15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 11:52 am
Advocate wrote:
Blatham, maybe it is a slow-moving WWIII.

You shouldn't underestimate the militant Islamists. They are becoming more powerful by the minute. Remember that the bomb is not really out of their reach. Further, consider the damage they could do to oil supplies. Etc., Etc.


The question at issue isn't whether they are dangerous, but whether the present situation is analogous to WWs one and two. And it isn't even close.

For example, given some different decisions by Hitler, England might very well have fallen under German control along with the European countries he came to temporarily dominate. What possible set of circumstances do you imagine might lead to any consequence even remotely of that sort?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 12:00 pm
blatham wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Blatham, maybe it is a slow-moving WWIII.

You shouldn't underestimate the militant Islamists. They are becoming more powerful by the minute. Remember that the bomb is not really out of their reach. Further, consider the damage they could do to oil supplies. Etc., Etc.


The question at issue isn't whether they are dangerous, but whether the present situation is analogous to WWs one and two. And it isn't even close.

For example, given some different decisions by Hitler, England might very well have fallen under German control along with the European countries he came to temporarily dominate. What possible set of circumstances do you imagine might lead to any consequence even remotely of that sort?


Well, if you want to assess it in that idiotic manner I can see where you draw the wrong conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.

yawn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 12:46 pm
Blatham writes
Quote:
Militant Islamists of the sort we need to be concerned with (who have the professed desire as described above) number how many individuals? They have how many rifles? Tanks? Destroyers? Aircraft carriers? Bombers? Jet fighters? ICBMs? Dollars?

They have the personnel and resources and organization and manufacturing capabilities and standing armies/navies/air forces of 1935 Germany? Or Japan? Or Russia?

The question at issue isn't whether they are dangerous, but whether the present situation is analogous to WWs one and two. And it isn't even close.


Nobody had jet fighters or ICBMs when WWI and WWII started and other weapons were primitive by modern standards. Ever see the movie "The Final Countdown" when a modern US carrier wound up off the coast of Pearl Harbor on December 6, 1941? That one carrier had enough fire power to defeat the entire Japanese fleet and all the aircraft bearing down on the US fleet. But despite its much lesser equipped army, Germany nevertheless enjoyed considerable success in the previous world wars.

If Germany had not invaded Belgium in WWI, how long would Great Britain have waited to get involved? Would the USA have ever gotten involved if the Lusitania had not been sunk? In WWII, the world stood by and let Hitler have Belgium hoping that he would then be appeased. When he invaded an innocent Poland, however, Great Britain and Russia began paying serious attention. Yet it took Pearl Harbor to the USA involved.

But do you think anybody was thinking WORLD WAR!!!! when either WWI or WWII started?

Now we have Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel and Israel retaliating. You have Lebanon appealing to the UN to intercede on its behalf, and Iran issuing stern warnings that it will respond if Israel turns its guns on Syria who Israel accuses of supplying Hezbollah.

If Iran attacks Israel, what do you think the odds are that the USA will not respond accordingly? Do you think Iran does not have as much fire power given modern weaponry as Germany started with in WWII?

Do I think WWIII has started? Not yet. But can I imagine a scenario that could create WWIII out of this conflict.? Yes I can.

Blatham writes
Quote:
For example, given some different decisions by Hitler, England might very well have fallen under German control along with the European countries he came to temporarily dominate. What possible set of circumstances do you imagine might lead to any consequence even remotely of that sort?


How about if the USA and/or Russia had backed Hitler and the Axis instead of the allies? What do you think England's fate might have been then?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 01:34 pm
blatham

Quote:
Humorous cartoon? Maybe to some. An accurate portrayal of the forces driving present US policies? Only to someone who needs an easy, simple-minded answer and who doesn't put in the effort to understand the issues.


You obviously don't know about : THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND US FOREIGN POLICY

Must read for those who want to know why the US seems to have abandoned all sense and reason in order to back Israel.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 01:46 pm
Quote:
Nobody had jet fighters or ICBMs when WWI and WWII started and other weapons were primitive by modern standards. Ever see the movie "The Final Countdown" when a modern US carrier wound up off the coast of Pearl Harbor on December 6, 1941? That one carrier had enough fire power to defeat the entire Japanese fleet and all the aircraft bearing down on the US fleet. But despite its much lesser equipped army, Germany nevertheless enjoyed considerable success in the previous world wars.
fox

The point here is parity of resources. The players of the last two wars had huge military machines and vast manufacturing capacities. Muslim radicals are of such a different category of agent that no comparison can sensibly be made.

Quote:
But do you think anybody was thinking WORLD WAR!!!! when either WWI or WWII started?

