162 replies to this topic

[BadmanAsh]

back to WW3

[MrTeddi]

I think Germany is going to start it. I mean to be honest, they started the first 2 wars. So 3rd time the charm?

[Basin is BACK]

Germany can't be said to have caused WW1 if you ask me. Most of the participants were to blame for that, they were all spoiling for a scrap, and just wanted the excuse.

[frogg]

http://4.bp.blogspot...%25281%2529.gif
zoom in a bit on it, the image is too small

[Culdin]

I for one welcome our future new leaders

Edited by Culdin, Saturday 29 October 2011, 08:27:26 PM.

[jesanfafon]

Culdin, on Saturday 29 October 2011, 08:25:15 PM, said:

I for one welcome our future new leaders

RICHARD NIXON'S DISEMBODIED HEAD

[Basin is BACK]

[BadmanAsh]

derp

[redenious]

Wow. That was different.

MrTeddi, on Thursday 27 October 2011, 08:40:26 AM, said:

I think Germany is going to start it. I mean to be honest, they started the first 2 wars. So 3rd time the charm?

That was a third riech type of thing I think.

[icecrea]

I really hope world 3 never begins, as it will go nuclear and good bye planet.

[jesanfafon]

redenious, on Monday 07 November 2011, 03:39:38 AM, said:

Wow. That was different.

MrTeddi, on Thursday 27 October 2011, 08:40:26 AM, said:

I think Germany is going to start it. I mean to be honest, they started the first 2 wars. So 3rd time the charm?

That was a third riech type of thing I think.

I think we will start it, because quite frankly, our nation is currently behaving like a bull in a china shop - careful and tiptoeing. But you know what? There's other bulls who want us to get in trouble/die and might go into the shop and start messing things up.

[redenious]

like whom? whom? who. like who?

[jesanfafon]

redenious, on Wednesday 09 November 2011, 01:52:54 AM, said:

like whom? whom? who. like who?

It doesn't matter. We'll step really hard on someone's toes someday and they'll tell us off for it.

[BadmanAsh]

OK, so what do we think about the US supposedly drawing up plans for an Iranian invasion? (i question the validity of them but this thread is entirely speculative.) This would be a good starting point for the Third world war.

[frogg]

i personally don't think the american public would support more military conflict in the middle east, especially something big like an invasion. but then again, there wasn't huge public support for nato's involvement in libya, so whatever.

[jesanfafon]

BadmanAsh, on Thursday 10 November 2011, 06:23:58 PM, said:

OK, so what do we think about the US supposedly drawing up plans for an Iranian invasion? (i question the validity of them but this thread is entirely speculative.) This would be a good starting point for the Third world war.

Who would back Iran?
Who gave Iran military grade plutonium to build the bomb?
If Iran has bombs, where have they been tested?
If Iran nukes us, will any of the middle east exist?

[Basin is BACK]

I dashed well hope everyone calms down there. Iran are armed to the teeth and aren't likely to back down in a punch up. I would say the US and NATO could win quite easily (assuming no nukes), except they have a lot of soldiers tied down elsewhere. Quite aside from the fact that this would be a bad war anyway. I hope the west (and Iran too) sees sense and tries to talk their way to a better future.

Edited by Basin is BACK, Saturday 12 November 2011, 11:19:26 AM.

[jesanfafon]

Basin is BACK, on Saturday 12 November 2011, 11:19:14 AM, said:

I dashed well hope everyone calms down there. Iran are armed to the teeth and aren't likely to back down in a punch up. I would say the US and NATO could win quite easily (assuming no nukes), except they have a lot of soldiers tied down elsewhere. Quite aside from the fact that this would be a bad war anyway. I hope the west (and Iran too) sees sense and tries to talk their way to a better future.

I think Iran will continue to blow hot air for many years to come, but never actually take action. They are like the guy playing an RTS who thinks he's good, but won't actually start playing until he is capable of overwhelming force.

