World War III Update

No dude. Cold War = Cold War. Sure it was global conflict fought with intimidation and by various small hot wars, but that's why we call it the Cold War, not WW3.

World War 3 hasn't happened yet, but it sure feels like it's coming.

If everybody believed that Lebanon had nukes, well, then wouldn't we all be relieved if Israel went in and blew everybody to smithereens? I'm more inclined to believe that this is a ploy to garner support for the Israelis and for an attack against Lebanon and Iran.

I don't know what's worse -- admitting to watching Fox News, actually watching Fox News, or believing any of it is news. You lost me on line one, fella, sorry.

Then whats better? CNN? Evening News with Tom Schieffer? FOX News maybe not perfect but its defintaly one of our better news outlets. I wouldn't say it is better then BBC.

In my opinion Newsvine is one of the most sensational news outlets then any other main stream news media. Of course Newsvine is very subjective because user submitted news, comments and other stuff. I guess thats why Newsvine and other user submitted news are very unique. Thats fine by me.

The Pentagon had military officers working in CNN's Atlanta headquarters for years, censoring. All these talking-head news shows are corrupt, bought and sold with advertising and political dollars. If someone can't be bothered to read multiple sources and piece together the actual truth, then I would call that person ignorant, gullible and lazy. I'm not accusing the seeder -- that's how I feel about everyone. It makes me physically sick to see half-wit entertainers deliver horrific "news" with big, gleaming smiles... "Thanks Enigma... Now back to you Levi!!!!" And cut.

That's why I only get my news from E!
(kidding)

I recall that during the leadup to the Iraq War a study found that the more people watched FOX news, the less informed they were.

While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

There you have it - don't watch FOX news.

If someone can't be bothered to read multiple sources and piece together the actual truth

I agree with this statement 100%

We should be all aware of the biases and agenda that some media groups have and try get our news from multiple sources. That's another thing that makes Newsvine unique. We all have are different views and biases and we submitt the news. Isn't Newsvine great? :)

I understand that, however, if China back N. Korea it turns its back and therefore loses economic backing from other very large countries - like Germany, France, US, UK and Russia. I feel China is slapping N.Korea on the wrist as a show of not wanting to push the issues. Japan believes that they re a target, what makes anyone believe they couldn't be next? What makes China feel that they even need to be involved more than they are?

Russia would back Japan simply because it lack ability to fight as hard as it once could. They've got weapons, true, but they pretty outdated. Aside from that... Russia has a lot of oil they'd LOVE to sell the US. If Iran and N.Kora have the same agenda on two different fronts for different reasons, and Iran is in the Middle east, with their own oil, what purpose would it serve Russia to crush their own economy?

I agree that India and Pakistan has been at each others throats, but India has one advantage over Pakistan - Air Power. Guess who taught India to fly?

N.Korea.. its almost a laughable leadership. Bush may do stupid things, but at least he doesn't dress stupid while doing stupid things. The guy wears platform shoes... He also expects every country to reward him for everything he does. "Pay me for stopping nuke development", "Pay me or I'll start again"... hes like that whiny punk bitch in school that barks and never really bites. He might swing, but he either misses or grazes you. He's looking for a fight, but with things as they are right now... hes' just going to exclude himself and his country. What purpose does this serve him? Two - either he gets to extort the world or he gets to extort his people. See also megalomaniac - either his own or everyone elses. I think he needs to be whacked - yes... but I don't think he's done anything to much anyone else to warrant that kind of thing just yet. Like Castro - He'll probably die off in a few years. Let's let the UN handle this one... we're tied up, and already look like warmongers. I think sitting this one out will do everyone a lot of good even though we can take care of it. Show the world we can listen to the UN, not start a war and hopefully let the global short term memory reinstate our good image. They aren't "nuts" - actually as far as being greedy goes - its not a bad plan... its just risky and conceited - and... the US can't exactly say we've not employed the same tactics in the past - we just... leave the platforms at home.

