• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

Is World War 3 Soon Coming?

money as debt world war

  • Please log in to reply
230 replies to this topic

Poll: Is World War 3 soon coming? (184 member(s) have cast votes)

Is World War 3 soon coming?

  1. Yes (57 votes [31.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.84%

  2. No (122 votes [68.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.16%

Vote Guests cannot vote
⌛⇒ write a quiz!

#211 Area-1255

  • Guest
  • 1,515 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Buffalo,NY

Posted 11 January 2015 - 05:29 AM

Depends if it can be shown to be more profitable than lots of sustainable "small" wars.

The US administration seems to be doing all they can to ensure that biblical prophecies about the middle east come to fruition.

AND Why do you think that is, I wonder? Self-fulfilled prophecy, perhaps? Arrogance leading to indirect prophecy conjuring...or perhaps, the inevitable break of man from their normal human instincts, ditching the traditionally noble traits almost entirely in favor of GREED and ULTIMATE POWER.....oh, the currency fight...china and russia....separating from the dollar? Sounds like battle grounds to me. :sleep:  (sips coffee and waits for war)



#212 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,723 posts
  • 380
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 17 April 2015 - 01:05 PM

The biggest threat is when/if China and Russia go to war. Causing a massive ripple effect across the world. (Due to climate change and China's deserts growing to epic proportions and the need for new farming land.) Also Russia has taken an adverse attitudes towards neighbors, and China's military has strengthened itself and the top brass is very confident.)

Edited by Ark, 17 April 2015 - 01:13 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#213 Tmassini

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Milano

Posted 12 January 2017 - 04:14 PM

I think we cannot be really sure. Due to the ISIS rising and we cannot really end it in one or 5y, this may lead to destabilisation of post-coldwar geopolitical stability. Just look into the past how WWI and II have started... WW3 can be a pemanent state, lasting 50y. 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#214 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,362 posts
  • 1,317
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:19 PM

The Dems would have had us in a war with Russia. Putin was saying, if it's Hillary, it's war. With the neolibs and neocons defeated (at least temporary), the chance of WW3 is much reduced.


  • Agree x 1

#215 shifter

  • Guest
  • 675 posts
  • 27

Posted 13 January 2017 - 01:47 AM

I would have said yes if Hillary was going to be the next President. The 'Left' ideology of the Dems is a farce. They are war mongers responsible for untold deaths yet every peace loving hipster can't get over the fact that she lost and they wont have to wake up to news of war with Russia anymore. I don't care if Trump would be Putins bitch. I don't think that's the case but being friends with your neighbour is far better than being sworn enemies. I don't care for egotistical power plays between a few men. I'd rather plod along with my life unhindered without nuclear weapons being dropped. Sorry if that offends any lefties out there 

 

By the way, I don't think Trump is a 'great' man, but I do think that the political system needed to be somewhat broken. Many conglomerates, foreign countries like Saudi Arabia (which is like ISIS but 'recognised') and Qatar and uber wealthy men you have never heard of all contributed in the effort to get Hillary elected. I'm sure after the billions spent, they would have wanted (demanded) a return on their investment. For too long politicians have been puppets having their string pulled by faceless men. If Trump is so bad, the next incoming President hopeful wont need billions of dollars from wealthy backers. Maybe he's the tough pill you guys needed to swallow to turn America back to a real democracy instead of the oligarchy. But for that, the hipsters will need to suck up their hurt feelings and give the man a chance and engage with him in mature dialogue rather than jump on the fake, unverified news articles made up about him and the disgusting trolling, ranting, rioting and bullying they are currently doing. They are embarrassing themselves and the great nation by pretending to be the real face of it



#216 Tmassini

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Milano

Posted 13 January 2017 - 05:03 PM

The Dems would have had us in a war with Russia. Putin was saying, if it's Hillary, it's war. With the neolibs and neocons defeated (at least temporary), the chance of WW3 is much reduced.

Yes. Because most of the wars and casualties were produced in the heads of "Dems". Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Mao Zedong, damn Meds. LoL.



#217 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,362 posts
  • 1,317
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 13 January 2017 - 07:25 PM

 

The Dems would have had us in a war with Russia. Putin was saying, if it's Hillary, it's war. With the neolibs and neocons defeated (at least temporary), the chance of WW3 is much reduced.

Yes. Because most of the wars and casualties were produced in the heads of "Dems". Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Mao Zedong, damn Meds. LoL.

 

 

 

Obama was just a continuation of the Bush neocons and was even more of a neocon. While Bush bombed 4 countries, Obama bombed 7. While Bush had special forces fighting in 60 countries, Obama has them fighting in 137. Obama has exported twice the weapons that Bush did and he's brought back the cold war. Russia has had to remind him that they can wipe us out, and China told him that they weren't afraid to have a war with us. So thank god he is almost done.



