Where will WWIII start? - Page 5




View Poll Results :Where do you think WWIII will start?
China/Taiwan 11 24.44%
Korea 4 8.89%
Eastern Europe 4 8.89%
Isreal/Palestine 5 11.11%
North Africa 1 2.22%
Russia 0 0%
Western Europe 2 4.44%
India/Pakistan 4 8.89%
South America 0 0%
Other 14 31.11%
Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
February 2nd, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
I think this needs another breakoff thread. I'll go make one about conventional wars and going nuclear.
February 2nd, 2005  
OutcastHuman
 
I think it will start in Isreal and Palestine. Otherwise I thought China/Taiwan. The reason i see it happening in Isreal/Palestine is that as we moved forward in peace talks we have also had more fighting. Even the death of major players in the conflict hasn't brought any change to the region. Isreal doesn't want to give up its lands, Palestine wants a country and soon other neighboring nations will be drawn in like Eygpt and Lebanon like they were before. If they are drawn in again this time they won't leave so easily and then all of the Middle East will be drawn in cutting most of the worlds oil drawing everyone else into it.
February 2nd, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Lebanon I can buy into, but Egpyt? I'm not so sure they'll revert back to their crazed aggression bid anytime soon. But you never know who's at the helm...

Though even with Egypt, the arab nations must make strives to improve their military- as they stand now.... the war wouldn't last long.

But I agree, if WW3 were to happen, the middle-east will be involved.
--
Boots
February 2nd, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
The growing security tensions within the Middle East is currently well known and will continue to escalate to a Global Crisis where Irrational Militant groups become more powerful and threatening to civilian populations around the world. These underground movements have already demonstrated their capabilities and the world responds.
February 2nd, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
You're a regular little ray of sunshine aren't you Cabal? These militant groups are becoming, if anything, less powerful as they are defeated time after time and as their power base becomes more and more crippled both in manpower, logistics, and economics. But hey, you go preach all the gloom and doom you want. Seems to be your mantra.
February 2nd, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
You're a regular little ray of sunshine aren't you Cabal? These militant groups are becoming, if anything, less powerful as they are defeated time after time and as their power base becomes more and more crippled both in manpower, logistics, and economics. But hey, you go preach all the gloom and doom you want. Seems to be your mantra.
not so, there are plenty of groups and middle east countries supporting militant groups, also they do not have a permanat base therefore it is very hard to track and destroy, even if u destroy one, they can always form another easily. militant way of skirmish style is very effective, even if the UN and US wouldnt be able to eliminate them. since any body can be a militia, the only why you can stop it is to eradicate the whole middle east populations.

as you can see, the US and the UK is trying very hard to cope in iraq, it proves have effective their campaigne are.
February 3rd, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingerbeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
You're a regular little ray of sunshine aren't you Cabal? These militant groups are becoming, if anything, less powerful as they are defeated time after time and as their power base becomes more and more crippled both in manpower, logistics, and economics. But hey, you go preach all the gloom and doom you want. Seems to be your mantra.
not so, there are plenty of groups and middle east countries supporting militant groups, also they do not have a permanat base therefore it is very hard to track and destroy, even if u destroy one, they can always form another easily. militant way of skirmish style is very effective, even if the UN and US wouldnt be able to eliminate them. since any body can be a militia, the only why you can stop it is to eradicate the whole middle east populations.

as you can see, the US and the UK is trying very hard to cope in iraq, it proves have effective their campaigne are.
... as the Iraqi election showed, they aren't very strong right now. Hardly any attacks at all. But no, the only way to stop it is to spread and support free and/or honest governments, so these factions aren't allowed to function freely.
February 3rd, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingerbeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
You're a regular little ray of sunshine aren't you Cabal? These militant groups are becoming, if anything, less powerful as they are defeated time after time and as their power base becomes more and more crippled both in manpower, logistics, and economics. But hey, you go preach all the gloom and doom you want. Seems to be your mantra.
not so, there are plenty of groups and middle east countries supporting militant groups, also they do not have a permanat base therefore it is very hard to track and destroy, even if u destroy one, they can always form another easily. militant way of skirmish style is very effective, even if the UN and US wouldnt be able to eliminate them. since any body can be a militia, the only why you can stop it is to eradicate the whole middle east populations.

as you can see, the US and the UK is trying very hard to cope in iraq, it proves have effective their campaigne are.
... as the Iraqi election showed, they aren't very strong right now. Hardly any attacks at all. But no, the only way to stop it is to spread and support free and/or honest governments, so these factions aren't allowed to function freely.
no, in fact, terrorism suffer under a dictator or a communist gov. it cant survive in those governments, it can survive only if the gov allows it, like afgan during taliban. in democracy, terrorism can survive and grow, like there is IRA attacks in london, attack on US. but do u see any big attacks during saddam and china? democratic gov gives terrorists to fuction freely. if u thinka bout it then u will know why.

no, the iraqi election happened dun mean there is not enough attacks, there is at least 250 attacks each day from a western source, and i dun think that's a low number. they cannot attack voters because US troops were protecting them. and those so call "terrorists" dun mass attack since they cannot beat US troops head to head. and they know this. is like vietnamese didnt deny US attacks, but rather warn them out then push them back. just like they are doing now, wearing the US troops down and look, bush is saying US troops will withdraw.
February 3rd, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Yeah sure fine whatever. Guess I'll get my communist party badge and stick my head in the sand till the world blows up.
February 3rd, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Yeah sure fine whatever. Guess I'll get my communist party badge and stick my head in the sand till the world blows up.
thanks for your educated comments, u might as well not reply.
if u have a brain to think, u will know why. look at Hitler, how many resistance he stamps out? they arent called terrorists but rather rebels, but they are the same thing. look at Stalin, how many opponents he killed. (maybe abit too much) how the heck do u think terrorism can survive in these country huh? terrorism cannot survive due to the lack of freedom and the ruthlessness of treating things by the gov. if u carry on being so anti something without giving rational comments, u might as well dun reply, wastes time for ppl reading ur posts.

oh? why not add a facism badge and stick that on ur head too, u might as well. u got to remember ur country just as brain wash you into hystrical anti-communism too. so u cannot accuse ppl having so call propaganda just because u think u have so call "free press"