WWIII -?

Talk about everything else besides Stratovarius here in English. Please try to put more serious topics here, and silly topics in the Spam section.
User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:45 am

Hmm.. the waronjihad.com site is interesting, but makes some impressive leaps of fancy. And, in places, is rather poorly written.

Food for thought, however... I don't think things will ever get that bad though. The website does border on antisemetism too.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
NordicStorm
Sr. Member
Posts: 2174
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 11:46 pm
Location: Finland

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NordicStorm » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:33 am

Actually, I've been thinking about this, and I think I have solution.

The French have been seeking a solution to the crisis, but I think it's time for them to bring out the big guns. They have a secret weapon so immensely powerful it could very well end terrorism as we know it and bring about everlasting peace.

You all know what I'm talking about, right? Yep, you guessed it: Zinedine Zidane. Here's my proposal: We send Zidane to Lebanon, where he proceeds to seek out Nasrallah and headbutt him straight in the chest. Hezbollah will be powerless against the ZCD (Zisou Chrome Dome). Crisis solved! Then it's on to Afghanistan to seek out bin Ladin.

To spare the civilians, my other proposal is that the UN flies in vast amounts of bicycles, and whatever the hell Floyd Landis shot up his ass. There is no rocket or bullet the civilians won't be able to outrun. Or outcycle, rather.

Now, no need to thank me, but this December I better be the recipient of a prestigious award in Oslo, Norway.
Give me liberty, or give me cake!

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:44 pm

NordicStorm wrote:Actually, I've been thinking about this, and I think I have solution.

The French have been seeking a solution to the crisis, but I think it's time for them to bring out the big guns. They have a secret weapon so immensely powerful it could very well end terrorism as we know it and bring about everlasting peace.

You all know what I'm talking about, right? Yep, you guessed it: Zinedine Zidane. Here's my proposal: We send Zidane to Lebanon, where he proceeds to seek out Nasrallah and headbutt him straight in the chest. Hezbollah will be powerless against the ZCD (Zisou Chrome Dome). Crisis solved! Then it's on to Afghanistan to seek out bin Ladin.

To spare the civilians, my other proposal is that the UN flies in vast amounts of bicycles, and whatever the hell Floyd Landis shot up his ass. There is no rocket or bullet the civilians won't be able to outrun. Or outcycle, rather.

Now, no need to thank me, but this December I better be the recipient of a prestigious award in Oslo, Norway.

:lol: :lol: :shock:

Never before was such a retarded post so needed in a thread :D
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

Patricia
Sr. Member
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 4:56 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Patricia » Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:29 pm

NordicStorm wrote:Actually, I've been thinking about this, and I think I have solution.

The French have been seeking a solution to the crisis, but I think it's time for them to bring out the big guns. They have a secret weapon so immensely powerful it could very well end terrorism as we know it and bring about everlasting peace.

You all know what I'm talking about, right? Yep, you guessed it: Zinedine Zidane. Here's my proposal: We send Zidane to Lebanon, where he proceeds to seek out Nasrallah and headbutt him straight in the chest. Hezbollah will be powerless against the ZCD (Zisou Chrome Dome). Crisis solved! Then it's on to Afghanistan to seek out bin Ladin.

To spare the civilians, my other proposal is that the UN flies in vast amounts of bicycles, and whatever the hell Floyd Landis shot up his ass. There is no rocket or bullet the civilians won't be able to outrun. Or outcycle, rather.

Now, no need to thank me, but this December I better be the recipient of a prestigious award in Oslo, Norway.
Haha great idea! :lol:
Olen tyytyväinen...Onpa kiva tavata...

User avatar
MetalAngel
Sr. Member
Posts: 4355
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:23 pm
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by MetalAngel » Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Hehe, hell yeah!!! :lol:
Toutes choses étant égales, par ailleurs, la solution la plus simple est toujours la meilleure.

Spirit Of Metal Webzine : http://www.spirit-of-metal.com

www.myspace.com/metalangelmusic

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:58 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4787857.stm

This is an encouraging development.

Pity that Hezbollah remain intact (to what degree, we cannot know). However, let's just hope peace stays.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:30 am

[q]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4787857.stm

This is an encouraging development.

Pity that Hezbollah remain intact (to what degree, we cannot know). However, let's just hope peace stays.[/q]

Yes, I saw the article; but does it not have shades of the agreement from the year 2000? Or, in other words, when Israel left Lebanon (with Hizbollah still intact) the last time?
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:26 am

miditek wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4787857.stm

This is an encouraging development.

