• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

WWIII?

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
US Navy Veteran
Vietnam Veteran
Platinum Patron
Just on the news: The Isreal Lebanon conflict is now an All out military conflict.

Could we be witnessing theh beginings of WWIII?

I sure hope not, but it makes me wonder & worry.
 
Unless someone is dumb enough to attack the US or China then I think WWIII isn't going to happen. Now maybe Iran or Korea will be that dumb.

Who knows?
 
PBinWA said:
Unless someone is dumb enough to attack the US or China then I think WWIII isn't going to happen. Now maybe Iran or Korea will be that dumb.

Hmmm...maybe if China did get dragged in, they could play the part of 800 lb gorilla in place of the US. :confused2:
 
DaveNay said:
Honestly, how much supplies can Hezbollah have?
I read that they have over 10,000 rockets.

Now... a dumb question.

Since Israel has bombed a couple Lebanese military bases, I'm figuring the Lebanese army is going to join in the fray. But... who are tehy going to fight? Israel for aggressions against Lebanon or Hezbollah for instigating this and dragging Lebanon into a conflict with Israel. :o
 
bczoom said:
I'm figuring the Lebanese army is going to join in the fray. But... who are tehy going to fight? Israel for aggressions against Lebanon or Hezbollah for instigating this and dragging Lebanon into a conflict with Israel. :o

Isn't there an Arab saying. . . The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Lebanon has a long standing position that it cannot control the Hezbollah. It seems that Lebanon has enjoyed having a freely roaming army within its borders to do its bidding, but all the while attempting to maintain a level of plausable deniability regarding the actions of the Hezbollah who has willingly done the work that the Lebanese claim they are not responsible for.

What I don't understand is why doesn't the Arab League join together is some sort of cohesive group on this issue?
 
WWIII started at least as far back as the '93 bombing of the WTC if not further. We are at war now, and will continue to be until islamofacism is eradicated. WWIII will go down as the war against islam and the religion-of-peace's bid to control the world. I for one will die before I bow to mecca on a dirty prayer rug. (... and I'll take plenty of them with me.)

F**** them.

What I find hard to believe is the rampant antisemitism that is being spewed by much of europe (france, germany, russia, greese), 1, 2. Where is the outrage by the all-tollerant, peace-loving, left-wing (comunist filth) of America and the rest of the 'western' world? There is no such thing, that's why. They are the enemy within our society. They seem to do as much as they can to further the cause of these sub-human animals.

F**** them, too.
 
there are many who believe this was started by Iran as a deterent to the G8 summit against the nuclear problem with Iran... Now that Israel is dragged back into a two prong war,, think about it... might be a lot of truth to this
 
Av8r3400 said:
WWIII started at least as far back as the '93 bombing of the WTC if not further. We are at war now, and will continue to be until islamofacism is eradicated. WWIII will go down as the war against islam and the religion-of-peace's bid to control the world. I for one will die before I bow to mecca on a dirty prayer rug. (... and I'll take plenty of them with me.)

F**** them.

What I find hard to believe is the rampant antisemitism that is being spewed by much of europe (france, germany, russia, greese), 1, 2. Where is the outrage by the all-tollerant, peace-loving, left-wing (comunist filth) of America and the rest of the 'western' world? There is no such thing, that's why. They are the enemy within our society. They seem to do as much as they can to further the cause of these sub-human animals.

F**** them, too.


Yea! What he said.
Invade their countries.
Kill their leaders.
Take their oil.
Convert them to dead.
 
It sure looks like Israel is stepping up their defense and turning it into an offensive drive?

Lebanon, for those who are not familiar with it, is effectively a puppet under the control of Syria. Syria is pretty much a terrorist nation, and Syria funds the Hezbollah. Lebanon has tried to stand up to Syria, but is still really under the controlling thumb of Syria, and has no real effective way to control, and up until now had no real motiviating reason to even attempt to control the militant Hezboallah militias.


ap_small.gif

Israel intensifies attacks against Lebanon


By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago

Israel unleashed a furious military campaign on Lebanon's main airport, highways, military bases and other targets Thursday, retaliating for scores of Hezbollah guerrilla rockets that rained down on Israel and reached as far as Haifa, its third-largest city, for the first time.

