Constructive thoughts on why we Will NOT have WWIII in ME? Anyone?

[KoKo]

What factors could be at play that would keep the ME from turning into a WWII? The only obstacles to the NeoCon plans that I can think of are:

Global Business Community: WWIII would not be good for "consumers."

China: Disruption in oil supply could hurt their economy also leading to less goods for the American Consumer.


Surely after the mess in Iraq there are "powers behind the scenes" who would be working to stop this...but who?

[H2O Man]

1. I think that

much of the world sees the current violence in the context of being part of what the necroconservatives have been advocating since 1992, and do not subscribe to the pretext that this is purely "self-defense."

[MissWaverly]

2. Second that, then there's the Caryle group

I am sure that they are not pleased, and Britain has now come out against the Israeli occupation
in Lebanon, Britain is really the only European ally we have that consistently support us. Then
we have Bush passive on Lebanon which was the democratic poster child for the Middle East and
he is silent on the suffering of the Christian's there.

[Solly Mack]

5. Yes

I operate on the rather safe assumption that deals are cut behind the scene that alter the lives of
people.(Duh, right?) The end game is what matters to those making the deals - the people dying or harmed are inconsequential (though they will be dressed up as heroic corpses for the cause) It's in the end game that the full picture is seen best.


Governments make for some harsh, cruel realist. They know in a hundred years, it won't matter...for them anyway. They'll be dead - but if the government survives regardless of how it survives - they'll take that and call it a win. People see how in 100 years the exact same causes for war will be there if a honest solution isn't found now, and as war harms the people the most, that's what people react to. Government isn't interested in stopping wars, just in stopping the demise of their governments.(the "way of life" argument..'cept governments don't mean "the people's" way of life...governments see themselves as the way of life)


I see a lot of manipulation from all sides. I see a lot of people falling for that manipulation too.

And while it is simple to say "deals cut behind closed doors", the full implication of such a simple belief isn't simple at all.

but what the fuck do I know...

that said...I don't see WWIII on the horizons. Deals are being cut as I type...

[Dems Will Win]

17. Hi H20 Man. I'm Back! -- And this is Genocide Approved By Cheney

I think it is now clear that the Israelis are ethnically cleansing the Shia from Lebanon and that they have the green light to enact a 3 -week plan that was vetted by the US before the pretext of the kidnapped soldiers came along.

This is a few week to several-week war to level southern Lebanon and south Beirut and then the Israelis will occupy Southern Lebanon as a militarized buffer zone for years. They want the Hizbollah OUT.

Michael Kalman: "More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail."

As Juan Cole notes, Bush's aside to Blair on the Shiite shit shows that Cheney and Rumsfeld never briefed him on the Israeli plan! They are running foreign policy without involving the numbskull.

Understandable as you have to repeat everything 47 times and that can be really annoying.


By the way, here are the pictures of dead Lebanese civilians not being shown on American TV or newspapers:













More: http://fromisrael2lebanon.info/

This is genocide, and the President of the United States has given the Israeli right-wing killers a green light. Or rather Cheney has.

Wouldn't you agree, old friend?

[H2O Man]

19. Hello!

It is a Slaughter of Innocents. And it is as closely related to Cheney's shadow government as a left hand to a right.

[GeorgeGist]

3. I think it would take a superpower to start WW3 ...

and as Bush has aptly demonstrated the US is no longer a superpower.

If the ME erupts into a regional war, I think the WORLD will put an end to it.

[The Magistrate]

4. No Such Thing Will Trigger Off Of This, Ma'am

This is a local matter, and will not expand beyond the current active players. Nasrallah acted on his own, and his patrons in Tehran and Damascus would just as soon he had not done what he has. Israel has no interest in destroying either the Syrian army or governemnt: indeed, doing the first would produce hte second, and the Ba'athist regime there is far easier for Israel to deal with than the chaotic condition, dominated by Moslem Brothers, it collapse would produce. Israel has no real means of attacking Iran. The United taes shares Israel's attitude towards Syuria, and despite the great postures of aggressiveness, a U.S. attack on Iran would be an incredible blunder, the first effects of which would be felt in Iraq, where the Shia populace would turn on the occupation force as one man, and literally triple the difficulties besetting U.S. troops there.