Pity that Hezbollah remain intact (to what degree, we cannot know). However, let's just hope peace stays.
Yes, I saw the article; but does it not have shades of the agreement from the year 2000? Or, in other words, when Israel left Lebanon (with Hizbollah still intact) the last time?
I have a feeling people will be a lot more cautious and weary about it this time round. The world's attention is focused squarely on it. Hell, it's right next to my home and I didn't give it much thought until this situation erupted, but it's on everyone's minds now.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Shurik » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

NeonVomit wrote:
miditek wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4787857.stm

This is an encouraging development.

Pity that Hezbollah remain intact (to what degree, we cannot know). However, let's just hope peace stays.
Yes, I saw the article; but does it not have shades of the agreement from the year 2000? Or, in other words, when Israel left Lebanon (with Hizbollah still intact) the last time?
I have a feeling people will be a lot more cautious and weary about it this time round. The world's attention is focused squarely on it. Hell, it's right next to my home and I didn't give it much thought until this situation erupted, but it's on everyone's minds now.
This cease-fire will hold until Hizballa will feel ready to strike again. Hopefully then we will have more decisive government than will not postpone full scale military operation until the last days of fighting ... Next time will be much more bloody ...

This will stop only after Iran feels it's time to stop, they are the ones who operate Hizballa, arm and train it ... I don't see Iran wanting to stop the fighting against Israel (there are rumours, hopefully false, that Iran will strike Israel on 22nd of august - some muslim religious holiday) so I don't think that it's the last time Israel and Hizballa fight ...

My time to be a pessimist ...
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:41 pm

With an international peacekeeping force which is to be taken more seriously than the last UN operation there, perhaps there is hope.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

Frantic Eyes
Jr. Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:00 pm

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Frantic Eyes » Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:23 pm

Didn't the Mayas predict that something pretty fucking big (in a bad way) will happen in 2012? Not that I'm much into mystics but sometimes I just can't help thinking about things like that.

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:30 pm

Frantic Eyes wrote:Didn't the Mayas predict that something pretty fucking big (in a bad way) will happen in 2012? Not that I'm much into mystics but sometimes I just can't help thinking about things like that.
Has anyone made a list of all the different civilisations/mystics/clairvoyants/prophets who've predicted something bad would happen on each year? Jehova's Witnesses are the best example. If we took each year something bad was supposed to happen, I'm sure we'd have a complete list of every year in the past century, with some years (like 2000) having more than one prediction lined up on it.

I refuse to believe that rubbish. There is no scientific basis for any of it, and more importantly, no historical backup. It is all in the realm of mystics, religious nuts and people unwilling to accept the painful reality - we're in for the long haul. Humanity won't vanish suddenly; we're going to die a slow, painful, drawn-out death over centuries.

(see, I can be pessimistic as well :D)
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Shurik » Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:02 am

NeonVomit wrote:With an international peacekeeping force which is to be taken more seriously than the last UN operation there, perhaps there is hope.
No, won't happen. This peacekeeping force will be have exactly the same effect as the previous one - absolutely nothing. I can't see anyone in this force risking their lives in order to stop shipments of weapons or trying to stop next Hizballa operation ... I don't believe in UN forces after they helped Hizballa to abduct 3 soldiers in 2000 ...

Again, Uncle Sam has to pay a visit to Teheran and kick the nazi dwarf and the ayatollahs out of Iran ... Only when there will be no one to arm and insigate Hizballa, Hamas and other extremists, there will be some resemblance of peace here. Now I think that going to Iraq was a mistake, Iran should've been taken care of instead ...
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:16 am

Shurik wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:With an international peacekeeping force which is to be taken more seriously than the last UN operation there, perhaps there is hope.
No, won't happen. This peacekeeping force will be have exactly the same effect as the previous one - absolutely nothing. I can't see anyone in this force risking their lives in order to stop shipments of weapons or trying to stop next Hizballa operation ... I don't believe in UN forces after they helped Hizballa to abduct 3 soldiers in 2000 ...
I never did have faith in the UN; its list of failures are long and well documented, with Lebanon being the most recent example. Just a bunch of corrupt and squibbling bureaucrats. If the UN had done its job in Lebanon to begin with, and invasion by IDF would have been unnecessary.
Shurik wrote:Again, Uncle Sam has to pay a visit to Teheran and kick the nazi dwarf and the ayatollahs out of Iran ... Only when there will be no one to arm and insigate Hizballa, Hamas and other extremists, there will be some resemblance of peace here. Now I think that going to Iraq was a mistake, Iran should've been taken care of instead ...
Depending upon one's viewpoint, Iraq may or may not be considered a mistake. I still believe that WMD were there, and that the stockpiles were routed to either Syria or Iran, or both. War is all about deception, and not just killing. Missing WMD's would make a great propoganda coup for the enemies of the United States, not to mention erstwhile allies.

