Who do you think will win WW3?

[Belthagor]

And what will the war actually be about in your opinion?

[DamnedByFate]

Not Germany, or else it doesn't count.

[Belthagor]

At 4/20/20 07:14 AM, curtainsjoe wrote:It will be started by a country trying to increase it`s power while feeling put upon by the other world powers, probably Germany again.
But the only real winners will be those not involved or those that come in right at the end because everywhere else will be smoking rubble, so that probably rules out most of NATO.

Germany has nice chocolate.

[EdyKel]

No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

[Belthagor]

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

[Belthagor]

At 4/20/20 12:49 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

And then it will split the loser's territory, when it clearly belongs to the country doing all the fighting.

[Belthagor]

Anyway, enough fooling around.

I have a really old book which has writing in it about a prophet's visions, similar to Nostradamus, but much less famous than him, it's written in Bulgarian and I couldn't be bothered to find it last time I went on vacation there, but from what I remember reading two decades ago, maybe a bit longer than that (and I don't remember much, you see it was really long winded, and really boring) -World War 3 will be a Religious War.

The only things I remember from the book are: (Pre WW3) "We'll lose our water, but we will eat with gold plates." I remember exactly what I said to the person who was reading it out loud too. "How are we going to grow food without water? What are we going to eat?" She didn't say anything. Although I was much younger and took things too literally.

I remember drinking water when I was much younger as well, it was much higher quality in several places in the world, and that was tap water. Currently... if you drink water, even bottled water... well, it won't kill you. Anyway back to WW3, Communism is supposed to win. 4000 years later Islam accepted as the world's greatest system, according to the book -(No idea how that happened.)

But that is of course, just a book. And some prophecies are silly, not to be taken literally. Although water quality has been declining, and a few places have drought, a lot more places have floods, so in a way, I guess you could say: We'll have too much water, and it will cause problems.

It's not surprising really, global warming melts land made of ice, that water has to go somewhere. So just written material, not to be taken literally. (I believe in science mainly.) But the majority of what I wrote are topics for another thread.

[EdyKel]

At 4/20/20 01:25 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:49 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

And then it will split the loser's territory, when it clearly belongs to the country doing all the fighting.

Given how Trump brags about our nuclear arsenal, and how we can kick anyone's ass, while alienating other countries and allowing them to build up their own nuclear arsenal, the US will be in the thick of it all. Better start collecting your bottle caps, and register for a Vault-Tec experiment.

[Belthagor]

At 4/20/20 02:50 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 01:25 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:49 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

And then it will split the loser's territory, when it clearly belongs to the country doing all the fighting.

Given how Trump brags about our nuclear arsenal, and how we can kick anyone's ass, while alienating other countries and allowing them to build up their own nuclear arsenal, the US will be in the thick of it all. Better start collecting your bottle caps, and register for a Vault-Tec experiment.

What did you think about my last post though?

[EdyKel]

At 4/20/20 02:51 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:50 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 01:25 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:49 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

And then it will split the loser's territory, when it clearly belongs to the country doing all the fighting.

Given how Trump brags about our nuclear arsenal, and how we can kick anyone's ass, while alienating other countries and allowing them to build up their own nuclear arsenal, the US will be in the thick of it all. Better start collecting your bottle caps, and register for a Vault-Tec experiment.

What did you think about my last post though?

We already have enough problems in our own country without taking in a new dependendent.

[Belthagor]

At 4/20/20 02:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:51 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:50 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 01:25 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:49 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

And then it will split the loser's territory, when it clearly belongs to the country doing all the fighting.

Given how Trump brags about our nuclear arsenal, and how we can kick anyone's ass, while alienating other countries and allowing them to build up their own nuclear arsenal, the US will be in the thick of it all. Better start collecting your bottle caps, and register for a Vault-Tec experiment.

What did you think about my last post though?

We already have enough problems in our own country without taking in a new dependendent.

Wait... hold on a minute. I just re-read your reply. First of all: Soldiers want to kill soldiers, not the local farmer from Kansas (No offense to you if you live in Kansas.) Second: The US, unlike the majority of countries, has population made up of people from many different countries. The last thing those countries would want to do is kill their own people by attacking the US, and possibly other allied countries' people which live in the US. The US would probably be the safest place to live in the whole world due to our mixed population. You're logic is invalid because of all of this.

[EdyKel]

At 4/20/20 03:03 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:51 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:50 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 01:25 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:49 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

And then it will split the loser's territory, when it clearly belongs to the country doing all the fighting.

Given how Trump brags about our nuclear arsenal, and how we can kick anyone's ass, while alienating other countries and allowing them to build up their own nuclear arsenal, the US will be in the thick of it all. Better start collecting your bottle caps, and register for a Vault-Tec experiment.

What did you think about my last post though?

We already have enough problems in our own country without taking in a new dependendent.

Wait... hold on a minute. I just re-read your reply. First of all: Soldiers want to kill soldiers, not the local farmer from Kansas (No offense to you if you live in Kansas.) Second: The US, unlike the majority of countries, has population made up of people from many different countries. The last thing those countries would want to do is kill their own people by attacking the US, and possibly other allied countries' people which live in the US. The US would probably be the safest place to live in the whole world due to our mixed population. You're logic is invalid because of all of this.

