Is this World War III?

[The Wrath]

Newt Gingrich believes that World War III is beginning. I read a similar opinion from someone else (forget who) about a week ago, and I tend to agree. This crisis with Israel is going to continue escalating, and I think that strikes in Syria are inevitable, as is Iranian involvement. Then there's the India-Pakistan situation...those 2 countries have been on the verge of starting WW3 for years. Then, of course, North Korea. All of these conflicts are interconnected, in some way or another, and I think it's just a matter of time before the sh!t really hits the fan.

Some questions for anyone who wants to venture an opinion:

1. We know what's happening with the Islamic countries. How does North Korea fit into the big picture?
   
2. What happens with Russia and China?
   
3. Will Venezuela be a player at all?
   
4. What happens with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
   
5. Who are our allies and enemies?
   
6. Do you think this is the beginning of World War III?
   
7. Do we have the willpower to win?
   

Here are my opinions, with brief explanations:

1. I have absolutely no idea. I haven't followed the NK situation as closely as that of the Islamic world, and really don't understand the situation that well.
   
2. They keep refusing to take action on North Korea. I think they could possibly end up allying with North Korea against the West, but, then again, they may just choose to wait this one out and not get militarily involved.
   
3. I think Venezuela is already a player. They may not actively engage in warfare, but their continued flirtations with Iran have already earned them a spot in the war, in some capacity.
   
4. We'll keep playing footsie with both, and refuse to recognize them for the enemies that they are.
   
5. Main Allies: Britain, Australia, Germany, Italy, Japan, India, Israel, South Korea
   Main Enemies: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia (?), China (?)
   Countries that will try to be umpires instead of playing ball: France, Egypt, Jordan, Canada, Russia (?), China (?)
   
6. Yes.
   
7. Yes. It may not seem like it, but here's why. When faced with annihilation, an animal will always act toward one objective: it's own survival. This is often true of humans, when they are put into desperate situations. They will act in ways that they would normally not even think of. They will resort to eating the bodies of their loved ones. I recall a passage in Elie Wiesel's Night when a boy beats his own father to death, to obtain a loaf of bread. I think think the same is true of nations. When the people of this country realize that World War III has begun, and that this country is faced with physical annihilation, all the leftist bromides about sparing civilian casualties and acting with restraint will be discarded, and this nation, along with other Western nations, will act with all the force necessary to ensure its own survival.
   

[Spano]

1. We know what's happening with the Islamic countries. How does North Korea fit into the big picture?
   
2. What happens with Russia and China?
   
3. Will Venezuela be a player at all?
   
4. What happens with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
   
5. Who are our allies and enemies?
   
6. Do you think this is the beginning of World War III?
   
7. Do we have the willpower to win?
   

1. In the big picture, I'd say North Korea is a natural ally of Iran and others if global war were actually to occur -- this is similar to the "Axis of Evil" idea. Both are anti-West and share a common goal if not a common ideology. But absent a WWIII, I'd classify North Korea as simply another distraction or front that stretches diplomatic capital yet thinner ("We're too weak to deal with both N.K. and Iran at the same time! Whatever will we do?").

2. Lately I've come to regard both Russia and China as bigger threats than I have in the past. They have consistently sided against the West in every conflict, only serving to frustrate our efforts. My understanding of their recent actions leads me to consider them as essentially powerlusting pragmatists fundamentally opposed to the West, because the ideas of Western freedom threaten their tenuous hold on power. The big question, of course, is what they will do when the chips are down -- will their pragmatic side win, leading them to helplessly watch and not take sides, or will their frantic powerlust win, driving them to use force in order to preserve their regimes? It's a good question. Certainly in the realm of diplomacy, they are enemies.

3. I don't see Venezuela taking any action in a conflict in the middle east or Asia -- they may offer moral and possibly financial support, but I don't see Chavez sticking his neck out for the Islamic cause. He seems full of hot air to me.

4. It would take something major for the West to break ties with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- it is simply too convienent and comforting to pretend they are our allies. Therefore, I predict the U.S. and others continue to deal with them and ignore their role in furthering Islamic terror.

