Obama approves troop surge...

Aramike · 10-15-09, 03:35 AM

Quote:

And how about any faction intending to take advantage of US forces strain.
WWIII is looming

.

As much as I'd love to crown you with a tin hat, I don't think you're wrong.

World War III won't look the same as the previous world wars, but it is indeed looming. The thing I'm most afraid of is that, even without nuclear weapons, the environmental impact of any global conflict will be catastrophic. Destroy just a few of the modern oil tankers for instance, and you have a serious problem.

Castout · 10-15-09, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

As much as I'd love to crown you with a tin hat, I don't think you're wrong.

World War III won't look the same as the previous world wars, but it is indeed looming. The thing I'm most afraid of is that, even without nuclear weapons, the environmental impact of any global conflict will be catastrophic. Destroy just a few of the modern oil tankers for instance, and you have a serious problem.

I don't think tin hat works

. Not that I ever tried it lol

Just a hypothetical scenario:
Kim Jong Il and his regime are frustrated by talks that's going nowhere, at least nowhere he wanted it to be. So the regime decided to play a game of chicken by launching their medium range ballistic missile, the Rodong I or II this time over South Korea(over not aimed at), the South panic because it's accepted that the North is known to have nuclear warheads capable to be carried by the Rodong missiles. So the South thinking it was an attack or even if it knew it wasn't is not not going to do anything after a couple ballistic missiles went over their country so they decided to launch an air campaign against the North nuclear weapon infrastructures and systems.
Then I leave the rest to your own imagination . . .

if you think that's a far off illusion then here it's confirmed the North has in possession at least two nuclear warhead capable to be carried by their Rodong system: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aMDehZBzI84I

Or what if Iran decided to fish. . .and China along with Russia followed suit. It would then force India into the global conflict and with India comes along Pakistan another nuclear power. I better dig my nuclear shelter tomorrow lol

And do you realize that this war against terrorism is actually making terrorism flourishing . . .

We never knew terrorism before 9/11 now we are familiar with the acts! From church bombing to embassy bombing to two Bali bombings to several hotel bombings. Good job! Your war against terrorism is making it more popular and rampant. Or is that what is expected? Since you give them all the more justification.

Aramike · 10-15-09, 04:20 AM

Quote:

And do you realize that this war against terrorism is actually making terrorism to flourish . . .

Castout, you were doing well until this...

Perhaps the so-called "War on Terrorism" (a misnomer if there ever was one) is creating more terrorist recruits than ever, but it certainly is impacting the ability for those recruits to effect any kind of major attack. Frankly, I don't give a damn how many Muslims (or whoever) are running around in camps with AK-47s ... what I care about is whether or not than can effect any kind of actual terrorist attack.

I wonder what you mean by terrorism flourishing. If you mean by terrorist attacks, you're flat out wrong. If you mean by terrorist recruiting - well, that's highly speculative any way you go. The suggestion that our enemies, culturally speaking, have been pushed over the very edge that CAUSED the WTC attack seems kind of foolish.

Castout · 10-15-09, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Castout, you were doing well until this...

Perhaps the so-called "War on Terrorism" (a misnomer if there ever was one) is creating more terrorist recruits than ever, but it certainly is impacting the ability for those recruits to effect any kind of major attack. Frankly, I don't give a damn how many Muslims (or whoever) are running around in camps with AK-47s ... what I care about is whether or not than can effect any kind of actual terrorist attack.

I wonder what you mean by terrorism flourishing. If you mean by terrorist attacks, you're flat out wrong. If you mean by terrorist recruiting - well, that's highly speculative any way you go. The suggestion that our enemies, culturally speaking, have been pushed over the very edge that CAUSED the WTC attack seems kind of foolish.

No offense

I know most Americans are highly sensitive over their war against terrorism issue but terrorist acts have been on the rise here where I live. We never knew terrorism before 9/11 now it's like a bi annual date with explosives.

Aramike · 10-15-09, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castout

No offense

I know most Americans are highly sensitive over their war against terrorism issue but terrorist acts have been on the rise here where I live. We never knew terrorism before 9/11 now it's like a bi annual date with explosives.