[BadmanAsh]

Whilst I think militarily NATO or whoever specificity is planning it would win the Invasion part/battle easily (No state on Earth would risk selling weapons to them) I think the repercussions would follow in the form of a break down in relations between the middle east and the US, oil cut off, closure of the Strait of Hormuz and maybe even the Suez canal, global loss of trust in NATO, and simply the political suicide that declaring war would be for any US politicion who condones such an act are all restricting factors.

[jesanfafon]

BadmanAsh, on Saturday 12 November 2011, 05:32:28 PM, said:

Whilst I think militarily NATO or whoever specificity is planning it would win the Invasion part/battle easily (No state on Earth would risk selling weapons to them) I think the repercussions would follow in the form of a break down in relations between the middle east and the US, oil cut off, closure of the Strait of Hormuz and maybe even the Suez canal, global loss of trust in NATO, and simply the political suicide that declaring war would be for any US politicion who condones such an act are all restricting factors.

NATO would invade the middle east before oil stopped being sold to the US.

[frogg]

jesanfafon, on Saturday 12 November 2011, 10:13:38 PM, said:

BadmanAsh, on Saturday 12 November 2011, 05:32:28 PM, said:

Whilst I think militarily NATO or whoever specificity is planning it would win the Invasion part/battle easily (No state on Earth would risk selling weapons to them) I think the repercussions would follow in the form of a break down in relations between the middle east and the US, oil cut off, closure of the Strait of Hormuz and maybe even the Suez canal, global loss of trust in NATO, and simply the political suicide that declaring war would be for any US politicion who condones such an act are all restricting factors.

NATO would invade the middle east before oil stopped being sold to the US.

Jesse, that is ridiculous. We would have plenty of signs that Saudi Arabia and the Middle East would cut off supplies completely; basic supply and demand would respond to this. We would begin buying more from Canada and Mexico (already our number 1 and 2 suppliers*) and would be forced to forgo some environmental restrictions that prevent the US from getting oil in places like the west coast and parts of texas.


Contrary to popular belief, there are many educated people in this country, whose first reaction would be "okay, where else can we get oil" instead of "WAR WAR KILL THEM" like you two seem to think.

*http://38.96.246.204...ent/import.html

[jesanfafon]

frogg, on Saturday 12 November 2011, 11:26:11 PM, said:

jesanfafon, on Saturday 12 November 2011, 10:13:38 PM, said:

BadmanAsh, on Saturday 12 November 2011, 05:32:28 PM, said:

Whilst I think militarily NATO or whoever specificity is planning it would win the Invasion part/battle easily (No state on Earth would risk selling weapons to them) I think the repercussions would follow in the form of a break down in relations between the middle east and the US, oil cut off, closure of the Strait of Hormuz and maybe even the Suez canal, global loss of trust in NATO, and simply the political suicide that declaring war would be for any US politicion who condones such an act are all restricting factors.

NATO would invade the middle east before oil stopped being sold to the US.

Jesse, that is ridiculous. We would have plenty of signs that Saudi Arabia and the Middle East would cut off supplies completely; basic supply and demand would respond to this. We would begin buying more from Canada and Mexico (already our number 1 and 2 suppliers*) and would be forced to forgo some environmental restrictions that prevent the US from getting oil in places like the west coast and parts of texas.


Contrary to popular belief, there are many educated people in this country, whose first reaction would be "okay, where else can we get oil" instead of "WAR WAR KILL THEM" like you two seem to think.

*http://38.96.246.204...ent/import.html

Contrary to popular belief, it is nearly impossible for them to stop supplying us and keep their quality of life up. It is far easier for us to stop buying than for them to stop selling. The United States has way more interest in peace with the middle east than war, but war we will to secure our oil should the need be necessitated.

[BadmanAsh]

OH IT IS GETTIN HOT IN HERE Y'ALL!