Syria is a major trade route through the Middle east. EVERY Arab nation has some vested interest in Israel and every one wants a piece of their ass... unfortunately Israel doesn't play games. They quit school because of recess... Generally they come hard and strong, plus the US backs them as does the UK. This leaves little leeway for any other country to come along and just take it over. Aside from that... what vested interest does Syria have in getting involved against two historically very effective and very fast moving superpowers.

I like Fox news as much as anyone (which means I like them as much as I enjoy bamboo under my fingernails). I won't go off on how wrong they ALWAYS are, but I will go off on how inaccurate they are.. They're liberal tools. They play up anything to get a rating (more than CNN). They misreport with half of the facts in exchange for getting the "scoop".

actually there were WMDs in Iraq - Serin and Mustard Gas. Sure, they could have been from Gulf War I, but nothing says that Saddam wasn't intending to use them again or before Gulf War II. It takes a couple of decades for that stuff to go inactive. The other thing was that they were purchased from Germany AFTER Gulf War I when the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq. Germany was involved in the OIL FOR FOOD scandal which is why they pushed so hard for the US to stay out of Iraq. But, the WMDs were there... and if you know anything about chemical warfare - Serin is pretty close to the top of the list of things that will hurt you bad, quick, and over a large area (its a nerve agent).. mustard gas... well we all know about what that does. Neither are pretty...

Did we feel that Saddam could have used those weapons again? I think that is a resounding yes. We can't prove he was, but history shows he'd have been more than willing to use them.

actually there were WMDs in Iraq - Serin and Mustard Gas... You should go work for the government intelligence agencies, because apparently you have sources of information that they lack... unless of course, you're referencing the report that Rick Santorum hyped as proof that "Saddam had WMD!", because that piece of crap claim was debunked almost the instant he made it. If you don't know what I'm talking about (and I'm sure Fox News' tepid coverage of rebuttals of Santorum's claims were easily missed, so you could hardly be blamed), the Defense Department itself says that those "mustard and sarin filled munitions" weren't the WMD that the administration claimed we needed to go to war to prevent use of. David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004, stated the opinion of weapons experts that said sarin and mustard gas would be "less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point." And, coincidentally, no experts have claimed that weapons were "purchased from Germany AFTER Gulf War I."

intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then... Intelligence officials said the munitions were found in ones, twos and maybe slightly larger collections over the past couple of years. One official conceded that these pre-Gulf War weapons did not pose a threat to the U.S. military before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They were not maintained or part of any organized program run by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The report itself stated that the materials dated from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and "are not in a condition where they could be used as designed." Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Additionally, many of these "WMD" "chemical" shells are listed as "unfilled", i.e. they never contained any chemical substances, at all.

Charles Duelfer and the ISG, who were specifically tasked with finding WMD (and, no, I don't mean out-of-date shell casings from the Iran-Iraq war era), concluded that "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter"

So, unless you'd like to disclose some source of information that you have which the government and all its earnest inspectors missed, winsomecowboy is right on the money to call what the administration touted "Iraq WMD lies."

And the current breathless speculation by Fox News that "Lebanon may have gotten nukes from Iran!" is even less credible. It's a wonder Fox "News" is even allowed to use the term in their name. Apparently truth-in-advertising doesn't extend to ideological soap-boxes owned by billionaire conservatives.

But what can you expect from the company who's chief executive opined that "The greatest thing to come out of this [war in Iraq] for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."

odd...

This
This
This (though this states they are not present, the capacity for them was)
This

Not only do I not trust "Government Officials", I sure as hell don't trust a single source of info on anything. CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and Washington Post really DON'T want any one to find WMDs because it would rattle their anti-war, anti-bush and bleeding heart agendas. As for Fox... I don't even watch that station (not since they ensured that everyone and their mom believed the 'techno club scene' to be a orgiastic drug haven - which its not).

You should go work for the government intelligence agencies, because apparently you have sources of information that they lack...

