Crown Prince Hassan declares current events are a run up to WW3
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crown Prince Hassan declares current events are a run up to WW3
BBC Radio 4 25 Mar 2004 Today program interview with CP Hassan
CP "The makings of a third World War are taking place infront of our eyes"
I believe the Crown Prince to be correct in that the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the US will end in the ultimate conflict. This being the case defence cut backs must be halted NOW.
CP "The makings of a third World War are taking place infront of our eyes"
I believe the Crown Prince to be correct in that the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the US will end in the ultimate conflict. This being the case defence cut backs must be halted NOW.
Last edited by FEBA; 25th Mar 2004 at 17:56.
I have always thought that the instability resulting from the end of the Cold War (and the end of the USSR) required higher defence spending rather than less.
In Cold War days, nuclear deterrence worked, and relatively small conventional forces were 'big enough' for contingencies and to buy time for negotiation.
So when the Cold War ended what did we do? Encouraged Joe Public to expect a peace dividend and reduced our defence spending accordingly. And just to make sure we were doubly f*cked, we disbanded useful assets like FJ squadrons, did nothing significant to improve rapid deployment and OOA forces and equipment and instead retained irrelvant but glamorous assets like SSBNs and massed 'big armour' units in Germany.
Even if the worst thing that we might face was a repeat of Granby, we need bigger, better equipped forces. And if WW3 is round the corner, then.....
So we're agreed on the need to resolutely discourage further cuts, on this thread, so far.
But what about the other half of the equation raised by FEBA. Surely logic dictates that we should also try to do something about "the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the USA"?
Oops!
In Cold War days, nuclear deterrence worked, and relatively small conventional forces were 'big enough' for contingencies and to buy time for negotiation.
So when the Cold War ended what did we do? Encouraged Joe Public to expect a peace dividend and reduced our defence spending accordingly. And just to make sure we were doubly f*cked, we disbanded useful assets like FJ squadrons, did nothing significant to improve rapid deployment and OOA forces and equipment and instead retained irrelvant but glamorous assets like SSBNs and massed 'big armour' units in Germany.
Even if the worst thing that we might face was a repeat of Granby, we need bigger, better equipped forces. And if WW3 is round the corner, then.....
So we're agreed on the need to resolutely discourage further cuts, on this thread, so far.
But what about the other half of the equation raised by FEBA. Surely logic dictates that we should also try to do something about "the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the USA"?
Oops!
Nice
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: All Over
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will just quickly say that I noticed a recent thread was deleted for 'Israel bashing' - would be shame to lose another potentially interesting thread before it gets off the ground....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's regretably only a matter of time before some terrorist organisation gets involved with a nuclear device of some sort - be it a conventional explosive device packed with nuclear waste or a low yield bomb. The God help us, the Middle East will be turned into a stretch of wasteland uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fundamental flaw in this argument is that to have a world war you need opponents who are at least fairly equal.
There is only one superpower, and that is likely to remain so for the forseeable future.
The obvious Islam v The West split is only relevant to a terrorist threat, not a real world war.
And they can't kill us all.
Unlike the Soviet Union that could have killed a lot of us, a long time ago.
There is only one superpower, and that is likely to remain so for the forseeable future.
The obvious Islam v The West split is only relevant to a terrorist threat, not a real world war.
And they can't kill us all.
Unlike the Soviet Union that could have killed a lot of us, a long time ago.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: sunny england
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No! This can easily be WW3 if we allow for assymetric warfare. The Us is unbeatable in a conventional war, so fight an unconventional one!
But this is a dirty war, it takes SF, Camp Delta's and lot of courage on behalf of the democracies to fight it. But we have no choice, unfortunatly maybe, just mabe Isreal is right and you have to kill them all!!
But this is a dirty war, it takes SF, Camp Delta's and lot of courage on behalf of the democracies to fight it. But we have no choice, unfortunatly maybe, just mabe Isreal is right and you have to kill them all!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only positive about a suicide bomber is that there is one less after the event.
Seriously, though, it is only the willingness of suicide attackers that has changed the equation significantly in that it is difficult to defend against. Unless the anti-Israelis get WMDs their attacks will be limited to the sort of terrorist events we have seen already.
We can if we wish blame Israel for wanting to survive as a nation but surely this is their right. We might try to persuade them to get back to negotiation instead of force but it takes at least two opponents to negotiate anything.
I cannot see a WW3 when there is such a significant difference in real military power.
Seriously, though, it is only the willingness of suicide attackers that has changed the equation significantly in that it is difficult to defend against. Unless the anti-Israelis get WMDs their attacks will be limited to the sort of terrorist events we have seen already.
