Next World War

[Memnoch1207]

For some reason I am getting this strange feeling that an all out world war isn't too far away.

Iraq
Afghanistan
Now Hamas has stated that the U.S. could be a possible target for attacks for its backing of Israel.

I think I am going to build a bunker. I'll see you guys in about 10 years!

[HardCode]

Nah, not to worry. The next world war would be something like this:

Islamic Extremists pour out of the Middle East in something of a "reverse-Crusade."

* Turkey lets them through because the Ambassabor is still looking at the Swiss Bank Account for the deposit from Washington
* Greece falls because all of their troops are on Cyprus or at the beach.
* Italy sides with them and then realizes what they did - again.
* Germany releases propaganda blaming Israel
* France surrenders while they are still in Turkey 100s of miles away
* England's gov't is ready to fight but its citizens don't believe the Islamists can swim to their island so they drink at the pub instead
* Russia is too busy looking for its lost nukes to bother
* Switzerland stays neutral and earns interest on everyone's money
* The whole of Europe comes crying to the United States for the third time in 100 years. When will they ever learn to stand on their own feet?

[Xanith]

Guess who is doing joint military exercises with China on the eve of elections in Taiwan? France. New lines are being drawn as we speak, very dangerous ones.

X

[TheVader]

Originally posted by HardCode
Nah, not to worry. The next world war would be something like this:

Islamic Extremists pour out of the Middle East in something of a "reverse-Crusade."

* Turkey lets them through because the Ambassabor is still looking at the Swiss Bank Account for the deposit from Washington
* Greece falls because all of their troops are on Cyprus or at the beach.
* Italy sides with them and then realizes what they did - again.
* Germany releases propaganda blaming Israel
* France surrenders while they are still in Turkey 100s of miles away
* England's gov't is ready to fight but its citizens don't believe the Islamists can swim to their island so they drink at the pub instead
* Russia is too busy looking for its lost nukes to bother
* Switzerland stays neutral and earns interest on everyone's money
* The whole of Europe comes crying to the United States for the third time in 100 years. When will they ever learn to stand on their own feet?

Hey, don't forget us! What's our role in the war?

[Shawn N]

Read the story on John Titor. It's so incredible, but the storys are kind of freaky and seem to be coming true.

[Foxer]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
I think I am going to build a bunker. I'll see you guys in about 10 years!

My bunker is available for rent. I only used it once since the Y2K scaremongering. I figured a cold concrete floor was more hospitable than my wife's mood on that particular day.

[nkad]

You know, just think about how much crap everyone would accomplish if no one had to go though the process of war.

[demotivater]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
For some reason I am getting this strange feeling that an all out world war isn't too far away.

Iraq
Afghanistan
Now Hamas has stated that the U.S. could be a possible target for attacks for its backing of Israel.

I think I am going to build a bunker. I'll see you guys in about 10 years!

Hamas threatening the worlds largest superpower!! Run, everyone run! Pfft. I think we could deal with Hamas faster than a Palestinian runs from rubber bullets.

[demotivater]

Originally posted by Shawn N
Read the story on John Titor. It's so incredible, but the storys are kind of freaky and seem to be coming true.

Yea, and next we'll all be drafted to join the Morrow Project. If we're not to busy in our mechwarriors.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by demotivater
Hamas threatening the worlds largest superpower!! Run, everyone run! Pfft. I think we could deal with Hamas faster than a Palestinian runs from rubber bullets.

How? You know nothing about dealing with terrorism. All the US does is bomb terrorist training camps or kill paramilitary leaders.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by HardCode
Nah, not to worry. The next world war would be something like this:

Islamic Extremists pour out of the Middle East in something of a "reverse-Crusade."

* Turkey lets them through because the Ambassabor is still looking at the Swiss Bank Account for the deposit from Washington
* Greece falls because all of their troops are on Cyprus or at the beach.
* Italy sides with them and then realizes what they did - again.
* Germany releases propaganda blaming Israel
* France surrenders while they are still in Turkey 100s of miles away
* England's gov't is ready to fight but its citizens don't believe the Islamists can swim to their island so they drink at the pub instead
* Russia is too busy looking for its lost nukes to bother
* Switzerland stays neutral and earns interest on everyone's money
* The whole of Europe comes crying to the United States for the third time in 100 years. When will they ever learn to stand on their own feet?

At present it looks more like the Al Qaeda will finish off half of the US troops in Iraq. And the US is even now running around, trying to seek all kinds of help from nations to deal with what's left of Iraq now.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by demotivater
Hamas threatening the worlds largest superpower!! Run, everyone run! Pfft. I think we could deal with Hamas faster than a Palestinian runs from rubber bullets.

