Is 3rd world war close?

[SATalha]

i hate war.....i dnt want to be around wen wars happen..........all this scares me....why cnt the world avoid wars! why dnt we all realise we all are the same old human being, wiv same rights & same funtions.......we shud all love each other, help each other & understand each other......(sorry 4 being so emoitinal...but war scares me....imagine ho those at war now r feeling)......my dwa remains with them....

Yeah and ask yourself how did our brothers and sisters end up in this mess. Whether its in Kashmir or Palestine or Chechnya ask yourself why. Its because the people have forgotten the teachings of the Quran and our beloved Prophet PBUH. Wars will remain coz our past is something that certain nations dont want. If we are revived than it spells danger. So the Kufars and munafiks are doing what they can to supress us( e.g by killing Ahmed Yaseen) But they will fail, and remember it will only get worse. Muslims will be killed everywhere. Remember this, and than the general will arive.

 

[MTAFFI]

Who offered this "safe passage" in the first place? Who has the authority to even negotiate with the U.S. about the future of Iraq besides the elected government? The U.S. military doesn't need "safe passage", what they need is a concrete goal to achieve. That is what is missing in this conflict.

What they need is a concrete enemy.. One of my friends is a colonel in Iraq and he just came back and told me about it. He says the war could easily be won, if they just knew who the enemy was, he said one second they cheer for you and the next the same guys are shooting at you. He said if it was "real" war with a country it would have been over in 6 months at the very most, but because there is no defined enemy the war cant be won and it isnt even really a war, just the US jumping into a fight amongst two religious groups.

 

[Chuck]

We were very much closer in October of 1963. Those of us who were in the Military then can now reflect back to that month and see that for 30 days we stayed at the all out launch stage and were just waiting on the final word. We and the Soviet Union were armed, and prepared to launch. At any given moment every major city on earth was within 15 minutes of multiple Nuclear strikes.

Somehow Kennedy and Kruschev were able to come to an uneasy agreement that eventualy resulted in massive cut-backs for both countries.

Somehow war was avoided then. Inshallah it will be avoided again. But, our acts of stupidity will at some point go beyond any turning back, unless we all put forth an effort to end any need for war.

I doubt it, because situation of US vs SU was one power against another. There was pride and ego, but things were in check with the size of potential loss too, on both sides. Middle-east situation is similar pre-world-war Europe -- big vs smaller ones. In these situations, there is more potential for longer chain reaction of violence and then violence/war spiraling out of control (read Ivan Bloch theory).

For example, my father is a supporter of Bush, not just morally but also financially, and people like him do have some influence over Bush's party. But my father and his friends don't really fear whats going on in middle-east, not like they feared SU or now EU or China. They see the middle-east situation as small price for greater good. Even if Bush and company attacks Iran or even other countries in the region they don't see a real threat. They do appear to fear terrorist attacks like 7/7 bombings or maybe to the scale of 9/11 but they are like pests being pests in their opinion. So for these people there is not enough motivation to look for non-violent solutions... thus the situation is much similar to pre-world war Europe.

 

[S_87]

the us isnt going to attack iran anytime soon. their butts are getting kicked in afghanistan and iraq, countries they thought had no defence. they wont go to a country they know has defence which iran does

 

[Chuck]

What they need is a concrete enemy.. One of my friends is a colonel in Iraq and he just came back and told me about it. He says the war could easily be won, if they just knew who the enemy was, he said one second they cheer for you and the next the same guys are shooting at you. He said if it was "real" war with a country it would have been over in 6 months at the very most, but because there is no defined enemy the war cant be won and it isnt even really a war, just the US jumping into a fight amongst two religious groups.