5. I agree with the above list of allies, but would add Canada and subtract Italy.

6. I doubt this is the beginning of WWIII, because we (the West) do not have the will to recognize this fact or act on it. We will do anything we can to broker some semblance of stability by compromising. For example, I believe that given their kidnapped soldiers back, Israel would probably cease hostilities rather than continuing to wipe out the threats posed by Hamas and Hezbollah. A world war requires two sides intent on fighting. There is currently only one.

7. Depends on what you mean by "win". If it came to world war, I have no doubt that the U.S. and its allies would not lose. But I don't think we have the moral certainty required to premanently destroy the enemy. Again, we would view a "win" as a return to tenuous stability with minor, tolerable violence.

[Dismuke]

7. Depends on what you mean by "win". If it came to world war, I have no doubt that the U.S. and its allies would not lose. But I don't think we have the moral certainty required to premanently destroy the enemy.

Here you hit the nail on the head. Iran and North Korea and their ilk are piss ants. We could turn them into glass tomorrow if we wanted to.

The real front that this war has been fought on up until now is at home with the Fifth Columnist traitors such as Cindy Sheehan, Jacques Kerry, Ted Kennedy, the New York Times, moveon.org and their ilk - and above all, with the ideas that animate these pathetic Leftist nihilists. If you notice, the thugs of the world calculate their moves not based on America's potential military might - if they did, they would properly be cowering in their caves, tents and huts. Instead, they calculate everything based on the ability of the Left to muddy the water and cloud the American public's moral certainty. And every time Kerry, Algore, or Kennedy or Sheehan open their traps and exhale air, the thugs become increasinly emboldened.

Some might blame the Bush Administration for not being bold enough - which is most certainly the case. But the cause of the Administration's timidity is the antics of the Leftists and its inability to morally challenge the ideas which animate them. I view the Bush Administration as being well-meaning patriots who do value the USA and civilization but are blinded and rendered ineffective by their thoroughly ingrained pragmatism. I view their pragmatism as most likely being in large part an unfortunate result of the culture they were raised in and by their lack of exposure to a better alternative intellectually - and thus such an error can be innocent. And, in their case, hopefully it is innocent. I cannot imagine any sort of context in which I could conceive the behavior of the Kerrys, the Kennedy's and the Sheehans of the world to be innocent - such people are thoroughly evil to the core. They are nothing more than neo-Stalinst nihilists. Right now, they are the biggest enemy we currently face.

As to whether we are in World War III - I think we are coming very close to it. Just as Hitler could have been easily crushed in 1935 by a mere showing of spine on the part of the British and French, the mullahs in Iran and the terrorist organizations they sponsor in other countries could have been easily taken out years ago. But, just as in the 1930s, the longer one waits the harder and bloodier it gets. There are definite parallels between now and then - except that Neville Chamberlain was much more dignified and civilized than Kerry and Kennedy.

As to when victory is achieved in this particular war - that will be when the population of the Islamic world has been rendered as demoralized, impotent and passive as the French (though hopefully less arrogant).

[The Wrath]

5. I agree with the above list of allies, but would add Canada and subtract Italy.

6. I doubt this is the beginning of WWIII, because we (the West) do not have the will to recognize this fact or act on it. We will do anything we can to broker some semblance of stability by compromising. For example, I believe that given their kidnapped soldiers back, Israel would probably cease hostilities rather than continuing to wipe out the threats posed by Hamas and Hezbollah. A world war requires two sides intent on fighting. There is currently only one.

I agree with all your answers except these 2.

Italy has been a staunch ally in the War on Terror. It remains to be seen what the new government will do. They may very well become another France, but I still have more faith in Italy than I do in Canada. Yes, Canada has a new conservative government. But you have to consider that, in Canada, this is probably equivalent to an Al Gore government in the United States.

With the escalation going on in various places, people will recognize sooner or later that we are entering World War III. Newt Gingrich thinks that people, especially government leaders like Bush, need to start using the language of "World War III." My fiancee saw that headline yesterday and actually became a little concerned...and she's the type who doesn't really pay attention to current events or think about politics. People really are such sheep that once you tell them we're in World War III, their attitudes will drastically change.

I don't think Israel shows any signs of backing down. Even if they got the soldiers back, Hizballah (yes, that is actually one of many correct ways to spell it and the way I'm used to doing it) has already killed about 10 others, and I think Israel is in too far to turn back now. Then there's North Korea...Japan recently considered a preemptive strike to stop them from launching the missile test. One of the missiles was aimed at Hawaii. The world is losing patience with North Korea. Then there's the India bombing...just the latest escalation from the Islamist Pakistan against the freest country in the region. These conflicts can't go on much longer without full-blown war.