Iraq does make for an excellent staging area for air campaigns against Tehran though. I am quite certain that such operations will begin in time.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NordicStorm
Sr. Member
Posts: 2174
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 11:46 pm
Location: Finland

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NordicStorm » Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:24 am

Shurik wrote:Again, Uncle Sam has to pay a visit to Teheran and kick the nazi dwarf and the ayatollahs out of Iran ... Only when there will be no one to arm and insigate Hizballa, Hamas and other extremists, there will be some resemblance of peace here. Now I think that going to Iraq was a mistake, Iran should've been taken care of instead ...
And seeing what a glorious success the Iraq war was for...uhm...the first two weeks, even my Zidane plan seems more reasonable than letting the military genius that is the Bush administration engage in more interventions.
Give me liberty, or give me cake!

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:35 am

Iraq was an utter, complete disaster that absolutely nothing good came out of. I've said so right from the very beginning.

A staging area for an invasion of Iran? If Iraq is a nightmare, I don't even want to think what Iran would be like. Just look at a world map and the population. Iraq had been crippled by war and sanctions, and it's proving to be a nightmare. Iran has had plenty of time to organise itself. It's not like America is in a position to engage in another colossal operation, and good luck in convincing anyone else to come along.

It would be interesting to see world oil prices hit the $200/barrel mark.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:10 pm

NeonVomit wrote:A staging area for an invasion of Iran? If Iraq is a nightmare, I don't even want to think what Iran would be like.
So essentially Ahmandinejad's version of the "Final Solution" is preferable?
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
Heiserich
Sr. Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: Duisburg, Germany

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Heiserich » Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:24 pm

miditek wrote: So essentially Ahmandinejad's version of the "Final Solution" is preferable?
By an invasion we'd perhaps get rid of Ahmadinedjad as a person - but his ideology would prevail and probably be strengthened further. I think, the only way to solve the problem with Iran (and the ideology of hate) is by strengthening the democratic players in Iran. By a war you just strengthen hardliners and fanatics. A dètente is what we need IMO. That means: Security garantees and better trading-conditions for Iran in an exchange for effective controls of the nuclear facilities by the IAEO. Then the democratic powers will grow stronger and the hardliners will lose ground.
No other feasible way IMO.
Life can only be understood in reverse
But must be lived forwards...
I'm losing my senses, I'm losing my senses

D. Mustaine

User avatar
NordicStorm
Sr. Member
Posts: 2174
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 11:46 pm
Location: Finland

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NordicStorm » Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:43 pm

miditek wrote:So essentially Ahmandinejad's version of the "Final Solution" is preferable?
That was exactly what NeonVomit implied. Despite the fact that he and many others have argued repeatedly that, particularly in situations when there's no realistic scenario involving a large-scale armed conflict that actually ends well, and especially when the Bush doctrine has already been so thoroughly discredited by the Iraq war, prefering peaceful solutions doesn't automatically make you an anti-semitic terrorist-sympathising Neville Chamberlain.
Either that or he doesn't buy into the false dichotomy of the necessity of invading Iran (cost what it may) or the impending annihilation of Israel.
Of course, under the doctrine of "war at all costs" with casualties in the billions, what's seven million lives?
Give me liberty, or give me cake!

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location: Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: WWIII -?

Post by Shurik » Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:32 pm

No other feasible way IMO.
There is - we all know that there's an opposition in Iran itself and in iranian diaspora, parts of iranian youth are fed up with extreme islam being forced on them, so it is possible to strengthen those elements and hopefull it'll bring to another revolution.

