# When WWIII started



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

I received this email today and thought it might make for some good discussion.

When WWIII Started

A must read historical account of Terrorism against the US ~

This is not very long, but very informative. You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979... That alarm has been ringing for years.

US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of

1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

Support Our Troops and support President Bush for having the courage, political or militarily, to address what so many who preceded him didn't have the backbone to do, both Democrat and Republican. This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

If you believe in this please forward it to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action. If you don't believe it, just delete it and go back to sleep.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

This seems a little dated. How much more active do you propose we become?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

The speech was given in May of 2004 MT. It is just a valid today as it was then.

Plainsman, remember what I told you about MT's return to the forum......I'm more convinced of it with each passing day.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Nope, I don't remember. It must be the old timers kicking in. PM me a reminder.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

We need to finish what the cowardly Islamic radicals started.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

MOB said:


> We need to finish what the cowardly Islamic radicals started.


Any propositions as to how we go about that? It is much easier said than done.


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

Excellent post MOB


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> MOB said:
> 
> 
> > We need to finish what the cowardly Islamic radicals started.
> ...


Let the CIA start associating with nasty people again. It is the only way to truly infiltrate these organizations and gain credible intelligence. It wouldn't be a bad idea to send special forces into Iran just before they complete a nuke and rig it to blow while they are just putting the finishing touches on it. I don't know if we have space based weapons yet, but a laser into their first missile test would be nice. Let some of the prisoners go with radio implants. Implants that can be tracked and could also be used to guide a cruise missile.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

agreed.

i think the trend twords more and more PC politics has had something to do with this.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

WWIII started, when Bush started Iraq war. Before that it could remain war on terror. It gave terrorists a chance to take a good cause and a home in Iraq, ignited Muslim fanatics worldwide and this is how WWIII is being started. Bush made a big mistake and we all are going to pay for this.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

thats incorrect and revisionist history the muslim jihadist has been fighting and attacking innocent people all over the world for the last thirty years


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

MOB excellent post, I remember all the events mentioned , I have been watching in sheer aww for years, wondering why we are so passive? Mind you I was only 11 years old in 1979, and if an 11 year old knows somthing is up I cant imagine what is really going on! What I am going to say next may be quite contraversial but i belive it in my heart and soul.
It must have been in the mid to late 90's a plane took off from New York City "forgot the exact date" only to blow up over the harbor "all were killed". The cause an electical problem  The story quickly faded from the news, I said to myself and to all around me that this was an attack being coverd up. I was called things like Chicken Little "the sky is falling" and evrybody kinda just smiled at me. On sept 11, 2001 if only one plane crashed into the world trade center what do you think would have happend? Thats right we would have hit the snooze bar again, Navagational error Whoopse! Two weeks after 9/11/01 a plane took off from JFK New York and crashed in Rockaway NY right after take off, all were killed this was also dismissed from being a terrorist act  America the sleeping giant yes we once were, now we are a sleeping welfair crybaby nation that has neither the testicular fortitude or the brains to win this new war! We got one thumb in our mouth and one in our butt and both eyes slammed shut. Head for the hills Boys this one is over.
By the way WWII started at the end of WWI with the Treaty of Versi!! WWIII started at the end of WWII when that little piece of land was giving to the Isreal.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Nothing better than a good war to bring Peace. It's crazy to kill people to stop them from killing people, but what else is there.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

buckseye said:


> Nothing better than a good war to bring Peace. It's crazy to kill people to stop them from killing people, but what else is there.