I think you forgot the lesson of 9/11. Or maybe you didn't look at it as a lesson. Looks like you would chop of your finger if it ever turned sore.

.

[mudfish]

Originally posted by honeybee
At present it looks more like the Al Qaeda will finish off half of the US troops in Iraq. And the US is even now running around, trying to seek all kinds of help from nations to deal with what's left of Iraq now.

.

No Bush is not handling Al Qaeda right! But we are not done with Al Qaeda!!! With are with out Bush!!!!
And NO I DO NOT FORGET!

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
At present it looks more like the Al Qaeda will finish off half of the US troops in Iraq. And the US is even now running around, trying to seek all kinds of help from nations to deal with what's left of Iraq now.

.

They are going to have to pick it up a bit then because at the current causality rates it will take 100 years just to equal the losses in Viet Nam.

X

[venerable bede]

Originally posted by HardCode
Nah, not to worry. The next world war would be something like this:

Islamic Extremists pour out of the Middle East in something of a "reverse-Crusade."

* Turkey lets them through because the Ambassabor is still looking at the Swiss Bank Account for the deposit from Washington
* Greece falls because all of their troops are on Cyprus or at the beach.
* Italy sides with them and then realizes what they did - again.
* Germany releases propaganda blaming Israel
* France surrenders while they are still in Turkey 100s of miles away
* England's gov't is ready to fight but its citizens don't believe the Islamists can swim to their island so they drink at the pub instead
* Russia is too busy looking for its lost nukes to bother
* Switzerland stays neutral and earns interest on everyone's money
* The whole of Europe comes crying to the United States for the third time in 100 years. When will they ever learn to stand on their own feet?

If I remember rightly, the USA didnt declare war on Germany till Germany declared war on them.

Had Germany not done this America would still be lending money to England to do its fighting whilst sitting on there arses gettin obese while V3 rockets pummelled the twin towers.

[mudfish]

Originally posted by venerable bede
Had Germany not done this America would still be lending money to England to do its fighting whilst sitting on there arses gettin obese while V3 rockets pummelled the twin towers.

I think you be speaking Germen!

[Wally Pipp]

Germen ? Good grief, spare us that !

This is fun ...

[R Sole]

Seeing as English stems from a branch of German languages, we already are...


Some rabbit told me that

[Wally Pipp]

[mudfish]

I know the UK did not need us!
Right!

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by venerable bede
If I remember rightly, the USA didnt declare war on Germany till Germany declared war on them.

Had Germany not done this America would still be lending money to England to do its fighting whilst sitting on there arses gettin obese while V3 rockets pummelled the twin towers.

Actually, that isn't historically correct. The U.S. declared war on the Japanese, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. being involved with the European war was a result of the alliances we had with Britain and France.

[HardCode]

No, unfortunately he is right. The US declared war on Japan. When this was public, Hitler declared war on the US because of the Axis treaty, and only then did we declare war back on Germany.

And this is a point that the liberals forget. They fail to remember that the US pretended that the world wasn't at war in 1941. This was because of Isolationist policy and public thinking. As we should have learned from history, this isolationist policy doesn't work.

Today, bleeding heart liberals cry and the rest of the world cries that the US is trying to "police the world" or "in everyone else's business." They fail to see what happens when we do adopt a stance of isolationism ... hell breaks loose in the world because most other countries don't have the heart to stand up to evil.

[Wally Pipp]

Hey Ranj, how's me old fanny magnet ?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
They are going to have to pick it up a bit then because at the current causality rates it will take 100 years just to equal the losses in Viet Nam.

X

I don't think they are in a hurry

.

[venerable bede]

I think we should all have a fight.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by HardCode

And this is a point that the liberals forget. They fail to remember that the US pretended that the world wasn't at war in 1941. This was because of Isolationist policy and public thinking. As we should have learned from history, this isolationist policy doesn't work.

Agreed. But what has this to do with liberals. Surely you would have us believe that it's the liberals in America who are agianst the current regime's isolationist policy's..... Or do you think that Bush is a real team player with the rest of the world.

Not trying to start a fight, just curious if you think that the US is Isolationist or not, just now.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by Shawn N
Read the story on John Titor. It's so incredible, but the storys are kind of freaky and seem to be coming true.

What a load of crap.

[HardCode]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Agreed. But what has this to do with liberals. Surely you would have us believe that it's the liberals in America who are agianst the current regime's isolationist policy's..... Or do you think that Bush is a real team player with the rest of the world.

Not trying to start a fight, just curious if you think that the US is Isolationist or not, just now.

