WWIII has officially begun.

Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
It's sad but I wouldn't call it World War III. I would like to call it the War on Terrorsim which I fully support. It might as well be called World III. I think wars have been with us every decade. It hasn't really stopped. It is just going to get worse and worse. Don't mistake us for the bad guys though. We are trying to make the world a better place

This century shall see many more wars as the war train seems to be more acceptible to the world as a hole....Granted many oppose but far more do not. war is a fasionable deal now not only with us who consider ourselves to be on the "right side" but also in the enemy camps who have far more support from their constituants per capita because of intimidation than we do by asking politely for acceptance

"God help us O' Men of War, as our short sightedness shall be our undoing. And let us have the wisdom to not blame those who do not wish too fight as wisdoms call be with them...." quote from Quotes For Posterity Project Author Dr. Bryan K. Kruta 01 October 2004

[edit on 25/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

I call it the 'Third-world war'. Think about it, africa is still in tribal wars and the middle east is screwed up. THe third-world countries of our world are in a war.

Originally posted by Ezekial
I call it the 'Third-world war'. Think about it, africa is still in tribal wars and the middle east is screwed up. THe third-world countries of our world are in a war.

Yes but africa and the middle east have been war torn for centuries..
The middle east has even been at war during the Times of Jesus's presence here on earth....As for africa the have been a hot bed of conflict all the way back to before white men can to get the to be inslaved in the US the country as a whole has been raped by outsiders for centuries of their natural resources, Come to think of it Egypt and Rome both repeatedly took possession of africa as well as Germany so this cant be anything new.....Granted the world is in an overhelming amount of wars the frequency as spead up but not changed the wars are just closer together and in some cases all at the same time but they all have seperate goals......In history we learned the WW1 and 2 where based on one sides view verses the others sides view with each side consisting of many parties....this does not match the description of the wars of today and that even applies to the war on terror because terror from our side is generalized to all terrorists being eliminated while the terrorists each have their own agendas it just so happens they share a common title of terrorist and thats it.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
A World War occurs when the majority of the world's nations are active participants in a war. I don't see how that is the case.

Not yet, Mr. Crowne. Not yet. But just because it's not obvious that WWIII has already begun to most of living in the present, that doesn't mean it won't be to historians who might write about this period ten or fifteeen years from now.

Russia is already involved. They've been fighting against Islamic militants for years in Chechnya. Also, if we do decide to settle things with N Korea, China may very well take that opportunity to invade Taiwan (as they have threatened to do on numerous occasions). Or it could be, as I wrote of earlier, that World War III is not a conventional war of armies against armies and nations against nations, but a psychological war being waged by the rich and powerful Elites of the world against their own citizens, we the people. Maybe this war actually started as soon as WWII ended. Their goal? Total enslavement, absolute control over the hearts and minds of every man, woman, and child on this planet.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Fox and CNN are trustworthy news organizations and the government doesn't really lie about everything. But we'll see, won't we? It won't be long now. The truth will be revealed to those few of us who survive the next decade or two.

Originally posted by Ischyros
Not yet, Mr. Crowne. Not yet. But just because it's not obvious that WWIII has already begun to most of living in the present, that doesn't mean it won't be to historians who might write about this period ten or fifteeen years from now.

Historians are often the largest destorters of life experience, they presume to place a name on actions they only know on paper never the emotions and thoughts that guided the committing and recording of the facts...while we learn greatly from historians the mistakes of our past they can only speculate the hidden unless they where there to see it ,,,,,,I respect historians but often history is written by the winners and often that information is what historians judge from and in its own right historians are fallable.

Russia is already involved. They've been fighting against Islamic militants for years in Chechnya. Also, if we do decide to settle things with N Korea, China may very well take that opportunity to invade Taiwan (as they have threatened to do on numerous occasions). Or it could be, as I wrote of earlier, that World War III is not a conventional war of armies against armies and nations against nations, but a psychological war being waged by the rich and powerful Elites of the world against their own citizens, we the people. Maybe this war actually started as soon as WWII ended. Their goal? Total enslavement, absolute control over the hearts and minds of every man, woman, and child on this planet.

Mental warfare while a tactic with great affect has a flaw people often become used to an idea and then it gets forgotten or replaced so how would a WW3 work if only by mental warfare if anything if it does happen the victory will be very short lived and then pointless in the amount of effort and time.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Fox and CNN are trustworthy news organizations and the government doesn't really lie about everything. But we'll see, won't we? It won't be long now. The truth will be revealed to those few of us who survive the next decade or two.