I don't believe in peaceful solutions when dealing with someone like the nazi dwarf or his pet dogs Nasralla and Hamas. Europeans may see the peaceful solution as viable and humane option, extremist muslims see it as weakness. Maybe the full scale invasion is not the right option right now but harsh sanctions and restrictions could work. The situation where the nazi can threaten other nations and speak openly about the destruction of Israel is not acceptable. Maybe you don't know, but this freak genuinely believes that by bringing chaos to different parts of the world will make the coming of muslim sort of messiah closer, this is part of his religious beliefs, so I think that his talks about the destruction of Israel are not just talks ... He also said not once that the world peace is possible when all the nations will accept islam. He's that much fucked up ...

About Iraq - the reason for an utter failure of US military operation there is a complete lack of any sort of plan for the day after Saddam falls ... It seems that their only plan was to overthrow Saddam and then hope that Iraqi people will understand the joys of western life and live happily ever after (Shia, Sunni, Kurds and other confessions that hate each other's guts). That's what happens when you go to war with a nation and know nothing about their culture and mentality ...
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:05 am

Heiserich wrote:
miditek wrote: So essentially Ahmandinejad's version of the "Final Solution" is preferable?
Heiserich wrote:By an invasion we'd perhaps get rid of Ahmadinedjad as a person - but his ideology would prevail and probably be strengthened further.
If that were the case, then what of Wilhelm II, Mussolini, Tojo, or Hitler? The Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan. Milosevic no longer rules Serbia.
One of my childhood friends (now US Attorney for south Florida), put Panama's Noriega away for 40 years on drug kingpin charges.
Heiserich wrote:I think, the only way to solve the problem with Iran (and the ideology of hate) is by strengthening the democratic players in Iran. By a war you just strengthen hardliners and fanatics.
Wars often break out due to fanatics and hardliners. I have a client that is a dermatologist. Dealing with both cancerous as well as precancerous skin is part of his job. He does not "negotiate" with the patient's cancer cells, but uses whatever means necessary to remove it, and with the hope that the cancerous cells were caught in time.

Radical Islam is a cancer that threatens the entire world. If it is not dealt with before the malignant state sets in, then billions of deaths will be absolutely unavoidable.

War does not strengthen fanatics; democracies destroy fanatics, as history has proven. Overwhelming brute force has been the only proven method of bringing dictatorships down. When did negotiations and/or sanctions with fascists ever prove to be successful? If you can provide a list of the these diplomatic triumphs, then I'll be convinced.

Heiserich wrote:A dètente is what we need IMO. That means: Security garantees and better trading-conditions for Iran in an exchange for effective controls of the nuclear facilities by the IAEO. Then the democratic powers will grow stronger and the hardliners will lose ground.
No other feasible way IMO.
Didn't you see more of Douste-Blazy's political buffoonery in the Sunday edition of Le Monde? Something about the "no more discussions of an international force" and "no more talk of disarming Hezbollah" just did not sit right with me.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NordicStorm
Sr. Member
Posts: 2174
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 11:46 pm
Location: Finland

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NordicStorm » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:41 pm

miditek wrote:I have a client that is a dermatologist. Dealing with both cancerous as well as precancerous skin is part of his job. He does not "negotiate" with the patient's cancer cells, but uses whatever means necessary to remove it, and with the hope that the cancerous cells were caught in time.
That's a cute little analogy, but we weren't discussing skin diseases. The analogy falls apart when we start to consider preventive measures like sun lotion or extreme forms of battling cancers such as amputation.
Although I have this birth mark on my arm I'm a bit worried about...
Overwhelming brute force has been the only proven method of bringing dictatorships down.
I can think of any number of dictatorships that collapsed or even gradually moved towards democracy without the need for "overwhelming brute force." It certainly depends on how you define "overwhelming brute force," of course, but I'm assuming you mean a military intervention of some form by a foreign nation/foreign nations.

- Spain
- The Soviet Union
- Poland
- Hungary
- Bulgaria
- Czechoslovakia
- East Germany
- Portugal
- Indonesia
- Philipines

None of those dictatorships ended as a result of "overwhelming brute force." Or did they? Am I misunderstanding the definition of "overwhelming brute force" here? I apologise if I misunderstood.
There's been outbreaks of violence (mostly as a result of the collapse, not vice versa) in some of them to be sure, but there was "no overwhelming brute force" in the form of external military interventions that toppled their governments.

On the flipside, years of intervention in Vietnam certainly did nothing to prevent it from turning Communist. Or North Korea. And Iraq is currently descending into complete and utter chaos. Military interventions are, in other words, a bit of a mixed bag. Which is why military interventions should always and everyime be the very last resort. War is an act of necessity, not of nobility.