I don't think nukes can discriminate between soldiers and civilians. And what do you think the US did to Japan? Most of the people killed there were civilians, not soldiers. It was meant to demoralize the Japaneses people/forces and get their government to surrender. For the US, it saved American lives, because if we hadn't then we would have lost millions invading the country to end the war.

[Belthagor]

At 4/20/20 03:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 03:03 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:51 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:50 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 01:25 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:49 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

And then it will split the loser's territory, when it clearly belongs to the country doing all the fighting.

Given how Trump brags about our nuclear arsenal, and how we can kick anyone's ass, while alienating other countries and allowing them to build up their own nuclear arsenal, the US will be in the thick of it all. Better start collecting your bottle caps, and register for a Vault-Tec experiment.

What did you think about my last post though?

We already have enough problems in our own country without taking in a new dependendent.

Wait... hold on a minute. I just re-read your reply. First of all: Soldiers want to kill soldiers, not the local farmer from Kansas (No offense to you if you live in Kansas.) Second: The US, unlike the majority of countries, has population made up of people from many different countries. The last thing those countries would want to do is kill their own people by attacking the US, and possibly other allied countries' people which live in the US. The US would probably be the safest place to live in the whole world due to our mixed population. You're logic is invalid because of all of this.

I don't think nukes can discriminate between soldiers and civilians. And what do you think the US did to Japan? Most of the people killed there were civilians, not soldiers. It was meant to demoralize the Japaneses people/forces and get their government to surrender. For the US, it saved American lives, because if we hadn't then we would have lost millions invading the country to end the war.

You're forgetting something. This was during the time of the creation of the first nuclear weapons. No one knew what they did yet, and they were not internationally outlawed for use during any war by several allied countries...

Then again, a World War would be a little bit different, but no country would use their nuclear weapon right off the bat, because a lot of countries that are currently not in the war -might jump in it. It would probably be, in the case that, if every other means of combat has been exhausted by a country involved in the war.

You remember the Iraq war? The US, France, and a bunch of other countries sent soldiers to fight it, planes, boats, etc, and it is still ongoing, they didn't just use a nuke, because it would be illegal to do so, and cause a massive problem.

[EdyKel]

At 4/20/20 08:37 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 03:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 03:03 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:51 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:50 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 01:25 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:49 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

And then it will split the loser's territory, when it clearly belongs to the country doing all the fighting.

Given how Trump brags about our nuclear arsenal, and how we can kick anyone's ass, while alienating other countries and allowing them to build up their own nuclear arsenal, the US will be in the thick of it all. Better start collecting your bottle caps, and register for a Vault-Tec experiment.

What did you think about my last post though?

We already have enough problems in our own country without taking in a new dependendent.

Wait... hold on a minute. I just re-read your reply. First of all: Soldiers want to kill soldiers, not the local farmer from Kansas (No offense to you if you live in Kansas.) Second: The US, unlike the majority of countries, has population made up of people from many different countries. The last thing those countries would want to do is kill their own people by attacking the US, and possibly other allied countries' people which live in the US. The US would probably be the safest place to live in the whole world due to our mixed population. You're logic is invalid because of all of this.

I don't think nukes can discriminate between soldiers and civilians. And what do you think the US did to Japan? Most of the people killed there were civilians, not soldiers. It was meant to demoralize the Japaneses people/forces and get their government to surrender. For the US, it saved American lives, because if we hadn't then we would have lost millions invading the country to end the war.

You're forgetting something. This was during the time of the creation of the first nuclear weapons. No one knew what they did yet, and they were not internationally outlawed for use during any war by several allied countries...

You do know that they tested these weapons first knowing the full extent of their power, and the radiation fallout from them. They even knew that the targeted locations for them were in densely populated areas.

Then again, a World War would be a little bit different, but no country would use their nuclear weapon right off the bat, because a lot of countries that are currently not in the war -might jump in it. It would probably be, in the case that, if every other means of combat has been exhausted by a country involved in the war.

This is just a theoretical discussion. As I said in my first post in this topic "no one wants a WW3". A lot of countries have nukes these days, which are more powerful than the ones used on Japan during WW2. A 3rd WW would entail nukes, because it would involve a lot of countries in the world many of which would have them.

But a lot of the recent wars are in countries that don't have nukes. If a country had nukes, and if it was under siege, and losing, there is a good chance it would use them - especially under a madman.

You remember the Iraq war? The US, France, and a bunch of other countries sent soldiers to fight it, planes, boats, etc, and it is still ongoing, they didn't just use a nuke, because it would be illegal to do so, and cause a massive problem.

You mean a country that did not have nukes, and where over 100,000 civilians were killed.

[Belthagor]

At 4/20/20 08:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 08:37 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 03:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 03:03 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:51 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 02:50 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 4/20/20 01:25 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:49 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 12:47 PM, EdyKel wrote:No one wants WW3. The closest time we have come to it is during heightened tension due stupidity or accidents. And I can't think of any winners, not when you have nuclear winter and super mutants and ghouls roaming around.

