Log in

View Full Version : World War III



gaf
19th June 2004, 08:01
well i'm curious and i like history a lot,but also the questions and the multiple point of view.so i found this one.......



Where can I see World War 1, World War 2, and World War 3 Statistics?
Three World War Statistics Compared

While it hasn't been an easy task, we have summarized the significant facts of all Three World Wars in one table. It's impossible to have 100% accurate figures since many sources have slightly differing details of significant facts, and some facts are just simply not known. Where there has been discrepancy, we have made best estimates and assumptions, in the interests of comparative studies. Any omissions are unintentional, and you are encouraged to contact us with relevant links where information should be updated or corrected.

We've listed Start Dates, End Dates, Durations, Number of Casualties, Countries Involved and Names of Leaders Involved for World War 1, World War 2 and World War 3.

We have also tabled the commonly believed Cause of World War 1 and World War 2, as well as our carefully researched Planned Cause of each war, assuming that each war has been planned. (See our discussion of the difference between Accidental and Conspiratorial History).

Seeing all relevant statistics on one page will really open your eyes to how much destruction and human lives have been lost in the quest for the New World Order. A staggering 70 million people have officially lost their lives as a result of World Wars, although I believe this figure is in fact significantly higher. How many more are planned to be destroyed in the coming World War 3?


Table Comparing Statistics for World War 1, 2 and 3
World War 1
World War 2
World War 3

WW1 Started

July 28, 1914

WW2 Started

September 1, 1939. 20 years, 9 months and 21 days after the end of WWI.

WW3 Started

March 20, 2003, exactly 555 days after Sept 11, 2001 attacks on WTC. 57 years, 6 months and 18 days after the end of WWII.

Commonly Believed Cause of WW1

Strong feelings of nationalism throughout Europe prior to The Great War created an atmosphere in Europe which made war a likelihood. The spark which ignited the flame and transformed these underlying problems into a frenzy of hostilities happened on June 28, 1914, when Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by a Serbian student, Gavrilo Princip, while visiting Serbia.



Austro-Hungary presented an ultimatum of thirty demands to Serbia and 48 hours were allotted for their answering. Serbia agreed to all but one: Austrian investigation of the assassination plot.



As a result, Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Germany declared war on Russia (who had allied with Serbia). Two days later, Germany declared war on France and swept its armies through Belgium, violating its neutrality. Because of this, England declared war on Germany. Austro-Hungary declared war on England. And thus started WWI.

Commonly Believed Cause of WW2

Three years of mounting international tension - encompassing the Spanish Civil War, the Anschluss (union) of Germany and Austria, Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland and the invasion of Czechoslovakia - provided the setting for a likely world war.



In March,1939, Hitler demanded that Poland allow Germany to annex the Nazi-dominated free city of Danzig, and that Germany be given control over a 25-mile wide strip of land between Germany and East Germany, created by the Versailles Treaty to give Poland access to the Baltic Sea. Attempts by the Allies to persuade Hitler to negotiate with the Poles were unsuccessful. After signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which safeguarded his eastern border, Hitler sent his air and land forces into Poland on September 1, 1939. Warsaw and other Polish cities were bombed.



Britain and France declared war on Germany (September 3) when Germany ignored their demands to cease its attack and withdraw.



Commonly Believed Cause of WW3

In his State of the Union address and other speeches, President Bush attempted to articulate the reasons for going to war with Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein. Essentially the three main objectives: (1) to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD); (2) to diminish the threat of international terrorism; and (3) to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas.



However, many believed the war was the administration's goal of preventing OPEC's use of the Euro as an oil transaction currency standard. In order to pre-empt OPEC, the US needed to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves.



Many claimed the war was illegal (didn't obtain UN sanction) and still others state the war was about gaining control of valuable Iraqi oil resources.

The Real Cause of WW1

According to Albert Pike, the First World War was designed to enable the Czarist Government in Russia to be finally and completely overthrown and replaced with a new atheist, Communist government.

History records that this First World War did indeed occur as predicted. The Western powers in Europe, in conjunction with the United States, financed Lenin's expedition into Russia, and financed his government consistently. The US has financed Russian Communism at least once per decade since then.


A little closer to home:

In 1909, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was tasked to answer the following question posed by the US government: "If it is desirable to alter the lives of an entire nation, is there any means more efficient than war?" After a year of research, the answer came back: "There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire nation."



And for what reason would anyone want to alter the lives of an entire nation?



Historian Walter Mills wrote the following about the purpose of the war and about Colonel House's basic intent: "The Colonel's sole justification for preparing such a batch of blood for his countrymen was his hope of establishing a new world order, [a world government] of peace and security...."



The Real Cause of WW2

The Second World War was foreseen to originate between Great Britain and Germany. However, one of the planned results of this war was to strengthen the new Communist Russian government, so that it could weaken and destroy other governments and religions.

History again records that the Second World War did indeed accomplish this objective. The war started when Germany invaded Poland, causing Great Britain to declare war on Germany. Very soon, the troika (3's) of powers were set up to wage this war. Germany, Italy and Japan vs. Great Britain, United States and Russia.


The Pike vision of the Second World War building Russian Communism into a super power was fulfilled to a startling degree. Historians have always been mystified as to how Churchill and Roosevelt could have given away all of Eastern Europe to the Soviets, when the preponderance of power was clearly against the Soviets. Clearly, when Roosevelt and Churchill ceded all of Eastern Europe to Russia, the Communist Government of Russia, completed its transition to a super power, exactly as Pike's vision had foretold.







