Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

World War 3.

Options
13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭ascanbe


    OctavarIan wrote: »
    Oh sorry, I asked for a source, not 'I think everyone knows herp derp'.

    Here are two articles from WIRED and Yahoo which cover nicely what was unearthed in Wikileaks Iraq war logs. That being that there were WMDs.

    Don't try discuss war without sources. Your comment earlier on bringing the war on terror to Turkey was the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever read.

    [edit]Wikileaks also released logs that showed Iraq were getting ammunition from Iran.

    Do you really think anything revealed in those leaks equates with the grave threats of imminent nuclear danger used by the Bush Administration in order to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iraq?


  • Registered Users Posts: 846 ✭✭✭TheFullDuck


    What do I think will happen?

    There will be a new Call of Duty made about said war. :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,590 ✭✭✭Dues Bellator


    Biologic wrote: »
    Don't worry, Ireland will sit it out again and hope nobody notices.
    aw bloody hell there going to see that now:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,590 ✭✭✭Dues Bellator


    What do I think will happen?

    There will be a new Call of Duty made about said war. :p
    i hope trearch dont make it, oh the lagggggggg


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    USA are in no position to fight. They can't even fight some insurgents in Iraq never mind a full scale war. And China completely owns their economy.
    Don't he stupid. They're pulling their punches in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. If their sole aim was to crush the country they could.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Shit concept albums by Sting, Coldplay and U2. :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭ReacherCreature


    I'ld say if there's a WW3, it won't be a spectacle like WW1 or WW2. Well atleast not for people in the West. People in Iraq and Afghanistan are witnessing this "spectacle" everyday!

    Ridiculous notion. World War One was not a spectacular war, World War Two went ahead and became the biggest conflict ever and was a spectacular series of events. Fought on land, sea, air using new powerful frightening technology. The media grew too: radio, TV, newspaper. It was a war on an immense scale. World War Three, if occurred, will be the most spectacular thing ever.
    What's going to happen is the "War on Terror" is going to expand firstly into Pakistan,

    Already been pushed into Pakistan in some aspects.
    A CIA backed protest in Iran is enough to give US a reason to invade Iran. A similar sort of protest that happened during Michael Jackson's death after the allegedly "rigged" elections.

    Conspiracy Theory forum is that way. Bringing Micheal Jackson into a debate about a world wide conflict ridicules your argument.
    US didn't need a reason to go to war with Saddam. When it didn't have any reason, it just made up a reason of WMDs and Al-Qaeda links which all turned out to be false.

    That's another thread. WMDs did exist, they were destroyed before hand. Even leaving Saddam there was a massive danger.
    Also don't forget Ireland is now in the EU. If US requires more NATO support in its war, it could be very possible Irish troops would need to be deployed. Although the bigger impact will be economical rather than military/infrastructure.

    All aspects will be hit. IF troops are deployed a huge amount will go and the country will be hugely strained.
    kerryman12 wrote: »
    All modern wars start out around a negociation table and also end up back at some form of negociation table.

    When are we going to learn to skip the piece in the middle!

    What?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭ReacherCreature


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    USA are in no position to fight. They can't even fight some insurgents in Iraq never mind a full scale war. And China completely owns their economy.

    Slight underestimation of the US there. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly 'conventional' wars like World War Two or Korea or Iraq 1991. US in a straight up shootout would be phenomenally strong IMO. Forces could be pulled from home, said countries etc. and if the war's 'just' for them, they'll fight like hell I'd imagine.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC





    That's another thread. WMDs did exist, they were destroyed before hand. Even leaving Saddam there was a massive danger.

    Sure thing, buddy, suuuure thing...


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭ReacherCreature


    RichieC wrote: »
    Sure thing, buddy, suuuure thing...

    Read John Keegan's Iraq War and check for yourself. He makes quite a good case.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,953 ✭✭✭Degag


    When did WW1 and WW2 actually become known as "World War 1" and "World War 2?" I mean, i'm guessing that back in 1920 or 1930, they were just known as "The War" or something like that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭ReacherCreature


    Degag wrote: »
    When did WW1 and WW2 actually become known as "World War 1" and "World War 2?" I mean, i'm guessing that back in 1920 or 1930, they were just known as "The War" or something like that?

    World War One was 'the Great War' or foolishly in hindsight "the war to end all wars".

