Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The World War III Theory

Posted Aug 21, '13 at 4:56pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,889 posts

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 )


Just because you consider something fact doesn' make it so. Facts can stand on their own merit, without needing the endorsement of an individual.

Several good reasons: Remove a dictator from power. Advance US' interests in the region. Give the Iraqi people a democratic government. Kill/Capture Bin Laden. Remove Iraq as a base of operations for terrorist organizations, namely AQ.

As for the oil:

1) Large scale destruction of he oil fields could potentially have been a major crime, depending upon the circumstances. There was no tactical reason to destroy them, thus it would have been "wanton destruction."

2) US invasion came from the south; Iraqi oil fields are mostly in the north. Basic tactical doctrine is you capture the important stuff first, not push your enemy back towards it. And why hasn't an independent Kurdistan been created? It would be fairly easy to establish a friendly government inthe north, which would have control of most of the northern oil fields. And since the Us has secretelu backed revolutions in the past, wouldn't it have been far simpler just to have done the same with Kurdistan, rather than a mass invasion of the country? And why can Iraqi Oil be purchased on the free market? Why isn't the Us getting free/cheap oil from Iraq?

If the us was after Iraq's oil, they've seriously bungled the job.
 

Posted Aug 28, '13 at 7:10am

danielo

danielo

1,770 posts

I hope USA wont attack. I want to go home this weekend!

 

Posted Aug 29, '13 at 3:25am

danielo

danielo

1,770 posts

So here we get, like on a silver dish, a new way to start a WW3.

Will Iran join in*? Will Russia try to help there allie Syria? What USA will do? Does china realy count? And what will happen to Israel and Lebanon?

Is it realy gonna start from here?



And yesterday news said that there were secret talks befor the riots began between Syria and Israel about signing a peace threaty. God dammit Moon-Moon....

 

Posted Aug 30, '13 at 1:37pm

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,280 posts

Does china realy count?

China won't fight. It wouldn't want to fight anyone, and nobody would want to fight them. Seriously, they have a nuclear stockpile of about 20,000, a militia-army of 2 million strong, ties with North Korea that are about the best solution to the nuclear thing, super-hackers... oh, and huge economic clout.
If the us was after Iraq's oil, they've seriously bungled the job.

Yes, that's the point. The US suck at interventions. Look at Vietnam. Communist. Afghanistan. Wrecked. Iraq. Unstable. [insert other country]. [insert seriously undesirable condition].
Several good reasons: Remove a dictator from power. Advance US' interests in the region. Give the Iraqi people a democratic government. Kill/Capture Bin Laden. Remove Iraq as a base of operations for terrorist organizations, namely AQ.

*sigh* Yes, removing a dictator from power is a just cause. No, it was not why they invaded. They invaded under the pretext of WMDs, despite the fact that the UN found none. They invaded for the oil.
Give the Iraqi people a democratic government.

Unfortunately, the "Iraqi people" are mostly too dead to vote.
Kill/Capture Bin Laden.

That was Afghanistan.
Remove Iraq as a base of operations for terrorist organizations, namely AQ.

By infuriating yet more Muslims? Nope, not gonna work.
But let's steer this away from the Iraq war.
So, WW3. Here's my scenario:
Iran finishes its nuclear project. Saudis start whining, also acquire nukes. Iranians fight Saudis. Iranians attack Israel. Israel and America pulverise Iran. Israel horribly damaged. China and Russia mobilise to defend Syrian interests. Europe stays neutral. America tries to get Japan to fight China. Japan fails horribly to dent the Chinese.
China calmly stops trade with America, crippling the US economy. US desperately mobilises India. China mobilises Pakistan. EU presented with a horrible dilemma: support its old ally, America, and face crippling losses of oil, gas and just about everything else, or abandon the USA for the PRC and Russia? China it is.
Somebody, somewhere, does something stupid. A nuclear weapon is used. DEFCON one. Lat Am split. Huge nuclear exchange leaves East Asia, America, Russia and possibly Europe carpeted with fallout.
But that won't happen, because not everyone is stupid.
 

Posted Aug 30, '13 at 5:27pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

China won't fight.

But they could finance or supply the other side.

The US suck at interventions. Look at Vietnam. Communist. Afghanistan. Wrecked. Iraq. Unstable. [insert other country]. [insert seriously undesirable condition].