If you are suggesting that a larger conflagration could arise from the present situation, yes it could. But that is a much different argument than what Gingrich is making - he says we are in it, and that's just foolish. Worse, it is of the war-mongering inflammatory type of statement.

Quote:
Do I think WWIII has started? Not yet. But can I imagine a scenario that could create WWIII out of this conflict.? Yes I can.

Well, there you go. But that set of circumstances gets pretty hard to imagine playing out in reality, even over time. And whatever mix of circumstances one realistically imagines coming to pass, a necessary element would have to be enormous miscalculations or mis-steps by the US.

Quote:
How about if the USA and/or Russia had backed Hitler and the Axis instead of the allies? What do you think England's fate might have been then?

I'm sorry. I have no idea how this question relates to anything real.

Now I see that Limbaugh and O'Reilly are saying the same thing, "We are in WW3". Repugnant.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 01:52 pm
I think, this really is a kind of "war mongering", perhaps preparing the public for more support or whatever.

At least, it shows that those who call it now "WWIII" are not interested in peace.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 01:54 pm
freedom4free wrote:
blatham

Quote:
Humorous cartoon? Maybe to some. An accurate portrayal of the forces driving present US policies? Only to someone who needs an easy, simple-minded answer and who doesn't put in the effort to understand the issues.


You obviously don't know about : THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND US FOREIGN POLICY

Must read for those who want to know why the US seems to have abandoned all sense and reason in order to back Israel.


As I have a subscription to the London Review of Books, not only do I know of the paper, I likely read it long before you. And I've read the responses in the following edition. And I've read Michael Massing's essay on it in the NY Review, and the responses to that. And I've read Chomsky's review of it. Etc.

Now, take a look again at the cartoon and my post.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 02:29 pm
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 02:48 pm
advocate wrote:
Quote:
Blatham, you are defining the conflict(s) very narrowly. It is difficult to define was is a world war, and having a definition is not very important.


I'm not sure how Kristoff's article, with which I find nothing much to disagree, applies to your point.

I am "defining" the term by describing the fundamental and recognizable key elements of the other two instances of its usage. That's not "narrow", that is specific.

Why not consider and label the War on Drugs as WW 3? It had/has a wide geographical spread too.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 02:51 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Nobody had jet fighters or ICBMs when WWI and WWII started and other weapons were primitive by modern standards.


No, but in WWII both sides had propeller fighters. The Japanese Zero gave us fits. The German tanks were better engineered than their American counterparts-their outsides were curved to repel bullets. Suffice it to say that both sides had state-of-the-art weaponry.

You can't compare what militant Islamists have with Western firepower.


Foxfyre wrote:
In WWII, the world stood by and let Hitler have Belgium hoping that he would then be appeased.

That was Czechoslavakia.


Foxfyre wrote:
But do you think anybody was thinking WORLD WAR!!!! when either WWI or WWII started?

They were before WWI. The whole thing was about colonial power. Each side wanted the others' colonies. For several months before the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, everyone was lining up allies for the war they knew was going to happen.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 03:00 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
In WWII, the world stood by and let Hitler have Belgium hoping that he would then be appeased.

That was Czechoslavakia.


Foxfyre wrote:
But do you think anybody was thinking WORLD WAR!!!! when either WWI or WWII started?

They were before WWI. The whole thing was about colonial power. Each side wanted the others' colonies. For several months before the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, everyone was lining up allies for the war they knew was going to happen.


Friedrich Ludwig Jahn used the term "Weltkrieg" ('world war') the first time in 1814, calling the Napoleonic Wars 1813-1815 such.
Since that time, the term has been used in German for a couple of other wars pre-WWI as well.

Merriam-Webster dates 1909 as the year when the term was first coined in English.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jul, 2006 11:04 pm
.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:08 am
Do they not even make an effort to avoid hitting civilians?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:12 am
revel wrote:
Do they not even make an effort to avoid hitting civilians?


How to do so when you bomb the center of a city like Beirut?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:18 am
A report by reuters

Quote:
Beirut Christians terrified as strikes move closer
...
"This war seems to be expanding everywhere. Why is the world allowing them to kill all the Lebanese?"

One family living in a building near the targeted site packed suitcases and fled to the relative safety of Mount Lebanon. "We are going away for 24 hours and then will decide what to do," one woman said on condition of anonymity.

"Why are they hitting us? We are neutral. We are not part of this," she said as she left the building with her family.

Acting Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat warned civilians on Wednesday to stay clear of trucks. Air strikes have destroyed trucks in the Christian coastal town of Byblos and in the Bekaa Valley in east Lebanon.


Thirty-year-old Jivajou Abou-Jawdeh said Israeli pilots may have mistaken well-drilling equipment on trucks in Ashrafiya for rocket launchers, and said he was unshaken by the raids.

