http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?N...028003&CatID=9

HabbagabbaWha-?

I'm not normally one for Bush Bashing (We Canucks are pretty apathetic towards all the crap that goes on with our neighbours to the south) But Jesus, World War III? Don't you think you're kind of just throwing around the term just a little, Mr. Bush?

....and, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't at least a good portion of the world involved in the other world wars?

Instead of a "world" war, maybe the US should work on getting another civil war going.

I can easily see how this can become WWIII, only that I don't believe it is yet. If there is one or two major attacks (biological or even nuclear) against "western" targets, then I am afraid there will be things there/here that will make the movie The Siege look like disney cartoon. Racism will sky rocket, violence and if things get out of hand, Hitler will look like a saint. There are people who would not mind one bit for exterminating the whole of the Middle East if they could, and I am afraid that they might, just might manage to have a excuse to do so. the "funny" thing is that some of the arabs and ohter muslims that want such a war, believe that they can win such a war. Sad, very sad. I hope justice and peace will prevail, but if muck hit the fan, I know which side I will support.


Let's hope WWIII will never take place.

I highly doubt that at this point it could escalate to such a degree. That country is now a smoking, paste filled crater, and for all the boogy man talk that comes out of everyone in the civilized nations talking about it, I think that they're pretty much done for. ...but seriously, World War III? No, just... no. This does not qualify as it stands.

:roflol: Great .... description, TheGiantMidgit. (Edit: Gah, you removed it)

Unfortunately, Bush does seem to have gotten a bit more crazy since the 11th of September. Talking about WWIII is a very stupid thing. Is it just me or is he enjoying the war he is fighting in Iraq? :blink:

I'll put it back up... it was just too stupid, even for me...

From a PA forumer, amusing to me not only for his presentation, but for how blatantly wrong it is:

WWI

Wilson: Germany, stop being a bitch.
Germany: No. olol
Wilson: **** BLOCKED


WWII

FDR: Damnit Japan, Germany, cut it the *meep* out.
Japan: FIRE ZE MISSILES
Germany: No. olol
Truman: IN THE GONADS JAPAN. Germany, last chance.
Germany: Uh.... olol No.
Truman: Russia, do your thing.
Russia: FOR THE MOTHER LAND, BITCH.


WWIII

Bush: Guys, they attacked us.
USA: Who?
Bush: Al Qaeda
USA: Let's get 'em.
Bush: We can't.
USA: Why?
Bush: We can't find him. *mumbles something about Iraq*
USA: What?
Bush: Oil.
USA: Oh.
Bush: *bomb bomb bomb find sadam weeee*
USA: We got him!
Bush: Yay!
USA: Why are we still there?
Bush: omg WWIII
Korea: That's it, we told you to pay attention to our nuke!

^ :roflol:

America Sux. Capitalism Sux. Korea Sux. Putin Sux. Hitler Sux, but Germany Rockz!

not really, no.
WWI had about 6 major particpants, and about 30 secondary ones (that includes semi-independent British colonial terretories) out of about 180 nations by that time
WWII had 7 major particpants and about 50 secondary ones. [b]this one sort of fits[b]
But then again war in Korea (1950-53) had about 20 participants 4 or 5 of which can be called major ones. So it's really more like that than another World War ™

The problem with calling the war against terror WWIII is that it is not really a war, at all.

Terrorism, unlike communism, is not even an ideology, it is a crime. You can no more declare war on terror than declare war on crime. If soldiers win the war on terror, it is because they act like policemen; gathering intelligence, talking to informants, and raiding hideouts.

All you have to do to judge the importance of military might in fighting terrorism is look at how it was used to catch the Oklahoma city bombers.

The british did employ their army against IRA terrorists, with more than a little success, but they were performing police work.

What has communism got to do with either of the world wars?? :blink:

where were you for the last 5 decades?! :blink:
do the words
"cold war"
"Marshall plan"
"nuclear device"
"better be dead then red"
"we shall show them Kuzkins mother"
mean anything to you?

