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.

 

World War 3 Coming, Or already here?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

World War 3 Coming, Or already here?


www.armageddononline.org

About a dozen RECENT stories featuring the very real possibility of WW3.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I am writing a paper for a course I'm taking entitled "Man vs Man". It is going to detail some of the worst things mankind has basically done to iteself.

I have been a long time reader of ATS (newbie poster) but I wanted to get some serious opinions on where people see this going in the next 1-4 years?

Will cooler heads prevail, or will we have an official WW3?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts,
Jack

www.armageddononline.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
My personal definition is it started when US attacked Iraq. You wont hear anyone saying that some special future event is the start of World War 3 (except Bush since he is a idiot). Just like the history books today say that World War 2 started by Hitler going into Poland, they may say that 9/11 was the start of World War 3.

I think the impression of a global nuclear war will likely not happen. There is much more money in having conflicts going on for a long, long time than killing off people quickly.

If the elite wants to kill off billions of people, a virus would be the best way, leaving the infrastructure intact.


[edit on 28-10-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Interesting thought.

Others would argue WW3 started the day after the "cold war" ended. I got into a large debate with a friend of mine about war by "proxy". As in ever since the major powers conflicted, they now use smaller / more poor countries to get their dirty work done.

Any agreement?



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JackDaniels
 


Yeah, thats also possible. Its a well known fact that CIA has installed dictators around the world for a long time. They stir up conflicts that fits their agenda. Saddam was installed by CIA. Bin ladin is rumored to have been a CIA agent as well. The more you check into all these conflicts around the world, you see that the US have had their hand in a lot of them.

I dont mean to paint the US out to be the devil, but... they are influencing what happens in the world a whole lot. They create a problem so they can be the solution, because there is huge money in wars, drug smuggling and other crimes.

Historians will have to be the judges of what wars started when I guess, but the name of the game seems to be to keep constant conflicts going since there is so much money in it.



[edit on 28-10-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I'd love to venture forward in time and see how this period goes down in history.

I'd like to see the way its spun haha



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I agree with both of you. I think WW3 is really, already here.

We've been getting the foreplay started just in the recent 3-5 year time period. 911 was the icebreaker.

The "War on Terror" is a state of mind. This new war, or WW3, will not only be an obvious military war, but a mental pyschological war on conciousness of the mass man. You can see this happening everywhere around you.

I know you guys know this already so sorry for beating a dead horse here, but I think it's important to point it out.

"And they got the whole world thinkin it's a holiday, cause they can smell the chump in the water from miles away."


[edit on 28-10-2007 by scarrr]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
It's not only that site I mentioned that contains the news, but if you look around they got some damn interesting scenarios.

Both good points!

Anyone else wanna spoon feed me some info



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
One last call - It's a damn interesting topic and I need opinions....



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JackDaniels
 


If you want a nice synopsis of a pile of dirty things mankind has done to himself - and will most likely do again is to simply go watch EndGame.

It is nicely embedded on the front page of www.anomalicresearch.com



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Is WW3 already here?

Well, let me put this in terms you may understand; Yes.

Every 'war' since the end of WW2 has merely been part of a greater war, that of "WW3" - i'm talking about the Gulf War here.

You could infact take my meaning to say that WW3 started when Bush Sr. Went after Saddam.

Has the war ended because we captured Saddam?

No. Saddam is not our enemy's strategy-king.

Is Osama the enemy's strategy-king?

No.

The enemy's strategist lies within, and fights from without.

Plain enough?


EDIT: The battle-lines are only as clear as you think they are.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I realise that probably isn't good enough for most people here, so let me explain my reasoning;

Do you really think that it is even possible for any armed invasion to be able to work against America?

I don't - i believe that doing so would be suicidal as not only would it expose the existence of the threat, but provide the American Establishment's G-Spies an opportunity to extract information, and ultimately nuke wherever the invasion is coming from.

An armed invasion will not work against a country with WMD's, as those WMD's (or perhaps less devastating weapons, even), can act immediately once the enemy HQ is located, and bomb the living hell out of the command structure, thereby causing the invasion to stop.

You may ask why i believe the enemy is within - Well, What ruler in his right mind will launch a nuke or airstrikes on his own soil?




Yes, i'm speculating that the enemy is a strategic mastermind, which i am not.


