longeyes
member
I didn't say they could win; they can't unless we roll over like puppies. But if they get modern weapons and we don't treat their threat realistically we can be gravely, if not mortally, wounded.
War on Terror or WW III?
- Thread starter twenty711
- Start date
- Status
I didn't say they could win; they can't unless we roll over like puppies. But if they get modern weapons and we don't treat their threat realistically we can be gravely, if not mortally, wounded.
Kaylee
Member
let's all remember our manners now. 
mljdeckard
Member
Without reading all the thread, this may be already mentioned,
Some people say the Cold War was WWIII, and THIS is WWIV. I could certainly see an argument for that. America and Russia were smart enough to let third world nations fight for them, and many millions of people died as a result.
This is as world as war gets. Sorry for the disappointment. Some people would love to have a conflict so grave, that every single person in America must sacrifice if we hope to win, as happened in WWII. In these situations, it's easy to see black and white, and believe in what you are doing. But in THIS era, the problem is, technology has made the world much smaller. You notice, the only nations causing conflicts are the ones with restricted media access. Everyone else is well enough informed that their government can't lie to them well enough to convince them they should fight and die.
They other way technology has made this different, is it takes a lot less manpower and machine to accomplish a mission than it used to. I remember a comparison I saw from an Air Force general referring to destroying a ground target. Back in WWII, to drop one bomb on a specific piece of real estate, it took multiple missions, many heavy bombers, support fighters, casualties, prisoners, and shot-up bombrs limping home. Now, the vast majority of such missions are one plane, one bomb, no casualties, satellite confirmation, no follow-up necessary.
The world is smaller. While the missions aren't exactly easy, they require much less sacrifice to accomplish than they used to. The only way I see something as big as WWII happening again is to interpret Revelations literally, and I think something of that proportion is a LONG way off. Like I say, people WISH it was as passionate as WWII, but this is as big as war gets for the forseeable future.
Some people say the Cold War was WWIII, and THIS is WWIV. I could certainly see an argument for that. America and Russia were smart enough to let third world nations fight for them, and many millions of people died as a result.
This is as world as war gets. Sorry for the disappointment. Some people would love to have a conflict so grave, that every single person in America must sacrifice if we hope to win, as happened in WWII. In these situations, it's easy to see black and white, and believe in what you are doing. But in THIS era, the problem is, technology has made the world much smaller. You notice, the only nations causing conflicts are the ones with restricted media access. Everyone else is well enough informed that their government can't lie to them well enough to convince them they should fight and die.
They other way technology has made this different, is it takes a lot less manpower and machine to accomplish a mission than it used to. I remember a comparison I saw from an Air Force general referring to destroying a ground target. Back in WWII, to drop one bomb on a specific piece of real estate, it took multiple missions, many heavy bombers, support fighters, casualties, prisoners, and shot-up bombrs limping home. Now, the vast majority of such missions are one plane, one bomb, no casualties, satellite confirmation, no follow-up necessary.
The world is smaller. While the missions aren't exactly easy, they require much less sacrifice to accomplish than they used to. The only way I see something as big as WWII happening again is to interpret Revelations literally, and I think something of that proportion is a LONG way off. Like I say, people WISH it was as passionate as WWII, but this is as big as war gets for the forseeable future.
StrikeFire83
Member
You need a 3rd Option, Global war for OIL.
The world is addicted to an antiquated power source, and the developing nations need it to expand and attempt to attain parity.
Unfortunately, a vast amount of the remaining accessible petroleum happens to be located in a backward toilet known as the Middle East. Because our scientists and corporations aren’t smart enough or are unwilling to develop an alternative, we have to continue to do business with greedy, tribal fiefdoms stuck in the 10th Century.
We have a growing China, Oceana, Eastern Europe, and Latin America all craving petroleum to elevate their standards of living. To secure the oil to maintain OUR standard of living, we are increasingly going to have to fight wars against those who would constrain our access to it. This also mean doing battle with non-traditional combat forces, or terrorists, who attack out civilians and then blend into the civilian population.
Calling terrorists “evil people who hate our freedom” is stupid, simplistic, and it accomplishes nothing. We obviously need oil and access to it until we can develop another energy source, so these people need to be killed. Also, they threaten our civilians, so they need to be killed.
Once we get off oil we can let the middle east burn, but for right now we need what they have.
The world is addicted to an antiquated power source, and the developing nations need it to expand and attempt to attain parity.
Unfortunately, a vast amount of the remaining accessible petroleum happens to be located in a backward toilet known as the Middle East. Because our scientists and corporations aren’t smart enough or are unwilling to develop an alternative, we have to continue to do business with greedy, tribal fiefdoms stuck in the 10th Century.
