BF2S Forums World War III Announced

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

@schuss, maybe he said it coz hes a bad speach person

well, In that case I simply wished he would chose his word more carefully. Dumbass or not, he is the US president and people tend to take him seriously when he talks about war...

the mail man missed my house today...

so as of right now im announcing world war 4.

its official because i said so and im incharge of my house.

mikkel wrote:

Mike_J wrote:

are you guys pretending that the fight against global terrorism isn't a war?  open your eyes.

Technically, that would make it World War.. 5, wouldn't it? There's the war on crime, which is global, and the war on drugs, also global. Or would that make the war on terror part of World War 3? All these World Wars are confusing me.

And the Cold War.

girls were always allowed to attend school in iraq.  Iraq is the most secular arab nation in the middle east, right next to egypt

@ Kmarion:

- Anywhere from 35101 - 39258 Iraqi civilians killed since the War on Terror began.

- 2424 US Casualties in Iraq since the war began, as well as 17648 (official) injured, but also estimated to be anywhere from 18,000 to 48,100.

- Currently 279 billion have been spent on the war.

- Over 11,000 terrorist attacks in the past year, an increase of over 400% in the past 2 years.

But I am glad the 279 billion that could have been spent to correct very problematic domestic issues are doing -something- for the Iraqi people, and the bank accounts of Haliburton execs.

But, I fail to see why water, telephone, electricity, schooling, hospitals, elections, government and immunizations for the Iraqi people is our concern. It's ok to neglect our schools, our hospitals, our government, our housing, for the sake of Iraq's?

And if other nation's issues are so important to us that we'll go that far into debt for them, where have we been for the many African nations that have needed exactly the same kind of aid for much longer? We intervene to stop a dictator in Iraq who killed 5000 of his own people, but we let hundreds of thousands of people die to genocide in Africa?

Every reason for this war has been complete bullshit if you take the scope of world events into account. The WMD excuse was debunked for some time now, and the situation in Iraq being a "war on terror" grows a bigger joke with every passing day. It is common knowledge now that this War on Terror is merely a catalyst for more, in what seems to be turning into a never-ending cycle.

But, at least GWB has a reason to keep a big military, because with all the deaths in Iraq, and the growing concern that he'll involve our country in Iran, we're gonna need the reinforcements.

Fantastic.

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

how is calling it something its not going to help the victims?

if we call it a world war are the dead going to come back to life?

anyone who thinks its a world war needs to wake up and get a grip and stop looking to make it much bigger than it is ( and yes a world war is far bigger than a few major bombings ).
bombings have been happening all over the world for the last 60 years, so by your reasoning we have been in a world war since ww2 finished.

but no, it took it happening to america to make everyone turn it into the main topic of our lives.

Well there maybe some truth to what you said about WW2 not being finished, since WW2 was an extention of WW1. The cold war was about 30 seconds behind WW2.

I didn't say calling this a war was going to help the victims. It does mean their deaths were significant and should be avenged.

I think by you thinking this is NOT war, you have your head in the sand and refuse to accept that our country has been under attack for more than a decade. You think all we need to do is "talk" t othem and everything will be oooooooooooook. Or are you saying the dismantling of Israel is the answer? Actually that might be, since the Arabs had their land stolen from them to create it.

Arabs did not have their land stolen. Before Israel and Palestine, that whole area was the British Mandate of Palestine. It was a British colony. Saying that Arabs had their land stolen would be like saying that the Chinese had their land stolen if a Chinatown district in a western city was rezoned for other purposes. This is not in any way defending Israel, however, as they've been highly immature in the subsequent administration of the area.

thge last time arab rulers led arab lands was half a millenia ago with the arab caliphate.  with the rise of the ottoman empire, arabs lost all forms of self rule in the penninsula.  The land hasnt been arab owned in hundreds and hundreds of years.  Israel has every friggin right to exist where they are at.





Im reading a really good book on this subject right now.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-05-09 11:26:01)

Kmarion wrote:

@ Torin: Why dont you compare those numbers to any other war we have been involved in? Wars are never pretty.

