WORLD WAR III NEWS, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2006 AD


 Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > WORLD WAR III NEWS, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2006 AD

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1
 
Topic: Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User: "=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjUwMCBEYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?="
Date: 11 Feb 2006 09:38:34 PM
Object: WORLD WAR III NEWS, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2006 AD
The Dawning of World War III?
Christopher Knowles
February 6, 2006
Issues
There was a troubling turn of events in international affairs last week
concerning the French. On Thursday, January 19th, French President
Jacques Chirac announced that France would be ready to use nuclear
weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist act against it.
By any state, he was conspiciously directing his statement towards Iran
who has been recently developing higher grade (weapon grade) uranium.
Chirac went on to make some bold claims about the nature of terrorism
in the modern day world.
Chirac was quoted as claiming that state-sponsered terrorism has
replaced the threats of the Cold War era and because of that, France's
nuclear program should reverse their position of deterrency and move
towards production, research, and development of nuclear tactics.
Chirac went on to alarm his people by stating that, "In numerous
countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a confrontation of
civilizations." In short, he is drawing ideological battle lines that
could lead to nuclear war; a war in which the United States, Great
Britain, North Korea, Iraq, Germany, Israel, and China could
potentially become involved.
Johnny get your gun.
Thankfully, there has been some condemnation of Chirac's stance by an
important anti-nuclear group within France, the Sortir du Nucleaire.
The group released a statement reprimanding Chirac's threat to use
nuclear weapons as irresponsible. In addition to the Sortir du
Nucleaire's stance, Ivan Oelrich, a nuclear physicist at the
Washington-based Federation of American Scientists was quoted as
saying, "That's exactly the kind of message we should not be sending to
the Iranians; that nuclear weapons are a vital part of our defense and
I'm going to use them in response to a terrorist attack." Ivan is
intelligent enough to forsee the devastating implications of a move
towards nuclear retalation.
So what does this mean for you and I? What is the future from here on
out? Obviously, this could go many ways. If one is to be optimistic,
the outcome could be much like another Cold War in which negotiations
are made and little battles are fought, but there is never a realized
nuclear assault. However, since the United States, Great Britain, and
France have decided to refuse to comprimise with terrorist groups, this
may very well take a turn for the worse. And what does "worse" mean
here?
Well, as I was discussing this last semester with my War and Society
professor, a third World War is by no means out of the question. The
fact is, the United States is already at war against that vague
guerilla fighter "terrorism" and more explicitily Iraq. As is becoming
increasingly evident, we are drawing battle lines with both Iran and
North Korea. The pattern is as clear as the pattern was with the first
Korean War, Vietnam, the first Iraq war, and the second Iraq war. And
it is obviously not only us, but our allies France and Britain (this is
hauntingly like the ally structure in both World Wars), that are
drawing these identical battle lines. Add into the picture that the
United States and Great Britiain HAVE to protect Israel, and you've got
a nice little recipe for obliteration soup sprinkled with more than a
hint of nuclear spice. I say this partly to mock the politicians that
continue to put you and I in harms way. I want to live in France one
day and I don't want to see it bombed to pieces. I want to live in a
safe and free America, another country I love.
My stance is that there has to be other ways to solve differences of
opinion besides using nukes. Not only does it not solve anything, but
it simpy makes us stoop to a "terrorist's" level, perhaps go even
lower. As we all know, we are fighting wars to protect and somehow
spread "democracy" yet day by day, democracy is being stolen from the
American people. So who are we really fighting? What ideologies are we
trying to stamp out? Ones of repression, the taking of civil liberties,
the use of terror? I don't necessarily see a difference between what we
are and what we are fighting except that maybe there is more money and
technology on our side, but even that is fleeting.
To me it is kinda like a relationship, you have to be strong yourself
before you can possible work well with anyone else. Both France and the
United States have certainly been having their fair share of domestic
issues lately, and perhaps this ongoing war with terrorism takes away
from the problems at home.
As Noam Chomsky (a favorite author of mine) once said, "The funny thing
about fighting terrorism is that to fight the terrorist, you must train
your mind to become the terrorist[...]you become the terrorist yourself
in order to seek out where terror lies in order to command its
forces[...]soon, you no longer know who the terrorist is and who the
terrorist isn't."
----------------------------------------------
Parallels Between Iran and Pre-War Iraq
By Rasool Nafisi, Washington DC
Iran is not Iraq, and the year 2006 is not the same as year 2003 for
George Bush; but one cannot stop wondering about the uncanny
similarities between Iraq at the verge of war, and the present state of
affairs in Iran. Parallels are abound:
Ahmadinejad's administration, helped by the United States and the EU,
has managed to isolate Iran internationally. Only three countries, all
third and fourth rate powers, voted against the IAEA reporting of Iran
to the Security Council. Iraq experienced a similar isolation in the
period ending with war.
Clamp down on internal opposition is on the increase, and the IRI is
becoming increasingly a univocal system. Autocracy was also in full
swing in Iraq before the war.
Iranian dissidents feed their selective information and analyses into
government agencies and powerful think tanks in DC, and get coverage
from major networks. This is reminiscent of the role of Ahmad Chalabi
and his cohorts in convincing America before its invasion of Iraq.
Ahmadinejad sounds increasingly defiant. For example, in a recent
speech, ridiculing the IAEA resolution, he said the resolution was
meant to open the Iranian military sites to the Western spies for an
estimate of the country's military capability (which might be true).
The tenor of these intransigent statements is similar to the Iraqi
communiqu=C3=A9s in the last three years before the war.
Ahmadinejad and his supporters talk frequently about their strategic
strength in the Middle East. They feel they have the majority of
Muslims behind them. They tend to forget that during the heydays of the
revolution, with the exception of arms smugglers, Iranians had no
allies in their war against Iraq. They ignore the fact that Iranians
are Persian Shi'ites, and Sunni Arabs have never taken them into
fellowship of Muslims. As of today, all Arabs including Syria take Iran
for an imperialistic power in the Persian Gulf, which has illegally
seized three islands from the Arabs. Iran at best is perceived as a
rival (if not an enemy and aggressor) by its neighbors, and its decline
will make them more happy than sad.
Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli rhetoric might have been intended to gain
support from the Muslim masses, which indeed might have. However, aside
from some demonstrations and embassy burnings, gaining active support
from the Islamists in the region in a likely war against Iran is a
different matter altogether. Balance of forces in the region is such
that even the most radical groups are busy establishing a foothold in
their own national politics. For example, both Hamas and the Iraqi
Shi'ite leadership, the two allies that paid homage to Ahmadinejad
recently, are hard at work to benefit from the democracy game in their
home countries. Hamas is trying to form a government and would need
financial and political support from the West. The Iraqi Shi'ites are
also enjoying the lion's share of the state in Iraq and would need the
backing of the U.S. forces for some times to come. The only remaining
force is Hezballah of Lebanon, who has proved to be quite reasonable
and calculating at the times of risk and danger. It seems that Iranians
are making the same miscalculation as Saddam, who counted on the
support from the Arab nationalists, a support that never materialized.
Ahmadinejad and some of the military leaders refer to the "lightening
speed" and retaliatory power of the Iranian military. The reference is
most probably to Iran's large stockpile of Shahab III. Saddam and his
military leaders also talked with the same hyperbolical language about
their "secret" weapons before the war.
On the other hand, the purported Iranian military strategy of sinking
ships at the mouth of Persian Gulf and attacking Israel with Shahab III
barrages, will definitely backfire and damages Iran the most. Those who
advocate such strategy conveniently forget that this will primarily cut
off Iran from the rest of the world, and hamper its oil exports. A
stoppage of gasoline import alone would create massive unemployment and
shortages, and a total halt of traffic and transportation in a country
with little public transit capability. Sadly, this echoes the
"scorched-earth" strategy of Saddam, and his exaggerated estimate of
his military power.
Ahmadinejad seems to be out of touch with reality at times. For
example, he said, and later denied, that he was surrounded by a "halo"
at the UN meeting. Ahmadinejad in this respect is closer to the former
Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahaf, than to Saddam
himself. However, a Tariq Aziz is missing in his administration. A few
days before the war, Aziz said realistically that only a "miracle"
could save Iraq from war. Nobody has said that yet in Iran, possibly
because they have the emissary of God among them, and he can stop a
likely confrontation by a decree at the eleventh hour. May be this is
the assigned role of the Supreme Leader who has lately been
uncharacteristically silent. He can invoke the "expediency" principle
and embrace the IAEA resolution. The late Ayatollah Khomeini surprised
everyone when he accepted the UN resolution 598 for a ceasefire with
Iraq. This time though accepting the resolution of the IAEA might prove
to be more difficult. It could lead to other demands such as
elimination of delivery systems capable of carrying nuclear weapons
(such as Shahab III); a clause already embedded in the IAEA resolution.
Such a demand of course would meet resistance from Iranians, and make
the emulation of Ayatollah Khomeini's act of drinking "the challis of
poison" even harder, and a compromise less reachable.
