World War III

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 6:01 AM GMT
    How many think we're truly heading toward World War III?
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jul 29, 2014 2:21 PM GMT
    You must be referring to that war that will be fought in a new way? The war that will not require the 5.56 NATO? The war that ObamaCare will never be prepared for?

    The selective war.

  • frogman89

    Posts: 418

    Jul 29, 2014 2:24 PM GMT
    He's talking about the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 2:39 PM GMT
    frogman89 saidHe's talking about the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.


    I'll speak for myself ... thank you very much.

    I'm also talking about Russia's FU to the rest of the world, China trying to pick fights with Japan and Philippines, trouble all over the middle East (I know, what's new about that).
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    Jul 29, 2014 8:06 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    frogman89 saidHe's talking about the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.


    I'll speak for myself ... thank you very much.

    I'm also talking about Russia's FU to the rest of the world, China trying to pick fights with Japan and Philippines, trouble all over the middle East (I know, what's new about that).


    China isn't very aggressive, they only have aspirations of gaining strategic territory near them, but they don't have any desires for a war beyond that.

    Russia is unpredictable and violent, but that should remain a European problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 8:08 PM GMT
    FitGwynedd said
    freedomisntfree said
    frogman89 saidHe's talking about the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.


    I'll speak for myself ... thank you very much.

    I'm also talking about Russia's FU to the rest of the world, China trying to pick fights with Japan and Philippines, trouble all over the middle East (I know, what's new about that).


    China isn't very aggressive, they only have aspirations of gaining strategic territory near them, but they don't have any desires for a war beyond that.

    Russia is unpredictable and violent, but that should remain a European problem.


    But it won't. Remember the NATO pact?
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    Jul 29, 2014 8:20 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    FitGwynedd said
    freedomisntfree said
    frogman89 saidHe's talking about the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.


    I'll speak for myself ... thank you very much.

    I'm also talking about Russia's FU to the rest of the world, China trying to pick fights with Japan and Philippines, trouble all over the middle East (I know, what's new about that).


    China isn't very aggressive, they only have aspirations of gaining strategic territory near them, but they don't have any desires for a war beyond that.

    Russia is unpredictable and violent, but that should remain a European problem.


    But it won't. Remember the NATO pact?


    US should either withdraw or not honour it. America shouldn't have to sort out European problems. America already pays for the defence of continental Europe, and the cost isn't worth the benefit.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14389

    Jul 29, 2014 8:33 PM GMT
    Russia and Syria could be the two major contributors to a possible WW3 due to what is going on in both countries. Russia will be the primary instigator since it is trying to invade a neighboring, sovereign country by stoking up hatred against that neighboring country's government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 9:00 PM GMT
    Hm, I've been following a bit of this for a while. I've seen 3 major problems, regions with rising tensions.

    1/ China vs. Japan and the rest of SouthEast Asia (China responds to the US to basically BUTT OUT of their business).

    . China has a major dispute with Japan (along with Taiwan) over the Senkakus islands in the East China Sea. The Japanese and Chinese locked on their dispute for a long while now. The islands belong to Japan but China wants it for its oil resources and China's picking a fight with Japan for its past war history. All other Asian countries are not happy with China for being a bully and they're kinda teaming up.

    . China has several major islands and border claims with the Phillippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and India for the same reason stated above. (There was a major clash between Vietnam-China very recently in the Paracel islands). The US backs most of the smaller Southeast Asian countries against China claims. (China is not happy with this).

    2/ The Middle East Conflict (Israeli-Palestinian), they just can't get along. It's pretty sad to see war-coverage going on everyday over there.

    3/ Russia-Ukraine Crisis (more sanctions against Russia, They want to be more dominant like in the past thus creating great conflict with Russia vs US/the West).

    ....oh yeah one more thing North vs. South Korea, the last time the north threatened to send a bomb to the South was like 2 months ago? Japan/US/S Korea should team up against N. Korea/China.

    I think it's the beginning to WW3, basically it's between China vs Japan/other Asian countries + the US. Russia vs the West/US. Middle East conflicts. I have a feeling that China, Russie, Iran, N Korea and other anti-western countries will team up against the West. History tends to repeat itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 9:06 PM GMT
    Interesting video I found.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 9:23 PM GMT
    FitGwynedd said
    freedomisntfree said
    FitGwynedd said
    freedomisntfree said
    frogman89 saidHe's talking about the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.


