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

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrchidLunar
I feel horribley guilty but on the occasions I have heard europeans,especially Brits laughing about 911


- You'll be sure to point out any of that happening around here, right?

(the mods would be sure to act)


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.


- How sad for you.

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


Originally posted by BlackOps719
Think so? Really?


- Yes really; IMO the level of threat is nowhere remotely near what it used to be.


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.


- Millions?
Anyhoo, I think a handful of locations where riots happened (sometimes obviously orchestrated in the 'usual locations' are no substitute for a confrontation between 2 (or more) ideologically opposed 'powers' threatening to spark off continental or global-wide wars.

Sorry but I don't.


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.


- So certain people love to keep telling us (usually on the basis of utterly distorted understandings of the situations where the riots are taking place - on the one hand they are usually very confined and brief in 'western countries' and in Muslim countries they are hardly unique but again brief and usually for show).


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.


- Firstly what "nuclear threat"?
They haven't "threatened" anyone with any nuclear weapons, which they do not now have anyway.
Secondly all this 'pressure' amy be the one way to ensure they try asap to get some......and it may turn out to be beyond the powers of Israel, US or UK to stop - if Islamic Pakistan were to just give Iran the bomb what then?
However, despite all the noise there is not the slightest evidence Iran has nuclear weapons.

Even if they do get them the usual mechanics of deterrence will come into play.
Iran would face a comparatively massively nuclear armed Israel (backed by the USA and others) and would not be able to 'knock out' Israel's retaliatory capacity (now we know Israel has submarine launched nuclear missiles).


Even president Chirac of France has made it public knowledge that if Iran aquires nuclear technology there will be immediate action taken.


- Er, he didn't actually.
He said that if France was attacked she would respond in kind (as would anyone; it's hardly ground-breaking news).
Deterrence, you see?


And how many bombs will be detonated by Muslim extremists on British soil before they decide to take this threat seriously?


- What are you talking about?
Sorry but the idea that we don't take the "threat" seriously just because we don't equate this problem as being more serious than WW1 & 2 or the cold war is just ridiculous.

Quite rightly we aren't going to use the actions of a relatively small handful of extremists to 'tar' a whole huge chunk of the global population or a minority section of our own population for that matter.

Just as 30years of IRA terrorism (no warning bombs etc etc) did not mean all the Irish the people living in the UK were persecuted or locked up or expelled from Britain.
A sense of proportion, humanity and plain intelligence is what is required - not a stupid short-sighted unleashing our worst paranoia and nasty fascist instincts and turning a generally supportive minority population amongst us against us in this.


European citizens have not been through an event like 9/11 yet, but be certain that it is inevitable.


- I'm sorry but this is where it just gets surreal.

9/11 was not the first terrorist event the world experienced, ok?

We in Europe have had terrorist campaigns on-going for decades.

We have plenty of experience of terrorism, the USA is the one that actually does not, despite such an appalling example happening there.

It might never have been almost 3000 people in one go but we know all about the maiming and slaughtering of innocents by violence in pursuit of political ends.
For years, decades, on end.


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.


- I did not say the world didn't have it's dangers.

I expect it always will be a dangerous place, in places.
But, to equate the periods of multiple tens of millions of dead global war (with over a hundred million maimed and injured) and the threat of a cold war hotting up into an all-out nuclear exchange with the situation as it is now is a comparison that, IMO, just doesn't hold any water at all.


Personally I am sick of the U.S. playing the role of world police, I too am sick of the bandwagon America bashing


- Maybe if you could see it from other people's point of view?

Many in the world don't see the USA as 'world Police' but merely as selfishly pursuing her own interests whilst claiming to be acting for the wider good, there is a huge difference.

As for "America bashing"?
Well a lot of what is being labelled as such is actually friends who share basic values saying (as good friends should, surely?) when and where they think you are wrong.
That's not quite the same as just "bashing".


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.