#218 jack black

  • Guest
  • 1,214 posts
  • 30
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 13 January 2017 - 10:53 PM

I voted yes. There will be WW3, but fought in cyber-sphere rather than physical locations. All the current weapons USA has will be useless. It'll be preceded by economic/trade war. Our new president will probably start that trade war with China soon. A few years ago, i was concerned about war between NATO and Russia over Ukraine or other eastern European countries. But, this is now unlikely since Mr. Putin installed his buddy as a president in the USA. Bad news for Ukraine and eastern Europe.

 

Don't get me wrong, the cyberwar will be more deadly compared to the conventional war (maybe except for the soldiers). Think about it, electricity and all the modern life will stop and people will murder each other for food (and ammunition). Anyone watched the Jeriho TV show?


Edited by jack black, 13 January 2017 - 11:11 PM.


#219 shifter

  • Guest
  • 675 posts
  • 27

Posted 16 January 2017 - 05:11 AM

All the lefties wish for a 'world without borders'... Russia wants to eliminate a few in eastern Europe and everyone loses their shit. Can't win lol


  • dislike x 1

#220 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 17 January 2017 - 01:13 AM

Shifter, people want sex but 'lose their shit' when raped!!? It is about choice, consent, terms and conditions. If you seriously don't get that...

#221 shifter

  • Guest
  • 675 posts
  • 27

Posted 17 January 2017 - 10:55 PM

The lack of sarcasm detection or humour is strong with this one.... :)

 

 

Shifter, people want sex but 'lose their shit' when raped!!? It is about choice, consent, terms and conditions. If you seriously don't get that...

 

In seriousness, borders do create instability.... Have a look at Africa. Over 50 countries and the whole continent is a basket case of corruption, violence, war, poverty and megalomaniac men in charge. Australia, 1 country, no mess. Imagine if each state in America was a separate country..... 50 Presidents!!

 

 


Edited by shifter, 17 January 2017 - 10:55 PM.


#222 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 18 January 2017 - 02:41 AM

The lack of sarcasm detection or humour is strong with this one.... :)

 

 

Shifter, people want sex but 'lose their shit' when raped!!? It is about choice, consent, terms and conditions. If you seriously don't get that...

 

In seriousness, borders do create instability.... Have a look at Africa. Over 50 countries and the whole continent is a basket case of corruption, violence, war, poverty and megalomaniac men in charge. Australia, 1 country, no mess. Imagine if each state in America was a separate country..... 50 Presidents!!

 

If you are going to have a dig at 'lefties', you may want to put a /s in there somewhere.

 

I don't see any conflict between these states or anyone else in the rest of the world, only with Russia who is having problems accepting that they are of little relevance any more. Africa would be a basket case with or without borders.



#223 xEva

  • Member
  • 1,279 posts
  • 89
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 13 March 2018 - 08:53 PM

For the record, the yes-no distribution in the poll now is 31% yes to 69% no.

 

I have just changed my vote to yes again. Please tell me I'm being paranoid. But here is my reasoning:

 

1. russophobia has been going on for years (though I personally became aware of it only in 2014, during the olympic games in Sochi -- before that I was not paying attention to politics at all). It's a given now that Russians are to blame for all wrongs that befall the US or EU.

 

2. recently it has reached  unprecedented heights and is manifested in blatant anti-russian propaganda in all MSM. The latest example is NBC Putin interview, on which the MSM reported by completely twisting his words. Also if you compare the full unedited version (or full transcript) with the masterfully edited version that was shown, -- it's like he said something entirely different -- while WaPo simply lied about what he said (which is clear to any Russian speaker who heard the original). And these are supposedly "respectable" publications -- unbelievable!                           

 

3. it has always been the case that before a war is started the "enemy" is thoroughly vilified -- which was recently the case with Hussein and Gaddafi, and now Putin. Most people in the west, who otherwise are not that interested in the subject and rely on MSM for their opinion, are now completely and thoroughly brainwashed when it comes to Russia in general and Putin in particular. In other words, they are ready to support the aggression, which, they are told, will free Russia of the "Putin regime"-- and it does not matter to them that most Russians support Putin. They actually believe that Russians, who've been living under Putin for 18 years now, don't know about Russia or Putin as much as they know from MSM (this part in particular never ceased to amaze me).  

