EPTAnyone else think that all this protesting/civil war/threats(NK) in the middle east will lead into WW3?
I never thought WW3 would happen; but im starting to think it is going too.
Libyan Uprising - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
Anyone else think that all this protesting/civil war/threats(NK) in the middle east will lead into WW3? I never thought WW3 would happen; but im starting to think it is going too. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10910 Posts
NK is doing what it does since years, it won't do anything and even if, China won't have it's back so it won't become a WW. So, who else is going to War against a "big one" with a "big one" that has his back? China, Russia, USA/EU/Nato have no reasons to go to a "rl" War against a country that actually could defend itself for real... No one else matters. | ||
|
DorN
Germany90 Posts
On March 01 2011 23:28 Marcus420 wrote: Slightly offtopic but should be mentioned. Anyone else think that all this protesting/civil war/threats(NK) in the middle east will lead into WW3? I never thought WW3 would happen; but im starting to think it is going too. I cant follow how you think protesting leads to a new world war. Maybe you can put some more explanation into your thesis. If democracy is good for something it is slowing down war. | ||
|
Mofisto
United Kingdom585 Posts
Personally I think theres going to be much more bloodshed over the next few days. News this morning was saying military intervention was becoming more and more likely, especially since libya has vast supplies of chemical weapons. | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3007 Posts
But I have to say he is the goofiest dictator. I mean he has a "green book" that he himself wrote, how badass is that?! | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
On March 02 2011 00:10 don_kyuhote wrote:I mean he has a "green book" that he himself wrote, how badass is that?! Further explanation please; what is this "green book"? | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3007 Posts
On March 02 2011 00:15 Body_Shield wrote: Further explanation please; what is this "green book"? I don't know too much myself other than it's like a constitution that he wrote himself for himself on how he should rule Libya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Book | ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
On March 01 2011 23:54 DorN wrote: I cant follow how you think protesting leads to a new world war. Maybe you can put some more explanation into your thesis. If democracy is good for something it is slowing down war. Im not saying it is going to happen; nor am i even CLOSE to being a professional in this area. It is mere speculation that this could escalate to something over oil. (because the states has NEVER gone to war over oil, never) | ||
|
mcbrite
Germany229 Posts
On March 02 2011 00:20 don_kyuhote wrote: I don't know too much myself other than it's like a constitution that he wrote himself for himself on how he should rule Libya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Book More of a lengthy leaflet than a book... ;-D The dude is total nutjob to the point where he's almost a different species... Seriously... Listen to the interviews and his address to the nation... It's along the lines of "It's the fault of teenagers on drugs, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden" He's a fucking fruit loop. | ||
|
Boen
United States7 Posts
On March 01 2011 23:28 Marcus420 wrote: Slightly offtopic but should be mentioned. Anyone else think that all this protesting/civil war/threats(NK) in the middle east will lead into WW3? I never thought WW3 would happen; but im starting to think it is going too. In order for there to be a war on that scale more major powers would have to be involved on opposite sides. If say the UK, the US, France and other allies were on one side and I don't want to actually name who would be on the other side in the interest of avoiding conflict, each side supporting one regime over another, it still wouldn't be world war. It would just be like Vietnam or Korea all over again. For world war three to happen it would have to involve much more powerful states fighting each other overtly. | ||
|
Blanke
Canada180 Posts
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread668576/pg1 Seems the US is bringing in the heavy firepower now. Bombing runs in the near future against Gadafi? | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On March 02 2011 00:07 mofisto wrote: Just finished watching a BBC interview with Gaddaffi. The guy was claiming that there were no protests, and that all the demonstrations were showing support for his regime. According to him everybody loves him. When challenged by the interviewer, he just kept saying "al qaeda, al qaeda". Personally I think theres going to be much more bloodshed over the next few days. News this morning was saying military intervention was becoming more and more likely, especially since libya has vast supplies of chemical weapons. The Gaddaffi interviews were definitely crazy, I don't understand why he constantly sends out these messages which makes him seem increasingly out of touch with his current situation. At this point, diplomats (like the US ambassador to the UN) are calling him 'delusional'. It's also amusing because he let in a greater number of foreign journalists into Tripoli with the hope that they would report the positive aspects of his current situation, but the journalists are only printing more negative stories. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On March 02 2011 03:04 Blanke wrote: Guys, you might wanna take a look at this: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread668576/pg1 Seems the US is bringing in the heavy firepower now. Bombing runs in the near future against Gadafi? No. A no-fly zone does not necessarily entail bombing runs. Perfectly normal for American warships to be positioned in volatile areas, especially given the uncertainty of the region. Moreover, in the event of a UN-enforced no fly zone or a NATO-esque intervention ala Serbia, American forces will, as usual in most cases, bear the vast majority of burden. Besides, it's beyond hypocritical for people to suggest that Gaddafi should be removed by the application of any outside force, even to the point of enforcing a no-fly zone. Isn't regime change the great evil of western foreign policy?  | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On March 02 2011 03:15 Elegy wrote: No. A no-fly zone does not necessarily entail bombing runs. Perfectly normal for American warships to be positioned in volatile areas, especially given the uncertainty of the region. Moreover, in the event of a UN-enforced no fly zone or a NATO-esque intervention ala Serbia, American forces will, as usual in most cases, bear the vast majority of burden. Besides, it's beyond hypocritical for people to suggest that Gaddafi should be removed by the application of any outside force, even to the point of enforcing a no-fly zone. Isn't regime change the great evil of western foreign policy? As much I am all for it morally, it's still amusing how much national sovereignty rests on the power of your military, and the prevailing international mood of course, but the latter is kind of unreliable as opposed to the former. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On March 02 2011 03:18 EtherealDeath wrote: As much I am all for it morally, it's still amusing how much national sovereignty rests on the power of your military, and the prevailing international mood of course, but the latter is kind of unreliable as opposed to the former. Indeed. It's also amusing that, in general, people decry the great warmongering Amerikan Empire, yet at the same time anytime a global crisis breaks out with people dying, those same people invariably start asking where the nearest aircraft carrier is. But I don't want to go  (I recently discovered all these smilies and I am now a happy camper) | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6288 Posts
On March 01 2011 23:07 0mar wrote: If you think propping up the Saudis is the biggest offense the US has done in the Middle East, you don't know much history. The Saudis are quite tame compared to Saddam and the Shah. We put Saddam in power in the '60s when Qassem, another likely candidate to overthrow the Monarchy of Iraq didn't have the balls to execute the communists/leftists/royal family in Iraq. Saddam did. During the war in the '80s with Iran, we sold him chemical and biological weapons which he used on his own people. We looked the other way. Likewise, with the Shah, we supported 20 years of basically a Nazi state in Iran. Every sector of life was infiltrated by the Shah's spies. If you made an anti-government remark to your butcher, chances are you would end up in prison being tortured in the worst ways possible. Just wanted to say Nazi Germany didn't have many spies at all. People were quite happy so there was no need for a lot of Gestapo what you're referring to is more like USSR and North Korea. On topic: On the news a couple of minutes ago they said the protestors in the east are preparing to march on Tripoli to liberate their brothers. We'll see how it's gonna turn out but it's gonna be bloody. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On March 02 2011 04:05 RvB wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 01 2011 23:07 0mar wrote: If you think propping up the Saudis is the biggest offense the US has done in the Middle East, you don't know much history. The Saudis are quite tame compared to Saddam and the Shah. We put Saddam in power in the '60s when Qassem, another likely candidate to overthrow the Monarchy of Iraq didn't have the balls to execute the communists/leftists/royal family in Iraq. Saddam did. During the war in the '80s with Iran, we sold him chemical and biological weapons which he used on his own people. We looked the other way. Likewise, with the Shah, we supported 20 years of basically a Nazi state in Iran. Every sector of life was infiltrated by the Shah's spies. If you made an anti-government remark to your butcher, chances are you would end up in prison being tortured in the worst ways possible. Just wanted to say Nazi Germany didn't have many spies at all. People were quite happy so there was no need for a lot of Gestapo what you're referring to is more like USSR and North Korea. Are you forgetting the thousands of arrests and executions by the Gestapo during the war? About 30,000 people worked for it - they didn't just sit around. While it is true that they did not have an exhaustive spy network, there were more then enough denunciations to go around. (As a matter of fact, all secret police organisations operate on that basis) | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On March 02 2011 03:04 Blanke wrote: Guys, you might wanna take a look at this: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread668576/pg1 Seems the US is bringing in the heavy firepower now. Bombing runs in the near future against Gadafi? I just hope they won't interfere seeing a favorable position and lots of oil. The people of Libya will take this guy down and it's their country. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6288 Posts
On March 02 2011 04:45 Nightfall.589 wrote: Are you forgetting the thousands of arrests and executions by the Gestapo during the war? About 30,000 people worked for it - they didn't just sit around. While it is true that they did not have an exhaustive spy network, there were more then enough denunciations to go around. (As a matter of fact, all secret police organisations operate on that basis) nah but I just wanted to point out that the gestapo wasn't as big as some people think if you bring up the example of spies infiltrating everything the USSR is a way better example. don't wanna go more off topic though ^^. | ||
|
ProTech_MediC
United States498 Posts
On March 01 2011 23:28 Marcus420 wrote: Slightly offtopic but should be mentioned. Anyone else think that all this protesting/civil war/threats(NK) in the middle east will lead into WW3? I never thought WW3 would happen; but im starting to think it is going too. Woah... dude, and like, it could all totally go down on 4/20. That would be like... so crazy bro. | ||
| ||