[KoKo]

11. but....it could get "out of hand."

would you agree that the "best laid plans of mice and men often go awry?"

I am much more fearful than you about this. I hope what you say is the truth of it...but so much "rumbling" and "dissention" might change the equation the world over. :shrug:

[yurbud]

6. although business interests backing Bush want it, military & CIA don't

If it got to the point that those two were certain some Bush action would trigger World War III or permanently cripple our ability to defend ourselves, either by depleting our military or increasing our enemies, they could either throw a monkey wrench in the works or just say no.

[KoKo]

7. kick for more opinions on Stopping WWIII.. We need HOPE and we

have many DU'ers who can give opinions with info.. that many of us can't even think about or know about...because the news is SO Depressing!

I meant this as a "constructive, hopeful thread." Because so many of us are having nightmares.

[oasis]

8. World opinion will be the ultimate arbiter. A demand that all parties

negotiate a peaceful solution will be constantly echoed by the international media.

The world hasn't the patience to wait for Bush/Condi to solve the problem. (They ARE the problem).

[KoKo]

10. I like to think that American Public..will see this as Katrina and before

that "9/11 Vacillation" where Bush took to the skies to avoid a major issue and allowed with "9/11" Blair and Guiliani to voice his concerns in an "eloquent way" while NYC BURNED. While New Orleans FLOODED!

I like to think that the American People will "connect the dots" of Bushies "standing by" like Roman Emperor Neru...whild "Rome Burned" composting poetry and playing his "fiddle." (current revisionist History reports on Neru is that he really "got" what was going on...but had "bad press) ...I say :wtf: because it's the "analogy" to an "Emperor ignoring his populace" that's the "IMPORTANT" part of the Neru Story.

So...we all know folks who "fiddled with the knitting" while horrible tragedies went on before their "eyes." So...whatever the analogy...Bush II is a DREADFUL/EVIL MAN who can't see the "Forest for the individual trees in his way."

Shouldn't folks be Very Alarmed and Upset over BUSH II at this point...no matter the Historical Analogies which may be "true or not?" :shrug:

[Marie26]

9. I don't think it's WWIII

Really. So I'm sleeping easier. The more I learn, the more it seems like a regional Arab/Israeli conflict that won't extend beyond the immediate countries of Lebanon & Israel. But I do worry a little that Bushco. could seize this as an opportunity to attack Iran. The solution will probably involve the UN or NATO stepping in to negotiate a cease-fire & establish a multi-national peacekeeping force - cause you know Bush won't do a thing to help end this.

[Emit]

12. I'm sorry

I cannot give any constructive thoughts as to why we won't have a huge conflict with the direction this is all heading. It seems the more I read, coupled with all that I've discovered over the preceding 6 years, just leads me to believe that this is exactly what Bush & Co. have been gunning for all along, from day one. Seems they think an all out confrontation will be the only way to address the problem in the ME once and for all.

That's just my opinion, though, and I'm certainly no expert.

[KoKo]

15. I know...the Bushbots think all "clear sailing with their policies" BUT!

there are "Poll Numbers" which give a better "wind" to his dissenters right now. Which way the wind blows and who is commanding the sails to take advantage might just be the "Tipping Point" with Bush/Cheney II and their FAILED POLICIES driven by Idealogues who aren't grounded with the REST OF US AMERICAN PEOPLE.

They have reached beyond their capabilities? Or Not?

[Emit]

16. Maybe it's just my piss poor mood today

But before you even responded, I considered adding on edit the fact that so far, Bush & Co. have gotten pretty much EVERYTHING they've wanted, have they not? I'm also reading John Dean's latest, Conservatives Without Conscience, where he highlights various authoritarians in the Bush cabal, and summarizes where they have succeeded. Most of the info he has in the book is common knowledge here at DU, but seeing it all in one concise book has left me feeling rather defeated at the moment.

