WWIII who's on what team?

[Dannyboy15]

American, UK, France, Germany is a given, but what are the other countries that'll side with them?

For the opposite powers I see: Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria...

[AA-12]

It's a racial war :D

[Dannyboy15]

Does that mean we lose our african american? aw we're ****ed!

[strummerkid]

If a world war was drawn up to the exact specifications of the news headlines of the last few months, then you'd probably be right.

[spitfirejunky]

France and Germany is a bit iffy. And in good reason.

[Dannyboy15]

What side do you guys think India and China would take?

[666Ozzfan]

Chances are we would sit it out (New Zealand) we have nothing really in the form of military. Basically, we're a bunch of peacekeepers.

[MattSharpIsCool]

I could see India fighting along with the US, due to centuries of hating Muslims, and China really could go either way.

What is China's standing in Europe? I know the US and China have somewhat of a strained relationship, but it is a relationship.

India is attempting to emerge as a world power, and what better way to do that than to side with the US, UK, Germany, and France, four of the strongest countries in the world.

[bleep_bloop]

I dunno, China might side with us, and india would probably be neutral, unless pakistan was involved.

[666Ozzfan]

Where does Japan fit in all this?

[Dannyboy15]

I believe Japan would side with the US. Same with South Korea.

[666Ozzfan]

So who starts it? Germany again? LOL

[MattSharpIsCool]

Japan would definitely side with the US, UK, Germany, and France.

In doing so, would that force China to fight against that side? I can't see China and Japan fighting on the same side.

[Dannyboy15]

Japan would definitely side with the US, UK, Germany, and France.

In doing so, would that force China to fight against that side? I can't see China and Japan fighting on the same side.

Well that just depends on how much China still hates Japan.

Since North Korea is in it I think China would back them up (which would really suck!

[Amit]

I could see India fighting along with the US, due to centuries of hating Muslims

except india has just as many muslims as pakistan hehe

[666Ozzfan]

I can see Japan and China fighting on the same side - IF they are fighting in different areas, away from each other. Or china could do what Italy(?) - i think - did, and keep switching.

[MattSharpIsCool]

And from what I hear, the Muslim and Hindu populations in India dont get along.

[Amit]

And from what I hear, the Muslim and Hindu populations in India dont get along.

they get along a lot better than people, especially outsiders, give them credit for

there is the occassional riot and flare up but that is hardly surprising considering the extreme proximity and size of the believers and temples/mosques

the hinduvta movement (the extremely anti-muslim/pro-hindu party) is pretty much dead in the water anyway

[MattSharpIsCool]

they get along a lot better than people, especially outsiders, give them credit for

there is the occassional riot and flare up but that is hardly surprising considering the extreme proximity and size of the believers and temples/mosques

the hinduvta movement (the extremely anti-muslim/pro-hindu party) is pretty much dead in the water anyway

Ok, if you say so. You seem to know alot more about the goings-on in India than I do.

I still doubt Japan and China would be able to cooperate.

[StreetlightRock]

Japan? And China? Together? With Abe in power now? Hah.

[pixiesfanyo]

I'm with the Falcons.

I think Vick can really pull it off this year.

[Smokey D]

That's the stupid list of potential combatants ever.

If there was to be another war on a similar scale to the world wars (which is unlikely given the prevalence of nuclear weapons amongst first world industrial powers), it would have to involve nations of similar industrial and technological capacity. That is not the arrangement you described.

[Amit]

industrial and technological capacity + commercial ambitions/capabilities

[ChimPz]

I can imagine a war between the US and China. Not anytime soon, but if China gains enough economical and military power (paired with a higher degree of technology), perhaps in a decade or so. Especially when either side starts considering the other enough of a threat to wage war upon each other.

This is all speculation of course.

[Aus_rock_god]

Where does Japan fit in all this?

Errrm... Japan has been de-militarised since the end of WW2

[Aus_rock_god]

Well, hypothetically though, I can see China, North Korea and the majority of countries in the Middle East having a red hot go at the U.S with Britain and Australia sort of on-their-side-ish.

[coheneran]

Doesn't discussing the notion of an up and coming world war make you guys feel sick?

And oh, the war starts from Israel and Palestine, if that wasn't obvious enough. It won't be sudden, it'll be like the attack on Lebanon: Both sides will have their battle plans drawn up, and their troops ready to deploy, and use the first opportunity that comes up.

One scenario I can imagine is, bear in mind this is only from the current political situations, I can't anticipate future relationships: Israel will blame Syria or Lebanon for an attack in Tel-Aviv, and invade Lebanon. Massive resistance from Lebanese militias, Iran condemns Israel and pays Syria to start bombing Israel. Coalition troops deploy along the Iraqi-Syrian border, and along the Iraqi-Irani and Afghan-Irani borders. By now, almost every country in the world has deployed its forces on the border of a neighbouring country it has military plans for, and you have your fourth world war.

[Smokey D]

I think a common mistake that people seem to be making is the belief that a dislike for American policy automatically equates to a close correlation in national interests. The enemy of your enemy your enemy may be your friend, but in the modern, multi-polar world, he is just as likely to still be your enemy.

industrial and technological capacity + commercial ambitions/capabilities

I think conflicting economic ambitions represent a cause for war, but for it to take on global proportions, the combatants only need to possess roughly equal industrial development and capacity. If, for example, Guatamala and the United States both had designs on the same patch of land, it would not result in a world war because America's victory would be so obviously assured and rapid.

Errrm... Japan has been de-militarised since the end of WW2

And it still has one of the largest and most modern 'self-defence forces' in the world, as well as the second largest surface navy. Nifty eh? Japan's force projection capabilities are pretty limited, though.

Well, hypothetically though, I can see China, North Korea and the majority of countries in the Middle East having a red hot go at the U.S with Britain and Australia sort of on-their-side-ish.

That doesn't seem like a very likely scenario to me at all. A war between the US and China strikes me as so unlikely in the next fifty as to be a virtual impossiblity given the interwoven nature of their economies and the fact both possess nuclear arsenals. The Middle East is too fractured, corrupt and otherwise bound up in foreign interests to provide a united front against a power like the US or China, and would lack the capacity to fight a war against a hyper- or nascent super-power.

Team Liberty and puppies for all: Britain, USA, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, Israel, India.

Team Islamo-communo-fascism: Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Venuzuela, Cuba, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia.

Team Putin: Russia

Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. The people were shocked to find to find that their flags and banners hated the wrong enemy.


And oh, the war starts from Israel and Palestine, if that wasn't obvious enough. It won't be sudden, it'll be like the attack on Lebanon: Both sides will have their battle plans drawn up, and their troops ready to deploy, and use the first opportunity that comes up.


No force in the Middle East currently has the strength to realistically oppose Israel without outside backing, and it is not in the interests of any foreign power to have protracted war in the region which provides the vast majority of energy needs. I don't think the Middle East will be a cradle for world war, though it will undoubtedly remain an area of sparodic but vicious conflict for quite some time.


As you may have guessed, a general theme to this post is that a future world war is unlikely. Unlike the previous two occasions, I feel that the global economy is far too interconnected to allow for serious contemplation of a major war amongst the major powers, while nuclear capabilities virtually gauruntee it won't happen. Further, the only two systems that seem on track for a major collision, western liberal democracy/capitalism and radical Islamism, are so widely seperated in technological terms that proper world war would be impossible, not to mention the fact that the latter is only supported by an extremely small number of states.

[Aus_rock_god]

Except, as far as I see it, the wildcard in this whole thing is that we have a pea-brain with his finger on the button.

[coheneran]

I think a common mistake that people seem to be making is the belief that a dislike for American policy automatically equates to a close correlation in national interests. The enemy of your enemy your enemy may be your friend, but in the modern, multi-polar world, he is just as likely to still be your enemy.



I think conflicting economic ambitions represent a cause for war, but for it to take on global proportions, the combatants only need to possess roughly equal industrial development and capacity. If, for example, Guatamala and the United States both had designs on the same patch of land, it would not result in a world war because America's victory would be so obviously assured and rapid.



And it still has one of the largest and most modern 'self-defence forces' in the world, as well as the second largest surface navy. Nifty eh? Japan's force projection capabilities are pretty limited, though.



