It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


War Watch; USA,UK,France,Israel-vs-Russia,China, Iran... aka WW 3

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:05 PM
To all those who replied to my post, its just my opinion but....

The French TODAY would not be a major factor in any large scale war.

Reason I say this is because they are a cradle to grave country, meaning they have extensive govt social services. I think of it like with boxers, the greatest boxers come from poverty and the struggle, they can take and give a beating for 10 rounds and still stand on two feet. You show me a great boxer who came form a well off family and ill show you an anomaly.

I think the same is true for countries and war and business prowess for that matter. Once you go the route of full social services then your people become pampered and weak they become content and lose that hunger, that fight in them

Oh and in regards to the US we are great at destroying but suck horribly at occupying.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Desolate Cancer]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by Desolate Cancer

I agree, but Sarcozy is certainly towing the War line. Should the People of France not stand up, then they'll be drug into the fold....... The good thing is the French People do stand up, and hold fairly violent riots, and protests.

It amazes myself considering this that Sarcozy is allowed to stay in office. His latest is

Sarkozy warns Czechs on Lisbon

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has warned the Czech Republic it will have to face the “consequences” if its president refuses to sign the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Sarkozy sought to increase the pressure on Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who has so far refused to sign the Lisbon Treaty in a move that is delaying its ratification in the Czech Republic.

Speaking to reporters following an informal EU leader’s summit in Brussels late last night, he said: “I stated clearly that if the Irish say Yes, there is no question that we will accept to stay in a no-man’s land with a Europe that does not have the institutions to cope with the crisis,” he said.

“It will be necessary to draw the consequences - but those will be the subject of another meeting,” added Mr Sarkozy,

Does he think of himself as the reincarnation of Napoleon????

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

agreed, imho this should be an on going thread. It looks as though war is imminent at this point; considering Israels on words.s/f

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by DevilJin

Originally posted by really

Originally posted by DevilJin
WW3 won't happen for years. It would be a sure suicide for the West. You have Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and the Muslim world vs U.S. U.K. Israel and NATO. It is far too dangerous for the West to start anything without at least trying to ruin the relationship between those powers mentioned. Though the U.S. does have strategic locations throughout the world for attack, North Korea would attack the South to unite Korea, China would bomb Taiwan if the opportunity is there, but also Japan would be possibly harmed as well, India and Pakistan could take the chance to take out the U.S. out of Afghanistan and out of the Middle East,

Pakistan and India are not allies, they're enemies. Why would you think that India would side with Pakistan against the US?

True, they are enemies, but that does not mean Pakistan and China do not have a good relationship or that India and Russia does, which the two bigger powers - China and Russia - their goals would cancel out any animosity between India and Pakistan, at least for a truce. The U.S. is breaking a lot of laws by expanding their war into Pakistan and so Pakistan has valid reasons to side with China.

There is NO WAY AT ALL India would ever ally with Pakistan/China and that also against USA. India is a long time ally with Russia but a trading partener with China/US, also lately the ties with US have increased a lott.

If you are not aware USA has been long time supporter of Pakistan, even funding it till date(most of which are used by terrorists to launch attacks against India) against India's objection. India will most probably take a middle route as it dont believe in gettig involved in wars if it's not attacked on it's homeland by other country. India also has friendly relations with Iran/Palestine and Israel. Indian politicians really decide on people voice in such situations. And most likely since Obama has taken office USA reputation has increased among general public and Indian Politics comparison to the downfall of it in Bush era. If it was Bush in office there would have been a chance India siding with Russia on this but now I dont see any way they would do it.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by December_Rain]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:38 PM
I'll be keeping an eye on this as well. S&F

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:16 PM
i concur. india has been at war with both pakistan and china these last 50 years and there is no way india would side with either.. i also dont think pakistan or india would be involved at all.. they have thier own problems and really prolly wouldnt mind sitting this war out..