The US will stay out of it till the end and then side with whoever's winning...

And then it will split the loser's territory, when it clearly belongs to the country doing all the fighting.

Given how Trump brags about our nuclear arsenal, and how we can kick anyone's ass, while alienating other countries and allowing them to build up their own nuclear arsenal, the US will be in the thick of it all. Better start collecting your bottle caps, and register for a Vault-Tec experiment.

What did you think about my last post though?

We already have enough problems in our own country without taking in a new dependendent.

Wait... hold on a minute. I just re-read your reply. First of all: Soldiers want to kill soldiers, not the local farmer from Kansas (No offense to you if you live in Kansas.) Second: The US, unlike the majority of countries, has population made up of people from many different countries. The last thing those countries would want to do is kill their own people by attacking the US, and possibly other allied countries' people which live in the US. The US would probably be the safest place to live in the whole world due to our mixed population. You're logic is invalid because of all of this.

I don't think nukes can discriminate between soldiers and civilians. And what do you think the US did to Japan? Most of the people killed there were civilians, not soldiers. It was meant to demoralize the Japaneses people/forces and get their government to surrender. For the US, it saved American lives, because if we hadn't then we would have lost millions invading the country to end the war.

You're forgetting something. This was during the time of the creation of the first nuclear weapons. No one knew what they did yet, and they were not internationally outlawed for use during any war by several allied countries...

You do know that they tested these weapons first knowing the full extent of their power, and the radiation fallout from them. They even knew that the targeted locations for them were in densely populated areas.

Then again, a World War would be a little bit different, but no country would use their nuclear weapon right off the bat, because a lot of countries that are currently not in the war -might jump in it. It would probably be, in the case that, if every other means of combat has been exhausted by a country involved in the war.

This is just a theoretical discussion. As I said in my first post in this topic "no one wants a WW3". A lot of countries have nukes these days, which are more powerful than the ones used on Japan during WW2. A 3rd WW would entail nukes, because it would involve a lot of countries in the world many of which would have them.

But a lot of the recent wars are in countries that don't have nukes. If a country had nukes, and if it was under siege, and losing, there is a good chance it would use them - especially under a madman.

You remember the Iraq war? The US, France, and a bunch of other countries sent soldiers to fight it, planes, boats, etc, and it is still ongoing, they didn't just use a nuke, because it would be illegal to do so, and cause a massive problem.

You mean a country that did not have nukes, and where over 100,000 civilians were killed.

Ahh, my mistake, I forgot part of history and got confused. However other countries were still not aware of nuclear weapons destructive potential, and after studying the situation, that sort of conduct was outlawed.

But you know... countries that have nukes, would still logically avoid using their nukes, because none of them know where each-other's military bases are. A country uses a nuke and gets hit with 3 of them a few hours later. It's plain stupid to use such a visible tactic for this reason. WW3 would logically be fought with technologies unknown to the public yet, some possibly not even made yet, and it would be done covertly... until it blows up into a full scale war, anyway.

[Mencret]

Nothing much will happen in WWIII. China will just buy every country.

[EdyKel]

At 4/20/20 09:13 PM, Belthagor wrote:

At 4/20/20 08:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:

This is just a theoretical discussion. As I said in my first post in this topic "no one wants a WW3". A lot of countries have nukes these days, which are more powerful than the ones used on Japan during WW2. A 3rd WW would entail nukes, because it would involve a lot of countries in the world many of which would have them.

But a lot of the recent wars are in countries that don't have nukes. If a country had nukes, and if it was under siege, and losing, there is a good chance it would use them - especially under a madman.

You mean a country that did not have nukes, and where over 100,000 civilians were killed.

Ahh, my mistake, I forgot part of history and got confused. However other countries were still not aware of nuclear weapons destructive potential, and after studying the situation, that sort of conduct was outlawed.

Yes, the UN, which called the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 illegal. This invasion led to a lot civilian deaths and millions of suffering due to widespread destruction of infrastructure and residential areas - and led to food shrotages. People in power can do terrible things, and they can justify it , even if they are condemned by others for doing something that is outlawed. Similarly, the UN condemned Syria's ruling dictator, Bashar al-Assad, for gassing his own people, which is clearly illegal - and he kept doing it.

What we are seeing is that countries are doing terrible things to their own people in their own country, or to other countries, that mainly affect innocent civilians, even though those things are considered human rights abuse and are illegal by international laws. But nothing is done against those countries outside of punitive actions. The rest of the world fears retaliation, or an escalation that could pull them in some major conflict.

So, the use of nukes, which are unlikely to be used, but not out of the realm of possibility, could be used on civilian population, regardless of laws.

But you know... countries that have nukes, would still logically avoid using their nukes, because none of them know where each-other's military bases are. A country uses a nuke and gets hit with 3 of them a few hours later. It's plain stupid to use such a visible tactic for this reason. WW3 would logically be fought with technologies unknown to the public yet, some possibly not even made yet, and it would be done covertly... until it blows up into a full scale war, anyway.