That doesn't seem like a very likely scenario to me at all. A war between the US and China strikes me as so unlikely in the next fifty as to be a virtual impossiblity given the interwoven nature of their economies and the fact both possess nuclear arsenals. The Middle East is too fractured, corrupt and otherwise bound up in foreign interests to provide a united front against a power like the US or China, and would lack the capacity to fight a war against a hyper- or nascent super-power.



Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. The people were shocked to find to find that their flags and banners hated the wrong enemy.



No force in the Middle East currently has the strength to realistically oppose Israel without outside backing, and it is not in the interests of any foreign power to have protracted war in the region which provides the vast majority of energy needs. I don't think the Middle East will be a cradle for world war, though it will undoubtedly remain an area of sparodic but vicious conflict for quite some time.


As you may have guessed, a general theme to this post is that a future world war is unlikely. Unlike the previous two occasions, I feel that the global economy is far too interconnected to allow for serious contemplation of a major war amongst the major powers, while nuclear capabilities virtually gauruntee it won't happen. Further, the only two systems that seem on track for a major collision, western liberal democracy/capitalism and radical Islamism, are so widely seperated in technological terms that proper world war would be impossible, not to mention the fact that the latter is only supported by an extremely small number of states.

Fair points.

[Smokey D]

Except, as far as I see it, the wildcard in this whole thing is that we have a pea-brain with his finger on the button.

Bush is neither a complete retard, nor is he the only person in power who would need to give the go ahead for world war to occur. Not only does it take at least two countries to do the holocaustic tango, but there are a great deal of powerful interests and people in America itself which would not benefit at all from such a conflict.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I expect Christianity and Islam will (ironically) end up warring

Whoever our next leader is could makethemselves very popular indeed by refusing to follow america into war

[Surgicalgod]

Why? If we were going to hypothetically divide countries of the world into two teams then you'd probably end up with:

Team Liberty and puppies for all: Britain, USA, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Australia, Japan, Israel, India.

Team Islamo-communo-fascism: Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Venuzuela, Cuba, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia.

Team Putin: Russia

But that scenario is ridiculous. The countries other than Israel that are most threatned by Iran right now are probably Saudi Arabia and Iraq. There's no love lost between the governments of Japan and China, but the main reason that China cosies up to regimes like those in Sudan and Iran is because of energy needs. If international relations degenerated to the extent that all these countries decided to attack each other then you'd more likely see a regional war in the Middle East which would descend into total anarchy, with Western countries other than the US (perhaps) staying as far away as they possibly could in terms of manpower and only sending arms and other support. It's also in no-one's interests for the Middle East to descend into all out war, so there'd be a concerted international effort to prevent it.

I agree, but I do hope that second team name is just hypothetical. Saudi Arabia, other Arab gulf countries, and Egypt are far from going against the US. Their citizens maybe anti-US policy but their leaders aren't.

I don't see a world war happening anytime in the near future. A regional war maybe. But anyway, I don't think the US will survive the next world war; it will mark the end of its position as the most powerful nation.

[ITRIEDVOODOOONCE]

There is not enough polarization between most nations, thus making the war way too lop sided to even be considered a world war.

[Aus_rock_god]

I dunno, the way China is going, I recon it could be as close as 10 years.

[coheneran]

Has anybody else noticed how similar in shape China and the USA are?

[Mr. Ron]

I'm on whatever side has the most cookies.

[Smokey D]

I dunno, the way China is going, I recon it could be as close as 10 years.

No it couldn't. Even generous estimates put it at least 30 years away, and the most commonly cited figure is about 50 years. China's growing fast, but it's not miraculous.


I don't see a world war happening anytime in the near future. A regional war maybe. But anyway, I don't think the US will survive the next world war; it will mark the end of its position as the most powerful nation.

Unless there is radical and unforseen internal political discontent, the USA will survive as a geopolitical entity. Whether it emerges as the world's most powerful nation depends on how successful it is in the conflict, who it's fighting and when it occurs. In fact, war could provide the impetus for the US to develop an energy source that would unshackle it from its commitments in the Middle East and allow for unimpeded growth. Whatever the case, though, as long as the United States retains its geographic integrity, it will never cease to be one of the world's pre-eminent powers. It is not, and never has been, so much a question of when the US is going to decline, but who is going to ascend to join it.

I expect Christianity and Islam will (ironically) end up warring

I don't think it will be fought on those grounds, even if the combatants happen to be of those religions.

[Aus_rock_god]

Well, there's the 'war on terror', which, ironically, does not involve warring against terrorists in Scotland or Russia...

[Smokey D]

What the hell does that have to do with anything? It doesn't qualify as a world war, and it doesn't qualify as a war between Islam and Christianity, because at least one of the combatants does not use religion as the basis for fighting. And the current jaunt doesn't really count as part of the War on Terror.

And the terrorists in Russia are Muslim, and Putin has tried to include them in the War on Terror. It's not like he was going to let the US occupy substantial portions of Russian territory, though.

Likewise with Scotland -- clearly, the UK is allied with the US and conducts its own operations against internal terrorism.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I don't think it will be fought on those grounds, even if the combatants happen to be of those religions.


yeah, actually. But it will be an Islamic coalition and an american backed coalition, if you ask me.

[Smokey D]

A full scale war in the way you imagine won't happen if only for the reaon that the US does not need to fully mobilise its resouces to defeat any Islamic power with ease, and no Islamic power or coallition of such powers could muster the strength to pose a serious threat to the US. Even if a war did break out, it wouldn't be in the way we would conceive a world war, and I doubt it would be one with explicit state sanctioning.

And as I already said, there are too many interests in the Middle East for protracted, region-wide conflict to be practical to other foreign powers.

[Volumnius Flush]

For the opposite powers I see: Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria...

China, Russia, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and of course Indonesia.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

China, Russia, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and of course Indonesia.

WHAT are you smoking?

[Volumnius Flush]

WHAT are you smoking?

It's the Fourth Reich. Germany is becoming more secular-progressive, anti-American, and much more isolatory by the day. Once the cards are set, a charismatic young man will arise from the ashes of a crippled German economy promising riches beyond belief in exchange for the salvation of his constituents. His name is Antichrist. His number is 666, so help me God.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It's the Fourth Reich. Germany is becoming more secular-progressive, anti-American, and much more isolatory by the day. Once the cards are set, a charismatic young man will arise from the ashes of a crippled German economy promising riches beyond belief in exchange for the salvation of his constituents. His name is Antichrist. His number is 666, so help me God.

You mean 616, right?


Anyway, I sometimes don't know where the idiocy stops and the joke begins, but anti-americanism is entirely GLOBAL because of people like you, Germany is not a very isolatory nation (they're very much a part of europe, where Britain distances itself far more from a united europe) and most of all, THE ANTICHRIST ISN'T COMING AND YOU HAVE TOTALLY TAKEN REVELATIONS OUT OF CONTEXT

[Dr Nihil]

As you may have guessed, a general theme to this post is that a future world war is unlikely. Unlike the previous two occasions, I feel that the global economy is far too interconnected to allow for serious contemplation of a major war amongst the major powers, while nuclear capabilities virtually gauruntee it won't happen. Further, the only two systems that seem on track for a major collision, western liberal democracy/capitalism and radical Islamism, are so widely seperated in technological terms that proper world war would be impossible, not to mention the fact that the latter is only supported by an extremely small number of states.

The Islamic threat has significant support, though. Iran is known as one of them (wiping Israel off the map, anyone?), and I do not doubt for one second that Chavez harbors and possibly trains terrorists in Venezuela. My outlook is a bit more gloom than yours, I suppose, but I forsee another attack carried out on US soil in the next few years--one that will dwarf 9/11. Terrorists will get their hands on some dirty bombs, a nuclear warhead, or some nerve agents by means of you-know-who and smuggle them in through our southern border.

You speak of political and economical semantics, as if our current enemy really cares. They are not a unified state or military; in there eyes, they have nothing to gain from peace, only conflict. There will be a war and it will be ignited once again by terrorist attacks funded through the powers in the Middle-East. Though I believe this nation truly lacks the resolve to react sufficiently, I expect it.

The other possibility is a more complete conflict between Israel and Lebanon (the Hezbolah, of course, funded in part by Iran). Israel is a significant military presence, but that doesn't mean their enemies refuse to wage war with them. It has happened before, it can and will happen again.

