Are we on the verge of WWIII???

Are we on the verge of WWIII

  • Yes

    Votes: 51 45.1%

  • No

    Votes: 41 36.3%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 21 18.6%
  • Total voters
    113
Anybody but me find it interesting in all of this, that now Iran does not have to give an answer about their nuclear enrichment program? There was a deadline for the answer. Anyone remember when that deadline was? What other worldwide attention getting was being done while that deadline passed?

Why are some certain other Arab nations backing off? Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Egypt, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan and so on. Notice that they are not condemning Israel? On the contrary, Saudi Arabia has condemned Hezbollah and says it is acting solely on its own and deserves whatever consequences come their way.

Who is silent about all this? Syria and Iran. Not a word... But of course, we know that Hezbollah has been backed, monetarily by these two countries. Training camps in Syria and money from Tehran.

France condemns Israel. Russia and China are calling for restraint. Britian is wavering... Depends upon who you listen to, as to where She stands. At the moment.

Israel is targeting military targets only. Yes their are civilian casualties. However, Hezbollah is deliberately targeting the civilian population of Israel.

Hezbollah invaded Israel, attacked it's military, killed and kidnapped serviceman. It then bombarded civilian centers. Meanwhile, Hamas does the same in Gaza!

Does anyone seriously accuse Israel of overreacting, as France has accused? Get real. If this had happened to America, we would be going after whomever with a vengeance. Israel's reaction is tame by comparison! And we would hold the government of the country where the attack came from, accountable.

World War III? No, that was the Cold War. But, I'm thinking this may be the prelude to WW IV... Depends upon if the other shoe drops.
 
Chemist hand me a flak jacket will ya??

Let's not forget the fact that the U.S. government SETS UP REGIMES and then takes them down years later when it's time to pay the dues.

Fidel Castro, of Cuba (not taken out in order to keep an enemy.)

Noriega of Panama, sent by us, and then taken out. (In all honesty I forget why he was in to Panama and then taken down. Someone please refresh my memory on this.)

Saddam Hussein, was helped by us to fight Iran.

Afghanistan's Mujahadeen, trained and supplied by us to fight the Soviet Union.

All those listed above were establishments either supported or supplanted by the U.S. government and at some point in time taken down. Here's another thought, ever think that because of lack of being able to get attention from the media or the U.N. these terrorist groups decided to commit violent acts? When governments don't listen to the concerns of others on matters important to those people, they will fight back. I'm not playing devil's advocate here, just listing a possibility that's all. My guess is the current struggle definately began when the Seven Days War occurred and since then, there has been the terrorism you see today. They terrorized because the rest of the world wouldn't listen to them. Now as always, if anyone can correct me on any mistakes on my history please feel free to do so.


Epyon


P.S: As a person who sees two perspectives, I strongly believe that education and understanding on BOTH sides must occur if we really want to stop all this madness. In order to eliminate the violence both sides must come to an agreement, and it seems compromise is the biggest trait humans lack these days. So sad that for as long as humans have made their own civilized world, we still need a lot of fixing to do as people.
 
Yep, the US set up the Japanese regime and then took it down ... when? Okay, maybe that's not a good example, since only a mere 61 years have passed. We are a long-term people, and six decades is mere preamble to our designs.

So ... the US set up the West German regime and then took it down ... when? Okay, maybe that's not a good example either, since only a mere 61 years have passed for that one too. How about the US set up the Italian regime and then took it down ... when? Oops, another 61 years ago. Well, the US and the Brits liberated France and the rest of Western Europe ... darn, another 61 years ago. Well, what about the US set up the Phillipines regime after the Spanish-American War, and then took it down ... when? Oh wait, that was 108 years ago. Still not long enough, but getting closer.

Wait, there was Bosnia and ... oops, sorry, we actually came to the aid of the Muslims that time. Well then, there's that South Korea thing that was ... oh yeah, only 53 years ago ... not enough time has passed for us to take that one down yet.