7. Depends on what you mean by "win". If it came to world war, I have no doubt that the U.S. and its allies would not lose. But I don't think we have the moral certainty required to premanently destroy the enemy. Again, we would view a "win" as a return to tenuous stability with minor, tolerable violence.

Agreed. I renounce my answer in favor of this one.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Moose

[The Wrath]

The real front that this war has been fought on up until now is at home with the Fifth Columnist traitors such as Cindy Sheehan, Jacques Kerry, Ted Kennedy, the New York Times, moveon.org and their ilk - and above all, with the ideas that animate these pathetic Leftist nihilists. If you notice, the thugs of the world calculate their moves not based on America's potential military might - if they did, they would properly be cowering in their caves, tents and huts. Instead, they calculate everything based on the ability of the Left to muddy the water and cloud the American public's moral certainty. And every time Kerry, Algore, or Kennedy or Sheehan open their traps and exhale air, the thugs become increasinly emboldened.

Some might blame the Bush Administration for not being bold enough - which is most certainly the case. But the cause of the Administration's timidity is the antics of the Leftists and its inability to morally challenge the ideas which animate them. I view the Bush Administration as being well-meaning patriots who do value the USA and civilization but are blinded and rendered ineffective by their thoroughly ingrained pragmatism. I view their pragmatism as most likely being in large part an unfortunate result of the culture they were raised in and by their lack of exposure to a better alternative intellectually - and thus such an error can be innocent. And, in their case, hopefully it is innocent. I cannot imagine any sort of context in which I could conceive the behavior of the Kerrys, the Kennedy's and the Sheehans of the world to be innocent - such people are thoroughly evil to the core. They are nothing more than neo-Stalinst nihilists. Right now, they are the biggest enemy we currently face.

I think I agree with everything you said in here, except that I would put a little more blame on the Bush administration. While certainly the lesser of 2 evils, it is Bush's own fault if he lacks the moral certainty to do what is necessary to protect this country.

As to whether we are in World War III - I think we are coming very close to it. Just as Hitler could have been easily crushed in 1935 by a mere showing of spine on the part of the British and French, the mullahs in Iran and the terrorist organizations they sponsor in other countries could have been easily taken out years ago. But, just as in the 1930s, the longer one waits the harder and bloodier it gets. There are definite parallels between now and then - except that Neville Chamberlain was much more dignified and civilized than Kerry and Kennedy.

I am currently reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and am finding this more and more to be true.

As to when victory is achieved in this particular war - that will be when the population of the Islamic world has been rendered as demoralized, impotent and passive as the French (though hopefully less arrogant).

Maybe it will start an Islamic reformation and the Muslim world will wind up like modern day Japan? If completely and utterly defeated, I think this would be a very possible scenario. But then, we won't defeat them that badly...we'll just push them down a few flights of stairs instead of throwing them off the roof.

[Myron Azov]

Some questions for anyone who wants to venture an opinion:

[*]We know what's happening with the Islamic countries. How does North Korea fit into the big picture?

North Korea's Nodong missile was developed with Iranian financial assistance. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm North Korea and Iran are points on the Axis of Evil which hopes to overthrow Western Civilization and replace it with an Islamo-Stalinist dictatorship.

[*]What happens with Russia and China?

Russia helped Iraq move its WMDs into Syria. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000718.html Russia's goal is to aid those who would destroy America so that Russia can emerge as the world’s foremost military superpower. Red China is duplicating American technology and selling it to the world without paying royalties to the American geniuses who invented it. China intends to replace America as the world’s foremost economic superpower. Both Russia and China must be punished and eliminated as threats.

[*]Will Venezuela be a player at all?

Venezuela will provide cheap socialist petroleum to America’s enemies. Venezuela will also attempt to export its socialist experiment to other parts of Latin America. Venezuela must be isolated and its government toppled.

[*]What happens with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

They are breeding grounds for anti-American Jew-haters. They must be brought in line with the American-Israeli national interest. The Saudis’ oil must be restored to the Americans and Europeans whose investment and technology made petroleum production possible. Pakistan’s nukes must be destroyed. We can’t let Koran-thumpers get anywhere near the red button.