North Korea now has nukes. They are mostly used as a deterrent to prevent other countries from invading them. The question is if a maniac like Kim Jung-un uses one of his nukes on another country(without nukes), in a temper tantrum, would another country with their own set of nukes retaliate, if it might lead it to use more nukes? And we know he doesn't care about the suffering of his own people.

[ZomAlien]

Nobody really.

It's so easy to provoke a conflict these days and it's even easier with the technology and equipment that is in the military of different nations.

Can you imagine if two superpower countries went to war today? The results would definitely result in another world war. Perhaps war isn't as easy as it was in the "old days" with the diplomacy, politics, and communication established today, but who know.

[AcidX]

Iran

[Yomuchan]

At 4/20/20 01:44 AM, Belthagor wrote:And what will the war actually be about in your opinion?

Dude what the hell, WWIII is over. The USA won by doing absolutely nothing.

[greg-delta]

which ww3?

eh I guess it doesn't actually, the US won both lol

[greg-delta]

At 4/20/20 03:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:I don't think nukes can discriminate between soldiers and civilians. And what do you think the US did to Japan? Most of the people killed there were civilians, not soldiers. It was meant to demoralize the Japaneses people/forces and get their government to surrender. For the US, it saved American lives, because if we hadn't then we would have lost millions invading the country to end the war.

Eh, there seems to be some debate on this

PERSONALLY: I agree with nuking japan. japan needed to learn a lesson, which they did.

Historically and strategically: The consensus from a few huge higher ups from the time say it was a bit unnecessary strategically.

Eisenhower and Leahy say Japan was already lost without the bomb and no invasion would have been necessary either.

The consensus is that what truly motivated Japanese surrender was Russia's invasion of Manchuria. The bomb was just good timing.

I mean, I'm no military expert, but Eisenhower and Leahy certainly were, so I believe thier opinions.

[greg-delta]

At 4/20/20 08:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:You mean a country that did not have nukes, and where over 100,000 civilians were killed.

Iraq had nukes, but that wasn't the sole motivation for the invasion

Iraq was being hostile against the US for floating the idea of an invasion countries that were involved in 9/11 and gave the impression it would protect them from the US (this is called the "citadel effect"). The US never owuld have been able to get to Bin Laden with Hussein in power.

If Iraq was going to impede our ability to hold those accountable who attacked the US, you're siding with them, and they paid the price.

It's a pretty clear cut line. 9/11 happened. Are you on our side or not. Iraq chose not.

All that aside, the Hussein was an inbred nazi shithead and needed to die.

[greg-delta]

At 4/21/20 03:45 PM, EdyKel wrote:Yes, the UN, which called the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 illegal. This invasion led to a lot civilian deaths and millions of suffering due to widespread destruction of infrastructure and residential areas - and led to food shrotages. People in power can do terrible things, and they can justify it , even if they are condemned by others for doing something that is outlawed. Similarly, the UN condemned Syria's ruling dictator, Bashar al-Assad, for gassing his own people, which is clearly illegal - and he kept doing it.

The US follows the constitution, not the UN. The UN is not a country, we don't need to follow it's laws.

The invasion was crappy but, you know, that's the price you pay when you fuck around.

Lost of people died in the US invasion of Europe...should we not have done that either? Collateral damage, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet, etc.

Besides that, civilian casualties are at the lowest in history. Technology is so vast we can pinpoint targets without any collateral damage

[morefngdbs]

I know who will win ...

The rats and the cockroaches will win.

As has been proven by atomic bomb testing, often right in the blast zone. Rats and roaches are observed as soon as the temperature has reduced to a low enough level to not cook them !

[RedeyestheSecound]

At 4/20/20 01:44 AM, Belthagor wrote:And what will the war actually be about in your opinion?

To decide which countries of allies will gain power over the whole world so we won't have to worry like "Oh well seance we don't make this product we have to rely on this country to make it for us." So I think the war would be about like putting in rules for planet EArth in general like when something needs to be done to protect people it should be done ASAP no if's, and's, or but's... Except for giant butt's hehe ok sorry had to throw in somewhat of a joke I hate talking serious topics but nothing better to do. Now while one side is fighting to help better the world as I just explained the other side would be fighting for selection of protection meaning like if the bad guys win well they are gonna want an apology and not only that they will want slaves but I don't think those two things honestly what they would really try to gain out of it is to be able to keep monopolizing products and keep up with there selection of whom they want to help and when. Instead of putting the pedal to the medal and trying to solve the problem head-on. I am not too interested in WW3 honestly I feel like its gonna be like every other war it happens it goes and we wait for the next one... What I would be excited for is WW4 or WW5 I have a prediction that the fun war where its type of people vs type of people and lots of type of people like imagine every FB group deciding to fight to see whos best like that means of types of people, not color or race but more personality and believes why. And I am willing to predict that war is gonna come right after WW3 or WW4 I am guessing we won't have to wait long at all for that war cause at that time I think people would have confidence like bulls and will no longer fear "the elite" and finally try to take back what they think belongs to them. It would be more anarchy than war but still a war none the less...

