AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → The World War III Theory

393 167647
roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
340 posts
Nomad

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

  • 393 Replies
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

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...?
danielo
offline
danielo
1,773 posts
Peasant

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".

LazyOne
offline
LazyOne
166 posts
Nomad

Of...?


See my longer post: http://armorgames.com/community/thread/11338660/the-world-war-iii-theory/page/13
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

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.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

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

Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
241 posts
Constable

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
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

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.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,773 posts
Peasant

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


Yom kippur war.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

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.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,773 posts
Peasant

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

danielo
offline
danielo
1,773 posts
Peasant

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....

Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,266 posts
Peasant

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.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

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.
Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,266 posts
Peasant

[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.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

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.

Showing 136-150 of 393