PDA

View Full Version : War!!!!!!!!!



Hitman47
5th Sep 2004, 05:27
the future is in our hands.... scary isnt it?

Clumsyorchid
5th Sep 2004, 05:31
I certinly hope not, but at the rate we're going it's entirely possible. :(

AgentOrange_section8
5th Sep 2004, 05:58
I think so

1. Chinas talking about Invading Taiwan if they keep claiming state hood.

2. Iran has enough uranium to make Nukes so now we are gonna move from iraq to iran.

3. North Korea...no explanation needed for that

4. What happend in Russia is gonna have to be taken care of..chechnyans and that sort

5. Terroists are gonna keep taking hostages and demanding stuff and blowing up stuff.

Clumsyorchid
5th Sep 2004, 06:00
Oh and here I thought the world would just revolt and attack the US. Silly me.

AgentOrange_section8
5th Sep 2004, 06:04
that could happen too bro...i mean some people get jealous of our big wangs

Clumsyorchid
5th Sep 2004, 06:05
Yea, must be that... :rolleyes:

CKY1709
5th Sep 2004, 14:46
hahaha oh god thats good *****... But the U.S. has strong allies till the end. so i dont think everyone will rise up against the U.S. And if there was it would be arabs cause they hate us. But what are they gonna do? ILL tell you, nothing. North Korea couldnt handle the Korean war by themselves. China was the only reason we did not crush N. Korea. Iran is just like Iraq and will be conquered in less than half a year but leave a conflict in its place for years..... I think the biggest threat is N. Korea and China because they have eachothers back, not to mention China's Huge Military. But in the End the Allies will PREVAIL!!!

ACEofSPADES87
5th Sep 2004, 18:11
yup

RoyalMarineCommando
3rd Oct 2004, 17:54
Originally posted by AgentOrange_section8
that could happen too bro...i mean some people get jealous of our big wangs

To be honest, i dont think its jealousy of the US's 'big wangs' - whatever they may be.

I think its more the case that everyone is fed up of the US becomming involved in everything that happens the world over, and acting as if they are the be-all and end-all of civilisation.

I think the way that both the US and the UK are acting now, is making us all targets for the forseeable future, and i truly believe that 'yes' we will become involved in WW3, at which time some mad man will push the big red button, and bring the world to a horrific end.

RoyalMarineCommando
3rd Oct 2004, 17:56
And incidently, what two idiots selected 'i dont care' !?

How could anyone not care if a third world war occurs. If it does happen, it will inevitably be nuclear, and will result in the death of tens of millions.

d-2-502-101abn
4th Oct 2004, 02:46
First: we are already in "WWIII" ... although it is unofficial, the world-wide war on terror has often been named that, not only by the media and pundits, but some administration sources have referred to it in that light as well.

North Korea: Even with the nukes, they are in danger of imploding anyway -- which is all, really, that makes that country dangerous. Except for those in the military, their population is starving to death, and conditions internally are extremely volatile.

China: They don't have the sealift capability to tackle Taiwan. So they can saber-rattle all they want, but the threat is not significant. Secondly, they are economically tied to the west via trade now and they will definitely not want to jeopardize that.

Russia/Chechnya: A whole different ball of wax, I won't expound on it at length in this post, but will if there are enough who are curious. Suffice it to say, the events in Beslan moved Putin to a more active role in the war on terror ... at the expense of a whole lot of Russian self-determination. And people here are crying about the Patriot Act lol.

Iran: Beneath the anti-American rhetoric of the ayatollahs, is a seething middle-class population ready to revolt. Let us hope they see the light of the UN threatened sanctions and stand down their development.

If Iran does go forward with nuclear weapons development, a pre-emptive strike with stealth aircraft and Tomahawk cruise missiles will bring their program to a screaching halt, as we have the satellite overheads on where that is occurring. And whatever we can GPS, we can hit with devastating effect. Having considerable ground and air forces on their western and northern borders is a strategic position to give the ayatollahs pause given their internal problems.