[EdyKel]

At 4/23/20 04:18 PM, greg-delta wrote:

At 4/21/20 03:45 PM, EdyKel wrote:Yes, the UN, which called the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 illegal. This invasion led to a lot civilian deaths and millions of suffering due to widespread destruction of infrastructure and residential areas - and led to food shrotages. People in power can do terrible things, and they can justify it , even if they are condemned by others for doing something that is outlawed. Similarly, the UN condemned Syria's ruling dictator, Bashar al-Assad, for gassing his own people, which is clearly illegal - and he kept doing it.

The US follows the constitution, not the UN. The UN is not a country, we don't need to follow it's laws.

The invasion was crappy but, you know, that's the price you pay when you fuck around.

Lost of people died in the US invasion of Europe...should we not have done that either? Collateral damage, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet, etc.

Besides that, civilian casualties are at the lowest in history. Technology is so vast we can pinpoint targets without any collateral damage

Oh, politicians often run on partisan interpretations of our constitution, you don't need to look much further than that partisan divide in our Supreme Court to see that.

We did sign a treaty with the newly created UN after WW2 over invading other countries, having first get the UN to agree to it, which we completely ignored over Iraq. And in our Constitution it is written that we must honor our treaties with other nations, unless Congress terminates it, which they didn't with Iraq.

Also, Congress gave the president limited wartime powers over Iraq, which were pretty much ignored, and is often considered what made the Iraq war unconstitutional.

At 4/23/20 04:16 PM, greg-delta wrote:

At 4/20/20 08:59 PM, EdyKel wrote:You mean a country that did not have nukes, and where over 100,000 civilians were killed.

Iraq had nukes, but that wasn't the sole motivation for the invasion

Iraq was being hostile against the US for floating the idea of an invasion countries that were involved in 9/11 and gave the impression it would protect them from the US (this is called the "citadel effect"). The US never owuld have been able to get to Bin Laden with Hussein in power.

If Iraq was going to impede our ability to hold those accountable who attacked the US, you're siding with them, and they paid the price.

It's a pretty clear cut line. 9/11 happened. Are you on our side or not. Iraq chose not.

All that aside, the Hussein was an inbred nazi shithead and needed to die.

Thanks for the laugh. I haven't seen the level of ignorance over Iraq in a long time.

First of all, this is all far right propaganda. None of it is truth, supported by fact, just inferences and rumors. Iraq didn't have Nukes, not even WMDs. Nor did they have any connection to Al Qaeda, or even protected them. This was just a lot of BS to justify the war to the gullible by the right, which kept changing over time when people started asking for proof over those accusations.

The fact is, they found a treasure trove of documents to show that Iraq gave up plans for WMDs in the 90's. Even Bush Jr. admitted that they found nothing to support they were making nukes or WMDs - though, conservatives try to soften this by pointing to dilapidated chemical dumps as possible resources for WMDs.

And when you are intentionally killing civilians by targeting residential areas, or destroying infrastructure only to have them rebuilt by American firms that funded your party and presidential campaign (not to mention your VP ran one of those companies), it makes the war anything but a noble or justified cause.

The Iraq war was nothing more than one huge partsian money maker. It benefited GOP supporters, and Companies close to the Bush administration, with a lot of taxpayer wast. And the 9-11 attacks was just a stepping stone to it, which is why the Afghanistan war was pretty much forgotten after the invasion.

The whole thing was outlined in a manifesto called PNAC in 1998, led by many who would become top officials in the Bush white House. The main purpose of it was to increase defense spending, and lead to the policing of the world by the US forces, which all hinged on an attack on this country - which they got.

At 4/23/20 04:08 PM, greg-delta wrote:

At 4/20/20 03:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:I don't think nukes can discriminate between soldiers and civilians. And what do you think the US did to Japan? Most of the people killed there were civilians, not soldiers. It was meant to demoralize the Japaneses people/forces and get their government to surrender. For the US, it saved American lives, because if we hadn't then we would have lost millions invading the country to end the war.

Eh, there seems to be some debate on this

PERSONALLY: I agree with nuking japan. japan needed to learn a lesson, which they did.

Historically and strategically: The consensus from a few huge higher ups from the time say it was a bit unnecessary strategically.

Eisenhower and Leahy say Japan was already lost without the bomb and no invasion would have been necessary either.

The consensus is that what truly motivated Japanese surrender was Russia's invasion of Manchuria. The bomb was just good timing.

I mean, I'm no military expert, but Eisenhower and Leahy certainly were, so I believe thier opinions.

It's true that many had reservation over doing something of such magnitude, but they still went along with it, with a lot of this being in hindsight and after the fact.

[greg-delta]

At 4/23/20 07:50 PM, EdyKel wrote:Oh, politicians often run on partisan interpretations of our constitution, you don't need to look much further than that partisan divide in our Supreme Court to see that.

oh of course, but that's kind of irrelevant.