As for news it is a point of view its fallable to the point of acceptance only by a grain of salt look at the recent Bush document fiasco where in information was from one point of view was legit yet it was contrived of partial facts and lies....the news does have its good moments where in live coverage that cant be denied or edited very easily in order to keep forward motion if forward motion is lost during a live coverage then the story is lost to another who is just covering it faster and better.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
Historians are often the largest destorters of life experience, they presume to place a name on actions they only know on paper never the emotions and thoughts that guided the committing and recording of the facts...while we learn greatly from historians the mistakes of our past they can only speculate the hidden unless they where there to see it ,,,,,,I respect historians but often history is written by the winners and often that information is what historians judge from and in its own right historians are fallable.

The historian writing ten or fifteen years from now could be you or I, or someone else who lived through this time period. What I mean is that through benefit of hindsight and the revealing of information that is being hidden at this time, the future historian will very likely have a better perspective because he or she will be able to see the outcome of the events which are only now transpiring.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
Mental warfare while a tactic with great affect has a flaw people often become used to an idea and then it gets forgotten or replaced so how would a WW3 work if only by mental warfare if anything if it does happen the victory will be very short lived and then pointless in the amount of effort and time.

I totally disagree. Psychological warfare and propaganda are extremely effective tools. If I control what people think and believe then I control practically everything. If I control what is taught in school, preached in church, printed in books, and shown on televison, etc. then my grasp on power would be nearly unbreakable. I highly recommend the book 1984 by George Orwell if you've never read it. And check out the following links for some information on the effectiveness of psychological and information warfare.

See en.wikipedia.org...
library.nps.navy.mil...
www.psywarrior.com...
www.psywar.org...

Originally posted by Ischyros
The historian writing ten or fifteen years from now could be you or I, or someone else who lived through this time period. What I mean is that through benefit of hindsight and the revealing of information that is being hidden at this time, the future historian will very likely have a better perspective because he or she will be able to see the outcome of the events which are only now transpiring.

but what I'm saying is when we are gone for example 50-75 years down the road there will be new people trying to write the story and wont have the benefit of a personal interview with me and you there in lies the possibility of messed up history our immediate recalection shall go with us when we go.........

I totally disagree. Psychological warfare and propaganda are extremely effective tools. If I control what people think and believe then I control practically everything. If I control what is taught in school, preached in church, printed in books, and shown on televison, etc. then my grasp on power would be nearly unbreakable. I highly recommend the book 1984 by George Orwell if you've never read it. And check out the following links for some information on the effectiveness of psychological and information warfare.

But you are assuming you can keep their attention and keep them focused on your information after a while even I get sick of the world and turn off the net , tv, radio, and put down the books and just set and draw or build stuff like car engines and so on .....phsycological war fare is fallable and can loose its power rather quickly .....phsyc warfare is meant for here and now or short term not long term....unless you employ a method of labotomy limiting the higher function eventually will just get sick of hearing it and block it out. The human mind is to curious to stay locked in one position with out force.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
A World War occurs when the majority of the world's nations are active participants in a war. I don't see how that is the case.

I agree totaly.

Now if you siad " the world IS at war", then I would agree. There are so many conflicts going on in the world, but then that has been the case at most times through history.

But no, this is not World War 3.

at any rate, I don't think that you, or any of us, are qualified to declare the 'official' commencement of a world war.

Originally posted by Odd
at any rate, I don't think that you, or any of us, are qualified to declare the 'official' commencement of a world war.

God help us when the person that can comes to the conclusion one has really started and in fact I hope when he does all of you have been practicing yoga like me cause I am praticing it to be limber enough to bend over and kiss my arse goodbye

It is 15 years that France is fighting against the Wahhabit terrorism (the Ben Ladden fammily one). Bush Senior didn't want to ear France and Algeria when we were telling him that Saoudi, whitch is controled by the G. Bush lobby, was financing terrorism in Algeria. We told him his money was beeing used by some terrorists (remember the massacras in Algeria in the 90's) who were talking in the name of Wahhabits and Salafists, killing whole villages in Algeria and the region.

It's never too late!!!! but now! There is about to be angry, so W has nothing to say to France, nothing. The Bush should be juged for their incompetence and irony witch is no irony but a plan that favorized the 11/9.

Who made who?

WWIII was the supposed cold war and Reagan won it .....

This is WWIV .... The holy war ....

Welcome said the spider to the fly, to my NWO ....

Originally posted by ShawNee922
WWIII was the supposed cold war and Reagan won it .....

This is WWIV .... The holy war ....

Welcome said the spider to the fly, to my NWO ....

Sorry dude cant go with you on that for it is commonly thought by many that title shall go to the final war of all wars.....

Originally posted by mbkennel

Sorry, Osama was there first. He really quite officially declared war on the West in 1998, after his minions murdered hundreds of innocent Africans, and Clinton sent some cruise missiles at their camps.

Don't blame America for this one.

I blame America for getting involved in the mideast's problems in the first place. If they hadn't helped all of their enemies at one time or another, they wouldn't have become our enemies.

Originally posted by ShawNee922
WWIII was the supposed cold war and Reagan won it .....

Reagan didn't win anything. The cold war fizzled when Communism,as it was practiced by the Soviet Union, collapsed, as it would have regardless of who was president of the US, or who was running the Soviet Union. He had very little to do with it.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Damned]

Agreed. Let's get our own proverbial together before we go cleaning up other peoples' messes.

Is there some kind of geological force that arouses the chaos that has always surrounded the Middle East? Ever since recorded time and before that there have been numerous 'wars' over in that area. I know it's a possibility that most of our origins are from over there and farther East, and that America is a 'newer' country - but I once read that a country's capital position in relation to the North/South pole had to do w/ its outcome. Those with their capital in the North had a more favorable outcome, if not a tie.
Not saying I believe it, but it held my interest for a little while; So I just wanted to bring it up and see what you thought.

Originally posted by Juanita
Is there some kind of geological force that arouses the chaos that has always surrounded the Middle East? Ever since recorded time and before that there have been numerous 'wars' over in that area. I know it's a possibility that most of our origins are from over there and farther East, and that America is a 'newer' country - but I once read that a country's capital position in relation to the North/South pole had to do w/ its outcome. Those with their capital in the North had a more favorable outcome, if not a tie.
Not saying I believe it, but it held my interest for a little while; So I just wanted to bring it up and see what you thought.

The battle in the middle east is biblical in its beginnings, It is said two brother began the war one on each side yet neither holding to the beliefs of there intended religion of God and Jesus or now called Christain..AT least I think that is how it goes I need to review the material to be sure.

[edit on 25/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

Originally posted by earthtone
WWIII started on the 11th of september 2001. Iraq and Afghanistan are just the first steps. Things are going to get alot worse from here.

Word for word its exactly what I think..>!!!!

One thing I really dont get is the need for the US to try to be the police, ok North Korea has nukes and may invade south Korea or nuke them, thats a problem they need to solve, north Korea WILL NEVER nuke the US because even JIN JON KIM or whatever he is called knows the US has thousands of warheads and will send his ass to oblivion (in a nuclear cloud) the minute he tries to play funny.

Its the same for All countries in the world, WHO would in his right mind attack or declare war to the US, theyd be destroyed in 45 minutes.
After 9/11 I tought that if ossama was in Agfanisthan the US should have trown a couple of low yield Nukes to the desert area of afganisthan and demand OBL to be taken and delivered to the US, also the same ultimatum in a remote area of Saudi Arabia, those pesky Bin laddens would have pissed their pants and delivered OBL in no time, no fuzz, no invasion, no special, forces and a lot less $$$$ spent.
Also in Iraq I always wondered how they could take Panama�s Strong man Manuel Noriega (now in a US prision), in a swift move and Saddam they could not?
They should have continied the Shock and Awe bombing demanding Saddam, they would have gotten him faster because no Iraqui in his right mind would have fought the US for Saddam.

So it brings us to WHY, maybe because US depends on Saudi Arabia for Money and Oil and the Bin laddens, Maybe because they need the HUGE market the asian block will be in the near future, maybe because They need afganisthan to get the oil pipes to the Indian Peninsula, maybe because they need Irak and its oil to have more leverage in a zone in wich they dont have enough control.

In my view there is no thing as a free lunch and the US and allies are trying to stablish a nice confortable power zone in the middle east at whatever the cost, and stablish a nice buffer in the Korean Peninsula to offset the power of the chinnese, also inthe west of china with afganisthan etc etc.
Has th e world changed? has history taught us something? will the future be different? IMHO

NO ....so enjoy it while it lasts

Originally posted by kix
One thing I really dont get is the need for the US to try to be the police, ok North Korea has nukes and may invade south Korea or nuke them, thats a problem they need to solve, north Korea WILL NEVER nuke the US because even JIN JON KIM or whatever he is called knows the US has thousands of warheads and will send his ass to oblivion (in a nuclear cloud) the minute he tries to play funny.

Yet they are in striking distance of China and if China gets nuked get ready all He*l is going to break loose. While Nkorea is Russias little brother they
wont side with them over China their middle brother who has more to contribute to the Russian economy and a bigger Allie .......And if of course Russia hits North Korea get hit Guess whats next the self righteous US will be in the middle having recently done drills with China in the South China Seas......That implies a friendship in which the US would not be out of the Question....After the US and Russia back up China logically the next step would be an arguement over possesion and bragging rights......then kattie bar the door cause its time to fight...

Also in Iraq I always wondered how they could take Panama�s Strong man Manuel Noriega (now in a US prision), in a swift move and Saddam they could not?
They should have continied the Shock and Awe bombing demanding Saddam, they would have gotten him faster because no Iraqui in his right mind would have fought the US for Saddam.

Not really the man left bagdad and didnt care what happened to it....He only cared about saving his own arse.....And the people of his home town would not have givven him up....You would have had descimated their town, and even then at best you would have probably wounded him in his arse as he was running away again.