    I'll speak for myself ... thank you very much.

    I'm also talking about Russia's FU to the rest of the world, China trying to pick fights with Japan and Philippines, trouble all over the middle East (I know, what's new about that).


    China isn't very aggressive, they only have aspirations of gaining strategic territory near them, but they don't have any desires for a war beyond that.

    Russia is unpredictable and violent, but that should remain a European problem.


    But it won't. Remember the NATO pact?


    US should either withdraw or not honour it. America shouldn't have to sort out European problems. America already pays for the defence of continental Europe, and the cost isn't worth the benefit.


    That would never happen, because well America likes to honor their words, how would they stand with the rest of the international community if they just back out or dishonor their words?. Second, US has very strong allies in Western Europe (France, England, Germany...etc), So whatever happens over there indirectly affect the US. (It's kind of like US indirectly backs Taiwan against China). US is one of the original member of the 5 united nations, they simply won't butt out of *European's problems because it's in Europe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 10:17 PM GMT
    LAXWill10 saidHm, I've been following a bit of this for a while. I've seen 3 major problems, regions with rising tensions.

    1/ China vs. Japan and the rest of SouthEast Asia (China responds to the US to basically BUTT OUT of their business).

    . China has a major dispute with Japan (along with Taiwan) over the Senkakus islands in the East China Sea. The Japanese and Chinese locked on their dispute for a long while now. The islands belong to Japan but China wants it for its oil resources and China's picking a fight with Japan for its past war history. All other Asian countries are not happy with China for being a bully and they're kinda teaming up.

    . China has several major islands and border claims with the Phillippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and India for the same reason stated above. (There was a major clash between Vietnam-China very recently in the Paracel islands). The US backs most of the smaller Southeast Asian countries against China claims. (China is not happy with this).


    2/ The Middle East Conflict (Israeli-Palestinian), they just can't get along. It's pretty sad to see war-coverage going on everyday over there.

    3/ Russia-Ukraine Crisis (more sanctions against Russia, They want to be more dominant like in the past thus creating great conflict with Russia vs US/the West).

    ....oh yeah one more thing North vs. South Korea, the last time the north threatened to send a bomb to the South was like 2 months ago? Japan/US/S Korea should team up against N. Korea/China.

    I think it's the beginning to WW3, basically it's between China vs Japan/other Asian countries + the US. Russia vs the West/US. Middle East conflicts. I have a feeling that China, Russie, Iran, N Korea and other anti-western countries will team up against the West. History tends to repeat itself.


    Yep, that's about 1/3rd of it with Russia and middle east the other 2/3rds

    "History tends to repeat itself."

    Sure does.

    And this is exactly why I'm not a one issue voter.

    "Happenings" in the world can nullify those newfound rights and everybody else's too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 10:24 PM GMT
    FitGwynedd said
    freedomisntfree said
    FitGwynedd said
    freedomisntfree said
    frogman89 saidHe's talking about the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.


    I'll speak for myself ... thank you very much.

    I'm also talking about Russia's FU to the rest of the world, China trying to pick fights with Japan and Philippines, trouble all over the middle East (I know, what's new about that).


    China isn't very aggressive, they only have aspirations of gaining strategic territory near them, but they don't have any desires for a war beyond that.

    Russia is unpredictable and violent, but that should remain a European problem.


    But it won't. Remember the NATO pact?


    US should either withdraw or not honour it. America shouldn't have to sort out European problems. America already pays for the defence of continental Europe, and the cost isn't worth the benefit.


    "America shouldn't have to sort out European problems."

    What did doing exactly that get us about 70 - 80 years ago. Think it can't happen again?
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Jul 29, 2014 10:52 PM GMT
    It's not something that is 'coming' it is already here and has been since the fall of the USSR. We're in it. It's still predominantly 'cold' (unless you live in Eurasia) but, as current events show, it is warming up and could go 'hot' in an instant:

    Historical background: Long range strategy as outlined by Brzezinski: Control of Eurasia.

    Cf:



    After the Soviet Union’s dissolution in late 1989, America had a choice. As the sole remaining superpower, it could have worked for a new era of peace and prosperity, ended decades of Cold War tensions, halted the insane arms race, turned swords into plowshares, and diverted hundreds of billions annually from “defense” to “rebuild(ing) civilian infrastructure and repair(ing) impoverished cities.”