It does sound like pre-world-war Europe except without the religion part. I didn't live in that era but the follow quote do show a similar picture:

It is said that at the Paris Exhibition in 1881, a man told Hiram Maxim, an American, that if he wanted to make a fortune, he should invent a machine that would help these Europeans kill each other.

http://www.ppu.org.uk/war/arms/arms_history.html

 

[Kittygyal]

Yeah and ask yourself how did our brothers and sisters end up in this mess. Whether its in Kashmir or Palestine or Chechnya ask yourself why. Its because the people have forgotten the teachings of the Quran and our beloved Prophet PBUH. Wars will remain coz our past is something that certain nations dont want. If we are revived than it spells danger. So the Kufars and munafiks are doing what they can to supress us( e.g by killing Ahmed Yaseen) But they will fail, and remember it will only get worse. Muslims will be killed everywhere. Remember this, and than the general will arive.

well said akhi, it's a shame actually we never realise && now look whats happened to the youth , May Allah subhanwtallah shine thy light upon us all && may allah subahwnatallah forgive us all for our wrong doings! imsad
Ma'assalama

 

[MTAFFI]

the us isnt going to attack iran anytime soon. their butts are getting kicked in afghanistan and iraq, countries they thought had no defence. they wont go to a country they know has defence which iran does

pllleeeeeaaaasssseeee give me a break....it would be wonderful to bury Iran in a REAL war, when you actually know who you are fighting... and actually i wouldnt say the US is necessarily losing in Iraq or in afghanistan either. Lets think about it, Afghanistan isnt run by the Taliban is it? NO mission accomplished. Iraq isnt run by Saddam is it? Mission accomplished.. US isnt even really in a war in Iraq it is trying now to stop Iraq from killing itself, so who is really getting its butt kicked, Iraq is kicking its own butt and the taliban is busy burning down schools.

With that said i dont think the US will attack Iran unless it has to, which is improbable but not impossible, I would suggest to the Iranians to stop testing the waters before it gets itself to wet

 

[Muezzin]

I wonder what the 'mission' will be in Iran. 'Entered the Country and Killed a Few Soldiers - Mission Acccompished'? Obviously, these things need to be a bit more farsighted than they are, as Iraq and Afghanistan have both shown. 'Mission accomplished' but in practice the countries and the people are no better off than before. And everyone needs to accept that war has changed - you don't know who you're fighting, because if you're a superpower engaging a relatively primitive (yet dangerous) enemy, that enemy can and will use guerilla warfare. It's like trench warfare in WWI - nobody was used to it, that wasn't the 'real' way to wage a war, but the times, they are a-changing.

Anyway, I don't know if WWIII is close, but I flipping hope it never happens.

I also hope people will stop killing each other everywhere for whatever reason, but no.

 

[Woodrow]

Reminds me of back in the 50's when Ike was still Prez. Somebody asked him what type of weapons would be used in WW3 and his reply was "I do not know, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

 

[MTAFFI]

I wonder what the 'mission' will be in Iran. 'Entered the Country and Killed a Few Soldiers - Mission Acccompished'? Obviously, these things need to be a bit more farsighted than they are, as Iraq and Afghanistan have both shown. 'Mission accomplished' but in practice the countries and the people are no better off than before. And everyone needs to accept that war has changed - you don't know who you're fighting, because if you're a superpower engaging a relatively primitive (yet dangerous) enemy, that enemy can and will use guerilla warfare. It's like trench warfare in WWI - nobody was used to it, that wasn't the 'real' way to wage a war, but the times, they are a-changing.

Anyway, I don't know if WWIII is close, but I flipping hope it never happens.

I also hope people will stop killing each other everywhere for whatever reason, but no.

the way Iran is going, it might just be destroy it all

War is changing, and the US policy towards it should change too, no more help, once what we need done is done then personally i think we should just leave these countries that are no better off.. you might say this is wrong but it isnt the US who is destroying these countries so why should we continue to be ridiculed and attacked when the primitive people in these countries are the ones who want to destroy it? It isnt our fault they keep killing each other, it is their own, and has been for centuries

You know what they say "You cant help people who cant help themselves"

 

[deen_2007]

Maybe you should toughen up a little sister haha. War is bad ofcourse but as long as humanity survives on earth there will be war so don't let it scare you too much. The best thing we can all do to prevent war is to raise our families with good values and teach them wisdom. That way the following generations will hopefully have more wise men than the current ones. And wise men are the best antidote to war.

thanks 4 d advice......