The death toll in two days of fighting rose to 57 people with the sudden burst of violence sending shock waves through a region already traumatized by Iraq and the ongoing battles in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas. It shattered the relative calm in Lebanon that followed Israel's pullout from its occupied zone in south Lebanon in 2000 and the withdrawal of Syrian forces last year.

Israel's target was Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant Shiite faction which has a free hand in southern Lebanon and also holds seats in parliament. Hezbollah sparked the current conflict Wednesday with a cross-border raid that captured two of Israel's soldiers.

Israel said it was determined to beat Hezbollah back and deny the militant fighters positions they have held along the border since 2000.

The Lebanese government, caught in the middle, pleaded for a cease-fire.

"If the government of Lebanon fails to deploy its forces, as is expected of a sovereign government, we shall not allow Hezbollah forces to remain any further on the borders of the state of Israel," Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said.

Israeli warplanes stepped up the pressure early Friday, striking targets in the southern suburbs of Beirut where Hezbollah has its political headquarters, security officials said. The impact of at least four missiles were heard, but there was no immediate word on casualties.

The raid came just a few hours after Israeli planes dropped leaflets in south Beirut warning residents to avoid areas where Hezbollah operates.

Fears mounted among Arab and European governments that violence in Lebanon could spiral out of control.

Israeli analysts warned that Syria, which supports Hezbollah and plays host to Hamas' political leader Khaled Mashaal, could be Israel's next target.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said any Israeli attack against Syria would be an aggression on the whole Islamic world and warned of a harsh reaction, the official Iranian news agency reported Friday.
 

Attachments

  • 1a1.jpg
    1a1.jpg
    68.7 KB · Views: 120
  • 1a2.jpg
    1a2.jpg
    65.7 KB · Views: 117
  • 1a3.jpg
    1a3.jpg
    68.1 KB · Views: 120
It appears that the Iranian president has lost touch with reality. If Israel starts after Syria and Iran gets into the fray, they will have all their nuclear ambitions crushed by the Israelis. Even though the it has never been announced to the world, there is a strong suspicion that they do have "the bomb" and will not hesitate to use it if necessary. This might not be WWIII, but it might just be the beginning of a change in political views around the world.
 
FYI (all unclassified)
Dean


The fairly short summary below (without connecting to the links) is pretty good to find out how he perceives the fight. Good synopsis, I think.


Subject: The Long War - Our Nation's Global War At a Dinner General Membership Meeting of The Fort Hood Chapter of the Association of the United States Army in Killeen TX last month, Col Gary H. Cheek from J-5, JCS, presented a Special Briefing on "The Long War - Our Nation's Global War," which President Bush was due to sign as an official policy document.

The briefing was excellent! Had all 300+ attendees sitting on the edges of our chairs, even if it was a little long.

I recommend it to everyone when you have a little time to pull it out and review it. I only hope and pray that we can stay the course laid out so that it can, in fact, be accomplished.


http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/docs/2006-02-08-Strategic-Plan.pdf.


In summary, the article is condensed follows:


"It's a conflict of cultures - - Muslim extremism on one side and western concepts of democracy and modernity on the other. And according to COL Gary H. Cheek, who briefed chapter members as Chief, Strategic Planning Division in the Office of the J5, JCS, it will be a 'Long War.'


For average Americans, a war against global terrorism is difficult to understand and a sustained state of war alien to our nature. Further, research suggests that while insurgencies typically last nine years, the American people are prepared to support a war for only about three. That creates a six year gap - a gap in which our nation now finds itself.


Unlike past wars, this Global War on Terrorism is not being fought solely within specific national borders. This war, COL Cheek stressed, is a transnational movement of extremist organizations, networks and individuals who share a common purpose. Quoting Zeyno Baran in 'Fighting the War of Ideas' (Foreign Affairs, Dec. '05), 'the west is being drawn into the clash of two competing ideologies within the Islamic world. Proponents of the first believe that Islam is compatible with secular democracy and basic civil liberties. Proponents of the second are committed to replacing the current world order with a new caliphate - - that is, a global Islamic state.'

This concept of a global Islamic state has its origins in earlier history and Muslim domination of most of Africa, the Middle East, much of SW Asia and SE Europe achieved by 1500. Today, with that former domination now past, many Muslims feel a severe loss of dignity and honor. This loss provides Al Qa'ida's leadership with easy access to an aggrieved population able to attract recruits with their extremist ideology.

