Noice!

what i mean more is that it would probably be the beginning of the world war III unit in a social studies textbook 500 years from now.

I think the comparison to North Korea and Iran is apt. However, we can't stop N. Korea's nuclear arms anymore. They already have it. But we can try and do something about Iran's. Plus, Iran has directly threatened to bomb and continually vocalize their desire throughout history to destroy Israel, one of our allies.

Wouldn't you want to do something about it if someone kept threatening to destroy your good friend or a family member? I know that's a weak comparison, but the sentiment is pretty similar. You can't just blow off nuclear threats.

Edit: Iran is not a fan of ours. And although they could not launch a nuke to our soil, that has very little to do with our security. I mean, I suppose it depends on how you define "security". I won't get vaporized, but any time someone gets vaporized, seeing as how we are the world power, you can bet we'll get blamed for it. "How come the U.S. didn't stop Iran when it could, blah blah blah". Plus, we have people all over the world. And it is not so much U.S. security that we are worried about any more. We at least try to sound like we are worried about world security.

I have a different take on this than i think everybody else here, and i would like to further add that this is not my own original thinking: i came to it from pretty much the only credible expert I know of regarding all things in the middle east, juan cole. if you want to really know what's going on in Iraq, check out his blog 'informed comment.'

anyway, i think that the US has already triggered WWIII. It's still in its infancy and moving slowly, but it's not (at least initially) a war about countries. It's a war about ethinicity: the US, by clusmily invading Iraq, blew the lid off of some very serious hostilities and tensions between the three major ethnic groups in the middle east: the shia, the sunnis and the kurds. None of these groups have ever particularly liked each other, and they've only marginally gotten along when a powerfull ruler (like sadam) forced (often brutally) peace. The middle east is largely split into countries based on the dominant ethinic groups: Sunnis make up mostly the western countries in the Middle east, Shia make up most of the east (Iran), and Kurds are mostly in the north. All three groups are bonded by both blood and specific type of islam (though i'm not entirely sure about the kurds), and the current perception among the middle east is that a sectarian war is raging in Iraq among the different groups. After the US gets its ass kicked out of there (this is already happening), this war can easily escelate across the entire region. It is here when countries might actually get involved, and I don't see much of anything good coming from it. There were some serious issues lying underneath the surface of the region, and we should have never stirred them up.

So yeah, I think WWIII is in its infancy, growing out of what will be a war across the entire middle east between different ethnic groups.

That is almost too much of an oxymoron for me to comprehend. And what evidence is there that we are "getting our asses kicked out of there"?

[img][391:500]http://www.roberthegyes.com/kotter9.jpg[/img]

kind of how i feel when i say that it's alreqdy began. i would even go a little further back and say that 9/11 is the beginning of world war III, as that precipitated our entry into iraq. iraq was pretty much the biggest mistake ever, and i really think the future is only going to make that more and more clear. in those social studies textbooks i talking about 500 years ago, they're also going to be wondering how the fuck a nation could be so stupid as to re-elect the guy that triggered all this.

First, they're going to freak. Then, they're going to kill us. But don't worry...I can fix it. My dad's a TV repairman. He's got an awesome set of tools.

np: John Doe - "Field of Dirt"

all i know is that my strategy was always to try to get australia and south america, get my forces strong, then attack.

and speaking of australia...what's the time dif? i have to call a photographer there and don't have a clue as to how to time it.

continue on.

at least you speak the language. be sure to call him a wallaby (sp) humper. they love that.

it's a female you sexist pig.

its 12 noon here so 10 am there (australia) i think

that's a good way to describe the world i think...




well, first i suppose i should define 'getting our asses kicked out of there': considering that we've only been able to effectively secure the green zone (all other relatively peaceful places, such as the kurdish north and some of the shia south are kept peaceful by local militias that are not part of and have no alliegance to the new iraqi army), i'd say that the the US army is not welcome in Iraq. However, I need not rely on my own simple observations: we went to Iraq to ... oh shit, why did we go to Iraq again?... anyway, now that we have deposed the dictator and destroyed the former government, we have tried to help the iraqis form their own soviergn government. frankly, the US army is stationed in Iraq at their pleasure, and when the new government doesn't want us to be there, we'll have to go. Well, their new government (which is only just now starting to move, after elections 5 months ago) is not particularly in favor our army staying and 'occupying' their country. In fact, a draft resolution has already been widely distributed that does two things: legitamizes the 'right to resist against the occupiers', and similarly demands that US troops be out of the country by the end of the year. This resolution already has broad support among the political coalitions of the new iraqi parlament. There are some in the new government that do want us to stay, mostly because they know that they will no longer be in power after we leave. However, there are not enough of these people to keep this from happening. You might be wondering why you've not read about any of this in the US press. That would be due to the fact that none of this was reported in the US media, although it did make the international media, which I happen to keep tabs on from time to time. Bottom line is, the Iraqis have a very limited tolerance for us to stay in their country, and the machinations have begun for the iraqi government to ask us to withdraw. the timing of it all, however, remains to be seen.

which, on another related note, makes me wonder what will happen to the 20 (yes 20) super-military-bases we have built in Iraq. These don't sound like the kind of things we'd go and build if we were planning on leaving....

and i'll be happy to dig up my sources if you feel like calling bullshit. will take a little while though.

finally, something useful.

i should have known....

a) to not assume

b) that you would be on the telephone with some other dyke

now the issue is, which one should i actually post?

Nope. Don't need your sources. I just wanted to know what reasons you had for holding that belief. Nobody's trying call bullshit. Just wondering.

i agree that security doesn't just mean whether iran could hit us with a nuke. but as for calling for the destruction of israel: hasn't pretty much every government in the region done that? i don't believe those are serious threats. its like calling for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion--popular with a certain crowd, but never gonna happen. i just don't see iran launching nukes at israel. and attacking them is just going to strengthen the iranian government and make them even more hardline than they already are. there would be no quicker way to marginalize the pro-western, pro-democracy forces in iran than an attack--look how far our country turned to the right after 9/11. i'm not saying we do nothing to stop nuclear proliferation, just that launching another war would be lunacy.
but i really think iran's nuclear ambitions are evidence that iraq taught exactly the opposite lesson that it was supposed to. instead of showing the world that nuclear rogues won't be tolerated, it showed the world that as long as you don't have nuclear weapons, we just might invade your country and overthrow your government.

<-------------------paid the equivalent of US$4.87 to fill my golf cart on Saturday.
Oil companies:

None of the United States enemies are stupid enough to start a 'world war'. That's why they engage in guerilla warfare, terrorism, etc. They fight the 'West' in a way that can actually be effective.

America has too many allies with highly skilled military forces (as well as big big bombs) to not totally kick any other countries' asses. If they wanted to, i'm sure America could totally eliminate the entire Middle East with some sort of nuclear campaign, whereas the Middle East couldn't totally eliminate the West.

The only way there will be a proper war is if China gets involved against the West. But they wouldn't. There are waaaay too many Chinese people living in other countries for them to even consider it (at my university about half the people are Chinese). And there's the whole economic reason.

Sorry kids, not in our lifetime.

What???! You're telling me that the domino theory was wrong all this time, and that we could have pulled a reverse domino theory and now be rulers of the world??? Is this the real reason we joined you guys in Vietnam?




Although, based on our efforts in Papua in WWII, we probably still wouldn't have achieved it

yeah that's right suckas.