- Rather than a silly all or nothing, 'our way or the highway' approach, if your government would try and act much more in cooperation with others and not so plainly in such clear and obvious self-interest?

The problem you have - as we all do - is that we need to come to terms with a world that is interconnected and interdependent; an impractical, self-harming and rather silly idea of 'closing borders' is no answer at all.


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.


- Er, we already have had to deal with all sorts of large-scale and murderous terrorist groups over the 6 decades since WW2 ended and from before.
Even WW1 was sparked by a terrorist grouping here, remember.


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.


- Well I suppose anyone can speculate and imagine anything terrible if they want.
On the other hand we could set ourselves to trying to resolve the problems that incubate these problems, just a thought?

Maybe if we invested a fraction of the cash we seem willing to pump into endless warfare and 'security' we might not need to have these pointless and enormously wasteful wars in the first place.


Just my opinion.


- That's just mine.
Exchanging views.
It's what makes this place great, right?


But to return to topic; if WW3 were to break out I think the ideas of 'sides' in the previously thought of sense would very quickly stop having any real meaning.

We'd all be completely poked in any real and meaningful sense.

As certain members of my family (in the forces) have said to me on many accasions, even the neutral countries would be taken back to the stone age and beyond so that a currently minor 2nd or 3rd world country did not emerge as the new super-power once the current ones had exterminated themselves.
Such is the 'capacity' of current planning.


[edit on 4-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
A third world war ,well yes im sure we'll be there as will alot of other countries ,but really if there is a ww3 there wont be a hell of alot left over to divide up.
Our pm will skip along behind tony and george just happy to be hanging out with the big boys.
I seriously hope that were all just paranoid cause the next war could well be the last(and i dont mean that in a good way).
Long live the reign of the cockroach cause they may well be the inheritors of the earth.
Regarding the insensitive jokes(although its off topic)we too hear the jokes regarding the bali bombings/shapelle corby/bali 9 etc,its human nature and if you believe that its only coming from outside of the US then your living in fairy land.I know for a fact that there are americans making jokes about civilian deaths in iraq and other insensitive material so having a crack at the brits comes across as being a bit precious to me.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Turkey will back the US for sure. Even more so if Israel backs us too.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Yep, unfortunately Australia would be there to side with the US, who causes basically all the problems with Israel in the first place. Then again, America was designed to be the Masonic nation to lead the world into a golden age with their king of the world ruling the New World Order.

I am sad that Australia chose to get involved with you guys at all.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Why do we think that the next war will be nuclear?Surely there is enough technology in the conventional framework....with so much money being spent on such...that the military wouldn't want to utilise this more so than nuclear?Really the nuclear threat from countries such as Iran are unfounded ..and even if they did let loose how many warheads could they send? The defence the western nations have in place against such a threat would certainly counteract anything they could send.What is circling the Earth would obliterate any missile launched before the antagonists knew what hit them.
All western nations willband together to such a threat that no religious or totalitarian nation could overcome.

[edit on 4-3-2006 by Sopwith]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Frankly Japan would jump on board just to get some extra flesh from the US to keep them alive, Austrailia would for the same though no one in the right mind would attack them since they only serve as a naval shipyard in the long run. Britain would not be attacked for a long time unless its nuclear due to distance and having to cross the straight so they might or might not join in depending on who the "enemy" is. Europe would shure as heck not join in, they have no interest in such and unless the war was on their doorstep count them out besides they could manage on their own. Russia... nah, to much hastle to invade them and they would want no part in it other than reclaiming their old satallite nations.
South Korea would jump in ONLY if China and North Korea went to war, Africa.... well thats a whole new ball game. East Asia as a whole.... nah... New Zealand... maybe if the fighting got close.
So in short its all pending on where the fighting is and who the attacker is.
Now to other comments:
I am a socialist/communist myself and most people dont know the first thing about communism other than Stalin who was NOT a communist even though he claimed to be one, he was a dictator and a fascist plain as that.
CPUSA is the Communist Party USA you can look them up. Communism is NOT a bad thing unless you have a worthless leader, kinda like democracy or a republic. I do not think any islamic group could muster an army big enough to take over the world, china though could with help from vietnam, north korea, and russia if they offered land in return or a massive increase in power. Canada would join in if they fighting got close as well as mexico forgot them sorry to all canadians and mexicans on the forum, actually in the event of WW3 I think canada might be the first to join in ironically.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
actually in the event of WW3 I think canada might be the first to join in ironically.


