It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is World War 3 about to start?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
William Cooper talked about how when the "fourth World War" (he consider the Cold War to be the 3rd), it would start in the middle east. The American empire would converage on the area and take Afghanistan to Syria.

Yesterday I blogged an experince I had with 2 seperate sources (Read Part 1 here) relating to the 3rd world war. After finishing Part 1, I started doing research for part 2, and was amazed by how much the mainstream media has covered up what is happening in the rest of the world, and regionalizing so many events.

Is this the great push for World War? With Iran's announcment that if sanctions are brought against them they will shut off the oil supply.

At an all time high, the force of the cost of oil would force the collapse of many civilizations that aren't on "Iran's" nice guy list, thus the spark for the Great World War.


[edit on 16-1-2006 by robdaven]




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

At an all time high, the force of the cost of oil would force the collapse of many civilizations that aren't on "Iran's" nice guy list, thus the spark for the Great World War.


Where did you get this from?

Oil is not at an all time high, If one factors in inflation we are still 30 cents give or take a few from the all time high hit in March of 81. Second, Iran exports 3.9 MB/D, this will not cause oil prices to explode, yes they will go up in the short term until the other leading world exporters compensate for Iran’s oil.

The main thing that will drive up the cost of oil in the short term is the fact that consumer confidence will be shaken due to this event, still oil costs would be nowhere be near the level needed to “collapse civilizations”. And it would not cause a world war, it would simply piss off the rest of the world, and bankrupt Iran.

[edit on 16-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
In all honesty if this does turn into some sort of world war.
I see it being a very lop-sided one. Most of the civilized nations have taken sides. EU, US, Australia is a friend, and Russia condemned Iran which somewhat shows their stance. I almost 100% guarantee nations like Canada, Japan, India and most south american nations will not go against the allies mentioned above. China im not sure. However I think China has much more to loose going against America than Allied with Iran.
Most other middle eastern nations and African nations also will benefit much better if they stick with the allies. Oil may be a very short time problem. But with this kind of lop-sided war,....it would be even shorter.

Iran is really not in a very good position at all. If military conflict is unavoidable, then I don't think we are going to see a World War in nature, but more of a World shock and awe on Irans front step

Carburetor



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Nobody is going to openly side with Iran, but I doubt there will even be a "coalition of the willing" to join America if war breaks out this time. In fact I think most nations will try to aid Iran covertly.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
The initiation to refer Iran to the UN was the decision of several nations. Not America alone. If Military action is immanent, then a coalition has already formed. Most civilized nations have already condemned Iran. Of course this does not necessarily mean they would support military action, however they would definitly not support the other side in junction. This is not a strickly US led conflict like the current war. The US is letting it play out this time with more action and lead by other nations,... you might see more of a coalition than you might think.
Just a thought from my perspective


Carburetor



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I would just like to point out that the article doesn't state that Iran has threatened to cut off oil in the event of sanctions. It states that there are concerns that sanctions might cause supply disruptions, or that there might be "cuts." It's certainly nowhere near being outside the realm of possibility, though (or even likelihood). There just hasn’t been a direct threat made with respect to this.

The big questions are: does Israel feel threatened enough by Iran to launch unilateral air strikes against suspected nuclear weapons research and development sites, and if so, does the United States really have enough pull with Israel to stop them from doing so? – and – is the current U.S. administration willing to launch their own strikes, or support any made by Israel? The answer will depend on the ratio of threat assessment to the consequences of air strikes (and incentives for not attacking).

If they feel substantially threatened by Iran's suspected nuclear program(s), have calculated that they can pull off air strikes with a minimum of response from Iran and other nearby states, and feel they have more to lose by not attacking than they do by attacking, then Israel will probably opt to pre-empt this threat before it flourishes. They have done it before. The current U.S. policy of pre-emptive warfare might lead them to calculate that this might be a more favorable move to the U.S. than it might have been in the past, as well.

If Israel - not an international coalition - strikes first, then that is going to arouse a sense of justification for war among more countries than just Iran in the region, and may have disastrous consequences for the region and the world. Keeping the conflict bound to one nation, and not allowing it to evolve into a regional affair, drastically reduces the likelihood (as small as that likelihood probably is anyway) of a major multi-national war developing. If the entire region, or much of it, becomes embroiled, then alarms will start ringing in countries across the planet, because this is the primary oil producing region on Earth. Yes there are alternatives to Middle East oil, and yes there are alternatives to oil in general, but no country is going to be willing to deal with the economic and strategic consequences of Iran, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and above all Saudi Arabia, getting into a fist fight.