The Real Cause of WW3

The Third World War was foreseen to be between Judaism and Islam. This prediction is incredible in many ways, beginning with the understanding that this prediction of a third world war occurred in 1870, a time when Israel did not exist as a nation, and when no one believed it would ever exist again.



The vision predicted that out of the smoke and destruction of this World War, a new leader will stride triumphantly, to put an end to the War, and to finally give the embattled world "Peace and Safety".



Interestingly, to back up this prediction, a report was released in December 1996 by The U.S. House of Representatives' Task Force On Terrorism And Unconventional Warfare. It was entitled, 'Approaching the New Cycle of Arab-Israeli Fighting'. In brief, the report tells us that such nations as Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt are planning and building for a final, devastating war of annihilation against Israel. This includes acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (NBC) in a mix with conventional weapons, e.g. tanks, aircraft, and soldiers, all in massive, overwhelming numbers." [P. 43]



WW1 Ended

11:00 November 11, 1918

WW2 Ended

September 2, 1945

WW3 Ended

Only time will tell...



Duration of WW1

4 years, 3 months and 14 days

Duration of WW2

6 years and 1 day

Duration of WW3

Only time will tell...



Casualties in WW1
Germany 1,800,000
Soviet Union 1,700,000
France 1,385,000
Austria 1,200,000
Great Britain 947,000
Japan 800,000
Romania 750,000
Serbia 708,000
Italy 460,000
Turkey 325,000
Belgium 267,000
Greece 230,000
USA 137,000
Portugal 100,000
Bulgaria 88,000
Montenegro 50,000
TOTAL 10,947,000



Casualties in WW2
Soviet Union 25,568,000
China 11,324,000
Germany 7,060,000
Poland 6,850,000
Japan 1,806,000
Yugoslavia 1,700,000
Rumania 985,000
France 810,000
USA 495,000
Austria 480,000
Italy 410,000
Great Britain 388,000
Holland 250,000
Belgium 85,000
Finland 79,000
Canada 42,000
India 36,000
Australia 29,000
Albania 28,000
Spain 22,000
Bulgaria 21,000
New Zealand 12,000
Norway 10,000
South Africa 9,000
Luxembourg 5,000
Denmark 4,000
TOTAL 58,508,000



Casualties in WW3

If the World Trade Center attack on September 11 2001 is considered the trigger required to start World War 3, a total of 3,000 should be added to the figures below.



Source: www.september11victims.com





The death count (of mainly Iraqi civilians) so far, updated daily.





Source: www.iraqbodycount.org.



Get the latest allied fatality count since the invasion of Baghdad here (845 as of April 30, 2004).


Financial Cost of WW1

$196.5 billion (adjusted for 1990 dollar values)



Source: www.cwc.lsu.edu

Financial Cost of WW2

$2,091.3 billion (adjusted for 1990 dollar values)



Source: www.cwc.lsu.edu

Financial Cost of WW3

$118,622,645,214
To see more details, click here.



Some sources estimate it at $100 billion.



Source: www.taxpayer.net



Countries Involved in WW1



Australia

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Canada

France

Germany

Great Britain

Greece

India

Italy

Japan

Montenegro

New Zealand

Poland

Portugal

Rhodesia

Romania

Russia

Serbia

South Africa

Turkey

United States


Countries Involved in WW2



Albania, Algeria

Australia

Austria, Belgium, Borneo

Bulgaria

Burma, Canada, Ceylon

Chile, China

Congo, Cuba

Czechoslovakia

Denmark, Egypt

Eritrea, Ethiopia

Finland, France

Germany, Gibraltar

Great Britain

Greece, Grenada

Gilbert Islands

Hong Kong, Hungary, India

Iraq, Israel

Italy

Japan, Korea, Malaya

Malta, Marshall Islands

Morocco, Netherlands

New Guinea, New Zealand

Nicaragua, Norway

Pakistan, Palestine

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Sicily, Singapore

Solomon Islands

Somalia, South Africa

Soviet Union, Spain

Sweden, Switzerland

Syria, Thailand, Tunisia

Turkey

United States

Vietnam, Yugoslavia



Countries Involved in WW3

So far, including suggested benefit:



Albania: hopes to join NATO.

Australia: reinforcing ties with US.

Bahrain: cementing security ties with US.

Bulgaria: pending NATO membership.

Croatia: hopes to join NATO.

Czech Republic: reinforcing ties with US.

Denmark: reinforcing ties with US and NATO.

Egypt: extra US aid.

Estonia: pending NATO membership.

Great Britain: No immediate benefit, but part of a long running doctrine that the interests of the UK are best served by maintaining a 'special relationship' with the US.

Hungary: strengthening ties with US.

Italy: strengthening ties with US.

Jordan: military and economic aid.

Kuwait: strengthening security ties with US.

Latvia: pending NATO membership.

Lithuania: pending NATO membership.

Macedonia: hopes to join NATO.

Oman: regional security.

Poland: Will Poland's president be NATO's next Secretary-General?

Portugal: strengthening ties with US.

Qatar: strengthening ties with US.

Romania: strengthening ties with US.

Saudi Arabia: strengthening ties between Saudi security forces and the US.

