Ww3 Here We Come..

[mobeyone]

Not content with destroying Lebanon, now Syria and no doubt Iran in months to come..

What is it with Israel?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1284716,00.html

[Justice]

If America uses Israil as it's puppet then you can bet Russia and China will play the same game and make no mistake that between them they could wipe the floor with America.

Bush is the aggressor and does not care what the america people say he starting wars to force the price of oil up and then goes and captures some more so it's all of us that are being done, not just the Muslims.

[mobeyone]

Game of poker being played with the highest stakes and winner takes all.

The Russians are playing along and will no doubt step in when the time comes as will the chinese who are already playing the Yanks at their own game.

Forget race/religon, its you and I that will be the victims as if this does all happen as expected then the consequences are unprecedented.

Who says 9/11 was a terrorist attack?? yeah right.. this event was the start of a long and thought out military campaign to safeguard the future of the american economy by destabilising the middle east and to a certain extent the world and to control the supply of oil.

[mobeyone]

As to the OP question, you missed the answer in the link. But as I'm kind, I'll post it for you.

Not that I am in need of reminding I know full well that the surrounding nieghbours of Israel are begining to arm themselves, do you blame them when they (Israel) are practically bulldozing the middle east?

What right does one state have over another with regards to nuclear arms?? Would love to hear an argument justifying the right of one versus another..

[Solvent Celt]

Game of poker being played with the highest stakes and winner takes all.

The Russians are playing along and will no doubt step in when the time comes as will the chinese who are already playing the Yanks at their own game.

Forget race/religon, its you and I that will be the victims as if this does all happen as expected then the consequences are unprecedented.

Who says 9/11 was a terrorist attack?? yeah right.. this event was the start of a long and thought out military campaign to safeguard the future of the american economy by destabilising the middle east and to a certain extent the world and to control the supply of oil.

In what way does an unstable middle east HELP the American Economy? If cheap oil is what America seeks then a stable Middle East is the key.

Iraq is already a HUGE drain the US economy.

War is only profitable if you can keep your own economy isolated from it and sell weapons for cash. Unfortunately the US gives aid to Isreal so Israel can buy US weapon systems. No profit there AFAIK.

[Solvent Celt]

Not that I am in need of reminding I know full well that the surrounding nieghbours of Israel are begining to arm themselves, do you blame them when they (Israel) are practically bulldozing the middle east?

What right does one state have over another with regards to nuclear arms?? Would love to hear an argument justifying the right of one versus another..

"Bulldozing the middle east"! Are you mad? Have you seen the size of the Middle East? Find a map and see how small Israel actually is. Israel couldn't bulldoze the middle east if it wanted to.

I'm none too happy with Israel having nukes. I'll be less happy if Syria, Egypt or Iran gets them.

[scarlets79]

Not content with destroying Lebanon, now Syria and no doubt Iran in months to come..

What is it with Israel?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that all her neighbours want her destroyed, pushed into the sea, wiped off the map? They've tried before and failed. It surprises me little that it's all about Israel...

[erranta]

IS_RA_EL ???

Sunny side up!

[oracle]

IS_RA_EL ???

Sunny side up!

very good.

[mobeyone]

Look, you really must start reading papers which are going to cover what errant states like Iran say.

ohh, right so you want me to read the great British newspapers that are impartial fair, unbiased in its reporting? The very same papers that said Iraq had WMD? the very same papers that said the taliban wre directly linked to 9/11? the very same papers that talk about immigration being a good thing? Dont you think its a fair comment to say that Israel would love to wipe the middle east of the map? and has probably been trying to do so but has been held back by its western alliances... but I fear that whatever influence washington had over Israel is slowly disappearing. When Bush talked about axis of evil, by definition, Israel has earnt its place in this axis through its continued disregard for international law and the puppet organization that is the U.N by carrying out genocide in Palestine yet preaches to the world about WW2 and the worlds moral obligation??? Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Are you for real?

If we are talking states like Iran, then I for one would have no problem with a pre emptive strike against taking out their nuclear facility. I think most people in western governments privately consider Iran a greater threat to the world than Israel and considering what their off his head president has said about Israel I think Israel would be justified.

Now, we all know that ahmidin whats his name was taken out of context and this has been widely accepted as nothing more than manipulation by the western media to continue with its agenda in the middle east for its control of oil and area and guess by who? yep you guessed right - the great British press that you speak so highly of. Now, I hope you are not going to preach about how the government has been 100% honest with everything that is terrorisim and everything that has happened since 9/11? I think it is of no coincidence that Bliar is now also the middle easy envoy.. this man is suppoused to save and bring calm to the middle east....

A link:

http://www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum?_...Tx3GA9BCCVZ3HMD

Surely you are not going to even try and claim that the Iranian language is incorrect or that the Mail (or insert any newspaper you wish) has a more accurate translation???

Considering Israel have had Nuclear arms for over 20 years and to my knowledge they haven't yet used them, I'd suggest that's not a bad indicator for them to continue bear arms.