Yes, that was cold war, not world war I see a big difference there, or do millions of casualties mean nothing to you?

From what I understand, if the "War on Terror" escalates into a world war, it'll generally be considered WWIV while the cold war is generally considered WWIII.

The problem is that this isn't a "War on Terror" at all. After 9/11 it became a convenient party-line for the Republicans to defend a "War on Islam and the Middle East." We stopped fighting a "War on Terror" when we shifted focus from Afghanistan. The "War in Iraq" isTn't a war on terror -- it's a war against the recognized, sovereign nation of Iraq. The same will be true if we go into Syria or Iran.

i'm so going after your face with a brick!

No. You have fallen for the wide misinformation.

I might turn into this, but it isn't yet.

I also tend to think of the Coldwar as WW3. It was infact much hotter then the name implies. It was a Global war spread out of decades and the majority of the fighting was done through proxy but resulted in the death on untold people.

Iraq was a stupid choice for war even though I personally believe they had some WMDs but were moved out of the country long before US troops ever got there. Saddam did that in the past with his weapons the Gulf war for example when he flew dozens of his planes to Iran to keep them for getting destroyed. And really think of it this way say your mom said she was going to search your room for drugs but not for another 6 months, would there be any drugs there when she looked? Thats pretty much what happened in Iraq.

Iran was and is the greater threat. Its been proven the fund terrorist groups (Hammas) with not only money but also weapons. They have perhaps the strongest anti-american/Israeli views of any nation in the region having called publicly for Israeli to be "wiped off the map" and the "Father of the Pakistani bomb" Abdul Qadeer Khan addmitted to selling them nuclear weapons tech and secrets for decades.

What "wide[spread] misinformation"? The "War on Islam" part or the "World War Classification" part?

As I can only assume the former, I take issue with your assesment of what I said. The Iraqi link to the 9/11 attacks has never been thourougly established (and never really was in the first place) and the entire pretense for the war in Iraq remains pretty questionable. The root of this issue from the Average Joe Sixpack standpoint (i.e. the American voter) is 9/11; that was the reason the war in Afghanistan was supported. To this day we have still failed to catch Bin Laden, yet our efforts have been refocused elsewhere under the same guise of protecting The Homeland.

Where is the evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? Where is the evidence that there was an immanent threat to the US?

maybe efthimios meant that it could turn into WWIV, but hasn't yet? thtaš kind of what weŗe disscussing here, isn't it?

i'm so going after your face with a brick! [/b][/quote]
brick? your soft :sneaky:

hold it there buddy LOL

The pretense for the war in Iraq is just that. Of course Iraq having nukes or other similar weapons were not the real reason, or of course any supposed link with the AlQ. I never said anything like that. The average joe sixpack as you are calling americans (would it be ok to call similar names french, german, english, croatian, etc you get the point, here? or is it just americans that are allowed to be called names by the administrators of this forum?) 9/11 was NOT the reason that USA went to war with Iraq, either as a reason that was used or real. You could perahps say it was the oil, but none before the war said that 9/11 was why they were going to Iraq. Clearly stated reasons officialy and unofficialy were weapons of mass destruction, links to alqaida and even (after the succesful invasion) the liberation of the iraqi people. None said that they went there for revenge, get your facts straight, again...


I agree completely that you shouldn't have invaded Iraq. *meep* iraqi people if they want Saddam, let them. Osama Bin Laden must be the number one goal, and his cronies. That is why (another thread I think, or was it here) that GWBush is a traitor. Don't see everything as black and white. Not everything fall into categories depending on what you think is one side, and the other...

Almost, I don't see the Cold War as WWIII. But I did mean that WWIII is a very strong possibility in the near future.

