Heading Into The New World War.

[KINGZ]

AJBryant wrote:

Since Israel is trying to disarm Lebanon's munition, Israel thinks that, and probably is that Syria is giving Lebanon it's munition and Israel may be thinking to disarm Syria aswell.

Minor point. Israel is not trying to disarm LEBANON, nor is Israel at war (yet) with Lebanon.

Israel is fighting Hizbullah, which is a stateless terrorist organization that, due to years of Lebanese unrest, has a firm foothold in Lebanon. There are even two cabinet ministers in Lebanon from the Hizbullah party.

Oddly, though Lebanon is suffering from all the strikes, if Israel can actually distroy Hizbullah it would be a good thing for Lebanon, as Hizbullah is a client of Syria and Iran. (Israel recently blew up a shipment of long-range rockets being sent from the SYRIAN ARMY to Hizbullah, and some of the longer range ones that have been hitting Haifa were supplied by Iran.

Any wonder why people are concerned about Iran getting the Bomb?

Tony

As for Israel fighting against Lebanese is not the case as stated above, its Israel vs. terrest Hezbollah. Israel is doing nothing that we in the US have not done or doing rite now. There tactics are just a bit more crude then ours and does not seem to be worried about the aftermath as we are in the US. Its too late one way or another tho, as if Israel backs down or pull out now, they would just open the doors of years and years of terrest attracts. It goes the same for the US, any showing of a weakness means that as long has any groups hold out that we would fold. We are living this mistake rite now as pulling out of two conflicts in the last 50 years, the latest being when Clinton Pulled are troops at to save a hand full of pilots. I digress.
As for a new world war, that would be very unlikely, Take a look at the supper powers, vs. whats left. If any allied country would be attack by a none allied (this does not include tersest groups) country, it would be mandatory for all allied countries to be involved. Currently if I correct the worlds super powers by the UN is listed: (in no order)
United States
Russia
Germany
Great Britain
France (they should just be removed)
Israel
China
Japan
India
Almost all of which are packed allies. the list of allied with the US is much bigger but of the supper powers packed allies would be US, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, Japan (not sure why India is not on that list). Which means if another nation attack they would all have to be in the war.
As for this the super powers are two strong for another world war, It would be over in a matter of weeks if that happened.

[hungryhotei]

KINGZ wrote:
terrest

Terrorist Sorry, but if you makes two many spelling and grammer errars it difficult to reed and the point is trying to make gets lost. I did like 'supper powers' though

[Seijiro Hiko]

I've read a good book that loosely relates to this that I'd recommend: "The World Is Flat."

Anyway, I don't think we can realistically expect WWIII from anything like this although it is stirring the pot quite a bit. To be honest I'm more concerned about issues like the ever increasing consumption of energy resources particularly gasoline. Think about it. China and India are two of the most populated countries in the world with about 1 billion people each. (roughly 1/3 of the worlds population) They are developing strong economies that are able to support a fast growing middle to upper class. These middle class citizens are purchasing cars and need to be supplied with electricity. This puts a huge strain on the already over-burdened oil market and raises the need for the generation of electricity. (not as big as the oil problem but still considerable) Plus there is also the fact that with the current level of oil consumption, the projected amount of oil left to be extracted from the earth will only last about 50 more years. It seems like a long time but will become a big problem much earlier than that. If energy needs aren't met in alternative energies we could face the possiblity of entering wide spread conflicts for oil and other energy resources. (which we may be doing already)

I'm more than a little curious about over-population too and the ability to feed everybody.

[Sakana_12345]

KINGZ, why should France be removed?

To me this is a catch 22 situation, dying to live and living to die, it is an insular problem that is being policed by USA (amongst others) ala Iraq and Kuwait, Gulf War 1.
GW 1 - Coalition deaths amounted to around 400, Iraqi deaths to 100,000.
Gulf War 1 could have been a catalyst for Gulf War 2, in which coalition deaths have amounted to around 2,700, Iraqi deaths to 30 - 100,000.

War situations seem to become even more heated with outside influence, which is why this situation could intensify to unprecedented paranoia within the middle-east.

Everyone's a pacifist between wars. It's like being a vegetarian between meals.

[SunaipaaKisei]

Seijiro Hiko
your kinda heading off topic, but we're in the off topic section, so what the hell..why not..

[KINGZ]

hungryhotei wrote:

KINGZ wrote:
terrest

Terrorist Sorry, but if you makes two many spelling and grammer errars it difficult to reed and the point is trying to make gets lost. I did like 'supper powers' though

yea, my spelling at times can be nothing better than appalling.

[ashitaka]

"I don't know what weapons WW3 will be fought with but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."-Einstien
I think just 1 nuclear missile being launched could very well start a world war, and as we all know a nuclear war is bad for everyone. :@

[Infidel]

Schattenjedi wrote:

Infidel wrote:

Schattenjedi wrote:
Westerners really should keep their noses out of the Islamic world. They reject everything that comes from outside so why bother? I think the key players are Israel and Iran. If those two get into a war with each other, their hatred for another is going to fuel some intense fighting. And if Iran does end up in the war, then there is the slight possibility that China and/or Russia could enter which would probably make it a world war. However more likely would be that China and Russia would just arm Iran to the teeth and let them do their own fighting.

