Topic: Who will win WW3? - page 42. (Read 66663 times)

Keep Track of All the World's Territorial Disputes With This Amazing Interactive Map

http://gizmodo.com/keep-track-of-all-the-worlds-territorial-disputes-with-1744443886

If start,probably NATO.

Who will win WW3? Well at least not us citizens.

"money" doesn't matter, China and Russia have huge gold reserves.

I am USA all the way, but I am sorry if there is a war where we are against china, I think that the sheer numbers will defeat us.  There is a small possibility that we may win, because we own china so much money, they may not have enough money to buy the supplies and all to beat us.  Whoever the winner is, there will be no winner, we will all be screwed.

Adolf is that you?

You are saying that some faction will win the war, but I'm not so certain about that this time. Before parasite Israel will be defeated, they will bring the entire world with them.

i see clearly in front of my eyes russia and china already won this ww3!
NATO & USA own too many debt to make them ready for war.

Well, Japan is occupied country (like Germany) and has as such limited independence, limited military and limited policy. It´s a vassal state. It doesn´t get to choose which side to be on. But I doubt that it has any military might to play a meaningful part in any war except as a forward base maybe. And as a result of that it´d be a punching bag obviously.

Is Japan going to stay in NATO side? Tell your opinion

Hi,

I think the US and EU will win. But in terms of survival i think the citizens of china and russia will survive as there are more of them living in rural areas so will be less affected by major violence

Thanks

Look Inside Putin's Massive New Military Command And Control Center

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/look-inside-putins-massive-new-military-command-and-con-1743399678

A lot of people understand the mess. More are coming to understand it. Many have been trying to change it for many years. The answer is not to change it. The answer is to let it die. Here's a peek at how to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twn96nj0jfw&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D&index=10

But idiots vote for nutcases that among other insane things bow down to religion. And do so even in the freakin White House. This Bush screwball stated numerous times that the big guy in the sky told him to attack Iraq. It´s a matter of historical record. Of course as usual with criminals and psychopaths the story changed. First it was weapons of mass destruction, then that and terrorists. He also was avenging for his daddy and so on. But after the scam had been pulled off and everything was heading straight to hell there in Iraq he was following orders from up above. And the weapons of mass destruction weren´t mentioned anymore. Now another batch of idiots are dying to vote for the crazy brother of this nutball who plans to use the nutball as foreign policy adviser!
Un freakin believable.

We can't do that. Why not? Because then we have to bow down to some religion. Or else we have to suggest that people can make up their own ideals of what is good and what is evil.

If you want to get right down to it, freedom is to allow others to do anything as long as they don't harm you or damage your property. Harming you or damaging your property is the beginnings of slavery.

free nations strive to resolve differences in peace.

Yeah ####### right. All the war scams and ruined countries and millions of killed, maimed and displaced people are certainly solid evidence of that.

Why don´t we make it even simpler. Black and white, no grey. Good vs. evil. Those who aren´t with us are against us and will be blown to smithereens. The big guy in the sky says so.

“We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace.“/George W.Bush’s Address to the United Nations General Assembly, September 21, 2004.

I think both parties have just as much destructive weapons as the other

I think they will destroy each other while they're going at it

The above (previous post) is unclear BS. The point to focus on is simple. Slavery vs. freedom. Islam is the worst kind of slavery, because people can live with it. And that is what the whole thing is about.

Probably there isn't any form of slavery that is as capable in every way as is Islam.

To understand how U.S. policy on containment evolved over time into pre-emptive war, study this guy



George Frost Kennan (February 16, 1904 – March 17, 2005) a brilliant  American diplomat, political scientist, and historian. You could call him the father of the Truman Doctrine and the Cold war.

In 1948 he wrote (needless to say this was declassified much later):

In the long run there can be only three possibilities for the future of western and central Europe. One is German domination. Another is Russian domination. The third is a federated Europe, into which the parts of Germany are absorbed but in which the influence of the other countries is sufficient to hold Germany in her place.

If there is no real European federation and if Germany is restored as a strong and independent country, we must expect another attempt at German domination. If there is no real European federation and if Germany is not restored as a strong and independent country, we invite Russian domination, for an unorganized Western Europe cannot indefinitely oppose an organized Eastern Europe. The only reasonably hopeful possibility for avoiding one of these two evils is some form of federation in western and central Europe. ....

Our dilemma today lies in the fact that whereas a European federation would be by all odds the best solution from the standpoint of U.S. interests, the Germans are poorly prepared for it. To achieve such a federation would be much easier if Germany were partitioned, or drastically decentralized, and if the component parts could be brought separately into the European union. To bring a unified Germany, or even a unified western Germany, into such a union would be much more difficult: for it would still over-weigh the other components, in many respects. ....

“The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better”:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples—the Chinese and the Indians—have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better. ....

The initial build-up of the UN in U.S. public opinion was so tremendous that it is possibly true, as is frequently alleged, that we have no choice but to make it the cornerstone of our policy in this post-hostilities period. Occasionally, it has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part.

-------------------------------------

"The American way of life is not negotiable" (Dick Cheney, 2001) before 9/11