You might want to check your comprehension of the English language and common usage before accusing me of making slurs. "Joe Sixpack" isn't a pejorative, it's a common way of saying "The Average Joe" or "The Common Man." I'm not one to normally criticize non-native English speakers for their shortcomings with the language, but I don't take accusations of bigotry lightly. That, and of course, the fact that I'M AMERICAN.

I'm not even quite sure where to start here. You first say that WMDs and links to Al-Qaeda weren't the reason, then proceeded to say that they were the reason. You then claim to be correct by noting that "revenge" was never the reason for entry into Iraq (something which I never said). To have the audacity to tell me to get my facts straight when you've just made an argument composed entirely of two polar opposite -- complementary, even -- assertions simply amazes me.

As for "revenge" -- I never claimed Iraq to be an act of vengeance. Not only that, but my point was that the fear, nationalism, and 9/11 were used as the political leverage required to enter into the conflict.

The fact that I'M AMERICAN as you said, has little to do with making slurs and not counting them as such. While you are free to say whatever the hell you want, so am I. If I don't like how you or anyone else calls americans (or any other), I will say it, and you can scream your nationality as much as you like.



Perhaps because my level of english is so much lower than yours, you are a master of the english language as I can see, or perhaps I was drunk! I might have missed the part where I said that Al Q and WMDs were the reason for invading Iraq. In fact for some strange reason I seem to remember having said that they were used as a pretense and them NOT being the reason for invading Iraq. Still, I might be wrong and I would love if you could point where I said the opposite. Till you do so, I will refrain from commenting your "audacity" comment and I am waiting for you to inform me of my mistakes.



When you say that fear and nationalism with the events of 9/11 were used, you don't think that it too sounds like another way of saying revenge? Me and my terrible english again I guess.

This is getting funnier.

I am eagerly waiting for your reply, and I might even have to apologize if I made such flip flop comments.

brick? your soft :sneaky: [/b][/quote]
Hey what can i say =D

You're going to have serious trouble defending that "War on Islam" accusation. How many mosques within the US have been turned into smoking craters since 9/11/2001, for example? Seems like if we were fighting a "War on Islam," that would be a logical place to start.

"War on Islam and the Middle East" should probably be read as "War on Islam in the Middle East", since they don't fight (or threaten) Israel, nor do they bring they crusade to regions like Lybia or Chechnia (the later even has oil in it, you know).

You're just as free to misrepresent what I say as I am to make wild claims about you. You said "Islam" and "revenge," thus you hate Muslims! Mods! Mods!

Your own interpretation of the term aside, you went beyond offense and questioned the administrators of the forum. That's what really prompted my response. You're not American; I am. You aren't a native English speaker; I am. You mistook a generic name mentioned in something I wrote as prejudicial and complained that the admins were ignoring bigotry aimed at Americans. That's ridiculous and that's why I made the response I did.

Look, as I said before, I don't generally complain about less-than-absolutely-perfect English from non-native speakers as I respect the fact that they speak a second language (far better than I speak any foreign language). I'm not trying to criticize your English skills. I am, however, reality-checking you as I don't like being accused of making bigoted comments about my own nationality by someone who misunderstood the nature of the term in the first place.



<!--QuoteBegin-efthimios
Of course Iraq having nukes or other similar weapons were not the real reason, or of course any supposed link with the AlQ....Clearly stated reasons officialy and unofficialy were weapons of mass destruction, links to alqaida and even (after the succesful invasion) the liberation of the iraqi people.[/quote]
That appears contradictory to me, but then again, the paragraph from which that is taken shifts doesn't really attempt to make a coherent point. The most obvious contradiction is the one about Al-Qaeda. Listing Al-Qaeda as a reason for invading Iraq and then claiming that Joe Sixpack was never led to believe that said invasion was related to the events 9/11 is about as contradictory as you can get (that is, unless you're claiming that Al-Qaeda wasn't responsible for 9/11).