Korea, lasting armistice, SK prospering. Gulf War, epic win. Sometimes it works.

They invaded for the oil.

Sure, in the long run the plan was to have an ally there for some economic and political support. Instead it's a mess.

Iranians fight Saudis. Iranians attack Israel.

Nobody wants a two-front war. Either would be suicide, but they'd go for Israel first due to more recent tensions. Syria might join in, but they're already on shaky ground.

China and Russia mobilise to defend Syrian interests.

I think this'll happen long before Iran makes nukes. But I doubt they'll send actual troops unless other stuff happens. Weapons, vehicles, supplies, training. If Assad falls, then it might be in their best interests to support one of the rebel groups instead of sending troops because the US doesn't have a great record for faction-fighting.

Europe stays neutral.

Doubt it. The EU already condemned the violence against protesters.

America tries to get Japan to fight China. Japan fails horribly to dent the Chinese.
US desperately mobilises India. China mobilises Pakistan.

Japan and India want to stay as far from war as possible. They wouldn't do anything unless they were hit first with something more than a border shooting.

China calmly stops trade with America, crippling the US economy.

They're making more cash from the trade than we are. But they might limit certain items, like things containing precious metals.

A nuclear weapon is used. DEFCON one.

I think this would happen before most of the other events, possibly by NK.
 

Posted Sep 2, '13 at 12:40pm

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,280 posts

[quote]China and Russia mobilise to defend Syrian interests.


I think this'll happen long before Iran makes nukes. But I doubt they'll send actual troops unless other stuff happens. Weapons, vehicles, supplies, training. If Assad falls, then it might be in their best interests to support one of the rebel groups instead of sending troops because the US doesn't have a great record for faction-fighting.[/quote]
You overestimate the aggressiveness of China. Trust me, they wouldn't fight. I'm pretty sure their entire army is just there for show, anyway. They don't need it.
 

Posted Sep 2, '13 at 9:08pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,889 posts

The major problems with your scenario are globalization and Russia/China's inability to power project outside their immediate region.

The EU-NAFTA-China trade circle accounts for the majority of world trade and world GDP. Basic politics holds that the tripod is the least stable of shapes; one leg goes, errbody fails. China won't stop trade with the US because they'd have no market large enough to account for the drop in trade; the US would get the last laugh as the entire world economy hits the fan.

Having an army numbering in the tens of millions is great, until you have to send them any considerable distance for any legnth of time. You'll need planes and ships to carry the men, plus planes and ships for their equipment and supplies, plus the fuel to get everything to move, plus doing that for as long as the conflict endures... All that costs money, and a large army costs a lot of money. Iraq and Afghanistan have cost a few billion to the US, and that was a fairly minor conflict in terms of troop sizes and equipment expenditures. Then you have to defend and maintain supply lines for all those forces, which could potentially stretch thousands of miles. Plus theres the whole fact that China is pretty much a one trick pony; all their eggs are in the "land based military" basket, so to speak. They don't have a combat operational air craft carrier (and only recently acquired one for training) nor the ships or doctrine for a carrier group. In comparison, the US will be launching the first of 10 Ford class supercarriers, to eventually replace the Nimitz class.

I could go on and on, but to summarize: China and Russia are a threat to those nations geographically placed next to them. Three or four thousand miles away? Not so much.

 

Posted Sep 2, '13 at 10:22pm

gman144

gman144

156 posts

There going to be a war eventually because there is no way that the U.S. is ever going to pay the 12 trillion dollars that they owe other countries.

 

Posted Sep 2, '13 at 10:39pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,889 posts

We won't pay it. The US could quite easily inflate their dollar out over the next 50 years and pay it back in worthless paper, but theres laws for that. But what would anybody actually do, sanction us? xD

 

Posted Sep 3, '13 at 12:35am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

There going to be a war eventually because there is no way that the U.S. is ever going to pay the 12 trillion dollars that they owe other countries.

Closer to 17, but only 5 trillion is to other countries. A trillion of that is to China, but most of the rest is to much closer allies like Japan and the UK. Nothing worth a war over.

We won't pay it.

Most likely, but I'll be elsewhere if they jack up the taxes.
 
Reply to The World War III Theory

You must be logged in to post a reply!