[*]Who are our allies and enemies?

Great Britain and Israel.

[*]Do you think this is the beginning of World War III?

Yes.

[*]Do we have the willpower to win?

Yes. Americans love a winner.

[hunterrose]

I question this World War III symbolism. What are the conditions of victory? What are the uniting characteristics of the enemy? I don't think this is polarized enough to call it another World War. More like a series of loosely associated skirmishes.

I think [Russia and China] could possibly end up allying with North Korea against the West.

Hmm. Why do you say that? I think that they'd likely not involve themselves at all.

Both Russia and China must be punished and eliminated as threats.

You always manage to disturb me

Wouldn't "let sleeping dogs lie" be more prudent?

[punk]

I'd say one of the important characteristics of WWI and WWII was that they were wars among coallitions of great powers. I'm not seeing Islamist terrorism as constituting a great power.

[Myron Azov]

I'd say one of the important characteristics of WWI and WWII was that they were wars among coallitions of great powers. I'm not seeing Islamist terrorism as constituting a great power.

In today's world, even a small nuke can make a tin-horn despot a major player. I can't rule out the possibility that North Korea would actually deploy their nukes as a demonstration of their desire to be taken seriously. In the Middle East, Iran offers the same prospect, which is why it is critical that we launch a coordinated attack on that “Islamic Republic” by land, sea and air as soon as possible. We would, of course, have to occupy all of Persia to guarantee that another Koran-centric despotism would not arise from the radioactive ashes, but hopefully we’ve learned enough from our mistakes in Iraq to put on a “shock and awe” show that will make the locals stand up and pay attention.

India has been a useful ally and there is no reason not to join it in making war against its eternal Islamic enemies. If Pakistan replies in an inappropriate manner, we’ll just have to give them a free “shock and awe” show as well.

As for Israel, I have no qualms about joining the Israelis and putting American boots on the ground in Lebanon, and also in Syria, and further down the road into Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and along the southern coast of the Mediterranean--all the way to Gibraltar. All we lack is the will to double our military recruitment incentive. Give the high school class of ’06 and ‘07 enough funds and they’ll fight all the way to the very heart of Teheran.

Despite myself, I agree with Newt when he says: “I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down."

This is the very definition of great American statesmanship.

[DarkWaters]

The real front that this war has been fought on up until now is at home with the Fifth Columnist traitors such as Cindy Sheehan, Jacques Kerry, Ted Kennedy, the New York Times, moveon.org and their ilk -

... snip ...

such people are thoroughly evil to the core. They are nothing more than neo-Stalinst nihilists. Right now, they are the biggest enemy we currently face.

I hope that nobody sincerely believes that the aforementioned liberals and the New York Times are a greater threat to the United States than the individuals who are directly funding, orchestrating, commending and executing all of the various acts of terror that are going on in the world. Not even a Republican attack dog like Sean Hannity would claim that the pair of Massachusetts Senators is a "bigger enemy" to the United States than Osama Bin Laden and the fanatical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Insinuating that the New York Times is far worse than widely recognized terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda is to grotesquely understate the terrorist organizations very actions which are racist, genocidal, anti-life and anti-mind.

[KendallJ]

I hope that nobody sincerely believes that the aforementioned liberals and the New York Times are a greater threat to the United States than the individuals who are directly funding, orchestrating, commending and executing all of the various acts of terror that are going on in the world. Not even a Republican attack dog like Sean Hannity would claim that the pair of Massachusetts Senators is a "bigger enemy" to the United States than Osama Bin Laden and the fanatical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Insinuating that the New York Times is far worse than widely recognized terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda is to grotesquely understate the terrorist organizations very actions which are racist, genocidal, anti-life and anti-mind.

I think you're right; however, these liberals are giving their sanction. They create, intellectually, the "space" which these thugs can fill. What's so offensive is that is so overt. It is a true hatred of America, on principle...

[Myron Azov]

I hope that nobody sincerely believes that the aforementioned liberals and the New York Times are a greater threat to the United States than the individuals who are directly funding, orchestrating, commending and executing all of the various acts of terror that are going on in the world.

