Is this World War III?

[softwareNerd]

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.

This is definitely crucial. Right now, the U.S. has a policy of "speak softly and carry a big stick.... but also carry a few smaller sticks, which are the only one's we'll really use, and only in a way that respects our opponent's dignity".

DarkWaters: I see your point that the willingness of the U.S. to go into Afghanistan and Iraq has not quieted down Iran. However, that is because they see the U.S. bogged down in Iraq and they understand that the last thing the U.S. wants is another war. Further, everyone realizes that the U.S. is not in this the Iraq war 100%, and that if a new president comes in (regardless of party) he could decide to pull out. The North Koreans seem to understand that too. I think it important to destroy the enemy while minimizing costs, and then move on. If the U.S. had a modicum of sense, Saddam Hussein would be dead, Sadr would be dead, the Iraqis would probably be left to their own devices in a civil war, while the U.S. would have rumbled through Iran.

In anticipation of a possible objection on practicality, I'll add this: rather we leave those countries like mini-Afghanistans than like mini-Irans.

In anticipation of a possible objection on morality, I'll add this: I think that it would have been in the U.S. interest to set up an interim government, as they did, but the U.S. should not have taken it on as an open-ended responsibility. Instead, the approach should have been more on the lines of: we'll run things for a year and help you guys set up police and military, then we'll give you a constitution and supervise and election, then we're out of here. meanwhile, if we strongly believe some emerging politician is the kind who is going to wait for us to leave and then try to take over, we will either kill him or send him to Guantanamo. In essence, to hell with democracy; kill any budding demagogues.

(PS: I cannot honestly say that I would have suggested these things as events unfolded; this is more of a lesson learnt in hindsight. However, having learnt that lesson, we should act accordingly.)

[DarkWaters]

This announcement seems pertinent to this thread. President Bush has pledged to send U.S. troops to Pakistan to capture Osama Bin Laden under the premise that he receive reliable intelligence that Bin Laden is actually in the region.

[The Wrath]

Am I the only person who finds it highly unlikely that bin Laden is still alive?

[Atlashrug9]

I think he is alive and well -- and most likely under surveillance. I doubt even PODUS would now, better to stay on yop of him before hadn than kill him and let psycho 2 take his place.

[$$$]

Just want to throw in a few points:

First, the USA, and allies, can totally destroy, invade and occupy our enemies, Iran, Syria and North Korea. China and Russia are the only nations that may have strategic interest enough to stop us some what. However, there is no question as to the USA's total military superiority.

Will power is another matter. However, despite all the "leftys" protests, they haven't stopped the operations in Afghanistan or Iraq. If there was all out war, they would have less impact than they have now. I don't see them as having too much power, no matter how much everyone likes to think they have. Look at how much money they have pumped into anti-Iraq qar efforts. What have they accomplished? At the end of the day, the USA is still in Iraq.

The thing that Iran, Syria, and North Korea have in common, is that they are on the list of governments the USA is very angry with. That is it. Venezuela would like to be on that list.

Iran is controlled by Shiite moslems. They hate non-shiites. Syria is mainly Sunni. Iran's gov't hates socialism (despite acting in a similar manner). Syria has a baathist dictatorship. They used to support Saddam in Iraq, whom Iran hates. Baathists are national socialist. Syria and Iran have only a couple of things in common. A hatred of jews and being on the USA's hit list.

In fact, if Sunnis and Shiites keep blowing themselves up in Iraq (who says Iraq is a failure...haha, kidding) , tension between Syria and Iran could start. Syria funds the Sunni Baathists, Iran funds the Shiites. They could both be looking at trying to divide the country up.

I forgot, Iran and Syria hate their Kurds too...

Norht Korea is communist. Iran especially hates communists. They have little in common.

Venezuela has a christian socialist in charge. Iran hates christians and socialists, and democracy which Chavez may actually be comitted to at some level. Chavez is going to realize one day how Iran operates in order to spread it's religion and jew killing. They have little in common, except a hatred of the USA.

China just wants Taiwan , and it's main motivation is to keep the nation together. China has a histroy of areas breaking off on their own, or being occupied by others. It is China's main goal, to keep the nation together. The Taiwan issue is the main problem between us and them.

Russia is similar, wants to keep it's country together and keep violence in the surrounding region at a minimum.

The other thing to never forget about these nations, is that it is not 100% of the population who back their governments. Persians make up only 51% of Iran. Minorities, and religious minorites in that nation feel under occupation. There are troops in the streets of every Kurdish town (apparently) in Iran. We can destabalize them by arming certain groups. Syria is similar. North Korea, probably no hope of rebellion there.

Venezuela is polarized, and it's still a democracy , and people still have a lot of freedoms there. In fact, Chavez may be the best thing for the Cuban people. Castro is almost finished, the new leaders may want to emulate Venezuela more. Also, I think Cuba is smart enough to realize that any Iranian presence on it's soil wil not be tolerated by the USA. Chavez probably will have Iranian agents in his nation however.