COL Cheek described Al Qa'ida's plan, obtained through captured documents. That plan seeks to expel American influence from the Mideast; remove all secular governments within the region; eliminate Israel and purge Jewish and Christian influence from the region; and expand the Muslim empire to its 15th century historical boundaries. Cheek emphasized these points with a quote from Osama bin Laden: 'We are seeking to incite the Islamic Nation to rise up to liberate its land and to conduct jihad for the sake of God.' COL Cheek added, 'in 100 years, they expect to achieve global dominance.'

COL Cheek next detailed our nation's strategy for the Global War on Terrorism. Its principal aims call for the defeat of violent extremism as a threat to our way of life and creation of a global environment inhospitable to violent extremists and those who support them. Cheek described ways by which this strategy will be achieved in protecting and defending the homeland and US interests aboard, attacking terrorists and their capacity to operate at home and abroad, and supporting mainstream Muslim efforts to reject violent extremism.

Our national strategy seeks to deny terrorists the resources (especially WMD) needed to operate; aid partner nations in their efforts to counter terrorism; partner with other nations to counter terrorism; defeat terrorists and their organizations; counter state and non-state support for terrorism; and contribute to establishing conditions that will successfully counter ideological support for terrorism. That is tough work - and will take time.

But then, COL Cheek stressed, waging and winning wars DO take time. He cited examples - the Cold War, our defeat of communism and the emergence of the Republic of Korea from a devastated post-WWII peninsula to a respected and democratic Asian economic power. These transformations took time. And winning this Global War on Terrorism, he said, will take time. But to fail would be disastrous - for the US and other western democracies.

Winning the Muslim population is key. In that sense, this truly is a war for the hearts and minds of Muslims throughout the world. Worldwide, there are 1.3 billion Muslims; if only 1% of that population choose to actively support the terrorists, that's 13 Million dedicated to that extremist cause.

COL Cheek closed with a quote from President Ronald Reagan, in speaking of the Cold War; 'The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas - a trial of spiritual resolve; the values we hold, we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.' That remains true today."


Sobering, indeed.
 
After 9/11 the US (and many other nations) decided to destroy Al Quiada's base of strenght if their host nation would not give them up. The US was stonewalled by the Taliban government of Afghanistan so the US (with the help of many other nations) destroyed the Talibani government. The world, including most Muslim nations, felt this was "just" action.

Israel was been attacked many times by the Hezbollah, and most recently endured an assault which resulted in the kidnapping of some of its soldiers on its own soil.

Are the actions of Israel any different than the actions that were taken by the US?


ap_small.gif

Israel destroys home of Hezbollah leader


By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer 59 minutes ago

Israel destroyed the home and office of Hezbollah's leader Friday and tightened its seal on Lebanon, blasting its air and road links to the outside world to punish the guerrilla group — and with it, the country — for the capture of two Israeli soldiers.

Hezbollah's Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and his family were safe after the Israeli missiles demolished the two buildings in Beirut's crowded southern neighborhoods, the militant group said.

"You wanted an open war and we are ready for an open war," Nasrallah said, addressing Israelis in an audiotape played on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television. The speech apparently was prerecorded and did not refer to the missile attack.

Hezbollah hit an Israeli warship in Lebanese waters that had been firing missiles into southern Beirut. An Israeli army spokesman said the ship had apparently been struck by a rocket but that the damage was minor and no one was injured.

Israel's attack on Nasrallah underlined its determination to take the fight directly to Hezbollah's leadership, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed the massive campaign would continue until the guerrillas were neutralized.

Warplanes again smashed runways at Beirut's airport with hours of airstrikes, trying to render it unusable, and destroyed mountain bridges on the main highway to Syria. Warships blockaded Lebanon's ports for a second day.

Smoke drifted over the capital after strikes exploded fuel tanks at one of Beirut's two main power stations, gradually escalating the damage to Lebanon's key infrastructure. Apartment buildings were shattered by strikes in south Beirut.

In response, Lebanese guerrillas fired a barrage of at least 50 Katyusha rockets throughout the day, hitting more than a dozen communities across northern Israel.

