Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
MaKaElectric

World On The Brink

48 posts in this topic

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

For a person who is in the mid of a war it does not matter if this war is regional or global. My grandfather was born during wwl. Global war but for him it was in his reagon. He was killed during wwll and my father was only a couple of months old. So there is already two generations conected by war regional or global. Now, I experienced the balkan wars as did my two older children. So there are now 4 generations back to back experiensing A war, global or regional, does not matter. That is a stretch of about 80 years. I know if you are in the USA or Canada then, yes, it was a kind of a peace since wwll but if you are in europe, middle east, africa well, then not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

For a person who is in the mid of a war it does not matter if this war is regional or global. My grandfather was born during wwl. Global war but for him it was in his reagon. He was killed during wwll and my father was only a couple of months old. So there is already two generations conected by war regional or global. Now, I experienced the balkan wars as did my two older children. So there are now 4 generations back to back experiensing A war, global or regional, does not matter. That is a stretch of about 80 years. I know if you are in the USA or Canada then, yes, it was a kind of a peace since wwll but if you are in europe, middle east, africa well, then not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense that there will be major war in the future? Sure. But Obamacare being an indication of a coming one? Sheer idiocy.

Obamacare is not an indication of a coming war. It is the Socialism that is in the leadership position and if it remains will be the indication of the coming big wars. American Hegemony has kept the big wars at bay for the past 60 years or so. When this bubble erodes enough, then you will see a big war. Socialism erodes this bubble internally as Islam will erode it externally. Islam is absolutely insidious. And both these powers will place stress on America that she will eventually buckle. Just as Rome fell from constant combined attacks from the inside and the outside, America is close behind.

We have history on our side. And I believe in American Exceptionalism and that our best days are ahead of us. Do we learn from history now or later or at all? Our Founding Fathers took the lessons of the past and gave us something special. Now we are in danger of losing it. The one lesson that our Founding Fathers could not pass on was how to keep it. This is something we must do for ourselves. People have grown soft because they do not understand what freedom lost means and that allows Socialism to creep into our system. They take their freedom for granted, that it will always be there. They don’t realize that it requires a price to maintain. I think that the elections in 124 days will be the indicator.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Obamacare is not an indication of a coming war. It is the Socialism that is in the leadership position and if it remains will be the indication of the coming big wars. American Hegemony has kept the big wars at bay for the past 60 years or so. When this bubble erodes enough, then you will see a big war. Socialism erodes this bubble internally as Islam will erode it externally. Islam is absolutely insidious. And both these powers will place stress on America that she will eventually buckle. Just as Rome fell from constant combined attacks from the inside and the outside, America is close behind.

We have history on our side. And I believe in American Exceptionalism and that our best days are ahead of us. Do we learn from history now or later or at all? Our Founding Fathers took the lessons of the past and gave us something special. Now we are in danger of losing it. The one lesson that our Founding Fathers could not pass on was how to keep it. This is something we must do for ourselves. People have grown soft because they do not understand what freedom lost means and that allows Socialism to creep into our system. They take their freedom for granted, that it will always be there. They don’t realize that it requires a price to maintain. I think that the elections in 124 days will be the indicator.

I believe we have lost it already. Obama will win, even if it requires voter fraud, subsequent demonstrations will be suppressed with the help of FEMA. I am not saying this because I don't like Obama. It was Dick Cheney who was put in charge to "coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies." He was thereby able to oversee the collection and management (and/or disappearance) of any and all evidence. This was in May 2001.

http://www.fema.gov/...se.fema?id=6166

Edited by lliqerty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Why do you say the government's job is to lie, unless you are joking? IMO, it is what they do but it is not their job. Their job is to serve the people. Even, the people own the government.

A nonpartisan think tank sounds rather benign. And it is intended to. Hillary Clinton said that it is where she gets told what to do in regards to foreign policy. People might say, so what? Well, we do not elect the members, as you said, their discussions are left confidential, so Hillary who is our representative, just as an example, does not follow her own values when functioning in her position, but the values of the CFR. Non-partisan only means that both are equally being corrupted in the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you say the government's job is to lie, unless you are joking? IMO, it is what they do but it is not their job. Their job is to serve the people. Even, the people own the government.

A nonpartisan think tank sounds rather benign. And it is intended to. Hillary Clinton said that it is where she gets told what to do in regards to foreign policy. People might say, so what? Well, we do not elect the members, as you said, their discussions are left confidential, so Hillary who is our representative, just as an example, does not follow her own values when functioning in her position, but the values of the CFR. Non-partisan only means that both are equally being corrupted in the same way.

[media=]

[/media]

I was being semi-facetious, but partially serious as well. Yes, we live in a state of popular sovereignty. However, the role of public service has hastened towards a strange, backwards entitlement with too much power, rather than true service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being semi-facetious, but partially serious as well. Yes, we live in a state of popular sovereignty. However, the role of public service has hastened towards a strange, backwards entitlement with too much power, rather than true service.

I know this clip and i agree with the facetious half. The other half I would be curious hear more about.

I believe people are always more or less the same, strengths and weaknesses. I believe the system is what needs to be molded such that it balances the weaknesses to make them equally strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.