But I can see where the Muslim world would be so enraged at our treatment of Cuba and Panama that they would destroy the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, murder Hindus ever since India and Pakistan became separate countries, set off bombs in Turkey, take over Somalia, and start conflicts in countries throughout the world, such as Indonesia, Sudan, and Kashmir.

Oh, and don't forget Israel. We were the first to recognize it as a country. And now we're taking it down. That's probably galling the Muslims to no end.
 
Kinda hard to negotiate with someone who thinks you need to die. Cultural sensitivity, education, and humming kumbyya will not help. Evil exists and the only way to defeat it is to attack. The so-called Palestinians have gotten everything they demanded and then some. Result? Same nonsense just closer to Israel. I hope Israel has determined national suicide to be contrary to its best interests.
 
In order to eliminate the violence both sides must come to an agreement, and it seems compromise is the biggest trait humans lack these days.
Click to expand...
The stated goal of Al Qaeda is to establish a worldwide caliphate and to kill everyone who doesn't convert to their particular version of Islam. That's why they're killing Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, other Muslims, etc. I'd like to know what the compromise position is.
 
Afghanistan's Mujahadeen, trained and supplied by us to fight the Soviet Union.
<snip>
Now as always, if anyone can correct me on any mistakes on my history please feel free to do so.
Click to expand...
We supported the Mujahideen, but the Mujahideen and the Taliban were not one in the same. The Taliban grew out of a faction of the Mujahideen. We took down the Taliban, not the Mujahideen, and we did so after 9-11 because they were harboring OBL.
 
When two aof the parties are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, which was established by the UN, there isnt much to negotitate. Hamas and Hezzbollah have not leraned what the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians have learned. Israel makes a better neighbor than an enemy.
 
Call it what you like

WWIII or WWIV...The big diference if that there is no clearly defined "front" or "area" of engagement. It's alot of small problems that add up to a global conflict.
 
WW III or more

Who knows for sure. It just might be the biggest war of all and from here it looks like it just might very few of us against a whole lot of them when all is said and done. But then again what do I know. Be Safe Out There Kurt
 
My guess is the current struggle definately began when the Seven Days War occurred and since then, there has been the terrorism you see today.
Click to expand...
If by "current struggle" you mean between Israel and her neighbors, that's been going on since the founding of the country. If you mean the war against Muslim extremism, the current struggle goes back at least to the First Crusade in 1097, brought on by Seljuq incursions into the Byzantine Empire, whose emperor in turn requested military assistance from the West. Muslim extremists, including OBL and others of similar ilk, have been making references to the Crusades and Crusaders in their writings ever since.

My history may be a little fuzzy, but I don't think the US was responsible for the Crusades or the events leading up to them. Nor do I recall a US role in setting up and then taking down the Seljuq Empire, the Byzantine Empire, or the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt. But hey, anything's possible, right?
 
So there were two groups with the same name: Mujahideen? I've read variant spellings of the same group--Mujahidin, Mujahideen, etc.--but I haven't read about two different groups using the same name. The reports I've read have always described the Mujahideen as a kind of coalition with a common enemy--the Soviet Union--much like in WWII the US and Brits allied with the Soviet Union against the common enemy--Nazi Germany.

Regarding two groups named Mujahideen, could be. Other cultures sometimes don't draw the same distinctions as the West.

Regardless, the point is still valid: The US didn't support the Taliban and then later take it down, as Epyon implied.

As for Epyon's other statement about supplying Iraq with military equipment in the past, the reports I've are that the US supplied 2% of what Iraq acquired from foreign sources, which explains why the Iraqis used MiG fighters, AK rifles, and Soviet tanks.
 
Mujahideen = freedom fighter/guerrilla.

They were not a cohesive "party" to begin with, just a type of resistance fighter/protectors/militia. This I learned from Afghan refugees back in the early 90s.

Pops
 
WhyteP38 time for a small rebuttal from me...

The stated goal of Al Qaeda is to establish a worldwide caliphate and to kill everyone who doesn't convert to their particular version of Islam. That's why they're killing Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, other Muslims, etc. I'd like to know what the compromise position is.
Click to expand...