Maybe because they have used the very same weapons as a deterrent? You did not answer my question (as usual) so I see no reason why one nation can have the right of nuclear arms over another? especially when the recognised international council are nothing more than the 5 main arms traders in the world who also happen to be on the security council... its ludicrous to be honest that people actually swallow this bullsh1t.

You seriously bore me now with your tedious arguments and your self induced ideals of grandeur..

[mobeyone]

"Bulldozing the middle east"! Are you mad? Have you seen the size of the Middle East? Find a map and see how small Israel actually is. Israel couldn't bulldoze the middle east if it wanted to.

I know very well the size of Israel as you probably well know yourself so please, maybe we stick to the argument instead of trading playschool insults? Gets boring after a while.

[mobeyone]

In what way does an unstable middle east HELP the American Economy? If cheap oil is what America seeks then a stable Middle East is the key.

Iraq is already a HUGE drain the US economy.

War is only profitable if you can keep your own economy isolated from it and sell weapons for cash. Unfortunately the US gives aid to Isreal so Israel can buy US weapon systems. No profit there AFAIK.

If Iraq was as huge a drain as many believe it to be, then why are there still so many U.S. based organisations still operating in Iraq? I see in the last few days that the governing body (if thats what you can call it) has asked for a security organisation to be removed from all operations with immidiate effect. I doubt that company has taken very well.. given that they were on probably a lot of money providing security to all involved in this charade that is the liberation of Iraq.

Do you have a list of all non Iraq based companies or organisations that are in Iraq at the moment? and ask them if they are running at a loss? and why they are still there is it is a drain?

I remember a study that was carried out on America and how war is actually its most profitable source of income and how every x years it needs to be involved in a war to survive, I dont have a link to the author but I will find it for you.

[mobeyone]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that all her neighbours want her destroyed, pushed into the sea, wiped off the map? They've tried before and failed. It surprises me little that it's all about Israel...

Same thing can be said about Israel?

I find it amazing that a race that was once the victim of one of the greatest tragedies of modern times now finds itself in a role reversal situation where it is the aggressor.

You cannot expect me to believe that the army and politicans of Israel would rather have a cup of tea with all its nieghbours and live happily ever after?????

[Solvent Celt]

No matter how much you hate the Jews, (which I can tell is a lot btw),

Not as much as he hates himself I'll wager

[Solvent Celt]

If Iraq was as huge a drain as many believe it to be, then why are there still so many U.S. based organisations still operating in Iraq? I see in the last few days that the governing body (if thats what you can call it) has asked for a security organisation to be removed from all operations with immidiate effect. I doubt that company has taken very well.. given that they were on probably a lot of money providing security to all involved in this charade that is the liberation of Iraq.

Do you have a list of all non Iraq based companies or organisations that are in Iraq at the moment? and ask them if they are running at a loss? and why they are still there is it is a drain?

I remember a study that was carried out on America and how war is actually its most profitable source of income and how every x years it needs to be involved in a war to survive, I dont have a link to the author but I will find it for you.

Individual companies can do very well but the overall cost to the US economy is negative.

Look at it this way... every time a us war plane drops a jdam on an insurgents head it cost the US tax payer $25,000 for the tail section alone. The company manufacturing the tail section does profit but the tax payer looses. That's money that could have gone on something else rather than going up in smoke.

If wars were profitable then we'd all be at it all the time. But it isn't. Wars are bloody expensive for governmental actors. We've only just finished paying of the septics for the last unpleasentness with Germany.

Wars were only profitable when you could machine gun spear weilding savages and nick their land/goods. Once the savages got hold of AK-47s and high explosives wars became unprofitable.

[RichB]

I remember a study that was carried out on America and how war is actually its most profitable source of income and how every x years it needs to be involved in a war to survive, I dont have a link to the author but I will find it for you.

Conversely I have a book which argues quite convincingly the opposite - you cannot create wealth through destruction. What a government can (and do) do is ramp up taxes across the board and pump that money into private defense contractors.

[mobeyone]

Clearly we all live in la la land!!!

Denial denial denial! since when has a little bit of critisim meant hatred?? clearly, there are issues with certain members and again we resort to playground name calling!!!

Shalom to all of you then!

[RichB]

http://www.amazon.com/Resurgence-Warfare-S...e/dp/0945999569

Its generally well argued.

One of the most interesting bits is where he breaks down US military spending - by adding together DoD, VA, homeland security and all the other bits that are fundamentally about defense/military spending he finds you effectively as a rule of thumb double the DoD budget. That would take it from iirc $500Bn this year to around $1,000Bn. After running the numbers I could find myself I could only come up with around $800Bn - but still pretty close!

If its something you might find interesting to read I expect I can spare my copy (before I get nicked for possessing a document critical of the nwo...)

[mobeyone]

Come on, there there, do you want some sweeties? NOT THE ORANGE ONES, THERE MY FAVOURITIES.

wow.. is it me or is that just wrong?? wierdo

Keep to the argument if you can, I understand its hard but it would be nice and no, I like the blue ones

@Richb

There is arguments for and against but my main concern is the fact that if war has such a negative effect on the economy of ones country, why are all rushing at any opportunity to stage the next?