Wars are not for bringing peace! Crazy to kill people to stop them from killing people? Would it be sane to let them kill maybe even us!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

In any and all wars the side that is most violent wins. Chew on that for a while..lol


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Ok all done chewing, we were more violent than Hitler?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

It's cool you ask that, it was the American General who took Europe that made that statement at the end of WWII. Didn't chew very good did you..lol


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Sounds like General Patton, can you define what he meant by violent. If that means more men , material, planes ,trains ,bullets ,bombs to do violence than I agree! At the end of WWII our Navy was not just the largest in the whole world, but we had more ships than all the other Navys put together!!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You will never find peace from war. Maybe it will create a lull, but wars just spawn more grudges, and leave ones children to deal with the problems we put off that day. Sometimes it is the most effective method of resolution, but that is rare, and only if the fight is followed by reforms that are necessary to keep the area stable.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

One could look at World History since "American" came into being and reasonably argue that the only countries that are not at peace with us are countries whos A$$'s we have never yet kicked ... to use some "punk school yard slang" there.

If you think about that, it's pretty darn true ... or so it seems to me


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't really think there is a strong correlation there. You are forgetting just how many countries there are.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Japan ... All countries who we were at war against.

Can you name a few countries who we have beaten in war and who are now are enemy???


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Enemy is a relative word.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT Wrote:

You will never find peace from war.

MT also Wrote:

I don't really think there is a strong correlation there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think those two statments make more sense with the second responding to the first. It seems to me many times in History the only thing that brings Peace is when one side is brought completely to it's knees ...

I think there is a much stronger argument supporting that than supporting Diplomacy... especially in situations where folks are forcibly trying to "Take over the World"


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I think those two statments make more sense with the second responding to the first. It seems to me many times in History the only thing that brings Peace is when one side is brought completely to it's knees ...


It will bring peace, for a while. The next generation will hate you for it and your son will have to stave them off. Grudges die hard.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Japan ... Which of those Countries are we having to "Stave Off?" ...

We are having to "Stave Off" ... N.Korea, China, Russia, the Islamic Middle East (in general) All of whom we have worked through Diplomacy with, but never beaten in war.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Take a gander at history. Much of the world has been around a lot longer than America has. Remember World War Two? What was that caused by?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Failure to sufficiently kick Germany's, butt in WWI

How did WWI end?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

DecoyDummy said:


> Failure to sufficiently kick Germany's, butt in WWI
> 
> How did WWI end?


No. Germany was so trashed by the war, the reparations and the restrictions placed on it that it created horrible economic conditions, leading to Hitler's rise as he blamed the Jews for the problems.

Generally, when you kill someone's family, they dislike you for a while. This is why it is so inefficient to try to combat insurgents with an occupying force, you may kill some, but their brothers will rise up to avenge their sibling's death.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Generally, when you kill someone's family, they dislike you for a while. This is why it is so inefficient to try to combat insurgents with an occupying force, you may kill some, but their brothers will rise up to avenge their sibling's death.


So we should kill them all then?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So we should kill them all then?


You can't. You have to remove their incentive to fight and thier funding, else guerilla tactics will always win.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... here is a thought for you ... not to change the subject too much ... But,

Take this statement and let me know what you think.

"Countries controlled by freely elected democratic governments do not attack one another."


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I would agree that free democratic nations tend to be less violent than those run by despots.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

With that in mind and thankfully in agreement ...

Isn't it our best (and maybe last) hope ... to do all in our power to instill Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East ... as a more permanent protection against the Violent Radical Factions which seem (always) to permeate Islam?

Just the thought


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Isn't it our best (and maybe last) hope ... to do all in our power to instill Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East ... as a more permanent protection against the Violent Radical Factions which seem (always) to permeate Islam?


You cannot force democracy on anyone. It is not our job nor our right to go around the world and convert them to our political system.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's hard to tie down what a reasonable person is. It is hard, because much of our defense depends on timeline. First of all MT says we have 5 years before a nuke is ready. Is that true? That is argued by people with much better intelligence than anyone on this site. So does the reasonable person allow them one year, or five years, or six years. Do we destroy their facilities now, a year from now, surely not after the nuke is developed. 
A reasonable person will try for peace, but for peace both sides must be represented by reasonable people. Therein lies the problem. Hitler was not reasonable, but I am sure many people today would have talked until bombs fell on New York. No joke, I seriously believe this. So when do we do something about it? I doubt if they are reasonable enough to cease and desist, so what and when do we do something? How many lives will it cost to go early, vz how many more lives will it cost to go late? Everything is in timing.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> You cannot force democracy on anyone. It is not our job nor our right to go around the world and convert them to our political system.