If you look at history that's just what we do.


When it's go time, we go!



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Believe it or not, Canada is always there to support the US. We might not agree with everything you do but it comes right down to it, we're there for you. We're a big, happy, dysfunctional family.

The only way Canada wouldn't be fighting on the same side as the US during WW3 is if they attacked us.


But really, you'll be fighting on our side because we'll already be there.


[edit on 4-3-2006 by Duzey]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Ok, first I'll say this, I stopped reading after the fifth post after mine, since I'm only responding to one that was a reponse to mine, so yeah, sorry if someone alreay said something similiar.





I agree with your line up, but I would have to assume that Japan would be the most threatened of all of our potential allies being that it lies in such close proximity to China, not to mention crazy Kim Jong. It seems to me that their very existence would depend on an all out victory.

Well yeah, at first I think Japan would stay with us, but after the U.S nuked China and N.Korea into, well pretty much not being able to fight, I think Japan would declare that it would no longer participate in the war and is a neutral country.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Pinkey - I salute you my friend. You make some excellent points to say the least. Let us simply agree to disagree, although many of your words make me look at our situation in perhaps a different light than I would otherwise. I agree that friendly debate is healthy amongst the oldest of allies and it is interesting to read opinions from someone with a different point of view. I can only assume that American news and European news most likely present things in completely different manners. Whatever the scenario may be, I agree that the US and UK would show complete solidarity when the time came to move. And believe me when I say that not all Americans agree with US foreign policy and we certainly are NOT all brainwashed slaves to the rhetoric of King George. In fact, Bush's opinion polls are at an all time low and will likely remain there for a long time to come. I can honestly say that I long for the pre 9/11 days, when America was still considered to be the good guys. When the economy was strong and diplmatic progress was being made around the world in a positive way. Many Americans, while supporting our troops and loving our country, despise what it has become in the face of the international community and do not support this madness in any way. I for one just want our guys to be safe, handle business and get the hell back home. Just as I wish the same for the great men and women of the UK that are there in the deserts of Iraq, dodging the same fire and sucking the same dirt. Politicians wage war, but it is the common soldier who pays with his blood and his life. Perhaps if it were the other way around, things would be a lot different and governments wouldn't be so quick to draw their swords. Maybe one day governments will learn to work together to create a peaceful, prosperous world that serves the better good of all of us. That is, if we can manage to keep from blowing each other up in the meantime. Hopefully our generation can learn from mistakes made in the past and we will never have to know the horrors and hardships of a world war. Peace.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by BlackOps719]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   
So long as you have private weapons corporations no one will learn, they provide both sides and thus want wars to keep going. I think we should not leave it up to the next generation to learn from out mistakes, we should fix them so no one else will have to suffer because of ill made decisions or greedy ones let alone power lusting ones.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
In the event of WW3 I can bet it would be every country out for themselves.
So we have, Canada, US and Mexico on one side more becasue if the US gets hit the canadians and the mexicans will also suffer due to fallout. The Europeans will go all "EU" and try the Switzerland approach. But nations like France and the UK will start bickering and the UK will most likely find it more convenient to stand out of the EU playing a role of securing the Atlantic than any actual fighting.

Australia would also play a role in containing the Indian Ocean and the Chinese, a much greater role than they have played so far but this would depend on how Australia-China realation are by then. If present conditions continue then there would be no problem for the US.

