World War 4, Minus The Us

[Glendale]

Alright, we had 3 modern World Wars. To make it more appealing to you, ill give them movie names.

World War 1- FLAMES OF WRATH (opened in theateres from France and Belgium to Turkey and Arabia in 1914, closed in 1918, total intake- 20 million souls)

World War 2- THY NAME IS VENGENCE (preview opened in 1932 in China, Full Release opened in Poland in 1939, ended with a bang in Nagasaki in 1945, with showings across the Pacific islands to the high mountain tops of Burma to the dam-covered landscape of Holland and the cold winter theateres of Stalingrad., total intake- 70 million souls)

World War 3- CLAIMING THE CROWN (preview opened in 1979 in Afganistan, Full movie started in 2001, shown in nightclubs in Isreal and Indonesia and the Phillipines, and across the sandy dunes of Iraq, and the mountanous frontier of Pakistan. Total Intake- Approx. 1 million souls after main release, 3 million if you include preview, and counting)

Now, lets say World War 4 happens, and America is not involved for the basis of...we don't give a crap this time, for whatever reason. Lets say...porn shortage. Whatever. Lets take the scenario from Battlefield 2142, without the futuristic weaponry and such. Its the European Union vs China. China will probably have much of south america and the middle east on its side, the EU maybe some African states, Japan, Isreal and India. What do you think would happen? (If this is the scenario, it will be World War 4- ARMORED BLOODLUST)

[Slat]

There's no such thing as WW3..

[emmytee]

Do you know what a world war is?
A war, involving all the countries of the world.
America is currently trying to destoy Al Queda, like 400 raggity ass heacases. In Iraq its UK and USA vs The people of Iraq.
Not a world war. In fact, if you're not a government spin doctor, you could call it "Basic policing"

Its no way near a world war. Its Some Western forces libirating one country.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

The 3rd World War took place from the 60s onward.

It involved the US at its futile attempts to bully smaller nations into stepping in line with it.

Arguably speaking, its death rate is higher of the first and second world wars.

[Onizero]

That wasn't a world war in my oppinion does anybody else agree with me?

[tawc]

Whats going to be the national language of the United States of Europe then

[Onizero]

What do you mean tawb?

[tawc]

At 9/7/06 07:18 PM, Onizero wrote: What do you mean tawb?

when Europe becomes one country, what will the national language be?

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/7/06 07:22 PM, tawb wrote:

At 9/7/06 07:18 PM, Onizero wrote: What do you mean tawb?

when Europe becomes one country, what will the national language be?

Why does a country have to have one national language?

Look at Canada, and the US will have two in a few more decades.

[Onizero]

Probably Italian in my oppinion of its national language.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

If there had to be one:

Esperanto!

[cellardoor6]

At 9/7/06 06:10 PM, emmytee wrote: Do you know what a world war is?
A war, involving all the countries of the world.

In WWI and WWII, not every single country in the world was involved in either. In WWII there were over 30 neutral countries, in WWI there was even more.

America is currently trying to destoy Al Queda, like 400 raggity ass heacases. In Iraq its UK and USA vs The people of Iraq.

Hmm thats funny. In Iraq the population who fights against the coalition is less than 1%. Also, if the "people of Iraq" were against the US and UK, why did 80% of them vote in the elections that the US funded? Why is there 20 times as many Iraqis in the Iraqi military as there is in the Iraqi insurgency?

You're too easily persuaded by exciting news coverage to understand the truth on the ground in Iraq. The violence in Iraq is only in a few areas of the country, but the anti-American media paints a picture like the whole country is a constant warzone, when only 1 of Iraqs provinces (Al Anbar) has relative violence.

You also ignore the fact that if the US and UK hadn't liberated Iraq, more Iraqis would have been dead in the 3 and a half years that we've been there if Saddam was in Charge. About 35,000 Iraqis have been killed since '03, but more than twice that would have been murdered by Saddam Hussein's Baath party in an equal amount of time.

Not a world war. In fact, if you're not a government spin doctor, you could call it "Basic policing"

It's not a world war...but the most visible enemies of the US; Al-qaeda, Huga Chavez, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and Hezbollah leader Nasrallah...all of these enemies of the US have called for a world wide war on the US and its allies. These countries are too weak to actually fight the US in a military vs. military engagement, so thats why they fund terrorism to attain their goals, and they produce media propaganda that people like you like to swallow.