We have a growing China, Oceana, Eastern Europe, and Latin America all craving petroleum to elevate their standards of living. To secure the oil to maintain OUR standard of living, we are increasingly going to have to fight wars against those who would constrain our access to it. This also mean doing battle with non-traditional combat forces, or terrorists, who attack out civilians and then blend into the civilian population.
Calling terrorists “evil people who hate our freedom” is stupid, simplistic, and it accomplishes nothing. We obviously need oil and access to it until we can develop another energy source, so these people need to be killed. Also, they threaten our civilians, so they need to be killed.
Once we get off oil we can let the middle east burn, but for right now we need what they have.
david_the_greek
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 533
I'm going to side mostly with shweboner on this. I'm becoming much more afraid of the government than I am of any terrorist. and I whole heartedly believe that the government should be nothing to fear and infact they should be the ones watching their steps. and not so much the left as the right. They both have their evils but it seems to me that our current admin is looking more into my life and business than anyone has in the past. I find myself more likely to hear a mandatory registration of long arms for the sake of "national security" to prevent terrorism coming from the current gov. personally I'm really starting to lean torwards the true liberals.... yes I do mean the libertarians. being a michigander maybe I'll stop by ted nugents place and see if he'd like to run. haha oh my I think i'm going to go to the range tomarrow and and pretend like the world doesn't exist
longeyes
member
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in Europe these days?
Hayward Juhbuzzoff
Member
Not WWIII...
Why even want to call it WORLD WAR III?... it doesn't come close to the scale of warfare of the two World Wars. Just because it is an international problem, doesn't make it a world war. Drugs are an international problem... maybe the War on Drugs is actually WWIII and the War on Terror is WWIV?
I suspect that some might see political advantage to calling it WWIII, and I'd bet Al Qaeda would be flattered to have inspired such hyperbole.
Why even want to call it WORLD WAR III?... it doesn't come close to the scale of warfare of the two World Wars. Just because it is an international problem, doesn't make it a world war. Drugs are an international problem... maybe the War on Drugs is actually WWIII and the War on Terror is WWIV?
I suspect that some might see political advantage to calling it WWIII, and I'd bet Al Qaeda would be flattered to have inspired such hyperbole.
crazed_ss
Member
I'm not aware of any battles where armies of Islamic extremists have won decisive victories against European militaries.
crazed_ss
Member
Exactly. Everyone running around with these "OMG, THIS IS IT.. WORLD WAR 3!!!" attitudes just give the extremists more ammo.
longeyes
member
You know, you're right. They take out their rage by bravely torching Peugeots and gangraping Swedish girls.
Ok, let's get this straight:
WW III was the cold war (I used to think we won that one, but as we continue our metamophosis into a soviet-like state, I rather doubt it)
WW IV was the war on poverty (poverty and it's ally socialism won),
WW V was the war on drugs (we lost, the drug lords and the power-hungry Fed.Gov won)
WW VI is the "War on Terror".
Of course, all of them are merely proxies for the real world war, The War on Liberty. Liberty is losing, because many of it's would-be defenders have been distracted and bamboozled into the belief that Liberty's enemies are a handful of radical muslims, and a billion of their peaceful co-religionists, instead of the Governments that actually do have the power to destroy liberty as long as they can keep the people clamorous to be led to "safety"
Are the terrorists a threat? Absolutely. Are they the greatest threat we face? Absolutely not.
WW III was the cold war (I used to think we won that one, but as we continue our metamophosis into a soviet-like state, I rather doubt it)
WW IV was the war on poverty (poverty and it's ally socialism won),
WW V was the war on drugs (we lost, the drug lords and the power-hungry Fed.Gov won)
WW VI is the "War on Terror".
Of course, all of them are merely proxies for the real world war, The War on Liberty. Liberty is losing, because many of it's would-be defenders have been distracted and bamboozled into the belief that Liberty's enemies are a handful of radical muslims, and a billion of their peaceful co-religionists, instead of the Governments that actually do have the power to destroy liberty as long as they can keep the people clamorous to be led to "safety"
Are the terrorists a threat? Absolutely. Are they the greatest threat we face? Absolutely not.
Shweboner
Member
I wasnt saying that I feel safe from terrorism because I live in little ol' Newberg. Only a total idiot would think such a thing... There wont even be an attack on Portland. I would put $$$ on it. Its not going to happen because there is no benefit to it. Besides domestic terrorist attacks happen at the whim of of the gov when it is best for their purposes. I believe that any attacks on US soil happen with the approval and direction of some part of our gov. There is nothing dramatic enough in the area to attack, thus the masses wont be drawn to the gov for protection... so why bother.
