If WWIII breaks out, who can the U.S. trust?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
I hate to point out but the US getting involved with WWII only happened after they were attacked themselves. It had nothing to do with "saving Britain"

Dont give me that "youre either with us or youre with the terrorists" crap. It makes you look as stupid as Bush.


Thats the problem with using history to justify modern day stances.

Re: Flyer's example, the US got involved after they were attacked by the Japanese which according to certain theories, was allowed to happen to ensure the US could join the war.

The decision to go to war is always conveyed as black and white issues so the docile public don't have to stop thinking about which mobile phone they will buy next. The general public don't like the grey bits in between so government over simplifies and paints it as good or bad.

Greed breeds distrust.




posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by KokaGreed breeds distrust.

Exactly, Bushs greed for oil has bred distrust from everyone else in the world, including the previous allies of the US.

Hes turning the world popluation against the US at an alarming rate and thats amazing considering the sympathy they had after 11/9.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719
As far as the NWO theory goes, I believe that if we are faced with the scenario of a one world government type operation, allies would not exist. It would be the end of life as we ALL know it.



I would have to phrase it differently. It won't be the end of life as we know it, but rather the beginning of life as we have been conditioned to accept it.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Did Bush really go for oil?...or was it to fix a mistake his father committed during the '91 campaign?....that is..not entering Iraq then and ridding the country of Hussein. I can only guess WMD and oil are an excuse to end something that started over a decade ago.Be that as it may,the US now has to produce some form of stability in that area otherwise WW111 is a real possibilty.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sopwith
the US now has to produce some form of stability in that area otherwise WW111 is a real possibilty.
Unfortunately they will invade Iran and make the situation more explosive.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719
If WWIII breaks out, who can the U.S. trust?

I think the "who's with who" would greatly depend on the final "last straw" that initiates a WWIII.

It may even turn out to be a "free for all" or "every country for themselves".

I truly think this is an incalculable factor, as deceipt lay SO heaily within ALL countries' politics any longer.

NN



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719
With the current state of military threat in the world today it seems at times that the threat of a new Great War appears to be more certain than ever.


- I think that this to a large degree relates to a permanent 'conceit' each new generation seems to have, each new gen has a tendency to see itself under threat as never before.
The 20th century justified such a view in large part but today, now?
I don't think so.

The basic premise is so far off of the mark.

The "current state of military threat" is so much less than it has been for a long long time as to make the current insistence that the "threat" is enormous and leading to WW3 laughable.

WW3 might happen by accident but there are no serious global tensions, between 'suitably' armed protagonists, in any way likely to lead to such a turn of events right now.

Not so long ago we faced nuclear annihilation from the cold war rivalry, we had actual 2 'proper' (for want of a better term) world wars and we had aggressive and hostile totalitarian political ideologies genuinely attracting the support of the masses in several countries.

To try and claim today's "threat" comes remotely close to any of that and likely to trigger a new "great war" (actually an unfortunate term and idea that insults the reality of the actual 'Great War' and those who suffered it across the globe IMO) is ludicrous.

The world might not be safe in absolute terms (and probably never will be) but attempting to assess the world's present troubles as so huge and likely to lead to WW3 is just paranoid day-dreaming IMO.


This is all purely hypothetical of course.


- It would have to be.


- I'll leave the US/UK war story bait for someone else to pick up if they like.
Been there done that, it's just to silly to be doing again.

===========================================================

Sopwith -

Maybe we can all see now that Bush snr and the 1991 situation wasn't a mistake at all but a sensible halt leaving Iraq grieviously weakened, properly contained and subject to international scrutiny.....but not falling apart in a ruinous civil war and as a destabilising menace to the region.

Besides there was no choice in the situation; they did not just 'prefer' not to advance.
There was no UN mandate to do anything but eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait and such a move would have destroyed the international coalition that had been assembled to do the job.

Sadly the son (and all that junior/middle-ranking wannabe clan from those days who have been running things this time around) seem to have escaped being afflicted with such astute political sense.


[edit on 4-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]


FNF

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I highly doubt a 3rd world war will happen in my lifetime.
For a world war to happen, IMO, Europe would have to be involved. However, I feel most europeans would be against going to war (especially after the horrors of the two great wars and the few civil wars).
People seem to forget the world is more globalised nowadays - a country is a line on a peice of paper. In real life different countries are so interconnected a world war seems very unlikely. Think about Cocacola or McDonalds, they have business in nearly every country, and these big business's do have political influence to some degree, as do other organisations such as Greenpeace, and the UN.

Plus a world war would be against international law (although Bush wouldn't care).



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
People in the United Kingdom are constantly shouting this "Down with the USA!Down with Bush!"rhetoric but they seem to forget just what a warmonger Thatcher was.Was what happened in the Falklands anymore justified than what is happening in Iraq?It really sickens me when I see all this "dumb fat yank"talk and applause over what happened on 911.I'm honestly beginning to hate the United Kingdom sorry.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   


The "current state of military threat" is so much less than it has been for a long long time as to make the current insistence that the "threat" is enormous and leading to WW3 laughable.



Think so? Really? I agree that the past decades during the cold war were very unstable, and although politics have globalized and things aren't as black and white these days, my opinion is that the times we live in today are no less treacherous and unstable. Look at the past two months alone. The world waited while millions of Muslims staged violent protests across the globe in response to something as harmless and seemingly trivial as a cartoon printed in a newspaper. I think that if that situation had not been handled properly it could have triggered a massive conflict between the western world and all predominantly muslim countries. Then we have Iran and their nuclear threat, which endangers all of us, but especially Israel and the countries that make up the EU. What will happen if Ahmadinejad and Iran develop the bomb? Do you believe honestly that Israel, the US or the UK will stand back and let a threat like that emerge? No chance. Even president Chirac of France has made it public knowledge that if Iran aquires nuclear technology there will be immediate action taken.

