WWIII? is it about to go down?

[hskwarrior]

Is it about to go down? I remember hearing last year that the next war will be in Iran. They said this will be the start of WWIII. what do you think....i'm interested in what drake will say about this. ......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbqdE...728&feature=iv

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=134_1318643204

[David Jamieson]

War is over if you want it.

[Drake]

People misuse the term "World War" because we've forgotten the scope of WWII. What we've lost in ten years of war is a drop in the bucket compared to single battles fought during WWII. Entire companies were wiped out in less than 20 minutes. The fight was everywhere, on almost every continent. Asia, Africa, Europe, and to a small degree, North America. That really isn't feasible today, because the biggest military powers all owe each other money, or they are so intimately bound with trade deals that to start a war would be financial suicide.

However, if I were to pick a country that would go bat-**** crazy and rekindle militant nationalism, I would, unfortunately, have to say it would be the US. Politics are steadily becoming more radicalized, and extreme-leaning leaders are exploiting the current economic situation. Sound familiar?

Iran will likely get some more sanctions laid on them, and, worst case scenario, maybe an airstrike, though I have no idea what that would accomplish.

[bawang]

i dont think military nationalism is possible in america.

the desire and arrogance might exist, but the will and mindset, discipline and honor required is no longer there. this was already demonstrated in the iraq war. americans went in hard, then harsh realities of war and death sank in and the public folded.



warriors cannot be created from a complacent and hedonistic people.

[Scott R. Brown]

However, if I were to pick a country that would go bat-**** crazy and rekindle militant nationalism, I would, unfortunately, have to say it would be the US. Politics are steadily becoming more radicalized, and extreme-leaning leaders are exploiting the current economic situation. Sound familiar?

It is no where near as bad as it was in the 60's. These protesters now are just wannabes with no real understanding of what they are doing or what they want. There was greater organization in the 60's, not to mention 4 or 5 ACTIVE homegrown terrorist organizations bombing buildings and killing people. Even Code Pink had a better organization during the Bush Administration than these dolts have so far. They have a long way to go to actually accomplish anything meaningful and they are no where near as large as the Tea Party. All hey have going for them at present is the left-leaning press is on their side.

We also have a more informed public with greater access to varying sources for their information. They have a long uphill row to hoe. So far, there is no popular support for these people.

[wenshu]

. All hey have going for them at present is the left-leaning press is on their side.

The press in this country is almost entirely owned by corporations. Left wing media, that's very funny.

On their side? These drum circles have been going on for weeks and the only attention they get is to disparage them as anarcho socialists.

It is pretty obvious why people are upset.









Transparent mouth pieces of corporate interests venomously talk about income redistribution without a sense of irony; it has already been redistributed upwards.

And can we stop with the goddamn " this is just like 1930's Germany and the nascent Nationalist Socialist Party" analogies. It is lazy rhetoric that only serves to cheapen an already shallow and listless political discourse.

[David Jamieson]

all these from ucb?
reaganomics.

[Drake]

i dont think military nationalism is possible in america.

the desire and arrogance might exist, but the will and mindset, discipline and honor required is no longer there. this was already demonstrated in the iraq war. americans went in hard, then harsh realities of war and death sank in and the public folded.



warriors cannot be created from a complacent and hedonistic people.

And this is where you are wrong. I serve with some pretty dangerous individuals, and I'm a bit dangerous myself. The problem is, you have this minority of ultra-conservative, highly trained warriors, who despite being such a small percentage of the population (1%), could easily take control. I know I am possibly the only non-conservative person here.

The public may have folded, but you are missing the dangerous minority, which, like I said before, has occurred in history before, with disastrous consequences. The "complacent and hedonistic people" wouldn't stand a chance if a move was made.

It reminds me of when I was on R&R recently, and was explaining how patrols and security details went, and how I was always joking with the gunner that if I died while approaching an unknown vehicle, it was his fault. The person was actually frightened by the scenarios... and I think he was frightened by me. Strange times, indeed.