[redenious]

BadmanAsh, on Thursday 10 November 2011, 06:23:58 PM, said:

OK, so what do we think about the US supposedly drawing up plans for an Iranian invasion? (i question the validity of them but this thread is entirely speculative.) This would be a good starting point for the Third world war.

OK. so, before we get into all this theoretical nonsense, let's take a step back. Let's ask ourselves, "hey, us, what causes wars?"
Well actually the more appropriate question would be, "what causes any argument between males?", and let's face it- males cause wars.

[Ninjaboi2]

I say the next world war will be between the humans and an alian species of giant plants with squid tenticals so it will be an actual world war not a bunch of different countries war like the past two "world wars" have been we gonna have an alian war baby

[jesanfafon]

redenious, on Monday 14 November 2011, 09:33:02 AM, said:

BadmanAsh, on Thursday 10 November 2011, 06:23:58 PM, said:

OK, so what do we think about the US supposedly drawing up plans for an Iranian invasion? (i question the validity of them but this thread is entirely speculative.) This would be a good starting point for the Third world war.

OK. so, before we get into all this theoretical nonsense, let's take a step back. Let's ask ourselves, "hey, us, what causes wars?"
Well actually the more appropriate question would be, "what causes any argument between males?", and let's face it- males cause wars.

Let's face it - women would never hesitate to use the nuclear bomb if they were under the influence of hormones, recently dumped, and in a spat with her girlfriends. NO GENDER IS ABOVE REPROACH, AND SURE AS HELL NEITHER IS SUPERIOR IN ANY WAY.

Edited by jesanfafon, Tuesday 15 November 2011, 03:08:25 AM.

[redenious]

jesanfafon, on Tuesday 15 November 2011, 03:07:48 AM, said:

redenious, on Monday 14 November 2011, 09:33:02 AM, said:

BadmanAsh, on Thursday 10 November 2011, 06:23:58 PM, said:

OK, so what do we think about the US supposedly drawing up plans for an Iranian invasion? (i question the validity of them but this thread is entirely speculative.) This would be a good starting point for the Third world war.

OK. so, before we get into all this theoretical nonsense, let's take a step back. Let's ask ourselves, "hey, us, what causes wars?"
Well actually the more appropriate question would be, "what causes any argument between males?", and let's face it- males cause wars.

Let's face it - women would never hesitate to use the nuclear bomb if they were under the influence of hormones, recently dumped, and in a spat with her girlfriends. NO GENDER IS ABOVE REPROACH, AND SURE AS HELL NEITHER IS SUPERIOR IN ANY WAY.

HAHAHA yeah! But I've never seen a nuclear missile control panel in a kitchen before. LOL JK
Now all we have to do is hate on hermaphrodites. Wait, no, that's going too far.
Maybe all world leaders should be homosexual males. Wait, no.
Ok then, artificial intelligence! Wait...
OK then... wait, no.
:/

[BadmanAsh]

Ninjaboi2, on Tuesday 15 November 2011, 12:56:09 AM, said:

I say the next world war will be between the humans and an alian species of giant plants with squid tenticals so it will be an actual world war not a bunch of different countries war like the past two "world wars" have been we gonna have an alian war baby

THE BULBASAURS ARE TAKING OVER!!!

[redenious]

[Ninjaboi2]

iNVaDoR ZiM GiR NaZ DiB THe TaLLeST CHCOLATE BUBLLE GUM

[BadmanAsh]

sure

[Basin is BACK]

I beg your pardon Ninjaboi2 ?

[redenious]

they are names of characters in the show invader zim, but idk about the bubble gum thing. what episode was that

[Basin is BACK]

gosh.

[redenious]

santa claus, on Thursday 01 December 2011, 04:17:49 AM, said:

gnawrrrg

Just getting ready for Christmas

Edited by redenious, Thursday 01 December 2011, 12:22:49 PM.

[BadmanAsh]

Recent developments in Iran anyone?

[frogg]

Oh look, we passed though their little straight. Without them killing us. what a suprise.

