@brownindian said:

Doesnt France have a very large muslim population? It will be interesting to see the response of both the French Muslims and the France govt.

Largest in western Europe.

WSS

@sadbrownsfan said:

more fuel to fire it seems:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/world/europe/france-mohammed-cartoon/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

And how exactly would they know the character in the cartoon resembled the prophet muhammed. There's no known images of him.

@sadbrownsfan said:

Now you just have me confused, you out right dismiss an article that was about a French magazine adding fuel to the protests in Libya by creating a new comic about mohammed, just b/c it was on CNN, so I provided you a link to a similar one from a different news source. Would you prefer I add a link from the bbc or other news organization?

I don't mean to confuse you.

And I don't completely dismiss the story.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Not really, why?

Has it seemed to you I've carried the Fox News banner here?

WSS

Now you just have me confused, you out right dismiss an article that was about a French magazine adding fuel to the protests in Libya by creating a new comic about mohammed, just b/c it was on CNN, so I provided you a link to a similar one from a different news source. Would you prefer I add a link from the bbc or other news organization?

@sadbrownsfan said:

Would you prefer to read it from Fox?

Not really, why?

Has it seemed to you I've carried the Fox News banner here?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Cartoon?

Actually it's more fuel for the notion that CNN really is carrying obama's water.

WSS

Would you prefer to read it from Fox?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/19/france-increases-security-at-some-its-embassies-after-magazine-publishes/

this is just more of the old / same palestinian tricks under Arafat, when you see a camera, grab a U.S or Israeli flag and burn it!

@sadbrownsfan said:

more fuel to fire it seems:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/world/europe/france-mohammed-cartoon/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Cartoon?

Actually it's more fuel for the notion that CNN really is carrying obama's water.

WSS

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/world/europe/france-mohammed-cartoon/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

@vaportrail said:

If Israel strikes Iran, I've heard they don't have the capability to eliminate the enrichment sites that are deep underground. Their aircraft simply don't carry bombs that are big enough. If Iran's nuclear capability is to be eliminated, then the US needs to be involved because we have these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator

That being said, if we attack them, we need to simultaneously strike their capabilities to launch missiles on targets in the region. I can't see this attack improving Western/Arabic relations, which is why I don't want the attack to happen, and I think it's a distinct possibility if Romney's in office.

You need to be more afraid of no strike.

I understand it is preferable to have to do nothing....but the time to make a call is here. It can't be ignored any longer, as much as some might hope.

@fairhooker11 said:

Im sure that they (Israel ) have what we have... the bunker buster

No, they don't. That bomb is designed specifically for the B-2 Spirit. I don't think anything else can carry it and we don't sell those to our allies. The bunker busters that other planes use are not powerful enough, namely because the aircraft aren't big enough to hold a 32,000 pound bomb.

@fairhooker11 said:

Im sure that they (Israel ) have what we have... the bunker buster

If not I hope we make sure they have some before the strike, if it is going to happen.

of which I wouldn't bet a lot of money.

WSS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator

That being said, if we attack them, we need to simultaneously strike their capabilities to launch missiles on targets in the region. I can't see this attack improving Western/Arabic relations, which is why I don't want the attack to happen, and I think it's a distinct possibility if Romney's in office.

@the-cysko-kid said:

World war three would be a misnomer perhaps because there were several global wars predating world war 1. The French and Indian war on our part was part of the napoleonic wars which should have been world war 1.

In any case, global wars tend to lead to periods of peace and relative prosperity. These are never sustained for long because man is a petty warlike race, but they do last a decade or so. The 20s the 50s arguably the 90s if you want to consider the cold war a global war (it was). So a global war wouldn't necessarily be a horrible thing. As long as we won.

And therein lies the rub.

We are no longer the only guys with nuclear weapons.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

In retrospect, wouldn't it have been wiser to go invade Afghanistan, change governments, and promptly leave, while leaving a smaller force to continue anti-terrorism efforts and nation building? And then to never invade Iraq?

Wouldn't we be better off?

How so?

There is absolutely nothing to gain in Afghanistan and the people are barely civilized.

Even if we could install a puppet government I can't imagine it holding up for long

and it most likely would have been a bigger quagmire than Iraq.

And of course, since it is war, George w Bush would still been called war criminal by the former peace lovers.

Next up: How could Iraq be worse it is today?

WSS

@vaportrail said:

Well, if World War 3 ends up being global nuclear war, everyone loses. Australia and South America become world superpowers after the dust settles and the winter ends.

It probably won't be global nuclear war unless some insane fools like Iran and their terrorist friends get their hands on nuclear bombs.

@alo said:

I don't think the situation is drastically worse than it's ever been, at least not in the way that it's being presented in the WWIII talk here. In fact, the current tumult bears some striking parallels to the '05 Koran desecration controversy, which turned violent as well.

History is repeating itself - folks get riled up about their faith supposedly being insulted, bad stuff ensues - but one key difference is that many of the authoritarian regimes that dominated the Arab world back then are now things of the past. Whether that's a good thing or not is increasingly a topic of debate (I think it is), but the last thing we should want is for countries like Libya to become failed states. That's where terrorism truly thrives -- guillotining their entire gov't would be a strong step towards ensuring that happens.

I agree that we don't want failed states. It usually goes from shaky to worse.

I think we are fighting a losing battle here. That region is going to blow up at some point. Israel is nearing the point they are going to act without our support. It was less than 100 years ago a serious movement was under foot to exterminate them from the planet. They kept waiting for help, which finally came after millions of them were killed.

I expect another Yom Kippur war of sorts, with Israel striking Iran in October. They aren't going to wait.

in exceptionally destructive ways.

And, that 1 billion.... was OBAMAO. All his. On him.

Not even Heckbunker can blame him for that.

It's way past time to stop blaming President Bush for everything.

Seriously. ObaMao is a failure.

@vaportrail said:

Shit's gonna be real...and I fear that a Romney White House would handle things in an exceptionally unawesome way.

@brownindian said:

I hope you are not suggesting an "aid" package to ensure that their loyalty is with us.

We spent over $1 Billion to topple Gadhafi. That'll dwarf the cost of any aid we ever provide the Libyan gov't.

@alo said:

I don't think the situation is drastically worse than it's ever been, at least not in the way that it's being presented in the WWIII talk here. In fact, the current tumult bears some striking parallels to the '05 Koran desecration controversy, which turned violent as well.

History is repeating itself - folks get riled up about their faith supposedly being insulted, bad stuff ensues - but one key difference is that many of the authoritarian regimes that dominated the Arab world back then are now things of the past. Whether that's a good thing or not is increasingly a topic of debate (I think it is), but the last thing we should want is for countries like Libya to become failed states. That's where terrorism truly thrives -- guillotining their entire gov't would be a strong step towards ensuring that happens.

I hope you are not suggesting an "aid" package to ensure that their loyalty is with us.