Again, one would hope that moral values would remain high and that war is the last last resort. In the case of WMD, this clearly was not the case and if anything the war was on the cards from day one as was the liberation of Afghanistan.

I just see no justification in the use of nuclear arms by ANY state.

[Badger]

Who says 9/11 was a terrorist attack?? yeah right.. this event was the start of a long and thought out military campaign to safeguard the future of the american economy by destabilising the middle east and to a certain extent the world and to control the supply of oil.

Could be.. but how did they persuade the hijackers it was worth dying for the american economy?

[mobeyone]

Individual companies can do very well but the overall cost to the US economy is negative.

Look at it this way... every time a us war plane drops a jdam on an insurgents head it cost the US tax payer $25,000 for the tail section alone. The company manufacturing the tail section does profit but the tax payer looses. That's money that could have gone on something else rather than going up in smoke.

Fair comment, but in which country/economy does a tax payer actually benefit from the actions of said government? and if this was the case, how many wars have the US been involved with since WW2? and if it was at such a loss than surely the US would now be bankrupt? how can it go on financing a no win situation? and jump at the very next opportunity to go to war? You would think that Vietnam was the end of all wars but clearly, Iraq is another in the making regardless of the properganda coming from Washington as it appears to scale down forces in Iraq under the illusion that "our boys are coming home" when they are simply reforming for another offensive which is target Iran?

Since 9/11, we have the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and now the very soon to be Iran war. What was the total cost for the inital two escapades? and surely in what 7 years is it? 2 wars, the global economy on its knees.. we are bracing ourselves for yes you guessed it another war? How can an economy justify it if it is constantly running a loss?

If wars were profitable then we'd all be at it all the time. But it isn't. Wars are bloody expensive for governmental actors. We've only just finished paying of the septics for the last unpleasentness with Germany.

Very true and I find it strange that this was only touched in certain newspapers this year... given the size and the complications that came with this debt, I thought the British would have jumped with joy having rid themselves of a debt that cost them so much more than just financially and practically bought the country to its knees.

So much for the special relationship hey?

[Justice]

GW-Bush is quite happy for the price of Oil to go up as he goes around the middle east capturing all the oil pumps and it's all part of the plan.

remember the news about 5 years back where reporters were saying lets hope no terrorists hits the pipe line as that would realy hurt us, well guess what happend next.

Then we are told it's the refinaries that can not keep up with demand and along comes global warming to justifiy keeping taxes sky high on petrol and not cutting it in responce to rising crude oil prices.

What type of world would we now be in if we did not have Russia and China that are able to keep mad dog bush in check.

ohh, right so you want me to read the great British newspapers that are impartial fair, unbiased in its reporting? The very same papers that said Iraq had WMD? the very same papers that said the taliban wre directly linked to 9/11? the very same papers that talk about immigration being a good thing? Dont you think its a fair comment to say that Israel would love to wipe the middle east of the map? and has probably been trying to do so but has been held back by its western alliances...

Well said that man

[Injin]

The americans don't want a war, they want a COLD war.

The huge "defence" industry that they had was no longer needed, and there were noises about starting to dismantle it after the wall came down.

A cold war will fit the bill nicely. Lots of defense spending for the VI in the industry, lots of excuses to monitor the homeland populations and tax everyone to the moon and back, but not so much with the drawbacks of lots and lots of dead boys from Iowa to explain away.

[Guest mSparks]

I've just seen some rather large military transports coming in and out of Leeds barracks in a hurry, somethings happening

[Solvent Celt]

Fair comment, but in which country/economy does a tax payer actually benefit from the actions of said government? and if this was the case, how many wars have the US been involved with since WW2? and if it was at such a loss than surely the US would now be bankrupt? how can it go on financing a no win situation? and jump at the very next opportunity to go to war? You would think that Vietnam was the end of all wars but clearly, Iraq is another in the making regardless of the properganda coming from Washington as it appears to scale down forces in Iraq under the illusion that "our boys are coming home" when they are simply reforming for another offensive which is target Iran?

Since 9/11, we have the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and now the very soon to be Iran war. What was the total cost for the inital two escapades? and surely in what 7 years is it? 2 wars, the global economy on its knees.. we are bracing ourselves for yes you guessed it another war? How can an economy justify it if it is constantly running a loss?

Very true and I find it strange that this was only touched in certain newspapers this year... given the size and the complications that came with this debt, I thought the British would have jumped with joy having rid themselves of a debt that cost them so much more than just financially and practically bought the country to its knees.

So much for the special relationship hey?

Wars don't have to bankrupt a nation though they often do. State often institute measures to pay. VAT for example was a "temporary" measure introduced to fight the Napoleonic Wars.

The US is funding it's current war by borrowing (hardly a sensible strategy if you ask me).

The US IS bankrupt by many measures.