    Instead, Washington, under GHW Bush and his successors, “chose stealth, deception, lies and wars to attempt to control the Eurasian Heartland – its only potential rival as an economic region – by military (political, and economic) force,” and by extension planet earth through an agenda later called “full spectrum dominance.”



    On December 14, 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from ABM and much more. It [the US] claimed the right to develop and test new nuclear weapons (in violation of NPT), rescinded the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, greatly increased military spending, refused to consider a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to increase [sic] already large stockpiles, and claimed the right to wage preventive wars under the doctrine of “anticipatory self-defense” using first-strike nuclear weapons.

    The door was now open for enhanced militarization, creation of the US Missile Defense Agency, and proof again that trusting America is foolhardy and dangerous. Both GHW Bush and Bill Clinton lied by enticing former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO, one by one.

    ...

    Zbigniew Brzezinski described [it] in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard.”

    He called Eurasia the “center of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.” He explained that America’s urgent task was to assure that “no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.Dominating that part of the world is key to controlling the planet, and its the main reason for NATO’s existence. From inception, its mission was offense.

    ...

    Brzezinski understood the dangers of imperial arrogance, causing the decline and fall of previous empires. Even a superpower like the US is vulnerable. He was very comfortable with an American Century, only leery of the means to achieve and keeping it. In 2008, with 28 NATO country members, including 10 former Warsaw Pact ones, Washington sought admission for Georgia and Ukraine, and did so after announcing in early 2007 the planned installation of interceptor missiles in Poland and advanced tracking radar in the Czech Republic, both NATO members.

    Allegedly for defense against Iran and other “rogue” states, it clearly targeted Russia by guaranteeing America a nuclear first-strike edge, and that provoked a sharp Kremlin response. Washington’s deployment is for offense as are all US/NATO installations globally.



    For America to remain the sole superpower, controlling global oil and gas flows is crucial along with cutting off China from Caspian Sea reserves and securing the energy routes and networks between Russia and the EU.

    It’s why America invaded and occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, incited Baltic wars in the 1990s, attacked Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, threatens Iran repeatedly and imposes sanctions, and keeps trying to oust Hugo Chavez. [At time of press] For its part under Vladimir Putin, Russia’s economy began to grow for the first time in decades. It’s rich in oil and gas, and uses them strategically to gain influence enough to rival Washington, especially in alliance with China and other former Soviet states like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, united in the 2001-formed Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Iran and India having observer status.

    Under Bush-Cheney, Washington reacted aggressively. “Full spectrum dominance” is the aim with Russia and China the main targets. Controlling world energy resources is central, and nothing under Obama has changed. ...

    More at source: here.

    Contemporary clues:

    US Threatens Russia Over Petrodollar-Busting Deal
    Tyler Durden's pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 04/05/2014 14:27 -0400

    On the heels of Russia's potential "holy grail" gas deal with China, the news of a Russia-Iran oil "barter" deal, it appears the US is starting to get very concerned about its almighty Petrodollar

    *U.S. HAS WARNED RUSSIA, IRAN AGAINST POSSIBLE OIL BARTER DEAL
    *U.S. SAYS ANY SUCH DEAL WOULD TRIGGER SANCTIONS
    *U.S. HAS CONVEYED CONCERNS TO IRANIAN GOVT THROUGH ALL CHANNELS
    We suspect these sanctions would have more teeth than some travel bans, but, as we noted previously, it is just as likely to be another epic geopolitical debacle resulting from what was originally intended to be a demonstration of strength and instead is rapidly turning out into a terminal confirmation of weakness.

    More at source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-04/us-threatens-russia-sanctions-over-petrodollar-busting-deal

    5/29/2014 @ 11:25AM 9,893 views
    The 'Colder War' And The End Of The Petrodollar
    Marin Katusa Marin Katusa , Contributor
    Comment Now Follow Comments

    By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist
    The mainstream media are falling over themselves talking about Russia’s just-signed “Holy Grail” gas deal with China, which is expected to be worth more than $400 billion. But here’s what I think the real news is… and nobody’s talking about it—until now, that is.

    China’s President Xi Jinping has publicly stated that it’s time for a new model of security, not just for China, but for all of Asia. This new model of security, otherwise known as “the new UN,” will include Russia and Iran, but not the United States or the EU-28.

    This monumental gas deal with China does so much more for Russia than the Western media are reporting. First off, it opens up Russian oil and gas supplies to all of Asia.

