The beginning of WW3 is about to start right now.

[BADecker]

In my opinion, WW 3 started right after WW II, with ''cold war'' between USA and Russia, USSR at that time.
We had luck that this war didn't become ''hot'' or real war and now I think we have WW 4, between radical Islam and Western world.

My understanding is similar to this. The difference that I might have is the dividing line between WW3 and WW4.

There will come a time when Jesus will return and fight evil, with force this time. The question I have is, will there be a great enough difference in between the time of your "cold war," and the war that Jesus fights, to say that the in-between is WW4, and that the war of Jesus is WW5?

It matters to me. I wish all this fighting didn't have to be. But it is prophesied in the Bible. So, it will take place. Our arbitrary divisions between the battles and the wars will be completely unimportant when Jesus finally ushers in peace. It and He are coming soon.

[Gronthaing]

Austria didn't plan a world war. There were many wars in the region for several years before ww1. The year before, 2 years before, etc. And it was like that in many other places in europe too. But no one predicted that last war would affect so many countries. Not sure about hitler planning a world war either. But don't know about that for sure.

Yes Austria always wanted to conquer Serbia back then so war was most likely inevitable, it was a royal dispute that went back decades between different royal houses. What they didnt calculate that was the other superowers would join, because they wanted a piece of something too. They just needed a trigger, because they already wanted war.

In ww2 hitler wanted to expand germany and its influences from the start, and you can hardly do that without war. It's not like you ask the soviets nicely and they will give you land.

So you agree with me. None of them planned a world war unlike what you said at first. They wanted to expand and things got out of control like I started saying in the other post: Problem is many situations escalate faster than people expect.

Don't believe this is true. England was always dependent on its colonies for example. Maybe one of the main reasons for germany to expanded to the east was to get farmland. To be self sufficient without depending on trade or colonies. Japan did the same thing for farmland and other resources. Countries are more interdependent today but they weren't self sufficient then.

Yea but put things in perspective what did they import from colonies: Exotic tree, minerals, exotic fruits and vegetables, silk, and other luxury items.

Yes they were precious but they are not critical to their economy.

England wasn't importing only luxury items from its colonies. Where did you get that from? A large part of the food came from abroad. And many resources for its industry. It was never that self sufficient. That's why one of the german tactics was to cut britain off from outside with the u boats. It restricted its industry and threatened to starve the population.

[RealBitcoin]

So you agree with me. None of them planned a world war unlike what you said at first. They wanted to expand and things got out of control like I started saying in the other post: Problem is many situations escalate faster than people expect.

Well they didnt planned a world war but they did plan some what because otherwise they could not get those lands.

England wasn't importing only luxury items from its colonies. Where did you get that from? A large part of the food came from abroad. And many resources for its industry. It was never that self sufficient. That's why one of the german tactics was to cut britain off from outside with the u boats. It restricted its industry and threatened to starve the population.

Hmm thats interesting. Anyway, food can be replaced theoretically fast. With some rationing first years and then quick development of agriculture they could have rebuilt their food industry in a few years.

Any country can do that today.


But without coal and oil, they freeze to death, no electricity, and no transportation. A fatal blow to any war.

WW1 was lost because the germans rioted from shitty wages and slave labour in the ammo and gun factories. They had massive amount of soldiers, they could have easily won the war in 1918, but they lose because the factory workers started rioting and made no more ammo.

So if you mess up the population, doesnt matter how big an army you have, you will lose the war.

[Hazir]

It is not funny guys wars in the past was caused by far less important events. World War 3 could be a reality if some mistakes are made.
Let's hope that superpower nations are aware that War between them will probably mean the end of the world as mass destruction weapona will be used.

[RJX]

It's a dirty job but someones gotta do it, right?

I am prepared

so many cans, not one opener...

[anonymousx]

well, it's already started for in the Arab world, I see children dying everyday, millions have died since 2011 up until now from big guys trying to help, who cares? do not worry, USA, Russia and big countries are not brave enough to attack each others all over again, they are just playing their propaganda like before, they just pour that anger on us ^^ keep on watching TV, I can see the truth on ground.