No, Shurik has it exactly right:
Shurik wrote:There is - we all know that there's an opposition in Iran itself and in iranian diaspora, parts of iranian youth are fed up with extreme islam being forced on them, so it is possible to strengthen those elements and hopefull it'll bring to another revolution.
Most of the examples above collapsed due to internal forces. It's those forces we should seek to encourage, rather than to obliterate.
In fact, Ahmadinejad's predecessor (Khatami, was it?) was generally considered to be more of a reformist. That he wasn't particularly successful is of course a different story, but those reformist elements are there.
miditek wrote:The Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan.
Aah, and everywhere's coming up roses in Afghanistan! But the Taliban still control sizable portions of the country, and the warlords who control their own fiefdoms still largely remain in power of their small fractions of the country. And, the Taliban would never have been able to seize power in the first place had it not been for the Soviet Union's "overwhelming brute force" during their invasion.
I suppose if I want to be kind, I could argue that the fiasco of invading Afghanistan in part caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, thus the collapse being a result of "overwhelming brute force." But I don't think it was quite that way you meant it.
Shurik wrote:About Iraq - the reason for an utter failure of US military operation there is a complete lack of any sort of plan for the day after Saddam falls ... It seems that their only plan was to overthrow Saddam and then hope that Iraqi people will understand the joys of western life and live happily ever after (Shia, Sunni, Kurds and other confessions that hate each other's guts). That's what happens when you go to war with a nation and know nothing about their culture and mentality ...
And these are the guys some people want to intervene in Iran? Gimme a break. As I said, I'll even take my chances with the French!


Oh, and miditek, I would strongly urge to change your avatar. Given how offensive the hammer and the sickle are to some people (on par with the swastika, even), I find it to be in extremely poor taste to be promoting that sort of imagery. Besides, you don't even strike me as being a Communist.
Give me liberty, or give me cake!

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:10 pm

miditek, I just noticed your avatar. I'd like to ask you to please reconsider it. You would not be very happy if someone had taken an American flag and replaced the stars with a swastika-shape. I've seen them before and I thought them to be tasteless and offensive. I'm quite sure you would've as well. This forum has a really good feel to it, a very civilized nature that is one of the things I like about it. Stuff like that however, goes against that nature.

About Serbia. Milosevic was ousted from power not by the 3 months of NATO airstrikes, but by the people of Serbia deciding they'd had enough of him and throwing him out after he tried to rig elections. They supported the regime fanatically during the bombing campaign, holding night parties on strategically important bridges to prevent them being attacked. One of my friends even played a concert on the roof of a factory one night, his band was invited from Cyprus. But when Slobo tried to screw them over, they didn't take it and turned on him. Ceusescu of Romania met his end in a similar fashion, but unlike Milosevic didn't make it out alive.

A clear example of people power succeeding where foreign brute force failed. And it's not limited to the developed world. Many dictatorships in Africa were brought down by the people (anyone remember Moboutou and his Zaire?). He was brought down by his own people too. In fact, the ONLY way to bring down a brutal dictator is by his own people.

Actually, even Mussolini was removed from power not by invading Allied forces, but again by his own people. They were the ones who captured him and publicly executed him.

Far more dictators have met their end at the hands of their own people than by foreign intervention. How did Noriega come to power? Saddam had an awful lot of US support too. Maybe the US felt that since they helped put them there, they should get rid of them. If that is the case, then full credit to them.

You keep mentioning WWII. The world today is not the same as the 1930s-1940s. Information flows everywhere. Many young Iranians are heavily dissatisfied with the regime in Iran thanks to information available through satellite tv and the internet and the government's conservative viewpoints, but a war would simply put them behind it just like it did in the former Yugoslavia. Even the most extreme anti-regime Iranians I've met (who were exiled and living in London) do not wish anyone to invade Iran, they would prefer to take care of the problem themselves. It will take time, but I think it's a better solution for everyone.

If it were possible, how would you feel about another country invading America because they're unhappy with the current administration? Even if it were during the term of your pal Slick Willie, I'm sure you'd prefer to defend your country against attackers rather than side with them. An attack on a country is an attack on its people as well, plain and simple.

