Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

World On The Brink

2012 ww3 world war 3 china iran

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#31    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:27 PM

View Postlliqerty, on 05 July 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Here is the challenge: what do you see when you look into the future? If you use the credit score argument, having paid your bills in the past, the bank will lend you money you cannot afford, then you would figure that the world will continue to manage as it does now. But if a major war breaks out every generation, then we are overdue.

I don't see a massive world war that's for sure. Or silly FEMA camps either.


odas I wasn't trying to belittle events such as the Balkan War, but as horrible as it was it was still a limited conflict. None of the major European powers got involved until the very end when NATO stepped in. There are of course wars and rebellions happening all the time around the world but my point is that they're not happening to the extent as they have in the past where major world powers have thrown down with each other resulting in what could be called world wars. Such as the US and China fighting each other. Just trying to point out when when it comes to conflicts on the scale of WW3 the conditions just aren't there currently. Hopefully things in the Balkans will continue to improve so that they can have long periods of peace as well.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#32    Drayno

Drayno

    Bounty Hunter

  • Member
  • 3,881 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Neo-Mars

Posted 06 July 2012 - 03:18 AM

View PostCorp, on 05 July 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

The Pax Romana saw invasions, rebellions, and civil wars a plenty. And during this time there was plenty of blood following in China and other parts of the world.

And of course you need war for peace and vis versa, with them being opposites and all. Doesn't mean WW3 is going to happen any day now.

But it will happen. That is all I'm saying.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II
Posted Image

#33    lliqerty

lliqerty

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2012 - 05:54 AM

View PostCorp, on 05 July 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

I don't see a massive world war that's for sure. Or silly FEMA camps either.


odas I wasn't trying to belittle events such as the Balkan War, but as horrible as it was it was still a limited conflict. None of the major European powers got involved until the very end when NATO stepped in. There are of course wars and rebellions happening all the time around the world but my point is that they're not happening to the extent as they have in the past where major world powers have thrown down with each other resulting in what could be called world wars. Such as the US and China fighting each other. Just trying to point out when when it comes to conflicts on the scale of WW3 the conditions just aren't there currently. Hopefully things in the Balkans will continue to improve so that they can have long periods of peace as well.

It seems naive. If 911 was a false flag to start several local wars, which we had not seen before, what kind of a war will the next false flag start? Who decides, Cheney, Jr ?


#34    Paracelse

Paracelse

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,074 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 06 July 2012 - 06:09 AM

View PostCorp, on 03 July 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

And when looking at things in a historical context sixty-seven years without a major war is a period of peace unheard of in centuries. I mean at the very least someone should be attacking France or dividing up Italy by now.


Anyway to follow with the theme of the thread:  DOOM!

I would like the US to attack France.. every time US attacks someone and win the end up doing great.  Simple look at Germany and Japan will suffice.  Now the only group that lost to the US and never made it big out of it are the Native American

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither Benjamin Franklin
République No.6
It's time for a sixth republic.

#35    lliqerty

lliqerty

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2012 - 06:14 AM

View PostParacelse, on 06 July 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

I would like the US to attack France.. every time US attacks someone and win the end up doing great.  Simple look at Germany and Japan will suffice.  Now the only group that lost to the US and never made it big out of it are the Native American

Maybe Hollande is a new Napoleon. That would get the US into action.


#36    Drayno

Drayno

    Bounty Hunter

  • Member
  • 3,881 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Neo-Mars

Posted 06 July 2012 - 06:47 AM

Syria could be the potential catalyst, if things happen in a certain way.

Whether these things will happen is ambiguous. It is beyond any of us what the true actions of the Iranians or Russians could be.

I for sure do not know. The best bets are our intelligence networks, which are vast.

I could not see any forseeable thing that could cause tensions between the United States or the Russian Federation.

But anything can happen.

