Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: War


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: War Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: War - 2/12/2016 10:36:41 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
As for supine leadership...

Obama delayed past the point where arming the secular militias was feasible.

He drew a ridiculous line in the sand without knowing if he had the backing to enforce it.

He ridiculously declared victory after eliminating one kind of chemical weapon the assad regime was using, and said nothing as the russians switched to an even more deadly PGA armament.

He committed 500 million dollars whose first result was introducing 30.. yes. 30 ... troops into syria.. where the were killed / capured the first weekend. 30.

The second vetted group turn coat and defected with all their weapons to the alqaeda affiliate.

Obama could have used the time to negotiate with assad. "We will aid you get you country back if you renounce ties to Russia/ iran". Instead russia is in this position.

He allowed turkey to take an Iraqi base, without response, and did nothing while they armed &trained sunni militants. Iraq who is putative our ally.

How many examples of please fuck me do you need?


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 2/12/2016 10:37:18 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: War - 2/12/2016 11:09:01 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
While the nutsuckers went prone, ass up and mouth to felch.

Yeah, that is arm chair nutsuckerism at its finest.

Turkey and Kurds was a problem, and everyone knew who wasnt an ignorant nutsucker, before we went into Iraq.

You of course have credible citations on US troops killed in Syria, and the 500 Million.

Hes the president, he dont need backing. He can just order us into it.

He took time because some negotiations went on, Turkey, Kurds, Assad, Russia, UN and many others, to prevent another Nutsucker Iraq.

Relations between Russia and Syria have been on since 1944. Telling Assad to dump Russia is purely a nutsucker hallucination, it wouldnt happen, will not happen, and cant happen.

Yeah, you got nothing so far in the way of truth there, no fact.




_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: War - 2/12/2016 2:33:00 PM   
tiemeupalso


Posts: 39
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
obama has fucked everything he has stuck his nose into or touched.
he is the sole reason there was a uprising all over the middle east.
when will washington let the military do their job and go in and win a war and then get out.fuck this nation building

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: War - 2/12/2016 2:38:26 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
What are you on stupid pills?


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tiemeupalso)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: War - 2/12/2016 5:52:44 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Stronger than that




_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: War - 2/12/2016 6:40:15 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
True, it was hard to imagine a president worse than Carter. Not only did we imagine it - we elected him. Well, y'all did. I never voted for him. Reading dreams of my father disabused me of any possibility.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: War - 2/12/2016 10:05:29 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
The Taliban’s capture of the Afghan city of Kunduz last September was shocking. The insurgents’ first seizure of a major city in nearly 15 years of fighting suggested unexpected boldness on the part of new leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, and badly rattled the Afghan public’s faith in their U.S.-trained security forces. Just weeks after the Taliban offensive, Pres. Barack Obama publicly announced a dramatic slowing in the withdrawal of U.S. forces and new plans to keep at least 5,500 troops in Afghanistan into 2017, abandoning his hopes of bringing American troops home before leaving office.

For longtime Afghan analysts, perhaps the most surprising aspect of the Taliban offensive in Kunduz was its location. The Taliban are from the Pashtun tribe, and its traditional strongholds are in the south and east. Kunduz Province is a mixed-ethnic region near the northern border with Tajikistan that is made up primarily of Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras, Turkmen, as well as some Pashtuns, and it is part of the home turf of the Taliban’s natural enemies in the former Northern Alliance. U.S. intelligence officials looking for answers to that puzzle have found evidence of the most shocking aspect of the Kunduz offensive by far — Russia’s training, arming and support of elements of the Afghan Taliban, Islamic extremists who in many cases were members or are descendants of Moscow’s erstwhile enemy, the Afghan mujahideen.

