stratohawk wrote:Well yes, if you really long for that third Wolrd War, then wait for it and do whatever you like. I'm not a naive optimist, but a realist, and we are still far away from this Apocalypse that you are promising.
Let's put a bit of Biblical perspective on this dilemma for just a moment, okay?
Matthew 24:3 "And as He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, '
Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?' And Jesus answered and said unto them, '
Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, "I am the Christ"; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
'For nation shall rise against nation , and kingdom against kingdom : and there shall be famines , and pestilences, and earthquakes , in diverse places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.'
No one (other than God Himself) knows when that time will actually come to pass. Perhaps if this were only a fairly tale, as some would like you to believe, then perhaps the events described in Matt 24:3 would not be coming to pass. However, as Matthew also notes, in 24:37, many will be taken completely by surprise.
If the EU's bureaucrats were as terribly clever as they purported to be, then WWI would have been the "War to End All Wars", and Europe would have brokered the peace agreements that it seeks to impose in the Middle East.
Numerous other examples of Biblical eschatology (end times prophecy), from both the Old and New Testaments have already been fulfilled, and I challenge
anyone to disprove that a great deal of what was written thousands of years ago has already been fulfilled. Essentially, the problems that mankind is currently facing today are well beyond our ability as mere mortals to resolve.
stratohawk wrote:Of course Iran's leadership makes steps that might lead to an escalation, but even they won't be so stupid to attack Israel, with whatever weapons they have.
Not stupid enough to launch a nuclear armed missile across the border- as they are well aware of the implications of the Samson Option, but that is probably not their plan. However, having a small team of jihadists detonating a nuclear device or a dirty bomb from within Israel (or the US for that matter) is a significantly more realistic goal.
stratohawk wrote:The problem of nowadays situation is the chaos, small terrorist cells all over the world, which are not even linked together.
So whom did Hezbollah get its Katyuhsa rockets, not to mention, anti-ship and anti-tank missiles from? Santa Claus? Where does Hamas get its weapons from, the Dali Lama? Who's arming the Taliban, the Pope?
Was it Saddam Hussein or Jacques Chirac that offered $25,000 bounties to the surviving family members of PLO suicide bombers? Who is funding these groups? Who is hiding their money? Who is facilitating their transportation, communication, and other logistical needs?
For journalists to suggest that terror groups are not linked together and supported by states such as Iran and Syria is a very myopic worldview, and is truly a study in naïvetivity.
stratohawk wrote:That's also one of the reasons why Bush and his Clan WILL NEVER WIN A WAR AGAINST TERRORISM! It's not possible in a military way!! The only way is to solve those burning conflicts (especially the conflict in Middle East) and to get the rich nations to help the poor countries out of their desperate situation.
I believe that the reality of the situation easily discredits that statement. The majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals, and many had either baccalaureate or master's degrees at the university level. Bin Laden himself is a Saudi national.
Billions upon billions of dollars in foreign aid have been poured into the so-called "Palestinian" territories, and the end result has been a continued state of war against Israel, which has resulted in widespread misery and destruction.
Ask yourself this question, would there be so much desperation in Gaza or the West Bank if the intifadas had been called off? If Fatah and Hamas were actually concerned about their people, they would not be siphoning off foreign aid to enrich themselves and to purchase weapons.
This is not about economics, not by a longshot. It is a religious war, and it will be the Final Crusade. The Imams have declared that both the wars on terror, as well as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, are indeed, wars against Islam.
stratohawk wrote:I tell you once again, that the terrorists that striked on 9/11 almost achieved a situation they never wanted: A world standing together to face a new and deadly threat.
The world is far from united in the war on terror. The UN and EU are still wringing their hands and sweating bullets over the mere thought of imposing sanctions on Iran. Morevover, France, Germany, and Russia were the ringleaders on holding Iraq accountable for the violation of numerous UN resolutions, and not to mention the ceasefire of Gulf War I. We've already discussed Moscow's sponsorship of Iran's nuclear program, but it is worth another mention.
stratohawk wrote: But of course ignorance and egoism made the politicians forget too soon again. Now everybody is aiming again on his own advantage. Nobody seems to be willing to make sacrifices, even if it would help the own people.
If something is of strategic or tactical value to the United States or Israel, or even the Western world itself, for that matter, you can pretty much bet the farm that Paris, Berlin, and Moscow will do anything that they can to make our lives more difficult with their obstructionist policies in order to appease and pacify their Islamic masters at the UN!
stratohawk wrote:Not all the people want a new World War, major part wants to live in peace and friendship with its neighbours.