Syria: Syria is on the verge of seeing the same light Libya did, and will more than likely disarm their WMD programs (much of it inherited from Saddam just before the US invasion of Iraq).

International Terrorism by Islamic Fundamental Extremists: This is by far the nastiest threat of those listed.

First, there is no end of cannon fodder for their cause. One of the main reasons success in Iraq is vital to regional peace, is that young Arab men lack substantive hope in the majority of the Arabic nations of the Middle East.

By that, I mean that the prospects for a robust economy, regional stability and representative government does not give them any prospects to look forward to, so they are ripe for molding by the likes of bin Laden et al. A stable Middle East and Persia (which is technically what the Farsi-based peoples of Iraq and Iran are).

At the moment, the majority of the African nations that are north of the equator have populations that are well over 50 percent male and whose average age becomes younger each year. Historically, populations that are male-dominated and young are more prone to war -- either internally or externally -- to solve their perceived problems. And rather than deal with the real issues internal to their society, the fanatical leaders will find the way to point the finger at western nations as the root of their ills.

A stable slice through the heart of Islam (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq) that is prosperous and offers hope and representative government will further the dissent of the majority of Islamists who are moderate into rising up against those that would keep them down.

This is already happening in Iraq today. The daily violence you see in places like Sadr City and Fallujah are signs of desperation among the jihadists: they cannot allow Iraq (and in short order probably Iran as well) and the greater Middle East to desire freedom and representative government. Note I did not use the term democracy ... for Jeffersonian-style democracy is only one form of democratic government, and more than likely is not suited to the cultural, political and religous situation in the Arab and Farsi world.

Nor do the terrorists want to see economic success, which is why they attempt to impact Iraq's (and Saudi Arabia's) oil resources/industry.

Many have criticized the US (and more specifically, President Bush) for the "mess" (as the mainstream media would call it) in Iraq. Strategically, however, I think history will be kind to Mr. Bush: from a military and geo-political standpoint, the invasion and democratization of Iraq is brilliant: first the aforemention prospect of establishing representative government and economic stability in the region as mentioned above; and, second, it is acting as a magnet for terrorists (or jihadists if you prefer the more PC term).

So, instead of having terrorists dispersed in over 60-some countries, they are being called by their extremist leaders to engage the US in Iraq. Duh ... and just where do we have the combat power deployed (and here is the clincher) that is not on US soil.

Terrorism is one game where homefield advantage is not an advantage: far better that they blunt themselves on our deployed combat power. Unfortunately, the media is still caught up in that Vietnam-era folly of body counting: what is not being mentioned is that the command infrastructure and the experienced terrorists are being killed in droves. While new recruits replace them, they have neither the experience or training that the "older" terrorists have had.

This degrades their ability to plan strategic operations significantly. Which, in the long term, is a very good thing. The key thing to note here is that while they are calling for jihad against American soldiers in Iraq, they are not in the position to strike with devastation in the US. Much better to fight the war against terrorists in Fallujah and the like with soldiers, than in New York with civilians.

Hopefully, this tears away some of the garbage that the mainstream media perpetrates: what they know of military and strategic geo-political powershaping could be written on the head of a pin.

So, while our troops are in harm's way and we wish them the best, it is good to remember that they are doing what they are trained to do in a place far from our soil. Personally, I think this is a good thing.

Well, I could go on, but heaven forbid I make the length of this post too intimidating.

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2

d-2-502-101abn
4th Oct 2004, 03:56
As an addendum to Royal Commando:

Working agressively to prevent nuclear proliferation is in everyone's interest.

But unlike the cold war, where the UK, France, the US, China and USSR had the means to destroy the globe many times over, disarmament has reduced the strategic use of nuclear weapons.

A really scary scenario is the development of nuclear weapons and ICBM systems. And heaven forbid they learn how to MIRV the warheads.

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2