If the US wasn't "policing" the world, there would have been real world wars since the end of WWII, and defenseless pacificist countries, practically all of Europe would be easy targets for an Islamic overthrow.

[Onizero]

Celluar door has reasons for the statments amazing!!

[The-Dran]

At 9/7/06 06:40 PM, Onizero wrote: That wasn't a world war in my oppinion does anybody else agree with me?

That was a Cold War. And a Cold War is nothing more a propaganda war, not an actual war where you have countries bent on killing each other. But there were some wars during the cold war, but it wasn't a face to face head on war between USSR and USA. It was just a war of propaganda issue to cause panis and fear between two world powers. It's no different than a typical compaign for presidency in the United States.

At 9/7/06 07:35 PM, Onizero wrote: Celluar door has reasons for the statments amazing!!

Be careful with Cellar door, he is very clever but he has been known to make things up.

[cellardoor6]

At 9/7/06 09:42 PM, _holly_ wrote: Be careful with Cellar door, he is very clever but he has been known to make things up.

Be careful with Holly, he is very funny but he argues all of his views based on his own speculation.

He has already made up his mind about the world and doesn't want to be confused by any facts. He is allergic to facts. So don't expect him to react well with documentation, or common knowledge.

If you say something that is a documented fact, he will mount a thousand objections to it, but the fact of his own existence is usually already a refutation of his objection.

[troubles1]

what is it wiyh your ANTI-USA atitude my guy? there was no WW3, we are not the bully, infact honestly 'with the way you act you seem like someone from the taliban, or al-quida, with all our faults' our countrys mine, yours, and alot of others are working hard to protect your right to be stupid.

[BeFell]

I just want to point out that the topic starter is stupid as is the discussion but it occured to me that Orson Scott Card tackles this very subject in a somewhat plausable sense in his "Shaddow" series.

[Makaio]

lol a war without the americans? are you insane?
Theres nothing the americans like more then blowing shit up, so unless the war is started because China nukes the US or us canucks finally snap and destroy j00, america will be involved.

[Glendale]

1 Supposed to be hypothetical idea.
2 This is World War 3 that we are in. "Global War on Terror", global war = World War. Al Qaida has bombed places spanning from East Africa to the Phillipines and England, and affiliates have strick in India, Indonesia, Isreal, Turkey, and elsewhere. And lets not forget the US itself. To have a world war, you need two parts- A. Many theaters of war B. Official countries at war with each other.
3 If you want to know the sides of WW3, its basically the governments of-
A. The US, UK, Isreal, Poland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, The Phillipines, Turkey, Russia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Germany, France, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Brazil, Somalia, Afganistan and Iraq and other willing countries
B. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Venezuela, Palestine, Sudan and dissidents in Iraq, Afganistan, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Russia.
C. More or Less neutral governments include Jordan, China, North Korea, Egypt, Greece, and many, many others.
4 the EU wont have a national language, they cant even agree on one type of currency. (Britain does not use the Euro.) They had a chance to become more united last year through an official constitution, but it failed. If it had passed, the Primary Minister of Europe would have been elected by the Prime Ministers of the countries, not the people, so it would have become something vaguely like an oligarchy. The EU will most likely stay just an economic tie, like NAFTA. (The US does not have an official language, except for the State of Texas. It has two, English and Spanish)

[Glendale]

5. Never read Shaddow
6. Its Americas job to be involved in all wars, thats the first job requirement of being an Uberpower. The UN was supposed to do that, but they dont. (Imagine the first gulf war without American troops, numbers, equipment and all)
7. Canadians couldn't take over Greenland. And their still Englands bitch, in an age when even the IRISH have their own land.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/8/06 05:10 PM, Glendale wrote: And their still Englands bitch, in an age when even the IRISH have their own land.

Canada is England’s bitch because it’s a member of the Commonwealth?

So, like Texas is the Federal Government's bitch?

[cellardoor6]

At 9/8/06 05:04 PM, Glendale wrote:

If it had passed, the Primary Minister of Europe would have been elected by the Prime Ministers of the countries, not the people, so it would have become something vaguely like an oligarchy. The EU will most likely stay just an economic tie, like NAFTA. (The US does not have an official language, except for the State of Texas. It has two, English and Spanish)

You know that if/when a Prime Minister of the EU is appointed, he will become a Supreme Leader. Sounds like the anti-Christ to me. At this time in the future Europe will be in a vulnerable position due to its high influx of Muslims Extremists who will gain political power and support a leader who wants to bring about the destruction of Israel/America, enslave all the Jews, and set himself up as the second coming of Muhammad.

