Thoughts on the world state of affairs

[Okla-homey]

I enjoy prognostication so please indulge me...

As for the opening campaigns of WWIII and the current imbroglio between Israel and Syria with poor Lebanon being ripped to shreds between them: the US will definitely survive this round.

If Iran does manage a bomb and indeed throws in behind Syria or if the Pakis ever go over to the darkside (they already have a bomb) I don't think I'd take a long-term bet on the safety of NYC. Its the most tempting target if they only have a couple. They'll pop one in Gotham, evaluate the effect and reaction and save the others...kinda like we did during WWII.

London is physically closer so it could get smoked instead of NYC if they are unable to make the Atlantic crossing,

On a brighter note, the vast majority of the US population will ride this out. Oceans are our friend. That said, life will get pretty sucky. Not necessarily Mad Max-style sucky, but a lot of stuff we enjoy will probably be curtailed or cease.

The sheer numbers of people who will need resettlement in the NY-NJ area the wake of a nuke blast in NYC would make the Katrina dealio look like small beans.

Of greater concern will be the casualties we take finishing the job in the coming years. I expect there are an awful lot of American 10 year old boys now in front of Xboxes who will get trigger time for real before its all said and done.

Another issue is what this will ultimately do to the economy. The stock portfolio would be in for a considerable hit if NYC is smoked, though those with a lot of liquidity could make a killing in the depressed market.

Then again, speculators always find a way to make money in wartime.

Hold on tight. It promises to be a very interesting couple of decades.

[Boomhauer]

Thanks for making my hearburn feel better!

[SoonerBorn68]

But Homey, these poor people in Syria, Iran, & Palestine just want us infidels dead. We shouldn't stand in the way of their traditions and beliefs.

[jk the sooner fan]

personally i think the only way we'll ever "deal" with the arab problem...and by deal, i mean "finally handle"......is if the arabs punch us square in the nose

[OUHOMER]

So you are saying buy real estate, and stock you pantries with beans?

[OUHOMER]

personally i think the only way we'll ever "deal" with the arab problem...and by deal, i mean "finally handle"......is if the arabs punch us square in the nose

what would you call the WTC? a flick on the ear?

[jk the sooner fan]

what would you call the WTC? a flick on the ear?

compared to a missile attack? yes......for me its not a flick on the ear, but it seems to be an easily forgotten event with many.....the importance of it has been lost

[Harry Beanbag]

personally i think the only way we'll ever "deal" with the arab problem...and by deal, i mean "finally handle"......is if the arabs punch us square in the nose

It's a sad commentary on the current condition of the United States if it takes a nuked city to do something that apparently 9/11 hasn't done, unite us as a country again to do a job that needs to be done.

Unfortunately, I agree with Homey. I've been thinking all hell would break loose for a couple of years now, and that we are not prepared for what is coming: socially, economically, or militarily.

[Mixer!]

C'mon now:

• What countries are left standing in the Mid-East when it's all over?
• Which ones get nuked?
• Which ones disappear or become an entirely new country?
• Who gets the oilfields?
• Will the SE Asian/Pacific Muslims get involved? The African Muslims?
• Will Israel survive?
• Will North Korea get involved?

Let's go all the way on this or not at all.

[Scott D]

Homey forgot the most important part...China will just be sitting back waiting to pick up the pieces in forming their version of a New World Order.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Chicken ****ing Littles.

[Harry Beanbag]

Homey forgot the most important part...China will just be sitting back waiting to pick up the pieces in forming their version of a New World Order.

You have a serious case of Sinophobia don't you?

[Scott D]

You have a serious case of Sinophobia don't you?

nah, but I'm trying to think long term, and quite frankly all out war between us and basically the entire Middle East benefits the fastest rising power in the world the most. Any sort of protracted mass conflict with Iran/Syria/etc. will sufficiently weaken us in such a way that we, along with that region will be easy pickings.

If *I* was in charge in China, that's precisely what I'd do. The US and most of Europe would be in no position to put up any sort of mass organized resistance on the heels of basically a modern version of the Crusades.

