World War 3
rainbowoni said:As long as biological matter exist, there will be conflict, including war.
As long as the idea of war exist, there will always be war.
Alright! *closes book*
Question answer, next?
w-w-what is love?
Oh god, not you again.
Like my friend Laurie used to always say: "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again." Time is a cycle and a circle, after all, and sadly war has always been a part of humankind's existence since even before this current cycle of time. Likely in future cycles yet to come there will be conflict too... it is not so much a question of whether or not conflict will take place but rather if mankind has the wisdom to overcome it and forge a lasting peace thereafter. Naturally "lasting" can vary depending on a lot of factors and sometimes it can last for practically ages whilst at other times it may last only for a day. Such is the fickle nature of war and peace, and sometimes of love too. Yet through it all, time endures and so somehow does humanity. If it were not so, we would not be here now to ponder such matters.
As long as the idea of war exist, there will always be war.
Alright! *closes book*
Question answer, next?
w-w-what is love?
Oh god, not you again.
Like my friend Laurie used to always say: "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again." Time is a cycle and a circle, after all, and sadly war has always been a part of humankind's existence since even before this current cycle of time. Likely in future cycles yet to come there will be conflict too... it is not so much a question of whether or not conflict will take place but rather if mankind has the wisdom to overcome it and forge a lasting peace thereafter. Naturally "lasting" can vary depending on a lot of factors and sometimes it can last for practically ages whilst at other times it may last only for a day. Such is the fickle nature of war and peace, and sometimes of love too. Yet through it all, time endures and so somehow does humanity. If it were not so, we would not be here now to ponder such matters.
World War three is underway. It's just not the war we expected. It's war of ideology and of twisted religion versus the rest. It will continue for decades. I think nuclear weapons may be used regionally - eventually. We can only hope it's confined to the crucible of the middle east. Perhaps even a war by proxy. If the nuclear conflagration ever takes place then many prophecies will come true. Don't be despondent, though we are all involved in our own way. Thirty years ago we expected the end of the cold war to usher in a period of peace - it lasted a while, relatively speaking. Everything changed on 9/11/01 or 11/9/01 dependent on your geographical location.
Much of Europe is in NATO and if NATO is involved that means the United States of America. The European Union is a threat to world peace as it seduces countries like the Ukraine to gravitate westward, when traditionally they are under the Russian sphere of influence. EU's pathetic immigration policies are de-stabilising the continent at the moment.
Richard_the_third said:Much of Europe is in NATO and if NATO is involved that means the United States of America. The European Union is a threat to world peace as it seduces countries like the Ukraine to gravitate westward, when traditionally they are under the Russian sphere of influence. EU's pathetic immigration policies are de-stabilising the continent at the moment.
Yes. But with such things as NATO, war can be a outsourced thing through bodies and bullets. It is not truly a world war to the same degree as the past 2; the common citizenry can enjoy their leisure and work mostly un-interrupted by war, there is no sense of marshalling the whole economies, people, production, and nation against an enemy in explicit opposition.
Should it not be that the Middle East does not have to gravitate or grovel in any direction but itself? It is such thought, of making it a middle ground for overlapping 'spheres of influence' that fosters hate and arrogance. Their desire for self-influence is right, but terrorist actions as a response are unjust.
I am unclear about that last line. Do you mean they should allow more immigrants or less? If you mean less then I am in agreement, on the basis that a people should not have to leave their country and become exiles or immigrants, when it is possible and feasible for them to be natives of their own country. So such immigrants must be cared for in the short term with the idea that in the long term they have their own country back.
Yes. But with such things as NATO, war can be a outsourced thing through bodies and bullets. It is not truly a world war to the same degree as the past 2; the common citizenry can enjoy their leisure and work mostly un-interrupted by war, there is no sense of marshalling the whole economies, people, production, and nation against an enemy in explicit opposition.
Should it not be that the Middle East does not have to gravitate or grovel in any direction but itself? It is such thought, of making it a middle ground for overlapping 'spheres of influence' that fosters hate and arrogance. Their desire for self-influence is right, but terrorist actions as a response are unjust.
I am unclear about that last line. Do you mean they should allow more immigrants or less? If you mean less then I am in agreement, on the basis that a people should not have to leave their country and become exiles or immigrants, when it is possible and feasible for them to be natives of their own country. So such immigrants must be cared for in the short term with the idea that in the long term they have their own country back.