[666Ozzfan]

I expect three opposing "powers".
* Europe + US + Aussie
* N. Korea - guessing on their own, maybe with 1 or two other countries
* Middle East - purely because they probably can pull together if it comes to it.

[Eccles]

It's the Fourth Reich. Germany is becoming more secular-progressive, anti-American, and much more isolatory by the day. Once the cards are set, a charismatic young man will arise from the ashes of a crippled German economy promising riches beyond belief in exchange for the salvation of his constituents. His name is Antichrist. His number is 666, so help me God.this is a pretty funny post, mostly because even if you take the revelation stuff as fact (please, bear with me) the notion of "anti-american = anti-god" is still just hilarious

[Futue te Ipsum]

WHAT are you smoking?It's an odd position.

I'm not quite sure if he should stop taking the drugs he is on or whether it's important that he goes on drugs asap.

[Smokey D]

Middle East - purely because they probably can pull together if it comes to it.

History suggests otherwise.

N. Korea - guessing on their own, maybe with 1 or two other countries

That's not a world war.

The Islamic threat has significant support, though. Iran is known as one of them (wiping Israel off the map, anyone?), and I do not doubt for one second that Chavez harbors and possibly trains terrorists in Venezuela. My outlook is a bit more gloom than yours, I suppose, but I forsee another attack carried out on US soil in the next few years--one that will dwarf 9/11. Terrorists will get their hands on some dirty bombs, a nuclear warhead, or some nerve agents by means of you-know-who and smuggle them in through our southern border.

Support for Islamic terrorism does not equal a united Islamic front against Western power. That would be terrorism, much like exists currently, not world war. And I don't think terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear bomb any time soon, or even use on if they did. Chavez is not in any meaningful way affiliated with Islamic terrorism, and it would be entirely contrary to his interests to be connected to them or to an attack on the US. And again, that wouldn't be world war. That would be the US turning Venezuaela into a puddle of melted glass.

You speak of political and economical semantics, as if our current enemy really cares. They are not a unified state or military; in there eyes, they have nothing to gain from peace, only conflict. There will be a war and it will be ignited once again by terrorist attacks funded through the powers in the Middle-East. Though I believe this nation truly lacks the resolve to react sufficiently, I expect it.

I speak of political and economic semantics, as you put it, because our enemy and we ourselves must take heed of them whether we want to or not. With no state or military apparatus, no industrial capacity to support their war effort they cannot possibly inflict crippling damage upon any major power, nor possess the requisite strength to launch a proper world war. They might scare us once in a while; they might even stage a successful attack, but for all the terror that may inspire, it is as significant in military terms as mosquitos on an elephant. Terrorist attacks do not count as war, they count as terrorism.

And even if Middle Eastern states became involved, their defeat would be so assured and so rapid, it wouldn't have time to develop into a world war. Only if nation states of relatively similar industrial and human capacity decide to intervene against the United States could a world war possibly emerge, and all those nations that have that capacity are ruled by pragmatists and other sane people, so it's not going to happen. The great not conflict in ideologies does exist between the countries with the power necessary to fight a world war.

The other possibility is a more complete conflict between Israel and Lebanon (the Hezbolah, of course, funded in part by Iran). Israel is a significant military presence, but that doesn't mean their enemies refuse to wage war with them. It has happened before, it can and will happen again.

Some small regional or bilateral war does not count as a world war dammit!

[DougJI]

World war won't exist because if it comes down to it, the states will just drop one nuke and everyone will shut up because they know the states will destroy them, and they won't be retaliated against unless they attack a nuclear state.

World War 3 will be over Canada, as we have all the water, all the resources and mounds of untapped oil. It will most likely begin with the states annexing part of Canada and Canada getting pissed and the UN getting pissed, beginning a UN-States war.

Or Canada will just go along with the 51st state idea, unless China/Russia/UK/etc want a piece of the pie.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Empires are expensive. I don't believe Canada will be anexed. Most wars are battled out in the stock exchange anyway now.

[666Ozzfan]

That's not a world war.

Not if they're fighting one other country, no. But I think they'd probably solo in a world war - or maybe with one or two other countries

[Smokey D]

That's still not a world war. To be a world war, you need to involve a significant proportion of the world, often in multiple theatres and a whole bunch of other characteristics I can't be bothered explaining right now. It's not just a war with more than two combatants, or a war that has sparodic violence in different regions of the world.

If North Korea did participate in a world war, it wouldn't be as a lone wolf. They would find some group to align themselves with, or (more likley) stay out of it altogether.

[666Ozzfan]

That's still not a world war. To be a world war, you need to involve a significant proportion of the world, often in multiple theatres and a whole bunch of other characteristics I can't be bothered explaining right now. It's not just a war with more than two combatants, or a war that has sparodic violence in different regions of the world.

If North Korea did participate in a world war, it wouldn't be as a lone wolf. They would find some group to align themselves with, or (more likley) stay out of it altogether.

probably solo in a world war - or maybe with one or two other countries

[Smokey D]

If North Korea did participate in a world war, it wouldn't be as a lone wolf. They would find some group to align themselves with, or (more likley) stay out of it altogether.

I saw that.

[White Riot!]

Here's my fun plotline.

America under a economist , capitialist government *cough* *cough* allows the evil empire (AKA CCP , CHINA) to build its nuclear arsenal to the point of insanity of economic benefits. Australia sells them the uranium.

Then U.S foriegn policy changes as peek oil hits the world. The U.S needs australia's uranium and thus influence australia to stop selling it to the commie thugs in china. The CCP reacts unfavourably and tries to invade australia , however they are invariably stopped by australia's superior navy and air force. as america joins to the fight china launches tactical nuclear warheads on the battlefields , and nuclear war ensues

[Hababi]

That's still not a world war. To be a world war, you need to involve a significant proportion of the world, often in multiple theatres and a whole bunch of other characteristics I can't be bothered explaining right now. It's not just a war with more than two combatants, or a war that has sparodic violence in different regions of the world.

If North Korea did participate in a world war, it wouldn't be as a lone wolf. They would find some group to align themselves with, or (more likley) stay out of it altogether.

I don't know about a really significant portion of the world--even WW2, while involving a variety of countries, mainly took place in Europe, a little in northern Africa, and the Pacific islands.

A contemporary world war, on the other hand, could involve fighting in the middle east, Asia and South America.

[coheneran]

Likewise with Scotland -- clearly, the UK is allied with the US and conducts its own operations against internal terrorism.

Yeah, it stages them. Oh, and P2OG.

[AmericanWeiner]

You debaters do realize that if worse came to worse, and the US, europe, likely japan, australia, and whatever other piss-in-the-bucket countries aligned, there would be nothing but dust in our wake, right?

North Korea is the size of my shoe, as are most middle eastern countries. Given a month and the will to survive, I'm willing to bet that a coalition on the scale we're talking about could make the leaders of those countries disapear. I'm not talking invasion. I'm talking disappear. As in "Oh, they're gone? What? Our country is in anarchy? I'm so confused!"

For ****'s sake we have machine guns that can fire a million rounds a minute.

[Hababi]

:lol: I never thought GMB would be the one to oversimplify :p

EDIT: nevermind, that's not GMB...

[semi]

i skipped to the smokeyD and med reality check before reading this thread. it was stil ridiculous.

[Futue te Ipsum]

For ****'s sake we have machine guns that can fire a million rounds a minute.Congratulations, you're about to use a lot of bullets.

[AmericanWeiner]

Congratulations, you're about to use a lot of bullets.

what

[Smokey D]

I don't know about a really significant portion of the world--even WW2, while involving a variety of countries, mainly took place in Europe, a little in northern Africa, and the Pacific islands.

A contemporary world war, on the other hand, could involve fighting in the middle east, Asia and South America.

Um, the Pacific theatre was hugely important in World War 2.

And millions upon millions of people were caught up in Japan's invasion of East Asia.

And it impacted upon countries in every conintent in the world, so it was a world war.


America under a economist , capitialist government *cough* *cough* allows the evil empire (AKA CCP , CHINA) to build its nuclear arsenal to the point of insanity of economic benefits. Australia sells them the uranium.

The PRC and the US are in a mutually beneficial relationship, and they both need each others economies. This distinguishes them from earlier world wars where at least some of the parties were outside of the economic system.

And by the time China invaded Australia, if it ever did occur, they would obviously have a better Navy and Airforce by that point.