That's why I've said a 'decapitating' surgical strike against the Iranian leadership would be a million times more effective than an invasion. It would cause severe reprecussions and not achieve very much, but it would ultimately be far less costly than a massive invasion. I don't think even the most optimistic military planners in the US Armed Forces could see it as a feasiable undertaking now.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:01 am

NordicStorm wrote:Oh, and miditek, I would strongly urge to change your avatar. Given how offensive the hammer and the sickle are to some people (on par with the swastika, even), I find it to be in extremely poor taste to be promoting that sort of imagery. Besides, you don't even strike me as being a Communist.
Positively not Communist, but the avatar does not promote Communism and/or Socialism in any way. It essentially mocks the EU for what many perceive to be left wing extremist policies, and is really nothing more than that.
NeonVomit wrote:miditek, I just noticed your avatar. I'd like to ask you to please reconsider it. You would not be very happy if someone had taken an American flag and replaced the stars with a swastika-shape. I've seen them before and I thought them to be tasteless and offensive. I'm quite sure you would've as well. This forum has a really good feel to it, a very civilized nature that is one of the things I like about it. Stuff like that however, goes against that nature.
Done. Much like the Danish Mohammed cartoons, cartoons that are significantly less than flattering to the US (not to mention Israel) are pretty much ubiquitous. Bush and several other US officials have been caricatured as rolls of toliet paper, Imams, and ridiculed as everything almost up to a horse f****r in this and other strato-related forums, but there have been no complaints about that.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
stratohawk
Sr. Member
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

Re: WWIII -?

Post by stratohawk » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:35 am

Very interesting discussions going on here. I'm more with NordicStorm and NeonVomit, but anyways... Both sides have their own opinions and won't change it. So why keep on discussing? :wink:

Anyways, I wanted to comment two things:
I have a client that is a dermatologist. Dealing with both cancerous as well as precancerous skin is part of his job. He does not "negotiate" with the patient's cancer cells, but uses whatever means necessary to remove it, and with the hope that the cancerous cells were caught in time.
Strange comparison, but maybe in some way true. But I tell you one thing: A person I knew had cancer. She let all those cells remove, fought with every possible means (chemo, operations, ...). First with success. Half a year later the sickness striked back, with so much power that she couldn't resist and died. It's the same with terrorist. You fight them with all military means you can provide, kill many of them, the rest seems to disappear. But you don't remove the ROOTS, the fucking bloody roots of terrorism with military force!! They will come back. And they will strike more deadly as before... Of course one has to defend itself. But only fighting back with military power without considering the roots, the reasons of terrorism, doesn't change a damn thing.
If it were possible, how would you feel about another country invading America because they're unhappy with the current administration?
Haha, not a bad comparison. I never thought of that. Of course the US is too strong to be invaded. But that's why terrorists chose different ways. More ugly and disgusting ways.

User avatar
NordicStorm
Sr. Member
Posts: 2174
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 11:46 pm
Location: Finland

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NordicStorm » Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:17 pm

miditek wrote:Positively not Communist, but the avatar does not promote Communism and/or Socialism in any way. It essentially mocks the EU for what many perceive to be left wing extremist policies, and is really nothing more than that.
Well, one may perceive the EU to be as such, much as one may perceive water at 212ºF to be "a bit on the cold side."
But all that be as it may, it looked more like an endorsement of the Communism.
Done. Much like the Danish Mohammed cartoons, cartoons that are significantly less than flattering to the US (not to mention Israel) are pretty much ubiquitous. Bush and several other US officials have been caricatured as rolls of toliet paper, Imams, and ridiculed as everything almost up to a horse f****r in this and other strato-related forums, but there have been no complaints about that.
You will notice I had no complaints about your Chirac avatar either, so a lack of complaints regarding caricatures of Bush administration officials is moot and not at all relevant to your inadvertent Communist propaganda.
stratohawk wrote:Of course the US is too strong to be invaded.
Well, the US has a rather long and unprotected border to both Mexico and Canada, so a surprise blitz attack could potentially reach far into the country. Of course, the necessary military build-up on the border would easily be noticed and dealt with long before such an attack were to occur.
NeonVomit wrote:I don't think even the most optimistic military planners in the US Armed Forces could see it as a feasiable undertaking now.
I think I said it before, but it's worth saying again. The Bush doctrine has been so thoroughly discredited by the Iraq debacle, that no reasonable person could possibly see its further implementation as a viable option.
Give me liberty, or give me cake!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:52 pm

stratohawk wrote: But you don't remove the ROOTS, the fucking bloody roots of terrorism with military force!! They will come back. And they will strike more deadly as before... Of course one has to defend itself. But only fighting back with military power without considering the roots, the reasons of terrorism, doesn't change a damn thing.
Okay, let's examine the roots of terror. It sounds to me as if some want to somehow justify these acts against Israel, as well as the United States. Israel lives on less than 1% of the land in the Middle East.
The Arabs and Persians occupy the rest. Jihad is an essential part of Islamic proselytizing.