If i may offer my own view ...
i get the feeling that the nature of war has changed and so we wont suffer the same costs as the wars we learned about in school or wherever (depending on your age of course) Nobody/the countries involved, wants an open all out war and seeing as how tech has evolved in recent years i get the feeling its still going to be WWIII, but more based on information, economic information on the whole, how to destablise a country thru this medium and the odd battle/ supporting the opposing force, here or there. but nothing on the man power scale we witnessed before. a strangled war, if u will.
aside from the larger playing field there is ISIS, it annoys me that people always refer to them as a religous group, they are just another criminal empire who`ve employed a certain god to further their gains. having operated for years they recently employed a radical cleric to give them a holy face and spin. even killed commanders didnt have the koran about their library, it was all, unsuprisingly, military stratedgy books.
i get the feeling that the nature of war has changed and so we wont suffer the same costs as the wars we learned about in school or wherever (depending on your age of course) Nobody/the countries involved, wants an open all out war and seeing as how tech has evolved in recent years i get the feeling its still going to be WWIII, but more based on information, economic information on the whole, how to destablise a country thru this medium and the odd battle/ supporting the opposing force, here or there. but nothing on the man power scale we witnessed before. a strangled war, if u will.
aside from the larger playing field there is ISIS, it annoys me that people always refer to them as a religous group, they are just another criminal empire who`ve employed a certain god to further their gains. having operated for years they recently employed a radical cleric to give them a holy face and spin. even killed commanders didnt have the koran about their library, it was all, unsuprisingly, military stratedgy books.
War, war never changes. Any war is never a truly civil action done solely by soldiers who conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen, with a 'by your leave' as they escort you out of the way. It is still inevitably the same, which the action in the middle east has shown. Though that is not WW3 yet, it still involves physical displacement and physical destruction and destabilisation of country's production and economy.
The ideas of a proxy war, or war of information, are better placed in these times of 'peace': through the actions of global companies with their striving for larger market share. The war revolution of our age is terrorism, whereas the major one of WW1 was trench warfare, and terrorism brings the threat of a total war: one that can affect a country totally by striking anywhere.
I agree that information will play a larger part than in the past, but was has always laughed at information and made a mockery of it. While the truly valuable information of preventing a war, of swiftly ending it without bloodshed, has had a habit of evading our grasp, or ended up being only a temporary lull.
ISIS appear to be a pseudo-religious group, it is a religion and doctrine and ideology not used as part of the Islamic faith by the majority of its followers. Yet their aim for a caliphate is somewhat intrinsically connected to the idea of a religion led state. (Don't all criminal empires employ a god or worship a 'god'? It may well be a worship of money and drugs, but still a monster they feed with their crimes.)
Sort of disagreeing with you off-key, while agreeing with you in places, while rambling out my thoughts and points on page with no particular agenda.
The ideas of a proxy war, or war of information, are better placed in these times of 'peace': through the actions of global companies with their striving for larger market share. The war revolution of our age is terrorism, whereas the major one of WW1 was trench warfare, and terrorism brings the threat of a total war: one that can affect a country totally by striking anywhere.
I agree that information will play a larger part than in the past, but was has always laughed at information and made a mockery of it. While the truly valuable information of preventing a war, of swiftly ending it without bloodshed, has had a habit of evading our grasp, or ended up being only a temporary lull.
ISIS appear to be a pseudo-religious group, it is a religion and doctrine and ideology not used as part of the Islamic faith by the majority of its followers. Yet their aim for a caliphate is somewhat intrinsically connected to the idea of a religion led state. (Don't all criminal empires employ a god or worship a 'god'? It may well be a worship of money and drugs, but still a monster they feed with their crimes.)
Sort of disagreeing with you off-key, while agreeing with you in places, while rambling out my thoughts and points on page with no particular agenda.
yeah, the information is already getting thrown at us via need channels. take Fox and it's affiliates. when the Ukraine was used by America, Fox news said Russia had invaded it, showed footage of tanks and helicopters doing manouvers. The guy hosting the news looked straight into a camera and said "Russia has invaded Ukraine"
to be fair, Russia's news Channel is fairly anti-american
god knows what those poor souls in north Korea have to watch
so much information and mis information.
take Israel for another example. part of their defence system includes a group of soldiers and students who go online, the aim is to engage in debates and promote Israel
to be fair, most armys do it now
economics:
some of Hillary Clinton's e:mails indicated Gadafy (can't spell) was executed because he was about to do something with all his gold which would have killed the dollar in the region
...clever the way they got him.
to be fair, Russia's news Channel is fairly anti-american
god knows what those poor souls in north Korea have to watch
so much information and mis information.
take Israel for another example. part of their defence system includes a group of soldiers and students who go online, the aim is to engage in debates and promote Israel
to be fair, most armys do it now
economics:
some of Hillary Clinton's e:mails indicated Gadafy (can't spell) was executed because he was about to do something with all his gold which would have killed the dollar in the region
...clever the way they got him.
