ForumsWEPRThe World War III Theory

400 67028
roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
344 posts
610

World War I and II are futile to the might-be incoming war, the third World War.
You might laugh this time, but it will happen. Due to the recent events of the 21st century, it will happen. Some of the events are: 9/11, Sabah crisis, and N.K.'s declaration of war. So be prepared. I think it would be a nuclear war. But cyber warfare is more likely than the former.

[quote]"Wars will subside, but war can't be prevented" ---------- Anonymous

  • 400 Replies
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

The diffrunce is that we are under a threat.
Didnt the Eygept still blame Israel on every bad thing that happen? They blamed us on the shark in Sinai coast. The palestinians, to support Enviermant caring, post signs showing kids cleaning the enviermant from trash thrown by a car with david star on it. Every single speech in most of the arav world blame us on something.

Sure we are thugs. If we werent we wouldnt exist. What you want us to do, wait for another suprise attack? Be the victims again and again and again?
When Eygept closed the Tiran straits, what should have we done? Wait?
Its easy to blame us on being aggresive. Its harder to try to fix the problmes in the arab world. And kast time i checked, we (Israel) are cool with Jordan and eygept. And last time i heared, they were arabs. The only one demanding to break these treaties were arabs. And for god sake, who are you to say we are racist? With how many Israelis you spoke to get to these conclusions?

Its funny, in the bully thread you said a man do need to defend himself. But here you say Israel should "let it go" and ignore any threat. Try to "see in our eyes".

PS India is not a saint as well. And you got to admit there are peoples in Pakistan who are extrimist enough to do such things. I know we have these in Israel.

roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
344 posts
610

But, unfortunately! Due to the uber-destructive typhoon (aka Yolanda) hit PH so the chance of the war is reduced. No need to prepare!

Plus, we don't want more problems..... Do we?

danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

Did they were a threat to anyone anyway?

And nature dissaster are a great oppurtonity for war. If they had enemies so this typhoon will weaken them (not only now, but for the upcoming years, after all the destruction). Terrorists will srart showing muscles and become "good peoples helping".

roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
344 posts
610

Now, the talk has ended. The war's over

Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,895

And nature dissaster are a great oppurtonity for war. If they had enemies so this typhoon will weaken them (not only now, but for the upcoming years, after all the destruction). Terrorists will srart showing muscles and become "good peoples helping".


Not always,they may weaken a nation but i don't think any nation would hate a nation so much that they would'nt help them. Remember the 21st desember 2004 tsunami? that one devastated a lot of countries, but why doesn't anyone started shooting each faces off? a natural disaster can even unite two disputing nations, for example on Indonesia after the tsunami, the country repaired it's diplomatic ties with Australia, whom it was confronting because the Australian government sent a lot of supplies. Even the worlds true underdog, North Korea and Somalia were tried to be helped by everyone on the world. So i don't see the potential benefits of attacking a country when it is devastated by a natural disaster.

Also" terorist showing musles?" Ask the filipinos and Japan. Filipinos were hit by the greatest natural disaster in it's history, it's soldiers pretty much busy to control the problem caused by it, but why does'nt we see a coup d'etat by the separatist that want's to create Islamic Philippines? according to your logic, this is the right time to do a coup d' etat, especially having the nations soldiers spread so thin over a large area and would be overwhelmed if attacked en masse by "terorist"

Terorist are also an ambigous word. you can call anyone "terorist" or any nation "terorist infested nation". remember Iraq? they was said to have supported Al qaeda, Taliban, and some other bull****. and when the Iraq is destroyed, then we see what we call the "insurgency". that implies that the "extremist" came from other countries and not from the own country
theone
offline
theone
399 posts
240

What will happen is all out destruction to likes of which we have never seen.

roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
344 posts
610

If this happens..... I'll panic and make a hammer to comfort myself. (the hammer is used to whack my head so i don't panic too much)

roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
344 posts
610

Not always,they may weaken a nation but i don't think any nation would hate a nation so much that they would'nt help them.


there is in this situation and it's quiet obvious!
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

Sooo.... wassup with Iran?


An agreement has been reached to lessen economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for delaying their nuclear program.
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,895

True, finally the world realize the folly of their attempt to coerce the Iran government. Finally someone had thought of a peaceful way of to resort the crisis. it's a shame though that the talks didn't reached Israel nuclear stockpile (yes you heard right). The UN should also sanction Israel to force it to leave dispose any nuclear weps that they store

danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

Dude, dont even dare to open it.