We can if we wish blame Israel for wanting to survive as a nation but surely this is their right. We might try to persuade them to get back to negotiation instead of force but it takes at least two opponents to negotiate anything.
I cannot see a WW3 when there is such a significant difference in real military power.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut off the head , and an new one is in place before the blood hits the ground.
Do it enough times and the organisation gets a less capable head
to the point where the planning cells cannot plan effectively.
Israel has decided to make CinC Hamas a no notice TDY!
If they can keep collateral damage to a minimum - go for it!
Do it enough times and the organisation gets a less capable head
to the point where the planning cells cannot plan effectively.
Israel has decided to make CinC Hamas a no notice TDY!
If they can keep collateral damage to a minimum - go for it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a few issues here which you are not addressing
First one is, do you recognise that the catlyst that may spark WW3 is Israel. If you do, what do you think should be done to prevent it.
Secondly, if you think it's un-prventable, maybe because Washington lacks the political balls to do anything about it, what should be done about the kit inadequacies Navy Army and Air Force, both small and large ?
First one is, do you recognise that the catlyst that may spark WW3 is Israel. If you do, what do you think should be done to prevent it.
Secondly, if you think it's un-prventable, maybe because Washington lacks the political balls to do anything about it, what should be done about the kit inadequacies Navy Army and Air Force, both small and large ?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No longer a hot and sandy place....but back to the UK for an indefinite period
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
World War 3 - The Clash of Civilisations - is well and truly underway. There is barely a country in the world that is untouched by it in some form or another. It is an inescapable fact that Westerners and Western interests are terrorists targets everywhere.
Israel is just another excuse for Islamic militants to blow up more innocent people. If the Israeli/Palestinian issue was resolved overnight, Fundamentalist terrorism would continue in other parts of the world, for a plethora of other excuses.
Even in Brazil, a very peaceful country, there are Al Queda training camps on the border with Argentina and Paraguay. The terrorist tentacles are spreading everywhere.
Get used to it guys, this is going to be a long and very violent war. We have only seen the precursors of it, there is far worse to come and it will be totally unlike WW1 & 2.
BFB
Israel is just another excuse for Islamic militants to blow up more innocent people. If the Israeli/Palestinian issue was resolved overnight, Fundamentalist terrorism would continue in other parts of the world, for a plethora of other excuses.
Even in Brazil, a very peaceful country, there are Al Queda training camps on the border with Argentina and Paraguay. The terrorist tentacles are spreading everywhere.
Get used to it guys, this is going to be a long and very violent war. We have only seen the precursors of it, there is far worse to come and it will be totally unlike WW1 & 2.
BFB
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely logic dictates that we should also try to do something about "the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the USA"?
Osama Bin Laden and his followers want to take over the world and remake it into a global Islamic state. The Israel/Palestinian issue is just their current excuse. Solve that and they will find another.
Though the Palestine issue may be 'an excuse' for OBL and Al-Q, it is a problem which needs to be addressed on other grounds (what's morally right, for example).
Moreover, it's an issue which can be exploited by Al Q because it arouses enormous passion among a huge proportion of Islamic people (and others). They'd have a job finding 'another excuse' that exerted quite such a pull on popular support.
It's also simplistic and offensive to pretend that the Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea. They may have wanted that once, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad may still want that, but many Palestinians now want no more than a viable state for themselves, preferably based on the 1967 borders.
I quite categorically don't support letting anyone push Israel into the sea, but I would support a forced compromise which either a) gave back enough territory to give the Palestinians a viable state or b) resulted in a secular state to which dispossessed Palestinians had a right of return. Since the latter would mean an end to a religious Jewish homeland state, I would quite understand and support Israel's right to reject it.
But I don't support their total intransigence on the return of land.
Moreover, it's an issue which can be exploited by Al Q because it arouses enormous passion among a huge proportion of Islamic people (and others). They'd have a job finding 'another excuse' that exerted quite such a pull on popular support.
It's also simplistic and offensive to pretend that the Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea. They may have wanted that once, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad may still want that, but many Palestinians now want no more than a viable state for themselves, preferably based on the 1967 borders.
I quite categorically don't support letting anyone push Israel into the sea, but I would support a forced compromise which either a) gave back enough territory to give the Palestinians a viable state or b) resulted in a secular state to which dispossessed Palestinians had a right of return. Since the latter would mean an end to a religious Jewish homeland state, I would quite understand and support Israel's right to reject it.
But I don't support their total intransigence on the return of land.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the Crown Prince to be correct in that the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the US will end in the ultimate conflict. This being the case defence cut backs must be halted NOW.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, don't kid yourselves that this has anything to do with Israel - it's a problem all right and it needs sorting out, but it's not the cause of any of the troubles we are facing. The Palestinians have been treated badly by many people, Jordan has much to answer for, and Muslims all over the world have suffered terribly, usually at the hands of other Muslims, but you won't hear any hatred preached against them in your local mosque - that particular honor seems to be reserved for Jews and the west in general.
