Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The World War III Theory

Posted Aug 19, '13 at 12:47pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,891 posts

I'd need specifics to make a better assessment, since I'm not sure what exactly you're referencing.

For Baghdad, I think you mean the pre-invasion aerial bombardment? In whoch case, the strikes were directed at viable military emplacements and key infrastructure. Command posts, radar installations, anti aircraft batteries, rail ways, bridges, etc.

With Fallujah, I'm guessing you mean the Marine invasion following the death of the civillian contractors. In that time, most of the civillians had actually left the city, and it was a hot bed for openly hostile terrorists.

But you seem to think civillian deaths indicate wanton destruction, which isn't neccesarily true. It's war; we must not be quick to forget that people die. That's just the nature of the thing. A civillian dieing in an airstrike that also takes out members of an insirgency is unfortunate, but justifiable. Bombing a hospital because it happens to be there is u justifiable, as well as illegal (Geneva Convention, I believe: Anything marked with a Red Cross is not to be engaged, period).

 

Posted Aug 19, '13 at 6:07pm

LazyOne

LazyOne

174 posts

@Maverick4: I never said Bush committed war crimes.
Several of his soldiers did though, and they were punished accordingly.

Anyway, this is besides the point. War crimes are petty things compared to robbing the entire western world.

 

Posted Aug 19, '13 at 9:48pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,891 posts

Maverick4: I never said Bush committed war crimes.
Several of his soldiers did though, and they were punished accordingly.


I never said you did...

[quote]Anyway, this is besides the point. War crimes are petty things compared to robbing the entire western world.[/qoute]

Of...?
 

Posted Aug 20, '13 at 7:54am

danielo

danielo

1,748 posts

Yra, you got them. USA invade Iraq for fun. No wait, for the oil! Oh yea, it was for hunting poor innocente Iraqi peoples. Not at all the fact Iraq invade Kuwaiit. Or Iraq shooting missles to Israel.

Can we stop blindly blame USA for every war that happen?
You can say Kuwaiit was the one who made USA to join in by crying for help.
When Saddam was beaten the majority of the Iraqis were happy about it.

But lately its seems that "War crimes" stand for "Blaming USA/Israel" or for "Fighting Islamist zealots".

 

Posted Aug 20, '13 at 1:01pm

LazyOne

LazyOne

174 posts

Of...?


See my longer post: http://armorgames.com/community/thread/11338660/the-world-war-iii-theory/page/13
 

Posted Aug 20, '13 at 5:26pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,891 posts

Now we jump from '45 to '70. It became clear that the US had pumped massive amounts of money into the Vietnam war.


Vietnam was payed through taxes and borrowing from foreign nations. The problem with you suggesting that the US QE'd the war was that it'd have to have a fiat currency to do; and it was still inthe Bretton Woods system at this time.

So some countries (*cough* France *cough*) started wondering if the US had secretly been printing out money.


Only feasible if you have a fiat currency; dollar not a fiat currency at this time.

Because, you know, they'd just invested billions in a war and the life conditions in the US weren't deteriorating or anything. So France decided to exchange all of its dollars for gold. Nixon refused.


Funded with taxes and borrowing. How the US funded every war and conflict pre-9/11.

And quoting from the "Nixon Shock" wiki page:

Switzerland redeemed $50 million in July.[2] France acquired $191 million in gold.[2]

The US had just robbed the western world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock


Of...?

So how did the US prevent an all-out war?.[quote]

wut.jpg

[quote]Nixon asked Saudi-Arabia to *only accept the US dollar* in exchange for oil. Seeing something going on here? Not only did he ask Saudi-Arabia, he asked every other oil-exporting country. The all accepted. By the end of 1975, every country exporting oil only accepted the dollar. Now what did they get in exchange? Military protection from the US. This tactic forced other nations to maintain the dollar. How could they obtain it? By sending goods to the US. Yes, the scam keeps going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar


So you blast the US for getting rid of a system that makes the US dollar highly important to international trade, then blast them when they create a system that makes the US dollar important to international trade? Logic, much?

Next: Iraq. In 2000 Iraq (after being obliterated by the Gulf War) started something called the "Oil-For-Food Program". The name says it all. In fact, Iraq now sold *oil for euros*. Of course, this was terribly bad for the US. What did the US do? Point a finger and yell "They've got a nuke!" and invaded the country. Again. Well, turns out that Iraq didn't have a nuke. The country was destroyed, though.