Slovenia: pending NATO membership.

Slovakia: pending NATO membership.

Spain: strengthening ties with US.

Turkey: position has never been clear, and £9.4bn in aid now in doubt.

United Arab Emirates: regional security

United States: leading the fight against 'axis of evil'



Source: Guardian Unlimited



Countries critical of Iraq War:

Canada, France, Germany, Russia (were all banned from bidding for reconstruction programs in Iraq), Chile, New Zealand, Syria.

Leaders Involved in WW1

Alexandre Millerand, Andrew Bonar Law, Antonio Salandra, Aristide Briand, Arthur Balfour, Arthur Henderson, Arthur Ponsonby, Benito Mussolini, Charles Trevelyan, David Lloyd George, Dragutin Dimitrijevic, E. D. Morel, Edouard Daladier, Edouard Herriot, Edouard Vaillant, Eduard Benes, Edward House, Eleftherios Venizelos, Frederick Smith, Gaston Doumergue, George Barnes, George Lansbury, Georges Clemenceau, Giacomo Matteotti, Giovanni Giolitti, Henry Cabot Lodge, Herbert Asquith, Herbert Samuel, James Keir Hardie, James Thomas, Jan Smuts, Jean Jaurés, John Burns, John Morley, Joseph Caillaux, Joseph Clynes, Jules Guesde, King Albert I, King Carol, King Ferdinand, King Peter, Leon Blum, Leon Trotsky, Louis Botha, Louis Malvy, Newton Baker, Nikola Pasic, Paul Painleve, Philip Snowden, Pierre Laval, Radomir Putnik, Ramsay MacDonald, Raymond Poincare, Rene Viviani, Richard Haldane, Robert Borden, Robert Lansing, Sir Edward Grey, Theodore Roosevelt, Tomas Masaryk, Tsar Nicholas II, Victor Emmanuel III, Vittorio Orlando, Vladimir Lenin, W. M. Hughes, Walter Lippmann, Weetman Pearson, Wilfred Laurier, Will Crooks, William Joynson-Hicks, William Massey, William Taft, William Wedgwood Benn, Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson.

Leaders Involved in WW2

Adolf Hitler, Albert Lebrun, Andrei Vyshinsky, Antonio Gramsci, Antonio Salazar, Archibald MacLeish, Benito Mussolini, Carl Mannerheim, Chaim Weizmann, Chaing Kai-Shek, Charles De Gaulle, Clement Attlee, Constantin von Neurath, Drazha Mihailovic, Edouard Daladier, Emperor Hirohito, Engelbert Dollfuss, Farouk I, Francesco Nitti, Francisco Franco, Francois Mitterrand, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Franz Epp, Franz von Papen, Fumimaro Kondoye, Galaezzo Ciano, George II of Greece, George Mandel, Georgy Malenkov, Harold Macmillan, Harry Hopkins, Harry S. Truman, Heinrich Himmler, Henri Giraud, Herman Ehrhardt, Hermann Goering, Hideki Tojo, Invanoe Bonomi, John Anderson, John Foster Dulles, John J. McCloy, Joseph Goebbels, Joseph Stalin, Josip Tito, Kantaro Suzuki, Karl Doenitz, Kiichiro Hiranuma, Kimmochi Saionju, Lord Halifax, Lord Woolton, Matyas Rakos, Maurice Thorez, Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan, Naruhiko Higashikuni, Neville Chamberlain, Nikita Khrushchev, Nikolai Bulganin, Pius XI, Pius XII, Queen Wilhelmina, Reinhard Heydrich, Rudolf Hess, Samuel Hoare, Sepp Dietrich, Shigenori Togo, Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, Victor Emmanuel III, Vittorio Orlando, Vyacheslav Molotov, Winston Churchill, Wladyslaw Raczkiewicz, Wladyslaw Sikorski, Yosuke Matsuoka.

Leaders Involved in WW3

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair


http://www.threeworldwars.com/introduction...ial-history.htm (http://www.threeworldwars.com/introduction-to-conspiratorial-history.htm)

monkeydust
19th June 2004, 10:38
Sorry..but I find it insulting for you to compare the imperialist war in Iraq with two major conflicts, in which millions died for far more admirable reasons.

Iraq was not World War 3, sorry to dissapoint.

gaf
19th June 2004, 12:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 10:38 AM
Sorry..but I find it insulting for you to compare the imperialist war in Iraq with two major conflicts, in which millions died for far more admirable reasons.

Iraq was not World War 3, sorry to dissapoint.
no offences done ,man .Since i said i like to see differents point of view,does not mean it's mine.I' m just a curious man.I reapeat it' s not my view.
and an other bodycount of American imperilism agression since the end of wwII,could be high.it is to believe that the count is 8.000.000 dead and still rising

Wiesty
19th June 2004, 13:46
what the hell
there is no world war 3
there a are a few countries at war
but for it to be a world war almost the entire world has to fight or supply their allies with equipment.

hence the name "WORLD" War

Wiesty
19th June 2004, 13:49
o also and in a world war we'd have thousands, millions of casualties
The Coalition forces have maybe at max lost 100 soldiers

bunk
19th June 2004, 14:22
Coalition forces have actually lost 845 troops. I don't think that this is a world war but it could be the start of an episode where the U.S takes on a lot of countries.
I think the cold war was WW3.

gaf
19th June 2004, 14:36
thanks for debating ,it could be however the begining of something big.like the spanish civil war was.

gaf
19th June 2004, 14:50
yet an other way to see this war http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/American%20Intifadah.htm

THE AMERICAN INTIFADAH
______________



The United States of America has done something only the 1920-1930 British Government accomplished. Unified Iraq. This does not surprise this writer at all, the American political machine and the American military are going down the path of no return in Iraq--a path that is well known in the Middle East for the last forty-eight years. Just ask the Sharon Government in Tel Aviv.