 

4. Recently,  during the state of the union address (?!), Puin showed hastily made animations of the latest rockets, which, I thought, were meant to cool off the heads of neo-cons baying for a war against Russia

 

5. the neo-cons' reply was, no way, the Russians are bluffing

 

6. today, on the state TV, in the news, the Russians showed the test of one of those rockets, live -- as if saying, it ain't no bluff!

 

7. in the meantime, the UK declared Russia guilty of Skripal poisoning and gave it an ultimatum, accusing it of aggression against the UK 

 

8. In the news, Russians are also saying that today-tomorrow the Americans will bomb Damascus, under the pretense of revenge for the anticipated gas attack, which has not happened yet but was announced (in advance!) last week. Russian forces (or just advisors-?) in Syria are expected to be part of the target

 

 

What's going on?! To me the latest developments appear to imply that Russians have known of the impending attack and attempted to avoid it by showing their latest rockets, while the neo-cons are in a hurry to start the war before those rockets, whose readiness they doubt, become the reality.

 

What, any day now? even before the Russian elections (this Sun march 18)? Please tell me it ain't so  :wacko:

 


Edited by xEva, 13 March 2018 - 09:05 PM.

  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#224 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,362 posts
  • 1,317
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 13 March 2018 - 09:20 PM

  

 

4. Recently,  during the state of the union address (?!), Puin showed hastily made animations of the latest rockets, which, I thought, were meant to cool off the heads of neo-cons baying for a war against Russia

 

5. the neo-cons' reply was, no way, the Russians are bluffing

 

 

 

 

Putin gave up on us after the Pentagon set about killing Russians in Syria.  We are no longer "partners." We're the enemy, and this speech was to let us know that. Still, he blew it with the marketing. The American way is to spend half the money on showy commercials, so the crude Russian viddy didn't have much impact, esp. with our moronic neocons, who are torn between disbelief, envy, and a suicidal desire to have a nuclear war.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 13 March 2018 - 09:21 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#225 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,037 posts
  • 113

Posted 14 March 2018 - 07:51 AM

xEva and Turnbuckle you are my mind friends. You think the same things that I think about politics and nutrition. Thank you for being active here.


  • Cheerful x 1

#226 male_1978

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 14

Posted 07 November 2018 - 09:35 AM

In history there is a strong correlation between the likelyhood of violence/wars and population growth. 

 

 

At the moment, population growth is only in third-world-countries, which means that the countries which most likely start violence are those with the worst economics and bad military. This means the developed countries can expect tens of millions of illegal migrants, but no big war.



#227 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,362 posts
  • 1,317
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 07 November 2018 - 10:07 AM

In history there is a strong correlation between the likelyhood of violence/wars and population growth. 

 

 

At the moment, population growth is only in third-world-countries, which means that the countries which most likely start violence are those with the worst economics and bad military. This means the developed countries can expect tens of millions of illegal migrants, but no big war.

 

Wars occur during the growth of empires. America has been in empire building mode since the beginning. "Manifest Destiny" took hold in the early 19th century, while our latest version of empire builders (the neocons) have been in countol since 2001. They are always in panic mode, thinking their opportunity for world empire is slipping away, thus Bush had a plan to attack 7 countries in 5 years, Obama tried to finish off the countries on Bush's list while more than doubling our military's deployments--ultimately penetrating into 70% of the world's countries--and now Trump is surrounded with neocons who are giving the world empire dream one last go before our debt bubble explodes. So the chance of a major war is very high, and it comes entirely from DC.

 

Russia and China have both said they expect to be attacked by us, and both are rapidly building new technology to defeat us (hypersonic carrier killers), which makes the neocons even more anxious to get a war going, while they can still win it.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 07 November 2018 - 10:55 AM.

  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#228 Rocket

  • Guest
  • 673 posts
  • 96
  • Location:Usa
  • NO

Posted 08 November 2018 - 05:08 PM

1. Wars do not occur during the growth of Empires. Some wars have occurred during the growth of empires... Not all wars or every war. Not all growing empires or nations wage wars.

 

2. Anyone who sides with Russia and China and believes their propaganda is siding with nations that slaughtered millions of their own citizens and trample on the rights of free indivduals and don't even recognize the rights of individual citizens.