Taiwan would be lost and so too will most of S.Korea and Japan crippling them. US staging base in Asia would have to come from India as pakistan would most likely opt for china due to its closer proximity to Pakistan. The real battle would wage in Asia. That is where the US would have to maintain dominance-half way around the world. I think here we seen new allies that join the West, some major powers and some former CIS states.

The Russian can only do one thing and that would be to launch a barrage of nukes every which way as they have little or no defense conventionally. Despite the sheild the US take many hits and so does canada. Russia is decimated with a swarm of B-2 and so is most of northern China. Leaving the Chinese navy and missile batteries to contend with.

Isreal will mop up the Middle east with US and seal off the Mediteranian but face stiff opposition from the Chinese.
Africa will also be a major battle but most likely not as much as it would be in Asia.
Also Brazil would step up as another hidden power and most likely side with the US in its region.
Most nations would try to live through the war, some making it out better than others, old boundaries meaning little now. Any states untouched would decline rapidly due to want of materials and thus form a proper homogenous global disrepair.


This is just a rough sketch of what IMO is likely to happen in WW3.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Well, when I will be the next Canada's leader, the canada will be neutral. That's it. Because the world war 3 will be cause by the US imperialism so this will only be the price to pay for their 50 years of crimes against humanity.

But a world war 3 is bad for everyone, I would prefer a big economic crash.

Remember the mathematical equation:

number of dead americans X 1000 = numbers of enemy deaths !




[edit on 5-3-2006 by Vitchilo]

[edit on 5-3-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Such a hypothetical thread question needs a antagonist. To put it Bluntly, Every Country looks for its self interest. Without a Common Cause, A country will not “act”.

As to who will Join us. You have to remember that the “world” usually thinks of Republicans as War mongering Barbarians. They, Unlike their Democratic Brethren Are not Socialists.

And with all the leading Educational Schools of Thought. Under the Guise of progressive values. We as a country have to act like Progressives as well.

At least to make the “Educated” world happy.

To simply answer your question. Would the Rest of the Country follow Bush? Nope. Unless their self interest is threatened. And the would follow their own Mandates not ours.

(Note- Remember the EU loves us if we Follow their Lead. Much like Clinton is Bosnia. And I would rather Follow a US “nut” then a EU “nut“.)



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
WWI was really the great war .

WWII was the directly caused by WWI.

The Cold War was WWIII. It's now history(where were you?) It was directly caused by WWII and that was caused by WWI.

We are in the mitts of WWIV which is caused by an inbalance between Commie hanger-ons, the totalitarian revisionists(which are stoking the fires of terrorist counter-societies) and the Free world . Without China and Iran there would be no WWIV. WWIV is caused by WWIII which was caused by WWII which was caused by WWI.

This leaves WWI as the only real war which has never really ended. It's just moved and regrouped thru the decades.

China is the axle of this current axis of evil. It is the unseen hand behind all. It can't get away from WWI and is locked in the past.

W/o China countries like North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Syria, etc would not be able to stand up.

I'm really surprised no one on this thread saw this. Where's the history buffs?

The legacy of WWI is still with us and will be with us for decades to come.











[edit on 3/5/2006 by bodebliss]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrchidLunar
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.
Do you know how stupid that sounds, the Falklands were invaded by Argentina and Britain responded by defending its territory.

That would be like calling the US a warmongerer for driving out an enemy force from Hawaii after that was invaded.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
This is a bit of a silly debate - any 'WW3' and who joined in on what side would depend on why / where the war started and was being fought.

Those nations subject to the UK/USA intel sharing treaty (AKA ECHELON) would ceratinly line up (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) of those only two have any significant force projection / war-fighting capability - USA and UK.

NATO countries would be bound to join in too so that includes Germany, France, Netherlands etc of these only France has any significant force-projection capability.