That said, I think the world will be wise enough (let us hope!) to prevent that from ever happening. If even Bush is saying "Iran isn't Iraq," then I think that's a good sign that all the proper levers and buttons are being pulled and pushed to ensure Israel doesn't jump the gun, Iran doesn't develop and test a viable bomb, etc. The wild card, of course, is the conspiracy theory many suggest which includes such a regional conflict as being part of the "master plan." If this were the case, then all bets would be off, simply because the region (and its oil) would be militarily and politically up for grabs - winner takes all. I hope this never comes to pass. In fact, I hope there is no conflict, period, or any kind. I don’t think it will come to that, though, unless the theories prove true. There’s just too much at risk.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
If Iran shut off oil to the west, I'm sure we will survive Iran doesn't understand we don't need oil no more other energy sources for powering cars and oil related machines has been found long ago, its just we don't deploy the inventions mainstream as it would disrupt monies economy, but if we are forced to shift to these other power sources we will an say stfu Iran and middle east and that would make them a 3rd world country in the years to come it would be the end of them, and as we make these new power sources better and better we sure would not sure them with middle east.

other reason we don't use the other power sources instead of oil is at moment there is no real need to shift over to them while we have oil in the world still available easy accessible, if Iran does go through an shut oil off, we still have oil enough for years to come while we make the push to shift from oil to new power sources.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
There isnt going to be a world war, because this time, France & Germany as well as china and russia are backing the west on refering Iran to the security council.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I fully expect conflict with Iran. No amount of talk will change the position of Israel and the US (or those Israel firsters within the US administration).

Even without the alleged nuclear issue, Iran is no threat to Israel but has resources that Israel needs and aids those who oppose the state of Israel.
I expect the plans for expanding the conflict to Iran were most likely drawn up well before Iraq was invaded and probably well before the events of 9/11.
Sure, they'll make excuses, lame though they may be, but in the end they'll still go ahead and launch the bombers and the missiles. No amount of opposition from ordinary folk will prevent it.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
The risk of nuclear war is much too great for further military mis-adventures, the british have already said that military action against Iran is 'inconceivable' and the American administration has all but taken it off the table, expect a quite reteat from Iraq, nothing more.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
China buys 12% of it's oil from Iran.

If a US invasion of Iran occurs that threatens China's oil supply, it could be that the US has more to fear than any alliance Iran has with North Korea or Syria.

We could see a showdown over materials, thus energy wars.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
War against Iran is incredibly unlikely. The US will struggle to maintain military commitments in South Korea, Afganistan, Iraq, and launch an invasion of Iran's vast landscape.

Given the press condemnation of the WMD dossier in the UK, the US will probably not receive UK support for an invasion. In addition, China and Russia, are starting to secure their futures - Russia is capitalising in gas trade in Europe and asia, and China has a booming economy. Neither of those two countries want a war, hence Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Iran, to alleviate the crisis. (Russia stands to make a lot of money - since they are involved in Iran's nuclear programme anyway)

This leaves the UN referral route, which the UK, Germany and France have already opted for, a much safer option, and one that may work.

In my opinion, the Iran situation differs greatly from Iraq - Iraq was all about regime change with sketchy details of WMD. Iran is about confirmed atomic research which is taking place as we type.

I think it unlikely that Israel will act, given its own impending political changes and problems in palestine.

In any case, I believe that a comprehensive case must be made before any military action is taken against Iran - one that will stand up to public and academic scrutiny.

Anyone have different views?



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I honestly don't trust the US Government's approach on this. I feel they are "playing nice" until they can get sanctions imposed on Iran. And naturally Iran will ignore them just as Iraq did off and on for years. And of course we'll cry foul and demand that the UN take action against them, which they won't because, frankly, they don't have a collective set of gonads among them. I don't condone the US going to war with Iran unless they have provoked us with a show of force. But I also don't believe in the UN anymore when it comes to taking a stance against a nation that threatens the world stability.... this includes the United States.

Will there be a war with Iran? Probably at some point in the not too distant future. But I'm hoping it won't happen at all. Will there be a "World War III"? Undoubtedly.