And how many bombs will be detonated by Muslim extremists on British soil before they decide to take this threat seriously? European citizens have not been through an event like 9/11 yet, but be certain that it is inevitable. And remember that WWI was started as a result of something as minute as the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Although this was mainly a trigger that set off events, my point is that sometimes there only need be a spark to start a catastrophic fire. While this may not be the age of the Bay of Pigs or the cold war era nuclear arms race, these times hold their share of dangers and should not be laughed off or taken lightly. I am certain that before WWI and WWII there were many who also believed that the possibility of a world wide war was absurd and unthinkable - until it happened.

Personally I am sick of the U.S. playing the role of world police, I too am sick of the bandwagon America bashing, and I would be happy if we pulled out of the middle east, sealed our borders and let the rest of the ungrateful world fend for themselves. Just know that as Europeans you will have to deal with these threats eventually, whether it be in a pro-active way in taking the fight to the enemy, or in a reactive way, as in AFTER your 9/11 takes place. And I believe the next big move by the terrorists won't be a bomb or a plane, but more than likely biological or worse. Something to look forward to I guess. Just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I feel horribley guilty but on the occasions I have heard europeans,especially Brits laughing about 911 I've replied with"I can't wait til it happens to you!"I know thats a horrible thing to say but I was very angry at the time.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrchidLunar
Was what happened in the Falklands anymore justified than what is happening in Iraq?It really sickens me when I see all this "dumb fat yank"talk and applause over what happened on 911.I'm honestly beginning to hate the United Kingdom sorry.


Are you kidding? British territory was invaded. Argentina attacked Britain and we fought them off.

There is no applause here over 9/11 (except possibly for a few extremists) and i'm sorry you think of us that way. The people of the UK are as appalled as any at the needless deaths of 3000 people.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
No I don't think of everyone in the UK by that way but this isn't just a few people,I've seen all the "dumb fat yank"statements and jokes about 911 hundreds of times in chatrooms and it is almost always without fail someone from the UK.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Funny how times change....a country invades another yet once it has been ejected is left alone ....yet in 1939 it was this the sparked a world war.I still wonder why this was so...even without a UN mandate its would have been appropriate to bring to justice the invading countries leader ....yet for a long time after the only people that suffered through sanctions were the populace and not the hierachy.Must have been business dealings between Bush snr and hussein that kept the US out....and it took 12 years to hide ,eject business dealings so the son could go back in.So in a sense any country can invade another as long as business is still conducted to the mutual benefit of both parties.
If Iran invaded Iraq would they be pushed back to the their borders or would it be the excuse that was needed to belt them into submission?



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The 'dumb fat yank' stuff is something of a sterotype, a running joke. At it's best it's a friendly joke, poking fun between friends, at worst a silly insult. I'm sure you guys have plenty of the same about us brits.

As for the 9/11 jokes, you need to look at a few things. First, the people in these chatrooms are probably at the younger end of the age spectrum and don't necessarily understand the offence their jokes may cause. Secondly, the brits tend to joke about everything. The IRA, the falklands war, the french, nothing is off limits. Third, don't base your view of a nation on people you meet on the internet.

Back on topic, I can't see a scenario in which there was a world war and the US and Britain would be on opposite sides. The attitudes of the countries are too similar for us to have any reason to go to war with each other. The same goes for most of the european countries, Australia and Japan so you could probably count on support there.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I'm not basing my opinion of everyone in the UK on an ignorant few I meet however I don't think the deaths of thousands is something to joke about ever.I simply don't understand how anyone could be so callous or cruel.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
all i know is australia will be their. no doubt first on the battle ground waiting and ready to die for causes not really concerning us.
but isn't that our way of life?

though america would be their the moment we need help, wouldn't they?



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrchidLunar
I'm not basing my opinion of everyone in the UK on an ignorant few I meet however I don't think the deaths of thousands is something to joke about ever.I simply don't understand how anyone could be so callous or cruel.


Different cultures I suppose. I've heard jokes here in the UK about the Hillsborough disaster, Heysel, WWI and WWII, the falklands, Gary Glitter, the soham murders, the yorkshire ripper, Fred West and many more horrible events than I care to mention. It doesn't mean people here don't feel strongly about those issues but we still make jokes about them.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
first of all you think the UK are going to sit on the sidelines, where allready with you and probably allways will, as for france and germany and im not taking the urine its the truth they will be there on our side because theres money to be made with all the oil in iran, i think it was a quote or possibly a joke the usa and uk raised there guns and fired into the air and france and germany held out there credit cards, which leads me onto the guy posting about the UK "kids" in the chat room joking over 9/11, the way i look at it is fair enough its not very nice but whats a comment some idiot whos highlite of his day was probably getting an extra article from a vending machine for the price of one, worth getting angry over and resentfull of a whole nation.

like i hear now and again some americans bang on about ww2 and how they saved our arses, so what at the end of the day we fought of a raving lunatic and gave back france to its own people and stoped him wipeing out every jewish person under the sun at the end of the day we accomplished something good together who cares who did what at the end of the day we did it.

at the end of the day whats a bit of "Friendly Banter" between "Friends", as for the idiot in the chat room thats not friendy or banter its just a stupid remark from a sad little idiot.

as for those that are thinking or gona sit on the side lines a wise man once said "dont stick your head in the sand, you'll suffocate !"

[edit on 4-3-2006 by u4ria]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
As someone who works in a funeral home I can understand that humor is the only way to deal with horrific events at times but there is a different between joking and being out and out malicious.I mean when someone says "You yanks deserved 911 and I hope it happens again."that goes beyond joking.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join