The current Bush Administration is creating a new American INTIFADAH. America should have learned from the experience that the British Middle East forces had after World War One. The Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ite joined forces to throw out the imperial British military. History is now repeating itself and we are the witnesses to this historical event. This is not good for America nor is it positive for the Middle East.

The Bush Administration has created a new Iraqi political and cultural unified front. Sunni, Shi'ites, and Kurds are now one, fighting against another western invader just like the 1930 British Iraqi government. It is making unification of this diverse Moslem country easier.

The first question Americans should ask. Are these military actions creating a politically divided Iraq? If one can remember the war in the Balkans fifteen years ago it was a united Yugoslavia that became divided into many small political entities. The same could be happening in Iraq. The northwest would belong to the KURDS, in the west SUNNI, and in the southeast would be SHI'ITE. This could be the future of Iraq if this war continues.

Many military and political mistakes have been made within last few weeks. These mistakes can be viewed as the epitome of political bloopers. Reports of raped Iraqi woman and pictures of nude Iraqi men have inflamed the entire Moslem world from Indonesia to Morocco and from Belgium to Canada. Last week people all over the world saw pictures of an Iraqi soldier with a hood over his head and electrical wires attached to his fingers and toes. Needless to say if you saw these pictures they were very disconcerting.

The Iraqi fighters counter days later with the beheading of an American worker. This unwarranted violence just escalates with each inhuman act. These acts are similar to what happened in Palestine within the last forty-eight years.

America the defender of freedom, the defenders of human rights, land of liberty, justice, and freedom; but some of American's best committed war crimes against Iraqi prisoners. This is not new, war is a very ugly business and sometimes people get out of control. Americans should have learned this from Viet Nam War. The questions should be where did the orders come from and who knew about these orders.

There are eleven other reasons why this war is politically incorrect and should end as soon as possible.

1. When this war started two years ago the Coalition forces did not capture any arms from the retreating and surrendering Republican Guards. These arms are now being used in every Iraqi City against American and British Forces. Road ambushes are now commonplace day and night. Anybody with any kind of fighting experience or common military sense could have prevented or limited these on going attacks.

2. The United States refused to heed the advice of the United Nations two years ago; A request was made not to invade Iraq. Most of the world did not want Baghdad to be involved in another war. Two years later the Bush-Blair Administrations want and need the aid of the United Nations in Iraq.

3. The Bush-Blair administrations formed an Iraqi Coalition Government. They did not ask the people of Iraq nor did the population of Iraq have any vote (say) in this new provincial government. The Bush-Blair Administrations selected Iraqi's that were pro-western which created conflict within the state of Iraq.

4. The Western Coalition wanted a Western style of government not an Islamic Cleric State. Something the religious Mullahs and Imam's refuse to recognize. The new radical leader Mullah al-Sadr, in the Holy City of Karbala has stated time and time again that Iraq is a Moslem state. We cannot forget this. It would be the same if an invading force came to America and told the American government we are no longer a Christian State. Everything with GOD on it must be removed. The reaction would be the same in American streets.

We are requesting the changing of the Iraqi flag and deleting the phrase "God is Great", from the new flag. The new national Iraqi flag does not contain the three basic Moslem Holy colors of Red, Green, and Black. Is this a subtle censure against Islam by the Bush and Blair Administrations?

5. The reason given for the war with Iraqi was the search to find (WMD) Weapons of Mass Destruction. It has been over one and a half years now and these weapons have yet to be found. The American people should be asking where are they or better yet, did they ever exist in the first place? This fact was the main reason the Bush-Blair Administrations wanted to invade Iraq. Was this a war for President George W. Bush to avenge his father's assassination attempt by Iraqi individuals on Saudi Arabian soil, or is this a war to acquire future oil supplies for the western world?

6. The coalition stated that once Saddam was captured the Iraqi army would stop fighting and create a free Iraq. Saddam Hussein was captured in early April. The fighting continued. Saddam son's were surrounded and killed in January in a bitter firefight that lasted all day, and the fighting continued. The statue of Saddam in the City of Baghdad was dismantled amongst the crowd cheering Iraqi's. One year later, these same crowds are throwing (RPG's), Rocket Propelled Grenades, rocks, and bullets at coalition troops. The fighting has just gotten much worse in the Sunni triangle and the Cities of Fallujah, Najaf, and Tikrit.

7. The American people should be questioning the use of force in Iraq. President Bush stood on a battle ship with a big sign stating MISSION ACOMPLISHED one year ago.

Sorry Mr. President, it looks like it is not over yet. We are at the beginning of a long drawn out conflict, one that may never end.

8. The Bush Administration had to be dragged into last months congressional hearings in Washington on Iraq. Security Council Dr. Rice and other Bush Administrators were reluctant to give information in the investigations. The administration held firm until the American Public outcry became a deafening noise. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dr. Rice, Rumsfield, Vice President Chaney, and President Bush all testified to the Committee.