The death toll in three days of fighting rose to 73 killed in Lebanon — almost all civilians, including five killed in strikes Friday — and 12 in Israel, including four killed in rocket attacks. The violence sent shock waves through a region already traumatized by the ongoing battles in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas.

Israel's strikes on the airport and roads and naval blockade all but cut off Lebanon from the world, while hits on infrastructure aimed to exact a price from its government for allowing Hezbollah to operate freely in the south.

At the same time, strikes on Hezbollah — including ones targeting its leadership in south Beirut — aimed to pressure the Shiite Muslim guerrillas to release the Israeli soldiers captured Wednesday and push the militants away from Israel's northern border.
 
B_Skurka said:
Are the actions of Israel any different than the actions that were taken by the US?

Nope; not at all. Quite frankly, I do not understand the call from so many countries for Israel to use restraint in their response. They have had terrorists fire hundreds of rockets indiscriminately into their country hoping to kill anyone. Israel has used precision strikes at specific non-civilian targets. I don't get it.

Also, for some reason it really strikes me wrong when the leader of Iran comes out today and repeats several times that "the U.S. and Israel combined do have enough power to even give us a dirty look".

Is he that stupid?? Does he not understand that if he manages to fire a nuclear weapon at Israel that Iran may likely not be fit for any form of life for about 50 years after just Israel responds?!
 
Well I figured I would dig up some other points of view.

GERMANY:
Kate Bowen interviewed Michael Stürmer | www.dw-world.de | © Deutsche Welle.
"Israel Was Massively Provoked"

Stürmer: Hezbolla knew what would happend when they kidnapped the Israeli soldiers German historian Michael Stürmer talked to DW-WORLD.DE about Israel's motivations behind the attacks on Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon, the background of the conflict, and what the recent crisis could mean for Germany.

Michael Stürmer is one of Germany's best-known historians. He teaches at the University of Erlangen and has written extensively on the Middle East conflict, including co-editing a book, called "Allies Divided. Atlantic Security and the Greater Middle East."

DW-WORLD.DE: Israel's attack is being viewed by many as offensive instead of defensive. Is that the case, in your opinion?

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: The militant Hamas is a pan-Arab movement set on revolution
Michael Stürmer: The Israeli attack was not an unprovoked one. There were two very deliberate, focused attacks and both the Hamas leadership and Hezbollah leadership know extremely well that Israel's defense forces don't leave their own people alive or dead in the lurch. This is only the primer. What we see on the television screen is only the foreground.
In the background you have a much more complicated problem -- a real Gordian knot of problems.

One is that Hamas is a much wider pan-Arab movement -- as opposed to Fatah, which is a Palestinian nationalist movement. It's a revolutionary movement which is not only directed against Israel as a state, but also against the regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. Hamas is backed up from Tehran and maybe also from other parts of the Arab world. Hezbollah is also backed from Tehran and Syria. Both Tehran and Syria play a very important role in it.

Do you think that Israel had alternatives to a military attack?

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: "Here I am at your service Mohammed" read the bandanas of Hezbollah marchers
All the wise, great and the good tell you that diplomacy is the answer. If your people are taken away, shot, bombed, and blown up -- then diplomacy obviously isn't very helpful. Israel is a democracy. They have to do something. They have to show the people that the state protects them and that the Israeli defense forces are not there just for show but for real. Israel was massively provoked. They have held back for a long time and they've withdrawn from Gaza. (Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert has announced that they will also withdraw from large parts of the West Bank, which makes sense and is more or less inevitable.

What we have now is that the Hamas leadership is trying to keep Israel within this hornet's nest called Gaza in order to bleed Israel and revolutionize the Middle East in the Hamas sense. This is a very old pattern. It occurred in Europe; it's occurring in the Middle East. You have a revolutionary, trans-national movement transcending the state structure and this is precisely what Hamas wants. Sacrificing a few hundred or a few thousand civilians doesn't matter at all. These are nihilistic people pretending to do the work of Allah.




AUSTRALIA:
masthead.gif
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif] UN quiet on Lebanese ceasefire calls[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif] by Giles Hewitt in United Nations[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif]15jul06[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif] THE UN Security Council debated the violence in Lebanon in an emergency meeting overnight that ended with no action on Beirut's demand for an immediate end to Israeli airstrikes on its territory.