An Isolationist USA would mean that we wouldn't have troops over in Iraq. Isolationism doesn't imply doing something alone in this context, rather whether or not the country does or doesn't care about the rest of the world. So this administration is far from Isolationist, where as the Roosevelt administration was isolationist until Pearl Harbor. Think about it, maybe Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened if we jumped right in with the Allies. Maybe we stopped another 9/11 already by going ahead on our own and kicking butt on our own...

We win this war on terror not by what DOES happen, but rahter we prove victory by what DOESN'T happen. So far, the US is winning big time because there has not been another attack on US soil since 9/11. The slacker countries of the world who won't bother to join in are the ones getting hit.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by HardCode
An Isolationist USA would mean that we wouldn't have troops over in Iraq. Isolationism doesn't imply doing something alone in this context, rather whether or not the country does or doesn't care about the rest of the world. So this administration is far from Isolationist, where as the Roosevelt administration was isolationist until Pearl Harbor. Think about it, maybe Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened if we jumped right in with the Allies. Maybe we stopped another 9/11 already by going ahead on our own and kicking butt on our own...

We win this war on terror not by what DOES happen, but rahter we prove victory by what DOESN'T happen. So far, the US is winning big time because there has not been another attack on US soil since 9/11. The slacker countries of the world who won't bother to join in are the ones getting hit.

Er, actually, I think most analyst will argue that this is the most isolationist US government in a long time. Case in point:
- Kyoto (US refuses to sign up)
- World human Rights Court (US refuses to be part of it)
- Repeated trade violations over lumber and steel
- Disregarding the UN and going into Iraq
- Insulting other countries to strengthen nationalistic support
- Landmine Treaty (US wouldn't sign)
- Nuclear Arms treaty (US pulled out)
- New treaty on limitation of battlefield nuclear weapons (US won't sign)

Hardly a team player. The US has never been so isolated in my lifetime as it is now.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992738

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/27/oakley.bush/

As for the whole no more attacks on US soil bit, that is an interesting statement. What about all the Anthrax stuff....?

As for the slacker countries you mention that are targeted? Spain? Australia? Britain? Mmmmm..... your choice of words for your supposed allies is a bit unusual, either that or you have very little knowledge about this subject???

[rdove]

- Kyoto (US refuses to sign up)

Don't really know much about it, so can't comment...

- World human Rights Court (US refuses to be part of it)

Whats the point..."Owww the world court told us not to do something", do you honestly think that terrorist or anyone else who bad intentions of what they deam illegal is really gonna care?

- Repeated trade violations over lumber and steel



- Disregarding the UN and going into Iraq

Screw the UN..they wanted to wait until we were all blown up before they would do anything. Whether or not they have WMD isn't the point, the point is that they kept leading us to believe they did, so IMHO they got what they deserved.

- Insulting other countries to strengthen nationalistic support

France really are a bunch of pussies though

- Landmine Treaty (US wouldn't sign)
- Nuclear Arms treaty (US pulled out)
- New treaty on limitation of battlefield nuclear weapons (US won't sign)

The above 3 i wouldn't sign either. The way I see it, if we signed those then we would be making ourselves vulnerable to the people who could give a **** about them. Remember M.A.D (Mutal Assurance Destruction).

[Shawn N]

Is there a way to setup FireFox to open links in a new tab by default?

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by rdove
- Kyoto (US refuses to sign up)

Don't really know much about it, so can't comment...

- World human Rights Court (US refuses to be part of it)

Whats the point..."Owww the world court told us not to do something", do you honestly think that terrorist or anyone else who bad intentions of what they deam illegal is really gonna care?

Er, it's not for terrorists..... it's to keep soldiers in check.

Originally posted by rdove
- Repeated trade violations over lumber and steel

Originally posted by rdove
- Disregarding the UN and going into Iraq

Screw the UN..they wanted to wait until we were all blown up before they would do anything. Whether or not they have WMD isn't the point, the point is that they kept leading us to believe they did, so IMHO they got what they deserved.

Thank you for proving my point. Ohh, and look, now it's their fault for tricking us into believeing they had them by saying "No we don't have any weapons of Mass destruction". Stunning.

Originally posted by rdove
- Insulting other countries to strengthen nationalistic support

France really are a bunch of pussies though

Once again. thank you for proving my point.

Originally posted by rdove
- Landmine Treaty (US wouldn't sign)
- Nuclear Arms treaty (US pulled out)
- New treaty on limitation of battlefield nuclear weapons (US won't sign)

The above 3 i wouldn't sign either. The way I see it, if we signed those then we would be making ourselves vulnerable to the people who could give a **** about them. Remember M.A.D (Mutal Assurance Destruction).

