Brazzil Forum
Message Board
» back to brazzil.com
Register | Profile | Log-in | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Search

» Welcome Brazzil: Log out | Messenger | Check New Posts | Mark all posts as read

    Brazzil Forum
    General
        World War III?
Mark all forum posts as read   [ help ]
» Your last visit to this forum was: Mar. 25, 2003 - 6:12pm «

Topic Jump
<< Back Next >>
Single Page for this topic
Forum moderated by: No One
 

 
Patinho



Junior Member
   
ok... so call me paranoid. After watching the news tonight and seeing the amount of North Koreans protesting against the U.S., combined with the U.S. war on "terrorism", the War on Afganistan, the war on Iraq, and the British preparing for war against Iraq, I am wondering if we are headed towards another World War. I know there are several other examples to further convey this, but I am just curious if anyone feels the way I do.

Any thoughts?

-----
"Quem quer viver faz magica"
--Guimaraes Rosa

Total Posts: 67 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 4:14 am on Jan. 12, 2003 | IP
Sick



Newbie
   
I think we are, but not until Britain comes to it's senses and quits supporting the US. But this time, it will be the World vs. the USA.

I think they are already making a movie out of it, so it must be true.  I saw the script on a newsgroup, it ends with the humiliating defeat of the US on it's own soil (yay! about time) and Castro gets appointed as the Governor of North America to oversee the war crime tribunals which includes a class action lawsuit for negligence, ignorance and arrogance against all of the citizens of the country formerly known as the US of A. The final scene jumps ahead five years showing grateful North Americans (those few acquitted during the tribunals plus all Canadians) living happy, peaceful lives with a higher standard of living. High standards of living similar to what we see today in Cuba. I nearly wept, it is such a powerful scene.

-----
I have the best hair on this website.

Total Posts: 27 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 7:18 am on Jan. 12, 2003 | IP
USCIT


Newbie
   
Sick, you're sick. You keep this up and Castro's going to make you his economic advisor and appoint you his script writer. But, look at the bright side. Maybe you can wrangle a 1958 Chevy Belaire convertible to ride around in.

Personal opinion only, Patinho. Yes, we are headed for WWIII if an attack on Iraq will be called that. Not so sure about N. Korea. Due to the continued buildup, I feel the U.S. already has what it want's to go into Iraq, they're just waiting for the time that is most convienent for them to do so and letting the inspections play out their hand. At the last minute, the 'news' will break.

-----
USCIT

Total Posts: 21 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 12:27 pm on Jan. 12, 2003 | IP
Patinho



Junior Member
   
I must say that I was looking for some sort of an intelligent reply to this post. I guess 1 out of 2 isn't so bad. Thanks USCIT.

I did find it interesting though, that Sick commented "The World vs. USA". The past couple of WWs, the US got involved (in my opinion) because we were not only "asked" to get involved, but also were provoked, and I see it as more of a defensive involvement.

However, todays circumstances could also warrent defensive behavior, but for more selfish reasons. With the exception of the "war on terrorism" I think we are in a way, bringing this one on ourselves......

Watdoyathink?

(Edited by Patinho at 4:57 pm on Jan. 12, 2003)

-----
"Quem quer viver faz magica"
--Guimaraes Rosa

Total Posts: 67 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 2:56 pm on Jan. 12, 2003 | IP
Jo


Newbie
   
I find it really ominous.  No one I talk to in Brazil has a clue as to why the U.S. is pushing this war against Iraq.  Now that I'm in the U.S. for a few weeks, my experience is nearly the same. No one seems to see any real reason to go to war with Iraq, but no one here is doing anything about it.  No one I speak with here wants a war, and everyone seens rather bewildered.  Some are cynical and think it's just because Bush and Cheney are in oil.  My only explanation is that September 11th has totally paralyzed the opposition.  No politician who wants to be associated with the people who brought us ground zero.  The case certainly hasn't been made against Sadam in Iraq, though.

Yes, I'm worried about a huge war.... The "Axis of Evil" comment of our strange president seems to have borne fruit with North Korea suddenly becoming belligerent while we are otherwise occupied.