What is your guys' opinion on the sanctions the US and EU is putting on them? too much?

[BadmanAsh]

Rediculous, they wont make any difference, besides if it comes too it Iran is always backed by other hardline regimes like North Korea. I dont think Ahmedinajad is a mad man, I think he just hates Israel to a point the backing US fear/dislike.

[jesanfafon]

Iran won't do anything too stupid because they have to realize how easily NATO can crush the country.

[redenious]

Iran is a country with normal people like you and me. But if any terrorists are born from it, the government would deny having any involvement. NATO wouldn't be able to do anything.
If it is profitable for terrorists to attack, it will happen.

As far as insane leaders, Hitler hated certain people. Was he insane? I'm sure Hitler felt more comfortable in 1940 than Akmardijad does now; he wasn't necessarily more crazy.

[BadmanAsh]

jesanfafon, on Friday 27 January 2012, 03:29:26 PM, said:

Iran won't do anything too stupid because they have to realize how easily NATO can crush the country.

This is true, we can gauge how mad a leader is by weather he actually does these things or just makes idle promises. This was Saddams mistake, he thought he could do these things without the neo-conservatives poking their noses in.

[redenious]

World War Three will begin in my pants!

[jesanfafon]

redenious, on Saturday 28 January 2012, 05:38:22 AM, said:

Iran is a country with normal people like you and me. But if any terrorists are born from it, the government would deny having any involvement. NATO wouldn't be able to do anything.
If it is profitable for terrorists to attack, it will happen.

This is demonstrably false. Economics has very little to do with terrorism. That is more about just hating people.

[BadmanAsh]

I concur (for once.)

[jesanfafon]

I still believe that Pakistan will start WWIII. Mostly because it hates its neighbor (India) and both have nuclear weapons.

[Fuzzy]

China v.s. United States.

[frogg]

China is way too invested in the united states... It would hurt them as much as it'd hurt us

Plus we would rape them if they tried

[redenious]

jesanfafon, on Wednesday 08 February 2012, 02:27:14 PM, said:

redenious, on Saturday 28 January 2012, 05:38:22 AM, said:

Iran is a country with normal people like you and me. But if any terrorists are born from it, the government would deny having any involvement. NATO wouldn't be able to do anything.
If it is profitable for terrorists to attack, it will happen.

This is demonstrably false. Economics has very little to do with terrorism. That is more about just hating people.

no no. Not profitable for them. Not for the terrorists. The terrorists are pawns... That would be ignorant of me to think such a thing.
I'm just saying that I have a considerable faith in intelligence systems. Do you know what I mean?
I mean if "they" knew an attack was going to happen, preventing such an attack may not neccessarily be in the best interests of "them".

You cannot tell me that every successful terrorist attack was not preventable.
And the U.S. doesn't go to war unless we have someone to blame. Did we go to war with Iraq or did we go to war with the Taliban?

[jesanfafon]

redenious, on Saturday 11 February 2012, 05:18:56 AM, said:

jesanfafon, on Wednesday 08 February 2012, 02:27:14 PM, said:

redenious, on Saturday 28 January 2012, 05:38:22 AM, said:

Iran is a country with normal people like you and me. But if any terrorists are born from it, the government would deny having any involvement. NATO wouldn't be able to do anything.
If it is profitable for terrorists to attack, it will happen.

This is demonstrably false. Economics has very little to do with terrorism. That is more about just hating people.

no no. Not profitable for them. Not for the terrorists. The terrorists are pawns... That would be ignorant of me to think such a thing.
I'm just saying that I have a considerable faith in intelligence systems. Do you know what I mean?
I mean if "they" knew an attack was going to happen, preventing such an attack may not neccessarily be in the best interests of "them".

You cannot tell me that every successful terrorist attack was not preventable.
And the U.S. doesn't go to war unless we have someone to blame. Did we go to war with Iraq or did we go to war with the Taliban?

