«

[a1s]

Originally posted by Tulac@May 7 2006, 05:39 PM
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?

[Tulac]

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

[plix]

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.

Originally posted by rlbell
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.

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.

[Stebbi]

Originally posted by U-Boat Commander David@May 7 2006, 10:59 AM
America Sux. Capitalism Sux. Korea Sux. Putin Sux. Hitler Sux, but Germany Rockz!

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

[efthimios]

Originally posted by plix@May 7 2006, 07:10 PM
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."

No. You have fallen for the wide misinformation.

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

[ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by plix@May 7 2006, 06:10 PM
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.

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.

[plix]

Originally posted by efthimios@May 7 2006, 03:18 PM
No. You have fallen for the wide misinformation.

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

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?

[a1s]

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

[#BlakhOle#]

Originally posted by Stebbi+May 8 2006, 04:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stebbi @ May 8 2006, 04:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-U-Boat Commander David@May 7 2006, 10:59 AM
America Sux. Capitalism Sux. Korea Sux. Putin Sux. Hitler Sux, but Germany Rockz!

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

[efthimios]

Originally posted by plix@May 7 2006, 10:49 PM


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?

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...