[Hababi]

Um, the Pacific theatre was hugely important in World War 2.

I didn't say it wasn't.



And millions upon millions of people were caught up in Japan's invasion of East Asia.


Duh but that was more a precursor to WW2.


And it impacted upon countries in every conintent in the world, so it was a world war.


Impacted? Heck, the war in Iraq has impacted countries on every continent :p

No, I'm not arguing that WW2 wasn't a world war, I just don't like your definition of what a world war is.

[Smokey D]

I didn't say it wasn't.

You said it mainly took place in Europe. A huge proportion took place in Asia, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the majority of people affected were Asian.

Duh but that was more a precursor to WW2.

First of all, I have argued in essays that 1939 is an inappropriate starting date for WWII for exactly that reason -- Asia (China) was suffering from invasion from one of the major combatants at least as far back as 1937.

Secondly, Japan only occupied the rest of its conquests after it bombed Pearl Harbour.

Impacted? Heck, the war in Iraq has impacted countries on every continent

It hasn't caused massive world wide dislocation on the basis of international conscription, the failure of trans-Continental empires and the mobilisation of entire economies to support the war effort.


No, I'm not arguing that WW2 wasn't a world war, I just don't like your definition of what a world war is.

To be a world war, it is obvious it must in some way involve a reasonably large proportion of the world. Otherwise it wouldn't be a regional, not global war.

[Hababi]

You said it mainly took place in Europe.

You misread my post. I was meaning to say that it took place mainly in Europe and the pacific, with a little in northern Africa.


First of all, I have argued in essays that 1939 is an inappropriate starting date for WWII for exactly that reason -- Asia (China) was suffering from invasion from one of the major combatants at least as far back as 1937.


Yes but that's not what caused the true world war. No one really cared about Japan's invasion, and had they not alligned themselves with Hitler, no one would've done anything about Japan.

[The Real El Capitano]

lol surgical god saying the U.S. won't survive a world war. surely you jest... :lol: :lol: :lol:



p.s. Smokey, you pwn balls.

[Trojan Kahn]

I think the most likely scenario that will start WWIII is...

U.S. attacks Iran then brings Russia and China into the conflict with them on the other side. Then it'll be Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba against the world.

[Dr Nihil]

Support for Islamic terrorism does not equal a united Islamic front against Western power. That would be terrorism, much like exists currently, not world war. And I don't think terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear bomb any time soon, or even use on if they did. Chavez is not in any meaningful way affiliated with Islamic terrorism, and it would be entirely contrary to his interests to be connected to them or to an attack on the US. And again, that wouldn't be world war. That would be the US turning Venezuaela into a puddle of melted glass.

I speak of political and economic semantics, as you put it, because our enemy and we ourselves must take heed of them whether we want to or not. With no state or military apparatus, no industrial capacity to support their war effort they cannot possibly inflict crippling damage upon any major power, nor possess the requisite strength to launch a proper world war. They might scare us once in a while; they might even stage a successful attack, but for all the terror that may inspire, it is as significant in military terms as mosquitos on an elephant. Terrorist attacks do not count as war, they count as terrorism.

And even if Middle Eastern states became involved, their defeat would be so assured and so rapid, it wouldn't have time to develop into a world war. Only if nation states of relatively similar industrial and human capacity decide to intervene against the United States could a world war possibly emerge, and all those nations that have that capacity are ruled by pragmatists and other sane people, so it's not going to happen. The great not conflict in ideologies does exist between the countries with the power necessary to fight a world war.

Some small regional or bilateral war does not count as a world war dammit!

You have me mistaken and I should've clarified in the beginning: I did not mean to imply our conflict with terrorists would lead into the third World War. I was simply responding to that one paragraph you posted, albeit off topic.

As you said yourself and as I already mentioned before: the terrorists are not a unified state, thererfore they have little to lose by engaging in conflict, but just about everything to gain. Chavez will not openly attack the US, no he will not; that would indeed be detrimental to his relationship with us, his number one customer. That being said, he can still harbor terrorists, train them, and provide them passage through our southern borders. Denial stalls even the greatest super power, just look at the UN and Iran. Denial buys time.

Chavez is connected to Islamic terrorism. His relationship with Ahmedinejad becomes stronger, and there have already been [denied] reports of the aforementioned harboring and training of Islamic terrorists in Venezuela.

It is not such a far-fetched thing for the terrorists to obtain dirty bombs, nerve agents or even nuclear warheads. Since Iran has continuously denied to follow through with UN sanctions regarding its nuclear development program, no one knows for sure just what is going on behind closed doors. Ahmedinejad has openly expressed his hatred for America and Israel alike, as well as his support for Islamic terrorism--no, it is not a far-fetched thing at all.

The threat terrorists pose to us is perhaps greater or lesser than you or I realize--there is really no way of knowing at this point. Better to be prepared, though, right? I would much rather that.

I mention the Israel-Lebanon conflict simply because Israel is an ally to the US. If they suffer significant, devestating attacks like the very ones Ahmedinejad aspires to, we will indeed step in. I'm glad you have faith in our ability to crush the Middle-Eastern threats, as that is most likely the time we would test it. That, or in retaliation to a significant attack on US soil.

And I apologize; I was too lazy to dissect your quote accordingly. x_x

[Smokey D]

You misread my post. I was meaning to say that it took place mainly in Europe and the pacific, with a little in northern Africa.


I didn't misread anything. You simply didn't say that.

Yes but that's not what caused the true world war. No one really cared about Japan's invasion, and had they not alligned themselves with Hitler, no one would've done anything about Japan.

The US was far more concerned with Japan in the lead up to war than it was with Hitler. If he hadn't inexplicably declared war on the United States, the action which combined the two theatres, it's unlikely America would have intervened in Europe -- at least not until after Japan had been subdued.

And if the European colonial empires hadn't been occupied with Nazi Germany, there's no doubt they would have moved to curb Japanese expansionism as well.

You have me mistaken and I should've clarified in the beginning: I did not mean to imply our conflict with terrorists would lead into the third World War. I was simply responding to that one paragraph you posted, albeit off topic.

Everything I have said has been within the context of world war, so taking one paragraph is not actually helpful.

As you said yourself and as I already mentioned before: the terrorists are not a unified state, thererfore they have little to lose by engaging in conflict, but just about everything to gain. Chavez will not openly attack the US, no he will not; that would indeed be detrimental to his relationship with us, his number one customer. That being said, he can still harbor terrorists, train them, and provide them passage through our southern borders. Denial stalls even the greatest super power, just look at the UN and Iran. Denial buys time.


Because terrorist groups are so disparate and under resourced, they have no real ability to inflict serious harm on a major industrial power. Chavez will not harbour terrorists, because if they can be traced to him he knows his regime will face termination. Events in Afghanistan demonstrate that the US isn't going to wait around for UN niceties if it has evidence of a state-sponsored or supported attack on itself.

Chavez is connected to Islamic terrorism. His relationship with Ahmedinejad becomes stronger, and there have already been [denied] reports of the aforementioned harboring and training of Islamic terrorists in Venezuela.

Radical Islamic movements share no ideological similarities with Venezuela, and assuming a common strategic plan between Iran and Chavez simply because he spouted some rhetoric about solidarity is a bit of a jump to make, especially because he knows the risk he runs in supporting Islamic terrorism in America's backyard.


It is not such a far-fetched thing for the terrorists to obtain dirty bombs, nerve agents or even nuclear warheads. Since Iran has continuously denied to follow through with UN sanctions regarding its nuclear development program, no one knows for sure just what is going on behind closed doors. Ahmedinejad has openly expressed his hatred for America and Israel alike, as well as his support for Islamic terrorism--no, it is not a far-fetched thing at all.

It is entirely far fetched that they would gain access to nuclear weapons, and dirty bombs are not actually a very dangerous weapon. As much as Ahmedinejad may hate the United States, the real power in his country is the extremely pragamtic SCIR, not the presidency. Any move as significant as furnishing an Islamic group with nuclear weapons would undoubtedly go through the mullahs, and at this point they seem extremely reluctant to engage with the US.


The threat terrorists pose to us is perhaps greater or lesser than you or I realize--there is really no way of knowing at this point. Better to be prepared, though, right? I would much rather that.