Also don't kid yourselves that we are fighting a war against terror, or even against al qaeda [whatever that is] - the truth is [tho we are too politically correct to say it], is that we are fighting fundamentalist Islam. The Saudis have been funding extremists for years, they have basically exported a civil war, and we now have a worldwide insurgency. The extremists want to re-establish the Muslim domination of much of the world, under a Taliban style rule. The Madrid train bombers spoke of 'settling old accounts with Crusader Spain', in other words they're looking back to 1492 when the last Muslim stronghold in Spain, fell to the Catholic King Ferdinand. They still haven't forgotten it.
This is much more than a struggle about a bit of land in Israel/Palestine, it's about a fascist expansionist totalitarian creed, similar to Nazism or communism but probably more dangerous.
Also don't kid yourselves that we are fighting a war against terror, or even against al qaeda [whatever that is] - the truth is [tho we are too politically correct to say it], is that we are fighting fundamentalist Islam. The Saudis have been funding extremists for years, they have basically exported a civil war, and we now have a worldwide insurgency. The extremists want to re-establish the Muslim domination of much of the world, under a Taliban style rule. The Madrid train bombers spoke of 'settling old accounts with Crusader Spain', in other words they're looking back to 1492 when the last Muslim stronghold in Spain, fell to the Catholic King Ferdinand. They still haven't forgotten it.
This is much more than a struggle about a bit of land in Israel/Palestine, it's about a fascist expansionist totalitarian creed, similar to Nazism or communism but probably more dangerous.
Only the nutters care about 'Crusaders' and Spain. Only the real fundamentalists care about Western degeneracy and all the rest. But issues like Palestine (and to a lesser extent the 'desecration' of Islam's holy places) provide a focus for much more moderate Moslems, and that plays into the hands of the extremists by giving them mass support or sympathy.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: somewhere in a 12x12
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely a big hand should go to the clerics who talk teenagers/women/camel jockeys (yes, i'm going straight ot hell for that one) into blowing themselves up for the cause. Their powers of persuasion must be as good as Tony Blair's to get the public backing for last year!
On a different note though, how many stupid terrorists do you get? Don't the stupid ones get caught or fail suicude bomber camp, leaving the sharper ones about?
A point to consider
On a different note though, how many stupid terrorists do you get? Don't the stupid ones get caught or fail suicude bomber camp, leaving the sharper ones about?
A point to consider
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my estimation, most terrorists fit in to the "stupid" catagory on one level or another.
How stupid do you have to be, to believe that you will achieve martydom and glory in the afterlife if you blow up X many hundreds or thousands of people. Lets face it, it isn't democracy or the peoples of western states which terrorists despise. It is the leaders and their policies. The mass killing in between is simply a means to an end. I cannot think of a better way to get governments to sit up and take notice. I agree with AA, most suicide bombers and the like are the result of religious fanaticism which has completely consumed whatever rationality they once had.
The stupidity, however, lies mainly in an unfounded belief that their actions stand the slightest chance of changing anything (to their benefit and in relation to their goals). All that is achieved by terrorism is an increased determination to "hunt and destroy" those responsible for it. How any terrorist organization can think that their actions are likely to change a situation to their favor is beyond me. After 9/11 the public swarmed to the support of a President who, until the attacks, had been plagued by a mood of general economic dissapointment - clearly displayed by opinion polls. Sure, terrorism spreads fear, but that fear turns in to anger, and anger means that life for the terrorist is going to be made a whole lot harder.
RC
How stupid do you have to be, to believe that you will achieve martydom and glory in the afterlife if you blow up X many hundreds or thousands of people. Lets face it, it isn't democracy or the peoples of western states which terrorists despise. It is the leaders and their policies. The mass killing in between is simply a means to an end. I cannot think of a better way to get governments to sit up and take notice. I agree with AA, most suicide bombers and the like are the result of religious fanaticism which has completely consumed whatever rationality they once had.
The stupidity, however, lies mainly in an unfounded belief that their actions stand the slightest chance of changing anything (to their benefit and in relation to their goals). All that is achieved by terrorism is an increased determination to "hunt and destroy" those responsible for it. How any terrorist organization can think that their actions are likely to change a situation to their favor is beyond me. After 9/11 the public swarmed to the support of a President who, until the attacks, had been plagued by a mood of general economic dissapointment - clearly displayed by opinion polls. Sure, terrorism spreads fear, but that fear turns in to anger, and anger means that life for the terrorist is going to be made a whole lot harder.
RC