9. The Bush-Blair Administrations have stated time and time again that they want moderate Moslem states in the Middle East. They want an Islamic Reform Republic with a Western style of government. Many Americans are having problems with a Christian state telling a Moslem State what it can be. The question should be asked. "Are we (The United States) headed for an American INTIFADAH in the Middle East"? Will we replicate the Israeli form of governmental problems over Palestine in Iraq? Could America be simulating the Jewish State? Will we see suicide bombers daily, against the coalition, British, and American forces? Will we see the blowing up of American trains, planes, and buildings? It could happen. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans no longer protect America. The new INTIFIDAH could exist on American shores.

10. When American and Coalition troops are captured by Iraqi forces in combat the Bush-Blair Administrations want these individuals to be treated with the Geneva Conventions rules and regulations of war. But when American forces capture Iraqi forces the Bush-Blair Administrations call these individuals willing combatants not in accordance to the same Geneva Conventions rules of war. Sorry, Mr. President and Prime Minister Blair you can't have it both ways.

The Bush and Blair Administrations have sent messages to Syria, Iran, India, Pakistan, and Libya that no Moslem nation should ever possess Nuclear Weapons. These two new western super powers have warned Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Chad about electing radical Moslems, Radical Imams, or Radical Clerics. If these Moslem States elect these so called radicals the western powers would intercede and change that government by force if necessary.

11. This valid political threat comes directly from the political leadership of the United States and Great Britain. It sounds like a very masterful and deceptive way of trying to re-colonize the whole Middle East region. It may well be a way to make the Middle East emulate the Western World. THIS IS THE NEW AMERICAM INTIFADAH !

The Bush and Blair administrations should understand that not everybody wants to walk, talk, think, dress, speak, or pray like the Western World. The Western world might not be the best thing for some people yet it is apparent that these powerful leaders cannot see this.

THAT IS THE GRAYLINE !

Pawn Power
19th June 2004, 15:53
if their is a third world war it will be with china and the US

Wiesty
19th June 2004, 15:56
the cold war?
the cold war was just a huge staring contest between the caps and the commies. All they did was build missles and threaten each other
nothing really ever happened.

gaf
19th June 2004, 16:05
response to glory
then it would be an old saying of napoleon ,china sleeps but this giant will one day awake,
and you may be right glory this is an economic war going on,the rest could be a diversion.

The Children of the Revolution
19th June 2004, 17:00
the cold war?
the cold war was just a huge staring contest between the caps and the commies. All they did was build missles and threaten each other
nothing really ever happened.


You really think so? I don't see how you could be more wrong! Of course the Americans and the Soviets never actually fired the missiles at each other - otherwise none of us would be around today. But they fought each other, unofficially, in a great many conflicts.

Besides, why does a War have to be physical? Ideas and ideologies can battle for supremacy too.

Wiesty
19th June 2004, 17:36
either way it was russia vs u.s.a and thats only 2 countries
hence the name world! war

gaf
19th June 2004, 18:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:36 PM
either way it was russia vs u.s.a and thats only 2 countries
hence the name world! war
calm calm man !world war is a global war who does not only have this root in the way of making war with nations but also is economic in a global view and a way to achieve it .i also think that the time when people RADICALY choose for an idea is a world war ,and we can see the premice of it.
also i already said to you ,ww3 was not my idea(and the representation of it neitheir) just a good topic to think about.
so fuck the hence the world!war question
i give you my view now give me yours.

Mr. White
19th June 2004, 19:11
Iceland is missing in the list with the country's involved in Word war 2 and in "World war 3"

But this thread is indeed a little strange :huh:

gaf
19th June 2004, 19:40
Originally posted by Mr. [email protected] 19 2004, 07:11 PM
Iceland is missing in the list with the country's involved in Word war 2 and in "World war 3"

But this thread is indeed a little strange :huh:
why?

bunk
19th June 2004, 19:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:36 PM
either way it was russia vs u.s.a and thats only 2 countries
hence the name world! war
Vietnam, Korea, Angola....... the list goes on of 'hot wars' in the cold war.

James
19th June 2004, 20:07
and no it wasn't just those two countries either.

Mr. White
19th June 2004, 22:15
Well there hasn't been a third world war, but if there would be a third world war it would not be America and Iraq. It would be America and South-Korea.

Terroism is in it self a war, but not a world war.

"i don't know how the third world war is goint to fought, but i know that the forth world war will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Albert Einstein

James
19th June 2004, 22:24
the "war on terror" has been commited for so many many years. Obviously there has been a recent "push" by the bush admin. But I'd still describe it more as a general foreign policy; most admins need a catchy name for their policies which make them seem different from all previous president's policies etc.

Wiesty
19th June 2004, 22:40
i think if there ever is a ww3 it will be the final communist offensive.
the last battal between the caps and commies.
if america were to win communism would die
if cuba, china etc. would win capatilism would die

Wiesty
19th June 2004, 22:42
o and any communist/alagarchy supporters vs. and capatilist supporters

Wiesty
19th June 2004, 22:43
lol sorry for spamming just keep on thinking of new things

it would be like a world wide-oversized vietnam conflict

Pawn Power
20th June 2004, 04:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 04:05 PM
response to glory
then it would be an old saying of napoleon ,china sleeps but this giant will one day awake,
and you may be right glory this is an economic war going on,the rest could be a diversion.
i will start a new thread with my theories on this. And you are right it is heavly economic. But most wars are.