No, because being prepared in the way you suggest ensures they win regardless. The threat posed to teh west by terrorism is scary, but it's not a danger to our world system or anything.


I mention the Israel-Lebanon conflict simply because Israel is an ally to the US. If they suffer significant, devestating attacks like the very ones Ahmedinejad aspires to, we will indeed step in. I'm glad you have faith in our ability to crush the Middle-Eastern threats, as that is most likely the time we would test it. That, or in retaliation to a significant attack on US soil.


The ease with which the US has dispersed every army it has faced in the Middle East makes me extremely confident of the its ability to beat an attack -- especially given it does not need to occupy countries to ensure their defeat. And besides, no Middle Eastern power boasts the force projection capablities to threaten the integrity of the US state.

[Surgicalgod]

I'm surprised that most people here think that Arab countries will fight 'side to side', together against the US or whatever. Even if the US decides to pound on an Arab country for no good reason, the rest of the Arab countries will most probably chicken out. Look at what happened in Lebanon; Saudi Arabia was like "We will not use oil to push the US for a cease-fire." wtf? it's not like people were telling them to use it to make the US bomb Canada; pressuring for a cease fire or peace is not wrong. But that's what you get from those fag Arab leaders; too frightened to do anything.

[Krabsworth]

I could see India fighting along with the US, due to centuries of hating Muslims, and China really could go either way.



China would totally go with us since we pay all of their workers. :D

[Dr Nihil]

Everything I have said has been within the context of world war, so taking one paragraph is not actually helpful.

I simply responded to you stating the Islamic terrorists do not pose a significant threat due to technological differences. Yes, conventional war with them would be impossible--that theory has already been tested, more than once.

Because terrorist groups are so disparate and under resourced, they have no real ability to inflict serious harm on a major industrial power. Chavez will not harbour terrorists, because if they can be traced to him he knows his regime will face termination. Events in Afghanistan demonstrate that the US isn't going to wait around for UN niceties if it has evidence of a state-sponsored or supported attack on itself.

What you say is true regarding the consquences to Chavez's support of the Islamic terrorists and the US's resolve towards evident, state-sponsored attacks. However, he has openly displayed his support for Iran--he stands with Ahmedinejad. I do not trust that he is so predictable. The time will come when we will find out soon enough, I suppose.

Radical Islamic movements share no ideological similarities with Venezuela, and assuming a common strategic plan between Iran and Chavez simply because he spouted some rhetoric about solidarity is a bit of a jump to make, especially because he knows the risk he runs in supporting Islamic terrorism in America's backyard.

Was it simply rhetoric? Radical Muslims hate the US, but they still used the resources available in this country to plan their attack on 9/11. Do you think they will be so quick to pass on Chavez's support, should the opportunity arise? The accusations have already begun--what is it, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

It is entirely far fetched that they would gain access to nuclear weapons, and dirty bombs are not actually a very dangerous weapon. As much as Ahmedinejad may hate the United States, the real power in his country is the extremely pragamtic SCIR, not the presidency. Any move as significant as furnishing an Islamic group with nuclear weapons would undoubtedly go through the mullahs, and at this point they seem extremely reluctant to engage with the US.

Dirty bombs are actually quite dangerous. They aren't known so much for their explosive capabilities, but the radioactive fallout, which covers a large area. Decontamination of said area would undoubtedly take time and cost a considerable amount of money--detonate a few of these in a major city, and it can cause significant damage to the economy, as well as simply strike fear into the people.

The point on nuclear weapons is noted.

No, because being prepared in the way you suggest ensures they win regardless. The threat posed to teh west by terrorism is scary, but it's not a danger to our world system or anything.

How exactly? What am I suggesting that would automatically render us defeated?

The ease with which the US has dispersed every army it has faced in the Middle East makes me extremely confident of the its ability to beat an attack -- especially given it does not need to occupy countries to ensure their defeat. And besides, no Middle Eastern power boasts the force projection capablities to threaten the integrity of the US state.

Naturally, I see no point in arguing this.

[Smokey D]

I simply responded to you stating the Islamic terrorists do not pose a significant threat due to technological differences. Yes, conventional war with them would be impossible--that theory has already been tested, more than once.

My point was never that they couldn't attack the West, but that they don't present the system wide threat that is often made out.

What you say is true regarding the consquences to Chavez's support of the Islamic terrorists and the US's resolve towards evident, state-sponsored attacks. However, he has openly displayed his support for Iran--he stands with Ahmedinejad. I do not trust that he is so predictable. The time will come when we will find out soon enough, I suppose.

A declaration of support made while grandstanding in the General Assembly does not actually indicate a whole lot.


Was it simply rhetoric? Radical Muslims hate the US, but they still used the resources available in this country to plan their attack on 9/11. Do you think they will be so quick to pass on Chavez's support, should the opportunity arise? The accusations have already begun--what is it, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?


I doubt Chavez would actually offer the support. And like I said earlier, the enemy of my enemy may be my friend, but he could just as likely be another foe.

Dirty bombs are actually quite dangerous. They aren't known so much for their explosive capabilities, but the radioactive fallout, which covers a large area. Decontamination of said area would undoubtedly take time and cost a considerable amount of money--detonate a few of these in a major city, and it can cause significant damage to the economy, as well as simply strike fear into the people.


Slow the economy down for a while and inspire fear, yes, but they aren't really that serious a threat to public health. And while that would be a nusiance to a modern state, it would not threaten its existence.

How exactly? What am I suggesting that would automatically render us defeated?

Again, everything I'm saying is in the context of a world war. In order to be a world war, there has to be a system at least potentially capable of displacing our own. This does not seem to be the case with Islamic or any other form of terror, and therefore I do not dismissing it as a real threat to Western democracy. Sure, there is still the risk to be hurt or killed in a terrorist attack, but as much a personal tragedy as that is, it's not something we need to be that worried about.

[Dr Nihil]

Slow the economy down for a while and inspire fear, yes, but they aren't really that serious a threat to public health. And while that would be a nusiance to a modern state, it would not threaten its existence.

If our actions post-9/11 are any indication, our ability to "bounce back" from such an attack is not so inspiring. The emotional state of the US is docile, people are stupid and they won't stop arguing. Say 2, 3, or 4 dirty bombs go off on and around Wall Street--it spells chaos in my eyes, ears...various other orifices.

Again, everything I'm saying is in the context of a world war. In order to be a world war, there has to be a system at least potentially capable of displacing our own. This does not seem to be the case with Islamic or any other form of terror, and therefore I do not dismissing it as a real threat to Western democracy. Sure, there is still the risk to be hurt or killed in a terrorist attack, but as much a personal tragedy as that is, it's not something we need to be that worried about.

Like I said, I didn't initially respond in the context of a world war, and I still am not. I was not sure yesterday and I'm not sure today--I don't know how this will pan out, no one knows who has what and how willing they are to use it. The exchange of ideas is always nice, though--your outlook on the terrorist threat is one I had not previously considered.

[Kornfan08]

all in all we're ****ed. someone's dropen the nuke

[rata]

Its the Evolution ..........


if everybody was a hippie we would all be happy now.....

[Hababi]

I didn't misread anything. You simply didn't say that.


This is what I said:

WW2, while involving a variety of countries, mainly took place in Europe, a little in northern Africa, and the Pacific islands.


The "a little in northern Africa" stood on its own, it didn't mean a little in Africa and a little in the Pacific islands, as the comma entails :p


The US was far more concerned with Japan in the lead up to war than it was with Hitler. If he hadn't inexplicably declared war on the United States, the action which combined the two theatres, it's unlikely America would have intervened in Europe -- at least not until after Japan had been subdued.


We were already helping Churchill quite a bit, pretty openly, too. Everyone knew who's side we were on and while it's pure speculation, I don't see how we would not have become involved within a year of Pearl Harbor, anyway.

[Mr. Ron]

all in all we're ****ed. someone's dropen the nuke

No, not really.

[coheneran]

It's very silly of people to think that there's ever going to be a war like WWI or WWII again. Those had particular economic and political situations that made them unique. Wars evolve with society and technology. The argument could be made that we are in a world war right now, in that many many countries are involved in various wars that are directly connected to each other.

[Smokey D]

The "a little in northern Africa" stood on its own, it didn't mean a little in Africa and a little in the Pacific islands, as the comma entails

The Pacific Islands aren't Asia.