"This area in Ashrafiya was a frontline during the civil war. We have survived worse incidents than this," he said with a confident smile.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:18 am
Israel has the capacity to make Lebanon a smoking crater. That they have not done so would lead me to believe they are making an effort to avoid hitting civilians.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:20 am
McGentrix wrote:
Israel has the capacity to make Lebanon a smoking crater. That they have not done so would lead me to believe they are making an effort to avoid hitting civilians.


Unfortunately, the number of death Lebanese and foreign civilians contradicts your opinion.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:38 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Nobody had jet fighters or ICBMs when WWI and WWII started and other weapons were primitive by modern standards. Ever see the movie "The Final Countdown" when a modern US carrier wound up off the coast of Pearl Harbor on December 6, 1941? That one carrier had enough fire power to defeat the entire Japanese fleet and all the aircraft bearing down on the US fleet. But despite its much lesser equipped army, Germany nevertheless enjoyed considerable success in the previous world wars.
fox

The point here is parity of resources. The players of the last two wars had huge military machines and vast manufacturing capacities. Muslim radicals are of such a different category of agent that no comparison can sensibly be made.

If you are suggesting that a larger conflagration could arise from the present situation, yes it could. But that is a much different argument than what Gingrich is making - he says we are in it, and that's just foolish. Worse, it is of the war-mongering inflammatory type of statement.

What I am saying, and what Gingrich is, rightfully in my opinion saying, is that the circumstances could draw in nations with much more significant resources. Israel will be equipped with whatever resources it needs to defend itself. And I am quite sure Russian and others will make sure that Iran, and by default, Syria are equipped to defend themselves if it came down to that. If Israel hits Syria, the apparent primary supplier of Hezbollah, and as a result has to defend against Iran, then what?

The 'improbable" has happened too many times in my lifetime to think that it is impossible.


Quote:
But do you think anybody was thinking WORLD WAR!!!! when either WWI or WWII started?


Quote:
Do I think WWIII has started? Not yet. But can I imagine a scenario that could create WWIII out of this conflict.? Yes I can.


Well, there you go. But that set of circumstances gets pretty hard to imagine playing out in reality, even over time. And whatever mix of circumstances one realistically imagines coming to pass, a necessary element would have to be enormous miscalculations or mis-steps by the US.

Miscalculations or mis-steps by the USA or almost anybody else. Again, I've seen it happen too many times in my lifetime to discount the possibility.

Quote:
How about if the USA and/or Russia had backed Hitler and the Axis instead of the allies? What do you think England's fate might have been then?


I'm sorry. I have no idea how this question relates to anything real.

You posed the question. I just answered it.

Now I see that Limbaugh and O'Reilly are saying the same thing, "We are in WW3". Repugnant.


I listened to Rush off and on the last couple of days because he comes on the station I most often listen to for current news. He is not saying that we are in WWIII as you are portraying it.

One very frequently gets a different impression than what is portrayed by the media when one hears the information first hand.

Also, I have listened to two interviews with Gingrich this past week, and when you put his words into their full context, it is far less repugnant than what you are portraying. I disagree with Newt on several points at this time, but I also trust his command of history and all the innuendo and subplots wihin it. I consider him a far more balanced and objective historian than say, Chomsky. Smile

I haven't heard O'Reilly since the current conflict started, so I have no idea what he has said or whether I would agree with him or not.

I think it far more profitable to take partisan ideology and personal animosity toward personalities out of this, and look at the facts as they unfold. A good idea or pertinent observation is a good idea and pertinent observation no matter who makes it.
0 Replies
 
Ellinas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:51 am
McGentrix wrote:
Israel has the capacity to make Lebanon a smoking crater. That they have not done so would lead me to believe they are making an effort to avoid hitting civilians.


As it looks like, Israel's "capacity" is substandard without the involvement of the American goverment.

It would be better for you if you try to analyze things and create an opinion of your own about the whole situation, free from the brainwashing American-Zionist media.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 08:41 am
Ellinas wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Israel has the capacity to make Lebanon a smoking crater. That they have not done so would lead me to believe they are making an effort to avoid hitting civilians.


As it looks like, Israel's "capacity" is substandard without the involvement of the American goverment.

It would be better for you if you try to analyze things and create an opinion of your own about the whole situation, free from the brainwashing American-Zionist media.


And Hizbollah would be far less equiped without the backing of Iran and Syria. Israel needs the support of the free countries to exist. Otherwise, the Muslim extremeists might be successful in wiping them out.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
Palestinian People are Fake - Discussion by Advocate
Iran Stalls, Centrifuges Spin - Discussion by Advocate
No Appeasement of Iran - Discussion by Advocate
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/24/2014 at 07:32:33