How else do you propose the dictatorships are overthrown and democracy installed? Obviously it needs to be done to stop these madmen from running the area. Of course, the area seems to be full of them...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> First of all MT says we have 5 years before a nuke is ready. Is that true? That is argued by people with much better intelligence than anyone on this site. So does the reasonable person allow them one year, or five years, or six years. Do we destroy their facilities now, a year from now, surely not after the nuke is developed.


All estimations that I have seen have been between 5 and 10 years, with more and more recently stating 5. I work on the best information I can get.

Do we destroy the facilities now? Sure, but what then?



> A reasonable person will try for peace, but for peace both sides must be represented by reasonable people. Therein lies the problem. Hitler was not reasonable, but I am sure many people today would have talked until bombs fell on New York. No joke, I seriously believe this. So when do we do something about it? I doubt if they are reasonable enough to cease and desist, so what and when do we do something? How many lives will it cost to go early, vz how many more lives will it cost to go late? Everything is in timing.


Do you not think that FDR was more liberal than most Democrats today. I think not, considering the socialist programs he passed. I cannot think of anyone who would let us get hit. I don't think the American people ignorant enough to elect someone who will lead them to destruction.



> How else do you propose the dictatorships are overthrown and democracy installed? Obviously it needs to be done to stop these madmen from running the area. Of course, the area seems to be full of them...


Who forced democracy on any of the western nations?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> All estimations that I have seen have been between 5 and 10 years, with more and more recently stating 5. I work on the best information I can get.


It only took the US 5 years to develop and DROP the bomb from start to finish. And that was from scratch. Do you really think that with modern technology and available resources it would still take Iran that long? I say 2 years, tops.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Who forced democracy on any of the western nations?


Doesnt have to be forced perse, but look at Germany, Japan, South Korea...It sure as hell didnt happen on its own.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> It only took the US 5 years to develop and DROP the bomb from start to finish. And that was from scratch. Do you really think that with modern technology and available resources it would still take Iran that long? I say 2 years, tops.


Thank you for your expert opinion on the topic.

Most of the qualified analysts tend to disagree.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1563940,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01453.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4217824.stm


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I don't think the American people ignorant enough to elect someone who will lead them to destruction.


Yes, I doubt if Hillary has a chance.



> Most of the qualified analysts tend to disagree.


I think this is where the disagreement occurs. Once you cite crackpot organizations like IBC or whatever it was, it is hard to take your references serious again. Our standards for qualified differ.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I think this is where the disagreement occurs. Once you cite crackpot organizations like IBC or whatever it was, it is hard to take your references serious again. Our standards for qualified differ.


Funny that you should mention that, considering Bush stated the very same numbers as IBC provided when questioned on the topic.

Since when are the BBC, The Guardian, and the Washington Times crackpot organizations?

Have you not eaten enough crow already?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT

Based on the voter turn out in Iraq ... I don't believe Democracy is "Forced."

However, in the presence of Dictators and Totalitarian Regimes those "imposing forces" sure as hell will need to be "Forced" out of the equation in order for Freely Elected Democracy to get a firm footing and the strength to preserve it's self.

You completely ignore the focus of the mission if you believe that translates to "Imposing Democracy."


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Based on the voter turn out in Iraq ... I don't believe Democracy is "Forced."


We are not focusing specifically on Iraq.



> However, in the presence of Dictators and Totalitarian Regimes those "imposing forces" sure as hell will need to be "Forced" out of the equation in order for Freely Elected Democracy to get a firm footing and the strength to preserve it's self.


And where do we get the right to invade sovereign nations and tell them how to live? I doubt America would like it if England invaded and tossed out our government in favor of their parliamentary system.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Are you implying Iraq isnt a good example ... based on the totality of what we are focusing on??