Dismuke is absolutely correct. Dictators and terrorists will come and go. But the leftist nihilists who dominate our universities and media seek to create a permanent culture of altruism, relativism, appeasement, cowardice and surrender. If they succeed, the U.S. will be E.Z. Pickins for even the most impotent of enemies.

[DarkWaters]

I am not disputing the claim that libertarian nihilists, who preach that any use of military force against any foreign aggressor in excess of the tit-for-tat response is immoral, are intellectually virulent for the country. I am concerned that many individuals accuse prominent figures in the media who are opposed to an indefinite occupation of Iraq at great expense of to the American and allied forces and to the United States taxpayer sometimes get falsely categorized as the aforementioned. I am not accusing anyone on this thread of doing so, I just am in the mood to xerox my opinions on the internet and therefore wanted to state the difference.

The former category includes individuals such as Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and the late Harry Browne.

Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry have each made repeated remarks about how the Bush Administration's poor handling of the war in Iraq has created more terrorists than it has obviated. To a good extent, I think this is true. The Iraq-Syrian border was unsecured for a great length of time, allowing for an influx of terrorists and large caches of weapons that once belonged to Saddam Hussein that were once discovered by allied forces have gone unaccounted for, almost surely stolen by various groups of insurgents. Strategic errors such as these have surely made it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit since they have great opportunities to inflict harm to allied forces and Iraqi citizens who are against the insurgency. Moreover, I think a very poor case for executing Operation Iraqi Freedom was made by the Bush Administration (which is especially unfortunate since a case to topple Saddam Hussein's regime could have easily been made) has led to a vitriolic backlash in public opinion which gave terrorists more material to exaggerate for recruiting purposes. Of course, this is a thread about the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, not about the current situation in Iraq. For the purposes of clarity: do I think that the United States' foreign policy is to blame for islamic extremism? Absolutely not. Do I think that the current administration's foreign policy has some egregious flaws that weaken our efforts to eradicate terrorism? Yes. Is there a clear answer to the question of how long we should continue to militarily sojourn in Iraq? Not to me. (I would be interesting in hearing some opinions on this considering recent events in the Middle East.)

With regards to some of the other liberals named, Cindy Sheehan seems to have opinions like to one of those "give peace a chance" Green Party liberals who will assail almost any act use of military force that exceeds tit-for-tat as unjustified. The counterarguments to that stereotypical Green party mentality are obvious.

With regards to bashing the New York Times, I do not think it is warranted to classify the newspaper as a libertarian nihilistic publication since most of the articles seem to be more along the lines of criticizing the current administration's handling of the situation in Iraq as opposed to taking positions that amount to shaming the United States for taking pre-emptive measures against Islamic terrorism. Of course, periodically there are some editorials that seem to take such a position, but they hardly represent the entire news organization.

I also noticed that it seems to be fashionable amongst major news sources to post tear-jerking images of Lebanese civilians who have been maimed or killed as collateral damage. Although collateral damage is unfortunate, I think sympathy towards civilians who indirectly support terrorism (certainly not all collateral damage is) stems from the same bad philosophy that turns a book about how an alcoholic and a drug abuser copes with rehabilitation into a New York Times best seller and how a musical about a bunch of impoverished heroin addicts struggling to pay their rent becomes one of the longest running plays on Broadway.

[The Wrath]

So, today there was a major victory in the war. The planned attack in London was just another attempt to spread WWIII outside the Middle East.

Hostilities are escalating in Lebanon, with a ground invasion imminent.

Iran has hinted at a cataclysmic event in Israel an August 22, though nothing is confirmed.

It's only a matter of time before Syria becomes involved.

How long before Pakistan and India go to war? How long before North Korea invades South Korea?

I think that these developments are inevitable and that they are only a matter of time. We are in the beginning stages of the Third World War.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Moose

[Musashi]

As to when victory is achieved in this particular war - that will be when the population of the Islamic world has been rendered as demoralized, impotent and passive as the French (though hopefully less arrogant).

The Islamic world is so diverse and decentralized, with a radical cleric, Sheik and Majlis on every street corner from Paris to Manilla. I don’t see how pounding a part of the community to dust, does anything but increase their zeal.