[slickdawg]

personally i think the only way we'll ever "deal" with the arab problem...and by deal, i mean "finally handle"......is if the arabs punch us square in the nose

The United States Government has become to "politically correct" to
EVAR use a nuke. Some rouge nation can hit us, and we WILL NOT
respond with extreme force.

Too many wusses worried about "killing innocent civilians" where we
are at war, and they forget how many die here.

There were 3,000 souls lost on 9/11, and what did we do to counter that?

[SoonerInKCMO]

There were 3,000 souls lost on 9/11, and what did we do to counter that?

Blew the **** outta Afghanistan.

[slickdawg]

Blew the **** outta Afghanistan.

We broke our necks to limit civilian casualties.

**** THEM! Kill every one of the SOB's and their families.

We need to teach them a lesson - you kill our people, and we will
kill as many of you as we possibly can. Dammit, our enemies need to fear us.

[royalfan5]

The United States Government has become to "politically correct" to
EVAR use a nuke. Some rouge nation can hit us, and we WILL NOT
respond with extreme force.

Too many wusses worried about "killing innocent civilians" where we
are at war, and they forget how many die here.

There were 3,000 souls lost on 9/11, and what did we do to counter that?

Well, we've invaded two countries to counter that. There are two nation building projects going on to counter that.(You can debate, their effectiveness all you want, but they are going on) What more do you want right now. Do you think the United States could pacify all the Islamic nations at once, with out partners without causing a lot of problems domestically? Hell, even if you nuked all of them, it would cause mass economic chaos because of the trade disruptions, and all the nuclear fallout from nuking that area of the world? It is exceedingly difficult to wage wars on ideas, and not fixed institions. That's what the war against terrorism comes down to, it is a war on ideas, not on instituions.

[slickdawg]

Well, we've invaded two countries to counter that. There are two nation building projects going on to counter that.(You can debate, their effectiveness all you want, but they are going on) What more do you want right now. Do you think the United States could pacify all the Islamic nations at once, with out partners without causing a lot of problems domestically? Hell, even if you nuked all of them, it would cause mass economic chaos because of the trade disruptions, and all the nuclear fallout from nuking that area of the world? It is exceedingly difficult to wage wars on ideas, and not fixed institions. That's what the war against terrorism comes down to, it is a war on ideas, not on instituions.

Exactly - and the majority of Arabs will never change their ways.

CNN did a report yesterday on how women's rights have gone downhill
since we've made Iraq a democracy. Back to women feraing for their lives
if they drive a car or their face is seen in public.

We can do what we need to do with conventional weapons. The enemy
knows we will break our necks to not hit a mosque or civilian area, so
they hide their weapons there. CALCM or JDAM the freakin' things!

[Harry Beanbag]

nah, but I'm trying to think long term, and quite frankly all out war between us and basically the entire Middle East benefits the fastest rising power in the world the most. Any sort of protracted mass conflict with Iran/Syria/etc. will sufficiently weaken us in such a way that we, along with that region will be easy pickings.

If *I* was in charge in China, that's precisely what I'd do. The US and most of Europe would be in no position to put up any sort of mass organized resistance on the heels of basically a modern version of the Crusades.

I don't know. I've always thought that China just wanted to be left alone. I don't remember any imperialistic tendencies from their past, though I could be mistaken. If anything, I do think they will pounce on Taiwan at an opportune time for them, but I think it's also in their best interest to rid the world of Islamofascism too.

[PhilTLL]

We need to teach them a lesson - you kill our people, and we will
kill as many of you as we possibly can. Dammit, our enemies need to fear us.

But, if this is really an ideological war between free, civilized society and barbarians who target innocent people, as we have maintained the whole time, it's awfully hard for us to have it both ways. As a "battle of hearts and minds," denouncing the killing of innocents at the WTC and then flattening Kabul would have been the worst possible option.

As a pragmatic matter of sheer survival, military superiority, and pure retribution, it would be nice to obliterate...someone...if we're even exactly sure who or where to obliterate. But to do that, I think we would have to publically acknowledge that we're willing to use tactics that undermine the high ground we've claimed.

Edit edit: If we're willing to do that, I'd be more inclined to accept the destruction of a city or two, but if we can't force ourselves to do that, I'd rather we not become the hypocrites the radicals say we are.