I can't believe these people in the media saying, "Oh this (war with Iraq) will be over in a month or two.  Don't they read history.  This has been said before many long wars ....before Vietnam, most recently and incorrectly....  The media is now owned by the international businesses
...there's very little impartiality and integrity there anymore.  I don't trust what we're hearing.



-----
Jo

Total Posts: 8 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 6:34 pm on Jan. 12, 2003 | IP
erjbcdt


Junior Member
   
no wwIII just lots of small wars, ................hopefully........

-----
Viva Brazil

Total Posts: 54 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 12:09 am on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
Jeromy


Junior Member
   
Excellent point Jo.
I don't believe at all that this situation in comparable to WW1 or WW2. I think that it will not effect Brazil except with oil prices.
What is this war about. It is absolutely about oil. Consider this history. The leader of Iraq, Sadam Hussein is a thug whose Ba'athist Party was brought to power by the CIA in what the CIA official responsible described as "our favorite coup."  Sadam became the darling from Baghdad to the Washington elite. Consider this quote from Samuel Gejdenson.
“The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted.  From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. … The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
In 1980 the U.S. encouraged Iraq to launch its invasion into southern Iran, which turned into a bloody eight-year war. Henry Kissinger summed up the attitude of Washington: "too bad they can't both lose." Over 1 million people "were killed in the war, but it served U.S. purposes: it weakened both Iran and Iraq.
A Times article includes information revealing the extent of U.S. involvement: "More than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."
This Pentagon program continued even when it became clear that the Iraqi military "had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested."
A DIA officer said the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference." Another U.S. intelligence officer told the Times, "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern."  
Not only was Washington not appalled by Saddam using weapons of mass destruction, they encouraged him and supplied him to do it!
In the Gulf War the U.S. killed 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians. They bombed Iraq's infrastructure such as cutting off of water, electricity, etc. They then put sanctions that cut off food and medical supplies to Iraq, causing 1.5 million Iraqi's to starve or die of curable diseases.
All this actually weaken the Iraqi population and strengthen Sadaam's power.
After the war they maintained the no fly zone, in which their planes have bombed and killed on averaged of 100 Iraqis a year.
Weapons inspectors were sent in. This has dismantled Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Every one in a position to know has said they no longer are a credible threat to the U.S. or it's neighbors.
The have been steadily weakening Iraq for occupation.
Iraq has the second greatest supply of oil in the world. It nationalized it's oil, meaning it sells it's own oil, and it does not put it's oil fields up for sale. This is the same with Iran and Libya. Chavez is doing this in Venezuela.
Consider this also.
Oil companies were the biggest contributors to Bush's campaign--the most expensive presidential campaign of all time. The President had founded the oil company Arbusto Oil, later renamed Bush Exploration and eventually sold to Harken Oil & Gas. Vice President Dick Cheney made his personal fortune in the oil company Halliburton. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was a member of the Chevron Board of Directors between 1991 and 2000. Secretary of Commerce Don Evans was CEO of the oil company Tom Brown Inc. and Director of the oil company TMBR/Sharp Drilling. The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Kathleen Cooper, was an executive at Exxon. Thomas White, Secretary of the Army, was Vice Chairman of Enron Energy Services.
I am writing more extensively on this subject if any one is interesting
.

-----
Peace and Justice for all

Total Posts: 55 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 1:55 am on Feb. 15, 2003 | IP
erjbcdt


Junior Member
   
No WWIII wont happen, there are more problems beside Korea, Iraq, Terror, there is also, India and Pakistan, who tested nuclear weapons.  Then there the war in Columbia, which is becoming deadly.  WWIII wont happen but in case it does I will prepare the best way I know how

-----
Viva Brazil

Total Posts: 54 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 3:46 pm on Feb. 17, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
World War III already is occuring.

To expect it to look like WWII is like the generals in WWI expecting their war to be like Napolean's.

Here´s the new outlines of post-modern warfare as I see them:

1) WWII and all wars since have defined civilians and public morale as legitimate targets for military action.