The debate highlighted divisions in the Council, with the United States standing alone in refusing to even caution restraint from Israel over its military offensives in both Lebanon and Gaza. US Ambassador John Bolton laid sole blame for the escalating violence in the region on Iran and Syria and their support for militant groups like Hezbollah and the armed wing of Hamas.

"Syria and Iran must be held to account for supporting regional terrorism and their role in the current crisis," said US Ambassador John Bolton.

"All militias in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, must disarm and disband immediately," he added.
The special council debate had been requested by the Lebanese government as Israeli planes launched fresh attacks on Hezbollah's command headquarters in Beirut's southern suburbs and other targets.
The Israeli offensive was triggered when Hezbollah guerrillas seized two Israeli servicemen in a deadly raid across the volatile Lebanon-Israel border on Wednesday.

Council members united in condemning the Hezbollah action and repeated rocket attacks into Israel, but most also voiced concern over the level of the Israeli military response which French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere described as "disproportionate."

The United States, however, made no mention whatsoever of the Israeli attacks, calling instead on Iran and Syria to stop their sponsorship of the Hezbollah and Hamas militants.



[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif]LEBANON
[/FONT]

Copyright (c) 2006 The Daily Star
Friday, July 14, 2006 War of destruction: Friday afternoon


Compiled by Daily Star staff

BEIRUT: Israel destroyed the home and office of Hezbollah's leader Friday and tightened its seal on Lebanon, blasting its air and road links to the outside world to punish the guerrilla group-and with it, the country-for the capture of two Israeli soldiers.

Hezbollah's Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and his family were safe after missiles demolished the two buildings in Beirut's crowded southern neighborhoods, Hezbollah said.

But the strike underlined Israel's determination to take the fight direct to Hezbollah's leadership as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed the massive campaign would continue until the guerrillas were neutralized.

Warplanes again smashed runways at Beirut's airport with hours of airstrikes, trying to render it unusable, and destroyed mountain bridges on the main highway to Syria. Warships blockaded Lebanon's ports for a second day. Smoke drifted over the capital after strikes exploded fuel tanks at one of Beirut's two main power stations, gradually escalating the damage to Lebanon's key infrastructure. Apartment buildings were shattered by strikes in south Beirut.

Lebanese guerrillas responded with an intensified barrage of at least 50 Katyusha rockets throughout the day into northern Israeli towns, killing a woman and her grandson.

The death toll in three days of fighting rose to 73 killed in Lebanon-almost all civilians, including five who died in strikes in south Beirut and the south Friday-and 12 in Israel, including four civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets. The violence sent shock waves through a region already traumatized by the ongoing battles in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas.

Olmert told U.N. chief Kofi Annan in a phone call that the offensive would not halt until Hezbollah guerillas are disarmed.

But he agreed to allow U.N. mediation for a cease-fire-but only if the terms for the truce included the return of the soldiers and the disarming of the guerrillas, an official close to the premier said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

At the same time, Israel sought to exact a price from the Lebanese government for allowing Hezbollah to operate freely in the south. Its strikes on the airport and roads and naval blockade all but cut off Lebanon from the world as it gradually increased the punishment to infrastructure.

But there were fears-acknowledged by U.S. President George W. Bush-that the Israeli assault could bring down the Western-backed, anti-Syrian government of Lebanon.

SAUDI ARABIA

The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily​
pixel.gif

Friday, 14, July, 2006 Saner Counsels Must Prevail: Kingdom
Arab News —
JEDDAH, 14 July 2006 — Saudi Arabia, wary about the escalating tensions in the Middle East following Israel’s attack of Lebanon and Palestine, called for saner counsels to prevail.
An official source said Saudi Arabia has always been an avid believer in the rights of nations subjected to occupation to resist it in all its shapes and forms, according to the Saudi Press Agency.
The nation has the right to reject the occupation’s illegal procedures that aim at erasing a nation’s identity and altering ground realities.
This has been the basis of the Kingdom’s stand with regard to the legal Palestinian resistance to military occupation. This has also been the Kingdom’s firm stand with the Lebanese resistance until the end of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.
The source added that the Kingdom wanted to clearly state that there must be a differentiation between legal resistance and unaccountable adventures committed by elements within a state without referring to a legal state authority, or consulting and coordinating with Arab countries. Their actions thus expose all Arab countries to grave danger and their achievements to destruction, SPA quoted the source as saying.
The Kingdom sees that the time has come for these elements to solely bear the full responsibility for such irresponsible actions and the task of ending the crisis, that they have triggered, should fall singularly on them.
 