 

3. If the US had ambitions to defeat Russia and China, militarily, it would have done so during 1990s when the USSR fell apart and its military quite literally rotted away, and while China was still very weak militarily with inferior weaponry, and while the USA held every ace in the deck as far as military might and technological superiority. If the US had these ambitions, it would not have cancelled the peacekeeper missile at 50 copies and then destroyed all of them, it would not have cancelled the B-2 bomber at 21 copies, it would not have stopped production of the seawolf class of SSNs in the 90s, it would not have cancelled the SRAM and its successor, it would not have stopped F-22 production at 187 while the F-15s got older and more obsolete and were retired from service after structural defects were found, it would not have the oldest combined Air Forces that the US has ever owned... The US would not have scrapped from service it's stealthy ALCM to keep ALCMs in service that were designed when Led Zeppelin was on tour in the 1970s. There is so much evidence that flies in the face of logic that the US is not hell bent on taking over the world in a military battle. The fact that GWB and BO let the military decay to the point where only 30% of the Navy's airplanes are capable of flying should speak volumes as to the lunacy of the US preparing to take over the world. The fact that when the US had the military might to even contemplate that and it did not do it and instead wasted trillions on wars with meaningless countries should be further evidence.

 

4. I suppose the US has a secret military that no one knows about which isn't composed of 30, 40 and 50 year old airplanes and 50 year old missiles with which it will soon start to wage war with China and Russia.

 

5. The US is so hell bent on waging war against Russia and China that when a hurricane hit one of it's major air bases that many of its most advanced aircraft (the F-22) were not even flyable to leave the base for safety. Hmmm... Yeah really sounds the like US is prepping to take over the world with its military.



#229 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,362 posts
  • 1,317
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 08 November 2018 - 06:07 PM

1. Wars do not occur during the growth of Empires. Some wars have occurred during the growth of empires... Not all wars or every war. Not all growing empires or nations wage wars.

 

 

 

 

Name one empire that grew without war. As for us, we have been at war our entire history, with very few years passing when we weren't at war. Since WW2 we've bombed other countries some 34 times. Some twenty million died in those wars, and not one was in defense of the US. We will continue this insanity until we collapse from the debt we've incurred borrowing to pay for them. This will occur sooner rather than later when countries we're trying to squeeze economically abandon the dollar and begin selling off our treasuries. 


Edited by Turnbuckle, 08 November 2018 - 06:08 PM.

  • Agree x 2

#230 xEva

  • Member
  • 1,279 posts
  • 89
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted Yesterday, 09:37 AM

2. Anyone who sides with Russia and China and believes their propaganda is siding with nations that slaughtered millions of their own citizens and trample on the rights of free indivduals and don't even recognize the rights of individual citizens.
 
3. If the US had ambitions to defeat Russia and China, militarily, it would have done so during 1990s when the USSR fell apart and its military quite literally rotted away,..

 
 
No comment on China (simply coz I have not been following closely and that's what it takes in order not to become a victim of propaganda) but regarding the "slaughter of millions of their own citizens" that was part of history of the highly ideological USSR, which ceased to exist in 1991. And, following that, in the 1990s, there was no need for the US to bomb Russia into democracy, as it's been the case with other countries, coz, at the time, it looked like they could get their hands on the rich Russian resources through 'joint cooperation' (sorta like now the US oil companies cooperate with the Iraqis). Alas when Putin came to power those plans had to be scrapped -- and that's when the tune changed. 

 

Speaking of propaganda, I happen to be exposed to both sides on a daily basis. Also, I live in the US but grew up in the USSR, and I'll tell you something you may not believe: right now, in many ways and especially with all that doublespeak going on around, the US is more like USSR used to be and Russia now is more like the US was -- not that long ago, when the American dream was still alive.

 

The worst problem in Russia is corruption that permeates all strata of society, but at least on paper it's against the law (and that's an important safeguard against cognitive dissonance) and lots has been achieved in the last decade to rein in the corruption on the highest level. At about the same time, exactly the opposite occurred in the US. Corruption on the highest level has become legal here and devastating results of this change can be seen everywhere now. I won't bore you with the examples of, say, healthcare industry pharming us for profits, or take the fact that the US has the largest prison population -- it's bigger than the Soviet Gulag was on its heyday! You speak of rights of free citizens, and it is true, the individual rights of ethnic and other minorities are held in high regard, but look what happened to us overall: Never in history has human life been so grossly debased. We the masses have become not even an asset, like it was the case with slavery, nay, far worse than that: we've become a commodity to be converted into profits. Man has become a mere commodity.

 

The high ideal of pursuit of individual freedom has been displaced by pursuit of profit, which has become the centerpiece of the new American ideology.  Pursuit of profit is what drives this war. But as an ideology it's just not inspiring enough. Certainly not enough to die for. And that's why the US will lose this war.


Edited by xEva, Yesterday, 10:02 AM.

  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#231 Marconius

  • Guest
  • 82 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted Today, 05:14 AM

Name one empire that grew without war.  

 

The only one I can think of, is the Habsburg empire that mostly grew thank to strategic marriages. Alto I am not sure he could rule out some growth true war for that one.


Edited by Marconius, Today, 05:14 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: money as debt, world war

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users