    It’s no coincidence that Russian President Putin announced the gas deal with China at a time when the tensions with the West over Ukraine were growing. Putin has US President Obama exactly where he wants him, and it’s only going to get worse for Europe and America.

    More at source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2014/05/29/the-colder-war-and-the-end-of-the-petrodollar/


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 11:03 PM GMT
    ^^^^^^

    "who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981."

    about all you need to know about that one.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Jul 29, 2014 11:05 PM GMT
    BTW, in case that isn't all clear: PRETY MUCH THE ONLY THING KEEPING OUR INCREASINGLY DEVALUED DOLLARS AFLOAT, GIVEN OUR TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DEBT, IS THE PETRODOLAR. If that goes, so goes our grand illusion of being "the wealthiest nation on earth." WE ARE NOT. We are a nation of debtors. And we could loose our global preeminence… which is precisely what Brzezinski was warning about. IF the Russia, China, Iran and India form a new alliance, the US will have failed their agenda and chances are VERY VERY HIGH that all out war will be inevitable.

    Purchasing%2BPower%2Bof%2BU.S.%2BDollar.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jul 29, 2014 11:06 PM GMT
    London and New York still think they can control the world through finance, it's not going to work - Russia, China, India and Brazil aren't that stupid
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Jul 29, 2014 11:06 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said^^^^^^

    "who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981."

    about all you need to know about that one.

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Jul 29, 2014 11:07 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidLondon and New York still think they can control the world through finance, it's not going to work - Russia, China, India and Brazil aren't that stupid

    That's what I've been saying since 9/11. The US has this grand strategy which it has been playing out--which is why 911 was necessary--but why the hell they think the rest of the world is just going to let them roll over them is beyond my comprehension. Either they are very stupid or they truly are insane.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 11:08 PM GMT
    MikeW said
    freedomisntfree said^^^^^^

    "who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981."

    about all you need to know about that one.

    icon_rolleyes.gif


    You're a leftie and I'm a rightie so not much point in discussing, especially when it's a nice day and there things to do outside.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Jul 29, 2014 11:14 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    MikeW said
    freedomisntfree said^^^^^^

    "who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981."

    about all you need to know about that one.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    You're a leftie and I'm a rightie so not much point in discussing, especially when it's a nice day and there things to do outside.

    The rolling eyes is because regardless of the political party, regardless of the right/left false dichotomy that has had a stranglehold on the publics political imagination since the end of of WWII, the reality is Brzezinski's long-range political strategy IS THE STRATEGY that has been implemented by the military industrial complex. << The latter doesn't give a rats ass about your right/left idiocy and never has EXCEPT as a means to control your political thought.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 11:16 PM GMT
    MikeW said
    freedomisntfree said
    MikeW said
    freedomisntfree said^^^^^^

    "who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981."

    about all you need to know about that one.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    You're a leftie and I'm a rightie so not much point in discussing, especially when it's a nice day and there things to do outside.

    The rolling eyes is because regardless of the political party, regardless of the right/left false dichotomy that has had a stranglehold on the publics political imagination since the end of of WWII, the reality is Brzezinski's long-range political strategy IS THE STRATEGY that has been implemented by the military industrial complex. << The latter doesn't give a rats ass about your right/left idiocy and never has EXCEPT as a means to control your political thought.


    So again:

    You're a leftie and I'm a rightie so not much point in discussing, and shove your insults up your very loose ass.
  • venue35

    Posts: 4644

    Jul 29, 2014 11:16 PM GMT
    It would be awesome if the USA did start world war III..with Russia!!
    So all that money spent in 80's on the Star Wars defense system didn't go to waste after all..Then at the last minute Russia totally nukes the US and only California survives as it breaks off and becomes an island.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Jul 29, 2014 11:22 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidSo again:

    You're a leftie and I'm a rightie so not much point in discussing, and shove your insults up your very loose ass.

    No, I'm saying 'right/left' is irrelevant. Are you saying I'm wrong about Brzezinski's strategy being followed? If not, what is your point?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 11:26 PM GMT
    MikeW said
    freedomisntfree saidSo again:

    You're a leftie and I'm a rightie so not much point in discussing, and shove your insults up your very loose ass.

    No, I'm saying 'right/left' is irrelevant. Are you saying I'm wrong about Brzezinski's strategy being followed? If not, what is your point?


    Ames Tri Power National coming up Fri through Sunday so work to do in the garage while there's some light.

    And I'm not saying it isn't being followed somewhat.

    Later.