Latest news is that Hezbolah fired a missle at an Israli ship, and missed....

...instead hitting and Egyptian ship. :hide:


ap_small.gif

Israel: Hezbollah rocket hits merchant ship


By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 12 minutes ago

A Hezbollah rocket barrage aimed at Israeli warships missed their target and struck a civilian merchant ship in the Mediterranean Sea, Israeli military officials said early Saturday.

The officials did not know the nationality of the ship, or whether there were casualties. The officials could not be identified under military regulations.

The rocket attack occurred late Friday at the same time Hezbollah struck an Israeli warship, causing heavy damage to the vessel.

The Israeli army said it was investigating the cause of the attack on the warship, but military officials said it had been struck by an unmanned aircraft. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was at its early stages.
 
WE should learn to forgive :o And turn and put are hand out & and say that we forgive them:gay:


And bring them all together :batterUp: and show , them that we can all live in Peace. Without them :US_flag: Hou HA !!!
 
Lately I havent had much time to read this forum very often but the fact that most of you guys seem to have a "woohoo lets go to war with another country" attitude scares the shit out of me. Before you blindly advocate going to war you really ought to read the lessons of history a little bit more in depth. We are far from "winning" the war against terrorism and the repercussions of this war have not been felt yet. I just read an article recently by William Lind that might put a new perspective on the headlong rush to keeping going to war ( I know most of the people on this site are "conservative" so this might explain a few historical trends):

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Is Washington playing at war?[/FONT] By William S. Lind
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]web posted February 17, 2003[/SIZE][/FONT]
When I had lunch recently with the thoughtful foreign policy columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, the first thing she asked me was, "Can you make any sense out of what is going on?" I assured her that, like most of the people I know, I could not. Washington seems hell-bent on war with Iraq, and nobody (including my friends in the military) understands why.

Secretary of State Powell's speech to the U.N. did not answer the question. Considering that we are talking about war here, the grounds he offered for it were trifling. It brought to mind the War of Jenkins' Ear, when in the 18th century England declared war on Spain over the ear of a British merchant captain named Jenkins, supposedly sliced off his head by a Spanish coast guardsman (Jenkins presented the ear, pickled in a bottle, to Parliament). After the war was over, no one really understood why it had been fought.
The mismatch between causes and means raises a deeply troubling question: is Washington playing at war? Make no mistake: war is the most perilous and unpredictable of all human endeavors. Playing with war is more dangerous than playing with fire, because fire can usually be contained; war, too often, cannot. Wars have an unpleasant habit of evolving in ways that none of the participants anticipated. When, in the summer of 1914, Europe resounded with cries of "A Berlin!" or "Nach Paris!", no one imagined the Somme, or Verdun, or the starvation blockade of Germany that killed 750,000 civilians.
The sense that Washington is playing at war is strengthened if we analyze the politics. If the Bush Administration were in desperate political trouble, one could at least see a rationale for a wild gamble on war. But politically, the Administration could hardly be riding higher. It just gained strength in Congress in an off-year election, a rare event. Bush's poll numbers are more than comfortable. Yet the White House is risking it all on a single throw of the dice. If this war goes badly, it is the end of George W. Bush and any hope of a Republican ascendancy for the next twenty years. Our next President might well be Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Rumsfeld recently said that a war with Iraq would be over in six days or perhaps six weeks; it almost certainly would not last six months. Here, too one senses someone playing at war. What if Iraq fights in the cities, where the built environment negates "hi-tech" weaponry? What if we take Baghdad, only to have a suitcase nuke go off in Seattle? What if Willie says to Joe, "Hey, Joe, you got a case of the sniffles?", and we find thousands of our troops dying from a genetically engineered disease? All these possibilities are quite real. But the War Party in Washington dismisses them with a shrug.
If anyone should be cautious about playing at war, it is conservatives. The greatest conservative catastrophe in the 20th Century was World War I. The three conservative monarchies that had kept the poisons of the French Revolution in check through the 19th century, Russia, Prussia and Austria, were all swept away by that disastrous war. As the Marxist historian Arno Mayer has correctly argued, the result was a vast spectrum shift to the left. Before World War I, America and France, because they were republics, represented the international left. By 1919, they represented the international right, not because they had changed, but because the world had shifted around them. The reason Americans today find themselves living in a moral and cultural sewer, is, in the end, World War I.
Then, too, in that fateful summer of 1914, governments played at war. Austria saw a chance to restore her image as a Great Power. Russia perceived an opportunity to take revenge on Austria for her humiliation in the Bosnian Annexation Crisis of 1908. The Kaiser, rightly, told the Chief of the German General Staff, Moltke the younger, that he wanted to stay on the defensive in the west and attack in the east, which would have kept Britain out of the war. Moltke collapsed on a couch and said it could not be done (the plans were actually in the file), and the Kaiser gave in. Everyone agreed that the troops would be home before the leaves fell.
Four miserable years and millions of dead later, the Kaiser was an exile in Holland, the Tsar and his family were dead and Austria-Hungary had ceased to exist. The British empire had bled to death in the mud of Flanders, and on the streets of Paris, there were no young men. The future belonged to people no one had ever heard of, Lenin, Hitler and Stalin.
If there is a game conservatives should never allow their government to play, it is playing at war.
esr.jpg