The dissenters do not matter right now to the powers that be. And while a change in the majority of either houses in congress will alleviate matters somewhat, there are other forces that will not be readily changed. One major factor is that with the birth of Bush & Co. we have experienced a major change in foreign policy. For years, we addressed foreign policy issues with a realistic approach -- authoritative in nature.


With Cheney et al in control right now, they have successfully managed to implement their authoritarian moralistic foreign policy. We no longer have a rational, realist approach to foreign policy. With Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney and many others, we now have what's called a 'moralistic' foreign policy approach based on Straussian philosophy -- rather Machiavellian really. When we moved full force from a more rational, realist approach (recall Kissinger and detente) to a moralistic approach, it took us out of the realm of honest broker because we are now judging countries based on "Good vs Evil." We're (US and Israel) good, the Arabs/Islamists are evil -- and this allows Bush & Co. to wage war not based on how a country acts in their own best interest but instead on moral judgments. I see this policy change instigated and driven by the Military Industrial Complex and neoconservatives, and supported by many other authoritarian followers.

Here's some further discussion on what I'm getting at from a Frontline interview, with the author of Rise of the Vulcans, James Mann:

~snip~

What does it mean, this particular strain of conservatism that Wolfowitz attaches himself to?

Strauss is a refugee from Germany and the Nazi regime, and he argues that there's a fundamental moral difference between dictatorships and democracies. His hero is Winston Churchill for standing up to Hitler. And in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as an evil empire, Alan Bloom, Wolfowitz's teacher, cites that as a great example of being willing to make moral judgments. And the critique by the conservatives is that somehow the modern era has lost sight of moral judgments. So there's a whole school of conservative philosophy that centers around dictatorships vs. democracy or moral judgments, good vs. evil.


~snip~

They share a political philosophy which is more Kissinger-like than it is Scoop Jackson-like. Are they realists?

The real realists are Henry Kissinger and the people working for him. What counts in foreign policy is that each country is going to represent its own national interest. You don't want to get too idealistic in the sense of President Woodrow Wilson. Governments are not supposed to push for democratic ideals. They're supposed to represent their own interest, and what counts is a balance of power. That produces stability.

And the critique of that from the neoconservatives is "Well, so what about morality? Do we want to negotiate an agreement with the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union is itself not only not democratic; it's a repressive country. Why should we help them by negotiating agreements with them?" ...

Out of Vietnam, you get these three schools. The first is liberal Democrats: Let's set limits on American power. There's the Kissinger wing: Let's negotiate arms control with the Soviet Union that will preserve American influence, because we're worried about a loss of influence after Vietnam. The neoconservatives: Let's just build up American power and invoke democratic ideals in dealing with the Soviet Union, and argue that they're the evil empire.

~snip~

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/interviews/mann.html


Simultaneously, we also have in our country a movement toward Christian Nationalism (There was a frightening article posted earlier --http://www.alternet.org/story/38830/ -- and here at DU many have posted about this movement labeled as Christian Dominionists, Reconstructionists, etc.). Call it what you will, but it is funded by the right and in some cases the religious right(see: http://www.mediatransparency.org/conservativephilanthropy.php ) and many of the reps we have in congress and the senate are adherents to this religiosity (see: http://www.theocracywatch.org/#Dominionist )

These are scary times. These people are playing for keeps.

[MGD]

13. "WW III" is a subjective term.

It means different things in different minds. It is clear that much of the world is clearly at war again; however, considering that WW I cost the lives of about 15 million people and WW II cost the lives of roughly 60 million people, the current world turmoil appears to be, IMO, not even close to WW III. That is not to say, however, that we are not setting the stage for a much greater conflict in the future. What's more, I am of the belief that you can't call it WW III until the nuclear weapons come into play. Others may disagree with that however because, as I said, it's a subjective term with different meaning to different people.

[Arkham House]

14. Before 1914, "everyone knew" that war was impossible--

--international capital and the ease of movement--only Russia had passports--made war impossible...or the International Socialist Movement would make war impossible...or they'd all go bankrupt after six months...eyc, etc, etc, as nauseum. The war did come, and wasn't stopped, despite every rational reason for a compromise peace. People are just not rational, and the situation in the Middle East is insanely dangerous...I hope you're right...but am afraid you're not...