I think this thing does boil over, and Iran will be the trigger. They’ve been rattling the sword for years now, and the rhetoric escalates. If Israel has had a nukes since the seventies then why not Iran? Iran has the money. They share a common border with country where nuclear scientist’s stand on the bread lines. We have long reached the point where, nuclear weapons can be purchased. Perhaps not in volume. I think one of the countless Majlis has bullets in his gun.

If the conflict escalates to include Syria and Iran, there is a problem. We have seen that it only takes 30 to 60 days for the US to completely cripple an Afghanistan, an Iraq (2 times), and presumably a Syria or Iran (with forces in the region). And once the nation is crippled the noose begins to tighten for the old guard of bad guys. Iran will preemptively launch if attacked (use it or loose it).

The question is where is the target?

[hunterrose]

I think that these developments are inevitable and that they are only a matter of time. We are in the beginning stages of the Third World War.

If this is the beginning of WW3, what commonality does North Korea share with Syria, Pakistan?, Iran, Lebanon?

[DarkWaters]

If this is the beginning of WW3, what commonality does North Korea share with Syria, Pakistan?, Iran, Lebanon?

If I am not mistaken, since the 1980's Iran has been selling tens of thousands of barrels of oil to North Korea per day. Moreover, North Korea has sold Iran several (probably unreliable) Scud missiles in the early 90s.

Of course, economic partnerships aside, North Korea and Iran would almost surely all against the common enemy which is the United States. Syria is also an ally of Iran as is the Hezbollah controlled part of Lebanon and will undoubtedly give its moral support to Iran in a military conflict. I am very skeptical if Syria will take any military action to support Hezbollah in the present conflict especially since Syria has never violated the 1974 cease-fire on the Golan Heights, not even in 1982 when the Israelis destroyed Syrian forces in Lebanon.

It is not presently clear to me if Pakistan would elect to get involved in all of this. It is also not clear to me if North Korea would rush to aid Iran militarily even though they would almost surely support them in spirit.

Even in the case of Iran, I am not sure if they would initiate a strike against Israel because 1.) they lack the firepower to do any serious damage and 2.) they know that if Israel has an excuse (in addition to the incessant Iranian clamoring of "Death to Israel", President Ahmadinejad's disparaging Holocaust-denying and his vow to wipe Israel off of the map), the sword of Joshua would decimate Iran's nuclear facilities without (anymore than the usual libertarian) global outrage.

Of course, with regards to the second point, the possibility of devastating retaliation has never stopped Hezbollah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad so perhaps it may very well not deter Iran under Ahmadinejad's leadership.

Reference

::::edited immediately to add more information:::::

Edited August 11, 2006 by DarkWaters

[bobsponge]

I think this crazy terrorist stuff on the behalf of muslim nut cases will go on for generations after they've been smacked down. Terrorists, once they lose their initial cause, just become aimless bomb-slingers. The only real, proper solution that I can see is the pure elimination of any muslim power base in the world. Take them down and keep them down. The nazis fled, and kept spreading their propaganda after the war, but they eventually degraded into such disorganization that it's now a true joke. Muslim nutballs will fade into the same weird obscurity that ufologists and ghost-chasers fill.

On one good note, I see that Wal-Mart is trying to spearhead domestic ethanol stations and production. If we reduce the middle-east's greatest natural resource to sand by producing our own fuel, then there won't be as big a problem any more (and it would help us keep our war machine fueled if need be). Heck, you can distill ethanol in your backyard with a barrel of grass clippings. Good incentive to get rid of farm subsidy crap here in the USA and have those farmers start growing starch instead of collecting welfare money. We are the world agricultural powerhouse-- why not use it to grow fuel?

[Atlashrug9]

Three things need to happen, and with the senate and house elections coming I do not think they will.

1. End Castro's dictatorship. We have an enemy, that would be a friend 90 miles off our border. The people are starving, they (for the most part) do NOT hate Americans, and it is strategically too close to our border to be allowed to exist.

2. We need to strategically bomb and destroy all of Iran's nuclear sites. No UN no questions, no ground troops. Give warning allow civilian departure and annihilate the threat. I have no doubt, given the chance --- they will kill us.

3. We know where the terrorists (or about 90% of them) are hiding, even if we do not know the exact coordinates, we need to surround the desserts and caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Again, allow for civilian departure and provide it if necessary. Then we nuke the entire region. We will pay reparations to the countries, but enough is enough.