2) Weapons of Mass Destruction have increased in power, portability and accuracy.

3) Most conventional military power has been concentrated in the hands of very few powers, the U.S. being the key one.

4) However, the contradictions and frictions that have always caused warfare have not gone away.

This has created a situation in which terrorism - suprise attacks on largely civilian targets - is the only game in town, for state or non-state players. Small or relatively powerless groups will use suprise attacks against soft targets to hurt the opposition and force it to negotiate. These will be followed by conventional military reprisals which will attempt to nail the terrorists' power base and leadership without killing too many civilians. Often (as is the case in the actual Israeli/Palestinian conflict) it will be impossible to tell whose killing more, the non-state terrorists or the state terrorists.

In both cases, the goal is to use massive, shocking power upon the other side to convince its civilian supporters to give up. This is a highly diffused game of hide-and-go-seek with bazookas and we are all involved, like it or not.

As for the sides... It seems to me that they can be defined as a globalizing international elite versus largely local based elites. The U.S. and the other overdeveloped nations are obviously the major sponsors of the first side. The second side seems to be an array of groups throughout the underdeveloped, resource producing lands of the world. Not at all connected, except by a vague anti-imperialist ideology and perhaps some undercover cross-training, this side is definitely the underdog - though a rather unsavory underdog.

The prize is the final determination of who will control the world's key resources, especially petroleum.

In this scenario, Brazil's safest course is to lie low and hope that most of the major players ignore it, only choosing sides - as in WWI and II - when it becomes obvious who is going to win and only after getting something concrete out of it.

As a petroleum producing nation that's also, potentially, on the cutting edge of biotechnological development and simultaneously seen as "the richest of the poor" nations or "the poorest of the rich", Brazil will have a hard time staying neutral forever.

Another possibility is a split in the globalist coalition, a break into anglo and European factions. This is highly unlikely but possible. In this case, one would hope that Brazil would jump to the Euro side as the U.S. really doesn't seem to have much to offer us.

Quote of the day: "Brasil, quem te U.S.A. não te ama."

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 5:11 pm on Feb. 17, 2003 | IP
Boricua


Newbie
   
Yes pure and simple we are heading towards WWIII and to be very honest I'm an American and I have no clue why we are. I watch the news, read the papers, and have done my own research, even called my old Yale Professor whose an expert on this shit, and to no avail we have no clue. Kinda sad!

Total Posts: 25 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 7:30 pm on Feb. 17, 2003 | IP
Jeromy


Junior Member
   
What will happen when the U.S. invades Iraq. According to a U.N. estimate, 500,000 Iraqi civilians will be killed. Probably thousands of U.S. soldiers will die. There is a huge difference between pushing an invader out of a country that is not theirs, and invading a country and occupying it. The fight will be much different than the Gulf War in 1991.
A tide of terrorism will strike U.S. military, business, and civilian targets. New terrorists will be recruited.
A dictator will be removed, but what will be put in his place. According some reports a U.S. General will rule, or maybe someone else who is even worse than Sadam.    
Nothing good, and a hell of a lot of bad.


-----
Peace and Justice for all

Total Posts: 55 | Joined Feb. 2003 | Posted on: 9:14 pm on Feb. 17, 2003 | IP
Ze


Junior Member
   
... in other words, bush loved the publicity of the fall of the two towers, and wishes to maintain the fear that caused it.

Total Posts: 93 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 10:43 pm on Feb. 17, 2003 | IP
Boricua


Newbie
   
I for one know that yes Bush at one point tried to tie the WTC tradgedy with his ideas of why he should go to war with Iraq, but that was quickly figured out by the American public. I mean we aren't all so dumb you know, and no matter what anyone thinks. I NEVER want to go to a funeral where there are no bodies to be buried, I never want to watch as people jump out of a burning building NEVER, it was not something that I've forgotton, but I know for a fact that is no reason to go to war. I know my two friends were anti-war and I believe in my heart they would've maintained that stance.  And I don't want to watch as young men and women go over to kill innoscent people, it doesn't make what happened here better. Shit NYC is still fucked up behind what happened in more ways than financial. If you thought we were on edge before this all happened, you should've seen the streets over the weekend. Men in army gear and assult riffles walking around Times Square and all of NYC on full alert for some kinda terror attack. Yeah that shit is deep in the blood of New Yorkers, including me. I get very scurred, and pray that I never witness senseless death again.

