9/11/2001: The Start of World War III?

georgephillip

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2009
43,554
5,106
1,840
Los Angeles, California
Prominent US conservatives and political insiders Robert Kagan and William Kristol apparently thought so in October 2001 when they authored an editorial in the Weekly Standard titled "The Gathering Storm".

"'When all is said and done the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North Africa campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory.

"'But to what looms over the horizon — a wide-range war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States — Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle...'

Almost like the script of a new ad campaign, the Weekly Standard editorial has accurately predicted elements of global cause and effect over the past decade.

"'[T]his war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity.

"'It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously.

"'It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid.

"'And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.'

"In 2001, both Robert Kagan and William Kristol were well aware of the conflagration of war in Eurasia.

"Both men are U.S. political insiders that were aware of what direction U.S. foreign policy would take the U.S. military.

"After all Kagan and Kristol were associates with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz through the political think-tank the Project for a News American Century (PNAC) that outlined a global military roadmap for a 'new American century.'”

Starting dates for wars are often ethnocentric. In Western Europe and North America WWII's starting date is September 1, 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland.

The Czechs believe March 16, 1939 when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia started the Second World War.

In Asia it's widely believe WWII began much earlier.

"Many consider the start of the Second World War to have been when Japan invaded China in the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, two years before 1939.

"Even before 1937, since 1931 the Chinese and Japanese were in conflict and 1931 too can be seen as the start of World War II."

A half-century from today will historians look back at 911 and see a seamless transition into World War III?

The March to War
 
I honestly don't think so. Osama stated in captured writings that he was hoping to start a world war between Islam and the West. His hope was that Islam would rise up against everyone else and that this would be the start of world rule by Islam.

It didn't happen.

I don't think it is going to happen.

Why? Because we're already out of Iraq. Iraq is now better off and so are it's neighbors. Many moderate Muslims consider Afghanistan to be better off without the Taliban in power.

It is hard to get Muslims worked up about the West when the West is not abusing Muslims as much as Muslims are. We (the West) aren't going around blowing up Mosques. Muslims are.

And the West didn't have the uprising against Muslims that Osama was hoping for either. He was hoping for a backlash against Muslims for 9/11, but most people understand the difference between whacked out Muslim psychos who believe in killing all non-Muslims and their neighbors, coworkers, fellow Americans, fellow sane human beings.

It's been almost ten years since 9/11. There may still be a world war, but I would look to North Korea as a much more likely instigator than a "clash of civilizations" fueling the flames of WWIII.
 
I honestly don't think so. Osama stated in captured writings that he was hoping to start a world war between Islam and the West. His hope was that Islam would rise up against everyone else and that this would be the start of world rule by Islam.

It didn't happen.

I don't think it is going to happen.

Why? Because we're already out of Iraq. Iraq is now better off and so are it's neighbors. Many moderate Muslims consider Afghanistan to be better off without the Taliban in power.

It is hard to get Muslims worked up about the West when the West is not abusing Muslims as much as Muslims are. We (the West) aren't going around blowing up Mosques. Muslims are.

And the West didn't have the uprising against Muslims that Osama was hoping for either. He was hoping for a backlash against Muslims for 9/11, but most people understand the difference between whacked out Muslim psychos who believe in killing all non-Muslims and their neighbors, coworkers, fellow Americans, fellow sane human beings.

It's been almost ten years since 9/11. There may still be a world war, but I would look to North Korea as a much more likely instigator than a "clash of civilizations" fueling the flames of WWIII.
Would you agree with this paragraph from The March to War...?

"The NATO and Anglo-American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly tied to September 11, 2001.

"These events are also related to the military threats directed against Iran and Syria, the tensions in Lebanon and East Africa, as well as U.S. and NATO threats directed against China and Russia.

"In this regard, the historians of the future may say that World War III could have started on September 11, 2001 or that the tragic events on September 11, 2001 were a prelude to World War III."

Which do you think most likely?

WWIII started on 9/11/2001 or that 9/11 was a prelude to WWIII?
 
None of us has crystal balls, but I'm betting on our children, if not us.



Stock Trading at Scottrade
Have you seen any credible estimates of the amount of corporate profit being realized from the War on Terror?

I'm not sure whether this represents a credible source, or not:

"What's wrong with this picture?
The world's lone superpower, fearful of being attacked by one of many real or perceived enemies, sets out to solve the problem by increasing weapon sales and military aid to the world.

"But the sales and aid aren't just made available to existing allies; indeed in the wake of Sept. 11th, the race is on to arm governments formerly considered unstable or otherwise 'off-limits' due to gross human rights violations, on grounds that these nations are assisting in the sweeping 'war against terrorism.'"