Iran say it will destroy Israel. They say they will destroy USA. They say they will spread the revolution.
WHAT MORE YOU NEED?! I know its very nice there in europe, but its not like this here. Saudia and the other neighbores of Iran dont like the agreement as well, not only Israel.
Stop being so naive. You always wait. Wait wait wait until the situation is already dangerouse. You cant see a step ahead. What will happen if they do have one? And then declear war on Saudia, or kirgistan, or any other country? Then what? Attacking them then will be far too dangerous. I do belive we dont have to attack them, but this regiem cant keep existing.

And on the angry yelling about Israel:
Just give me a quote of an official in Israel threating to destroy another nation. Come on, i dare you. Even if you will find it will be a low grade exrimist politician who didnt entered the Knesset (our parlament).

We cant lose, dont you see? Its not like WW2 wher even if poland losethere are still Poland. When france is conquered, there is still france. Iraq was attacked by USA? There is still Iraq and Iraqi's run it. But if Israel lose there is no more Israel. Me, who live there and serve in the army, my family, everyone - if for say Syria befor the civil war whould have beaten us, they would do unimaginable things. In the least we would be forced to leave. And thats the better end in that case.

Its so easy to support the underdog always. Its always like that. You see what USA do and try to do the diverce. France fight in africa? They are bad you say.
When poland will be in a real existing threat, then talk to me .ok?
So easy to sit on your comfy chair and judge.

roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
344 posts
610

nukes are old! let's talk of bio-warfare!

Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,895

Oh, God. don't be so angry. take a drink or such. let me explain

Iran say it will destroy Israel. They say they will destroy USA. They say they will spread the revolution.


That's just bluff, a big one. how will they destroy your country? how will they destroy USA? with nukes? If he has one and launched to one of the city in your country, just launch nukes that you have. Or, even better. Just wait for the entire countries of the world joining forces, consolidate, and then attack Iran and wipe the country from the face of earth. But i imagine the end of the regime if they do launch one would be even worse than it's neighbor Iraq. this time maybe Iran would dissepear in a cloud of rubble and dust. So you have nothing to fear of them.

Or you say that impossibly, they will "spread the revolution" with Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Mujahideen, Hezbollah or such? maybe they can create a state of unrest, but destruction of a country is pretty much impossible with this way

Saudia and the other neighbores of Iran dont like the agreement as well, not only Israel.


That's not true. look below

Arab nations Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Qatar, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority have come out in favor of the temporary agreement.Lebanon also hailed the agreement, while emphasizing that Israel should also sign the NPT and rid itself of its nuclear weapons arsenal. Turkey, India and Pakistan have also welcomed the framework agreement. In a reference to Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia and Qatar both advocated a comprehensive solution to Iran's nuclear issue which would leave the entire Middle East free of nuclear weapons.


and more...

Al Jazeera argued that Saudi Arabia, a regional rival of Iran, welcomed the agreement. The Saudi cabinet released a statement which read, in part: "The government of the kingdom sees that if there was goodwill, this agreement could represent a preliminary step towards a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear program" and could eventually lead "to the removal of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, from the Middle East and the Arab Gulf region". The Daily Telegraph reported that Nawaf Obaid, a senior advisor to the Saudi royal family, criticized the way the deal was achieved: "We were lied to, things were hidden from us".


Only one Saudi official doesn't like the way the argument went by. But your country....

Reaction from Israeli government politicians was negative. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the accord a "historic mistake," and intelligence minister Yuval Steinitz compared it to failed nuclear negotiations with North Korea. Considering the way Washington handled the deal with Iran The Jerusalem Post questioned whether Netanyahu would &quotlace Israel's security in the hands of US guarantees". Leader of the opposition Isaac Herzog criticized Netanyahu's reaction as bad for Israel's relations with the United States, although Herzog also said that Obama was partly to blame for not communicating more closely with Israel. Former Israeli military intelligence chiefs Amos Yadlin and Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash also criticized Netanyahu's reaction as damaging to U.S. relations.


... immediately rejects the idea, hence you are in the minority not the majority of the Arab nations.

Stop being so naive. You always wait. Wait wait wait until the situation is already dangerouse. You cant see a step ahead. What will happen if they do have one? And then declear war on Saudia, or kirgistan, or any other country? Then what? Attacking them then will be far too dangerous. I do belive we dont have to attack them, but this regiem cant keep existing.


Of course i see a step ahead. i have thought of your scenario. let's see your steps of escalation.....