[bawang]

if you are so dangerous and ruthless, why cant you take iraq after almost 10 years and trillions of dollars? what kind of nationalism is that?


a lot of your "dangerous" guys are feeling dangerous right now because youre in a turkey shoot killing enemy with inferior equipment and training.

[Drake]

if you are so dangerous and ruthless, why cant you take iraq after almost 10 years and trillions of dollars? what kind of nationalism is that?


a lot of your "dangerous" guys are feeling dangerous right now because youre in a turkey shoot killing enemy with inferior equipment and training.

You are pretty much counterinsurgency stupid, aren't you? I don't even know where to begin. We won in Iraq, even though we never should have been there to begin with, and COIN was a steep and painful learning curve. Take Iraq? What does that even mean? If you mean do what we came to do, that is, remove SH, install a new government, train an army that can stand on its own, and leave? Yeah, we did that.

And the enemy is much more well-trained and better equipped in Afghanistan than they were in Iraq. Not sure where you are getting your info, but there a few nations giving the TB everything they need to succeed.

Insurgency is a low-tech war of attrition. It is highly successful, because all they have to do is outlast the foreign nations' will to fight. They can't win in any toe-to-toe battle, nor do they have to. We did it against the British, the NVA did it in the 60s, the IRA TRIED to do it, and FARC was successful.

It's not a turkey shoot, because they blend in with the population, avoid direct confrontation, and very rarely allow themselves to become decisively engaged. They are professional in both guerilla and chiriki tactics, and have decades of combat experience. Inferior training? Where in the hell did you get that idea from? They have training camps all over PAK.

It's always cute when you try and be badass and make silly comments, Bawang, but you are terribly off the mark here, and out of your league. Read up on Galula and Nagl, and get back to me. You are shooting from the hip right now, and it's a waste of time engaging you on a topic you know nothing about, yet insist on making inflammatory comments.

[bawang]

im not being inflammatory. im speaking my mind. if iraq took you about ten years and trillions of dollars, i dont know how you dangerous guys can take over america.

you are being oversensitive because you assume i am anti military. i am pro military. but i am not going to kiss your ass because you killed people and i never killed people. that doesnt make you superior to me and doesnt mean you can talk down to me.

[Drake]

im not being inflammatory. im speaking my mind. if iraq took you about ten years and trillions of dollars, i dont know how you dangerous guys can take over america.

you are being oversensitive because you assume i am anti military. i am pro military. but i am not going to kiss your ass because you killed people and i never killed people. that doesnt make you superior to me and doesnt mean you can talk down to me.

Killing people has nothing to do with it. You just don't understand the effectiveness of insurgency. We quite possibly broke a world land speed record in how quickly we defeated the Iraqi Army. Same with uprooting the Taliban. HOWEVER, the fact is, insurgencies are terribly difficult to defeat, regardless of the size of the military and the technology they have.

Which is why an insurgency in the US, especially one backed by the military, would be very dangerous.

If you don't know something, and it is obvious you don't know it, I am going to bring it up.

And historically speaking, insurgencies typically take decades to defeat.

[bawang]

my whole point was if an insurgency is so hard to defeat, in a small third world country, how do you expect a militant minority to to take over if american citizens will fight back.

but now you make it even more complicated and say what if THEY are the insurgents, and start making problems. that would be stupid of them because it will open america to attack.

i am not a military expert. i am not saying any fancy things. im talking about common sense.

[Drake]

my whole point was if an insurgency is so hard to defeat, in a small third world country, how do you expect a militant minority to to take over if american citizens will fight back.

but now you make it even more complicated and say what if THEY are the insurgents, and start making problems. that would be stupid of them because it will open america to attack.

i am not a military expert. i am not saying any fancy things. im talking about common sense.

Attack by whom? Nobody who would be willing to do it has the capability to actually invade the US.

[bawang]

if highly trained ultraconservatives decide to start an insurgency like you said, that would put the country into chaos. homeland security would be overworked and gaps in defence would appear. other countries can stop imports and blockade aid. terrorists might take the opportunity and sneak in. china might take the opportunity to engage in cyber warfare.