You should read something other than the Communist Times. er... Washington Post, since word for word some of your rebuttal (though you stated it was from an article, just not what article) of your rebuttal came from there.

Something else, before I forget. Sgt. Gordon, Shawn K. United Stated Army, Bravo Company 319 Military Intelligence Battalion. Common Ground Station Operator (1996-2000) - reporting.

SARIN

Either Iraq got it from the UK in 2002 (after they were told not to, meaning that there were WMDs - OR - they got it from Germany, the only other country who would sell them to IRAQ. Since Germany was already caught red handed in the Oil for Food program there is no reason to NOT believe that Germany sold them weapons because they had done so during sanctions. However I guess it could be any ones game...

One of your links (the most conservative) asks, "Why didn't Saddam open up to inspectors?" Answer: if your only method for deterring a hostile neighbor right next door with whom you'd had a decade long war not but a few years previously was to pretend as though you did, or even barring pretense, merely remained silent on the issue, don't you think you'd have a huge vested interest in doing that? Conservatives in general like to think that Iraq would have suffered no detrimental consequences as a result of laying bare its relative defenselessness, but it's not a great stretch of the imagination to believe the opposite.

The article titled "CIA's final report" said nothing to contradict my assertions, it only confirmed them: 'In his final word, the CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has "gone as far as feasible" and has found nothing' You claim it says "the capacity for [WMD] was present", however, all I could find were statements that "a pool of experts was available", and that the only weapons found were degraded chemical munitions from prior to 1991.

Regarding the interview with Bill Tierney, this guy has been so wrong on so many fronts, that I simply don't find him credible. For instance, he claimed not only that Saddam had nuclear weapons, but that he would use them on US troops. He claims the government has hard proof that Iraq had WMD, yet sadly cannot produce anything except anecdotes. He claims he singlehandedly figured out how the Iraqis were gaming inspections, and yet supposedly this didn't lead to the end of such games. Given that Tierney claims he knows the exact location of an underground chamber the Iraqis used to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs, one would think that our inspectors, now that we apparently own Iraq, would hop on out there with their ground-penetrating radar, and locate said chamber. According to Tierney, it's "about six kilometers away from Tarmea (ph) Nuclear Research Facility... all they have to do, hop in their cars, go up Canal Road, take a right at the Baghdad Mosul (ph) Road. Forty, 50 clicks up the road, take another right. Go down to the river. There it is." are we to believe that the Bush administration refused to do that, given how hard it's been pressed on the apparent lack of WMD? Tierney is a wingnut and a tool.

Your Communist Times, er... Washington Post article references a "suspected" chemical weapons lab. What was the result of the final analysis of these "possible precursors" and location? After lengthy investigation I found a link offering tentative confirmation that this location was an explosives factory, not a chemical weapons production facility. Also, I found stories which suggested that this lab was purely a construction of the insurgents, and had nothing to do with Hussein's regime. And after viewing some blogs by Chemical Corps officers, I tend to agree with their opinion that none of these so-called labs have anything to do with the Hussein regime: "first, the insurgents didn't get ready-made chemical weapons from Saddam's military infrastructure, and second, they're not getting any support from former Iraqi scientists... it's somewhat disheartening that every time a soldier finds a chemical laboratory, they think it's a WMD site."

Regarding the link on sarin, did you think this somehow supported your contention that these decades old shells represent a serious threat? 1. According to your link: "Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months." 2. How does the admission that many of these "WMD" were unfilled shells impact the conclusion that these represent "stockpiles" of WMD? 3. Given that they were found in tiny numbers over a long period of time, why should your assertion that they represent such stockpiles take precedence over Duelfer's report that these were most likely degraded pre-1991 munitions that were improperly destroyed?