As you stated in the above quote, however, there is not just one group affecting terrorism. Religious extremism of any kind regardless of religion is a dangerous thing. I do agree on diplomacy before violence, but just to understand, has any western nation attempted to negotiate or somehow work out something with ANY rebel group before having to escalate violence with more violence? Obviously though if a group insists it will not stop its violence with no chance of discussion, then of course by all means, "Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out." as the saying goes. So here's something to think about, what can be done to stop terrorism on a massive scale, without having to give up our freedoms and worry about giving the government an excuse to become a police state?


Epyon
 
So there were two groups with the same name: Mujahideen? I've read variant spellings of the same group--Mujahidin, Mujahideen, etc.--but I haven't read about two different groups using the same name. The reports I've read have always described the Mujahideen as a kind of coalition with a common enemy--the Soviet Union--much like in WWII the US and Brits allied with the Soviet Union against the common enemy--Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

It wasn't two groups it was a collective group of fighters during the Soviet invasion. After the Soviet occupation the hardline conservatives (Taliban) were supported by the Arabs and Pakistan. The moderate progressives (Northern Alliance) were supported by Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgistan. The Northern Alliance were primarily Tajiks and the Taliban were primarily Pashtuns. Even during the invasion by the Soviets the pashtuns and tajiks didn't care for each other, it was a marriage of convienience.
 
It wasn't two groups it was a collective group of fighters during the Soviet invasion.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't two separate groups, but instead a collective group, then my original statement about the Taliban being a faction--a group within a larger group--was correct.
 
I do agree on diplomacy before violence, but just to understand, has any western nation attempted to negotiate or somehow work out something with ANY rebel group before having to escalate violence with more violence? Obviously though if a group insists it will not stop its violence with no chance of discussion, then of course by all means, "Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out." as the saying goes.
Click to expand...
I don't have an answer for you; you'll need to provide some examples of these rebel groups. Not all rebel groups have peacefully raised their hands and said, "Hey, Western nation, we want some respect here. Please show it to us." Sometimes the first hint of something seriously wrong is when a bomb blows up. At that point, I'm not inclined to chat with the bomber about his feelings.
So here's something to think about, what can be done to stop terrorism on a massive scale, without having to give up our freedoms and worry about giving the government an excuse to become a police state?
Click to expand...
Depends on the terrorists with whom you're dealing. You may be able to negotiate with the IRA, but there's no middle ground with Al Qaeda. You can negotiate with your next-door neighbor; you can't negotiate with viruses and bacteria that are trying to kill you.

Here's something for you to think about: Why does everyone claim that a representative republic--the US--is weak and must contract its freedoms during a time of war? If we're so weak during war, how'd we become the world's only superpower? Our nation was founded on a distrust of government based on a realistic view of human nature. The genius of our Founding Fathers was their ability to so keenly recognize, understand, and plan around human strengths and weaknesses. It is for that reason that a nation founded on 18th century ideals has prospered so well. The times may change, but human nature doesn't.

Whether we are on the verge of WWIII or not isn't that important. It's just another number. When the history books of this period are written--hopefully in English by Americans--it may be seen as the Second Hundred Years War or some other thing. What's important is our reaction. Our freedoms are what make us strong and successful; taking those away is like giving Samson a buzz-cut. If we ever lose our freedoms, we'll have only ourselves to blame. And yes, that possibility does concern me.
 
not sure..either its a distraction from something else or something is brewing...maybe both.
Click to expand...
Your "something is brewing" made me think of a stock market term: a correction to the market.

Maybe this is a delayed correction to the political market from the end of the Cold War. I think we'll be able to ride this out until things settle into a rational mold. However, if Iran or North Korea uses nukes, it's going to be one hell of a bear market.
 
yup..thats no bull.

I really hope nukes arent depolyed.I think russia and china are wondering the same.it would be bad for everyone,everywhere which is why it has to stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top