For too long America has sat back and allowed our enemies to grow into serious threats. It is time for our country to behave the way we were all taught to behave since 4th grade-- fight for your way of life and what you believe in. America was and is the greatest nation in the world and we did not get there by backing down or "sitting out." We fought to exist in 1776, and we have continued that fight for over two hundred years. The longer our enemies perceive us as weak, the bigger target we become. If we accomplish these three acts, immediately, I seriously doubt ANYONE will think of threatening us again. We became the worlds strongest power because our way of life is just that, a country of life, not death. We must continue to fight for this, regardless of the world public opinion. They can disagree, but they cannot act, because they will never be as strong as America. The simple reason for this is that despite being a "young" country our federalist capitalist state has shown the world the way to wealth and happiness. Join in or get out of our way.

[DarkWaters]

1. End Castro's dictatorship. We have an enemy, that would be a friend 90 miles off our border. The people are starving, they (for the most part) do NOT hate Americans, and it is strategically too close to our border to be allowed to exist.

What do you propose that we do?

2. We need to strategically bomb and destroy all of Iran's nuclear sites. No UN no questions, no ground troops. Give warning allow civilian departure and annihilate the threat. I have no doubt, given the chance --- they will kill us.

Of all of the nations on the planet, Iran would unequivocally be the last one who I would want to see with nuclear capability. Through their words and actions, the Iranian government has forfeited any right they might have had to nuclear capability. Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear capability and action to prevent them from acquiring it would be morally justified.

The real problem here is the pervasiveness of Islamic fundamentalism in every aspect of the Iranian government. This extends well beyond President Ahmadinejad. I think the only solution here would be to depose all of the major bodies: The Supreme Leader, The Council of Guardians, The Assembly of Experts as well as the President. If we were to do this, we should also make lengths to provide the people there with philosophical alternatives to a life of Islam Fundamentalism as well as help lay the groundwork for a stable government as we would not want different kinds of extremists to just take over as soon as the dust clears.

3. We know where the terrorists (or about 90% of them) are hiding, even if we do not know the exact coordinates, we need to surround the desserts and caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I suspect that we do not where most of the major terrorists operatives are, as most of the top intended targets from Operation Enduring Freedom are still at large (Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Ayman Al-Zawahiri). Moreover, we must recognize that terrorism (or specifically islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations) are pervasive through the Middle East and are certainly not confined to the deserts and caves on the Afghanistani-Pakistani border.

[Atlashrug9]

What do you propose that we do?

I intend to send a special forces unit into Cuba and overthrow the government. The people would not reject this, and we would once again have the chance to promote a capitalist and wealthy Cuba.

Of all of the nations on the planet, Iran would unequivocally be the last one who I would want to see with nuclear capability. Through their words and actions, the Iranian government has forfeited any right they might have had to nuclear capability. Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear capability and action to prevent them from acquiring it would be morally justified.

The real problem here is the pervasiveness of Islamic fundamentalism in every aspect of the Iranian government. This extends well beyond President Ahmadinejad. I think the only solution here would be to depose all of the major bodies: The Supreme Leader, The Council of Guardians, The Assembly of Experts as well as the President. If we were to do this, we should also make lengths to provide the people there with philosophical alternatives to a life of Islam Fundamentalism as well as help lay the groundwork for a stable government as we would not want different kinds of extremists to just take over as soon as the dust clears.

Problem is until the people rise up and take control themselves, our actions will be in vain. They must behave logically and fight for their own lives, we cannot force them to do that. Once they do, then we should and will help rhem in every way possible.

I suspect that we do not where most of the major terrorists operatives are, as most of the top intended targets from Operation Enduring Freedom are still at large (Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Ayman Al-Zawahiri). Moreover, we must recognize that terrorism (or specifically islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations) are pervasive through the Middle East and are certainly not confined to the deserts and caves on the Afghanistani-Pakistani border.

I believe we are looking at different ideas here. From what I understand through my father, who is knowledgeable in this area, the "leaders" or shot callers are in these regions. Though, yes, the martyrs and follwers exist everywhere (even in own own country). However, chopping off the head would certainly cripple the operation. Hopefully long enough for a Middle Eastern movement towards capitalism and freedom, which would end terrorism entirely.