i could so see venezuela opening up another front against the colombians.. i think brazil would likely side witht he leftist down there also (leftists: venezuela, ecuador, bolivia) that would no doubt be a fragile alliance however.. both brzail and venezuela (as well as colombia) see themselves as numero uno in south america.. hence the arms race..

i think the EU would stay relatively nuetral in all of this honestly, i think ww2 is still very much so fresh in thier minds.. eastern europe i believe (specifically poland, ukraine, czechs, serbia) would have a stake in seeing the aggressive russian bear on thier doorsteps with a hammer... so i could see them fighting but other than that i could see the UK being involved but none of the other major players..

the black sea area i could see being a major front with georgia and ukraine right there as well as the emirate seperatists..

i wonder what role centrall asia would have in such a war... as well as the pacific.. austrailia would likely be involved.. japan, not with the new government i dont see that happening... south korea, eh...

i see the events pointing to a war that will devastate the "west" mainly

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by December_Rain

Hi, great points, but have You heard of BLOC?

reply to post by ReiSethimus

Feel free to add to where You see fit. Someone above suggested making this an ongoing thread.. Not a bad idea.

reply to post by TheCoffinman

I would have to agree that Brasil will side with Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, etc. Colombia can easily be compared to Israel in the since of how it is located, and the powers backing them. Colombia is upsetting the region, and making war seem imminent; there is nothing wrong with Colombia, or Israel, but both have the same grand puppeteer cabal which is also calling the shots in the States.

Now that being said, I can see many alliances; which otherwise wouldn't have ever been formed had the US/Israeli/UK, and now the French,via Sarcozy, had just left things alone.

China, and Russia haven't historically had the best relations, but now they have defense treaties. I think India ties in with all this through a mutual need for respect, and defense. They are one of the Prime members in BLOC. Also, I noted earlier this entire thing seems to be a major power play between the ole' monolithic empire, and the new. The ole' empire was the one who set up things like the IMF, World Bank, NATO, INTERPOL, etc.... They have been calling the shots for so long, and stepping on many many toes. Now this newer group has organizations such as SCO, NAM, BLOC, ALBA, Mercosur(sp), etc............

The major tensions actually started surfacing when the newer factions commenced the creation of an entire parallel World of operations.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:20 PM
America should worry about policing herself, Europe and Israel for awhile and keep her troops and her bloody hands out of central and south American countries. We just want to be left alone to live and love our families. If we were attacking America then they would have a right to fight back, but we aren't, so It's none of Americas business who our leaders are or what our laws are.

Star and flag for you!

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

War Watch; USA,UK,France,Israel-vs-Russia,China, Iran... aka WW 3

Can we trade France for Iran?

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

Since when are we to believe everything that the UN says?

So what if they claim things we already know. Whoever says Israel didn't commit atrocious crimes in Gaza should look at the videos and recordings made during the conflict. It is OBVIOUS. But just because we don't agree with everything our allies do, should we leave them high and dry? What if we needed help in the future? (Which I'm fairy certain we will need.)

I'm not saying lets tell them to go attack Iran's nuclear facilities, but I am saying if Israel does get attacked, what is so wrong with providing them with food, clothing, and support? I'm not saying fight their war for them, but... I don't see a problem.

Anyways, the UN is just as corrupt as our 'little' "Government" we call the United States of America, if not more heinous. There is so much red tape that nothing really productive gets done, I think we should totally scrap it. In fact, most of the blue helmet troops are from America, so it kind of works out anyways.

Besides, the UN is only a front for a larger type of control (e.g. One World Government (and possibly something much much worse), higher means of control [e.g. sanctions, ect] and pressure).

As for a "great divide", it is pretty obvious where everyone's interests lie at this point. Iran, China, and Russia (and various other middle eastern nations) all share interests and their nations are quite aligned with each other. While the USA, UK, France, Australia, and Israel all have our special interests on how we wish the world to be. Each side wants their own version of control on the world. It is scary to think in the least on what will happen.