Wenty
20th June 2004, 11:32
only a fool or a drunk would try and call the war on terror 'World War 3' and actually believe it is comparable to the huge, unimaginable amount of death and destruction seen in the ww1 and 2.

James
20th June 2004, 17:35
my money is on: "related-to-China"

synthesis
22nd June 2004, 06:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 08:56 AM
the cold war?
the cold war was just a huge staring contest between the caps and the commies. All they did was build missles and threaten each other
nothing really ever happened.
It was way more than that, dude. Almost every political upheaval in the past 50 years was funded either by the Americans or the Soviets, basically in a puppet-government form of one of those old boardgames (the name will come to me). And like both the other World Wars, they were often used as an excuse to perform some incredible atrocities.

Look up Patrice Lumumba, the entire Cuban episode, Jacobo Arbenz, El Salvador and Oscar Romero, Soviet rule in Afghanistan, the crimes of the Contras, the botched assassination attempt on Moammar Qadhafi, the 1988 Navy massacre of Iranian airline passengers, Grenada, the Greek Civil War, Salvadore Allende, Jose Figueres, the war on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, American suppression of Thai insurgents, the installation of General Suharto in Indonesia, Joao Goulert, Cheddi Jagan, General Abdul Karim Kassem, American subversion of democracy in Italy, France, and the Philippines, poisoning Bikini Atoll, the Korean War, the two failed attempts to overthrow the Syrian government, the conspiracy to overthrow Nasser, Americans landing 14,000 troops in Lebanon... I could go on. Needless to say, I think your History teacher has a little inadequacy to be owning up to.

VukBZ2005
22nd June 2004, 07:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 11:32 AM
only a fool or a drunk would try and call the war on terror 'World War 3' and actually believe it is comparable to the huge, unimaginable amount of death and destruction seen in the ww1 and 2.
World War 3 would have more horror than WWI & WW2. Trust me On That.
And you are right; a fool for a drunk would try to call the "war on terror"
World War 3.

Guerrilla22
22nd June 2004, 07:36
World war 3? Please. The War on Terror is nothing more than anexcuse for the Bush administration to consolidate power by striking fear into the minds of the guilable American public. The war on terror is no different than the red scare of the late 40's- 50's.

gaf
22nd June 2004, 19:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 04:27 AM
i will start a new thread with my theories on this. And you are right it is heavly economic. But most wars are.
they also can be geopolitics or ideologic if you(think, you) have the economic advantage or could get it

Comrade Zeke
28th June 2004, 22:06
This "War on Terror" is not a the third world war! Give me a break. Its the U.S.A. and most of the world that our its lackies fighting a band of about 10,000 Muslim Terrorists from several middle Eastern countries, North African and Indonesia its the U.S.A armed with the the most high tech whepons in the world, and the "Terrorists" are armed with Soveit Handy downs these outdated Ak-47s and Rocket Prepeled Gernades. These countries that don't suport the war Canada, France,Russia and Germany they can't do much they can't risk a world war with the U.S.A and its slave states and the "Mighty British Empire!" lol. And Spain has joined the non supporters of the war its troops pullled out I beilive.

Once again this an't the third world war! Its the Americans, British Royal Troops and Nato Lackies that our fighting this war against the 10,000 Terrirots and the Axis of evil. Iran, North Korea, Syria, and some other small dictatorships. Cuba is considered that but I dout the U.S will invade the Island. We are always fighting a war of econmy with Germany, France,Canada,and Russia. Soon many Eroupeans will grow tired of this war on terror and the Americans crapy attuidute and more states will drop out this will help unifie the Eroupean Union. NATO will be dead in 30 years...its just a U.S Lacky fighting force anyway. In the next 50 years Its going to be America, still having troops in 4 Middle Eastern countries, and the Eroupean Union holding a trade blockade against the U.S. Japan will probally take sides with Japan and China will be so powerful that nothing will stand against the Tiger in Asia.

Once again this is just a minor war leading up to the bigger cold war between the U.S.A, China, and the Eroupean Union. I intened to be living in Ireland at that time neutral in war but strong in the Eroupean Union.
sorry about spelling '
Zeke

Wiesty
2nd July 2004, 16:10
World war 3 in my opinion, would be quickly resolved

Most countries, nowadays dont have big armies, because of past wars which left there economy crushed.

There are only a few main powers like America, China, Britian
Even Germany's fallen back
For gods sake i saw a picture from world war 2 where the Danish were fighting German tanks on Horseback

And even if germany had another "Hitler" America, Canada, Britian etc. would not let him rise to power, Look at what we just did to Saddam.

And Russia, who knows, if they join the war, we could be seeing another hiroshima,

If russia decided to crush the Germans, Nazi if it were to happen in WW3, the would just drop their "Tzar" Bomb (4 times greater than the big boy bomb) and destroy like that hole area of europe.