Given all of this, and many other facts, I think WW3 is a long way off. Our immediate enemies are not strong, they are weak. We are the strong ones, despite the moral uncertainties. While major war would no doubt cause a lot of damage in the West from terrorism, the war would be finished by us and our enemies would be completly destroyed.

[hunterrose]

First, the USA, and allies, can totally destroy, invade and occupy our enemies, Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Probably, but at what cost?

We can destabilize [Middle Eastern enemies]by arming certain [local] groups.

...historically, that hasn't worked too well...

North Korea, probably no hope of rebellion there.

Really? Offhand, I would think that supporting an insurrection in NK would be easier than one in the Middle East. Nobody likes North Korea (and vice versa) so there'd be less likelihood of others coming to the physical aid of NK. Now, whether this would be conducive to ending "WW3" is another question.

Venezuela is polarized, and it's still a democracy , and people still have a lot of freedoms there. In fact, Chavez may be the best thing for the Cuban people. Castro is almost finished, the new leaders may want to emulate Venezuela more.

interesting point

[DarkWaters]

Also, I think Cuba is smart enough to realize that any Iranian presence on it's soil wil not be tolerated by the USA. Chavez probably will have Iranian agents in his nation however.

Do you think that the Iranians would/could go at great lengths to establish a sphere of influence in Cuba? Iran is not that powerful.

[Lathanar]

We can destabalize them by arming certain groups.

Yes, arming the mujahideen to create instability in Russian Afghanistan worked out well.

[$$$]

Yes, arming the mujahideen to create instability in Russian Afghanistan worked out well.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic...it did work out well. They did defeat the Soviets, and the cost of that war helped bring the USSR down. The fact that most of the people the USA armed decided to implement a worse(?) system and turn around and declare war on the West is a differnt story. The lesson being, if we arm groups in a place like Iran, make sure they have at least least quasi human goals.

Offhand, I would think that supporting an insurrection in NK would be easier than one in the Middle East

For North Korea, I can't imagine the half starved people would take up arms against their government. Hopefuly I am wrong, I've never heard of any unrest from that nation. Well, I've never heard much from them, except that Kim is the best ever an the people jump up and down in joyous celebration for the mighty advances he brings.

Do you think that the Iranians would/could go at great lengths to establish a sphere of influence in Cuba?

Not as big as a sphere of influence - however, Chavez in Venezuela has already discussed security with Iran about the impending bush-satan invasion. It would come as no surprise to learn of Iranian agents in Venezuela. They have certainly had agents in Argentia before. Pretty much wherever they have an embassy.

I guess my points are that the West can certainly win against these evil men if it came down to world war. These men don't govern with 100% support, whch is a weakness. Such a war will be costly to the West, but more costly to the evil regimes and their people. Even the "leftys" who would denounce fighting back against them are not likely to stop the West's war plans in such an event. Whether we will have the will power in the future to fight for what is right is another question.

[DarkWaters]

This morning Al Qaeda leader Al-Zawahiri announced a formal relationship between his organization and an Algerian based terrorist organization called the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat. Here is a map of activity perpetrated by the Algerian terrorist organization.

[FeatherFall]

$$$, while I agree that the US would win an all out war, I think that your analysis is a little concrete bound. I think you underestimate the willingness of these thugs to set differences aside for the sake of destroying the US.

Venezuela is polarized, and it's still a democracy , and people still have a lot of freedoms there. In fact, Chavez may be the best thing for the Cuban people. Castro is almost finished, the new leaders may want to emulate Venezuela more. Also, I think Cuba is smart enough to realize that any Iranian presence on it's soil wil not be tolerated by the USA. Chavez probably will have Iranian agents in his nation however.

Excuse me? I don't understand how a the statist ally of another statist regime can be the best thing for the people living under the second regime. Maybe you can elaborate.

Democracy is not good for its citizens. Anyway, I don't think Venezuela can claim to be a democracy any longer. Remember the sham recall elections that Chavez strong-armed his way through? The one that Jimmy Carter, may he some day stop being scum, rubber stamped?

This is already a global military conflict, but so was the 'cold' war. So, WWIII or WWIV, I don't think it matters what you call it. Just be prepared to end it.

[$$$]

I don't understand how a the statist ally of another statist regime can be the best thing for the people living under the second regime. Maybe you can elaborate.

Choose a place to live. Cuba or Venezuela. Venezuela has way more rights, including economic ones, than Cuba. Once Castro is out of the picture, Cuba's leaders could, for their own benefit, choose to try and emulate their new close friend Chavez. That would be better for the Cuban people. It's not great, it is better.

Democracy is not good for its citizens

Yes I know we all hate democracy. However the facts are, nations that implement democracy have more freedoms, including economic ones, than non-democratic nations. Democracy may not be good, but it is better when compared to the current variety of non-democracy we have seen. Therefore Cuba becoming a democracy, which is unlikely even though Venezuela is one, would be a better thing for the people.