[blues90]

18. i wish i had something profound and positive to add

it seems to me that this is the path bush and the admin have been headed on . I look back to when he got in office with stolen elections twice . Well right there is a determined plan that they have no intent on changing their minds about .

When I consider how this murder in Iraq began and continues and what they allowed to happen in New Orleans and still look at the state they are both in . This would never have happened before bush took his position and this you can't discount . I will just use these two examples and based off this I fear they are going to do whatever it takes to reach what their goal is . I don't see how we can stop it now . I do hope I'm wrong . I just don't have enough information and I'm no expert . It's almost as if they have by some grand design assessed the population of certain countries including the USA , broken this down into what area produces the most off the resourses and just where the money can be made of something like this . Then either through a plan put into play or a natural disaster they decide the outcome and include all players . The plan seems to be to root out all the unproductive spots and eliminate these . It could be to save natural resources for the population they represent or deem viable .

Why would all the programs set up to help the public or common folk be destroyed and this includes the poor who make up the bulk of the military , they have yet to have the proper equipment and look at how they are treated with pay and benefits , A clear indication if anything that the poor or common folk mean nothing and the troops are there to guard their interests not to spread freedom , that is a pacifier to keep the population from collective mass uprising . If the major population knew this were fact then don't you think they would realize they have nothing left to loose . It would spiril out of control , they desire control if not for an easy route then for the sake of having control giving them a personal sick madman pleasure .

We are all well aware we are over populated and resources are at risk and they also know this . look what man does when there is a drought and the herds will all die , they have selective kills .

I'm certain it's much more complicated than this , it is the basic idea that those in control feel they have at their command .

[Just Me]

20. Sure. The world won't allow it.

That's all.

Doesn't mean those "crazies" won't try. They haven't the "right" to create WWIII, they do have the power,...but only to the degree that the rest of the world will participate.

These are aweful times.

[Emit]

21. Who started the WWIII meme?

And why?

Yesterday, Sarah shed some light on the recent wingnut debates over whether we're fighting World War III or IV or XII or whatever. She noted a possible connection between the ramblings of Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, John McCain and others, and Hagee's bloodthirsty ideology:

Hagee has spent the past six months mobilizing popular support for a war with Iran. Based on his end-times prophecy … and false claims that Iran is just months away from a viable nuclear weapon, Hagee maintains that confrontation with Iran is necessary to fulfill God's plan for the future of the world.


While it hardly seems like a sound basis for foreign policy, as the violence between Israel and Hezbollah escalates at the Israel-Lebanon border and beyond, Hagee's view of Iran's central role in a world-altering showdown seems to be catching on.<…>


The Jerusalem Post reported this week that remarks by Newt Gingrich and John McCain that the Israel-Lebanon violence marks the beginning of World War III have their roots in Hagee's book. Knesset member Benny Elon told the Post that Gingrich and McCain "said this because they think it will lead to Iran getting involved, which they believe will set off World War III,'" adding that their "comments originated with American evangelist John Hagee." As Hagee and his minions from CUFI descend on Washington this week to lobby Congress, armed with Hagee talking points claiming that Iran will have a nuclear weapon in six months, could it be a coincidence? <…>

It certainly could be. But think about Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation, a phrase with distinctly different meanings for those hanging around waiting impatiently for Armageddon and those of us who aren't all that keen on meeting our maker anytime soon. Preachers like Hagee seem easy to ignore because we think their audiences, while vast, consists of rank-and-file religious extremists who have no real sway over American policy-makers. But Benny Elon's statement shows that Hagee does have such influence. That's the important point. I couldn't care less about what people believe or what they worship -- it doesn't touch me at all -- but when people like Hagee, people who are trying to bring about the end of the world, get a seat at the table and can push for a war that any dolt can see would be disastrous, that's an imminent threat to the republic.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/39264/

Also note who perpetuates it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1691584

[pitohui]

22. because it's bad for business

same reason we haven't had global thermonuclear war for the last 60 years...

[ourbluenation]

23. Because fatima and nostradomus didn't predict it.

:rofl: