are we on the verge of world war 3?

Answer 1

Hillary Clinton says about the North korean problem>> "Part of the reason for these problems is the Bush administrations policy on the situation" HA! I feel that N. Korea won't do anything. I feel Iran and Syria may want to get more into the insurgency business by hiring their oppressed poor, including Afghanis. We will just keep fighting off insurgents. I have a good friend from Iran who thinks that if Iraqs economy picks up, as it should, without terrorism of innocent to stop it, Irans youth will want what Iraq has, lkie Afghanistan wants now too. He si presently, with paranoia, also buying Iraqi Dinar...lol Russia and China have too many oil, interests in iran to get DIRECTLY involved. Noone struck Israel when they fought back lebanon, that tells you something. Israel would crush Syria and Lebanon militarily, very quickly. Japan alone (besides us, Britain, S. Korea) would crush N. Korea. And Iran would be done within a month. My Irani friend said most Iranis secretly WANT a capatalistic society, but they don't want to get "sang-sarred" for saying so. <> It is my opinion that maybe some of the above mentioned may happen, but more than likely, the iraqi economy will just fluorish, and other countries will make threats so THEY can have a better economy too. Realize, they don't have what WE realize as even POLICE in Iran (the way we know it) or social security, or ALOT of things. Also, from EXTREMELY good sources, the death count of Iraqi since the war is around 50,000-sad-but compare that to our civil war. AND, look at what happened yesterday!!! Innocent teen girls and below age ten girls kidnapped and killed by terrorists???? HOW are these people dying? From direct orders of Oppressors, that's how. And how do they get them to do it?, not with religion. With promises. As soon as the oppressed terrorists figure out that REGARDLESS of religion, the promise of FREEDOM and PROSPERITY (food, water and non-oppressive leadership included) is ALOT longer lasting than a run and gun of innocents, they'll come around........but as to hillary's comment.......................... Bin Laden Invited to the White House?
Christopher Ruddy
Thursday, June 6, 2002
Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House!
Now that sounds more than far-fetched. And certainly President Bush would rather see bin Laden's head on a platter than to have him as a dinner guest.

But a senior former CIA agent who served in the Middle East for almost two decades fighting terrorists thinks that bin Laden may believe that, like fellow terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, he may find himself someday a guest of a future U.S. president.

This former CIA officer, Robert Baer, recently wrote the explosive book "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism."

Baer writes that when he sees Arafat "standing in the Rose Garden at the White House or when I hear that a CIA director has met privately with him at some desert tent, I wonder sometimes if Arafat's example doesn't make Osama bin Laden consider that he, too, might become a statesman in time."

Baer's point seems fantastic. However, we now know for a certainty that Arafat has masterminded and backed too many terrorist acts to count, from the Munich massacre to jet hijackings and worse.

A veteran of the Mideast, Baer knows Arafat. Baer writes that while "terrorist organizations operate like the most complicated interlocking directorate ever created," he discovered that many of the trails of these groups and their activities "converge at the feet of Yasser Arafat."

Yet today our liberal media prefer to describe Arafat as a freedom fighter. Baer's observations are deemed politically incorrect.

That may be one reason his book, with many important revelations, with a foreword by Seymour Hersh and published by Random House, has gotten such little media attention since it hit bookstores earlier this year.

Perhaps a companion book might have been titled: "Speak No Evil: Why A Veteran CIA Officer Should Keep His Mouth Shout About How Bill Clinton Undermined America's National Security."

While Baer fairly criticizes problems in the CIA and its handling of terrorism from the days of the Reagan and Bush administrations, he also clearly shows that the infrastructure of the CIA's ability to fight terrorism completely collapsed under Bill Clinton.

Here are just some of Baer's key points:

In 1991, the CIA closed up its activities in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. During the Clinton years things got even worse, when CIA operatives around the globe were directed away from spying on the bad guys and told to start worrying about "human rights, economic globalization, the Arab-Israel conflict." By 1995, the Clinton administration thought spy operations were so unimportant that a CIA analyst who had never served as a spy or even overseas was made director of operations, the CIA's chief spy.

Iran remains a major player in the terrorist world. Baer says that in 1982, Arafat "had put his entire worldwide terrorist network at Iran's disposal." Baer believes that the Iranians were clearly the culprits behind the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in the early 1980s. In 1996, bin Laden formed an alliance with Iran. The purpose of the alliance was simple: Attack America.

The Clinton White House's gross negligence and malfeasance was demonstrated by its handling of Saddam Hussein. Baer states that in 1995, top staffers at the National Security Council prevented a planned coup by Iraqi military leaders against Saddam Hussein. Baer was the top CIA man in Northern Iraq working with Iraqi dissidents.
Baer also reveals just how much the Clinton White House sought to protect Hussein.
In 1995 Baer was summoned by the CIA back from Iraq to Washington. Upon reporting to CIA headquarters, a CIA superior told him why he was called home: "Tony Lake [Bill Clinton's national security adviser] ordered the FBI to investigate you for trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein."

After months of investigation, the charges were found to be baseless and dropped.

Like many other CIA veterans who were thwarted from doing their jobs by their own government, Baer retired. Still, the CIA gave him due recognition. He was awarded its Career Intelligence Medal.

But the coddling of Hussein was not isolated to just targeting Baer and removing him from Iraq.

In fact, the Clinton White House clearly decided to keep and maintain Saddam Hussein in power. [Note: I suspected this back in 1998 and wrote about it in "Maybe Saddam Actually Likes Bill Clinton."]

In one of the most important revelations in "See No Evil," Baer reveals that Saddam Hussein might well have been deposed by his own troops, especially if the economic sanctions had been rigorously applied.

But with U.S. complicity, Saddam Hussein was able to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil by shipping them overland through NATO ally Turkey.

During the mid-'90s Baer says, the smuggled oil through Turkey "was a lifeline for Saddam, who used the money to fund his intelligence services and Special Republican Guards – the forces that kept him alive."

The pipeline of smuggled oil was no hidden, disputed fact. Baer reports the Iraqi oil trucks stretched back anywhere from 20 miles to 70 miles as they waited to cross into Turkey.

Baer was baffled. He writes, "What I couldn't understand was why the White House didn't intervene." He says the U.S. could easily have closed down the truck pipeline into Turkey.

"It was almost as if the White House wanted Saddam to have a little walking around money," Baer writes.

Baer concludes that the Clinton administration "helped Saddam pay for his praetorian guard, just what you'd expect of a clever superpower that was secretly supporting the local despot."

Why would Bill Clinton, our president, do such a thing? Why would he help Saddam Hussein at the very time his public rhetoric against him was so strong?

Nobody who has studied Bill Clinton should be surprised by his duplicity. The facts show, and future historians will discover, that Bill Clinton was no friend of the United States.

Answer 2

I think we are on the verge of a cold war again but I thought world war 3 last weekend when I wasnt too sure how China Russia and Japan would react to North Korea's Nuclear test. At this point I know it's not good.. the tension is enough to cut with a knife.. somethings gotta give!

Answer 3

Lets think about this

Are there 2 or more sides to the hostilities going on in the world?

Yes

Are governments choosing what side they will be on?

Yes

Is this conflict involving countries all over the world?

Yes

Are countries Involved building up their military?

from what i've heard some are

This kinda sounds like the start of a world war to me. We have enjoyed many years of relative peace. History shows that there have been major conflicts through out history, why should now be any different. The world has a whole hasn't really evolved much, just the technically advanced countries have. A large portion of the world still thinks in old world ways and can't seem to tolerate progress especially if they can't control it.

Answer 4

This answer is gng to be slightly different coz it is not pro-America. Well, US is the country who's trying to boss over the entire world right now- talk abt military power, weapons, trade agreements and what have we..Is it not natural for other nations to speak for upholding their individuality and dignity. Contrary to what they may think, US may not always make sense. They are the world super power today, but they should respect other nations as well..stop interfering, on the behest of being a rich and powerful country. Instead, US should constructively help all..Otherwise, World War 3 is not too far away..

Answer 5

It depends on what happens with Iran.

Other than that, no. The big countries are more interested in their economies, notably except for the US. They don't want an expensive & wasteful (false) war economy which would disrupt the real growth they are experiencing right now. Also, they are content to let the US exhaust its resources on the current conflicts while they invest in what really makes a country powerful - stong currency, industrial base, natural resources & infrastructure; the development of these has been woefully lacking in our war-distracted country.

Answer 6

this might properly be a moot factor, yet maximum historians assert that the chilly conflict became worldwide conflict III (which Reagan gained devoid of firing a shot). The Fourth worldwide conflict will initiate the midsection East.

Answer 7

Looks that way. There is a big buildup in the Eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf right now. Russia, China, Iran vs. NATO/US.

Read this...

http://www.connectfast.com/Nato-Roadmap.doc

and be prepared.

Answer 8

what about this scenario. Israel attacks Iran, Russia and china who depends on Iranian oil give harsh sanction against Israel, USA will obviously defend Israel and their fleet in the gulf will begin attacking iran. When these invaders are halfway to teheran, china and russia send their troops to defend their precious ally. In the middle of this mess, NKorea will invade SKorea and realize their dreams of unified korea. NKorea will attack Japan as well, with help of China, making east asia are fully controlled by anti-america block. Cannot acceot this, america start raining China and Russia with nuclears, and Russia return this by shelling america and its allies in Europe. Israel obviously will fire their nuclear indiscriminately into middle east countries, as they have no nuclear rival in this region. Having their holy land humiliated by Israel, muslims will fight back, except Pakistan who are hesitant to use their troops and nukes against israel. Pakistan without nukes is exactly what India wants, and Pakistan know this. Soon Pakistan forms an alliance with other muslim countries against India, and Pakistan promise it will join Middle east front soon after India's defeated.

Then who will win? Just to remind you, here is who against who
China, Russia, Iran, Arabs, NKorea, Pakistan, Muslim countries in Asia,etc vs USA, Israel, SKorea&Japan, pro-American Europes, India, etc

Answer 9

no the previous world wars involved major world powers. the current world powers have good relations with one another. the current conflicts involve third world countries.

Answer 10

Sooner than we think! I'd say, if drastic adjustments are not made by this country, two years away! The "sides" and "lines" are being drawn/chosen now!

Answer 11

No. The United States stands for reason, not force, and we will not stand by and allow religious dictators and their slaves to destroy us. The only war we have to worry about is shite like Iraq where we don't just fly overhead and bomb, bomb, bomb, until everyone agrees to stop fighting or the fighting stops when they're all dead.