55 years ago, Einstein and Russell pointed out a choice that is still "stark and dreadful and inescapable:shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war."

WWIII might be strike three for our children and us.
 
Would you agree with this paragraph from The March to War...?

"The NATO and Anglo-American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly tied to September 11, 2001.

"These events are also related to the military threats directed against Iran and Syria, the tensions in Lebanon and East Africa, as well as U.S. and NATO threats directed against China and Russia.

"In this regard, the historians of the future may say that World War III could have started on September 11, 2001 or that the tragic events on September 11, 2001 were a prelude to World War III."
No, I do not. I agree Afghanistan is tied to 9/11. Saddam's ass kicking was of his own design.

We've been "at odds" with Iran and Syria long before 9/11, so how can you suddenly blame 9/11 for the tensions?

If there is tension in Lebanon and East Africa, that is news to me.

As for Russia and China, :lol: What threats are we directing at them?

georgephillip said:
Which do you think most likely?

WWIII started on 9/11/2001 or that 9/11 was a prelude to WWIII?

Neither. I believe the article posted is nothing but fearmongering and pretty piss poor fearmongering at that.
 
Iraq is now better off and so are it's neighbors. Many moderate Muslims consider Afghanistan to be better off without the Taliban in power.
Funny joke!! :lol:
Do you think anyone at the Wall Street Journal is laughing?

How about Nouri al-Maliki ruling out "...the continuation of the US occupation of Iraq past 2011, saying every last US troops would have to leave exactly as mandated in the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

"The comments came as a number of US officials have been privately conceding that no one in the US government is operating under the assumption that the SOFA will be abided by, and everyone assumes that the US military will continue operations in Iraq for years to come."

We should all keep in mind every Iraqi politician currently holding office is there because he/she collaborated with the US occupation.

That includes the current prime minister who also announced today (12/27/10) the Mahdi Army will now be considered part of Iraq's government.

So far, Muqdata al-Sadr hasn't been confused with a collaborator.

Maliki: US Must Leave
 
Iraq is a sovreign country. We are there at their insistance. If / when they want us to leave, we have no other choice but to leave.
 
Kristol, Kagan and all foreign policy experts knew that control of central asia was/is the most important foreign policy goal of the 21st century. They knew that the survival of the U.S. as it currently exists is dependent upon our ability to control that area. That's why we're there and for no other reason.
 
Would you agree with this paragraph from The March to War...?

"The NATO and Anglo-American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly tied to September 11, 2001.

"These events are also related to the military threats directed against Iran and Syria, the tensions in Lebanon and East Africa, as well as U.S. and NATO threats directed against China and Russia.

"In this regard, the historians of the future may say that World War III could have started on September 11, 2001 or that the tragic events on September 11, 2001 were a prelude to World War III."
No, I do not. I agree Afghanistan is tied to 9/11. Saddam's ass kicking was of his own design.

We've been "at odds" with Iran and Syria long before 9/11, so how can you suddenly blame 9/11 for the tensions?

If there is tension in Lebanon and East Africa, that is news to me.

As for Russia and China, :lol: What threats are we directing at them?

georgephillip said:
Which do you think most likely?

WWIII started on 9/11/2001 or that 9/11 was a prelude to WWIII?

Neither. I believe the article posted is nothing but fearmongering and pretty piss poor fearmongering at that.
"“When we convince the American people that it will be a long war.”

--Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, after the 9/11/2001 attacks, answering a reporter's question, “How will we know when we've won the war on terror?”

Saddam sealed his fate when he went off the reservation and into Kuwait; however, his party would never have come to power in Iraq without our help. As long as he did what he was told his methods didn't matter to Republicans and Democrats alike. As long as he served US interests of control of Middle Eastern resources, Saddam could do no evil.

"The real reason for the Long War that Rumsfeld – and now Obama – wished to promote, stretched back deep into the twentieth century.

"During World War II the US State Department described the Mideast is the 'most strategically important area of the world,' and the area's vast energy resources – oil and natural gas – as 'a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.'

"In the years since then, oil companies and their associates have reaped colossal profits; but, even more importantly to the US, control over two-thirds of the world’s estimated hydrocarbon reserves – uniquely cheap and easy to exploit – provides what Obama's foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski called 'critical leverage' over European and Asian rivals, what the State Department many years earlier had called 'veto power' over them."

Minion of the Long War

Saddam's ass kicking and lynching were just two more minor plot points in a US foreign policy narrative that was put in play before either one of us was born.

War is a Racket
 
I would say your overly optimistic!

I honestly don't think so. Osama stated in captured writings that he was hoping to start a world war between Islam and the West. His hope was that Islam would rise up against everyone else and that this would be the start of world rule by Islam.

It didn't happen.

I don't think it is going to happen.