 

[snakelegs]

It isnt our fault they keep killing each other, it is their own, and has been for centuries
You know what they say "You cant help people who cant help themselves"

whose fault is it that a situation of anarchy came into being in iraq?

 

[dougmusr]

whose fault is it that a situation of anarchy came into being in iraq?

I would have to say that anarchy was a brewing and perhaps even on the lunch menu, but the US removed the lid from the pressure cooker and the pot boiled over.

 

[Dawud_uk]

What they need is a concrete enemy.. One of my friends is a colonel in Iraq and he just came back and told me about it. He says the war could easily be won, if they just knew who the enemy was, he said one second they cheer for you and the next the same guys are shooting at you. He said if it was "real" war with a country it would have been over in 6 months at the very most, but because there is no defined enemy the war cant be won and it isnt even really a war, just the US jumping into a fight amongst two religious groups.

mtaffi,

sorry but if a group of guys armed to the teeth come to attack me i dont just stand there and take a beating, no i run away get my friends and then we come back and pick em off one at a time if possible.

the 'they dont fight fair' remark doesnt really work, could say the same to the yanks, brits and others. why dont you come fight only with guns and leave your tanks and planes to make it a fair fight? silly isnt it?

you use the advantage you have, try to minimalise your own disadvantage.

Abu Abdullah

 

[Jibril]

I would have to say that anarchy was a brewing and perhaps even on the lunch menu, but the US removed the lid from the pressure cooker and the pot boiled over.

No offence but the only thing brewing was the thick and steamy BS in your above post. Iraq has always been ruled by strong arm dictators like Saddam Hussein and this would have even continued even if he were ever overthrown or died. What the Americans did, however, was to methodically tear down all the mechanisms of state. Which lead to breakdown in services, breakdown in security, and breakdown in everything. Whats worse,..they didn't even fill in for what they took away. The bombed the power grid, but they didn't fix it. They dismantled the army and police,..but they didn't provide security themselves. So in short,..it was the US that singlehandedly plunged Iraq into anarchy and chaos. Any attempt to deny it is just an exercise in shifting blame to someone else.

 

[Muezzin]

the way Iran is going, it might just be destroy it all

How glad I am that you do not control US foreign policy. If you did, it would bear uncanny resemblance to Ahmadinejad's wishes to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Genocide is never justified.

 

[KAding]

I doubt it, because situation of US vs SU was one power against another. There was pride and ego, but things were in check with the size of potential loss too, on both sides. Middle-east situation is similar pre-world-war Europe -- big vs smaller ones. In these situations, there is more potential for longer chain reaction of violence and then violence/war spiraling out of control (read Ivan Bloch theory).

For example, my father is a supporter of Bush, not just morally but also financially, and people like him do have some influence over Bush's party. But my father and his friends don't really fear whats going on in middle-east, not like they feared SU or now EU or China. They see the middle-east situation as small price for greater good. Even if Bush and company attacks Iran or even other countries in the region they don't see a real threat. They do appear to fear terrorist attacks like 7/7 bombings or maybe to the scale of 9/11 but they are like pests being pests in their opinion. So for these people there is not enough motivation to look for non-violent solutions... thus the situation is much similar to pre-world war Europe.

Interesting position. But wasn't pre-world war Europe one of strong dominant nation states with enormous standing conscription armies? I really don't see the parallel with the Middle East, where states appear incredibly weak. The issue with the instability and violence in the Middle East (and many other Muslim countries incidentally, like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Southern Thailand, Sudan, Somalia, Niger, Algeria, etc) is mostly thanks to the strong position of small privately organized guerilla organizations. The states in the Middle East are simply not in a position to fight any kind of 'world war'. They simply don't have the authority, resources or military means to do so.

These private militias don't have the means to strike outside their immediate area, which is clearly proven by the lack of attacks in the US and the overwhelming and bloody number of attacks in the Muslim world itself on those who are perceived as collaborators. Since you apparently disagree with this view, could you perhaps give me a scenario how you see this war escalating into a 'world war'. Do you mean these private organizations will mount massive attacks within the West?