Iraq is clearly (and undeniably) part and parcel of the Big Picture ...

And "Why Iraq" well let me look around the net ... I have a post I can copy and paste to tell my views on that one.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

For the benefit of MT ... this clarifies some of my views ... and since sevendogs made a post saying GWB blew it by entering Iraq ... this just might fit in here anyway ...

This is text I wrote back in September of 2004 on another board

OK ... Here we go:

TITLED: WHY A WAR IN IRAQ?

Are we in a war we can not win?

In a way yes we are ... because this war has been going on since about the year 700AD. The threat from Radical Islamic "nuts" has been beaten back (in a big fashion) twice. Once during the "Crusades" in about the year 1100AD and again is was beaten back in about the year 1500AD. To see it again now, and to assume that it will return again, (even if we succeed now) is not surprising once you look at history and what the "Koran" says about dealing with "non-believers." Any believing Muslim who choses to read the Koran and act on its teachings in the "Literal Sense" ... can easily become the "Usama bin Ladin" of his generation.

Are all Muslims "bad?"

I don't think so and I sure as hell hope not ... We need all the help we can get. In this age of WMD just a few "nuts" with WMD can kill hundreds of thousands maybe even millions in "one fell swoop." In order to contain this threat over the long haul, we will need the help of all of the more secular thinking Muslims all over the world and especially those in the Middle East.

So, what is the best way to get their help? ...

Historically, Free People do not attack other Free People ... There-in lies the key, Liberty and Freedom in the region is our best chance. We must do all we can to set the stage for freely elected governments to take hold. We must get the power in the hands of the many (more secular thinking Muslims) and get the power out of the hands of the (fewer in number) Fanatic Fundamentalist Terrorists who wish to attain power by keeping the region (and now the world, again) in fear of destruction unless they/we submit to their wishes.

Why then pick IRAQ first (well second actually)

Most seem to agree, Afghanistan was OK. After all that's where Usama and his buddies were set up &#8230; no problem. We now have an interim Government in place and elections coming up soon. Presto &#8230; Now to just keep it stable till it gains the required strength to stand on it's own ... and it won't be easy in that environment right now &#8230; but with more similar Governments in the region it will become easier and easier for them as time passes.

Iraq I believe was almost the next target by default. Its location in the region and the pure brutality and stupidity of Saddam made it obvious. As Beoweolf said in another thread "Mesopotamia" ... This area has such historic meaning in the region (and even the world) ... that significance should not be ignored. Then with Saddam you have a dictatorial leader brutalizing his people using WMD before ... the entire world believed "to a T" the weapons were there and in large quantities. Saddam had been flying in the face of the world body since he was pushed from his invasion of Kuwait. What better place to make fertile ground for Liberty and Freedom &#8230; the people of the country were victimized and hated him, no one in the region liked they guy infact all were afraid of him ... The world body had been watching him for 30 years as he thumbed his nose and brutalized all who got in his way.

If you "buy in" to the thinking that Freedom and Liberty in the Middle East is our best protection against the Radical Fundamentalist Terrorists &#8230; I ask &#8230; where better than Iraq to set up Freedom and Liberty?

I also like the idea that we now have military installations surrounding The Mother of Islamic Fundamentalism namely Iran. Imagine, if the world is afraid of Iran acquiring nuclear capability &#8230; how fearful would we have been without the Strategic Military access we now have to Iran.

Also trust me on this one &#8230; the last things the Ayatollah in Iran wants are Secular Governments based on Freedom and Liberty to the east and to the west ... and the region in transition toward the same. These guys will fight hard against us ... with elections in Iraq on the horizon, we must stay the course for as long as it takes.

I also fully believe the war will move (in some form) beyond Afghanistan and Iraq ... it's just a matter of when and under what circumstances.

As Darrell said, "This war will not be easily won, but it can be easily and quickly LOST!"


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

DecoyDummy said:


> As Darrell said, "This war will not be easily won, but it can be easily and quickly LOST!"


hehehe Thats me


----------