So you can guess what I think all you want... bottom line is I think that nothing will happen, therefore I do not waste my thoughts on it. Just keep a standard level of preparedness at all times. not out of fear that Abdullah is going to crash a plane into the US Bank tower. because like I said... its all Bull$#!^
sterling180
Member
There are many people in the UK,who believe that these trouble-making extremists,should be put in concentration camps and made to do hard Labour-for the rest of their lives.Others want them dead,by firing-squads and by hanging.
A psycho called David Tovey,was going to blow up a mosque and kill as many of the worshippers as possible.V for Vendetta,might not be far away,from the future-either.
If WW3,occurred and the BNP party took over,amongst the chaos-then certainly,you will get a fascist GB.
A psycho called David Tovey,was going to blow up a mosque and kill as many of the worshippers as possible.V for Vendetta,might not be far away,from the future-either.
If WW3,occurred and the BNP party took over,amongst the chaos-then certainly,you will get a fascist GB.
gc70
Member
That certainly proves that I would never have guessed what you were thinking.
I voted for WWIII, but I think we should better call it WWI.
WWI started in the year 622, when Muhammad and his followers began to convert or massacre neighbouring tribes and to conquer the arabic peninsula.
Since then there was never peace at the borders of Islam (only temporary ceasefires) and Europe was at least 2 times in danger of being completly overrun.
Nowadays the bloody borders of Islam are running right through the hearts of West Europe's major cities.
WWI started in the year 622, when Muhammad and his followers began to convert or massacre neighbouring tribes and to conquer the arabic peninsula.
Since then there was never peace at the borders of Islam (only temporary ceasefires) and Europe was at least 2 times in danger of being completly overrun.
Nowadays the bloody borders of Islam are running right through the hearts of West Europe's major cities.
birddog
Member
And with this quote, I think I hear the clock ticking on the closing of this thread. Too bad, it was a good discussion.
mike101
Member
Invading Afghanistan was part of the War on Terror. The War in Iraq is, for our part, a war to keep that oil coming out of the ground at $2.50 a barrel. For their part, it is a civil war already. World War III will start when Iran refuses the incentives offered by the UN and US to stop their Uranium enrichment program. We are going to bomb the hell out of them, wait and see. That should give them some incentive.
I'm afraid we will have to, if the Israelis don't beat us to it. Can you imagine these people with nukes?
I'm afraid we will have to, if the Israelis don't beat us to it. Can you imagine these people with nukes?
longeyes
member
A) You don't have to have a formal government behind you to do grave damage. B) In Islam there is no separation between religion and state. C) Handful of radical Muslims? Clearly you didn't read the recent poll in Great Britain asking the Muslim population about their attitudes toward 7/7.
The Deer Hunter
Member
Its not really WW III because war has not been declared on a sovereign nation.
Its also not realy the war on terror either.
Its more like a big gang war and were there to stop it.
Its also not realy the war on terror either.
Its more like a big gang war and were there to stop it.
Gordon Fink
Member
It is neither. We are not fighting a wide-scale global war, but we are not really fighting terrorists either.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
mike101
Member
karaya
Yes, it would have been cheaper, but then, Saddam tried to have Bush's Dad killed. It bothered him so much, that after 9/11 he had his people bending over backwards trying to establish a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Yes, it would have been cheaper, but then, Saddam tried to have Bush's Dad killed. It bothered him so much, that after 9/11 he had his people bending over backwards trying to establish a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
mljdeckard
Member
I absolutely agree with karaya. If all we wanted from Iraq was the oil, all we had to do was recomment that the U.N. drop all sanctions, and BUY it from them. It would have cost a LOT less than $400,000,000,000.
Not entirely. The tree-huggers, and the legislatures that listened to their liberal crap are mostly to blame. They used to be merely annoying, pining about human interference in Caribou mating habits, and farmer's "destroying" spotted owl habitats. By now it should clear to everyone that 30 year-old refineries and the lack of drilling in .04% of ANWR (an area no American is likely to ever even see) has been the single biggest contributing factor to our foreign oil dependency.
Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc, etc, They're the ones putting your family at risk. And that's when they stop being merely annoying.
Research alternative fuels. But in the mean time, it makes sense to drill for oil here in the US. Stop funding terrorism.
The rush to alternative fuels is also going to serve to motivate the islamofacists. They realize that our dependency on their oil is going to end, and with it the funding necessary for their jihad. They will become more and more aggressive as they begin to feel the pain of their withering power. We don't want them to have Nukes <cough, N. Korea, cough, Iran> when that happens.
- Status