[DarkWaters]

I believe we are looking at different ideas here. From what I understand through my father, who is knowledgeable in this area, the "leaders" or shot callers are in these regions. Though, yes, the martyrs and follwers exist everywhere (even in own own country). However, chopping off the head would certainly cripple the operation. Hopefully long enough for a Middle Eastern movement towards capitalism and freedom, which would end terrorism entirely.

We are looking at different ideas here. When you say terrorists you actually just mean Al Qaeda and not Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Sadr's El Mahdi Army, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, or even some of the secular muslim groups such as the Baathist loyalist insurgents in Iraq or the PKK. At present, one of the popular theories is that Osama Bin Laden is still in the Tora Bora region. However, leads on the most notorious terrorist have grown pretty cold flippantly earning him the nickname of Elvis amongst the intelligence community as sightings for him seem too hopeful at present.

Of course, capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden would serve as a severe blow in terms of morale to Sunni islamic fundamentalists but unfortunately the Shiite terrorist groups who are morally supported by the government of Iran and power figures in Saudia Arabia will still flourish. Furthermore, many terrorist organizations are not exactly centrally run like a government bureaucracy and instead are many disjoint cells capable of operating autonomously. In other words, killing or capturing some top officials is not enough to dissolve a group like Al Qaeda. Instead, we would need to make the lifestyle of being or supporting such an organization so unbearable that nobody would even consider reverting back to islamic terrorism.

The problem with violent Islamic Fundamentalism is certainly much deeper than Al Qaeda and needs to be combatted at the philosophical level in addition to at the military level. This goes well beyond capturing the leaders of Al Qaeda, which is nevertheless still important for justice to take place.

[Atlashrug9]

My position with wiping out Bin Laden and the rest of his groupies goes a bit deeper. I think because people like Saddam have repeatedly claimed we do not have the stomach or resolve to go to, and stay in war, we are perceived as an easy target. Force is morally justified against force. Once these leaders, especially the Iranian government see that we are willing and able to use swift and lethal force, they will think twice about attempting to attack us, or our interests. As much as they want to breed martyrs, most do not want to become them.

[Atlashrug9]

I hope that nobody sincerely believes that the aforementioned liberals and the New York Times are a greater threat to the United States than the individuals who are directly funding, orchestrating, commending and executing all of the various acts of terror that are going on in the world. Not even a Republican attack dog like Sean Hannity would claim that the pair of Massachusetts Senators is a "bigger enemy" to the United States than Osama Bin Laden and the fanatical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Insinuating that the New York Times is far worse than widely recognized terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda is to grotesquely understate the terrorist organizations very actions which are racist, genocidal, anti-life and anti-mind.

Actually, if we lose this wae it will not be because of the "power" of the terrorists, or other states. It will be the lack of power provided and encouraged by these people, so yes -- they could be considered a bigger threat.

[DarkWaters]

Actually, if we lose this wae it will not be because of the "power" of the terrorists, or other states. It will be the lack of power provided and encouraged by these people, so yes -- they could be considered a bigger threat.

Legislative Democrats like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are vociferously critical of how the Bush Administration is handling the war in Iraq and to my knowledge not critical of the principle of combating violent Islamic extremists. I do not want to repeat my argument for why they are not worse than the Islamic extremists on this thread. However, I will say this: if the aforementioned liberals were truly worse than the terrorists themselves then the most prominent Objectivst today, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, would not have urged that we all vote for John Kerry back in 2004.

My position with wiping out Bin Laden and the rest of his groupies goes a bit deeper. I think because people like Saddam have repeatedly claimed we do not have the stomach or resolve to go to, and stay in war, we are perceived as an easy target. Force is morally justified against force. Once these leaders, especially the Iranian government see that we are willing and able to use swift and lethal force, they will think twice about attempting to attack us, or our interests. As much as they want to breed martyrs, most do not want to become them.

Surely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recognizes how swiftly we removed both the Taliban from controlling Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's Baathist Dictatorship from Iraq. Nevertheless, weakening the Sunni enemies of Iran has not discouraged the Iranian Government from continuing their present agenda. If anything, the Iranian Government sees the present state of affairs as an opportunity to increase Shiite influence in unstable Iraq now that their bitter enemies from the Iran-Iraq War are no longer in power. Crushing Al Qaeda unfortunately will not discourage Iran.

Edited September 17, 2006 by DarkWaters