The allied offences have enough weapons, resources to easily take out any opposing countries

LuZhiming
3rd July 2004, 03:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 03:56 PM
the cold war?
the cold war was just a huge staring contest between the caps and the commies. All they did was build missles and threaten each other
nothing really ever happened.
Very interesting how accurate you really are, although that's isn't exactly what I would call a war. Contrary to the misleading arguements from other users, you're fundamentally right, the Soviets and the U.S. didn't really do much to eachother. But I would go a bit further than your claim: there was no Cold War, it was a sham. DyerMaker lists some of the supposed "Cold War" conflicts, but if you really look at them as a whole, they couldn't have possibly had anything to do with some great threat of Communism at our door or the U.S.' neverending fight against the Soviet Union. Just look at many of those examples, you will find in many of those cases, the U.S. actually did all it could to portray those governments or social movements as Soviet-supported, and in many cases forced them into the arms of the Soviets(Cuba 1960, Nicaragua 1980s, Guatemala 1950s for just a few examples) to use as an excuse to attack them. Not that I want to be a hypocrite like about 75% of the users here, the Soviets did the same thing. In Afghanistan they tried to portray Hafizullah Amin as a CIA agent to justify their invasion. The reality is, both the Soviet Union and the United States were using that fraud we call the Cold War as an excuse to attack nations it considered troublesome, namely defiant leaders and moves for social change.

Guerrilla22
3rd July 2004, 04:43
The Cold War was fought through a series of proxy wars all ver the world. To say that nothing happened would be highly inaccurate.

LuZhiming
3rd July 2004, 05:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 04:43 AM
The Cold War was fought through a series of proxy wars all ver the world. To say that nothing happened would be highly inaccurate.
Right, and I'm sure the people of Chile, Guatemala, Iran and elsewhere will tell you they were trying to become Soviet military bases all along..... Wait, no they won't. As I said, there was no such thing as a Cold War. The U.S., or the Soviet Union may say they are fighting some enemy based on ties that don't exist because of a war they claim to have existed, but it's all rubbish. It's an insult to the people of those countries to portray their social movements as a parrt of some supposed war they never wanted involvement in, or as movements to some power in a conflict they don't care about. The U.S. and the puppet imitating it had been destroying social movements from other people's long before this thing we call the Cold War began, the only difference in the period where we claim something began is that the Soviet Union and the United States had new excuses for attacking others.

Guerrilla22
3rd July 2004, 05:21
As you said, the USSR and the US became mixed up in things that didn't involve either country to begin with. More often than not the US used the excuse of Soviet interference to justify military operations that were really economically motivated.

synthesis
3rd July 2004, 05:39
Fundamentally, I don't disagree with you, LuZhiming. The Cold War really was often used as an excuse to depose governments unfriendly to the respective nations' interests, as in the obvious example of Iraq in 1963 and Chile a decade later. The thing is, without the backdrop of a much larger 'enemy', neither country would have likely found the domestic support to do such things as overthrow the government of Grenada and the like.

In summary - to dismiss the larger context of all the actions taken by the two governments and their proxies strikes me as foolhardy.

P.S. I had to take a step back to disagree with you, LuZhiming, as you are certainly among the most informed members of this board, and I am often awestruck by some of the information you are capable of drumming up.

edit: for the record, I started typing this over half an hour ago, so it was before the previous two responses.

Guerrilla22
3rd July 2004, 06:19
However, I don't think that Guatemala, Chile and Iran are not very good examples. There was no Soviet involvement in either case. The best examples are Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, even Angola and Zimbabwae involved both sides, although most of the time the actual participants were pawns, involved in a situation that really had nothing to do with either country.

LuZhiming
3rd July 2004, 06:21
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 05:39 AM
Fundamentally, I don't disagree with you, LuZhiming. The Cold War really was often used as an excuse to depose governments unfriendly to the respective nations' interests, as in the obvious example of Iraq in 1963 and Chile a decade later. The thing is, without the backdrop of a much larger 'enemy', neither country would have likely found the domestic support to do such things as overthrow the government of Grenada and the like.

In summary - to dismiss the larger context of all the actions taken by the two governments and their proxies strikes me as foolhardy.

P.S. I had to take a step back to disagree with you, LuZhiming, as you are certainly among the most informed members of this board, and I am often awestruck by some of the information you are capable of drumming up.

edit: for the record, I started typing this over half an hour ago, so it was before the previous two responses.
I knew someone was going to say this. First, your claim that the governments could not have the same domestic support for attacking small countries could be true, but only to an extent. The U.S. has been able to come up with all sorts of excuses to attack much weaker nations before and after that fraud we call the Cold War. The "International Communist Conspiracy" may have been one of the better excuses, but it's still that, an excuse. Second, I don't accept the assumptions of "proxies." In most cases, what were laughably called proxies were nothing of the sort, not in any meaningful sense at least. One could probably come up with maybe one example, like the Korean War, where the U.S. and the Soviet Union just so happened to be murdering the same people at once, but in general there was never really a conflict between the two.

The idea of a Cold War was based on two ideas, and you simply reverse 'Commuinst' with 'Capitalist' and 'Soviet Union' with 'United States' to reverse it:

1. That the U.S. was battling Communists who could eventually threaten National Security
2. That the U.S. was battling governments or guerillas spreading Soviet influence

If you look at the whole context, neither were true, so there couldn't have ever been a Cold War. Sure, there were conflicts all over the world, but there was no war between the Soviet Union and the United States in any sense, not even a proxy war. The simple point is that nothing important had really changed. U.S. terrorist attacks against Nicaragua in the 1980s were no more part of a "Cold War" than were ones in 1850, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1857, 1894, 1896, 1898, 1899, 1907, 1909, 1912, or 1926, it was all the same. It was simply a continuation of an old colonial policy. Woodrow Wilson used World War I as an excuse to crush rebels in the Dominican Republic in 1914, but that doesn't mean it really had anything to do with that war. And it applies to wherever else you want to choose, just pick a country at random.