Given that your assertion that Germany sold WMD to Iraq comes from the leftist mag Die Tageszeitung, should we dismiss it (as you do the WaPo) for being "communist" and therefore unreliable? By your reasoning regarding Germany, there is no reason to believe that the United States did not sell Iraq weapons during the Oil for Food program, since the US was the largest violator of that program. For my own part, I prefer actual evidence to back such an assertion, not roundabout fallacious thinking. If you'd like me to consider you claim, please consider providing some.

Regarding Germany's sale of sarin to Iraq during the 70's, the revelation comes as no surprise. We ourselves provided much help to Iraq's nascent WMD programs in the early to mid 80's. According to National Security Council staffer Howard Teicher's Irangate affidavit:

In 1982, Reagan "legalized" direct military assistance to Iraq. This resulted in more than a billion dollars in military related exports... After the Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency found the following US equipment in Iraq: spectrometers, oscilloscopes, neutron initiators, high-speed switches for nuclear detonation, and other tools used to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons… The US Department of Commerce licensed 70 biological exports to Iraq between 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

That Hussein had biological and chemical weapons prior to 1991 is without doubt. What is at question is whether he retained stockpiles of WMD, including nuclear weapons, after 1991. While I appreciate your speculation regarding this, the assertion that he did so is apparently without merit, by the conclusions of the US' own reports.

And, BTW, although I appreciate your revealing that you're a military man, and I appreciate your willingness to serve not only our country, but the interests of Iraqi democracy, your military status really doesn't have any bearing on the validity of your argument.

And, BTW, although I appreciate your revealing that you're a military man, and I appreciate your willingness to serve not only our country, but the interests of Iraqi democracy, your military status really doesn't have any bearing on the validity of your argument.

Actually, it does - you said this:

So, unless you'd like to disclose some source of information that you have which the government and all its earnest inspectors missed, winsomecowboy is right on the money to call what the administration touted "Iraq WMD lies."

I pointed out I was military intel. Id call being one of the people charged with tracking things down... is a pretty reliable source.

I pointed out I was military intel. Id call being one of the people charged with tracking things down... is a pretty reliable source. I see. What's your area of responsibility? The tracking down of Weapons of Mass Destruction? No? Then your position in the military has little bearing on the validity of your arguments.

I'd be prepared to credit your argument with some sort of validity if there were some way to verify that you, indeed, are/were tasked with the discovery of WMD as part of your duties, but judging from your careful selection of public sources of data that don't say what you claim they do (with the sad exception of that nutjob Tierney), my guess is that you're no better informed than most Americans. Of course, you're welcome to adress my substantive rebuttals with something other than "trust me. I'm from military intelligence."

Your own government disagrees with your personal assessment. Provide evidence for why you're so much more informed than your fellow intelligence officers who WERE tasked with the discovery of WMD.

The tracking down of Weapons of Mass Destruction? No? Then your position in the military has little bearing on the validity of your arguments.

What WAS my area of specialty.. JSTARS. I tracked everything, and was a CGS operator. However I also did imagery analysis and target acquisition which requires that you know what you are looking at and pay very close attention to where and what your targets are. Getting a false ID on a target can result in fratricide or civilian deaths.

Was I tasked to locate WMDs specifically... maybe. Define WMD beyond the untruncated acronym.

Do you mean any weapon that causes destruction over a certain radius? yes. Do you mean a nuclear weapon specifically? No, but they do cause massive destruction and cover a very large area, so then yes. Do you mean chemical weapons? Yes. I was tasked to find, track ,locate and assst in the destruction of mobile hostile targets, their operators and the mediums in which they commenced a possible attack (meaning their payloads). Did I complete my missions? Yes, when I found what we were lokoing for. What did I find? weapons, troops, and vehicles.

Can I provide you proof without breaching an oath? No. Will I? No.

The CIA disagrees with my personal assessment on WMDs during the second Gulf War, not the government as a whole. The CIA has an agenda as well. At first they were ll about going in and doing whatever, now suddenly they want to change their stance. What trouble has Bush cased the CIA, and then think about what motive they have to make him look bad. This sint to say he doesn't do a well enough job on his own, but you do have to stop and think a bit about this.