EDIT: And as for the PURPOSE of fighting from without, the strategic enemy can weaken his opponent from within, and perhaps turn the enemy on itself - thereby providing a opportunity to take over.


If a civil war were to occur in America, i wouldn't be so sure about which side to root for.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I don't think we're anywhere near World War 3. You don't see the troop migrations you'd see if there were to be a major mulitnational conflict. The only countries that are posturing are Russia(defensive) and the United States(offensive), and because we're two superpowers doesn't make this world war by proxy. This is a regional conflict, based mostly over raw material and land. Right now, oil is power, accumulation of land is leverage. You can guarantee that without the control of Iraq, maybe even Iran, there will be NO world war, or even a regional conflict outside Islamic states. War with any nation besides Iran is 10 years off, I still don't see us going into Iran within the next year either.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
I don't think we're anywhere near World War 3. You don't see the troop migrations you'd see if there were to be a major mulitnational conflict. The only countries that are posturing are Russia(defensive) and the United States(offensive), and because we're two superpowers doesn't make this world war by proxy. This is a regional conflict, based mostly over raw material and land. Right now, oil is power, accumulation of land is leverage. You can guarantee that without the control of Iraq, maybe even Iran, there will be NO world war, or even a regional conflict outside Islamic states. War with any nation besides Iran is 10 years off, I still don't see us going into Iran within the next year either.


Read my signature - it says "Speed is not the way of True strategy".

For a 'true' strategic mastermind, a war can be fought in an entire lifetime, and it would take an entire lifetime for the outcome to be decided.

It's quite probable most of the conflicts within the past 20 years have all been part of a greater War.

As for the entry about troop migrations, you raise a good point - i'll give you that.

But remember, superior training and a uniform is not what makes a soldier.


EDIT: Okay, maybe i'm just being paranoid
.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Throbber
 


True. Modern war is less "war" and more "chess." Although, every aquired land mass has been through conventional means, for example, bombs and bullets or in the form of alliances. If you take into consideration how far off with an alliance my country is with Iran, you can see that the first conventional means are really the only choice we have left. Right now our military is supposedly "stretched thin" so, I don't see an armed conlfict happening anytime soon.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


The paranoia in my head tells that just because there will not be any perceptable reasons for war (other than bush's war on terror, which he may keep talking about after he's finished in office), the wars in themselves are not fought for land or resources, but rather to weaken the economy of america, thereby providing the 'strategy-king' with an opportunity to buy out businesses, forge new alliances, etc.

Remember, if such a person does exist, it is unlikely that anyone except a few trusted people can speak to him, and then they themselves are only spoken to by another few trusted people - like a pyramid of power, really.

This is coming right of of a good samartain's worst nightmare, you understand?



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Throbber
 


I completely understand your concern, but I think history can tell us a lot. The power of the U.S. is all consolidated by now leaving no reason for any drastic measure for more power. In terms of everything else, I don't think there's anything to weaken. We're 7 trillion dollars in debt, our military is stretched thin all throughout the world, and our economy is at the point where it needs the Fed to jump in to save it from collapse. They may want a war for ulterior motives, but the means to that war is nonexistent.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


So, all a strategist would need now is soldiers to do his dirty work - and where can one find those most apt to be a soldier?

Dis-illusioned youths, perhaps?

Those whom believe that America is run by dictators, perhaps?

Under the guise of a revolution, the new tyrancy emerges - the one thing that everyone fears except the tyrant himself.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Throbber
 


Ehh, I don't know what to say. I guess to some people there is a conspiracy everywhere, you know? Thinking the the realm of black and white will have an effect on your thought process, that can be in some cases dentrimetal to your reasoning. You have to remember that not everything is a conspiracy. Look into the middle ground more often. This isn't to grill you or anything, the way you think has me worried that you're putting unnecessary pressure on yourself. Balance and a pure intention will always let you see the bull# in life. Always.



posted on Oct, 28 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I think that we have been riding the razors edge for a long time now, but World War III has not yet started.
All these modern wars are little more than skirmishes, perhaps a prelude to something bigger, but relatively insignificant in the history of the world.
Just because America is heavily involved in a war doesn't make it a world class event.
For me to consider any war a "World War" it would need to involve a lot more countries than Iraq, Afghanistan and the 'coalition of the willing'.
Get most of Europe in there, maybe Russia and China and then you've got yourself some serious fighting going on.
Until then it's just political/economic and not really a World War in my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join