As for this gem:
Who do you think you are? The Fist of God? Do you think Russia and China can't "step in hard". Not to mention China could bring the American economy to a halt at any time were they to demand that America repay their debt.

It's not a matter of can or can't it's a matter of will or won't.

You'll have to put a topic on that sentence. Are you talking about America, China, Russia, or everyone?

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I quoted what you said. THAT was the topic. Put another way. Ever since WW2, WHO ELSE has stepped forward first to support global stability. Even England and the other states come in on our coattails. Sure other countries COULD do lots of things to support global stability. But they won't, so it's a completely irrelevant argument.

Even though a lot of citizens seem to be ignoring history classes. Those ones where America TRIED several times to be isolationist but each time we got sucked into a big war anyway. The lesson was learned. Isolationism doesn't work. We step in and take care of problems while they are still small. Those people that point to the current costs should try to consider what the costs would be if we ignored the problem as we used to do in the past. In a few decades we'd have to deal with it again, but with costs that dwarf what they are now. How many Americans would have died from Germany if we joined the war much sooner? A lot less!

Preventing another world war is the very reason the US foreign policy is the way it is. If we have the capability to prevent some other country from doing a Hitler, then we use it. We're not expansionist. We are satisfied with keeping a country in their own borders, like NK and Vietnam, Japan, Iraq, etc..

[Shibakoen]

Schattenjedi wrote:


Who do you think you are? The Fist of God? Do you think Russia and China can't "step in hard". Not to mention China could bring the American economy to a halt at any time were they to demand that America repay their debt.

I'm just curious, what debt are you talking about? The reason I ask is that many people confuse the idea of debt and "trade deficit". Generally, when economists discuss national debt, they're talking about money the US borrows through Treasury instruments. Some of you may own some. If that's what you are talking about, I seriously doubt that China would suddenly sell all of their American bonds and T-Bills. Just think about the effects that would have on the Dollar/Yuan exchange rate. And for those of you thinking that, "well, it's a fixed currency, right, so the Chinese can just keep their yuan valued the same as the dollar?" The answer is no. The way that the Chinese (and Japanese to a lesser extent) keep their currencies where they are is to finance it by buying US currency -- those same bonds and T-Bills.

If you are, like the media often likes to point out, talking instead about the trade deficit, then it's certainly not something that can be "paid back" at all. It's not a debt in the sense you're thinking. We buy Chinese goods, they don't buy as much of ours. So, they get money and we get Chinese goods. They can't just decide they want to get their stuff back.

The fact is, many American policy makers want the Chinese to stop "keeping their currency undervalued" which they do through the purchase of American currency and debt instruments. There is some sense to this argument because by artificially keeping dollar demand 'comparitively' high and yuan value 'comparatively' low (compared to how they would be valued without Chinese intervention through such purchases) the Chinese are essentially keeping their goods and services 'cheap'. They want us to keep buying Chinese stuff, and we oblige them by doing just that. It's just how the system works. It's like you go to the grocery store and you buy stuff from them but they don't buy anything from you. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are buying too much.

Now, notice that there are a lot of caveats in this -- lots of 'comparitively' and 'not necessarily'. The fact is, debt, for the household, can be a very bad thing if not managed properly. With rising interest rates, people with Adjustable Rate Mortgages and other debt payments are going to have a tough time paying their bills. That's where the danger lies. Not in China selling US T-Bills -- it's when young families can't afford their home and car payments. This is why they really need to teach these finance and economics ideas in grade school. The misconceptions many people have about these subjects can lead to poor financial management, planning, and debt default. In short, that argument is ridiculous. The Chinese economic growth depends just as much on the American economy and American demand as anything else. It would be more likely that I am the reincarnation of Buddha and Jesus roled up into one.

Donations for my new Church of Me can be made payable to:

[Schattenjedi]

Infidel wrote:
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I quoted what you said. THAT was the topic. Put another way. Ever since WW2, WHO ELSE has stepped forward first to support global stability. Even England and the other states come in on our coattails. Sure other countries COULD do lots of things to support global stability. But they won't, so it's a completely irrelevant argument.

Even though a lot of citizens seem to be ignoring history classes. Those ones where America TRIED several times to be isolationist but each time we got sucked into a big war anyway. The lesson was learned. Isolationism doesn't work. We step in and take care of problems while they are still small. Those people that point to the current costs should try to consider what the costs would be if we ignored the problem as we used to do in the past. In a few decades we'd have to deal with it again, but with costs that dwarf what they are now. How many Americans would have died from Germany if we joined the war much sooner? A lot less!

Preventing another world war is the very reason the US foreign policy is the way it is. If we have the capability to prevent some other country from doing a Hitler, then we use it. We're not expansionist. We are satisfied with keeping a country in their own borders, like NK and Vietnam, Japan, Iraq, etc..