I didn't suspect you meant any offense but if terrorist attacks are on the rise in Jakarta it's a stretch to blame the US for it, don't you think?

Besides, the US is responsible for defending the US. Thus far the US has done a good job of that. If the rest of the world feel that cause is responsible for an increase on their soil, well ... that's tough sh!t. If they can't protect their country as well as we do ours, that's NOT our problem.

Skybird · 10-15-09, 05:18 AM

Bush senior said he shied away from taking Iraq in 91 becasue of the costs in lives if attacking Bagdhad. which I take as not the real reason, but the real reason was that one wanted to leave Saddam in place to take care of certain other power factions in the region. That he was allowed to use helicopters in the onslaught against the Shia rise, and that one first talked the Shia into rebellion, then betrayed them and let them run into their massacring, is telltaling. also, there was very strong Arab opposition to a complete taking of Iraq or an invasion of the capital (still seen as brother nation of the Arabs) by the infidel Americans, also, most Arabs are Sunni muslims, and leaving Saddam in place promised the prospect of him taking care of the numerically strong potential opposition in Iraq, which were the Shia, plus shia Iran which always has had strained relations to the sunni Arabs. It was about maintaining the kind of stability that was lost once saddam was removed from power in 2003. As we all know, since then we have chaos in Iraq, and religious fanatism dominating.

Not before some time later, Wolfowitz and two or three others sat down and authored a paper that called for a second war on Iraq to remove Saddam and bring the flow of oil in that region under strategic control of the US, especially by economically controlling the keypoints in the economic network in the region, and Iraq. the massive engagements of Halliburton and associated subcontractors needs to be seen in this light, too. It was also to retake ground from French business actors who in the past years had taken over the once dominant role of anglosaxon oil companies in Iraq. This war was planned roughly ten years before the actual war in 2003 brake lose. It was willed the day Bush got elected. The plan dissapeared in a drawer during the Clinto years, and reappeared again immediately when Bush was elected, together with the gang that had written it. the war on Iraq was wanted since long BEFORE 9/11.

Then 9/11 happened, which was a happy thing, becasue it boosted Bush'S approval ratings that before were on a record low, he was openly mocked about and we still remember when on the way to his inauguration, I think, his limousine had stood several minutes in the rain because there was so much protest and laughter in the streets. At that time Bush was more seen as the king's jester than the president. 9/11 had two consequences.

First, the plan to attack Iraq had to be delayed, because Afghanistan puashed itself into the focus of attention violently.

Second, 9/11 gave the opportunity to produce a lot of pathetic and patriotic phrases that helped Bush to boost his public recognition and "correct" the broken image of his person. He used the attack not only to justify the reactive war against Afghanistan, but to create a mood in the public that saw the war on Iraq as justified as well and (wrongly) assumed that the Iraq war and Saddam were in any way linked to 9/11 and al Quaeda.

Afghanistan was a war of need. Iraq was the war of choice and desire. Afghnaistan served both as an unwelcomed and welcomed delay to the original plan to attack Iraq anyway. It delayed the war, but it also assisted in creating the public support for it.

All this is no consoiraton theory, but historic truth open to verifcation. It is jnicely summarised in thos docu I repeatedly pointed at in the past years, but do once again. not becasue the findings in it are unique, they are not, but because the docu excels in presenting the obvious truths that already were known long before the film was published (and became a big success). That way it is not so much brilliant in being investigative, but in presenting and summarising the back then already known background information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_end_in_sight

Aramike · 10-15-09, 05:36 AM

Quote:

All this is no consoiraton theory, but historic truth open to verifcation. It is jnicely summarised in thos docu I repeatedly pointed at in the past years, but do once again. not becasue the findings in it are unique, they are not, but because the docu excels in presenting the obvious truths that already were known long before the film was published (and became a big success). That way it is not so much brilliant in being investigative, but in presenting and summarising the back then already known background information.

Skybird, you know this as well as I do - there are plently of position pieces to the contrary, and it would be foolish to accept any one as absolute truth.

But I have to query, previously I typically regarded your interpretation of international events to be fairly spot-on. Even on economics we have more in common than not. But lately you seem to be thriving on conspiracy theories ...

What gives?

