posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:12 PM
Originally posted by fleabit
Wonderful... another "unnamed source." But.. this one is RELIABLE! Because they knew about Osama? So.. can someone point to a date-stamped post
for that prediction? If I can see that, I could put a bit more stock in this.
Then again.. perhaps not. "Sources" seem to be wrong 99.95% of the time. Combine source with before its news.. and well.. my skepticism is
incredibly high. Especially since I highly doubt any "source" can actually know the reactions of all countries that would be involved in such a
war. It's complete guesswork. Libya is a mess, and possibly a potential timebomb.. but not one imo, that would launch WWIII.
Libya will probably implode within a few years, I think, but then again, Iraq was significantly more important, and no nuclear conflict happened in
2003. The Reagan administration dropped bombs on Libya in April, 1986 after the disco bombing in Hamburg, and the Russians didn't go nuclear[tensions
were much higher then, you know!]. And what about the 1st Gulf War, Afghanistan[the conflict in the '80s], or hell, Vietnam?
Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis things didn't go nuclear.........although that was thanks to the cool heads of Kennedy & Khrushchev and company.
So why all the fearmongering? I seriously doubt the Chinese gov't would be willing to risk a billion people over N. Korea, or Russia 150 million over
the destruction of 1 or a few Iranian or Syrian cities[even given the fact how terribly irresponsible the Russian gov't seems to have been; as far as
I know, they haven't replaced too many of the nervous wrecks who once operated the missile silos........although I do hope I'm wrong.].
I can't help but think most of this stuff is just a bunch of distractions. The economy's starting to die, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and
other forms of bigotry & prejudice are on the rise, unemployment's shooting thru the roof, etc.