Why? Because we're already out of Iraq. Iraq is now better off and so are it's neighbors. Many moderate Muslims consider Afghanistan to be better off without the Taliban in power.

It is hard to get Muslims worked up about the West when the West is not abusing Muslims as much as Muslims are. We (the West) aren't going around blowing up Mosques. Muslims are.

And the West didn't have the uprising against Muslims that Osama was hoping for either. He was hoping for a backlash against Muslims for 9/11, but most people understand the difference between whacked out Muslim psychos who believe in killing all non-Muslims and their neighbors, coworkers, fellow Americans, fellow sane human beings.

It's been almost ten years since 9/11. There may still be a world war, but I would look to North Korea as a much more likely instigator than a "clash of civilizations" fueling the flames of WWIII.
 
Iraq is a sovreign country. We are there at their insistance. If / when they want us to leave, we have no other choice but to leave.
If the Shi'ite majority of Iraq elects Iranian proxies in some future sovereign Iraqi election, will the USAF cease patrolling Iraqi airspace?

Who is going to force the US to make any choice it doesn't choose to make?

Will the US voluntarily abandon its huge embassy and military bases if Muqdata al-Sadr insists?
 
Kristol, Kagan and all foreign policy experts knew that control of central asia was/is the most important foreign policy goal of the 21st century. They knew that the survival of the U.S. as it currently exists is dependent upon our ability to control that area. That's why we're there and for no other reason.
NATO may have plans for Change with a really big "C" in the Mediterranean Basin. Israel's frequent forays into Lebanon indicate to some an attempt by western powers to redraw many borders in the Middle East in ways the majority of people living there probably will not agree with.

From World Geopolitics and...

"PART III
"The Mediterranean Union: The Emergence of a New Order and the Battle for the Mediterranean

"In PART I of this study, the long-term plans for creating a Mediterranean Union, which predate Nicolas Sarkozy by many years, were revealed as were U.S. and E.U. efforts to turn the Middle East and North Africa into free-trade zones and economic territories.

"The implementation of what is now called the 'Union of the Mediterranean' was a project planned through the 1995 Barcelona Process and the U.S. Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA).

"Also discussed were Franco-German plans for extending the borders of the European Union in synchronization with the 'Global War on Terror.' The case of Libya was also discussed to expose the economic agendas of the E.U. and America.

"Finally the earlier portion of this text also confirmed the roles of Germany and the European Union as a whole in establishing the Mediterranean Union.

"In PART II of the text, NATO expansion in the Mediterranean Basin was discussed through NATO’s 'Mediterranean Dialogue' and its 'Mediterranean Initiative' as a means of paving the way for E.U. expansion and control. The process follows the same steps as NATO and E.U. expansion in Eastern Europe.

"The projection for the inclusion of Israel in the E.U. and NATO were also addressed, as well as the role of securing energy resources and markets in the Middle East and North Africa."

Some believe the latest Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 could have easily spiraled into global conflict.

From the March to War:

"It is clear that a World War III scenario was possible in 2006.

"The Israeli attack on Lebanon could have expanded into Syria.

"This would have seen Iranian intervention, which would have seen the U.S. and NATO entering the war to come to the aid of Tel Aviv as combatants.

"This could have resulted in a dangerous global war scenario arising from the Middle East, which will be examined later."

It's hard to believe those who've gotten rich for generations from war and debt will ever voluntarily turn away from Empire and its Great Game, particularly as the global economy crashes and burns for 99% of humanity.
 
I would say your overly optimistic!

I honestly don't think so. Osama stated in captured writings that he was hoping to start a world war between Islam and the West. His hope was that Islam would rise up against everyone else and that this would be the start of world rule by Islam.

It didn't happen.

I don't think it is going to happen.

Why? Because we're already out of Iraq. Iraq is now better off and so are it's neighbors. Many moderate Muslims consider Afghanistan to be better off without the Taliban in power.

It is hard to get Muslims worked up about the West when the West is not abusing Muslims as much as Muslims are. We (the West) aren't going around blowing up Mosques. Muslims are.

And the West didn't have the uprising against Muslims that Osama was hoping for either. He was hoping for a backlash against Muslims for 9/11, but most people understand the difference between whacked out Muslim psychos who believe in killing all non-Muslims and their neighbors, coworkers, fellow Americans, fellow sane human beings.

It's been almost ten years since 9/11. There may still be a world war, but I would look to North Korea as a much more likely instigator than a "clash of civilizations" fueling the flames of WWIII.
Do you think we'll still have bases and personnel in Iraq 65 years from now, as we do today in Korea and Japan?
 