My assessments were made between the First and Second Gulf Wars.. well after the disarmament was supposedly finished. I can't and won't go get images of things that I don't have access to any longer. Also my assertions are dated a bit and I admit that. I served from 1996 - 2000, but I've stated that already.

I appreciate your stances and would love to got to a point match with you, but... I can't. I'm sorry. Either you have to take my word into consideration or simply disbelieve anything I've said - either way is fine with me.

What WAS my area of specialty.. JSTARS. I tracked everything, and was a CGS operator. However I also did imagery analysis and target acquisition which requires that you know what you are looking at and pay very close attention to where and what your targets are. So what you're saying is that you received pictures and reports, and conducted an analysis of the same in an effort to identify valuable targets. What you didn't do was conduct an actual search for the weapons we've been talking about. Hence, your position as a military analyst doesn't strike me as very relevant. Did anyone report the locations of WMD for you to target? Were those reports eventually confirmed? Chances are your response is "I can't answer that." So what does identifying your position in the military do except lend a false air of certainty to your assertions?

Was I tasked to locate WMDs specifically... maybe. Define WMD beyond the untruncated acronym. It's a bit disingenuous to dissemble. We're discussing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. That's what is commonly understood to be meant by the term.

What did I find? weapons, troops, and vehicles. And were any of these weapons confirmed to be nuclear, chemical or biological? I mean, you can simply state "yes" if they were, and leave it at that.

The CIA disagrees with my personal assessment on WMDs during the second Gulf War, not the government as a whole Well... if by "CIA" you mean the CIA, the DOD, independent analysts, the Senate committee which reviewed intelligence reports, and so forth. The number of folks and agencies which disagreed with Bush's assessment (and by extension, yours) is well documented annd goes beyond just the CIA.

The CIA has an agenda as well. At first they were ll about going in and doing whatever, now suddenly they want to change their stance. I've considered it. I've also considered that the administration has an agenda, and a vested interest in maintaining the position that there were and still are WMD in Iraq. Which is why I think you have to look at a variety of sources beyond just Bush and a CIA spokesperson. But it's not being intellectually dishonest to judge the veracity of the speakers by whether their words have borne fruit. Tierney states he can definitively prove that Iraq had WMD by revealing the location of labs that were used in their production, and yet those reports haven't been confirmed. Rumsfeld claimed we knew where all the WMD were, in and around Tikrit; and yet we haven't produced a single WMD beyond these degraded shells from the Iran-Iraq war period.

I appreciate you sharing your personal experiences, but the fact remains that your assessments were conducted from afar, and during a period in which Iraq certainly didn't cooperate very well. My point is that the post war assessment, now that Hussein's lack of cooperation is no longer an issue, don't jibe as well with the evidence as Hans Blix's assessments pre-war. We'd have been far better off to continue isolating Iraq than we are currently, bogged down in Iraq and unable to addres real threats, such as Iran or North Korea.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, though. I appreciate hearing your point of view.

Did anyone report the locations of WMD for you to target? Were those reports eventually confirmed? Chances are your response is "I can't answer that."

Again, it is a question that is in need of the definition of WMD. Though, for the sake of argument I'll answer the best I can. In order that the questions were asked:

No. That was part of our job. To find where targets were. We had a definition for what targets were, given the common implication of WMD - yes., but primarily chemical and biological. We didn't fear Nukes too much at the time, but it was not entirely writ out. It was also my job to confirm my findings via other information gathering tools (UAVs and such). Was I physically there to reach out and touch what I've found? No.

What did I find? weapons, troops, and vehicles. And were any of these weapons confirmed to be nuclear, chemical or biological? I mean, you can simply state "yes" if they were, and leave it at that.

Yes and No. Since this is a contradictory answer, I'll explain the best I can. We found WMDs, but not in a quantity that leads one to think of MASS.