[edit on 1/17/2006 by CyberianHusky]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Yeah i am worried about this too. if it is not Iran it will be North Korea, someone or somethiong is gonna happen fairly soon and it will be big. The world has been simmering with tension for too long now and it is gonna end up in tears



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
WW3 could start in just 12 seconds if the US breaths wrong right about now. The whole world is virtually aiming at each others heads waiting for someone to sneeze so as to give them reason to open fire. The US has only bread more problems in the world not just Iraq, but Columbia (paramilitaries. etc.), Chile, Panama, Nicuragua, etc. Oh dont forget China and their violations! If the US dares to touch Korea there WILL be a world war, if they dont but instead attack Iran well then there will be an economic world war which is worse than a full fledged war. Resources are running out (oil mainly) and the govt. is trying to take more to make more money but also to keep themselves alive. Just one problem: Its backfiring by causing a drastic increase in conflicts and attacks. Then again its NOT backfiring because Lockhede martin is making record profits.
More than likely (80%) the US will start WW3 just by making other people mad or jumping the gun or causing someone else to out of fear. You do not try and corner an animal because it will fight back more fiercly than ever and the US is doing exactly that to several nations. The world wide problem is if the US attacks Iran or some nation that DOES have nuclear capacities the will NOT hesitate to use them.
Look at it like this:
2 nations
1 huge
1 small
1 has a large army but low tech.
1 has a large army with high tech.
The small nation is GOING to loose because their tech. is to low to fight back (air to air, air to ground, etc.)
So what do they do? Blast the unholy bejesus out of everything and take you with them. They have NOTHING to loose, they are GOING to loose without question so why hold back?
The only reason most nations seek nuclear weapons in the first place is fear of invasion, thats why the US has so many. Knowing that if you push someone to far they will nuke you is a good deterent, but when they can fire back well that changes things for BOTH sides.
Iran may or may not have nukes, Iraq didnt, North Korea might have nukes, no one knows.
If they do and the US invades or uses someone else to invade= Nuclear War. Korea and Iran have nothing to loose at this point, they see what the US did in all the wars in history (vietnam-present) and know that they will be subject to massacars, new Mai Lay's, etc. so really they are doing people a "favor" by wiping everything out on both ends. Sounds sick to people but when you consider dying a slow painfull death and watching countless horrors commited by your enemy against you most people (real people in the real world) will choose death as long as they get to take the enemy with them so no one will have to go through this again.
WW3= Probably soon to arrive (pending), cause= USA (90% chance)
Stop and ask yourself if your part of the problem first before saying someone else is the problem.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Hey this is a difficult one, a lot of countrys rely on Irans oil, one thing is for sure we cant go in guns blazing, and we cant allow our countrys to impose sanctions, this is an harder situation than you can imagine, infact Iran have all the cards.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Well I think your rather strong presumption that the U.S. is 90% likely to start WW3 makes you somewhat of a hypocrite, doesn't it?

Stop and ask yourself if your part of the problem first before saying someone else is the problem.


As you can see, the US has been very cautious with Korea. So don't look for them to start a war. And so far they have been fairly restrained with Iran. Maybe it's because of the heat they took from the Iraq fiasco, but you can't say for certain. So I can only assume you have a personal bias against the U.S., which is fine. But please practice what you preach.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Why does everyone think the U.S is gonna start ww3???? For all we know it could be Russia or China or some other country that will start ww3



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobius0ne
Why does everyone think the U.S is gonna start ww3???? For all we know it could be Russia or China or some other country that will start ww3


I'm not sure how its going to start, or more importantly, which side the media will portray as starting WW3. When it comes down to it, the globalists are funding all sides, just as they did in WW2.

Though, the way its looking, when the dust settles and the "war" is over, I think America will be made the bad guy. They will most likely blame Bush as they did Hitler, and make it look like this one man (or maybe him and Tricky Dick) caused the entire war. Just look at how the media portrays Bush (outside of the USA).



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by robdaven
William Cooper talked about how when the "fourth World War" (he consider the Cold War to be the 3rd), it would start in the middle east. The American empire would converage on the area and take Afghanistan to Syria.

Yesterday I blogged an experince I had with 2 seperate sources (Read Part 1 here) relating to the 3rd world war. After finishing Part 1, I started doing research for part 2, and was amazed by how much the mainstream media has covered up what is happening in the rest of the world, and regionalizing so many events.

Is this the great push for World War? With Iran's announcment that if sanctions are brought against them they will shut off the oil supply.

At an all time high, the force of the cost of oil would force the collapse of many civilizations that aren't on "Iran's" nice guy list, thus the spark for the Great World War.


[edit on 16-1-2006 by robdaven]


you could be right whats goin on now is like the ingredients for war. does the un actually think wackos like iran is gonna listen to their rules? iran has the dynamite, the iranian president is ready to make things go boom at the right moment. listen to the crap he says "We are asking they step down from their ivory towers and act with a little logic, Ahmadinejad said. Who are you to deprive us from fulfilling our goals?" from ahmadinejad, this too "You think you are the lord of the world and everybody should follow you. But that idea is a wrong idea." i swear sooner or later this guy is gonna be the spark that ignites the war just you wait. i give this conflict a couple more months before we see the outcome 1-3. maybe sooner with the us leading the way.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join