Never said they were. Yes, if you compare the death tolls to say Vietnam or WW2, then yes, this seems like a walk in the park, I was merely trying to contradict the overly-positive spin you were putting on the situation in Iraq. Yes, there is a lot of good happening, and there is also a lot of bad. For TODAY's day and age, 2500 death soldiers is a big deal. For what we tout as superemely accurate weapons that avoid collateral damage, we sure kill a lot of civilians. And for a war aimed at stopping terror, we sure are doing a great job at causing more. Yes, the reconstruction of Iraq is making great progress, but the point is, the reason we went to Iraq wasn't to reconstruct it, and to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. What Congress signed off on, and what the public has been fed about the situation in Iraq, had nothing to do with this, we are merely cleaning up the mess we created, through a sense of obligation at best, or a canniving sense of vying for oil at worst.

Kmarion wrote:

You said

"
But, I fail to see why water, telephone, electricity, schooling, hospitals, elections, government and immunizations for the Iraqi people is our concern. It's ok to neglect our schools, our hospitals, our government, our housing, for the sake of Iraq's?."

Do you not see the importance of promoting hope in that country? I can imagine your reaction if we didn't try to help them get established. It would be another talking point for you. Can you see where I am going yet? You are damning us for anything we do.
You are criticizing us for the death and cost of a war while condemning us for not going into Africa to start another as well.
I understand the importance of planting the seed of freedom and prosperity in Iraq. The idea will hopefully grow throughout the mid-east. Tuck and run will not win a war

Once again someone has stated allot of problems but no solution.

Yes, on a general "for the sake of humanity" approach to Iraq, yes, I see the importance of giving them hope. But if that is honestly why you are doing it, why forsake all the other nations in the world that are in equal or worse situations? If we are "the savior of nations", why do we limit this influence to Iraq only? I don't see us doing what we are doing in Iraq, anywhere else in the world.

I am damning us for making piss poor decisions. Yes, I agree with the moral obligation we have to the Iraqi people to clean up the mess we made. What I damn and wholey disagree with, is the decision to go to Iraq in the first place, that caused this situation we feel so obligated to clean up! We are in this mess for the piss-poor decisions that Bush made after 9/11, for whatever the real reason may be. We are spending hundreds of billions on Iraq not because of a humanitarian effort, which many supporters try to tout this as, but because of a sense of obligation for the ruination we caused on Iraq and its people. This isn't "oh look, the US has gone to Iraq to make life wonderful for the iraqi people"... this is "oh look, the US went to Iraq for god know's why, fucked everything up and now has to clean up after themselves". Don't try to play this off as the US being sacred and holy, and just went to Iraq to make their people happy. That is merely a PR cover-up for what has been one of the biggest military and political blunder in our nation's history.

I merely pointed out the situation in Africa to negate the whole excuse about going to Iraq to save the Iraqi people. We obviously didn't go to Iraq to be their people's savior, we went for other, less-honorable reasons. I understand full well the cost of wars, in both dollars and lives, and refuse to let anyone cop out on this war with humanitarian reasons.

While you see the situation in Iraq as planting the seed of freedom, I see it as planting the seed of dissention for all those in the middle east that hate the US. You see this as saving the Iraqi people and hopefully allowing for the spread of democracy through the reason, I see this as taunting the terrorists and provoking them to unite against us. Only time will tell whether democracy is successful in Iraq, whether the government being created will be able to control the nation and all the insurgent elements we drew into it. However, time has already shown the damage we have caused, and the enormous catalyst for terrorism that we have been. We already have evidence and records of all we have done to promote terrorism, to fuel the fire, to expand the war between Christianity and Islam. As of now, we have not reached the long-term positive goals that people say will transform the middle east, but we have proven how much damage we can cause with our mere presence.

I never suggested to tuck and run, I merely question the reasons for ever getting into this situation to begin with. Had we not started a war in Iraq, we wouldn't need to spend hundreds of millions, wouldn't need to tuck and run. But we did, and here we are.

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Arabs did not have their land stolen. Before Israel and Palestine, that whole area was the British Mandate of Palestine. It was a British colony.

Exactly, GB occupied it after the Turks in WWI " The Sykes /Spieco Treaty " Then Britain gave it away to jewish Refugees after WWII.
Arabs always lived there for Generations and unfortunately we can't convince them they really lived somewhere else.

mikkel wrote:

Saying that Arabs had their land stolen would be like saying that the Chinese had their land stolen if a Chinatown district in a western city was rezoned for other purposes.