William S. Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation.

The above article came from: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0203/0203warplay.htm
 
I have a great deal of respect for JD's post and thoughts, which I read and consider carefully whenever I see them. His positions are well researched and well thought out. There is indeed a lot to be learned from history. However learning is relative of perspective, as are the lessons learned. JD's article speaks of the unforeseen starving of Germans. The author could have, or anybody could have, made similar statements relative to the unforeseen Nuking of two Japanese cities.

War like fire does spread unpredictably. Hell, I think we are all a bit scared.

Possibly what JD identifies as a willing full rush to go to war is in reality an expression of frustration over the "gloves on'' approach that we continue to take in this effort. It is for me at least. I won’t speak for others.
We all have beliefs and have each individually gathered lessons from history.

I believe in the existence of good and evil. I also believe, and history has at least indicated to me, that good "will out". Communism took a blow in the cold war. The Nazis were defeated. Japan's imperialism defeated. I think these were all the defeats of evil.

In the instances of both the Nazis' and Japan, it took crushing, overwhelming force and punishment to turn the will of the aggressor countries populations, and force the leadership to abate their actions.

To my knowledge radical Islam has yet to suffer overwhelming and crushing punishment by force, to either themselves, or the people they claim to represent, the silent majority of Muslims. This silent majority and their questionable position was the subject of another thread.

The radical elements among them continue to ratchet up their rhetoric and their violence. They set silent.

I think they too have failed to learn from history. I agree, our "gloves on" politically correct approach is not working. Maybe it is time for their lesson.
 
Glink said:
Maybe it is time for their lesson.

I think that "lesson" may come at the point in time that Iran actually believes that they can remove Israel from existance and tries to do so.
 
The world is ignoring/avoiding the fact that this is a war between Syria/Iran and Israel. Hezbollah is a front to protect the other countries from retribution and is being used by Syria/Iran to hide behind and manipulate their position.

The sad thing is that any war against Syria and Iran will have to be nuclear as Israel doesn't have the logistical ability to sustain a long drawn out ground war.

The only thing that could prevent the war from going nuclear is for Israel to get an ally in the battle. Guess who they want that to be and we don't want it to be?

It's an ugly scenario. Small regional nuclear war of unknown outcome or another long conventional battle that requires US involvement. Or do we all just turn our backs on the people of Israel again and stick our heads in the sand. If we let these thugs get away with that they will be after us next.

I'm not sure of the parallels of JD's original post. I see the parallels in the US invasion of Iraq - but that is only one piece of the puzzle. Iran/Syria are trying to get the US involved but aren't prepared to attack the US directly. They want a long drawn out conventional battle that drains the spirit and resolve of what they see as a fickle and weak democracy.