We bungled 9/11. It was more than preventable. That administration didn't feel like being smart though.

We invaded Iraq for SOME reason. The Taliban were in Afgahnistan and who NATO thumbed as the people responsible for 9/11 (correctly, I might add). That is why, in September of 2001 the United States began the War on Terrorism and invaded the nation of Afghanistan and offered no aid to the rest of the world dealing with terrorists. That was when we went to war with the Taliban. The Taliban really hated us and just wanted to prove the wrongedness of western economics. Then we took western economics (for better or for worse) and invaded their homeland. Then 10 years later finally managed to kill their leader.

Iraq was a different story. We lied to NATO (and this war is probably the catalyst that has made men like Ash hate NATO) about what Sadaam was up to with his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and whatnot and invaded that nation, finally killing their leader 4 years later. So no, we were at war with Hussein, then at war with Al Qaeda then preventing the new, terrible government from collapsing.

Yup. I know my history. =P

Terrorism isn't about economy. Nor are they pawns in some larger scheme of things. There would tell-tale signs if some group of people were colluding to make these things happen.

[redenious]

I will continue to have ignorant skepticism. It's the American way.

[jesanfafon]

I doubt this happening. South Korea is allied with NATO.

[BadmanAsh]

redenious, on Saturday 11 February 2012, 05:18:56 AM, said:

Did we go to war with Iraq or did we go to war with the Taliban?

Christ. Did I actually just read that? FUCKING HELL.

[BadmanAsh]

jesanfafon, on Sunday 12 February 2012, 05:23:37 PM, said:

and this war is probably the catalyst that has made men like Ash hate NATO

Terrorism isn't about economy. Nor are they pawns in some larger scheme of things. There would tell-tale signs if some group of people were colluding to make these things happen.

"Men like Ash". I like the sound of that.

All terrorism exists for is the purpose of spreading terror as a means to attract attention to your cause, weather it be Islam, Occupation of nations (e.g. Palestine) Although the term is thrown around too loosely. There are no terrorists in Palestine/Israel. Only freedom fighters.Sometimes governments back terrorists, (e.g. Lebanon backing Hezbollah) although again they are not really terrorists.

[frogg]

NK is too pussah to try anything. even with how crazy they seem, they know that the west would come in and crush whatever they're doing.
and they're actually opening up a bit recently- http://www.cnn.com/2...a-us/index.html

[BadmanAsh]

I don't think its that North Korea are pussies, I think its more that the west is successfully starving them into submission with blockades. Also i do not think their military is up to any major conflicts, I mean their primary supplier of weapons is Iran for Christs sake!

[jesanfafon]

http://www.google.co...1a68c883be2.7b1

Conspiracy theorists say they stopped their nuclear tech because they have multiple bombs. They stopped testing missiles because they have ICBM's. Now this sattelite launch is actually a nuclear first strike.


Silly conspiracy theorists.

[jesanfafon]

luke_jesse, on Thursday 15 March 2012, 10:53:51 PM, said:

icecrea, on Monday 07 November 2011, 11:52:44 PM, said:

I really hope world 3 never begins, as it will go nuclear and good bye planet.

hmm you sure about that cake? WW3 could really change some maps in a good way hopefully and it would bring a more solid democracy to the world (thats if NATO are the good guys and if they win).

try to re-think that.

World War 3 will be nuclear, and it will begin in Asia between Pakistan and India. Most of the world's nations without nuclear weapons will not toss their lot in for one side or the other. NATO supports India, the Middle East backs Pakistan. India and Pakistan have a nuclear exchange. Once it becomes clear that the nuking is over, Pakistan is occupied by NATO and Islam is made out to be the bad guy again.

Alternatively, the various nations of the EU could just go to war with each other. I mean, besides the fact that there aren't revolutions going on in Europe, it sounds a lot like the 1920's over there as far as austerity measures are concerned. Not to mention the new resurgence and obtainment of power by the conservative parties. I am concerned by the status of Europe.