“With the Taliban intensifying their attacks and making advances in recent years, Russian intelligence has been reaching out to the group and renewing their contacts from the days in the 1980s when they worked with the Afghan communists,” said a knowledgeable U.S. intelligence official. When the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) emerged in Afghanistan last year, the Russians stepped up that outreach, alarmed that many of the ISIS fighters were Chechnyans recruited from Russia’s Caucasus region. While both ISIS and the Taliban subscribe to a ultraconservative interpretation of Islam, the Taliban remain focused on dominating locally in Afghanistan and view ISIS leaders and foreign fighters as intruders; ISIS, by contrast, has adopted al-Qaida’s ambitions of a global jihad against nonbelievers.“The Russians provided money and weapons to the Afghan Taliban to fight ISIS, and are providing training camps for the Taliban in Tajikistan, where Moscow retains a lot of influence,” said the U.S. official, who cited as evidence Taliban fighters brandishing new AK-47 rifles with synthetic stocks made only in Russia, as well as new Russian PK machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). “We’re one hundred percent sure that Russia is supporting certain elements of the Afghan Taliban, and we believe they are encouraging the group to operate along the northern border where they are easy to resupply from Tajikistan, and can act as a buffer against ISIS.”

A Mujahideen artillery officer directs his BM-12 rocket launcher at a Soviet air base in southeastern Afghanistan, 1987. (Photo: Richard Evans/AP)
A de facto alliance between Russia and Islamist extremists who are fighting the United States and NATO in Afghanistan — and who are in many cases the sons of Afghan mujahedeen who the United States once armed and supported in their fight against the Soviet Army — is likely viewed as payback in the Kremlin. The long war and defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan helped pave the way for the collapse of the Soviet Union, which Russian President Vladimir Putin once described as “a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” On December 31, 2015, Putin signed a new Russian national security strategy that for the first time unequivocally identifies NATO as a threat.

“The fact that Moscow has publicly identified NATO and the United States as its enemy in a strategic document represents a big shift in thinking, and what that means practically is more initiatives like Russia’s support for the Taliban, which I have on good authority is real,” said Dmitri Simes, a Russia expert and president of the Center for the National Interest in Washington, D.C. Russia will still cooperate with the United States if both countries interests align, he predicted, but the two antagonists are back to the kind of zero-sum mindset that prevailed during the Cold War.

“When the Russians can poke a stick in the eye of the United States and NATO and the costs aren’t perceived as too high, they will do so because, frankly, it makes them feel good,” Simes told Yahoo News. “From Moscow’s perspective, its support for the Taliban is no different than U.S. support for rebels fighting their close ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria, or arming and training Ukrainian troops who are fighting Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine. If those are the rules the United States wants to go by, Russia is showing that they can play that game.”

A senior U.S. administration official contacted for this article said that the U.S. intelligence community is aware that Russia is concerned about the stability of Afghanistan, and reaching out to many players there, and that may include elements of the Taliban. In February 9 testimony before the Senate, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper referred obliquely to that Russian outreach. “Central Asian states remain concerned about the rising threat of extremism to the stability of their countries, particularly in light of a reduced Coalition presence in Afghanistan,” said Clapper. “Russia shares these concerns and is likely to use the threat of instability in Afghanistan to increase its involvement in Central Asian security affairs.”

By most accounts, the Russians began their outreach to the Taliban in earnest a few years ago, after the establishment of a 2016 deadline for NATO’s planned exit from Afghanistan and the hybrid terrorist insurgency making gains against Afghan security forces. The point man in the outreach is reportedly Russia’s special envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, a former KGB colleague of Putin who was the intelligence service’s top-ranking officer in Kabul during the Soviet Army’s 1980s war against the mujahideen. Zabuluv also negotiated with former Taliban leader Mullah Omar and his top lieutenants in the mid-1990s, after the group captured a Russian aircraft and took seven Russians hostage.

Russia’s contacts with the Taliban intensified last year after ISIS began making inroads in Afghanistan, and challenged the group for primacy among Afghan jihadists. The United Nations estimates that ISIS now has a presence in 25 out of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces, and U.S. commanders estimate that it has between 1,000 — 3,000 fighters in the country, many of them recruited from Taliban ranks after the group began splintering following last year’s announcement of the death of Mullah Omar. The international scope of ISIS is of great concern to Moscow, which estimates that some 2,400 extremists from the Caucasus have joined the uber-terrorist organization.

