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:10 pm**

WOW,, you guys have taken this thread for a run!! Noone has mentioned China and North Korea (unless I missed it!!)

North Korea fires missiles

saying the missiles were fired by mistake in the direction of China during a military drill and apparently landed inside the North. The agency also cited a "Western military source" as saying the short-range missiles were test-fired in an eastern direction from the North's eastern coast, toward the Sea of Japan.

Oh, wait!! It was only a mistake!!

It's like North Korea telling China...OOPS I am sorry for hitting you with my 15 inch penis!! It was a mistake.. But notice HOW BIG my mistake can be!!

:x

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:01 pm**

NK has a history of that shit. They launched missiles over Japan back in 98. Last year they shot some into the SoJ.

At this point iran is a bigger threat, IMO, because of the new extremist government and their threats.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:07 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:NK has a history of that shit. They launched missiles over Japan back in 98. Last year they shot some into the SoJ.

At this point iran is a bigger threat, IMO, because of the new extremist government and their threats.

Well that and our dipshit President has put hundreds of thousands of Americans within scud range of a nuke attack from Iran.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:45 pm**

I'll disagree, Fester.

Wars are always fought over resources. Wars are always actually fought by cultists - and not by those who have planned them.

Nothing new here.

I think the Islamic Jihadist who blows himself up in a bus is not engaged in a fight over resources. Such dedication goes beyond taking a young testosterone-laden male and indoctrinating him to fight for a cause. Cultism goes deeper than that, controlling people to the core.

I don't know how to prevent or deal with it other than to take out the people at the top (Koresh, Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara, etc.), but that seems to be a tall order when it comes to Islam.

Some interesting reading:

The truth is, if we are to avoid war, it is not necessarily that we must become more Islamic or deferrential to Islam nor that Islam must be destroyed or necessarily become more liberal (though, that would be nice). What I read and spoke about with people leads me to believe that the primary problem with Islam is that many adherents don't just see it as a matter of faith. Islam is, as one of the more conservative people put it, "a way of life". For many, it controls every aspect of their lives, from food, to dress, to prayer, to politics, to viewing others that are not like them either in religion or political view.

For many, the idea of Islam and the conversion of people to the belief is similar to the ideas that some Christian sects see as their responsibility to spread the faith, but in Islam, it must be the immersion and conversion to an entire way of life, not just a matter of saving the soul or turning a man away from evil deeds.

In some ways, Islam as it exists today for many as "a way of life" does resemble a cult though I would hesitate to deem every Muslim a cultist. Yet, because it is more than a concept or idea of saving the soul, but is "a way of life" and that way includes the control of every aspect of life from washing, to eating, to praying, to marriage, to family life, to outside relations and even to treating those who leave the religion as "dead" or even actually killing them as well as the belief that dying for the religion in the process of spreading it or protecting it with violence is acceptable, it has the veneer of cultism.

http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/200 ... world.html

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:00 pm**

Yeah. Those Muslims are the kind of people we should provoke.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:28 pm**

It won't matter if we provoke them or not. A worldwide confrontation will happen. It's inevitable.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:30 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:Yeah. Those Muslims are the kind of people we should provoke.
We should just cower in fear of upsetting them, right?

It is not one or the other. Goddamned child.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:53 pm**

We can best do that by improving our security here. Spending all our resources, including financial and military, all over the globe doesn't establish a battlefield of our choosing. It gives them more impetus and opportunity to attack us here.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:14 pm**

Give it time. It will happen.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:39 pm**

Mister Babshice wrote:We can best do that by improving our security here...

No, we can best do that by stomping the raw fuck out of them there