[RJX]

well, it's already started for in the Arab world, I see children dying everyday, millions have died since 2011 up until now from big guys trying to help, who cares? do not worry, USA, Russia and big countries are not brave enough to attack each others all over again, they are just playing their propaganda like before, they just pour that anger on us ^^ keep on watching TV, I can see the truth on ground.

Bravery has nothing to do with attacks between Russia and USA. To suggest it is nothing more than false logic, 'they dont have the balls to attack eachother so they attack us', or you believe in fairytales. Either way you refuse to see the truth: the desert is to the allies what Francos Spain before WWII was to the Germans: a testing ground.

The future belongs to the West and Russia is part of that West. We will kill off all desertcults, except one ofcourse , and develope our society to a state where USA and Russia once again battle, but only in the hockey rinks.

[anonymousx]

well, it's already started for in the Arab world, I see children dying everyday, millions have died since 2011 up until now from big guys trying to help, who cares? do not worry, USA, Russia and big countries are not brave enough to attack each others all over again, they are just playing their propaganda like before, they just pour that anger on us ^^ keep on watching TV, I can see the truth on ground.

Bravery has nothing to do with attacks between Russia and USA. To suggest it is nothing more than false logic, 'they dont have the balls to attack eachother so they attack us', or you believe in fairytales. Either way you refuse to see the truth: the desert is to the allies what Francos Spain before WWII was to the Germans: a testing ground.

The future belongs to the West and Russia is part of that West. We will kill off all desertcults, except one ofcourse , and develope our society to a state where USA and Russia once again battle, but only in the hockey rinks.

Good point, thanks for enlightenment, we might have different views but still causalities are the victims, because army knows that death is possible and agree to fight but regular people don't, people don't want this war over their heads, so they better take it somewhere else, maybe on top of USA or Russia .

[RJX]

Good point, thanks for enlightenment, we might have different views but still causalities are the victims, because army knows that death is possible and agree to fight but regular people don't, people don't want this war over their heads, so they better take it somewhere else, maybe on top of USA or Russia .

That's kinda along the same line of argumentation: Dead civilians are more sad than dead soldiers because soldiers are paid to die? Casualties are victims yes but to me it's an overstatement of the fact: any victim is a victim. Is it sadder to see the truth die rather than a civilian? I don't know...


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire according to Hall.

[anonymousx]

Good point, thanks for enlightenment, we might have different views but still causalities are the victims, because army knows that death is possible and agree to fight but regular people don't, people don't want this war over their heads, so they better take it somewhere else, maybe on top of USA or Russia .

That's kinda along the same line of argumentation: Dead civilians are more sad than dead soldiers because soldiers are paid to die? Casualties are victims yes but to me it's an overstatement of the fact: any victim is a victim. Is it sadder to see the truth die rather than a civilian? I don't know...


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire according to Hall.

Nicely said, I agree with you that the truth could be more important, victims happens, if the truth live victims may be lower in the long run, I just hope they find that truth with minimum victims, I just wish for the whole world to be in piece and for people to stop revenge and fighting, there is more important things on earth to take care of at the moment.

[RJX]

Nicely said, I agree with you that the truth could be more important, victims happens, if the truth live victims may be lower in the long run, I just hope they find that truth with minimum victims, I just wish for the whole world to be in piece and for people to stop revenge and fighting, there is more important things on earth to take care of at the moment.

I think we can all agree on that one and we' re in the same camp when it comes to mimimizing suffering, for anyone.

A real Sunday-realization

[Christyfrazier]

Hi,

WW3 in the conventional sense is highly likely and if it includes the major world powers it is certain to lead to mutually assured destruction especially if nukes are used.

The war will simply be a regional war using proxies as nations have too much to lose if they seriously use all there might in all forms of warfare

Thanks

[PrikiNo.1]

No comment again!