We were already helping Churchill quite a bit, pretty openly, too. Everyone knew who's side we were on and while it's pure speculation, I don't see how we would not have become involved within a year of Pearl Harbor, anyway.

Congress didn't seem in favour of open intervention against Germany, and the US was already committed to limiting Japanese expansion in the Pacific.

It's very silly of people to think that there's ever going to be a war like WWI or WWII again. Those had particular economic and political situations that made them unique. Wars evolve with society and technology. The argument could be made that we are in a world war right now, in that many many countries are involved in various wars that are directly connected to each other.

No dammit, we can't, because the wars are not on a global scale, they are confined to regional theatres and involve on the part of the Co-allition very small participation from anyone other than the US and Britain.

[coheneran]

No dammit, we can't, because the wars are not on a global scale, they are confined to regional theatres and involve on the part of the Co-allition very small participation from anyone other than the US and Britain.

WWII wasn't on a global scale either. It didn't take place in South America, or any less South than Libya, didn't take place in the Indian Peninsula, or in Central Asia or Persia.

The coalition (not the Iraq coalition, but "our" side, so to speak) also includes Israel, Australia, Russia, Indonesia. They're not all combining their troops or fighting in the same regions. And like I said, wars develop, and nowadays a lot of wars aren't fought on the battlefields. We're in the age where you can destroy a country by transferring your monies from one account to another (okay, it's not that simple, but I'm sure you understand what I mean), and so many battles are being fought through proxy armies and terrorist organisations.

[Futue te Ipsum]

WWII wasn't on a global scale either. It didn't take place in South America, or any less South than Libya, didn't take place in the Indian Peninsula, or in Central Asia or Persia.

The coalition (not the Iraq coalition, but "our" side, so to speak) also includes Israel, Australia, Russia, Indonesia. They're not all combining their troops or fighting in the same regions. And like I said, wars develop, and nowadays a lot of wars aren't fought on the battlefields. We're in the age where you can destroy a country by transferring your monies from one account to another (okay, it's not that simple, but I'm sure you understand what I mean), and so many battles are being fought through proxy armies and terrorist organisations.Europe, America and Russia = the world.

[Trojan Kahn]

no point debating who will be on what teams since WWIII is probably going to last like a day.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

no point debating who will be on what teams since WWIII is probably going to last like a day.

I seriously doubt that any world war that might happen could have all the world join in within a day.

[coheneran]

Like someone said, the world's economies are too entangled for anyone to come out clearly on top, like happened in WWI and II.

[Trojan Kahn]

I seriously doubt that any world war that might happen could have all the world join in within a day.

I meant just nuclear strikes ~ Over in less than an hour

[coheneran]

I meant just nuclear strikes ~ Over in less than an hour

Eh, doubtful.

[Hababi]

The Pacific Islands aren't Asia.


I was also including Japan into that--again, we never launched an invasion of mainland Asia to liberate the Chinese, so I'm limiting it to the Pacific.


Congress didn't seem in favour of open intervention against Germany, and the US was already committed to limiting Japanese expansion in the Pacific.


There were certainly congressmen against it, but do you really think Hitler would've stood by and watched while the US continued to covertly aid Britain? He'd have done something against us, bringing us in, anyway.


Eh, doubtful.


For once I agree with you :p I don't see nuclear options as a viable technique, ever. For both sides, they're strictly a defense mechanism--against the possible deployment of nukes by the other side.

[coheneran]

There were certainly congressmen against it, but do you really think Hitler would've stood by and watched while the US continued to covertly aid Britain? He'd have done something against us, bringing us in, anyway.

Actually, Hitler didn't want to engage Britain in a war, but Britain was pulled into the war by various treaties they couldn't break.

[Hababi]

But Hitler then went and attacked Stalinl, which was completely illogical. What's to say he wouldn't have done the same to America?

[coheneran]

But Hitler then went and attacked Stalinl, which was completely illogical. What's to say he wouldn't have done the same to America?

No, Stalin was part of the plan, because the Soviet Union controlled Poland, I would think. At least, this is what I was taught in history class.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

But Hitler then went and attacked Stalinl, which was completely illogical. What's to say he wouldn't have done the same to America?

Hopefully, an overwhelming majority of military tacticians.

[Hababi]

No, Stalin was part of the plan, because the Soviet Union controlled Poland, I would think. At least, this is what I was taught in history class.

Ok, let's say you're Hitler, you're thinking:

KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
that Charlie Chaplin is one funny guy
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
I wish I could paint well :(
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
I KNOW! I'LL INVADE A COUNTRY I HAVE A SECURE TREATY WITH, OPENING UP A SECOND FRONT IN AN ALREADY DIFFICULT WAR AND MARCHING INTO STALINGRAD IN A TERRIBLE WINTER
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS

It just doesn't make much sense. If he'd have waited till after the war, he could've ganged up on Stalin with the aid of Japan and overtaken the SU.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Ok, let's say you're Hitler, you're thinking:

KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
that Charlie Chaplin is one funny guy
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
I wish I could paint well :(
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
I KNOW! I'LL INVADE A COUNTRY I HAVE A SECURE TREATY WITH, OPENING UP A SECOND FRONT IN AN ALREADY DIFFICULT WAR AND MARCHING INTO STALINGRAD IN A TERRIBLE WINTER
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS
KILL JEWS

It just doesn't make much sense. If he'd have waited till after the war, he could've ganged up on Stalin with the aid of Japan and overtaken the SU.

hey Hitler's paintings are very good

it's people like you that turned him into a jew hating war mongering monster

[Hababi]

hey Hitler's paintings are very good


Meh mediocre

http://www.hitler.org/art/flowers/flower3.jpg

[coheneran]

Those are pretty good.

Have you seen that film, Max?

[Antifa]

Bourgeoisie and sympathizing middle classers vs. proletariat and sympathizing middle classers (those with liberal guilt).

[Smokey D]

WWII wasn't on a global scale either. It didn't take place in South America, or any less South than Libya, didn't take place in the Indian Peninsula, or in Central Asia or Persia.

First of all, a war that encompassed Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, North Africa North America and the USSR would far more global than one that doesn't. Secondly, because of Europe's vast colonial holdings, troops were supplied to the war effort from those territories outside of the actual theatres -- la force noire with France, Indian and African troops for Brtain, as well as soldiers from the dominions.

The coalition (not the Iraq coalition, but "our" side, so to speak) also includes Israel, Australia, Russia, Indonesia. They're not all combining their troops or fighting in the same regions. And like I said, wars develop, and nowadays a lot of wars aren't fought on the battlefields. We're in the age where you can destroy a country by transferring your monies from one account to another (okay, it's not that simple, but I'm sure you understand what I mean), and so many battles are being fought through proxy armies and terrorist organisations.

They aren't fighting a united war against a united enemy. If world war simply means lots of little wars going on at the same time, the term is redundant.

Actually, Hitler didn't want to engage Britain in a war, but Britain was pulled into the war by various treaties they couldn't break.

Even though it was obligated to do so, Britain didn't need to go to the aid of Poland. But by that point, the British government was actually getting worried by Hitler's actions and their inability to appease him. They felt, finally, that it was in their interests to declare war, which is much more a reason that they did so than their treaty with Poland.

It just doesn't make much sense. If he'd have waited till after the war, he could've ganged up on Stalin with the aid of Japan and overtaken the SU

There was never any suggestion Japan was interested in attacking the USSR, and it certainly wasn't capable of sparing any manpower or hardware to do so once it had bombed Pearl Harbour.


I was also including Japan into that--again, we never launched an invasion of mainland Asia to liberate the Chinese, so I'm limiting it to the Pacific.


First of all, where the Americans landed is not the extent of the Asian-Pacific theatre.

Secondly, the Pacific Islands have a specific meaning refering mainly to Polynesia, but I suppose they might include Micronesia. It doesn't encompass Indonesia, Malaya, Thailand, Burma etc. And it definitely doesn't mean Japan.

There were certainly congressmen against it, but do you really think Hitler would've stood by and watched while the US continued to covertly aid Britain? He'd have done something against us, bringing us in, anyway.