In January, Russian envoy to Afghanistan Kabulov conceded the unlikely alliance with Islamist extremists in remarks he made to the British newspaper The Independent. “Taliban interests objectively coincide with ours. Both the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban have said they don’t recognize ISIS. … That is very important,” he said, noting that ISIS is “undoubtedly” training militants from Russia in Afghanistan as part of its plans to expand into Central Asia. “We [thus] have communications channels with the Taliban to exchange information.”

The Russian-Taliban alliance reportedly moved well beyond just intelligence sharing last May, when a Taliban delegation visited the Tajikistan capital of Dushanbe. In exchange for releasing four Tajik border guards it had captured, the Taliban reportedly received a large cache of Russian weaponry. Such quid pro quo transactions are the basis for numerous tactical alliances in war-torn Afghanistan.The Daily Beast quoted a Taliban sub-commander in Kunduz who goes by the name of Qari Omar to the effect that “of course the weapons we got freshly from the Afghan-Tajik border played a key role in the fight for Kunduz.”

A group of Afghan Taliban fighters loyal to Mullah Mohammed Rasool, the newly elected leader of a breakaway faction of the Taliban, in Farah province, Afghanistan, Nov. 3, 2015. (Photo: AP)
In the Gordian knot of political intrigue and double-dealing that is wartime Afghanistan, U.S. intelligence officials say Russia is also hedging its bets. A knowledgeable U.S. intelligence source reports that Moscow has reached out to senior generals in the Afghan security forces and regional Afghan governors, for instance, offering to also put them on its payroll. Last October, Afghan Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek warlord and longtime adversary of the Taliban, was warmly received in Moscow, where he also sought pledges of arms and money.

While reaching out to numerous and sometimes competing players in Afghanistan in hopes of gaining influence with an eventual winner, Russia also increasingly seems intent on pushing its newly declared “enemy” NATO away from its neighborhood.“I don’t buy the argument that Russia’s alliance with the Taliban is only driven by its concerns about ISIS,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official with extensive experience in Afghanistan. “Moscow doesn’t want NATO and the United States anywhere near its southern border, nor a pro-American Afghan government in charge in Kabul, and they are thus finding common cause with the Taliban and others trying to push us and our allies from power. It’s classic Putin.”

With a war-weary United States and its NATO allies eyeing the exit doors in Afghanistan, and ISIS gaining a foothold, such “enemy of my enemy is my friend” calculations are sure to increase, accruing in many cases to the benefit of the Taliban. U.S. intelligence sources tell Yahoo News that Iran has also offered to support Taliban factions, an unusual development in that Sunni jihadi groups are often the sworn enemy of the Shiite mullahs of Tehran. Other strange-bedfellow alliances are likely to form as regional players jockey for advantage.

“We Americans are always naively looking for so-called moderates in white hats to support in these conflicts, but unless we want to keep 5,000 troops in Afghanistan for the next 5,000 years, we should also reach out to the people who are going to stick around,” said Milton Bearden, the former CIA station chief in Pakistan who was instrumental in arming the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets in the 1980s. Having already been badly burnt in its decade-long occupation of Afghanistan, Moscow seems to have taken that lesson in proxy warfare to heart. “If I were sitting in the Kremlin and worried that ISIS is gaining strength near my soft underbelly of the Caucasus, I wouldn’t look to the United States and the Afghan army to take care of my problem. I’d probably reach out to the Taliban to help beat them back.”

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: War - 2/13/2016 7:18:42 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

True, it was hard to imagine a president worse than Carter. Not only did we imagine it - we elected him. Well, y'all did. I never voted for him. Reading dreams of my father disabused me of any possibility.


Oh, hell, Reagan, GHWB, Dubya, Nixon, Hoover....
You don't have to hallucinate them, they are real -- some of the worst presidents ever in our nation's history.