    I guess when war rolled around in 1939 for the second time it was World War Two probably due to the fact it was on Europe again, had same countries fighting and originated on the continent. World War Two's known differently in some cases, for example in Russia/Soviet Union it was known as 'The Great Patriotic War'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭bob50


    Pres. Obama needs a new war for America to be involved in Otherwise he has no chance of being re elected in 2012 Iran looks a favouite for america to start a new war with imo....


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭ReacherCreature


    bob50 wrote: »
    Pres. Obama needs a new war for America to be involved in Otherwise he has no chance of being re elected in 2012 Iran looks a favouite for america to start a new war with imo....

    Contrary to your belief, I imagine not every American is a war starter. Why will he invade Iran?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,526 ✭✭✭brendansmith


    A new war could increase metal album sales.

    Slayer could write another album about how cool the war is
    Megadeth could write another album about fighting in the war and
    Metallica could write another album about how bad war is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Read John Keegan's Iraq War and check for yourself. He makes quite a good case.

    No thanks, don't like the guy, war apologist.

    Why should anyone listen to a country that hasn't been out of combat in 60 years about who's dangerous around the world?

    America is far more dangerous than Saddam, Iran and north korea could ever and will ever be, combined, twice.

    They are a rogue nation and a failed state out using their retard strength for their own economic ends.

    F**k the lot of them, I will enjoy watching them go the way of the romans.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Dave! wrote: »
    Alarmist thread is alarmist
    I hit the snooze button ages ago!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,953 ✭✭✭Degag


    A new war could increase metal album sales.

    Slayer could write another album about how cool the war is
    Megadeth could write another album about fighting in the war and
    Metallica could write another album about how bad war is.
    Lol, give me ten wars if we could get albums like Seasons in the Abyss and ...And Justice For All Again! Bring it on!


  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭bob50


    Contrary to your belief, I imagine not every American is a war starter. Why will he invade Iran?


    As i said above his poll ratings in the usa are so poor he and his spin doctors will think they have no chance of re election
    so how can i be "re elected" ?? oh there is some nut in Iran causing the west problems we bettter stop him and say to the American people we have to " protect America and its interests" Simples


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    RichieC wrote: »
    No thanks, don't like the guy, war apologist.

    Why should anyone listen to a country that hasn't been out of combat in 60 years about who's dangerous around the world?

    America is far more dangerous than Saddam, Iran and north korea could ever and will ever be, combined, twice.

    They are a rogue nation and a failed state out using their retard strength for their own economic ends.

    F**k the lot of them, I will enjoy watching them go the way of the romans.

    Doesn't say much for other nations if Americas using 'retard strength' to beat them. And obviously they're going to act in their own best interests, most countries do. And an American dominated world would be far better than one dominate by Saddam, Iran or North Korea.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭whatsamsn


    Sadly World war 3 is inevitable.

    As we all know the atomic bomb was made in 1945. This has been a deterrence to another world war ever since. As much as people may see the atomic bomb as horrendous, which it is, it has also served as a tool to stop world war 3.

    But nuclear deterrence can only go so far.
    World war 2 was a life time ago. The memories have begun to fade.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    I say WW3 will be a long way off yet (hopefully never). I mean I don't see any clear powerful opposing super-blocks developing just yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,903 ✭✭✭Napper Hawkins


    Herp.


    Derp.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    WWIII won't affect us directly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭whatsamsn


    In other news .... nostradamus predicted "mabus" to be the 3rd anti-christ :P ..... mabus = obamabush haahahahaaahhhahaha.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,903 ✭✭✭Napper Hawkins


    whatsamsn wrote: »
    In other news .... nostradamus predicted "mabus" to be the 3rd anti-christ :P ..... mabus = obamabush haahahahaaahhhahaha.


    And the 1st and 2nd were?


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,024 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    And the 1st and 2nd were?

    well im guessing one of em was Hitler:confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 575 ✭✭✭RockinRolla


    And to think that a little natural weed and a John Lennon record could solve this. :rolleyes:

    "You're not to blame;
    You're just a human,
    a victim of the insane;
    The sun will never disappear,
    but the world may not have many years." - JL.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭whatsamsn


    And the 1st and 2nd were?

    He predicted 2 anti-christs before Mabus:

    1, Napaulon Roy (Napoleon)
    2, Hister (Hitler)

    You either dont know your history or dont know who Nostradamus is lol :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,576 ✭✭✭Coeurdepirate


    Yeah, we'll just sit it out and let the US planes stop in Shannon. :P God, we're asking for a baytin'.


Advertisement