I am anti-bullshit and that seems to be the only reason why Bush needs to fight. He's a tyrant, and his father is pulling all his political strings. He has to right the wrong his father made, or so he thinks. I mean shit we had a infidele for a president, now a drunk whose in full on war mode. OOps I meant ex-drunk with junkie kids oops there I go again.

And yes although I lost two very dear people to me on September 11th, I do know that America along with several other counties have killed innoscent people in other countries. It's like a never ending cycle that won't go away and war to me isn't the answer.

How do you kill the beast you help create.

Total Posts: 25 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 12:00 am on Feb. 18, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
Bush needs the war, politically speaking. Without it, all the media has to concentrate on is his piss-poor presidency and connections to financial scandals. The war is the only popularity card Bush has and that's why he's playing it.

Plus, his connections to big oil are certainly influencing his decisions.

I know these are simple explanations for a complex situation, but no others make sense. Sadam simply isn't that big a threat to the U.S. Certainly not as big as North Korea, with which the Bush administration is willing to negociate. The U.S. is obviously not invading because of its great respect for human rights. Sadam was violating human rights 15 years ago when he was the U.S. darlin' little dictator.

So the two explanations ponied up by the war supporters are simply more ludicrous than the ones I've given here. Let's suppose Bush isn't mad, which I think is a reasonable supposition. Well, why then would a president with very shaky popularity, intense ties to the oil industry, who is presiding over a recession and who has more skeletons in his wardrobe than can be comfortably stuffed in there want to go to war with the world's second largest oil producer?

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 3:20 am on Feb. 18, 2003 | IP
Sick



Newbie
   
To answer your question, I think Bush is pushing for this war because the country sitting on the world's largest oil reserves, Saudi Arabia, also sits upon the world's largest reserves of Islamic fundamentalism and exports it just as frantically. Basically, the US is switching horses. The real threat to US security from the Middle East is Saudi Arabia and the threat to stability in the region is Iraq. So essentially, and pardon the wording, the US is going to kill two birds with one stone. They will rid the region of it's main destabilizing force (excluding the Israeili/Palestinian situation) and at the same time have an alternative to Saudi oil dependence if they insist on exporting their fundamentalism. The Saudi's know this and are in a near panic because a weakened and sanctioned Iraq has been very profitable for them in more ways than one.

I won't comment on the "wag the dog" theory but the guilt by association theory I think is questionable. Instability and uncertainty are usually bad for profits especially if the commodity you profit from is at the center of the turbulence.

I don't really understand the comparisons to North Korea because the situation in the Middle East is centered around the strategic importance of oil and Islamic fundamentalism. Our presence in Korea is a leftover committment from the Cold War. The two situations seem like night and day to me.

-----
I have the best hair on this website.

Total Posts: 27 | Joined Dec. 2002 | Posted on: 5:03 am on Feb. 18, 2003 | IP
Macunaima


Member
   
My point re: N.Korea was that mere possession of WMD is obviously not enough to make the U.S. attack another country, even if the other country is not a friend of the U.S. That rules out one interpretation of U.S. motives in Iraq.

I like your Saudi/Iraqi analysis, BTW, Sick. Gonna have to think some more on that.

-----
Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!

Total Posts: 147 | Joined Jan. 2003 | Posted on: 9:57 am on Feb. 18, 2003 | IP
 

Topic Jump
<< Back Next >>
Single Page for this topic

Topic Options: Lock topic | Edit topic | Unlock topic | Delete topic | Move topic

© 2003 Brazzil | Our Privacy Statement

Powered by Ikonboard 2.1.9 Beta
© 2001 Ikonboard.com