1) Iran builds nukes
2) The Iranian government thought that because they have nukes, they are invincible hence forth they declare war on say Israel.
3) they launch nuke on multiple city on Israel ( worst case scenario), passing the territory of multiple Arab nation ( which is implausible, but assume that they can pass all of them without a hitch)and launches a sneak attack on Israel.
4) Say that IDF gets overwhelmed.

then there are 3 probable outcome
1) Israel ask the UN and because the gravity of the situation they helped israel, using the armies from multiple countries they push the Iranians back to Iran. then it would turn like the closing periods of WW2 in 1945, like when the soviet union obliterated Germany to pieces, only this time it would be The whole world vs Iran. You should know what happen next

2)Using it's supreme power, the US intervene with it's high end wep and then call the NATO alliances to help Israel. but they don't attack conventionally, they use their nuclear stockpile. they launch it to say Tehran and multiple cities across the nation, disable it's economy and BAM! Iran surrenders

3) the Arab nations, fearful of the new wep that Iranians got, then attacks en masse and destroyed Iran. the &quoturge" by the nuclear weapon in israel was used as a reason that can be used to invade

You see? there is no possible positive outcome if they attack a country. they would be destroyed if they do so. it would be like when the Germans attack Soviet union during WW2. so please i am begging you eliminate the thought
that they would triumph if they attacked a country.

And on the angry yelling about Israel:
Just give me a quote of an official in Israel threating to destroy another nation. Come on, i dare you. Even if you will find it will be a low grade exrimist politician who didnt entered the Knesset (our parlament).


I'm not angry, you just assume that i was. So you are saying that if a country doesn't threaten another country of it's impending doom or such, the country could have nukes? I'm pretty sure that the UN and a lot of international organization are doing the opposite, they're banning it and if it is a country with a nuclear weapon, they pressure the country to abandon the weps. true that there aren't anyone threatening other countries of destruction, but that doesn't mean that they can have nukes. following your logic (I think by your last argument), then Indonesian can have nukes, Vietnamese could have nukes, Somalia can have nukes, or Japan can have a nuke. What do you think? is this what you are implying? If not then you should come to the same conclusion as i do.

We cant lose, dont you see? Its not like WW2 wher even if poland losethere are still Poland. When france is conquered, there is still france. Iraq was attacked by USA? There is still Iraq and Iraqi's run it. But if Israel lose there is no more Israel. Me, who live there and serve in the army, my family, everyone - if for say Syria befor the civil war whould have beaten us, they would do unimaginable things. In the least we would be forced to leave. And thats the better end in that case.


I don't think that you can't lose. Say that the Iran government is imperialistic and takes your country. it would be pressured and sanctioned to leave your soil at once by the world. Remember the Bosnian genocide? in that case Serbians attack Bosnia, slaughter the Muslim Bosnian, and the end? the world converge and forces Serbia to withdraw. Or in Indonesia very close after it's independence, there are 2 aggression by the dutch. Indonesians call it "first Military aggression" and "second military aggression". the Indonesian government, still in it's infancy was quickly overwhelmed. a few months afterward however, the TKR ( in Indonesian tentara keamanan rakyat, or in english the people's security forces ) quickly recovered and started punching the NICA ( Netherland Indies Civil administration ) so effectively, that the country recovered from the ordeal. And just for your information, had the government failed to do this they would not exist as a country and would still be oppressed by the NICA. they also face the whole world ( well almost, they face AFNEI plus NICA ) and triumph. your country don't even have to fight the whole world, just one puny country with a super weapon that you also have. I guarantee that even without any help, you will triumph over Iran if they managed to "colonize" Israel.

Your assumption is based on the Holocaust that happened in WW2. well guess what, there will be no new "holocaust" that will fell before you because now the world has a new rule. that is to prevent any genocide from happening. so even if the worse befell you and you are force to live under Iranians, they can't just force you to leave the country, because that will have more serious consequences.

So, i will open the case by saying that you should dispose any nuclear weapons that you store. it comes with the added benefit of earning the trust of the Iranians that you are serious about this nuclear stuff. You know what they say, "Do to your fellow the same way you want them do to you". and i'm not joking, because i suspect that they want nukes because they suspect that you have one i.e as a nuclear deterrent. And they threaten your country and USA because fear of the same fate as Iraq, which is in rubbles.

To close my argument, i will say the following. If you dispose the nuclear weapons, then that would be one reason less for the Iranians from wanting to have one. maybe they would finally trusted the world and stopped it's nuclear project.
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,895

What kind of bio wep you are talking about Roydotor? please clarify

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

but they don't attack conventionally, they use their nuclear stockpile

Would never happen. The goal for years has been to decrease civilian casualties. Iran's not worth the international backlash of what would be sinking to their level in this case.

well guess what, there will be no new "holocaust" that will fell before you because now the world has a new rule. that is to prevent any genocide from happening.

Those rules have been in place since '51, but Rwanda, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Burundi, Cambodia, Srebrenica... still happened.
Showing 226-240 of 400