More like if they moved everyone out of Long Island, New York and Gave it to the Hasidic jews because a few of them already lived there and they want their own country now.

mikkel wrote:

thge last time Arab rulers led Arab lands was half a millenia ago with the Arab caliphate. .

We never said they ruled it, We said They Lived there on that land for generations. It is an Ancient City. Rome even Ruled and occupied it.

mikkel wrote:

Israel has every friggin right to exist where they are at..

jews can live there but not at the expense and expulsion of Arabs. the Arabs in the area or anyone there shouldn't be ruled by jews. They should govern themselves. Let jews immigrate anywhere that people want them. The Arab communities there had nothing to do with the jews plight in WWII.  Europe should have cleaned up its own mess and not dump it on someone else

mikkel wrote:

Im reading a really good book on this subject right now.

noted.

I think the mess is all from the inability of the ottoman empire to rule such a large sovereign land under scentral government.  The rivalry between the british french and russian empires prior, during and after world war 1 is what we could blame for today.  But, if turkey had properly administered their lands during the course of the ottoman sultans, the middle east would not find itself in the situation it is in today.  To say that the mess is europes fault is only half the story.

Jews share an equal claim and history of the land.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-05-09 13:34:12)

Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the time. We have had this discussion about Israel and who was fucked over during its creation before and it is not leading us anywhere. As horseman77 has rightly said, Israel exists and is certainly not going away. If ( and that is a big "if", gentlemen ) the existance of Israel really is one of the major reasons for middle eastern terrorism, jews and arabs will have to learn to get along peacefully, since neither group is going to disappear just like that.

One thing the international community has learned since WWII is that we are not going to sit peacefully while dictators kill their own people.

Well, as long as those dictators happen to rule countries that are of strategic interest to us anyway....or have oil...or possess nuclear capabilities...

Africa is a different story. We should stay on topic.

Is the so-called "War on Terror" a World War in classical sense ? No, I don't think so.
Does it have global implications ? Absoluteley. It sure has revived the debate on cultural values, immigration and religion ( on these forums for sure.. ). If the conflict is resolved without WWIII breaking out, we might actually learn something from this...

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Arabs did not have their land stolen. Before Israel and Palestine, that whole area was the British Mandate of Palestine. It was a British colony.

Exactly, GB occupied it after the Turks in WWI " The Sykes /Spieco Treaty " Then Britain gave it away to jewish Refugees after WWII.
Arabs always lived there for Generations and unfortunately we can't convince them they really lived somewhere else.

That doesn't mean they had their land stolen. There are plenty of Arab Israelis, and there have absolutely no limits compared to Jewish Israelis. Arabs didn't have their land stolen, as the remains Ottoman Empire were handed to the British by the League of Nations, whom split the region into three countries. Two Arab countries and a Jewish country. It might make for cultural clashes to make a Jewish state in the middle of the Arab world, and while agreements were in place for an Arab family to take control of most of the area which is today Israel, the British had every right to cancel those agreements as no transition of power had been made. By the same token, you could argue that the Ottomans had their land stolen by Palestine, Israel and Jordan, and in turn the Ottomans stole it from someone else.

There are many, many cases of precedence all over the world, and it has come to be accepted, so there's no reason to make this out to be a unique case to justify challenging these rights, when precedence has already been set on the matter.

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Saying that Arabs had their land stolen would be like saying that the Chinese had their land stolen if a Chinatown district in a western city was rezoned for other purposes.

More like if they moved everyone out of Long Island, New York and Gave it to the Hasidic jews because a few of them already lived there and they want their own country now.

Would that be like moving Native Americans out of their territory and giving it to the colonial forces? Wouldn't that mean that Britain, France, Spain and Germany stole the Native American's lands, and the US in turn is stealing the land of those countries?

Precedence has been set, and you see it every day. It's not fair to everyone, but it's just how it's done. Tough luck.

I'm afraid you got the wrong name on the rest of the quotations.

Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-09 15:09:02)

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

the_heart_attack wrote:

how is calling it something its not going to help the victims?

if we call it a world war are the dead going to come back to life?

anyone who thinks its a world war needs to wake up and get a grip and stop looking to make it much bigger than it is ( and yes a world war is far bigger than a few major bombings ).
bombings have been happening all over the world for the last 60 years, so by your reasoning we have been in a world war since ww2 finished.

but no, it took it happening to america to make everyone turn it into the main topic of our lives.

Well there maybe some truth to what you said about WW2 not being finished, since WW2 was an extention of WW1. The cold war was about 30 seconds behind WW2.

I didn't say calling this a war was going to help the victims. It does mean their deaths were significant and should be avenged.

I think by you thinking this is NOT war, you have your head in the sand and refuse to accept that our country has been under attack for more than a decade. You think all we need to do is "talk" t othem and everything will be oooooooooooook. Or are you saying the dismantling of Israel is the answer? Actually that might be, since the Arabs had their land stolen from them to create it.

I'm sorry, and this may sound harsh, but how is going to Iraq and kill a couple of insurgents ( and a couple of thousand Iraqi civilians in the process ) going to "avenge" those killed on 09/11 ?
The standard iraqi had nothing to do with the attacks on the WTC.

I am all for bringing those responsible to justice, but I don't think this can be achieved by "liberating" Iraq.

Are you winning the War on Terror ? I have no idea. "Winning" wars against terrorists has proven incredibly difficult in the past and in all cases were it has been kind of successful was when the terrorists had either lost the support of the local population or had to realize that their cause was lost. Is that happening in Iraq ? I doubt it.
Horseman77 argues that the War on Terror has been a success because the terrorists have not come back to attack the US on their soil again. Well, guess what, they don't have to. There are thousands of US troops in the middle east that are much easier targets.

A lot of people here say that the creation of Israel and the continued support by the US is one major factor in the reasons behind middle eastern terrorism. Personally, I think this is making it too easy. Most of the terrorists the US faces today were most likely born way after 1948 and don't even hail from that region.

Now, why does Bush call the War on Terror a "War" or "WWIII" in the first place ? My take:
- He wouldn't have received US congress support for a "police" measure that involved more than 100,000 US troops. But Iraq was his prime target.
- He needs the world's support for the upcoming confrontation with Iran
- It's easier to round up support among the american public for the actions he takes when he can tell them they are at war.

Nothing of what you said was harsh at all.

from what I gather, more civilians in Iraq are being killed everyday by the terrorist/extremist/insurgents than the coalition. I would like some of those that have been there to confirm or deny this.

As far as winning this war, I feel the only way it can be won is by the free world ( and those that want to be free ) standing up and drawing a line in the sand and declare, no more. Iraq and Afghanistan is part of that stand.

Bush is calling it a war because THAT is what it is.

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-09 19:01:25)

RAIMIUS wrote:

The US went into Iraq for various reasons.
-possible WMDs (Saddam had them, but they dissappeared who knows when)
-other weapons violations (long range rockets, capable of hitting...guess who...Israel)
-Saddam was not a trustworthy dictator
-Human rights violations (low on the list, but still there)

Heh, "Saddam had them, but they disappeared"? Guys, call off the speculations! Stop the presses! RAIMIUS says he had them!

Let's go through this list from a neutral perspective


-possible WMDs - Iraq [ ] - US [x]
-other weapons violations - Iraq [x] - US [x]
-Not a trustworthy dictator - Iraq [x] - US [x]
-Human rights violations - Iraq [x] - US [x]

If you're going to attack a country, make sure that 1) you aren't making up intelligence about non-existing weapons, 2) you aren't being a hypocrite, 3) you aren't being a hypocrite, and 4) you aren't being a hypocrite.

Honestly, you can't justify a war and subsequent occupation of another country with the dictator being "not trustworthy". Hell, that would justify any war you could possibly think up. People in politics generally aren't very trustworthy, and if you're going to attack a country for human rights violations, make sure you aren't committing them yourself.

lowing wrote:

THE SAME UN that UNORGINALNUTTAH endorses and is so fond of!!.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scre … s1441e.pdf

read it ALL for yourselves and shut up about it!!

And here's the full story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Securit … ution_1441