Er, As for the landmine treaty, pretty much the only people it assures destruction for are local villagers and their children...

As for the Nuclear Arms treaty, O My God! Do you read what you are typing? America pulled out so they could build a nuclear shield. This would have prevented M.A.D. as they would have been able to fire missiles at China and/or Russia without any threat of revenge. So the first thing China does is start building thousands of more Nuclear Missiles... with the stated aim that they will just overwhelm any defence mechanism if it comes to a shooting match.... So, we're back were we started from.... except now we've pissed away a pile of cash which would have been better spent on countering terrorism and increased world tension significantly. Unless you believe that a terrorist is going to go to the trouble of building an ICBM rather than just float it into New York harbour on a readily available boat.

[rdove]

Originally posted by Ex-FB

Thank you for proving my point. Ohh, and look, now it's their fault for tricking us into believeing they had them by saying "No we don't have any weapons of Mass destruction". Stunning.

Hmm...I don't remember them ever saying that directly. When you kick the inspectors out of you country or tell them..well yea..you can look, but not here...here...or here sounds a little fishy to me.

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Er, As for the landmine treaty, pretty much the only people it assures destruction for are local villagers and their children...

As for the Nuclear Arms treaty, O My God! Do you read what you are typing? America pulled out so they could build a nuclear shield. This would have prevented M.A.D. as they would have been able to fire missiles at China and/or Russia without any threat of revenge. So the first thing China does is start building thousands of more Nuclear Missiles... with the stated aim that they will just overwhelm any defence mechanism if it comes to a shooting match.... So, we're back were we started from.... except now we've pissed away a pile of cash which would have been better spent on countering terrorism and increased world tension significantly. Unless you believe that a terrorist is going to go to the trouble of building an ICBM rather than just float it into New York harbour on a readily available boat.

Yea..if we launched missles at China or Russia, I'm sure they wouldn't strike back...Now let me ask you..do you read what you type? Or Maybe I should ask..what type of crack are you smokin while you type?

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by rdove
Hmm...I don't remember them ever saying that directly. When you kick the inspectors out of you country or tell them..well yea..you can look, but not here...here...or here sounds a little fishy to me.

Really? About the only thing stopping Iran from storming over their border was the possibility that they might still have some WMD (remember after the Gulf War Iran had 10 times as many tanks etc. at it's disposal as Iraq did). It was quite apparent to me that they would be doomed if WMD were ever found as this would be the excuse the US was looking for. Therefore, of course they'll get rid of them, but of course there's going to be a bit of dodgy trading going on. This was all stated before the conflict started, and unfortunately turned out to be an accurate assessment of the situation.

Originally posted by rdove
Yea..if we launched missles at China or Russia, I'm sure they wouldn't strike back...Now let me ask you..do you read what you type? Or Maybe I should ask..what type of crack are you smokin while you type?

Okay, let's go over this slowly.

You said that the US was right to pull out of the strategic missile treaty because you would be leaving yourself defenseless. Then you said. Remember M.A.D. Mutually assured destruction.

Okay, with me so far?

I then clarified that the US pulled out so they could build a nuclear missile shield. Which removes the existence of M.A.D. on America's side, but not on China/Russia side. So, in effect, the US can fire on China or Russia and destroy them without being afraid of the retaliation.

To China's eye's, this is unacceptable, so they have increased the amount of nuclear weapons they are keeping and are building more so that they can overwhelm any "shield" system. they have also stated that they would be firing "dummy" missile at the same time. thus they are rebalancing the situation back to a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario.

Okay, so far so good?

Now, what purpose does pulling out of the missile treaty serve. They have destabilised the world a bit more, and destroyed years of progress in nuclear disaramament. Not to mention, pissing away a whole pile of funds which would be better spent on counter terrorism.

Unless of course, you believe the shield is to stop terrorists???

[PineyWoodsJimbo]

Pulling out is just disappointing, but the Shield stops the little terrorists.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by PineyWoodsJimbo
Pulling out is just disappointing, but the Shield stops the little terrorists.

Excellent comment!

[HardCode]

Perhaps Bush wants to defeat the Chinese communism the same way Reagan beat the Russian Communism. Bush creates the missle shield, so China feels the need to create thousands more nukes. This bankrupts China worse than now, and communism in China collapses. Then China becomes a freer democracy, like Russia today, and both sides dismantle nukes. This is how Reagan won the cold war, through economics. The Russians couldn't keep up and ran their country's economy into dust. Bush can do the same thing with other countries, and the final outcome could be even less nukes all around than today.