The United States will attempt to be a 'moral' influence - and I am sure they already have invasion plans; the military heads have already talked to the president about it, I'm sure - as I have heard that they have all the cards on the table. Right now NATO seems to be warning Syria more and more, while the United States berates from Washington via Hilary Clinton; her accusations about the Russians providing Syria helicopters. Which is showing the United States, if fleetingly, is still trying to be diplomatic.

Provided, I just read the news and there is more escalation as fighting is increasing in all our war in one distract; leaving it tattered and in rubble, while the other citizens, residing in the other distract, are simply watching on with awe. I suppose to the only thing is to pay attention to our current history; suffice, if anything should arise, if we are diligent and we pay attention, we can offer our best solution; an automatic response..

The government, you should remember, is not an entity if conscience.

Edited by Drayno, 06 July 2012 - 06:50 AM.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II
Posted Image

#37    lliqerty

lliqerty

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2012 - 07:19 AM

View PostDrayno, on 06 July 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

The best bets are our intelligence networks, which are vast.

The United States will attempt to be a 'moral' influence - and I am sure they already have invasion plans; the military heads have already talked to the president about it, I'm sure - as I have heard that they have all the cards on the table. Right now NATO seems to be warning Syria more and more, while the United States berates from Washington via Hilary Clinton; her accusations about the Russians providing Syria helicopters. Which is showing the United States, if fleetingly, is still trying to be diplomatic.

Provided, I just read the news and there is more escalation as fighting is increasing in all our war in one distract; leaving it tattered and in rubble, while the other citizens, residing in the other distract, are simply watching on with awe. I suppose to the only thing is to pay attention to our current history; suffice, if anything should arise, if we are diligent and we pay attention, we can offer our best solution; an automatic response..

The government, you should remember, is not an entity if conscience.

If 'The government is not an entity if conscience.' then why do you trust 'The United States will attempt to be a 'moral' influence'?

Syrians are good people, as are the Libyans and Americans. It is the governments that do acts of incredible monstrosity. 911 was done in coersion with our top govt officials, including those who keep secrets for a living, CIA and FBI. How can you trust our 'best bets are our intelligence networks'? (I consider it rational that they will do what is in their best interest, such as follow their orders)

How can you believe anything - a group of agents sworn to secrecy, and known to be corrupt, says when there is no transparancy, and no accountability to you, me, nor to 'We the people'?

Edited by lliqerty, 06 July 2012 - 07:36 AM.


#38    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 15,019 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:01 AM

View PostCorp, on 05 July 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

The Pax Romana saw invasions, rebellions, and civil wars a plenty. And during this time there was plenty of blood following in China and other parts of the world.

And of course you need war for peace and vis versa, with them being opposites and all. Doesn't mean WW3 is going to happen any day now.



True but normally by now some major world powers should have thrown down by now. Instead they're all getting along, to verying degrees. No major war is in the works right now.



We don't have cities being wiped off the map, major country devoting all their resources towards war, dozens of countries being pulled into long and bloody fights, and thousand of soldiers being killed in a single day. Since the end of the Second World War no major powers have directly gone to war. The conflicts have either been regional with major players staying neutral or have been one sided with a powerful nation (or a collection of them) fighting a single weak nation. The wars we're dealing with today are no where near the scale of the wars that tend to break out every generation in human history.
I understand what you're saying but it seems you don't take into account the possibility of a new paradigm where the old game is played.  A smaller regional conflict could turn into a world wide conflagration overnight if someone got twitchy with a nuke.  The world's not very stable just now and with the religious types in charge in several places, who knows?  This is precisely what I think will happen.  I don't expect a global war though.  In an odd way i think that if NK or Israel or someone detonated  a nuke it might well serve to create peace in the short run.  It would scare the CRAP out of the world and wake everyone up.  But then once people see that one CAN be used without armageddon happening, armageddon suddenly becomes more likely.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#39    lliqerty

lliqerty

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:07 AM

View Postand then, on 06 July 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