Further, I'd like to note that you've many times accused me of falling for "wide[spread] misinformation" and of not having my "facts straight" yet you have yet to actually mention or demonstrate where such is the case. Hell, you're still -- in the very post to which this is a response -- arguing points I made several posts ago. Posts, I might add, which you attacked as being ill-informed and illogical.

I said the fear and nationalism of the American people after 9/11 was used as political leverage in launching an attack on Iraq. Never did I mention revenge. Maybe the general populace was interested in revenge -- I don't know -- but that has nothing to do with the political motivations.

Chechnia isn't in the middle east nor is Lybia (although the latter is arguable). Israel is exempt from invasion by the US for various obvious reasons, though it is worth noting the US's tensions with the Palestinians (though the death of Arafat has eased those tensions somewhat, the rise of Hamas has replaced them).

Christianity (the predominant religion in the west) and Islam (the predominant religion in the middle east) have been at strong odds since the time of the crusades. Sadly, "War on the Middle East" is nearly synonomous with "War on Islam" from the perspective of a western power. Things are further complicated by Sunni-Shi'a tensions in an already embattled region.

still you have to admit the facts that Israel is the only non-offcialy-islamic country in the region as well as being exempt from invasion are more than a mere coincedence. :sneaky:
as for Chechnia and Lybia not being in he middle east, that is exacly my point: to be a US target you be both pro isalmic and in (or around- afganisatn is somewaht norther) the middle east. plus be a bit [un]lucky, since I don't think Bush will get a 3rd term , or be able to conqer all of ME during this one.

P.S. to help settle your bigotry debate, please read This article, efthimios.

It is not enough to be non-oficially-muslem to avoid invasion by the US. Israel is not the only non-officially-muslim country in the middle east. The other three that I can name off the top of my head are Egypt, Syria, and Iraq (while Saddam Hussein was still in power). The key to not being invaded by the US seem to be nuclear weapons (North Korea) or a large voting bloc of americans sympathetic to your cause (Israel).

You are an *****, no question about it. Either bad bad sense of humour or you really believe that I hate muslims. I am afraid it is the latter.


I didn't mistake any name, I don't like what you said and I do find it offensive, even if you find it hard for someone who is not american to actualy give a muck about the country. I don't know, perhaps it was more your elitist attitude that pissed me off more, since the common american cannot figure out what is going on, while you with your higher whatever can see through the mist. My comments after what you said (six pack etc) were not directed to the administrators only because of your specific post, but because very negative comments (and yes, far far far worse than what you said) take place here every few weeks to months. If we started a thread about how fascists warmongers, whatever "nice", any european nationality/country, including of course the ones that admins/mods are from, then all would shout FOUL. But any negative comments, reaching or even passing racist comments (not yours specificaly) that are directed to the USA or americans, they are fine, because it is so cool to blame the USA for everything muck under the Sun.
BTW, are you trying to get a VIP or do you regularly suck up on mods? (honest question)





Actualy it looks like that was my mistake, that I didn't make it clear that I wasn't only referring to your comment, which of course is very mild (and yes I still consider it bad), no matter if you are american or martian.

Quote:

Originally posted by plix@ That appears contradictory to me, but then again, the paragraph from which that is taken shifts doesn't really attempt to make a coherent point.* The most obvious contradiction is the one about Al-Qaeda.* Listing Al-Qaeda as a reason for invading Iraq and then claiming that Joe Sixpack was never led to believe that said invasion was related to the events 9/11 is about as contradictory as you can get (that is, unless you're claiming that Al-Qaeda wasn't responsible for 9/11).

FFS, READ MY POST AGAIN. I am not talking about LISTED reasons, pretexts, rumours, reading tea , I am talking about REASONS, why it actually happened. And it was never Al-Qaeda, as it was never revenge against the hits of 9/11. It might help some people to see it like this (supporters of certain regimes, people who dream and think that the poor (insert your favourite nationality related to accusations about terrorism) are innocent and just want to live their lives, that have of course no bad feelings about USA, or at least wouldn't have if the USA hadn't invaded Iraq.
UTTER BULLSHIT.