It is, in fact, the very core element of their proselytizing, and the very fact that a Jewish state (which existed thousands of years before the advent of Islam) is completely and utterly intolerable to them. If you support Israel, then jihad must visit your country as well. It's a rather simple formula.

The children of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists are taught from birth that the Jews are descendants of pigs and monkeys, and that their obliteration via jihad is a sacred duty. Christians are also infidels, that must either convert or be destroyed.

The radicals will do whatever is necessary to drive Israel out of the area. No matter how many people are killed, and no matter what the cost, this is their goal. I fail to see what part of that anyone cannot understand.

So if Europe and other countries feel that "no more Israel equals no more terror problems for us", then I truly pity them. It is flat not going to happen, not now, and not ever.

If the world wants a Viking funeral, all because Israel is somehow worthy of sacrifice in the interests of world peace, then so be it. Israel does not need to make any further concessions or negotiations with entities that have sworn to destroy her.

All of these negotiations will lead to broken treaties, unkept promises, and failed dreams from idealistic bureaucrats that fail to see the reality of the situation. The stakes are higher now; Hezbollah now feels that it is invincible, and it is only a matter of time before they are back to their same old bag of tricks- kidnappings, suicide bombings, and other predictable behavior.

The Lebanese would probably been better off to have left Israel alone. Olhmert may not survive politically. That is just as well, since in my opinion, the Olhmert cannot provide the decisive leadership that Israel needs. They may turn to Bibi Netanyahu the next time that Hezbollah attacks, and when this does happen, I can virtually assure you that round two will be much bloodier than the first.

The French foreign ministry's insistence that Hezbollah not be disarmed, Israel's soldiers not returned, and essentially the plan of having Hezbollah put on Lebanese army uniforms represents a capitulation to one of the worst terror groups, and is obviously dhimmism in its most blatant form.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:13 pm

miditek wrote:Positively not Communist, but the avatar does not promote Communism and/or Socialism in any way. It essentially mocks the EU for what many perceive to be left wing extremist policies, and is really nothing more than that.
NordicStorm wrote:Well, one may perceive the EU to be as such, much as one may perceive water at 212ºF to be "a bit on the cold side."But all that be as it may, it looked more like an endorsement of the Communism.
Even NeonVomit saw that this was political satire, even though he did not find it to be amusing. That is his privilege, and I can't fault him for that. Have you seen me ask people in this or other strato-related forums to apologize or take back statements that Christianity is bullshit? Of course not, and it's simply something that I don't do. If someone thinks that Christ was a fairy tale, that's their business.

I think that you guys have seen more than enough of my posts to know that I do not endorse Communism, nor do I complain (publicly or to mods) about comments that I find to be pompous or otherwise offensive.
NordicStorm wrote:You will notice I had no complaints about your Chirac avatar either, so a lack of complaints regarding caricatures of Bush administration officials is moot and not at all relevant to your inadvertent Communist propaganda.


If you want to consider it to be Communist propoganda then in your mind, it probably is. My viewpoint is that it is ridicule for the EU, nothing more, and nothing less. I am certainly no fan of the Kremlin.
stratohawk wrote:Of course the US is too strong to be invaded.
Well, the US has a rather long and unprotected border to both Mexico and Canada, so a surprise blitz attack could potentially reach far into the country. Of course, the necessary military build-up on the border would easily be noticed and dealt with long before such an attack were to occur.


I disagree. Militarily speaking, an invasion of the US would be suicidal. To mount an invasion here, you would have to have both naval as well as air supremacy. Moreover, you would have to keep the invasion force supplied. There is a long list of military contingencies that would have to be taken into consideraton, and no nation on earth could do that.

However, given the fact that the US is an open society, it would be very easy to bring jihadis here to the US, as terrorists. That is one type of invasion that would certainly succeed. The US government has failed to secure the borders, and we will pay for it sooner or later. This situation makes a military invasion completely unnecessary.

Dirty bombs and/or small scale nuclear weapons would still be quite easy to slip in and detonate for maximum effect, and I believe it is only a matter of time before this happens. I wouldn't gloat too much though, because I do not believe that America is the only target for such operations.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts: 4628
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: WWIII -?