Okay, I kind of know the answer to that - US Presidents in favor of America-first policy = conspiracy. That's the pattern. Either there's a global conspiracy perpetuated by the people lefties consider the least "bright", which involve all of us, or there is an incredible amount of US resentment eminating from your veins.

Either way, you're smarter than that. Your unbiased analysis' are almost always spot on. The problem only arises when you attempt to track down the tin-hatters.

Castout · 10-15-09, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

I didn't suspect you meant any offense but if terrorist attacks are on the rise in Jakarta it's a stretch to blame the US for it, don't you think?

Besides, the US is responsible for defending the US. Thus far the US has done a good job of that. If the rest of the world feel that cause is responsible for an increase on their soil, well ... that's tough sh!t. If they can't protect their country as well as we do ours, that's NOT our problem.

That they are targeting westerners doesn't bother you?

Of course if there were Indonesian victims they just said they were collateral damage. But I could use your logic here likewise.
Why would then the US ask the world to stand together to fight terror? It's either you're with us or against us kind of thing. I mean the 9/11 happened on American soil why would it be an international concern.

10-15-09, 05:18 AM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,716 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Bush senior said he shied away from taking Iraq in 91 becasue of the costs in lives if attacking Bagdhad. which I take as not the real reason, but the real reason was that one wanted to leave Saddam in place to take care of certain other power factions in the region. That he was allowed to use helicopters in the onslaught against the Shia rise, and that one first talked the Shia into rebellion, then betrayed them and let them run into their massacring, is telltaling. also, there was very strong Arab opposition to a complete taking of Iraq or an invasion of the capital (still seen as brother nation of the Arabs) by the infidel Americans, also, most Arabs are Sunni muslims, and leaving Saddam in place promised the prospect of him taking care of the numerically strong potential opposition in Iraq, which were the Shia, plus shia Iran which always has had strained relations to the sunni Arabs. It was about maintaining the kind of stability that was lost once saddam was removed from power in 2003. As we all know, since then we have chaos in Iraq, and religious fanatism dominating. Not before some time later, Wolfowitz and two or three others sat down and authored a paper that called for a second war on Iraq to remove Saddam and bring the flow of oil in that region under strategic control of the US, especially by economically controlling the keypoints in the economic network in the region, and Iraq. the massive engagements of Halliburton and associated subcontractors needs to be seen in this light, too. It was also to retake ground from French business actors who in the past years had taken over the once dominant role of anglosaxon oil companies in Iraq. This war was planned roughly ten years before the actual war in 2003 brake lose. It was willed the day Bush got elected. The plan dissapeared in a drawer during the Clinto years, and reappeared again immediately when Bush was elected, together with the gang that had written it. the war on Iraq was wanted since long BEFORE 9/11. Then 9/11 happened, which was a happy thing, becasue it boosted Bush'S approval ratings that before were on a record low, he was openly mocked about and we still remember when on the way to his inauguration, I think, his limousine had stood several minutes in the rain because there was so much protest and laughter in the streets. At that time Bush was more seen as the king's jester than the president. 9/11 had two consequences. First, the plan to attack Iraq had to be delayed, because Afghanistan puashed itself into the focus of attention violently. Second, 9/11 gave the opportunity to produce a lot of pathetic and patriotic phrases that helped Bush to boost his public recognition and "correct" the broken image of his person. He used the attack not only to justify the reactive war against Afghanistan, but to create a mood in the public that saw the war on Iraq as justified as well and (wrongly) assumed that the Iraq war and Saddam were in any way linked to 9/11 and al Quaeda. Afghanistan was a war of need. Iraq was the war of choice and desire. Afghnaistan served both as an unwelcomed and welcomed delay to the original plan to attack Iraq anyway. It delayed the war, but it also assisted in creating the public support for it. All this is no consoiraton theory, but historic truth open to verifcation. It is jnicely summarised in thos docu I repeatedly pointed at in the past years, but do once again. not becasue the findings in it are unique, they are not, but because the docu excels in presenting the obvious truths that already were known long before the film was published (and became a big success). That way it is not so much brilliant in being investigative, but in presenting and summarising the back then already known background information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_end_in_sight __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.