We did sign a treaty with the newly created UN after WW2 over invading other countries, having first get the UN to agree to it, which we completely ignored over Iraq. And in our Constitution it is written that we must honor our treaties with other nations, unless Congress terminates it, which they didn't with Iraq.

eh kind of. The UN treaty doesn't supercede the constitution, the US constitution is still the supreme law of the land

Also, Congress gave the president limited wartime powers over Iraq, which were pretty much ignored, and is often considered what made the Iraq war unconstitutional.

Actually congress imposing limits on the Commander in Chief was unconstitutional

Thanks for the laugh. I haven't seen the level of ignorance over Iraq in a long time.

facts are the opposite of ignorance

First of all, this is all far right propaganda. None of it is truth, supported by fact, just inferences and rumors. Iraq didn't have Nukes, not even WMDs. Nor did they have any connection to Al Qaeda, or even protected them. This was just a lot of BS to justify the war to the gullible by the right, which kept changing over time when people started asking for proof over those accusations.

no, it's all been proven. bipartisan support/proof even, from multiple intelliegence agencies. Even if it was all fabricated, nazis gotta be stopped

The fact is, they found a treasure trove of documents to show that Iraq gave up plans for WMDs in the 90's. Even Bush Jr. admitted that they found nothing to support they were making nukes or WMDs - though, conservatives try to soften this by pointing to dilapidated chemical dumps as possible resources for WMDs.

the actual fact is Saddam denied investigation into the material refineries and opened them up to inspectors, conveneintly after the material had been destroyed and/or sold off.

of course the WMD point is all moot and always has been, the chief goal was crushing muslims and nazi holdovers.

And when you are intentionally killing civilians by targeting residential areas, or destroying infrastructure only to have them rebuilt by American firms that funded your party and presidential campaign (not to mention your VP ran one of those companies), it makes the war anything but a noble or justified cause.

citizens weren't intentionally killed/targeted. as for firms and funding etc, surely they shoudl be rewarded for this rebuild right?

The Iraq war was nothing more than one huge partsian money maker. It benefited GOP supporters, and Companies close to the Bush administration, with a lot of taxpayer wast. And the 9-11 attacks was just a stepping stone to it, which is why the Afghanistan war was pretty much forgotten after the invasion.

you say this like it's a bad thing...

there was no taxpayer waste, a major muslim powerhouse was basically obliterated. that's what we pay taxes for, national defense, and those who took part should be compensated/rewarded for it.

now we can go on about whether or not you agree that taxpayer dollars should fund military etc. but as it stands now, it does

The whole thing was outlined in a manifesto called PNAC in 1998, led by many who would become top officials in the Bush white House. The main purpose of it was to increase defense spending, and lead to the policing of the world by the US forces, which all hinged on an attack on this country - which they got.

Dude, we're in a pandemic you can't be hoarding tinfoil like that!

but seriously, again none of this is a bad thing. Someone needs to be the police, who you gonna trust to do it? europe? lol

Trust me, I wish the world was a nice peaceful place and nazi's, muslims, communism, weaponized starvation, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc didn't exist, truly I do. But that isn't reality is it? these things do exist and do need to be policed.

In a miracle fantasy world where everybody acts right and joins this century, maybe we can discuss not being world police. But we've done that before and it lead to disastrous results.

[EdyKel]

At 4/23/20 08:15 PM, greg-delta wrote:

At 4/23/20 07:50 PM, EdyKel wrote:Oh, politicians often run on partisan interpretations of our constitution, you don't need to look much further than that partisan divide in our Supreme Court to see that.

oh of course, but that's kind of irrelevant.

Is it?

We did sign a treaty with the newly created UN after WW2 over invading other countries, having first get the UN to agree to it, which we completely ignored over Iraq. And in our Constitution it is written that we must honor our treaties with other nations, unless Congress terminates it, which they didn't with Iraq.

eh kind of. The UN treaty doesn't supercede the constitution, the US constitution is still the supreme law of the land

And yet, unless specified otherwise by a 2 thirds vote from congress, we have to honor that treaty, because it's in the Constitution. You are not an anti-constitutionist are you? Or someone who picks and chooses what he want from it based on political ideology at the moment?

Also, Congress gave the president limited wartime powers over Iraq, which were pretty much ignored, and is often considered what made the Iraq war unconstitutional.

Actually congress imposing limits on the Commander in Chief was unconstitutional

Only if you like dictators and hate the constitution that is based on a lack of trust towards the executive branch .

Thanks for the laugh. I haven't seen the level of ignorance over Iraq in a long time.

facts are the opposite of ignorance

Still waiting for a few basic facts from you, outside of this trolling from you.

First of all, this is all far right propaganda. None of it is truth, supported by fact, just inferences and rumors. Iraq didn't have Nukes, not even WMDs. Nor did they have any connection to Al Qaeda, or even protected them. This was just a lot of BS to justify the war to the gullible by the right, which kept changing over time when people started asking for proof over those accusations.

no, it's all been proven. bipartisan support/proof even, from multiple intelliegence agencies. Even if it was all fabricated, nazis gotta be stopped

I think the Neo Nazis voted for Trump, since he called them very fine people and they salivate and want to suck his dick over the identity politics he plays.