[Shaggy Hiker]

China doesn't really care about us, and they never have. If we would just ignore them, they would be happy as hell to ignore us. Their cultural heritage says that the world revolves around China. They are the middle kindom between heaven and hell. The rest of us are just the barbarians. We ignored that during WWII, and we were ignoring it during the Boxer Rebellion, and we ignored it after WWII. Trying to outspend them into bankruptcy will only hurt us in the end, because the chinese fundamentally don't care. We wouldn't replace their communist government with one that was more friendly towards us, because they would prefer not to care about us. That wasn't the case with Russia, they did care.

As for FDR being isolationist, that's pretty daft. He was looking for a reason to enter a war he expected us to be a part of. There were isolationist sentiments in the US, and there was plenty of support for Nazi Germany, but FDR wasn't either one.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by HardCode
Perhaps Bush wants to defeat the Chinese communism the same way Reagan beat the Russian Communism. Bush creates the missle shield, so China feels the need to create thousands more nukes. This bankrupts China worse than now, and communism in China collapses. Then China becomes a freer democracy, like Russia today, and both sides dismantle nukes. This is how Reagan won the cold war, through economics. The Russians couldn't keep up and ran their country's economy into dust. Bush can do the same thing with other countries, and the final outcome could be even less nukes all around than today.

If indeed that happened, what's the guarantee the leaders of an economically bankrupt China wouldn't resort to a missile war with the US? They don't have anything to lose, while the US and the rest of the world has everything to lose. The huge missile strength of the nation could be enough to extract ransom from the world. Sort of what N Korea is trying to do.

If you think the cold war against Russia was won by the US, what are the effects of it now? The USSR has now been divided into many smaller states, and you already have violence brewing in them. Look at Chechenya for example. Where previously you only had to deal with one Gorbachev or Stalin or whoever was there, today you have to deal with a host of other countries apart from Putin, and many of these countries have inherited dangerous arms from the USSR. Do you think the present situation is better than the whole USSR we had a few years ago?

I don't think we have less nukes as a result of the so called Regan policy you talk about. Personally except for those nukes dismantled by the US and Russia by mutual agreement and consent, I think no one else has been doing it. On the other hand you have the black market for arms and nuclear proliferation right under your nose. Which means the arms race and the nuke race is very much on.

A bad effect of the policy you have advocated is that economically weak nations will invariably resort to increasing their nuisance value so they can have a say in the world affairs and try and boost their economies. N Korea does just that.

.

[Xanith]

If indeed that happened, what's the guarantee the leaders of an economically bankrupt China wouldn't resort to a missile war with the US? They don't have anything to lose, while the US and the rest of the world has everything to lose. The huge missile strength of the nation could be enough to extract ransom from the world. Sort of what N Korea is trying to do.

This leads to the point about giving aid to Pakistan to make sure it doesn’t go bankrupt. If you follow your logic here and insert Pakistan into where you have China and India into where you have the US I think you will begin to understand. With China all you can do is pressure them economically into giving more freedoms to their people. All countries are different and I don’t think you can apply the same strategy to China as you did with the USSR.

If you think the cold war against Russia was won by the US, what are the effects of it now? The USSR has now been divided into many smaller states, and you already have violence brewing in them. Look at Chechenya for example. Where previously you only had to deal with one Gorbachev or Stalin or whoever was there, today you have to deal with a host of other countries apart from Putin, and many of these countries have inherited dangerous arms from the USSR. Do you think the present situation is better than the whole USSR we had a few years ago?

Again to put it into perspective for you, is it better that the British were still in control of India and Pakistan? There probably wouldn’t have been the wars over Kashmir between India and Pakistan and India and China so countless lives would have been saved. Would you rather be under British rule still? How much is freedom worth?

I don't think we have less nukes as a result of the so called Regan policy you talk about. Personally except for those nukes dismantled by the US and Russia by mutual agreement and consent, I think no one else has been doing it. On the other hand you have the black market for arms and nuclear proliferation right under your nose. Which means the arms race and the nuke race is very much on.

Actually more nukes were made by both sides so you are right. Treaties made after have helped destroy a good portion of what was built up but it does tend to lead more to one of those weapons escaping governmental control due to the vast quantity.

A bad effect of the policy you have advocated is that economically weak nations will invariably resort to increasing their nuisance value so they can have a say in the world affairs and try and boost their economies. N Korea does just that.

N Korea has done that at the expense of their own people. While people starve to death and languish under horrible conditions the government of North Korea deals in the international drug trade and the sale of banned technology to other countries. So what would you do about North Korea? Your not for invasion I know that, you don’t seem to be for aid, so what do you do? Forget about them entirely?

X