World War Three?
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
I don't understand why you guys want to insist that we're having a big fuck-off religious war all of a sudden, when the various conflicts around the world are examined closely, they all have more to do with independance movements, class wars (vast poor populations against small rich elites) and resistence to big-power influences and neo-colonialisms (US, Isreal, Russia). Admittedly many of them use religion as their call-to-arms, in some cases even Maoism, but what's the point of taking that at face value. Only small intense cabals of fantasists are really out toi build some new Caliphate/worldwide Maoist uprising etc. Most normal people (and most people even outside the west are 'normal', I assure you) would like to live their lives and raise their family's without fear of being stomped on.
I'm against the way you're trying to frame the situation, this is how Isreal for instance gets to claim it's wars are against people who want to wipe out jewish people or establish Islam across the world, when in fact its wars are against people who's countries Isreal has occupied or people who have been ethnicly cleansed from areas the state of Isreal wishes to colonise.
I'm against the way you're trying to frame the situation, this is how Isreal for instance gets to claim it's wars are against people who want to wipe out jewish people or establish Islam across the world, when in fact its wars are against people who's countries Isreal has occupied or people who have been ethnicly cleansed from areas the state of Isreal wishes to colonise.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
phildwyer said:
If Iran is fighting in Lebanon, then the US is fighting in Lebanon too, by the exact same logic.
"Fighting" and "at war" are different. Would you say the US and UK are 'at war' with Iraq and Afghanistan? When the UK was fighting in Ireland, was it 'at war' with Southern Ireland? How about when the U.N. was fighting recently in Sierra Leone - were we at war then?phildwyer said:
Before we can determine if there is a World War, it is fairly important to establish whether there is an ordinary War. I don't think you have.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
I think that after WW1, nobody could concieve of another war on that scale again either. Sadly, they were wrong.Magneze said:
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
phildwyer said:
Probably, former or dual-nationality US citizens may well become Isreali troops, and US "private contractors" (mercs) are probably involved too. Iran has actually officially banned it's people from fighting in Lebanon. Iran supports Hezbollah politically and financially, the US supports Isreal financially and with military materiel. US funding is dodgy in my opinion, wheares an objective person wouldn't see a reason why a resistance movement against illegal aggression shouldn't be supported, certainly by the logic of US support for Nicaraguan Contras in the 80's, or Cuban Floridista terrorists etc.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
Well, there are Yanks fighting for the IDF.
Which reminds me, I wonder if dear auld Rachamim 18 went off to do his duty?
nino_savatte said:
There are American Israeli's fighting for the IDF. Also British Israeli's and other Israeli's who come from other countries. How many of the Iranians in Lebanon are Iranian Lebanese, I wonder.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Lock&Light said:
"Lebanese Iranians"?
Many of the Americans fighting with the IDF often live in the US and scuttle across the ocean to do a bit of military service, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread.
nino_savatte said:"Lebanese Iranians"?
See my edit.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Lock&Light said:
Many I'm sure, being Shi'ite I'm sure there are Lebonese with various links across the "Shi'ite Cresent", with every right to claim dual or even triple nationality across the region. There are also plenty of Sunni Lebanese, Christian Lebanese, Orthodox Lebanese, Greek Lebanse, Cypriot etc.
All that aside, if America is happy to ship thousands of tonnes of military equipment and ordanence and billions of dollars worth of funding to the racial regime of the Isreali state, surely Iran isn't doing wrong to give support to Lebanese resistance forces attempting to oppose Isreali incursions into their country?
Mind you, I don't buy the assumption that anyone who opposes the will of the US/Isreali/British axis is therefore wrong and evil and a terrorist with no right to defend themselves.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Lock&Light said:
"Iranian Lebanese"?
nino_savatte said:"Iranian Lebanese"?
Dual nationality. Like those Yanks you were talking about who are fighting for Israel.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Lock&Light said:
While there is conclusive proof for my assertion, there appears to be none for yours.
You're just out to pick a fight. Desist at once.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Here's a thought on the difference between a War and a Colonial-War,
In a War niether side thinks the enemy has no right to fight back, obviously both would rather the other wouldn't, but niether side bothers to suggest that the other should not have an army, they just focus on defeating the other army. But even so, captured officers and soldiers of the enemy are treated as officers and soldiers, with conventional rights they can expect.
In a Colonial-War, one side (the weaker side) has no right to fight back, because they are thought of as inferior, savages, outlaws, defying the natural order of things, refusing to lie down and be subjected to the right of the stronger to impose his will. It's like in Britain way back when the Normans invaded and the conquored Anglo-Saxons no longer had a legitimate right to carry swords. Abit of a medeival example but just one that springs to mind, there are many others through history I'm sure.
Only sensible really, if you're invading someone without a real army, of course you shouldn't think it legitimate for them to be able to arm themselves or be supplied the means to arm themselves by others.
In a War niether side thinks the enemy has no right to fight back, obviously both would rather the other wouldn't, but niether side bothers to suggest that the other should not have an army, they just focus on defeating the other army. But even so, captured officers and soldiers of the enemy are treated as officers and soldiers, with conventional rights they can expect.
In a Colonial-War, one side (the weaker side) has no right to fight back, because they are thought of as inferior, savages, outlaws, defying the natural order of things, refusing to lie down and be subjected to the right of the stronger to impose his will. It's like in Britain way back when the Normans invaded and the conquored Anglo-Saxons no longer had a legitimate right to carry swords. Abit of a medeival example but just one that springs to mind, there are many others through history I'm sure.