That awkward moment when I read the first lines of the wiki link you provided:

The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995,[2] as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. The sanctions were discontinued on 21 November 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority.[3][/quote]

Insert coin and try again?

After the Iraq war (2003) the nation suddenly stopped selling oil for euros and reverted back to dollars. Economical interests? Nope, they suffered about 20% loss because of this.


1) Read the last two sentences very, very slowly.

2) Source.

Now, we're in the 2000's What's going on now?
Well, you all remember Libya, where Gaddhaffi was executed by rebels. Why? He launched a gold-for-oil program. Now what do the rebels have to do with the dollar?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330


I don't see how your link relates to your point. The Is helped support Libyan rebels, so the US gets oil? Which ignores the fact that oil is an openly traded commodity, or that NATO, France, and several other nations also supported the rebels.

But even leaving that behind, I found no reliable source documenting this. Care to prove a link to a site like CNN, BBC, etc?

Next point: Iran
Same story. Iran wanted to sell gold for oil, the US forbids it and threatens with military strikes to stop their alleged nuke-building business.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/16/us-iran-turkey-sanctions-idUSBRE91F01F20130216
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
Well, the independent Iranian oil market still exists. Who likes to buys there? China and Russia.


The Reuters link notes that it first reported on the trade "a year ago." Guess the Us and EU took their time, no?

[url=http://m.aljazeera.com/story/20121016132757857588]The US hasn't i ported oil (or anything, really) from Iran since 1979. From the same article, the UN first levied sanctions with regards to Iran's Nuclear program in 2006; from the IOB wiki article:

[i]The Iranian Oil Bourse[1] (Persian: بÙرس ÙÙت اÛراÙâ), International Oil Bourse,[2]Iran Petroleum Exchange Kish Exchange[3] or Oil Bourse in Kish[4] (IOB; the official English language name is unclear) a.k.a Iran Crude Oil Exchange,[5] is a commodity exchange, which opened its first phase on 17 February 2008.[4][6][7][8]


Next point: Syria
This is actually happening right now. Syria and Iran have a mutual defense agreement. The Syrian regime is being brought to its knees by rebels (surprisingly supported by the US).


Surprising how, exactly...?

That Assad remains in control of the major cities, controls the land route to Lebanon, has several open sea routes, and has lasted for two and half years make me believe he's winning, actually.

Well, a Russian study shows that it wasn't the regime that used it, but rather the rebels. I don't know which one to trust, really. I don't know.


Geez, it's not like the Russians are supporting Assad or supplying him with arms or anything. I mean, theres no way there could ever be any ulterior motives in such a report, right? Right?

My advice to you:

1) Actually read the links you cite as evidence, so they don't prove you wrong
2) Conspiracy theories are not good things to draw ideas from.
3) Think for your self, rather than what some one or thing wants you to think.
 

Posted Aug 20, '13 at 5:29pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,891 posts

Bleh, quote fail. Why we don't have an edit button like every other website is beyond me...

 

Posted Aug 21, '13 at 1:32am

Kennethhartanto

Kennethhartanto

248 posts

But lately its seems that "War crimes" stand for "Blaming USA/Israel" or for "Fighting Islamist zealots".

War crimes are not the same as Blaming USA/Israel or Fighting Islamist
zealots. I'm just saying what i consider as fact. when you consider that US doesn't even have a good reason to invade Iraq ( other than helping Kuwait, but even if that's the reason, then why do they have to ravage the whole country and obliterate the capital to pieces, yet they leave the oil fields intact? that makes me have a hunch that there IS an ulterior motive, which is explained by wanting to FORCE Iraq to give US an economical advantage, oil. More on my quote before this )

next time please quote to me, so i can explain what i know
 

Posted Aug 21, '13 at 3:24am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,436 posts

yet they leave the oil fields intact?

Your complaint is that they didn't destroy everything? Might as well nuke it next time to prevent conspiracies of gains.

that makes me have a hunch that there IS an ulterior motive

Isn't there in every war? If not, give an example where the goal and outcome was purely to stop the other side from attacking.
 

Posted Aug 21, '13 at 3:57am

danielo

danielo

1,748 posts

give an example where the goal and outcome was purely to stop the other side from attacking.


Yom kippur war.
 
Reply to The World War III Theory

You must be logged in to post a reply!