The fact is, they found a treasure trove of documents to show that Iraq gave up plans for WMDs in the 90's. Even Bush Jr. admitted that they found nothing to support they were making nukes or WMDs - though, conservatives try to soften this by pointing to dilapidated chemical dumps as possible resources for WMDs.

the actual fact is Saddam denied investigation into the material refineries and opened them up to inspectors, conveneintly after the material had been destroyed and/or sold off.

of course the WMD point is all moot and always has been, the chief goal was crushing muslims and nazi holdovers.

According to reports, he was more afraid of Iran invading his country than the US, since his country was used as a US buffer against them, so he wasn't about to advertise he had nothing to defend himself with.

But again, the US didn't have anything concrete to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to us or our allies, nothing to justify an invasion with. All they had were rumors, and a lot of cherry picking of intel reports, to create end of the world scenario, which led to one of the most costly fuck ups in US history, because the Bush administration wanted a war there, no matter what.

And when you are intentionally killing civilians by targeting residential areas, or destroying infrastructure only to have them rebuilt by American firms that funded your party and presidential campaign (not to mention your VP ran one of those companies), it makes the war anything but a noble or justified cause.

citizens weren't intentionally killed/targeted. as for firms and funding etc, surely they shoudl be rewarded for this rebuild right?

Yet, over a 100 thousand were killed, and untold numbers of residential areas destroyed. I mean, for a one side war, where very few american lives were lost, we sure racked up the body count of innocent civilians.

As for the rebuild... They overcharged taxpayers, and they saved a lot of money cutting corners on rebuilding that infrastructure our forces destroyed which is now falling apart. No wonder why Americans didn't like that war, or why Iraqis now have closer ties with Iran - the opposite of what the US wanted.

The Iraq war was nothing more than one huge partsian money maker. It benefited GOP supporters, and Companies close to the Bush administration, with a lot of taxpayer wast. And the 9-11 attacks was just a stepping stone to it, which is why the Afghanistan war was pretty much forgotten after the invasion.

you say this like it's a bad thing...

For a party that builds itself on Christian morality, I think the devil has taken control of them.

there was no taxpayer waste, a major muslim powerhouse was basically obliterated. that's what we pay taxes for, national defense, and those who took part should be compensated/rewarded for it.

now we can go on about whether or not you agree that taxpayer dollars should fund military etc. but as it stands now, it does

So, you lack certain ethics and morality, and live on an ivory tower. We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, and we don't even know where most of the funding goes. Heck, for this amount of funding our military products are only slight better to sub par.

The whole thing was outlined in a manifesto called PNAC in 1998, led by many who would become top officials in the Bush white House. The main purpose of it was to increase defense spending, and lead to the policing of the world by the US forces, which all hinged on an attack on this country - which they got.

Dude, we're in a pandemic you can't be hoarding tinfoil like that!

PNAC is publicly displayed, and it's pretty clearly outlined. I can't help it if the mother of all coincidence happened to facilitate the plans outlined in it.

but seriously, again none of this is a bad thing. Someone needs to be the police, who you gonna trust to do it? europe? lol

We currently have a thin skinned realty Tv host, who acts like a 10 year old on twitter, running the country, who can't tell the simple truth without changing his story from week to week. And who values loyalty to him over what is laid out in the Constitution. And you are asking me who to trust?

Trust me, I wish the world was a nice peaceful place and nazi's, muslims, communism, weaponized starvation, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc didn't exist, truly I do. But that isn't reality is it? these things do exist and do need to be policed.

In a miracle fantasy world where everybody acts right and joins this century, maybe we can discuss not being world police. But we've done that before and it lead to disastrous results.

Weren't we just talking about the mother of all fuck ups with the Iraq war? Or do you think it was a resounding success? And no one quite knows what Trump is doing with our forces other than trying to be a bully with, or trying to start an unintentional war. We saw how will North Korea turned out with his genius negotiating skills of ass kissing Kim Jung-un.

[greg-delta]

At 4/23/20 09:16 PM, EdyKel wrote:

Is it?

I think so. you can argue all day about interpretations over the constitution etc over the years, it doesn't change what's law now.

And yet, unless specified otherwise by a 2 thirds vote from congress, we have to honor that treaty, because it's in the Constitution. You are not an anti-constitutionist are you? Or someone who picks and chooses what he want from it based on political ideology at the moment?

We do not have ot honor that treaty, the treaty is not legally binding, it's not a real treat. Like the Paris Accord, it is a feel-good agreement that does not supercede war powers of the president. The UN is not a government, treaties it creates are not legally binding, they aren't legistaltion

Only if you like dictators and hate the constitution that is based on a lack of trust towards the executive branch .

It's not based at all in that. That's why the President is "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.

There's nothing (anymore) that says the President has to get consent to launch an invasion. Such a restriction is impractical and dangerous, especially in the post ww2 geo-political climate, and especially given the threat that Iraq posed to the US' NATO (a real treaty) allies at the time.