Unless he devised intercontinental ballistic missiles or something, he was pretty much confined to western Eurasia. The Royal Navy still greatly outgunned the German one, and any attempt to attack the US would have been scuttled. And also, Hitler opened a new front with the USSR because he could afford to spare the troops, Britain (his only major enemy left at the time) having been rendered an impotent maratime threat seperated by the Chanel. Once he had move to attack the Soviet Union, he had to commit himself fully, which would have made any troop diversions strategically impossible (and, as we saw in the eventual event, fatal). So I don't think he would have attacked the US.

[Hababi]

There was never any suggestion Japan was interested in attacking the USSR, and it certainly wasn't capable of sparing any manpower or hardware to do so once it had bombed Pearl Harbour.



Yes but we're working under the hypothetical of Japan not attacking Pearl Harbor :p


Unless he devised intercontinental ballistic missiles or something, he was pretty much confined to western Eurasia.


Hitler had UBoats in American waters and sent spies and covert agents into America. He could've done some damage.


And also, Hitler opened a new front with the USSR because he could afford to spare the troops, Britain (his only major enemy left at the time) having been rendered an impotent maratime threat seperated by the Chanel.


It still doesn't make sense to me. He hadn't forced surrender yet, and why attack a nation you have a treaty with instead of, say, Switzerland?

[Iskandar]

Bourgeoisie and sympathizing middle classers vs. proletariat and sympathizing middle classers (those with liberal guilt).
... where did that come from? Do you seriously believe there will be an armed conflict between classes?

[John Paul Harrison]

It still doesn't make sense to me. He hadn't forced surrender yet, and why attack a nation you have a treaty with instead of, say, Switzerland?

It wasn't random. Hitler was hot to get a piece of Russia. He obsessed about it in detail in Mein Kampf.

Adolph just got a bit impatient, I'd guess.

[Smokey D]

Yes but we're working under the hypothetical of Japan not attacking Pearl Harbor

No we're not, because Japan was going always going to try and neutralise the US before it took on the USSR. There was no cohesion between the Axis powers' strategies, even though had it been there they could have won the war.

Hitler had UBoats in American waters and sent spies and covert agents into America. He could've done some damage.


Virtually nil, and not without bringing a country into the war he didn't want to confront until at least the 1960s.

It still doesn't make sense to me. He hadn't forced surrender yet, and why attack a nation you have a treaty with instead of, say, Switzerland?

He had neutralised the British presence on the Continent, and they were incapable of breaking into fortress Europe without American support (bearing in mind he attacked the USSR well before he declared war on the States).

And Hitler's entire motivation to go to war was to secure land (so called lebensraum) in the USSR for his vision of a prosperous German nation. So of course he was going to attack the USSR eventually. He also thought the whole edifice was so rotten that he'd only have to kick the door in for the whole thing to come crumbling down. Attacking Switzerland would have been far more troublesome than it was worth, being surrounded by mountains and possessing a disproportionately large army well versed in alpine conflict. He also didn't need to, since Switzerland was complicit in German hegemony and helped to finance the war effort. The USSR, on the other hand, presented Nazism with a rival world system that Hitler (probably rightly) thought would eventually come into conflict with his interests.

[DougJI]

True fact: Hitler hated communists.

[rata]

True fact: Hitler hated communists.

yeah, and at one time he was a friend to stalin....

[Billy_Silvers]

Referring back to some previous posts, I don't see any Arab/Middle Eastern countries joining together against the west. For centuries, they've quarrelled
amongst themselves, looking out for their own tribe or sect (Sunnie/Shi'ite). And in the 20th century, we've financed one side or the other, egging them on in their disputes, all so we can prop up one western friendly (oil slut) dictator after another.

Check out the history of Iran for a good example of this (btw, most Iranians aren't arabs, they're persians, and the get upset if you call them otherwise).


A common mistake we westerners make is the assuming the 'Muslim World' is a cohesive unit.

While I'm at it, this whole "islamo-facism" label is pretty much propaganda meant to incite blind, ignorant hatred and stir up support for yet another unjustified war. When you hear it, just tune out.

My two cents

[Futue te Ipsum]

yeah, and at one time he was a friend to stalin....When was this?

[Iskandar]

When was this?
Non-Aggression Pact?

[Antifa]

... where did that come from? Do you seriously believe there will be an armed conflict between classes?

It's quite subversive, yes? One could almost describe it as, well, revolutionary.

[Antifa]

yeah, and at one time he was a friend to stalin....

What's your point?

Corporatist gets along with state-capitalist?

[Antifa]

Referring back to some previous posts, I don't see any Arab/Middle Eastern countries joining together against the west. For centuries, they've quarrelled
amongst themselves, looking out for their own tribe or sect (Sunnie/Shi'ite). And in the 20th century, we've financed one side or the other, egging them on in their disputes, all so we can prop up one western friendly (oil slut) dictator after another.

Check out the history of Iran for a good example of this (btw, most Iranians aren't arabs, they're persians, and the get upset if you call them otherwise).


A common mistake we westerners make is the assuming the 'Muslim World' is a cohesive unit.

While I'm at it, this whole "islamo-facism" label is pretty much propaganda meant to incite blind, ignorant hatred and stir up support for yet another unjustified war. When you hear it, just tune out.

My two cents

That's one progressive hillbilly!

[Iskandar]

It's quite subversive, yes? One could almost describe it as, well, revolutionary.
So you believe revolution must involve a prolonged armed conflict?

[Antifa]

So you believe revolution must involve a prolonged armed conflict?

I believe that only a violent social revolution will successfully overthrow the bourgeoisie.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I believe that only a violent social revolution will successfully overthrow the bourgeoisie.

I think you underestimate the fight the Bourgoisie will give and overestimate your ability to survive without them

Revolution will merely lead to a new ruling class

THE CURRENT RULING CLASS ARE NOT SO BAD

move to britain, we're nice to the working class here

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

move to britain, we're nice to the working class here
it's a genuine worker's paradise

[VomitStainedCretin]

move to britain, we're nice to the working class here

The British working class suck. :p

[Chrysostom]

American, UK, France, Germany is a given, but what are the other countries that'll side with them?

For the opposite powers I see: Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria...

Us: America, Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, India (possibly), China, Israel, Russia.

Them: Lebanon, Syria, North Korea, Iran.

It would interesting to see what Turkey would do if by WWIII it had joined the EU.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

The British working class suck. :p

So then we should be more like you and stop being nice to them?

[Trojan Kahn]

Exactly.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Exactly.

Put them in a position in which they can't afford healthcare; THAT'LL TEACH THEM!

[Trojan Kahn]

**** the brits

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Tojan Kahn; so totally against healthcare!

[Iskandar]

I believe that only a violent social revolution will successfully overthrow the bourgeoisie.
Well, I disagree but you're entitled to your opinion.
I think you underestimate the fight the Bourgoisie will give and overestimate your ability to survive without them

Revolution will merely lead to a new ruling class
If there are two classes and the upper class is deprived of their status, there is only one class remaining. Therefore it cannot dominate over another class because there isn't one.

It's perfectly sound in theory although I doubt its practicality. But then I can't predict the future.

THE CURRENT RULING CLASS ARE NOT SO BAD
No, thanks to direct action and state action to protect us from their excesses. Doesn't mean they're necessary to society, though.

[Big Dildo]

yeah, and at one time he was a friend to stalin....

Come on you must have seen this pic in your history text books at school.


http://www.greece.k12.ny.us/ath/socialstudies/frisa/primsourcCurr/Global%2010/The%20World%20at%20War/World%20War%20II/Hitler-Stalin_cartoon.gif

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

If there are two classes and the upper class is deprived of their status, there is only one class remaining. Therefore it cannot dominate over another class because there isn't one.

Another would emerge

A ruling class exists because that's what society as a whole wants

It provides incentive for the working class to work and incentive for the bourgoisie not gto get comlacent

It ensures stability

All this talk of fairness is bull**** when it's YOU that stands to gain from your revolution

you're no better than we are.

[Dinosawesome]

Aliens will invade, the Earth will gang up against the aliens and be defeated. Germs will kill the aliens and humans will have earned their right to exist in the universe.




...No wait.

[Surtr]

Aliens will invade, the Earth will gang up against the aliens and be defeated. Germs will kill the aliens and humans will have earned their right to exist in the universe.




...No wait.

I think this is a book/movie..<_< >_>

I don't really care who's with who, I just know I'm going to be with the winner of WWIII.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I think this is a book/movie..<_< >_>

I don't really care who's with who, I just know I'm going to be with the winner of WWIII.