If you really want to see how serious the powers were about Cold War, just take a look at the Civil War in Greece. In that conflict, both the United States and the Soviet Union (plus Britain), all were intervening to back the former Nazi collaborators and monarchs to prevent the progressive forces (former anti-fascist resistance fighters) from seizing power as they deserved to. Or the Iran/Iraq War, in that little conflict, both sides backed Saddam Hussein. The two nations didn't like each other, but they never had a war of any kind. I'm not saying nothing happened, but that there was not a Cold War, an accurate statement.

By the way, thanks for the kind, and rather flattering words. :)

Guerrilla22
3rd July 2004, 06:32
[QUOTE]If you look at the whole context, neither were true, so there couldn't have ever been a Cold War. Sure, there were conflicts all over the world, but there was no war between the Soviet Union and the United States in any sense, not even a proxy war

So when Soviet pilots engaged in combat with US pilots during Korea, the two nations weren't at war? When the Soviets train and arm the NVA and the VC and the US trains and arms the Mujahadin, that's not a proxy war? You aren't making a very good argument here.

LuZhiming
3rd July 2004, 06:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 06:32 AM
So when Soviet pilots engaged in combat with US pilots during Korea, the two nations weren't at war? When the Soviets train and arm the NVA and the VC and the US trains and arms the Mujahadin, that's not a proxy war? You aren't making a very good argument here.
Actually, the arguement is perfectly sound, saying the U.S. and the Soviet Union were involved in a few conflicts is hardly proving the existance of the Cold War, the Cold War was supposed to be a long conflict from 1945-1989. :rolleyes: Again, you could say the U.S. had a Cold War with Libya using flimsy examples like these(Actually, you would have a better one considering there were actually attacks on Libya itself). Your examples themselves are ridicolous, since if you actually look at the causes of them, which is how you find a motive, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea initially had nothing to do with the Soviets or vice-versa when the "conflict," started. The fact that both got themselves involved doesn't exactly amount to proof for the Cold War.

Guerrilla22
3rd July 2004, 06:57
Not necessiarily a "war" but you are trying to say that nothing happened at, which just isn't true. I also stated that these conflicts had nothing to do with either side, initially, hence the term "proxy" ;) To say that there was no motivation behind Korea, Vietnam, or Afghanistan would also be false. If there wasn't a motivation, then why did both sides get involved? Just for the sake of having something to do? Again, your argument falls short.

nakba
3rd July 2004, 19:47
"I do not know what weapons will be used in a third world war, but the fourth shall be made with sticks and rocks." Einstein

LuZhiming
6th July 2004, 18:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 06:57 AM
Not necessiarily a "war" but you are trying to say that nothing happened at, which just isn't true. I also stated that these conflicts had nothing to do with either side, initially, hence the term "proxy" ;) To say that there was no motivation behind Korea, Vietnam, or Afghanistan would also be false. If there wasn't a motivation, then why did both sides get involved? Just for the sake of having something to do? Again, your argument falls short.
:rolleyes: My arguement would seem to fall short after listening to your description of it, but thankfully the description you have given is false. Saying that I claimed "nothing happened," is unfounded, I said there was no Cold War. That's quite a difference. The term proxy does hint that those conflicts did have something to do with both sides, just that the two powers didn't actually fight eachother. It only takes a glance at the beginning of the Vietnam "conflict," which was nothing more than an independence movement, to realize that the term proxy is absurd, the war never started that way. Once again, I didn't say there was "no motivation" for those wars, just that the motivations you hint at are false. The motivations were, at simplest, to exploit other nations or other people's. They both accidently got involved in the same conflict, and it is also true of Afghanistan and Korea. Please don't tell me my arguement falls short after basing it on your own inserts and assumptions about it. You will be hard-pressed to find a quote of me saying there was no motivation, no reason, or that nothing happened. You as of yet do not have an arguement, since this entire post is literally based on false accusations, and not based on anything I have said.

Guerrilla22
7th July 2004, 12:31
[QUOTE]realize that the term proxy is absurd, the war never started that way. Once again, I didn't say there was "no motivation" for those wars, just that the motivations you hint at are false. The motivations

I'm not suggesting that any of these conflicts were started by either the Soviets or the US in the name of promoting ideology, nor am I saying that the stated reasoning behind cold war activities were actually to prevent communism or imperialism, what I am saying is that eventually both sides did end up getting involved in conflicts that were in fact merely independence movements, however there still was large involvement by both sides in numerous instances, this cannot be argued.

kami888
23rd July 2004, 04:25
You might not believe me, but most of present day russians officialy say that cold war was the WW3. About the future wars they are already thinking as WW4...

And please, don't tell me only USSR and USA were involved in war, almost every single country in the world was at least somehow affected by the cold war.

This is what i once saw on some russian site and saved it on my comp:

imperator
5th August 2004, 07:17
if the iraqi "war" is a world war, then so is every other minor skirmish ever in history.

Lacrimi de Chiciură
7th August 2004, 19:54
If you think about it, pretty much all wars since the assination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand can be linked back to that.