Is World war three imminent?

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Until we get a President that pisses standing up the crazies and the thief's are gonna do what they do, commit mayhem and steal every thing that's not tied down.

Say Howie,

There is a problem with your theory, it hasn't worked in the past.

I'm sure you think Reagan pissed standing up, he was tough and back in 1984 he sent US troops into Lebanon.....He would show those clowns, he had balls, he peed standing up!

Soon there after when a terrorist attack killed 241 US troops.........(they had asked for more security, just like Benghazi.....but this time it was 241 Americans killed)

At that point the tough guy Reagan, decided to cut and run!

He then pulled out our troops, showing everyone around the world that terrorism works just fine!

We have been paying for that ever since.

**********

So Howard, my question to you, would we have been better off if Reagan had not acted "tough" in this situation?

How about BushII, would we have been better off if he were less "I'll show those bastards"...no one will push me around...
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
...I'm sick to death of our country having to check with yours first, before we take any action ourselves. After all, we were around slightly before your country was.

If your "leaders" are actually doing that they need to "GROW A PAIR". No country should ever allow another to pull its strings in that fashion. Good grief. That's pathetic...either that or it serves a desired purpose over there at #I0 Downing Street.

...What i would really like to see , is relatively rich countries like Germany & France, starting to step up to the plate.

I believe I opined in a similar fashion earlier in this thread?

We do seem to agree 'at the core' re: this issue...differing only at the fringes for the most part.
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
Jim, Tisk tisk tisk, you seamed to have left out the fall of the Soviet Union...........just a oversight I assume...........................

As to your question. What we would have been better off with was if Bush #1 had continued on President Regan's policy's for another 8 years. But allas........another (or was he the original) RINO strikes again.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Howie,

In the end, Reagan had no more effect on the end of the USSR than any of the other cold war Prez. They all continued the path started by Truman, it was going to happen anyway.

A huge military, Reagan more than doubling the debt did not end the USSR, no fighting took place.

It was always an economic battle, if Communisum led to a better lifestyle, it would still be around. It collapsed because they could not keep bread on the shelf.

By the way Howie, when Reagan left office the USSR was still with us, but I bet you knew that.
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Howie,

In the end, Reagan had no more effect on the end of the USSR than any of the other cold war Prez. They all continued the path started by Truman, it was going to happen anyway. (etc., etc., etc.)


And yet you've claimed it was OBAMA who killed UBL!!!!!!!

'Amazing how your viewpoints/arguments seem to change to fit the lib narrative relative to any particular topic at any given time.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
This is why we give Obama credit, Bush was really not that concerned about him...certinally not a priority.

Obama made it a top priority, that seemed to do the trick.

George Bush on Bin Laden

Bush "truly not concerned" about Bin Laden! - YouTube

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc"]
Z
[/ame]
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
You gave Obama credit because he's your guy. PERIOD.

Did it ever occur to you that Bush may have said what he said to give UBL a false sense of security with the hope (Obama's BIG on "hope" ya know) it might cause him to be more 'lax' in his communications/security, etc? Oh, of COURSE he didn't. Bush isn't clever enough to have tried a ploy like that. That's just Hollywood movie plot stuff anyway. Right? Right. Who really knows? 'Wouldn't be the 1st time deception's been employed to achieve an end, would it.

BTW, your claim that Obama made UBL a "top priority" makes me laugh! Obama ALSO supposedly made J-O-B-S a "top priority" (according to HIM that was the 1st thing on his mind when he woke up in the morning and the last thing on his mind when he went to bed)...lower taxes for the middle class was a "top priority"...fixing the V.A. was a "top priority"...getting to the bottom of the IRS scandal was a "top priority"
...ditto Benghazi...the NSA... and on and on. Not buyin' your argument.

Now, for the benefit of those DISGUSTED by debates re: U.S. politics, I'm pulling the plug here.
 
Last edited:
Pete, you're dead wrong from the very start.

Gulf War II was started because the UN inspectors were not being allowed to properly determine if nukes were present in the Iraqi arsenal...or if the Iraqi's had nuke capability. In fact the UN inspectors were send packing and told not to come back.

Given the already demonstrated inclination towards aggressive acts of war of Saddam, and the fact that the guy was generally totally crazy and seeking nuclear weapons capability (mostly from the Russians and Chinese), I'd say initiating Gulf War II was a logical and justifiable act. It's not war mongering, it's a matter of trying to make sure nuke bombs don't fall into the hands of crazies. All countries, and all citizens, have a vested interest making sure that doesn't happen.

Enough with the labels, partisan slander, and inflammatory adjectives. Stick to the basic historical facts in the record.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Gulf War II was started because the UN inspectors were not being allowed to properly determine if nukes were present in the Iraqi arsenal...or if the Iraqi's had nuke capability.


...not to mention the fact Saddam had violated 17 U.N. resolutions.

But, are there any nuke inspectors in IRAN today?

Hmmmmmmmm...
 

Pat

Supporter
Howie,

In the end, Reagan had no more effect on the end of the USSR than any of the other cold war Prez. They all continued the path started by Truman, it was going to happen anyway.