Europe is screwed I tell you, screwed... Not only will they allow their collective hatred to cause them to bring a second Hitler to power, but they will be bitch-slapped by God himself as punishment. SCREWED........

[Glendale]

The 3rd World War took place from the 60s onward.
Thats the Cold War. It was called the Cold War because it never became "Hot."

It involved the US at its futile attempts to bully smaller nations into stepping in line with it.

Your talking about proxy wars. There were 5 major ones. Korea, which was a stalemate. Vietnam, which the French lost, Americans came in, and were on the road to winning before they pulled out. Isreali wars, when American-supplied Isreal subsequently bitchslapped Arabian military forces back into their own lands, all the while giving back the Sinai desert to Egypt, which they took over. Even later, they handed over Gaza to Palestinians. Soon afterwards, Gaza resembles an Algerian ghetto on the outskirts of Marsielle. Afganistan, which the Russians were completely decimated in by the American-equipped Mujadeen. 12 Years later, America destroyed the soldiers they equipped when they brought the fight to US soil. (America is one of only 3 only military forces in history to control Afganistan. The other two were Alexander the Great and the Mongolian Horde) And Cuba, when an American-trained band of Cuban refugees were hammered in the Bay of Pigs. So, the records 2-1-2. And in the end America outlasted the Soviet Union. Bully small nations, yes. Many a time, because the smaller nations wanted to be bullied. (Do you think France would have let American nukes be set up in their country if the Soviet Union was just 300 miles from their border, ready to take away their 'culture'? I think not.) But futile? Hardly.

Arguably speaking, its death rate is higher of the first and second world wars.

The first two world wars had a combined death toll of more then 90 MILLION people worldwide. The 5 proxy wars combined might have had a total of 10 million, counting Castros purging of homosexuals, capitalists, foreigners, and people the vote against him. Add wars across Africa and chuck in another blind 10 million. total of 20 million in the Cold war. Lets just double that for kicks. 40 million people. Hmm...

Oh, and while your at it, tell me of how Scotland sold out its independence to the British Empire. Sometime in the 1700's I believe, Act of Unification or something of the sort? Hell, the Irish are STILL fighting, and they have 90% of their island. And you listen to records all day and get burned by 16 year old American lads.

[Glendale]

Texas dosen't call itself a country.

And before you get the chance to say that Texas sold out to America, Texas declared its independence from Mexico for the sole purpose of joining the US. It was an independent republic because the North was worried that a slave-allowing state like Texas would tip the scales in Congress.

Also, keep God out of politics. Seperation of Church and State is in effect (thank god :D), no matter how much a person believes in God, like me.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/8/06 05:28 PM, Glendale wrote: Oh, and while your at it, tell me of how Scotland sold out its independence to the British Empire. Sometime in the 1700's I believe, Act of Unification or something of the sort? Hell, the Irish are STILL fighting, and they have 90% of their island. And you listen to records all day and get burned by 16 year old American lads.

Why the undertone of hostility?

But yeah, your right, 1707 was the date of the Act of the Union (I wonder how many people will be celebrating out Tercentennial?). But the Crowns were united a century before hand.

The Scots are still 'fighting' for independence, politically speaking. We don't go around killing innocents like our Celtic brothers.

[Glendale]

Don't get me wrong, I dont agree with some crazy drunken irishman shouting Gods blessings while they blow away a Northern Irish schoolbus filled with kids, or they chuck a grenade at a statue of Queen Victoria.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/8/06 05:44 PM, Glendale wrote: ...or they chuck a grenade at a statue of Queen Victoria.

Would that be vandalism or terrorism?

[Glendale]

Vandalism on a statue I think would be painting over it or sawing off the head. Throwing a grenade at it has a potential deadly effect, plus the loud and all-to-familiar-in-Ireland BOOM, scares people, if not kills them.

If sawing the head off a statue was terrorism, Bart Simpson would be in Guantanamo Bay (SIMPSONS REFERENCE OH NOES l{>.<}l )