But you are full on stupid. Dreams of My Father was not even a idea that would show up for 10+ years after Carter.

You have never read it, you constantly demonstrate here that you dont read anything other than slobbering nutsucker blogs.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 2/13/2016 7:20:42 AM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: War - 2/13/2016 7:39:39 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemeupalso
obama has fucked everything he has stuck his nose into or touched.
he is the sole reason there was a uprising all over the middle east.
when will washington let the military do their job and go in and win a war and then get out.fuck this nation building


Seriously?!? Were their no seeds for uprising planted under the Bush (43) Administration?!?

Bush didn't let the military do their job, either. You can't solely blame Obama for that. While there certainly are "rules" of war (and "all's fair in love and war" isn't one), the Federal Government has gone further than the rules and limited actions so as to not hurt the image of the US more than necessary. It's good to limit collateral damage, but not so much so as to limit mission success.

Bush 43's and Obama's Administrations are both guilty of that.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tiemeupalso)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: War - 2/13/2016 7:47:07 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The Taliban’s capture of the Afghan city of Kunduz last September was shocking. The insurgents’ first seizure of a major city in nearly 15 years of fighting suggested unexpected boldness on the part of new leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, and badly rattled the Afghan public’s faith in their U.S.-trained security forces. Just weeks after the Taliban offensive, Pres. Barack Obama publicly announced a dramatic slowing in the withdrawal of U.S. forces and new plans to keep at least 5,500 troops in Afghanistan into 2017, abandoning his hopes of bringing American troops home before leaving office.


The US is going to be blamed for the Taliban winning back power. To be honest, I'm not opposed to the Taliban resuming control in Afghanistan. Our beef with them, initially, was that they wouldn't let us in to get AQ/OBL, and wouldn't deliver OBL to us instead. After the Taliban was toppled, our beef with them should have been reduced to defending our own. Was the Taliban a big problem prior to 9/11? I doubt it was big enough for the US to care.

At some point in time, the Afghan people will have to decide who they want to run the joint. As much as I'd like to see every country be run by fairly elected leaders, it's not the responsibility of the US to ensure that. It's up to the people of a country to decide, demand, and ensure they are run by fairly elected leaders; or whatever style of government they want.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: War - 2/13/2016 8:16:50 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

True, it was hard to imagine a president worse than Carter. Not only did we imagine it - we elected him. Well, y'all did. I never voted for him. Reading dreams of my father disabused me of any possibility.


Oh, hell, Reagan, GHWB, Dubya, Nixon, Hoover....
You don't have to hallucinate them, they are real -- some of the worst presidents ever in our nation's history.


But you are full on stupid. Dreams of My Father was not even a idea that would show up for 10+ years after Carter.

You have never read it, you constantly demonstrate here that you dont read anything other than slobbering nutsucker blogs.



It is amusing that I so affect your life that you follow me around like a puppy with tourettes. Spewing nothing but cockgargling and nutsackerisms and personal attacks. Amusingly .. you read my posts, while I for the most part ignore yours - as do the majority of readers here. You lack ideas, you don't bother to do research. But I guess that's why you're on and on about cock gargling. You speak what you know.

You're boring.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: War - 2/13/2016 8:23:19 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The Taliban’s capture of the Afghan city of Kunduz last September was shocking. The insurgents’ first seizure of a major city in nearly 15 years of fighting suggested unexpected boldness on the part of new leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, and badly rattled the Afghan public’s faith in their U.S.-trained security forces. Just weeks after the Taliban offensive, Pres. Barack Obama publicly announced a dramatic slowing in the withdrawal of U.S. forces and new plans to keep at least 5,500 troops in Afghanistan into 2017, abandoning his hopes of bringing American troops home before leaving office.


The US is going to be blamed for the Taliban winning back power. To be honest, I'm not opposed to the Taliban resuming control in Afghanistan. Our beef with them, initially, was that they wouldn't let us in to get AQ/OBL, and wouldn't deliver OBL to us instead. After the Taliban was toppled, our beef with them should have been reduced to defending our own. Was the Taliban a big problem prior to 9/11? I doubt it was big enough for the US to care.