This became outdated once communist infiltration became an issue in american politics in the 1960s

Still waiting for a few basic facts from you, outside of this trolling from you.

what a pathetic sentence dude. you come in here putting forth this image of being learned and rational, and then you pull the "troll" card? come on man, you can do better

I think the Neo Nazis voted for Trump, since he called them very fine people and they salivate and want to suck his dick over the identity politics he plays.

every thing ou just posted is wrong. the neo nazi's did not vote for trump. he did not call them very fine people, nor does he engage in identity politics. there's no evidence to support a single thing you just said.

socialists do not vote for trump, communists do not vote for trump.

According to reports, he was more afraid of Iran invading his country than the US, since his country was used as a US buffer against them, and advertising he had nothing to defend himself with.

and?

But again, the US didn't have anything concrete to show that Iraq was an imenentt threat to us or our allies, nothing to justify an invasion with. All they had were rumors, and a lot of cherry picking of intel reports to create end of teh world scenario, which led to onbe of the most costly fuck ups in US history, because the Bush administration wanted a war there, no matter what.

except their very existence. it wasn't a fuck up in the slightest, a major muslim hot spot was effectively extinguished.

Bush didn't want a war there, the world NEEDED a war there for destroy Iraq. It's very clear the middle east cannot live peacefully in the modern world. the world is a better place with the police (US) there.

Yet, over a 100 thousand were killed, and untold numbers of residential areas destroyed. I mean, for a one side war, where very few american lives were lost, we sure racked up the body count of innocent civilians.

collateral damage dude. It happens. I guess they should have thought about that before they acted out? I never denied civilians died, that's typically what happens in a war. It SEEMED like you were mkaing the case that civilians were intentionally targeted, and they were, but not by the US

As for the rebuild... They overcharged taxpayers, and they saved a lot of money cutting corners on rebuilding that infrastructure our forces destroyed which is now falling apart. No wonder why Americans didn't like that war, or why Iraqis now have closer ties with Iran - the opposite of what the US wanted.

I mean, don't write checks you can't cash, you know. talk shit get hit. they wanted to play ball, they lost. that's the way it goes. you don't act right, you get a whuppin, you get me?

Iraq has close ties with Iran because Obama funded insurgent influence in Iraqi politics to undermine the democratic influence we had installed.

For a party that builds itself on Christian morality, I think the devil has taken control of them.

well...I think you'll find that the republican party is predicated on innate morality, which christianity also does. the moral code that most humans live by predates christianity. Either way, christianity preaches to kill the "devil" and those who threaten good. I'm no theology major, nor a christian per se, but I believe Jesus said something about selling your cloak to buy a sword, against transgressors and trespassers I think

If anything, it's another chapter in the war of western supremacy and defense (like the crusades), which at one time was rooted in christianity (again the crusades)

Again, this isn't really a religious debate, it's odd to even bring up religion.

but theology debate aside, killing the devil does not make you a devil yourself, does it? that doesn't make musch sense

So, you lack certain ethics and morality, and live on an ivory tower. We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, and we don't even know where most of the funding goes. Heck, for this amount of funding our military products are only slight better to sub par.

no quite the opposite. I live in a world of ethics and morality and recognize that those who threat it, if they cannot be dealt with peacefully, should be fought violently.

I know it's hip to try to say "be the bigger man" type of thing, but that is how you die. it's unrealistic and dangerous. Ethics and morality cannot exist without violence (of some kind) against those who threaten it. This is why leaders who are smarter than both of us, throughout american history, do what they do. did Lincoln and washington lack ethics and morality? did Eisenhower? No. They know that ethics and morality are constantly under attack, and they elimited those threats.

most of our military funding goes to defending countries and regions we defeated in the 2nd world war. Europe never recovered from WW2, they certainly can't defend themselves, and can't be trusted to defend anyone else. It's a bit of a double edged sword situation, but that's where most of the money goes.

We currently have a thin skinned realty tv host, who acts like a 10 year old on twitter, running the country, who can't tell the simple truth without changing his story from week to week. And who values loyalty to him over what is laid out inthe Constitition. And you are asking me who to trust?

no we don't have that. those days are long gone dude. Trump is the president now, Obama fucked off back to his mansion, he's not in charge anymore.

Weren't we just talking about the mother of all fuck ups with the Iraq war? Or do you think it was a resounding success? And no one quite knows what Trump is doing with our forces other than trying to be a bully with, or trying to start an unintentional war. We saw how will North Korea turned out with his genius negotiating skills of ass kissing Kim Jung-un.

The Iraq war was a definitive success. Saddam gone and as a result, despite Obama funding the muslim brotherhood and it's branches, we still decimated them. A success, mission accomplished.

The US does not start wars. We never have. Every US war is retaliation against those who threaten progress. Trump never bullied any country that didn't deserve it. commies forget what century it is and want to play big boy ball, then we play. it's that simple. I know you want the US to be a doormat and suck off communist dictators, because you're like 20, and you think that's how the US operates, but it really isn't. These are the rules, these are the consequences. The choice is in our adversaries hands. act right or face the consequence.

North Korea was a success. I'd say peace talks between noth and south korea is a pretty big positive there, though I see how a globalist commie would see it as a bad thing