Bitcoin Forum

What do you think about this?

Bush will be appointed as the governor, I guess...

Why Bush?

However, someone in the US might be crazy enough to think that this time a blitzkrieg against Russia will surely succeed...

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

There will be hawks everywhere, not only in the US. Some military leaders tend to over-estimate their strength and under-estimate their rivals military strength. Napoleon did it in 1812, and Hitler did it in 1939. Next in the list will be some American politician.

And what year do you think will it be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvKucpTckjA
What do you think about this?

No.. I dont believe this a bit.

It's a first step on the way to creation of the North American Federal District.

Ha!  That was good.

But really, I do feel sorry for any dumb American military kid who dies for a banker.  In this age of information, there is no excuse for that kind of stupidity.  I still feel sorry for them.

Not going to happen. Wars need popular support. Average Americans would not support another war any where.

Not going to happen. Wars need popular support. Average Americans would not support another war any where. The outcry over getting involved in Syria was a great example of that.

The US government has control over all mainstream media outlets. How do you think the public would not support war?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvKucpTckjA
What do you think about this?

Horseshit.

Yes.

We are all lead to believe anything beyond the US border are evil.

And being a good Christian, it is our duty to eradicate the evil.

I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

The main question is: will there be anyone reckless/stupid/self-righteous enough to put such a scenario into action.

No one is asking you to believe any of it. You can watch those crappy NATO-backed news channels such as CNBC, CNN, and BBC. Anyone with some commonsense will agree with what was shown in the RT.

I'll continue to watch RT, just not that one show.  They can continue to make out like the US is the only government in the history of the world ever to have ever considered a first strike against another nation if that's what gets their viewing figures up by attracting drooling tinfoil-hat-wearing crackpots.  But anyone giving it even the slightest amount of rational thought is going to recognise that every single country with a nuclear arsenal has made similar plans of their own.  No one sits on a pile of nukes without some sort of idea on what they plan on doing with them.   No one's plan involves getting wiped out before firing a shot.  Sure, the US are probably the biggest warmongering profiteers on the planet, but they're not the only ones.  If you believe otherwise, then way to buy into some lame propaganda.

I would like to think they are smarter then that, and if WW3 breaks out see you Holland im off to Aruba!!!

Lol... what makes you think that Holland will be safe in the event of a likely World War? The Netherlands is a full-fledged member of NATO. Aruba is a colony of the Netherlands, and therefore it too comes under the NATO umbrella.

Lol... what makes you think that Holland will be safe in the event of a likely World War? The Netherlands is a full-fledged member of NATO. Aruba is a colony of the Netherlands, and therefore it too comes under the NATO umbrella.

It's quite unlikely that the US would launch a first strike. They are in no position to. The only way this could happen is total insanity officially occurs in American's. That is a threat but the WORLD isn't allowing this to happen.

The United States remains as the only country which has ever used nukes against a civilian population (1945, Japan). And I am quite sure that if there is a second time, it will be the same perpetrators.

Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

Whether this can or can't happen is a matter of power and the US is in the process of loosing its world dominating power, namely the number one spot in the world economy. How far will they go to avoid loosing that? This is the worlds most militarised nation and wars are vital to their economy. Imho that was a large part of the reason for wanting to attack Syria, the US economy is facing collapse and desperately needs another war and the public backlash over Syria has made that situation more even more desperate.

The internet has given the world a voice and a means of avoiding propaganda, the old tried and tested means of control aren't as effective any more. Even Bitcoin has seriously threatened that power, its a poxy little 10 billion cap but the genie's out of the bottle and central banking's days are numbered. The only way of putting those genie's back in the bottle is boarders on communications between nations and the most effective way of achieving that is turning nations into enemies. I really hope that's just the tinfoil hat doing the thinking but those that forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them and history has many examples of powers corruption.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.

Because to finish the war we would have had to invade Japan and even their civilians were training for combat. We would have lost millions more allied troops and eradicated 90% of the population of Japan to end a way they started. That is the kind of thing you get when politics and religion are mixed in such a way.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.

Because to finish the war we would have had to invade Japan and even their civilians were training for combat. We would have lost millions more allied troops and eradicated 90% of the population of Japan to end a way they started. That is the kind of thing you get when politics and religion are mixed in such a way.

If anyone is stupid enough to make a nuclear first strike it will be North Korea, Pakistan, or India. I was going to include Israel, but they are more likely to use chemical.

I don't think we need to fear one stupid nation using a nuclear weapon.

I disagree with you. We need to fear one stupid nation / ruler capable of doing that. Sometimes mentally deranged people commit suicide after killing  large number of people. Such cases can't be ignored.

Every one of these individuals has the same interest: power

It is extremely unlikely that the US or Russia will directly attack each other. The current conflict will likely be similar to the cold war in that we "fought" to have the best military technology, spied on each other and funded groups/countries that was hostile to groups/countries that was hostile to the other.