 

[S_87]

pllleeeeeaaaasssseeee give me a break....it would be wonderful to bury Iran in a REAL war, when you actually know who you are fighting... and actually i wouldnt say the US is necessarily losing in Iraq or in afghanistan either. Lets think about it, Afghanistan isnt run by the Taliban is it? NO mission accomplished. Iraq isnt run by Saddam is it? Mission accomplished.. US isnt even really in a war in Iraq it is trying now to stop Iraq from killing itself, so who is really getting its butt kicked, Iraq is kicking its own butt and the taliban is busy burning down schools.

With that said i dont think the US will attack Iran unless it has to, which is improbable but not impossible, I would suggest to the Iranians to stop testing the waters before it gets itself to wet

burning down schools? hellllllllllo please give me a break why are troops still going to afghanistan? to stop schools being burnt? you mean the thousands there cant do that? do you read the news??? because the fact is there is still a war in both afghanistan and iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6324409.stm

the us cannot afford to go to war atm

 

[Dawud_uk]

Interesting position. But wasn't pre-world war Europe one of strong dominant nation states with enormous standing conscription armies? I really don't see the parallel with the Middle East, where states appear incredibly weak. The issue with the instability and violence in the Middle East (and many other Muslim countries incidentally, like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Southern Thailand, Sudan, Somalia, Niger, Algeria, etc) is mostly thanks to the strong position of small privately organized guerilla organizations. The states in the Middle East are simply not in a position to fight any kind of 'world war'. They simply don't have the authority, resources or military means to do so.

These private militias don't have the means to strike outside their immediate area, which is clearly proven by the lack of attacks in the US and the overwhelming and bloody number of attacks in the Muslim world itself on those who are perceived as collaborators. Since you apparently disagree with this view, could you perhaps give me a scenario how you see this war escalating into a 'world war'. Do you mean these private organizations will mount massive attacks within the West?

i agree a third world war in unlikely,

at the end of the day all the mujahadeen groups want is to secure the muslim lands and live under shariah wherever they are.

if you look at their own stated motivation then you will see they only attack the western nations that are supporting the apostate rulers in the muslim lands.

obl himself asked why they had attacked america and not sweden which is a much more liberal and permissive society?

in other words, we dont like your way of life, but that is not the reason those muslims you consider terrorists attack you and they certainly dont have any means of starting a world war, only the west, china and perhaps india has that capability.

Abu Abdullah

 

[KAding]

i agree a third world war in unlikely,

at the end of the day all the mujahadeen groups want is to secure the muslim lands and live under shariah wherever they are.

if you look at their own stated motivation then you will see they only attack the western nations that are supporting the apostate rulers in the muslim lands.

obl himself asked why they had attacked america and not sweden which is a much more liberal and permissive society?

in other words, we dont like your way of life, but that is not the reason those muslims you consider terrorists attack you and they certainly dont have any means of starting a world war, only the west, china and perhaps india has that capability.

Abu Abdullah

Well, thats one of the few positive things that might come from this mess we have now. Iraq and Afghanistan clearly show that military involvement in the region is an expensive business and not very helpful in achieving your goals anyway. At the same time lets hope the oil age will end as soon as possible, since it another reason for the foreign meddling in the region.

Perhaps in the future both sides can simply disengage and live largely isolated from each other. Peaceful coexistance and all that (dar al-Harb, dar al-Islam). I've actually warmed to HeiGou's idea of simply building a large fence between the two cultures and let either side do what they want on their side. Then maybe the Danes can make cartoons of Mohammed and the Iranians can have their holocaust denial exhibition and hang their convicted homosexuals.

It's tough, but neither side can really expect to 'convert' the other ideologically, let alone on religion. Of course, the Muslim world will have a tough time ahead of them even if Americans and Europeans disengage from the regions. Because clearly the Muhajedeen do not have full support. I fear the battle between Muslims (secular vs. orthodox, shia vs. sunni) is about to get a whole lot more bloody. In a way I think the foreign meddling has been a catalyst in this, but the root causes nevertheless lie within the Muslim world itself. If it were up to me I'd let you guys deal with it however you want, all I would ask is that you leave me be in my jahiliyya and kufr .

Side note: Bah, I've become such a cynic lately.