At some point in time, the Afghan people will have to decide who they want to run the joint. As much as I'd like to see every country be run by fairly elected leaders, it's not the responsibility of the US to ensure that. It's up to the people of a country to decide, demand, and ensure they are run by fairly elected leaders; or whatever style of government they want.



The problem DS is the training camps. More than 120 camps, run by militant groups of all stripes. Most of the Guantanamo detainees had been trained in one or more camps in afghanistan. Places where they trained in weapons, bomb making etc.

While I understand the desire to wash our hands of afghanistan, the rather predictable result is the continual training of extremist muslims. Those that might attack us - are perhaps manageable (although I doubt it). But the domino effect in pakistan, bangladesh burundi, indonesia, philipines.

This is a problem that closing your eyes to will not make it go away. If not now - when.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: War - 2/13/2016 8:31:38 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

True, it was hard to imagine a president worse than Carter. Not only did we imagine it - we elected him. Well, y'all did. I never voted for him. Reading dreams of my father disabused me of any possibility.


Oh, hell, Reagan, GHWB, Dubya, Nixon, Hoover....
You don't have to hallucinate them, they are real -- some of the worst presidents ever in our nation's history.


But you are full on stupid. Dreams of My Father was not even a idea that would show up for 10+ years after Carter.

You have never read it, you constantly demonstrate here that you dont read anything other than slobbering nutsucker blogs.



It is amusing that I so affect your life that you follow me around like a puppy with tourettes. Spewing nothing but cockgargling and nutsackerisms and personal attacks. Amusingly .. you read my posts, while I for the most part ignore yours - as do the majority of readers here. You lack ideas, you don't bother to do research. But I guess that's why you're on and on about cock gargling. You speak what you know.

You're boring.


Its amusing that I so affect your life that you follow me around toiletlicking and cockgargling stupid shit repeatedly on every thread.

The majority of readers know that you and your asshole buddies, do not have brains enough to pour piss out of a boot.

You need to go over in the corner by your dish and lay down, you will never be taken seriously by anyone in life.

You will just be a nutsucking pantshitter howling like a buffoon, as has been your life up to this point, and will continue till your demise.

You are less than a fucking nobody. A laughingstock of the world.

Check with your friend in the Ass Gargler office. He will tell you the same.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: War - 2/13/2016 8:52:20 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Interesting article saying that due to our supine democrat leadership - war is coming between Turkey and Russia.
http://observer.com/2016/02/mounting-evidence-putin-will-ignite-wwiii/


There is a few problems with this:

1 ) It would be problem between two countries. A world war implies many nations are involved.

2 ) If many nations are inovlved (directly or indirectly) it would be WW4. Why? Because we already went through WW3.

3 ) You think that WW3 implies nuclear armaments being exchanged. Given the proximity of Turkey to Russia, both countries would experience nuclear fallout. Not to mention all the countries west of them: China, India, Pakistan, Japan, the two Koreas, Canada, The United States of America, Mexico, Britian, France, Germany, and even the Ukraine. That is because all those charged particulars will sweep around the planet a few times (west to east). Within one week, most nations would be hit be hit.

4 ) Russia's economy....sucks. The sanctions enacted on Russia are already having a harsh effect on the nation's economy. This has damaged Putin's powerbase. Further 'war-like' actions imply....further...economic sanctions. The nation's infrastructure and natural properties are already fucked from the days of the USSR. There are many locations within Russia that are just plan toxic and unusable for anything (living, growing crops, industry, etc.).

5 ) Turkey does not have the military might for a prolong campaign.

So really, what is the point of the possible conflict beyong making people like you scurry to your bunkers for the months between now and next year?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: War - 2/13/2016 9:01:39 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
You saying we've already had WW3 obviates any other need to respond.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: War - 2/13/2016 9:02:37 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

True, it was hard to imagine a president worse than Carter. Not only did we imagine it - we elected him. Well, y'all did. I never voted for him. Reading dreams of my father disabused me of any possibility.