The world war 3 is already started when USA i.e. CIA and MOSSAD create ISIS so they can start the war on the Middle East. They start the war so they can earn money and kill innocent people. They make the world to think that muslims are the bad guys and they has to be destroyed. So sad...

Instead to teach them what is right and what is wrong, they make them go in war against each other so they can sit on the other site and watch. Bravo USA! You create the the terror and now you will be our saviors! Please, when this will over do not think that the world will be grateful to you or Russia maybe, because people are no more blind like before and already know what is happening.

[boumalo]

Hi,

WW3 in the conventional sense is highly likely and if it includes the major world powers it is certain to lead to mutually assured destruction especially if nukes are used.

The war will simply be a regional war using proxies as nations have too much to lose if they seriously use all there might in all forms of warfare

Thanks

highly likely in 2015 ? 2016 by 2020 ?

[fravia]

i dont think thats the start of a third world war in my opinion the relationship between the strongest world countries is still better than it was before the first and second world wars im feeling pretty confident that there might not be such big war for a while though its just my opinion

[Daniel91]

i dont think thats the start of a third world war in my opinion the relationship between the strongest world countries is still better than it was before the first and second world wars im feeling pretty confident that there might not be such big war for a while though its just my opinion

This might be true but we don't talk any more about ''cold war'' and ideological conflict between East and West but we have religious and civilization conflict between Christian and Islam world.
It seems that more and more young Muslims in the West don't accept values in our society, feel isolated and become more open to radical Islam propaganda.
Even some Western politicians fear that multicultural society is death.
If ISIS or some similar terrorist organization find or produce weapons for mass destruction, we will have World war.

 

[bryant.coleman]

This might be true but we don't talk any more about ''cold war'' and ideological conflict between East and West but we have religious and civilization conflict between Christian and Islam world.

There is an ideological conflict. But it is not strictly one between the Muslims and the Christians. For example, the Sunni Muslims are fighting against the Shiite Muslims (Lebanon, Syria, Yemen.etc). Then you have the Catholics and the Evangelicals fighting against the Orthodox Christians (Ukraine, Serbia, Bosnia.etc). And a Catholic-Sunni-Protestant-Jewish axis is being formed, to counter the Shiite-Orthodox Christian axis.

[BADecker]

This might be true but we don't talk any more about ''cold war'' and ideological conflict between East and West but we have religious and civilization conflict between Christian and Islam world.

There is an ideological conflict. But it is not strictly one between the Muslims and the Christians. For example, the Sunni Muslims are fighting against the Shiite Muslims (Lebanon, Syria, Yemen.etc). Then you have the Catholics and the Evangelicals fighting against the Orthodox Christians (Ukraine, Serbia, Bosnia.etc). And a Catholic-Sunni-Protestant-Jewish axis is being formed, to counter the Shiite-Orthodox Christian axis.

Yet these are not religious conflicts. The religions themselves stand aloof and do not fighting.

These are fights between people who think that they interpret the religions correctly, even though their interpretations are different. You can tell because, nobody has exactly the same interpretation that anybody else has... from every single person to the next. Yet there are groups of people who get together because they think that they have the same understanding of their religion.

So, it is retarded people who fight, not retarded religions.

[RealBitcoin]

Yet these are not religious conflicts. The religions themselves stand aloof and do not fighting.

These are fights between people who think that they interpret the religions correctly, even though their interpretations are different. You can tell because, nobody has exactly the same interpretation that anybody else has... from every single person to the next. Yet there are groups of people who get together because they think that they have the same understanding of their religion.

So, it is retarded people who fight, not retarded religions.

The perfect example why separation of churc and state is needed.

Then you also want to educate people from young age about critical thinking and rational decisions. The current public school system sucks.

Although religion and spirituality is ok,  people should not have all their lives orbiting around it, they should be able to put them aside when needed.

And especially keep it private, after all your beliefs are your personal thing, and should not be used as a weapon against others.