Jim, just for the record, Gorbachev was speaking at a session of the Politburo in October 1986, days before he traveled to Reykjavik, Iceland to offer Reagan a groundbreaking disarmament plan, including a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals. If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues:

"We will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. … If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable."

Fact is after Gorbachev returned to Moscow persuaded that Reagan—who had earlier struck him as a "caveman"—honestly had no intention of launching a first strike against the Soviet Union, and he made this point clear to the Politburo. He meant he could continue with perestroika, which involved not just economic reforms but—as a necessary precondition—massive defense cuts and a transformation of international relations. He needed assurances of external security in order to move forward with this domestic upheaval. Reagan gave him those reassurances. Subsequent conversations between his foreign minister, Edvard Shevardnadze, and Secretary of State George Shultz reinforced his confidence.

Regan did, through his personal diplomacy end the cold war. If Reagan hadn't been president—if Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale had defeated him or if Reagan had died and George H.W. Bush taken his place—Gorbachev almost certainly would not have received the push or reinforcement that he needed. Those other politicians would have been too traditional, too cautious, to push such radical proposals (zero nukes and SDI) or to take Gorbachev's radicalism for reform at face value. Again to quote him, ...."Therefore the big changes that occurred with me and Reagan had tremendous importance. But also that George H.W. Bush, who succeeded Reagan, decided to continue the process. And in December 1989, at our meeting in Malta, Bush and I declared that we were no longer enemies or adversaries."
That is the moment, according to Gorbachev, the Cold War ended.

On the other hand are you going to give Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton credit for restarting it?

How about for support the Muslim Brotherhood/Arab Spring that has left Libya and Syria in chaos (the latter of which spawned the radical group calling itself ISIS), temporarily put Egypt in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, and emboldened the invasion of the Ukraine by the Russians?
 
Last edited:

Charlie Farley

Supporter
i guess it is endemic, this left/right Thang..
Switched off, retreated to youtube for some solice.
Amongst the gems i waded through ( a wonderful nugget i rediscovered was Jimi's wacky 1983, rare studio demo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpXTPlAx8fw ),
but i digress.
First song i ever played live. jesus arent we all old,,but it kinda adds a dimension to this thread ;whether from the North or South...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2jyzIrzs5Y

Enjoy or puke ...whichever lol :blank:

" Lilly Bell your hair is golden brown "
& next comes the punchline..
 
...not to mention the fact Saddam had violated 17 U.N. resolutions.

But, are there any nuke inspectors in IRAN today?

Hmmmmmmmm...

Yup, you're right, Iran is a whole 'nother mess... At least that crazy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ("we don't have gays in Iran") is gone and the next guy looks a little wiser and balanced. Baby steps I guess.

There's some small UN presence in Iran now....not much but it's a start.

Iranian nuclear R&D centre 'visited by UN inspectors' | World news | theguardian.com
 
easy this thread just pisses me off.

Left, right, left right,

'my guy's better than your guy'
'no your guy sucks balls and pees like like a lady'
'oh no he doesn't'
'Well my dad fought in Vietnam'
Your dad's a pussie'
'Screw you. Why don't you go back to watching Fox News'
'Well my guy's predecessors, predecessor was really great. He'd have stood up to them 'Commie bastards'
'Your guy's predecessor's predecessor was married to a moose'
'Oh Yeah? Says who'
'I do and everyone else who has a brain and isn't fooled by Fox'
'Well That's just fine, but they wouldn't have the rights they enjoy now, if it wasn't for the fact that my guy buys burgers from McDoughnuts just like real people do'
'Your guy's a flag'

If WWIII does start, it'll probably be Just another US Civil War.

Pathetic.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Forget about yank politics for a moment, is WW3 imminent or not in your opinion?

You know, Pete, I don't think so...what causes me to think that way is that weaponry has advanced SO FAR since WWII ended in the 1940's that most countries would be understandably reluctant to participate in another WORLD War...

Sure, WWII ended with an awesome display of power when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with nuclear bombs...but think of the differences in delivery systems. The bombings that ended WWII involved airplanes with such limited range that the Enola Gay had to ditch in China...these days the warheads would be delivered with laser-guided accuracy at the push of a big, red button by someone who might be across the globe from the target.

Just too many penalty points to involve the entire planet in a war with those possibilities. I believe we are in for a lot of regional skirmishes, like we are seeing now...nothing big enough to involve the multitude of countries that were involved in the last true "world" war.

Just my opinion...

Cheers!

Doug
 

marc

Lifetime Supporter
WWIII is here now, we don't have the 20/20 hindsight to see it. It is a long and simmering slowly evolving events that will ultimitly lead to the use of nuclear weapons on peoples and places we don't expect. This war began in the 90's at the end of the cold war, and is slowly percolating up, and like a volcano, we don't know when the full scale eruption will occur. So many little pieces to the puzzle are there, yet we don't have a clear and specific trigger point. ISIS, Al-Queda, N Korea, Iran, Scotland, and for Doug, the Tea Party, all are instigators but not the trigger such as Ferdinand in WWI or Poland Occupation in WWII. Soon, soon, the storm of outright war is coming, the players are lining up, Putin in Russia, Chinese, and heck Obama if he can do another term, we don't know. But history will tell us, that is for sure.
 
Back
Top