Only sensible really, if you're invading someone without a real army, of course you shouldn't think it legitimate for them to be able to arm themselves or be supplied the means to arm themselves by others.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
WW2, depends where you were
If you lived in Nanking it started long before 1939
As for Asymetric warfare, well mao was fighting the Japanese with a guerilla force in 35, the Spanish "civil" war had nazi and Facist govts support against a ragtag crew of volunteers, Ethopia was facing the asymetic expansion of the Italian colony in Eritrea - I do feel that what is effectively a colony in Palestine run by refugee Europeans is fighting similar colonial type war with collective punishmants the massive concentration camp (in the Boer War sense) that is Gaza, extra-judiclial killing, racial religious barriers etc and the whole State predicated on the ethnic cleansing from the late 40s onward.
This is not yet WW#, but is VERY much like 36/37
Also note the small wars sprining up all over, the UN no has no authority, well the USA has gelded the thing, not even moral, as the Colonists in Palestinians feel free to kill them with impunity, they are ignored in Darfur, killed in Somalia, Iraq, etc
When big nations behave like shits, little ones are free to get away with it.
Nobody gives a flying fuck except for what can I get away with.
So, we could be very close to the whole lot going off in the next couple of years or so.
I dont feel very cheery about this
Cepting this time, we are all much more intermingled than we were
It doesn't seem to have bred understanding, more like intensyfied mutual distrust.
No, WW3 not quite yet, but if it happens, there will be civil war in it too
PS Haile Selassies speech to the League of nations as his country was being invaded by Italy makes itragic but informative reading, the parallels with today are astonishing:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/selassie.htm
If you lived in Nanking it started long before 1939
As for Asymetric warfare, well mao was fighting the Japanese with a guerilla force in 35, the Spanish "civil" war had nazi and Facist govts support against a ragtag crew of volunteers, Ethopia was facing the asymetic expansion of the Italian colony in Eritrea - I do feel that what is effectively a colony in Palestine run by refugee Europeans is fighting similar colonial type war with collective punishmants the massive concentration camp (in the Boer War sense) that is Gaza, extra-judiclial killing, racial religious barriers etc and the whole State predicated on the ethnic cleansing from the late 40s onward.
This is not yet WW#, but is VERY much like 36/37
Also note the small wars sprining up all over, the UN no has no authority, well the USA has gelded the thing, not even moral, as the Colonists in Palestinians feel free to kill them with impunity, they are ignored in Darfur, killed in Somalia, Iraq, etc
When big nations behave like shits, little ones are free to get away with it.
Nobody gives a flying fuck except for what can I get away with.
So, we could be very close to the whole lot going off in the next couple of years or so.
I dont feel very cheery about this
Cepting this time, we are all much more intermingled than we were
It doesn't seem to have bred understanding, more like intensyfied mutual distrust.
No, WW3 not quite yet, but if it happens, there will be civil war in it too
PS Haile Selassies speech to the League of nations as his country was being invaded by Italy makes itragic but informative reading, the parallels with today are astonishing:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/selassie.htm
phildwyer said:
To do so simply gives more credance to this myth being pushed by Bush and acquiesced in by Blair, that there is some kind of "war" going on between Islamic terrorists and the West. It is nothing of the kind. It is a series of atrocities perpetrated by Islamaloons and fuckwitted responses from Western governments, consisting mainly of curbing hard-won civil liberties.
What is going on between Israel and Hizbollah counts as a "war", but the battle between the police and security services and the Islamaloons is nothing of the kind, and it is dishonest of our 'leaders' to pretend otherwise.
hipipol said:
But this war is not primarily against states, it is against certain ideas that are prevelent among some Muslims--the question of how prevelent is of course arguable. Such ideas include the notion that the Umma is under attack by infidels and that the Muslim individual has a duty to defend it, by violence if necessary, that the state of Israel ought to be destroyed, that the secular and pro-Western governments of Islamic countries ought to be overthrown and so on. This war has been going on within many Islamic countries for a long time, and now it is spreading into wars of invasion and occupation, as well as into the Western democracies. So maybe the comparison with previous world wars only holds in terms of the global scope of the present conflict.
nino_savatte said:
Go boil yer heid in a bag.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
The thing is, while war between states is often highly destructive, they at least have elaborate protocols for arranging ceasefires and peace treaties with other states. One problem, as we're seeing, is that the situation is much more confused when it comes to ending a conflict with guerilla fighters.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Meanwhile, Michael Ledeen, perhaps the most alarming of the neo-cons is apparently not satisfied with piddling around like this and has wider visions:
source
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
It seems that you two have slipped off each other's ignore lists.Lock&Light said:
I can help you both out there if you really want me too, but I don't think you do.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
FridgeMagnet said:
Once again, I get it in the neck. Have a look at post 41 and L&L's posts thereafter.
FridgeMagnet said:
I have no-one on my ignore list, and don't intend to change that. (I can find no requirment to do so in the FAQ)
I was contributing to this thread before nino popped in. I then pointed out to him and all who want to read that the Yanks fighting for Israel are Israeli citizens, while the alleged Iranians in Lebabnon are not Lebanese.
These are discussion boards so I intend to continue discussing.
Nino's constant attempts to have me banned can only succeed if there was to be a mod who suffers from unbelievable myopia.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Lock&Light said:
Quoted for posterity.
Similar threads
