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
ahboeboe, it's quite obvious what is on and off...
anyway, if you readed my post well then you readed i was about economic activities. like the graph was on about. you brought in debt. and went further off topic. and i originally said. that "belgium is more like greece" then the other. what i didn't say was "belgium is greece".
I wouldn't have put NK as a major international player, more a Chinese proxy, but whatever.
Not an international player at all. Still an ally of China and ergo Russia.
[Quote]But I am curious to see how you explain the US Oil Crisis during the Carter Administration. I have my own opinions, but I'd rather like to see yours.[/quote]
This is a thread about WWIII, not about the 1979 energy crisis (assuming you are referring to that). I'm not going to derail it. If you want my opinion, make a thread about it.
[quote]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. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme
is this discussion still on? if so i would like to comment on the matter.
doesn't intent to sound like some US defiant/hater, but to me, this single fact (?) is the one of the major reason US attacked Iraq. What do US said? Ending " Saddam Hussein reign of terror"? Suspected WOM ( weapons of mass destruction ) cache? they never even found the WOM at all and yet they still execute Saddam Hussein anyway. The UN isn't even functioning at that moment when they execute Saddam. sure he is bad. sure he is not very nice to his own people (about this one i'm not really sure, correct me if i'm wrong) . but remember in this world we have Rules, Saddam is executed , but on what basis? that is my first question
second, while saddam is executed, why George Bush ( again, i am not intending to sound like a Anti US. i am neutral here) was not trialed for war crimes? he destroyed a country, literally obliterated it and the main justification (WOM's) is not even found. sure he (?) promised to restore the country. but promises can't repair the pride of a nation, or justify an attack
this is the only ***** of false actions that US took that i can found. i don't know if there are others. I'm sorry if i offended anybody, but frankly that's how i feel
@Kennethhartanto There are many others. And who would trial Bush? The United Nations? Yea, because America isn't part of the UN etc. America is like that little kid in kindergarten who bullies others into abiding its wishes. If it can't find a reason to bully, it just makes its own reasons up. That's basically what the past century has been: America taking advantage of other nations.
why George Bush ( again, i am not intending to sound like a Anti US. i am neutral here) was not trialed for war crimes?
George Bush didn't actually commit any war crimes; hurting people's feelings isn't one. Historically, war crimes have been such things as genocide, inhumane treatment of civillians and prisoners of war, failing to follow various conventions, etc.
Second, the UN is broken, and always has been. While its nice that everyone geta in the same room and can talk, nothing important gets done when it ought to. You have pro-Western nations (US, GB, etc) on one side, and less friendly nations to the West with Russia and China. So one side opposses the other, and the Security just sits and twiddles its thumbs.
Saddam did have WMDs at one point, as he used them against the Kurds and Iranians. He could have moved them, hidden them incredibly well, or simply used them all up. I read a book awhile back which was suggesting that Saddam only ever made enough chemical weapons that he would use them in one go, that way he could deny having used them because there wouldn't be any sitting around. A bit of a stretch, but still a possibility.
Last thing: Saddam was executed by the Iraqis after being found guilty by an Iraqi Tribunal of committing crimes against humanity.
George Bush didn't actually commit any war crimes; hurting people's feelings isn't one. Historically, war crimes have been such things as genocide, inhumane treatment of civillians and prisoners of war, failing to follow various conventions, etc.
If you don't call ignoring everyone's pleas not to invade and then invading anyway (without proper reason other than self-enrichment) a crime.
If you don't call ignoring everyone's pleas not to invade and then invading anyway (without proper reason other than self-enrichment) a crime.
A war crime is a serious violation of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps," "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war," the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity."
Source of quote: Wikipedia, first paragraph found in this page here.
"the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity."
wait, isn't invading a country IS a wanton destruction of cities, towns, villages? there isn't even a reason to begin with ( a reasonable one) either militarily (Iraq isn't even strategic) or civil (what good comes to invade and lost human lives in casualties? US even lost money to rebuild the country it just destroyed ) .
"Wanton destruction" is the targeting and destroying of property that serves no purpose to further the campaign.
Bombing a factory that produces tanks for the enemy is justified, as it contributes to the enemy's ability to make war. Conversely, bombing a factory that makes refrigerators because it happens to be there is not justified.
okay, then how about the siege of Baghdad or Fallujah insurgency? if you see how the soldiers are fighting there, they are destroying a city with heavy artilery with (i think) no regards of possible civilian casualties. they even destroyed a building with civilians on it ( accidentally but still ). is that your "wanton destruction"
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).