I honestly don't think so. Osama stated in captured writings that he was hoping to start a world war between Islam and the West.
His hope was that Islam would rise up against everyone else and that this would be the start of world rule by Islam.
Al Qaeda has been created by the state terrorists that control Washington, London, and Tel Aviv because it needed a threat to occupy peoples minds and scare them into acquiescence. It doesn't matter that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq, and very few in Afghanistan, as long as people were kept afraid and clueless, it served its purpose. Where could one learn about the captured writings, I looked and can't find anything.

It didn't happen.
Because it was made up, to ramp up the fear mongering. "If the Soviet Union were to disappear off the face of the map, the United States would quickly seek out new enemies to justify its own military-industrial complex."-John Stockwell, a top former CIA officer.

I don't think it is going to happen.
Why? Because we're already out of Iraq.
No we're not. There are still thousands of troops remaining until next year

Iraq is now better off and so are it's neighbors.
Now that is just a plain ignorant thing to say. Prior to the US invasion slum population in Iraq was around 20%, now its 53%. Unemployment runs 25 to 50%. A dysfunctional government, rampant disease and mental disorders. Oil production isn't even up to pre war levels. Power supply woes, and only 1 in 4 households have access to tap water in their homes. Yeah so much better off :cuckoo:

It is hard to get Muslims worked up about the West when the West is not abusing Muslims as much as Muslims are. We (the West) aren't going around blowing up Mosques. Muslims are.
There are reports that Iran is accusing US and Israel of the mosque bombing.
Iran Mosque Blast Plotters Admit Israeli, Us Links: Report - ShiaChat.com

And the West didn't have the uprising against Muslims that Osama was hoping for either. He was hoping for a backlash against Muslims for 9/11, but most people understand the difference between whacked out Muslim psychos who believe in killing all non-Muslims and their neighbors, coworkers, fellow Americans, fellow sane human beings.
Bill o Reilly screaming out "Muslims Killed us on 9/11!"
followed by another Fox anchor Brian Kilmeade "All terrorists are Muslims." No backlash? Bullshit, the backlash was severe enough to cause wars, deaths and turmoil and racial profiling here and other western nations that made life hard for people of the Muslim religion and anybody that even resembled Arab or middle eastern ethnicity. OBL, a CIA creation was the perfect boogey man villain to help their cause. Conspiracy theorists still think Al-Qaeda Did 9/11, LOL!
 
Iraq is a sovreign country. We are there at their insistance. If / when they want us to leave, we have no other choice but to leave.
If the Shi'ite majority of Iraq elects Iranian proxies in some future sovereign Iraqi election, will the USAF cease patrolling Iraqi airspace?

Who is going to force the US to make any choice it doesn't choose to make?

Will the US voluntarily abandon its huge embassy and military bases if Muqdata al-Sadr insists?
Why of course, because the US would never interfere with the decisions of a sovereign nation! :bs1:
 
georgephillip said:
Which do you think most likely?

WWIII started on 9/11/2001 or that 9/11 was a prelude to WWIII?

Neither. I believe the article posted is nothing but fearmongering and pretty piss poor fearmongering at that.
You want to see fear mongering? Replay some of the bullshit they were saying in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq! The article sighted is a helluva lot more insightful and thought out then that shit!
 
I don't think we should ever believe everything any article tells us; however, since sites like GlobalResearch and CounterPunch on the left side of the spectrum operate without any corporate advertising this eliminates some of the incentive to lie about possible motives for crimes like the invasion of Iraq or the 911 cover up.

I don't really know if the right has similar sites or not?

Antiwar.com maybe.
 
None of us has crystal balls, but I'm betting on our children, if not us.



Stock Trading at Scottrade
Have you seen any credible estimates of the amount of corporate profit being realized from the War on Terror?

I'm not sure whether this represents a credible source, or not:

"What's wrong with this picture?
The world's lone superpower, fearful of being attacked by one of many real or perceived enemies, sets out to solve the problem by increasing weapon sales and military aid to the world.

"But the sales and aid aren't just made available to existing allies; indeed in the wake of Sept. 11th, the race is on to arm governments formerly considered unstable or otherwise 'off-limits' due to gross human rights violations, on grounds that these nations are assisting in the sweeping 'war against terrorism.'"

55 years ago, Einstein and Russell pointed out a choice that is still "stark and dreadful and inescapable:shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war."

WWIII might be strike three for our children and us.

Not to diminish the fact that this discussion needs to be happening for our kids to avoid a terrible pitfall, but the world 'might' get hit by an asteroid and a tsunami 'might' wipe out my entire state. My town 'might' be blown off the map by a hurricane, and I 'might' be struck by lightning.



Average saying: "A man who lives in fear of what 'might' happen will die a poor fool, but a man who looks for opportunity in what the future 'might' bring will prosper."

Nothing but death is 'inevitable', especially if we talk about it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top