I understand what you're saying but it seems you don't take into account the possibility of a new paradigm where the old game is played.  A smaller regional conflict could turn into a world wide conflagration overnight if someone got twitchy with a nuke.  The world's not very stable just now and with the religious types in charge in several places, who knows?  This is precisely what I think will happen.  I don't expect a global war though.  In an odd way i think that if NK or Israel or someone detonated  a nuke it might well serve to create peace in the short run.  It would scare the CRAP out of the world and wake everyone up.  But then once people see that one CAN be used without armageddon happening, armageddon suddenly becomes more likely.

yes, lets hope  "NK or Israel or someone detonated  a nuke" in Washington DC. "It would scare the CRAP out of the world", I agree.


#40    Drayno

Drayno

    Bounty Hunter

  • Member
  • 3,881 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Neo-Mars

Posted 06 July 2012 - 11:05 AM

View Postlliqerty, on 06 July 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

If 'The government is not an entity if conscience.' then why do you trust 'The United States will attempt to be a 'moral' influence'?

Syrians are good people, as are the Libyans and Americans. It is the governments that do acts of incredible monstrosity. 911 was done in coersion with our top govt officials, including those who keep secrets for a living, CIA and FBI. How can you trust our 'best bets are our intelligence networks'? (I consider it rational that they will do what is in their best interest, such as follow their orders)

How can you believe anything - a group of agents sworn to secrecy, and known to be corrupt, says when there is no transparancy, and no accountability to you, me, nor to 'We the people'?

I do not trust the government.

I only trust in my expectance for the government to act practically and in interest of their existence.

But by 'moral' influence, I mean their goal is to exist as an 'Empire of Liberty'.

Or in simple terms, to be influential in the west, to spread democracy; which subsequently leads to them becoming police force to intervene militaristically, if their relative interests or networks are 'threatened'. Or to be a 'force for good'; but for who's good? The people's, or their own?

And you misread me. I meant that, in literal terms, our intelligence networks soar in comparison with the information collecting capabilities of the average individual. Obviously, the heads of the military, white house cabinet members, and the executive have information we do not, and deal directly with the intelligence gathering communities.

So I do not believe in most form of news. I am a journalist; I believe in integrity, and nonbias; or at least propagandized bias. I believe the only time an opinion should exist is the op/ed, unless you are writing an intellectually, instrospective, mind stimulatng piece that can only be achieved through gonzo journalism.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II
Posted Image

#41    Paracelse

Paracelse

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,074 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 06 July 2012 - 11:11 AM

View Postlliqerty, on 06 July 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

Maybe Hollande is a new Napoleon. That would get the US into action.
NL doesn't have the stamina to be even remotely like Napoleon (outside the size he's short also) heck even his girlfriends were introduced to him by DSK (of infamous IMF)(who tried the first before passing them on)

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither Benjamin Franklin
République No.6
It's time for a sixth republic.

#42    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 06 July 2012 - 04:46 PM

View Postlliqerty, on 06 July 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:


It seems naive. If 911 was a false flag to start several local wars, which we had not seen before, what kind of a war will the next false flag start? Who decides, Cheney, Jr ?

That's only if you believe flag flags are being used. And history is full of examples of local wars being started on weak reasons so it's nothing new. And still not seeing WW3 in my life time.

View Postand then, on 06 July 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

I understand what you're saying but it seems you don't take into account the possibility of a new paradigm where the old game is played.  A smaller regional conflict could turn into a world wide conflagration overnight if someone got twitchy with a nuke.  The world's not very stable just now and with the religious types in charge in several places, who knows?  This is precisely what I think will happen.  I don't expect a global war though.  In an odd way i think that if NK or Israel or someone detonated  a nuke it might well serve to create peace in the short run.  It would scare the CRAP out of the world and wake everyone up.  But then once people see that one CAN be used without armageddon happening, armageddon suddenly becomes more likely.