You've made a good case and many good points. Thank you for taking time to discuss this with me as well. I still feel differently and I think we'll at least agree we will continue to feel differently on this topic.

Try this, for a much better assessment of most of the players mentioned in the writeup above.

Even so, its the authors speculations based on what he believes.

That much is understood by the fact that it exists. Spacegoat's is valid commentary on said speculation, and presumably he wrote it to get feedback.

This is utter crap, man.

Thanks Captain Obvious... :)

This article is the equivalent of a middle school kids drawing of a chimera and a centaur. Pure fantasy.

Space Goat thanks for the comment but I am going to refer to you to the Newsvine honor code.

1. Above all else, respect others. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it, rather than further inflaming the situation.
2. Before you write, seed, or comment, ask yourself if your contribution increases the strength and virtue of the community.

Space Goat, why don't you try some constructive criticism. Instead using name calling tactics, why don't you back up your points. This will help you with your views and debating.

Pardon me but I did not criticise the author. I merely criticised the article. Upon asking myself if my response increases the strength of the community, I would have to say yes. This kind of content sullies Newsvine's reputation as a legitimate place to go for news and opinion.

So... you can't post your opinions on Newsvine, can't make comments with the commenting system? That doesn't sound right -- even the title bar reads "enigma - Enter Your Comment," not "Enter Your Factual Statement," or "Enter Your Constructive Criticism." The seeder's "article" itself is speculation and opinion; it's not backed up with sources (and no, Fox News is not a valid source of objective and accurate news, don't kid yourself).

Since when you are, Levi, the arbiter of which opinions are worthy of being heard? Perhaps you need to re-read the Code of Honor.

And for the record: I support the Justin's right to speculate and opine as much as I do Spacegoat's. It should be a marketplace of ideas, a free exchange of thought and communication. This includes opinions, even those you don't like or find useful enough. As Spacegoat pointed out, he most certainly did not attack the author, but the statements which the author made.

I do support opposite view points. I just don't support name calling. Calling somebodies article is equivalent to a

middle school kids drawing of a chimera and a centaur.

is just uncalled for. He can say that this speculation is bit off and support why he thinks that. Maybe I misinterpret his comment and I apologize if I did.

Justin, c'mon... only half-kidding here, but where's your skepticism? "China and Russia may have helped Iran with thier Nuclear Program, if that be the case they will certainly do everything they can to keep Iran from being on the loosing side." The US helped Saddam Hussein with HIS WMD programs, almost up until 1991, when we invaded. Did we do "almost anything" to keep Iraq from "being on the loosing [sic] side"? Do you think the leaders of China and Russia are less rational or less self-interested than the US is? Russia stands to make a lot of money helping Iran out with its domestic nuclear program, but it hardly seems credible that this means they'd be willing to take up arms to defend Iran's right to build an atomic bomb.

At least we agree that the world is less stable than before George Bush took office. I can't help but think that neither Iran nor North Korea would be expanding their nuclear capabilities if we weren't bogged down in Bush's pointless Iraq debacle.

You can't take anything personal on the internet, people lose manners when they arn't standing infrount of people. Agreed. It's also quite difficult to tell in text what tone someone intends by what they write. Sadly there are no HTML tags for sarcasm, just kidding, good natured ribbing, or spittle-flecked ire. Best to give the benefit of the doubt until all doubt is removed. :)

More specifically, they want Iran's oil, just like we do.

I would be far more concerned about "dirty bombs" which don't require any real sophistication whatsoever. Just find some nuclear material and pack it into one of those rockets. Its not Hiroshima, but it still causes quite a bit of alarm and a little contamination.

Sorry, should have said "radioactive" material, not nuclear.

I used an exaggeration to make a valid point.

No, you made a hysterical assertion that makes you difficult to take seriously. Calm down already.

And World War III ended when the Berlin Wall fell without leaving us in the stone age, for what it's worth. The conflagaration we are staring at right now would more accurately be defined as IV.