Israel's involvement is unlikley - unable to operate outside the ME and their involvement would cause politcal difficulties so like GW1 and GW2 they may be asked to keep out.

Also those countries facing local threats from neighbours (Pakistan, India, Israel, Turkey and to some extent E Europe) are likely to want to retain forces at home to counter potential threatening moves.

BTW I seriously doubt there are many Brits who found 9/11 a cause for humour - we may find the mawkish & incessant memorials unsettling / wierd from our POV but the death of 3,00 people is never funny - whether in NY or Iraq.

We also make jokes about our troops dying from US friendly-fire but doesn't mean we condone it / find it trivial.

Sense of humour is like spelling - every country has it's own way of doing it / finds the other baffling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would read some history before you bring up WW2 - the US didn't declare war on Germany; it was the other way 'round.

Other countries offered the UK unwavering support (Canada in particular); the US tried its level best to stay out of it and was forced by Japan's PH strike and Hitler's honouring the terms of the AXIS pact to eventually join in.

If we followed the 'you should support us now because of WW2' argument we'd be allied with Soviet Russia!



[edit on 5-3-2006 by Strangerous]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar

Austrailia would for the same though no one in the right mind would attack them since they only serve as a naval shipyard in the long run.

How can we be utilised as a shipyard considering the enormous size of our navy?

Australia would..in any real war scenario....be one of the first to be hit as we contain the bases that are the eyes and ears of the US war machine.To fight blinded and somewhat hard of hearing would put one at a distinct disadvantage ...wouldn't you think?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Let me sum this up:
If the US attacks or gets attacked it will be the downfall of the US. The US CANNOT hold back china, north korea, vietnam, middle east even WITH help form the only 2 nations that have a military and support them right now: Isreal, Britain. If the US causes the next world war I hope no one allies themselves with the US though I bet the usual crowd will, the greatest mistake people are making on here is underestimating opposition and the power they wield. We have all seen the US cant hold down Iraq which is about the size of Texas but has less cities than most american states, also it has mostly desert and thus less people needed but they cant even hold it down AT ALL. So I think the odds are severly against the US in event of a ground war, the only hope the US has is a navy that can keep their enemies out the same as GB during WW1-WW2. China has the troop numbers to hold down the entire western US and parts of Canada, but they wont be able to invade Britain or Europe thus Russia would get to have some fun with them and reclaim lost territory. Russia has a VERY strong defence: Nature, Terrain. Every invading army that was ever seen attacking russia got wiped out because of it, even hitlers army which was far more advanced than Napoleon's army got wiped out at Stalingrad because russia has other things in their favor as well: Numbers, ability to produce so fast that the enemy gets overwhelmed. When you have that you dont need any "defences" just make your enemy hike their way halfway across Russia and see how eager they are to fight. I think in event of WW3 (I count military engagements not economic or politics as war) the US will be to busy to stop Russia and will leave it up to Europe to stop them. Russia should welcome WW3 because it will give them the chance to bring back their economy which has always been based on war much like the US's.
As for the number of nukes the US has:
www.truemajority.org...
Its not just numbers but shows just what all the US has. Also if the US fired nukes everyone else who had them would start firing and no one would survive, China sure as heck would make sure the US went down by firing their arsenal at us so at least we go down with them. Its the classical thought of if your going to die see how many enemies you can take down with you.
Human arrogance and ignorance here we go, we should have listened to the survivalists.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by BlackOps719
I hate to be the one to point this out, but who came to help out when Nazi bombs were exploding over jolly old London? Does loyalty count for nothing in this modern age? Besides, as a resident of the UK, would you rather align with western society and freedom of thought or would you rather live in an Islamo-fascist state? Or worse, under communist rule? Better figure out who's side your on. Fence sitting will not be permitted.

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.


You need a wake up call..... britain will be in the line of fire no matter where your allegiance lies. If there is a war, britain will be on the U.S's side, face it.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join