About the author: The author is the professor of sociology of
development at Strayer University, Washington DC. Nafisi contributes to
the VOA, BBC, NPR, and the RFERL.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
'Assad may attack if pressure escalates'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 9, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
If Syrian President Bashar Assad continues to feel threatened by the
United States and the rest of the international community, he may be
pushed into a corner and decide to fire missiles at Israel, senior IDF
officers from Northern Command warned this week.
According to a report released late last year by the Jaffee Center for
Strategic Studies, Syria had an estimated 45 missile launchers and had
probably assembled a few Scud D rockets with a range of nearly 700
kilometers - a major threat to Israel because they can be armed with
chemical warheads. Last June, Israeli military sources confirmed that
Syria had test-fired three Scud missiles, despite Damascus's denials.
While Israel's border with Syria has been quiet since 1973, the
military's working assumption is that Israel's next war will be on the
northern front against Syria and Lebanon.
Israel, the IDF officers said, did not foresee a war with Syria in the
near future and had not noticed any changes in Syrian military
deployment along the northern border. But Assad's handling of
diplomatic affairs has the IDF worried.
Syria has been facing numerous pressures in recent months, including
the UN investigation into the murder of former Lebanese prime minister
Rafik Hariri that implicated Syrian Intelligence, and the criticism
voiced against the regime by former top Syrian officials.
"We are watching and following Syria very closely, since the missile
possibility exists," a senior officer told The Jerusalem Post. "Assad
might decide to copy Saddam Hussein and attack Israel if the pressure
on him escalates." Saddam fired missiles at Israel during the Gulf War
in 1991.
For now, the officer said, the IDF did not see a reason to change its
military deployment along the Syrian border. "We haven't changed
anything," the officer said. "But we are staying alert and using our
intelligence services to stay on top of anything that might happen in
Syria that could have an impact on Israel."
While the Syrian border is quiet, Damascus has been behind attacks
against Israel carried out by its proxy - Hizbullah - on Israeli
military outposts in the North. According to intelligence assessments,
the Hizbullah attack on an IDF position in the northern village of
Ghajar in November was per Damascus's request. The IDF has put its
forces along the Lebanese border on heightened alert to offset any
attempts by Hizbullah to stir up tensions.
In December, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz publicly declared, "Syrian
attempts to divert attention away from the country may result in
heightened Hizbullah activity in the North."
"Assad is trying to relieve the pressure," one officer said this week.
"Hizbullah carries out the attack, steals the world's attention, and
the pressure is relieved."
Analysts cast doubt on the possibility that Assad would launch a
missile strike against Israel, saying that if he did, it would
definitely serve a death blow to his regime.
"Getting into a shooting match with Israel would not help his
situation," said Dr. Mark Heller, a senior research associate at the
Jaffee Center.
Yiftah Shapir, a former IDF Intelligence officer and a senior
researcher at the Jaffee Center, backed up Heller and claimed that
while Syria was armed with Scud missiles, they were not meant to be
used in an attack on Israel but to serve as a deterrent to an Israeli
attack and to balance the military powers in the region.
"No one can accurately predict what Assad has in his head and what he
will do," Shapir said. "Technically, he has the power to launch
missiles if he wants to, but the possibility is slim."
But if Assad were to make such a "mistake," Shapir said, "he knows
Israel's capabilities, and if a Scud falls here, Israel will respond
fiercely."
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.

User: "=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjUwMCBEYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?="

Title: Re: WORLD WAR III NEWS, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2006 AD 12 Feb 2006 08:05:22 PM
Chilling headlines when I picked up today's daily newspapers from my
driveway.....
In todays "Australian" (Monday, February 13, 2006) p.11,
"US Plans to hit Iran N-sites"
& in todays Melbourne "Herald Sun", p18 there is a photo of a Muslim
woman protester resplended in the full head gear carrying a plackard
which says "Be Prepared for the REAL Holocaust".........
Looks like the fan iz getting seriously overclogged, peoplez, & the Fat
Lady is ready to perform her Grand Finale Aria !!!!
This so-called "civilization" seems to be well & truly up sh!t creek
without the proverbial paddle !!!
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
=============
.

User: "=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjUwMCBEYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?="

Title: Re: WORLD WAR III NEWS, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2006 AD 12 Feb 2006 08:11:27 PM
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=48
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5922_1624083,0015002500000000.htm
.


  Page 1 of 1

1
 


Related Articles
 

NEWER
pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER