World War 3 - Ignored

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
All it takes is money and the will.

Actively attacked

Chechnya
Russia
Spain
Iraq
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India
Thailand
Singapore
Bali
Greece
The United States
Nigeria
Sudan


Threatened

Japan
Italy
France
England
UN Leadership
Poland

Who on this list has the will and the money?

Who on this list is not ignoring the war?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Was roaming the net and found this site

This is the world's opinion on who they would attack in a war.

Btw, the creators are not advocating war but just an interest thing.

This site is for entertainment only

: cookie:


Edit None of your post here are contributing to the op, if you want to bash the USA or BUSH,
please[/quote] start your own thread..

 

[Stunt]

The thread topic was generated as a theory that there is a 3rd world war in the works.

I only posted that site as an interest thing to see how the world feels about proposed military operations.

There was no bush/US bashing to my knowledge, was not to be taken as one.

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish with your post.

 

[LtPage1]

there is no us and them. the rules have changed- its more like anarcy vs. the establishment, actually. theres no one to attack- waking up wont help us.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Not a great situation to analyze but i think if it was the US vs the world, the world would win hands down.
A good 10 nations have nuclear know how, the chinese have the largest standing army. Plus the US is a very resource dependent country. The US could raise a lot of havoc initially but in the end 300million vs. 6.5 billion people. I choose the world.

Besides...the US can't even take over iraq, you think they could take on 191 other countries?

And if you are going to bring up the nukes, im sure the rest of the world has just as many, and that would just end in the destruction of the world...including the US...which is hardly "winning"

See thats the thing, if it came down to it, it would be the US, Russia, and China, + the standard allies, vs them. Russia and China BOTH have their own islamic terrorist problems. Russia and China do not hold muslims in high regard. The US, and the world, basically turns are blind eye to Russia's activities in Chechnya, granted both sides have committed genocide there during the 10 years of war and well terrorist type attacks. If the US really wanted to to take a hardline approach, we would do what Russia and China does, but we arent like that, well not to the extent Russia and China are.

 

[MadRat]

To get technical its World War IV, not III. The Third World War ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. Although these World Wars take alot of lives, all World Wars are campaigns of the rich and powerful on the grand scale, with a basis of resistance built upon philosophical rightisms. WWI was formulated by the struggle to dominate Colonialism, with an undertone of blind nationalism based upon Elitism, militarism, and secret alliances. WWII was formulated by the struggle to assert revenge of German torts, with an undertone of blind nationalism based on Fascist versus the 'Free' world. WWIII was formulated by the struggle to maintain nuclear empires, with an undertone of class warfare based on Communism versus Capitalism. WWIV is formulated by the struggle to maintain crude oil dominance for the G8, with an undertone to blind Ismlamic fundementalism versus 'infidel' secularism.

The concepts that generate 'World War' are based upon English Elitism, and have nothing to do with Germans or Japanese people. The recurring theme of the times have been a potent force sets a parameter and makes an example of the impotent force, the impotent force being one that is non-submissive and dangerous to anyone other than the potent force, the parameter being such that the impotent force cannot by nature stay within which in turn means the impotent force willingly crosses the boundary, followed by the potent force always ends up putting the smack down on the impotent force. The fact that these wars cross so many borders is the only thing that sets them aside from the classic meaning of the word, "war".

The winner of any war basically gets to rewrite history with them as the 'good guys'. If you want to be practical, its safe to say the 'good guys' are good because they win. In WWI the 'good guys' struck first, with a Slav commoner killing a Hun arch Duke. (It just so happened that Slavs make up alot of Russia and Huns make up alot of Germany...) In WWII the 'good guys' struck first in Europe and Asia using economic sanctions, blockades, and hostile military force. (The English and French struck Germany with punitive settlement for WWI and then rewarded Hitler for his aggressive actions elsewhere with an appeasement, knowing full-well that Germany would eventually be forced to fight because of the original settlement. The Japanese, choked by America's blockade, struck Pearl Harbor then went for the land grab knowing full-well America's response.) In WWIII the Allies struck first. (The Allies setup an aggressive post-WW2 barrier against the Soviets, appeased the Soviets by watching them land grab what would become the Iron Curtain, then setup a Containment Policy that slowly put the noose around the Soviets. Luckily it was a non-nuclear end.) In WWIV the allies struck first, outright supporting dictator after dictator. (The Allies setup an aggressive containment policy against Islam by installing those puppet leaders, had an appeasement of the Muslims by granting them help in Afghanistan and Chechnya, then setup a Containment Policy by invading Afghanistan and Iraq.) Soon even WWIV will pass with the Islamic World crumbling. Of course these are wild simplifications of real global issues, but they aren't all that inaccurate..

 

[z0mb13]

Why is singapore up there??