I can agree with most of that. I can't agree with the last part though. How on earth can you call an empire like America non-expansionist? The U.S. has more than 700 bases and counting on foreign soil. As for supporting global stability, America has a very mixed record there. In Asia and Europe it's overwhelmingly positive, in South America horrendous.

Back to the current conflict though. What purpose would an American military action in the moment serve? Wouldn't America do the exact same thing that Israel is doing now? The only real decision America has to make now is whether to support Israel's actions or not.

Shibakoen wrote:
I'm just curious, what debt are you talking about?

Yes, I am speaking of national and private debt. America is living way over its means and this is being funded for the most part by China and Japan. Of course there would be severe consequences for China were they to demand the cash for their treasury bills. Nevertheless it is a poker chip they can use if the U.S. gets out of hand as it's been known to do.

[oKawa]

"The World Is Flat."　　

I didn't see this as being to much off topic. Seems like another religious war when you look under the covers. Early religious oppressors also thought the world was flat, [or at least trying to keep the rest of us from finding out the truth], could they be wrong? Religion has kept society from progress as an earlier poster said when commenting about the Islamic faith, but Christianity has done the same in many cases. There's no oil in Israel, so I guess I can't claim it's another war for oil program, so what could it be?

War stinks no matter who is doing it. I'm tired of the news, they only report what they want you to hear, not what is really happening.

As for France, they are getting a bad rap! I think they are very smart, and know what they are talking about. After all they did help us [America] beat the Brits! This is why we celebrate the 4th of July in America.B)

[Shibakoen]

Schattenjedi wrote:

Shibakoen wrote:
I'm just curious, what debt are you talking about?

Yes, I am speaking of national and private debt. America is living way over its means and this is being funded for the most part by China and Japan. Of course there would be severe consequences for China were they to demand the cash for their treasury bills. Nevertheless it is a poker chip they can use if the U.S. gets out of hand as it's been known to do.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote above. Granted it was long and maybe it went over your head, but no, the debt that is "funded for the most part by China and Japan" is not some poker chip they can play with. If they tried to "play with it" then Americans wouldn't be able to buy anything they make because it would seriously increase the value of their currencies relative to the dollar. If we can't buy anything then THEIR economies tank.

"America is living way over its means" -- As I said, this is one big reason that they need to teach finance and economics to everybody before college. The other big reason is so people have at least a rudimentary understanding of the way it works so they can't just think that China can "ask for the debt to be paid off."

[Schattenjedi]

I did indeed read your reply and like I said it would have severe consequences for China were they to demand the repayment of the debt. The point I'm making is that the damage China would do to America with this action would be absolutely devastating. The damage it would do to itself would also be substantial but China does have a ton of customers outside the U.S. and could probably cope with the fallout of U.S. demand thanks to its other markets like Japan, the E.U. and it's own growing domestic demand. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think China would do this unless it saw itself backed into a wall.

[Seijiro Hiko]

oKawa wrote:
"The World Is Flat."　　

I didn't see this as being to much off topic. Seems like another religious war when you look under the covers. Early religious oppressors also thought the world was flat, [or at least trying to keep the rest of us from finding out the truth], could they be wrong? Religion has kept society from progress as an earlier poster said when commenting about the Islamic faith, but Christianity has done the same in many cases. There's no oil in Israel, so I guess I can't claim it's another war for oil program, so what could it be?

War stinks no matter who is doing it. I'm tired of the news, they only report what they want you to hear, not what is really happening.

As for France, they are getting a bad rap! I think they are very smart, and know what they are talking about. After all they did help us [America] beat the Brits! This is why we celebrate the 4th of July in America.B)

Ah so you've read it? (yes/no/maybe so)

One of the things the author said in the book is that part of the reason some of the Islamic people are so readily taking to terrorism is that their once glorious civilization(s) have sort of been left behind and because of that there is a lot of shame where there was once great pride. Terrorist leaders take advantage of this and recruit zealous young men who will "restore the Islamic nation in a blaze of religious glory." This means getting rid of pesky little Israel and restoring holy ground to Islam (Jerusalem) as well as taking on the modern day Rome.

I believe Religion can be progressive but not if its too close-minded and violent (part of religion has to be close-minded but its usually taken to an unecessary extreme).

The conflict in Israel is long compound of things but originally the war over israel and started out of religious conflicts and getting the nice little strip of green land on the coast that surrounded by useless desert. (Crusades of the middle ages, etc...) No of course its not a war for oil.

Yeah, I think France gets a lot of undue prejudice and crap too.

[clay]

Seijiro Hiko said:

...the nice little strip of green land on the coast

Just remember who made it a nice little strip of green land

Mark Twain after visiting what is now Israel called it a "desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse...."

The land lay in waste under the Ottoman Turks (who were, by the way, non-Arabs) until Jews started flowing back in en masse. It wasn't wanted by anyone until they made it habitable. It was the blood, sweat and tears of the mostly Jewish settlers at the turn of the last century that made it a nice little strip of green land.