Post by NeonVomit » Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:31 am

miditek, with each post you seem more and more like you are totally blinded by fear. You seem to think the only viable solution for anything is total all-out war, when this is clearly not the case. Oppressive regimes have almost always been brought down internally. No one invaded South Africa to end Apartheid, the people changed in themselves. You seem to fear anyone who practises the Muslim faith, and that they are a potential terrorist. I hope none of these is the case, but it seems so.

You say the US being an open society almost like it is a bad thing. Your national anthem does claim it to be the 'Land of the Free' after all, or perhaps you'd feel safer in something like the Soviet Union or the Third Reich where everyone is watched?

And how exactly is the government meant to 'secure its borders'? Not let anyone in? Deport anyone who has an Arabic name? Outlaw Islam and round up all Muslims? Reminds me of that Hitler guy, personally. More importantly, it infringes on your rights.

Freedom is a amazing gift, and you must never, ever let a day go by without being greatful for it. It is very easy to take it for granted, however I am reminded not to on a daily basis. Having a foreign army in your own country does wonders for making you appreciate this 'freedom' thing that so many people have died in the name of.

However, freedom is a double-edged sword. It allows for dissent, and for people to even cause harm to you. That is one of the prices of freedom... it allows vulnerability. By nature, freedom makes you a target. The government obviously has the duty to protect its citizens, but it also has the duty to protect their rights.

From the moment the government takes away the freedoms of the people, the terrorists have won. They have achieved their goal.

If you decide that it's not worth that price, then moving to China or Turkmenistan would probably be advisable. No terrorists will bother you, anyone with the slightest suspicion of terrorism above their heads would be rounded up and imprisoned/deported/executed. If a bunch of innocent people are amongst them, oh well.

I'm positive that if Israel was a totalitarian state like the USSR or Nazi Germany, their problems would be over before they began. Virtually no internal dissent would be allowed to form. Anyone even suspected of having any sort of link with Islam or even being an Arab would be expelled from the country, or not allowed in. No Palestinians, no Israeli Arabs, nothing. The only thing possible to do would be (futile) attacks on Israel from the outside, through conventional warfare, which we've all seen how effective they are.

However, Israel is a free people's democracy, and the very reason for democracies existing is to put the rights of the people first. Democracy is not an easy way to do things, but it is the best way for reflecting the voice of the people. By living in a free country, you have to accept the risks of someone abusing their freedom. Just like many people abuse their right to own a gun in America.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: WWIII -?

Post by miditek » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:19 pm

NordicStorm wrote:I can think of any number of dictatorships that collapsed or even gradually moved towards democracy without the need for "overwhelming brute force." It certainly depends on how you define "overwhelming brute force," of course, but I'm assuming you mean a military intervention of some form by a foreign nation/foreign nations.

- Spain
- The Soviet Union
- Poland
- Hungary
- Bulgaria
- Czechoslovakia
- East Germany
- Portugal
- Indonesia
- Philipines

None of those dictatorships ended as a result of "overwhelming brute force." Or did they?


And the citizens of these countries were not running about crashing airplanes into buildings, beheading people on live TV, calling for the death of Israel and the US, and many other terroristic activities.

Most of the people in those countries actually wanted freedom, and did not want perpetual war with the US or Israel.

By the way, Russia is still far from being free. Just ask any journalist (or Mikhail Khordokovsky) there what happens if you run afoul of the Kremlin.
NordicStorm wrote:And these are the guys some people want to intervene in Iran? Gimme a break. As I said, I'll even take my chances with the French!


:lol: I realize that you didn't intend for that statement to be comical, but that is absolutely one of the funniest things I've ever seen before. France is anguishing over whether to send just 200-300 troops to Lebanon while Prodi and Berlu have just committed 3,000 Italian troops to go.

While I admire Rome for making its contribution, I do feel that Paris deserves to be heckled for its current leadership skills that have left Hezbollah armed and intact, not to mention its miniscule committment of troops.

France can complain all it wants about the current fiasco in Iraq, while conveniently ignoring the one that it cannot control in Ivory Coast. :wink: We'll see how well it does in Lebanon. I think that real reason that they want to limit the number of troops is that it would prefer to avoid being caught in the next crossfire between Hezbollah and IDF. If that is the case, it would be just as well for them to stay home and shut up.
Κύριε ἐλέησον

Locked