PB
 
For a different perspective on what is really going on over there it is worth reading a few of the articles from William Lind :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind-arch.html

If what he says is true then what we are seeing could possibly be part of a long drawn out plan on the part of Iran and/or Al Quaeda to draw both Israel and the US into a position where we are bogged down in cesspool of insurgent warfare. We have had debates here on this site about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons - my personal opinion is that if they don't already have them then they are probably damn close to getting them. Hezbollah supposedly has something like 10,000 rockets if you believe the news reports. Where did they get those? Iran has been setting this whole thing up for a long time. According to the latest news reports I have been reading the Sunni's in Iraq are now in favor of the US staying in the country as a counterweight to the growing influence and violence of Shiite militias. Guess what Muslim sect Iran is - Shiite. Shiites also comprise the majority of the population of Iraq. Our military is in a precarious position in Iraq because all of our supply lines run thru Kuwait - and Kuwait and Iran are pretty close together at the tip of the Gulf. Iran could make supplying our troops pretty miserable if they wanted to by launching attacks against Kuwaiti ports. Also the lower half of Iraq is Shiite - the upper is Sunni - again not a good situation if the Shiites decide to join with Iran and oppose us and/or Iran goes into Iraq and cuts off our military. I think Iran is looking for an excuse to go to war with us - and we are apparently working as hard as we can to give it to them.

There has been reaction to some of my previous postings about this whole Iraq/Iran/Al Quaeda/terrorism thing that I sympathize with the terrorists and other such crap. My point has always been that there always were alternatives to defeat the Muslims and - alternatives that would have cost us less in money and lives - and been much more likely to truly defeat them in the end. So far I think we are up to something 325-350 billion dollars spent on the Iraq war. We have something like 2500 US soldiers dead - plus I don't know how many maimed for life. The recent flap over the NY Times exposure of US Govt methods of tracking terrorist money brought out some stories where US military officers on the ground in Iraq made statement about how the true way to defeat the terrorists and insurgents is to take away their money, again pretty much the point I have been trying to make all along.

Do we still continue to buy oil from Saudi Arabia? from Iraq? , from Iran? - then we are in effect fighting the Islamics at the same time we are supporting them. If we had never gone to war and we had instead as a country resolved to stop any and all inflow of money into the Islamic countries of the Mideast by refusing to do any business with them whatsoever (mostly means don't buy oil from them) - then we would have brought them to their knees economically by removing the major source of their funding. This of course would mean developing alternative sources of energy - but that 350 billion that has spent on the war so far would have gone a hell of a long way towards jump starting an alternative energy sector in the economy. Instead now we are stuck in a shithole mess that only appears to get worse by the day. And the people who stand to take the worst of it are the US military over in Iraq - there is a real potential here for another Bataan or Custers last stand type of situation - where our military is simply overrun by vastly superior forces. Anybody advocating "expanding" this war ought to think long and hard about that - and also think about what a defeat of that magnitude would mean to the US as a nation in the long run.
 
Good post PB and JD!!!!! :applause:

I agree with the majority of your post JD, but I can't agree that our military could be overrun with vastly superior forces. I see our vunerability as being spread to thin. It is impossible to calculate all possibilities to any major conflict. That was my point in starting this thread. The conflicts take on a life of their own, much like a forest fire. They can be near impossible to control or predict.
 
B_Skurka said:
What I don't understand is why doesn't the Arab League join together is some sort of cohesive group on this issue?
Over the last couple of days it is becoming very obivous that the Arab League, the Saudis, Egyptions, Jordanians, etc have come together as a group on this issue. It seems that they have told the Hezbollah that they are on their own. It seems that only the Iranians (who I think are Persians?) are supporting the Hezbollah via the Syrians. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the major Muslim nations want nothing to do with the actions of the Hezbollah.

Now the quesiton is did the Hezbollah take this action simply to divert attention away from the nuclear issue in Iran?

And did Iran, which funnels money and weapons through Syria, encourage the Hezbollah to take this action?

And if there is any truth to that, then what is really going on in Iran?

And if Iran is really close to an atomic weapon, then what will nations like Barhain, Kuwait, Quatar, Saudia Arabia, Turkey and Russia do to respond since they are all in close proximity and while they may not be enemies of Iran they are not necessarily happy with Iran.
 
Top