One of the things our political leaders seem unable to understand is that many countries, especially in the Middle East, are volatile, full of various factions and tribal groupings who all hate each other and cannot accept the idea of diplomacy or discussion - their only response to ideas which differ from their own is to attempt to kill the people who hold them. The only type of person who can keep them under control is a vicious dictator who is even more ruthless and murderous than they are. Gaddafi was such a man, as was Saddam Hussein. If you remove the dictator, you are then faced with hundreds of different groups who all want to kill each other and who have usually been armed to the teeth by Western nations such as the US. Look at Afghanistan. Who armed Osama bin Laden and the Taliban? We did, because they were opposing the Russians at the time. When the Russians left, who did they attack with these weapons? Us. Forget the silly conspiracy theories, Gaddafi was murdered by a violent group of Libyan rebels after we, the West, had helped to overthrow his violent, immoral regime. He was a truly horrible man, but can we say that the situation Libya is now in is better than it was before? The same thing is currently happening in Syria. Does anyone really think that if Bashar al-Assad is overthrown, the people of Syria will put down their weapons and start living in peace? Far from it. ISIS will prosper and there will be even more millions of refugees heading west.
Kou_Indigo said:
Like my friend Laurie used to always say: "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again." Time is a cycle and a circle, after all, and sadly war has always been a part of humankind's existence since even before this current cycle of time. Likely in future cycles yet to come there will be conflict too... it is not so much a question of whether or not conflict will take place but rather if mankind has the wisdom to overcome it and forge a lasting peace thereafter. Naturally "lasting" can vary depending on a lot of factors and sometimes it can last for practically ages whilst at other times it may last only for a day. Such is the fickle nature of war and peace, and sometimes of love too. Yet through it all, time endures and so somehow does humanity. If it were not so, we would not be here now to ponder such matters.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.....
and we don't learn shit from it...
I AGREE WITH YOU..
Sena
Like my friend Laurie used to always say: "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again." Time is a cycle and a circle, after all, and sadly war has always been a part of humankind's existence since even before this current cycle of time. Likely in future cycles yet to come there will be conflict too... it is not so much a question of whether or not conflict will take place but rather if mankind has the wisdom to overcome it and forge a lasting peace thereafter. Naturally "lasting" can vary depending on a lot of factors and sometimes it can last for practically ages whilst at other times it may last only for a day. Such is the fickle nature of war and peace, and sometimes of love too. Yet through it all, time endures and so somehow does humanity. If it were not so, we would not be here now to ponder such matters.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.....
and we don't learn shit from it...
I AGREE WITH YOU..
Sena
you make some good points Ceejay. I wouldn't dismiss out of hand that Libya's intention to fund a north African currency was the death knell for Gadaffi. consider this, Libya was one of the first country in its region to commit to the US's war on terror. relations between Gadaffi , Britton and the US thrived for a time. though I would say given Gaddafi's support for factions engaged in a war with Britton, he was never going to be a fully fledged member of the club
I have yet to see conclusive evidence of Assad's tyranny. and I think the west's duplicit approach in the context of what makes a bad leader ..expendable is a serious problem.
Lybia, Iraq, Syria - regime change in the premise of tyranny
Saudi Arabi, Israel, Turkey - ah, no that's fine, we value your friendship and custom
I have yet to see conclusive evidence of Assad's tyranny. and I think the west's duplicit approach in the context of what makes a bad leader ..expendable is a serious problem.
Lybia, Iraq, Syria - regime change in the premise of tyranny
Saudi Arabi, Israel, Turkey - ah, no that's fine, we value your friendship and custom
Anonymous
lepperochan said:
I have yet to see conclusive evidence of Assad's tyranny. and I think the west's duplicit approach in the context of what makes a bad leader ..expendable is a serious problem.
^^^^^ sums up 99% of it!!
and I'd add Ukraine up there, in that list somewhere... same thing.
and Tunisia.....to some extent.
I have yet to see conclusive evidence of Assad's tyranny. and I think the west's duplicit approach in the context of what makes a bad leader ..expendable is a serious problem.
^^^^^ sums up 99% of it!!
and I'd add Ukraine up there, in that list somewhere... same thing.
and Tunisia.....to some extent.
Ukraine was an untresting turn of events. It was the first time since Serbia that the US and Nato conspired to inflict regime change in mainland europe
it also brought (in my oppinion) a new found arrogance from the American state department, evident in the leaked "and fuck the EU" phonecalls between two state deparment officials who were grooming the new government of Ukraine
more importantly, everyone who died in Ukraine, died not for freedom but for the cause of corporations who wouldn't piss on the people if a Molotov coctail landed on them
it also brought (in my oppinion) a new found arrogance from the American state department, evident in the leaked "and fuck the EU" phonecalls between two state deparment officials who were grooming the new government of Ukraine
more importantly, everyone who died in Ukraine, died not for freedom but for the cause of corporations who wouldn't piss on the people if a Molotov coctail landed on them