Who invented, every known WMD, in the world? So now we cry and pout, when other countries get their hands on them. This was predicted to happen, by the so called, Peace Freaks and doomsayers, They are called Liberal Democrats today and are still not listened to.

I took Daniels comment as a way of saying "Its not the fault of a single country for the existence of WMDs". The second part of his statement I took as a sort of joke as well. I think he implied that he's not listened to. Some of the things I've seen him post have me believe hes a Democrat Liberal. If this is the case, then hes implying that no one listens to him...either.

Or was I completely off Daniel?

Oh... so there's a difference between a Liberal Democrat (I incorrectly transposed the words before), and "liberal Democrat that newly half off"... I just got smarter ;)

I'll stay a Moderate Conservative Pseudo-Republican Neo-Autobot.

I'm glad I was right about something... 'cause all republican / conservatives are always right. If we had a radio station it would be FM 100 W-RIT "100% Right, 100% of the time." (see... I don't listen) ;)

Daniel, I hate to say it, but your chastisement of AdipicAcid for the misspelling of the word "conflagration" is the height of irony. I suggest you attend to the multiple errors in your own posts before seeking to correct the structural errors in those of others.

As far as the content of your respective posts, I side with AdipicAcid-- the anti-communist position of the US during the Cold War was general in nature, but the Cold War itself was specifically against the example of communism espoused and embodied by the Soviet Union, and ended when the Berlin Wall fell. There may be a future Cold War against China (although that currently doesn't seem likely-- China has way more economic strength than the Soviet Union ever had), but if it occurs it will not be a continuation of the 50's-80's era Cold War. If we're dragged into a multi-nation "world" war in the Middle East, it should appropriately be considered "World War IV".

And to paraphrase yet another quote, "stupid is in the eye of the beholder."

Look, Daniel-- my understanding is that we're supposed to be trying to be civil here. I don't see any particular benefit to your making this a personal issue: so far you've basically taken the position that anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid" or "good with constructing fantasy." But I think you seriously mistake the common notions about the Cold War when you think any intelligent or educated person would disagree with the notion that the Cold War represents WWIII. Adipic and myself are both educated an intelligent people, and we think that's a rational description. So you meant every other educated and intelligent person? That's a sweeping generalization and an invalid argument.

Was the Cold War a war declared by Congress according to the dictionary definition of the term 'war'? Obviously not. Nevertheless, the global nature of its pursuit, and the enmity with which the primary actors held each other, coupled with the various fronts on which it was fought... and 'fought' is entirely apt a term... these are all good reasons to consider it a war in the colloquial sense, and a World War, at that. Given how many people seem to have zero trouble with the characterization of our anti-terrorism actions as a legitmate 'war' on terrorism, claiming that the Cold war represents WWIII would seem less than contentious.

Did we 'win'? Define the term. By gross features, of course we did. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. I'd be among the people who think the costs and benefits of the Cold War are so close that it's questionable to make a claim of victory or loss in either direction, but the factual collapse of the Soviet Union tips the argument toward victory, by any measure.

Ultimately this whole subthread was brought about by your questioning which country invented every known WMD in the world. You may have meant it as an exaggeration in service of a larger point, but Adipic is entirely right that it comes off as an hysterical claim, and dilutes your argument. If you want to make the point that it's somewhat hypocritical of the US to build stockpiles of WMD while denying other countries the ability to do the same, why not simply state that? Then you won't have to divert your attention to tangential comments that only serve to insult people and make you look like an ass.

Regarding China's buildup of their military, feel free to expound on what you see as the reasons, but don't simply post a leading statement, cap it off with a pre-emptive insult, and expect reeasonable folks to see you as having an opinion worth debating.

You do come off as hysterical, as well as hypersensitive and needlessly insulting. My advice is to stick to the issues, rather than wildly levelling ad hominem attacks at whomever disagrees with you.