Russian warships enter Syrian waters - Is this how WWIII begins?

I was addressing the original comment where someone mentioned Christians want the Jews in the land to help bring about the end time.

I then said that was not true - that this was not a part of Christian doctrine.

You said it was by quoting Hagee.

Ha, I didn't say anything, I posted a video.

What Christians want and what you or anyone considers to be proper Christian doctrine are not always going to be the same. Christian doctrine says that you shouldn't get drunk or have premarital sex, but Sarah Palin's daughter did both of those things. Most people still label her as a Christian though, just like 80% of Americans are considered to be Christians.

There have been different sects and interpretations among Christians for hundreds of years, as with Muslims. Shaquille O'Neal's views on Islamic doctrine are very different than the extremist groups, but in their case you are probably not as picky about them all getting labeled as Muslims.
 


Ha, I didn't say anything, I posted a video.

In forums, the norm is if you quote someone and then post a response or a video, it is in answer or related to the quoted material. Lets not get too simple in this discussion.

What Christians want and what you or anyone considers to be proper Christian doctrine are not always going to be the same. Christian doctrine says that you shouldn't get drunk or have premarital sex, but Sarah Palin's daughter did both of those things. Most people still label her as a Christian though, just like 80% of Americans are considered to be Christians.

Christians deviate from Christian doctrine. In Christianity its called "sin" which means you have "missed the mark". This is why Christians are saved by grace, because they cannot live this life perfectly. I do not know where Palin's daughter is at now, but she has at one time gone on the record and said it was wrong and she would not do it again. Ironically Palin herself made a quip about it, showing her lack of depth and understanding. Christians are far from perfect - that was the point of the Cross/ The Law

There have been different sects and interpretations among Christians for hundreds of years, as with Muslims. Shaquille O'Neal's views on Islamic doctrine are very different than the extremist groups, but in their case you are probably not as picky about them all getting labeled as Muslims.

Of course. This is why you go to the most original, consistent, and provable source documents possible and you do not add to or take from the writings. Everyone interprets things as they want and do not accept correction - they lack humility, as in the case of Hagee. He sticks to his Dual Covenant theory (which started this discussion) because it serves him, not God.
 
embedding the vid

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq-KleU8IA]"China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third World War" (subtitles) - YouTube[/ame]
 
That's not entirely accurate, although it is certainly true that all of Russia's ICBMs could not be stopped if they went out in short succession. The extent of the shield is indicative of something far more powerful than catching old scud type crap from a bunch of crazies here and there.

The word around the campfire is that the shield targets ICBMs in their launch and boost phases. The intercept missiles need to be close enough to catch the icbms before they get too much steam behind them. Once they're up and in orbit they're very difficult to catch with surface to air missiles, even more so on reentry because of their mirv capabilities. Catch them while they're climbing and you have a good chance of minimizing reentry numbers and thus the number of potential targets to defend or vacate - or lose.

There is the chance of space launched air to air interception missiles, and even laser intercepts from satellites but these aren't defenses to rely on and it's hard to know what capabilities there are with these options because the weaponization of space is not well discussed.

I have definitely not followed up and done much research on this because it really doesnt matter very much to me but based on what i have read through the Economist and a few defense oriented sites, Russia has an overwhelming number of active ICBMs and intermediate range missles. Even if we threw everything we had in the European and Middle Eastern theater at them, they would still have too many birds in the sky. It doesnt matter if every single one of our defense shield assets successfully intercepted their target. There would still be far too many aggressive missiles in flight for our defense assets to take down. When you then take into account the number of warheads on a given delivery platform (MIRVs) the US and Europe would be properly fucked.

Furthermore, even if we intercepted every land based nuke Russia, China, and the US have enough missile boats just chilling out off each others coasts to take care of things. As I type this in California I can be assured that Russian and China have a few subs chilling off the coast that would be able to wipe out all major population centers in the Western US within 90 minutes.

Nuclear war as people typically imagine it would end man kind. If Russia, China, and the US all started lobbing shit up mankind is done.

Russian politicians cannot afford to look weak and we will probably see lots of posturing over the course of the next year or so. Definitely not a good look for the people of the world but hopefully nothing happens since, in the end, its all about money and if everyone is dead it doesnt matter who is holding all the chips.
 
Anyone notice that loads of countries are pulling their embassy personnel out of Iran? I know the reason given is the attack on the British embassy, but still... one of those things that make you go, hmmm....
 
Even if we threw everything we had in the European and Middle Eastern theater at them, they would still have too many birds in the sky.

Absolutely. But keep in mind that the shield and all of their wargame projections surrounding it come from the perspective of Bush Doctrine/first strike strategy initiated by the US/NATO, not as a response to a first strike started by Russia. US pulls the trigger first, takes out a high volume of targets, Russia responds with what they have left, shield system handles them, followup bombing takes out remaining launch sites. Not saying this is feasible or realistic in any way. Obviously these people need their fucking heads checked.

If you didn't see it at the time the CFR crowd put out a landmark piece back in I think 05 or 06 about the feasibility of a US first strike on Russia and China. This was from the perspective mostly of the Neocon crowd who was controlling shit then and who has never completely gone away even with the Obama/Brzezinski soft power crowd calling shots the last few years.

The neocon warmonger crowd is steadily gaining more ground in the military intelligence community once again. Petraeus is their darling at the moment and he's currently running the CIA. Genocidal four star general running the CIA. Not good.

Russian politicians cannot afford to look weak and we will probably see lots of posturing over the course of the next year or so. Definitely not a good look for the people of the world
I hope they do. The world needs a strong Russia right now. Not good for the world true but it's potentially much better in the long run than unchecked NATO imperialism running around toppling states.
 
LOL at all of you talking about how evil imperialism is. I love living within the comfy walls of the Empire. When you receive your weakly wires, be thankful you're living here as well and not killing goats outside a tent to survive like all of the other barbarians.
 
Political threads on WF always remind me of the old slav dudes that hang out outside the local donut shop yelling at each other in their native tongue.