Try telling that to Damascus and Tehran, and not to mention hundreds of thousands of pro-Hezbollah protestors in Beirut.
stratohawk wrote: It's the leaders that mis-lead their people. It's the censorship and the mis-information that makes the people follow their leaders.
What about the imams in the mosques and schools?
stratohawk wrote: Did you never think about that the media you get isn't absolutely free? I've been to the US for a long time, and the informations I read and saw in the media were completely different than in Europe.
It's a widely known fact that the left-wing pretty much dominates the print and television news media here in the States, and I'd be rather surprised if you thought that I subscribed to garbage of that ilk!
stratohawk wrote:I don't say the European News are better or more correct. It just says, don't trust everything what YOUR media says.
The European media can scarcely conceal its glee that the transatlantic alliance is in total disarray. It is irretrievably broken, not that it's a bad thing. Tens of millions of Americans are positively sick and tired of Europe's whining and super-power wannabe tricks in Brussels (of which even Putin himself was mocking earlier this week), and its left-wing propoganda machinery.
stratohawk wrote:Media is definitely the most powerful weapon in the 21st century. Look what happened in that "cartoon struggle", or with the speach of the Pope. The leaders of some Muslim Countries only showed their people through the media what they wanted them to see. This brought up riots all over the world. Or once when Al-Djasira (wasn't it Al-Djasira? I don't remember exactly) gave informations that guards in Guantanamo-Prison flush down the Koran in toilets. You know what information and mis-information can lead to.
And new stories get invented by the left on a daily basis. Dan Rather was forced to step down from CBS due to his fabrications of Bush's military service, which were utltimately proved to be fake (in short, the US Air Force used typewriters, not Microsoft Word fonts, during the time of Bush's service in the air national guard). If what the left said were actually true, then America would not have an enemy that it is itself not responsible for!
stratohawk wrote:Everything you are talking about is based upon facts you get from YOUR media, and because every new fact you get from it, you are assured more and more in your opinion, and then of course articles like the last published by the BBC seem to be the biggest bullshit, or, as you say, "from a propagandist viewpoint". Then what is your viewpoint supposed to be?
If everything that I was talking about came from facts offered by, let's say, Ted Turner, I would be saying;
"Bush Lied"
"Micheal Moore is our new messiah"
"Hillary in 2008!"
"9/11 was a plot by the Bush White House"
"Global warming is Bush's fault"
"Terrorism is America's fault"
"Why can't we have more socialism like Europe?"
and other ridiculous phrases that are offered by the mainstream media here, which is often parroted endlessly by their celebrity allies in Hollyweird!
And I also think that my viewpoint should be crystal clear by now. The BBC's story was a crock if there ever was one, and the story would not have been out of place in the National Enquirer. And now, on BBC1 at seven this evening, they'll probably be showing "Modern Dhimmism for Englightened Europeans!"
stratohawk wrote:What makes me optimistic a very little bit are the democratic movements that were succesful over the last years in some countries, without ANY military support. Of course those people have to realise that also democracy doesn't solve any problem. But now these countries are Democratic States, where the media can at least claim to be free, or more free than under the dictators before. I hope you wake up and realise that there are more options to solve a conflict than only military ones one day.
Without any direct military support. Had the Soviet Union not gone bankrupt in its arms race with America, it is very likely that the Soviet Union would not have folded at all. If that were the case, there would be no freedom in eastern Europe right now. Is it any coincidence that former Warsaw Pact countries have been keenly interested in NATO membership, as well as making contributions to coalition forces in Iraq?
stratohawk wrote:I don't say military strikes are NOT an option. But your dark vision about nuclear mushrooms above every large city is so far from becoming reality and only enforces the fears and retentions.
I'd like to see where I've said, "every large city". What I have said is that a nuclear terror strike on American soil would result in tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of dead in retaliation. I don't believe that I said that America would launch nuclear strikes at everyone now, did I?
stratohawk wrote:If you don't believe so, it's really sad. This means you only believe in the bad side of human being, especially when you classify your life (or the life of anyone) higher than other ones, like when you say one has to accept the "collateral casualties" in wars like the last Lebanon War.
It's always too easy to criticize the Jews, isn't it? We all now know that they were the true villians, and not Hezbollah. It's interesting that I cannot recall a single instance of the BBC complaining about collateral damage during Bill Clinton's bombing campaign against the Serbs. Perhaps it was because that the Serbs are Orthodox Christians? Europe's hypocrisy is exposed yet again.