[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/569nzbrd.asp?ZoomFont=YES[/url]

Did anyone who read the article think it was likely?

Not likely IMO.

We have the capability to take out the vast majority of antagonists in our world today with just technology. Anybody who remains will still get a bullet delivered by the best trained and equipped soldiers on the ground. This is true now and in the future.

WoW....That is a very sobering essay. For the most part I belive it could happen if we don't heed the warning.

Timeline is too short. 2017-2025 would be more realistic for this scenario. The use of female "soldiers" is perfect, as is the use of hostages and attacks on the elderly.

Where the article makes a critical mistake is the failure to anticipate American retaliation. In this scenario an isolated United States would almost certainly use the full array of its resources against not only the aggressors, but neutrals and even "allies". There would still be just enough men left to make the hard choices, perhaps even in defiance of civilian orders.


This might work by 2050, if the West continues to feminize and the Islamics are not either dealt with decisively or appeased from a position of strength. ( Appeasement from a position of weakness only provides additional resources, and delays the inevitable conflict.)

[soapbox]

Spoken like a true warmonger and genocidal sadist.  I could not disagree with you more.  While this sounds all high and mighty, no war the US ever got involved in resolved the underlying problems.  Even WWII led to decades of nuclear hysteria.  What we need to do most is stop this childish notion that war somehow solves human problems.  It does not and never has.  I don't see the Middle East conflict as inevitable at all.  There will be no dealing with Islam decisively and no final resolution.  

The best we can hope for is that people of the Islamic faith undergo the same kind of reformation and enlightenment that led the west towards its departure from brutality and aggresssion (something it is reverting to more and more lately).  It's called "becoming civilized" and it takes a lot of stops and starts and we aren't even there yet, so far be it for us to suggest how anyone else should do it.

"Position of strength" is such a loaded term.  You must either be a young kid or have been involved in the military to even have thoughts like that in your head at all.  When you try to lord over other people, you may not get the results you expect at all.  US imperialism is wrong--it is what is leading to all this danger for America.

The people who run the US and the people in America who put up with them, have not yet learned their lesson.


Oh, and that Weakly (sic) Standard article is a crock of shit.

"war doesn't solve human problems"

War as the US does it can't solve the problem.
We need to go back and look at Temujin....kill everything that moves.....IT worked in Japan didn't it?

Yeah right, bullshit.

Go buy an off the rack B2, Raptor, Missile Sub..........ad f'ing nauseam.

Spoken like liberal scum [puke]

They might get a ex-soviet/chi-com SSBN or 3, probably more dangerous to the crews than the targets though. [;)]

Trickshot, as usual, you are FOS.

Has anyone else noticed that trickshot's posts always come across as if he knows everything that no one else does.  They are always presented in an arrogant manner and if you don't agree with him, you are ignorant.  What a jerk!  Another of those 'we should have not gotten involved in WWII' liberals.

I agree with larryG,trickshots post is alot a poop.

Yeah,if the "west" were the only people occupying this planet we might be able to solve all problems without force.Unfortunatly the other 80% of the world lives by the law of the jungle,and only understands power.Even the most wreched nations,seeking handouts from the west to keep there people from starving to death,are fighting amongst themselves for power and treasure.

I wonder how much Central and South  America might resembele  Africa if it weren't for the influence of the US?

I wonder how long it would be before the entire globe was in conflict ,if the US stopped supporting things like the UN and totally isolated itself?

You're livinng in a dream world TS.

Wrong. War solves one thing and one thing only. The Human Problem. War is a nessasary part of the human evolution. It has been a part of Human Nature since we evolved from primordial muck (or Cain and Able, whichever you choose to believe). Those of you who think we are civilized people who are "above" war, are living in a celluloid dreamworld. Wake the fuck up, and smell the coffee.

If you are not prepared to start or win a war, then you sure as hell better be prepared to lose one.

War - like all violence - settles one primary point .  "Who shall survive?"

Bear in mind also that wars are also a stopgap measure against population pressure on the planet.  If we had the wherewithal to colonise offworld, much (not all, granted) aggression would be done away with as people simply chose to go elsewhere.  The ability to colonise other planets would give us an "elsewhere."

Liken it to how you feel in a crowded room - most people begin to get tense and agitated due to the close quarters involved.  When people start to leave, you feel better - no?  Some people just need to leave...

FFZ