Crazy people with nukes is a problem but I think the new paradigm actually adds to the stability. If NK does set off a nuke would China be willing to risk their huge business interests to protect them? I personally find it unlikely. The benefits just don't outweigh the risks. Besides setting off one nuke, and then getting completely trashed in the aftermath, is far different from letting them fly willy nilly, which is something the nuclear armed nations are well aware of. After all look at Pakistan and India. Both have nukes, both hate each other, but they've managed to remain civil for the most part and have even taking some steps at improving their relations.


On the Syrian front I don't think there's any set plan to get involved. If there was Syria shooting down a Turkish jet gave them a great opening. Instead Turkey just made vague threats while their NATO allies just added it to the sucky things Syria has been doing.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#43    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 15,019 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 06 July 2012 - 05:03 PM

View Postlliqerty, on 06 July 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

yes, lets hope  "NK or Israel or someone detonated  a nuke" in Washington DC. "It would scare the CRAP out of the world", I agree.
Well, that wasn't exactly what I had in mind.  I was thinking of some location that didn't guarantee a full scale nuclear war.  What an odd thing to say.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#44    lliqerty

lliqerty

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Joined:17 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2012 - 05:12 PM

View PostDrayno, on 06 July 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

I do not trust the government.

I only trust in my expectance for the government to act practically and in interest of their existence.

But by 'moral' influence, I mean their goal is to exist as an 'Empire of Liberty'.

Or in simple terms, to be influential in the west, to spread democracy; which subsequently leads to them becoming police force to intervene militaristically, if their relative interests or networks are 'threatened'. Or to be a 'force for good'; but for who's good? The people's, or their own?

And you misread me. I meant that, in literal terms, our intelligence networks soar in comparison with the information collecting capabilities of the average individual. Obviously, the heads of the military, white house cabinet members, and the executive have information we do not, and deal directly with the intelligence gathering communities.

So I do not believe in most form of news. I am a journalist; I believe in integrity, and nonbias; or at least propagandized bias. I believe the only time an opinion should exist is the op/ed, unless you are writing an intellectually, instrospective, mind stimulatng piece that can only be achieved through gonzo journalism.

Sorry if I misread you. I thought you said that our intelligence services are our best bets for gathering information and making informed decisions based on that. In the case of Irak that would mean the presence of WMDs. In the case of terror that means that there is a threat from islamist extremists that we need to fight a war against.

I believe in both cases the data the public gets (through the media) is false. Not mistaken but intentionally falsified. A false flag is a terror attack by our govt agencies on our own people to justify a war against the country they blame. The mass media is then told what to report - and what to ignore. That is why I did not agree with your 'best bet' statement.

Since you are a journalist, I'd like to ask if you are familiar with the Council on Foreign Relations? Your colleaguies in the mass media never seem to report on it, yet I believe it has great influence.


#45    Drayno

Drayno

    Bounty Hunter

  • Member
  • 3,881 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Neo-Mars

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:31 PM

View Postlliqerty, on 06 July 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Sorry if I misread you. I thought you said that our intelligence services are our best bets for gathering information and making informed decisions based on that. In the case of Irak that would mean the presence of WMDs. In the case of terror that means that there is a threat from islamist extremists that we need to fight a war against.

I believe in both cases the data the public gets (through the media) is false. Not mistaken but intentionally falsified. A false flag is a terror attack by our govt agencies on our own people to justify a war against the country they blame. The mass media is then told what to report - and what to ignore. That is why I did not agree with your 'best bet' statement.

Since you are a journalist, I'd like to ask if you are familiar with the Council on Foreign Relations? Your colleaguies in the mass media never seem to report on it, yet I believe it has great influence.

The government's job is to lie; the president's job is to lie - that's machiavellian politics for you.

It's a shame, however, that the United States public gets caught in a hurricane of lies and deceit as a result.

I'm somewhat familiar with it. It's a nonpartisan think tank organization; from what I gather much of their discussions are left confidential.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users