Then your imagination is quite limited....

Former President George W. Bush comes to mind as the worst US President. It wasn't just him, but the whole of his cabinet that fucked shit up EVERYWHERE. The only person that gave that administration credibility was Collin Powell. He was a good soldier. But after one presidential term, knew to get out!

Given all your blind hatred for President Obama, I guess it would be hard for you to understand the totality of damage wrecked by the Bush administration for eight years. You have always had a problem with being objective....

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: War - 2/13/2016 9:31:47 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You saying we've already had WW3 obviates any other need to respond.


That is because (as usual) you really do not understand what I'm stating.

You have been made to believe what the 'definition' to World War Three to be: Nuclear Armageddon. We all have been conditioned to this in the United States. Just as to say "God" in the Pledge of Alligence even though that reference was never in the original poem.

But the originals of WW3 comes from the other two world wars: Nostradamus. He 'predicted' three Anti-Christs (i.e. the opposite of Jesus Christ from the Bible). whom would bring great destruction in their wake. WW1 was Napoleon, WW2 was Hitler, and WW3 was Hussein (Saddam, in case your confused). Immediately after WW1, people called it "The Great War" or "The War to End All Wars". It was never referred to as WW1 or World War One.

Nostradamus 'predicted' only three such Anti-Christs. If the world managed to get through all three, it would enter a golden age by which Humanity would leap into the stars.

Now you can accept this as fact (a hard task indeed). Or you can keep believing what you are programmed to believe (much easier). You state you always want the facts and truth? Now lets see which wins over.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: War - 2/13/2016 9:35:34 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Troll,

1. I don't hate obama. He's been terrible for the US; I wish he were not in a position of authority, due to his ability to screw things up.

Libya. Afghanistan. Syria. Iraq. Crimea, Ukraine, North Korean, Egypt, Ebola .. and the list goes on and on.

2. Iraq was botched. Despite this, however, obama took a country that was in his own words - safe and stable - and created ISIS. Other than that, for humor's value, you're welcome to list what you think how bush fucked the country. Be specific - blaming him for crashing the economy you'll have to prove what actions he took that actually caused the economy to crash.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: War - 2/13/2016 10:04:32 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You saying we've already had WW3 obviates any other need to respond.


World War III - Cold War
World War IV - the on-again, off-again, fiasco with the Islamics.

The fact that the twit left out mention of NATO's Article 5, being invoked by Erdogan, does mean that there is no need to respond.

As far as the twit's assertion that: "5 ) Turkey does not have the military might for a prolong campaign." {sic}


They are very nearly a peer competitor, having similarly sized armed forces, quite possibly better trained, an economy almost as strong as Russia's, and likely rather stronger when you count out export of raw materials. They’re not as technologically sophisticated as Russia, but they have friends who are more so. And you just wouldn’t believe the long-standing love affair between the US Army and the Turkish Army, based on their performance in Korea in the early fifties.

There is a non-military option for Russia to act against Turkey:

Russia is Turkey’s second largest trade partner. I believe Turkey depends on them for gas. Russian people are apparently a huge source of tourist income. I will be very unsurprised if Russia cut's off trade for a while, even as they tell their people they may not travel to Turkey lest they be seized as hostages or even killed. I am sure Russia will advise them that, with regrets, travel there is especially problematic as Erdogan seems unable or unwilling to ensure the safety of Russians.

I do wonder, myself, how well Erdogan’s popularity holds up when his people start to shiver and can’t see to read in the dark.

That’s all rather touchy, though, and could backfire. The Turks are tough, proud, and brave. Be a shame if Russia actually gave Erdogan’s public relations a shot in the arm.




_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: War - 2/13/2016 10:24:42 AM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

WW1 was Napoleon

Actually that would be the War of Spanish Succession, which spanned the globe.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: War Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.110