If you ask me, there will eventually be a show down, and no, it will not be pretty.

If you are getting information from the UN and stating it as fact, I think you need to recheck your sources, my friend.

[edit on 9/18/2009 by FadeToBlack]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by Pathos

right only united states is communist/fascist country now

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

Is it your mission to make as many useless threads in 72 hours.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

France has one of the best militaries on the planet. On par with Germany.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by veritech01

1 - United States of America
It's manufacturing capabilities coupled with sheer numbers, advanced technology and nuclear capabilities keep the US on top. 48/60

2 - Russia
Though dwindled since the Cold War, Russia's numbers and nuclear capabilities keep it on top as the second most powerful army in the world. 37/60

3 - Israel
Manpower, sheer numbers and experience rank the Israeli armies among the top in the world. 35/60

4 - Germany
Surprising to find Germany this high on the list but it maintains a stellar peacekeeping force for itself - plus it does not maintain any costly overseas stations. 33/60

5 - China
Overall numbers and the possibility of nuclear capability rank China high on the list, but the fact remains that most of the force is untested in global conflicts, their equipment remains dated and forced conscription takes its toll. 32/60

6 - France and Pakistan Tie
France maintains units for self-defence and peacekeeping missions of its former colonies. Other than that, its primary force is more for its own protection than anything else, having been invaded by Germany twice in the 20th century. Nonetheless, its nuclear capabilities, strong commitment to maritime and defense, and a steady military keep it in the top ten. 31/60

Pakistan's recent experience as a US ally and its build up against India help it score well. It combats internal terrorism regularly but none-the-less maintains support through the US. 31/60


Your statement regarding the French might be true if basing your information on defensive capabilities were the subject.


posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by Becker44

I wouldn't trust that list. A.) It's posted on the internet and B.) They don't really provide any statistics.

Here's a list I've just found which provides details supporting the rank. I'm not saying it's correct, I'm just saying there are different opinions out there.

[edit on 18/9/09 by veritech01]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by serph
Couple of things here guys in response to some posts:

@Sky Watcher: NATO troops huh? You are probably right. The air power would have been impressive, but war is never won through air power alone. Would never have happened though. The minute NATO got involved, the nuclear ballgame would have gotten started. For example during the cold war, if Warsaw Pact tanks crossed a given line, NATO response was to escalate to Nuclear Release. The Russians had and have similar contingency plans. Don't make the mistake of discounting the Russian Bear. It's been hibernating is all. I also see that you seem to be abdicating a preemptive strike capability. Careful with that one.

What I was telling you all was that Russia's invasion plan was very flawed and its lack of air power was evident big time. One well placed J-DAM on that tunnel would have stopped Russia's advance from the north.

Russia will make the same mistake again trying to invade Israel through the Beka valley. One well placed nuke will stop their advances and more will destroy them.

Russia can not afford to throw countless nukes at Israel when the U.S. could strike them at any time. They will loose so much of their army in that exchange that they will pull back and rethink things, Saving what they have left for self preservation. If they cant get their army or ICBMS into Israel then they have no other choice.

I don't want war, I do not want any Arab states to have nukes either. Iran is the worse when it comes to terrorism whether you like it or not. If Russia was not playing games they would stop Iran from playing with nuclear weapons themselves. Russia has sternly warned them many times to stop doing what they are doing because they know Iran is building missiles that can carry a nuke, that they also know they can build.

As soon as Russia seen the new nose cone for the Shihab-3 they had a fit with Iran so you know they are guilty as hell. Take that with Iran's belief that they are the power behind the Mahdi's Armageddon army then you can not let them get the bomb. Iran knows they will never get by the Arrow system so they will have Hesbola or Hammas bring one in by truck or some crude air plane.

Israel can not take the chance, Its to risky for them to do nothing and I don't think Russia would normally do anything but if the web-bot is right, Israel accidentally causes a bad radiation fallout problem by bombing a site where none of that stuff is supposed to be and thats what brings about Russia's attack on them.

Russia makes the mistake of blaming Israel when its really Iran's fault for hiding nasty stuff there and not telling anyone. It is just like them sickos to do something like that. You know when these people hide in Mosques and Hospitals after taking pop shots at our troops that is what they are capable of. Hell they may even claim Israel nuked them.

Israel will only use nukes in defense of itself when they have no other choice or risk extermination, You can not say that about a suicidal Arab leader now can you.

The proud Persian people should oust their leaders and the world would be a better place. We should do the same as well.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Becker44
reply to post by veritech01

1 - United States of America
It's manufacturing capabilities coupled with sheer numbers, advanced technology and nuclear capabilities keep the US on top. 48/60

Your statement regarding the French might be true if basing your information on defensive capabilities were the subject.


You know you'll hear a lot from the "The US doesn't Produce anything anymore" or the "the US get's all their high tech chips from China" etc crowd.

Not realizing that that's exactly what we have still maintained and that's our Weapons industries. Which is just about all we really produce nowadays.

France and China's military's look nice on paper and in parades.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 08:04 PM
It appears you are leaving out countries, MY country to be exact


10$ billion in 100 new F-35 fighters, doubling submarine fleet and surface warships

China's steadily growing military might and the prospect of sharper strategic competition among Asia's great powers are driving the maritime build-up

and this just in today:

ISTANBUL, Turkey (CNN) -- The Turkish military said Friday it is weighing bids from American, Russian and Chinese defense contractors as it seeks to buy at least $1 billion worth of long-range missile defense systems.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by Sundancer

I understand what Your saying; I guess We are kinda neighbors? Any ways there are many US created Banana Republics down this way. Amazingly most are beginning to stand on their own two feet.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Er, hey, kinda like baseball
, but I gotta say the French have provided us with many useful things. I am particular fond of French women, but they rank a few rows down behind some others...

reply to post by FadeToBlack

Well, the UN is what is being used to further this current situation into a more critical state of war. As You pointed out, it seems to have a heavy Western influence. I am guessing there is a quite the shadow war being fought right now, and that is the reason the Western influenced, based in New York City UN is saying it's all good. I would have to agree with this.

I prey beyond a shady of a doubt We can stop this "look's to be" coming war. To answer Your question directly I do not trust the UN, and I source from any place which accidentally shoots out the truth

reply to post by akoola111

I didn't say that, and I know there are many

reply to post by WorldWarEnd

Do You want more???

reply to post by Becker44

Hi, thanks for the contribution. Can You elaborate on the /60 part of the information..... Is there a 59/60? It was interesting, but I didn't get how the grading was done.

I have looked on the Net prior for statistics, but have found many to be inaccurate, or wrong.

reply to post by veritech01

Thanks for that. I'll be checking it out shortly, and maybe post some of it on the thread. I agree simple numbers are hard to see. I think a degree of other factors come into play. Such as the fortitude of the People involved. Russians can be down right nasty.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 08:33 PM
These numbers taken from a source provided above by a kind poster. The numbers are simply of the active military personal.
I also included OZ because someone from Australia seemed to want to be included in the war.....

Now as People have brought up throughout the thread, there are numerous other countries; which have the possibility of becoming involved, but for now I'm leaving them out....

Active Military Reserve: 1,458,500 [2008]

Active Military Personnel: 195,000 [2008]

Active Military Personnel: 225,000 [2008]

Active Military Personnel: 187,000 [2008]

Active Military Personnel: 54,000 [2008]

TOTAl: 2,119,500

Active Military Personnel: 2,255,000 [2008]

Active Military Personnel: 1,245,000 [2008]

Active Military Personnel: 545,000 [2008]

TOTAL: 4,045,000

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in