So you work for an undertaker?

[Iskandar]

Another would emerge
If there are two classes and one is dispersed, whence would it arise?
A ruling class exists because that's what society as a whole wants
The labour movement exists yet the lower class does not want control. Right.
It provides incentive for the working class to work and incentive for the bourgoisie not gto get comlacent
The bourgeois are the ruling class. The state is largely their political arm.
It ensures stability
If you ask me, a lack of class conflict would be better at that.
All this talk of fairness is bull**** when it's YOU that stands to gain from your revolution
I have never advocated revolution on this forum. Don't patronize me.
you're no better than we are.
No human is better than another, and no human has a right to privilege based on ownership of property.

[Surtr]

So you work for an undertaker?

So long as that's the winning side, then yes. :p

[Antifa]

I think you underestimate the fight the Bourgoisie will give and overestimate your ability to survive without them

Revolution will merely lead to a new ruling class

THE CURRENT RULING CLASS ARE NOT SO BAD

move to britain, we're nice to the working class here

Yes, right to the heart of traditionally oppressive Europe.

[Iskandar]

Yes, right to the heart of traditionally oppressive Europe.
I'm sure things have changed since 1840.

If you want oppressed workers, check out Indonesia or Bangladesh.

[Antifa]

I'm sure things have changed since 1840.

If you want oppressed workers, check out Indonesia or Bangladesh.

You don't have to look there even. That's just the worst end of neo-liberalism. For oppression in the workplace, look no further than your own countries workers.

[shaqadelic]

If you want oppressed workers, check out Indonesia or Bangladesh.

Oppressed how? I know many Indonesians and they would not say they are oppressed in their work place.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Yes, right to the heart of traditionally oppressive Europe.

Yeah Europe is truly the heartland of monopolies and workers with no rights.

If there are two classes and one is dispersed, whence would it arise?
The former working class would mould into a dominant class, or a dominant class would form itself from the one big class you are trying to form

The labour movement exists yet the lower class does not want control. Right.

What? They do want control, that's the problem

The bourgeois are the ruling class. The state is largely their political arm. You can stand for election, can't you? You can vote, can't you?

If you ask me, a lack of class conflict would be better at that.
People would simply direct their frustrations at something else, but it doesn't matter anyway since it could never happen

I have never advocated revolution on this forum. Don't patronize me.

What would you be in favour of? (CURIOUS)

No human is better than another, and no human has a right to privilege based on ownership of property.

Ownership of property is the privelidge, ultimately

[Iskandar]

The former working class would mould into a dominant class, or a dominant class would form itself from the one big class you are trying to form
Imagine an economic system in which the working class owns the means of production they use and controls the state. There are no other classes to be dominated, there is one class. Such a system isn't that far out there. I'm not advocating the total, violent destruction of all existing social orders or anything.
What? They do want control, that's the problem
They are in conflict because there are two classes with opposing interests. Such a situation inevitably leads to conflict.
You can stand for election, can't you? You can vote, can't you?
Of course. I'm not opposed to the state, I merely see it as being unfairly dominated by and subservient to the interests of people other than the majority. I wouldn't deny a freedom that much of this world still lacks.
People would simply direct their frustrations at something else, but it doesn't matter anyway since it could never happen
We would be able to focus on more important matters, yes.

Why couldn't it happen? If there's anything history teaches us, it's that societies change.
What would you be in favour of? (CURIOUS)
Depends on the situation. Whatever achieves the goal is fine, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else and isn't violent.
Ownership of property [...]What I mean is that it's stupid to allow a certain group of people to own most productive property when they use it to exploit others economically and aren't necessary anyway.
Oppressed how? I know many Indonesians and they would not say they are oppressed in their work place.
I was just mentioning that the worst working conditions tend to be found in developing nations.
For oppression in the workplace, look no further than your own countries workers.
Well, it's different here. We have rights; now we need control and autonomy.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Imagine an economic system in which the working class owns the means of production they use and controls the state. There are no other classes to be dominated, there is one class. Such a system isn't that far out there. I'm not advocating the total, violent destruction of all existing social orders or anything.

I believe that almost all situations are best tresolved through being moderate and compromise. Would you agree that compromise between those who believe in a strongly capitalist system and a strongly socialist system leads to the least disatifaction throughout society as a whole?

They are in conflict because there are two classes with opposing interests. Such a situation inevitably leads to conflict.
I expect my interests would not be something you'd object to (I am a man of science and musical inclination, no less) but i doubt I'd be able to pursue them in the same way that capitalist leisure/employment allows.

Of course. I'm not opposed to the state, I merely see it as being unfairly dominated by and subservient to the interests of people other than the majority. I wouldn't deny a freedom that much of this world still lacks.
In the UK, i'd say the bourgoisie were the majority.

We would be able to focus on more important matters, yes.

like wars?

Why couldn't it happen? If there's anything history teaches us, it's that societies change.
I see it as a utopian ideal is why.

Depends on the situation. Whatever achieves the goal is fine, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else and isn't violent.
What I mean is that it's stupid to allow a certain group of people to own most productive property when they use it to exploit others economically and aren't necessary anyway.
how would factories get built if not through the capitalist system? (THIS IS NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION)

[Iskandar]

I believe that almost all situations are best tresolved through being moderate and compromise. Would you agree that compromise between those who believe in a strongly capitalist system and a strongly socialist system leads to the least disatifaction throughout society as a whole?
Compromise often does. Neither side gets their goals implemented in full but tough beans. That's politics.

Having said that, I believe a socialist system is in the interests of the vast majority of society.
I expect my interests would not be something you'd object to (I am a man of science and musical inclination, no less) but i doubt I'd be able to pursue them in the same way that capitalist leisure/employment allows.
Sure, why not? The whole point is to allow you to do work which is productive and fulfilling because it's for you, not another.

(As for unemployment, full employment is possible in socialist systems ranging from Stalin to Catalonia.)
In the UK, i'd say the bourgoisie were the majority.
They certainly aren't right now, if they ever were. Remember that the bourgeoisie are those who own and/or manage capital and/or businesses. Go into your nearest grocery store - how many managers to stockboys? I'm betting it's something like 1:20 as a rough estimate.
like wars?
We could focus on ending wars with no purpose, yeah.
If you think resolving class conflict would lead to instability ... well, I would think ending conflict generally does the opposite.:)
I see it as a utopian ideal is why.
Ah, but it's not. It's not perfection. It's a society free from class conflict, not all conflict. Just like how our society is now free from serfdom.
how would factories get built if not through the capitalist system? (THIS IS NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION)
There are any number of ways this could be done, the most prominent probably being the state, community decision or collective enterprise. I support a limited role for the state, though.

[Varment]

Venezuela why man dont get them involved your harsh

[Jon]

Part 1

Goodies:
UK
USA
China
Most of Europe
Russia
Israel (if its still around)
SK
Japan
India

Kazakhstan could go either way, I'd hope Allies

Baddies:
United Kingdom of Sharia Law, ruled by the Finsbury Park Massive [sic]
NK
Pakistan
Iran
United Nations of Arab

I think that does it pretty much.

Part 2

Whenever convenient obviously China, NK and Iran all have very seperate agendas, but in the hypothetical situation that they were powerful enough and the West was weak enough, I'd see them going at each other.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Kazakhstan could go either way, I'd hope Allies


Not after what Borat said.

[Jon]

Borat's said many things.

The guitarist in the support band on Saturday looked EXACTLY like Borat.

We penned a little ditty on the spot for him (obviously sung in Borat accent)

Throw the emos down the well
So my airwaves can be free
Then we'll kill Coldplay
And have amphetamines.

We sung that really loudly throughout the entire set.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Borat's said many things.

The guitarist in the support band on Saturday looked EXACTLY like Borat.

We penned a little ditty on the spot for him (obviously sung in Borat accent)

Throw the emos down the well
So my airwaves can be free
Then we'll kill Coldplay
And have amphetamines.

We sung that really loudly throughout the entire set.

yeah but the bands you like aren't cool!





<shrug> Someone had to say it.

[Jon]

Actually it was some indie band, my friend the promoter put them on the bill as a favour to their manager.

[Futue te Ipsum]

eurgh indie bands they're absolutely everywhere