<!--QuoteBegin-plix

Further, I'd like to note that you've many times accused me of falling for "wide[spread] misinformation" and of not having my "facts straight" yet you have yet to actually mention or demonstrate where such is the case.* Hell, you're still -- in the very post to which this is a response -- arguing points I made several posts ago.* Posts, I might add, which you attacked as being ill-informed and illogical.[/quote]

Twice. Each case directly after you posted that "information".
Yes, I am still arguing points you made several posts ago, the problem is that as soon as someone mentions/counter argues something that you are wrong or you find difficult to explain, you pass it, then, as of now, claim it points you made several posts ago that should be let alone in the long long past...
Perhaps you could please provide the facts as to how the whole situation is a war on islam?

You don't make any sense. How is war in the middle east synonymous to war on islam? Perhaps to people who want it to present it as such, yes. I love it when you take your own view on a matter, then place it as fact, especially when you are talking about something as different as a war in a region to being the same as a war on a whole religion. LOVE IT!





<!--QuoteBegin-plix
I said the fear and nationalism of the American people after 9/11 was used as political leverage in launching an attack on Iraq.* Never did I mention revenge.* Maybe the general populace was interested in revenge -- I don't know -- but that has nothing to do with the political motivations. [/quote]

I don't know, I still find the mix of fear with nationalism and reaction to an attack, leading to a war , as revenge. Perhaps I am wrong.

It is not enough to be non-oficially-muslem to avoid invasion by the US. Israel is not the only non-officially-muslim country in the middle east. The other three that I can name off the top of my head are Egypt, Syria, and Iraq (while Saddam Hussein was still in power). The key to not being invaded by the US seem to be nuclear weapons (North Korea) or a large voting bloc of americans sympathetic to your cause (Israel). [/b][/quote]
The other 3 are islamic countries, the vast majority of their population is muslim. :blink:

Efthimios in action ^_^ I just remembered the heated discussions we had about piracy and copyright :D

The other 3 are islamic countries, the vast majority of their population is muslim. :blink: [/b][/quote]
But the countries are not officially muslim. In fact, their seperation of church and state is more extreme than that of the US. In the most liberal of the three countries (Egypt), muslim extremists are attempting a campaign of terror to drive away tourists and force government to become islamic. I am sure that if the Baathists thought that they could have gotten away with it, they would have closed the mosques. Secular governments are uncomfortable with the existence of religious leaders, and Islam is not especially tolerant of secular governments. In its extreme forms, there is no such thing as secular authority.

Whatever government the US leaves behind in Iraq, when it leaves, it will be much more muslim than the one that the US toppled, even if it is not a theocracy, like Iran.

But the countries are not officially muslim. In fact, their seperation of church and state is more extreme than that of the US. In the most liberal of the three countries (Egypt), muslim extremists are attempting a campaign of terror to drive away tourists and force government to become islamic. I am sure that if the Baathists thought that they could have gotten away with it, they would have closed the mosques. Secular governments are uncomfortable with the existence of religious leaders, and Islam is not especially tolerant of secular governments. In its extreme forms, there is no such thing as secular authority.

Whatever government the US leaves behind in Iraq, when it leaves, it will be much more muslim than the one that the US toppled, even if it is not a theocracy, like Iran. [/b][/quote]
rbell I do not disagree with the spirit of what you say, the problem is that the world islamic means muslim, which they are. I agree that Iraq (pre war), Syria, Egypt, Lybia have secular governments (to a degree of course) and are not theocracies or anything similar, like Taliban Afghanistan, Iran (though less so now thankfuly), Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps a better term would be secular non secular, than islamic.
:D

Efthimios, nice save, iwas preparing something for you :D

Closed due to highly inflammatory attacks made by one member towards another. That person can now look forward to having a nice 40% warn increase.

I hope you are happy, now. Seeing that we do actually respond to things when we must do so. :)