Celtic Alliance Clan » Forums

Aug 06, 2009

Anyone on here following the things in the middle east ? Another world war maybe on the way,end of the world in 2012 could be right after all lol... If there is gonna be another world war,gonna be a push button war this time.

Sep 03, 2009

Well following somewhat utilitarianism, I guess that as long as proxy wars are fought we are safe from WW3. I think that since the Arab Spring thing a new sort of-Cold War begun. China and Russia have to defend their allies now from rebellions that could turn their allies into pro USA countries under the flag of democracy.

Really every big nation is doing everything they can to become more powerful than their rivals. USA needs to be powerful to secure their national security from terrorists. China and Russia need to remain powerful to secure their form of government. The big nations need money to accomplish their objective, and middleast is where they get tons of money. So what happens when the objectives clash in opposite direction?

USA has money interest plus antiterrorism interest.
Russia has money interest plus anti democracy interest.

As much as people believe that a nuclear war is not possible I cant simply agree with them. I think that once small crazy nations start using them, it can escalate into big nations using them as well.
The current situation worries me because we are having basically the fight of humankind against nuclear proliferation and authoritarianism. I dont know why but I feel China less of a threat than Russia.

Thats what I think.

Jun 06, 2010

It's kickin off everywhere.

Syria is fucking it's own people with not so subtle backing from Russia who are pissing everyone off with a No Fucks Given attitude.

Israel wants to go twat Iran over nukes they may or may not have. Mitt Romney didn't make things better by saying he'd back Israel all the way either. Trying to start a war before you're even elected? You eager beaver, you.

China are stepping on 5 individual toes by pointing at a map and saying "you see this bit here, yeah? Well it's fuckin ours".

There's some group of Radical Muslims running round grabbing up towns, destroying local historical landmarks and imposing the old "You have fun, we kill you" type law system somewhere around East Africa?

It's still going shit in Iraq and Afgan so no end in sight any time soon for that.

But all the while, North Korea seem to be getting a bit more touchy feely with the rest of the world.

Which is nice.

Jun 17, 2012

Begining of war is not necessary rational, look at begin of WWI.

In case of middle east, no country wants to have war, because there are too much intrest in this part of the world. But Syrian Governement is ready to use all ways to preserv his position, even briging war in all middle east region in using conventional or no conventianal eapons against other coutries like Israel. In this case, i am quite sure, nothing else will be rational and everything could happen, even the worst.

Sep 16, 2012

Well, i ws taught WWI started for a set of specific reasons (same we seem to see lately imho: conventional/nuclear weapons proliferation, arms races, covert diplomacy, ethnic/nationalistic tensions, binding alliances, badly understood sense of honor, etc etc) & even though war was avoided in 1905 & other times, it ws impossible to avoid it that time, also let's not forget that everyone wanted to fight, because they were all sure of victory!

All historical events are understandable, if analised correctly. I personally do not believe anything is 'out of reach' in the social sphere, we just are our own worst enemy...

@ Saspi:

The problem, in my op, is tht the whole nuclear weapons doctrine IS crazy in itself...
M.A.D. the name says it all!! ...the main issue is not about this or tht nation having nukes, it is about having nukes at all just like any other new weapon & their further improvements: u gotta have them all or be weak...
btw, have u seen 'Dr. Strangelove. Or How I learned to Stop Worrying & love the Bomb?' by Mr. Kubrick? the main plot has a disturbing similarity with a book called 'Losing Control' by Prof. Paul Rogers a leading authority in weapons proliferation, disarmament,etcetc.
Mainly it states tht the US was preparing for a pre-emptive strategic & tactical nuclear strike vs the USSR somewhere in the mid 90's, in central Europe, given tht the USSR was thought, by strategists worldwide, to be much more powerful than they really were.
He also cites a few signs of those war preparations (development of Pershing vehicles, depleted uranium ammo being mass-produced from the late 70's & other new weapons systems coming into service (subs, helos & tanks/AT technology) coming up for tht period, etc)
...& these are not bs consp theories, this guy is as serious as they come...

If u want my opinion we're sliding into a European Renaissance type of scenario, w/ a multipolar world & lots of war, mercs, & crap dropping on our heads everywhere... repent y'all the end is near!! Very Happy

(sry for the long, brainy post, just wanted to mke a quick remark Razz

)

Sep 03, 2009

I like long posts Smile

Ill take a look at the movie and that book.
Didnt knew situation was that bad, maybe thats one of the reasons why Russia acted so radically when US-NATO wanted to put some anti missile shields:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUdIe6ciO_g[/youtube]

I hope we turn into a multicultural world in which boundaries between different nations decrease greatly. However I find that difficult, especially if we have intolerant big groups such as those that attacked western embassies over a video (what happened to free speech there?). The smaller those groups are the better we will get along with each other (and easier it will become to avoid mercenary nuclear bombings). But how to decrease the numbers of those hate groups?!?! And the problem gets bigger when those hate groups are the government of a country. If only all big countries agreed to overthrow those governments for their attrocities... but they wont. They cant even agree to reduce contamination created by them which affects every country on earth.

I think the source of all problems is that countries dont want to work together, they just want to win over the other. What we need is a sense of unity. Human rights is precisely what recognizes all human beings as equals. If every powerful country has 0 tolerance for the violation of human rights, the small countries with evil governments would be overthrown immediately. Powerful countries will less likely engage into war between each other if their population has empathy for the other powerful country. Sort of like it happened between US and UK. People in Russia, China and US must make their fight for human rights right now, before its too late! No citizen from those 3 countries should tolerate the violation of human rights inside their country, and neither should they tolerate their government supporting regimes that violate human rights. Saudia Arabia, Syria, North Korea for example.

This is the first and maybe most important step to stop wars. But it is very difficult to make it happen.

Nuclear weapons cant be prohibited, its too much of a risk to trust other countries on not having nukes of their own. But I agree that quantity should be limited to a reasonable amount and also only a few countries should be allowed to have nukes so that they are able to overthrow evil regimes.

Here are videos that I saw recently and convinced me North Korea regime is what Bush said it was.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKwx2doPBRs&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24R8JObNNQ4[/youtube]

Since I read 1984 from Orwell I now always think that with the new technologies that are being developed, it will be much much easier for a group of people to create a governments like the one on the novel. North Korea is very similar to the book government.

Sep 16, 2012

Well, yes the whole point of nukes, as u said, is deterrence. Anti-missile shields change the equation...
However, we did say the same about WW1...
Being so horrible, it was to deter Humanity from war altogether (because industrialised warfare meant industrialised slaughter, etc) ..until the next war, which was even worse, and so forth...

In my op, war cant be stopped, or as i read in another book (Ralph D. Sawyer (Translator): 'The 7 Military Classics from Ancient China', Basic Books, 2006, New York.) the main aim of war is peace (a just peace).

Some people say tht any sort of world government/world unity is imppossible, given the international society is guided by greed, power & self interest, because (they say) human nature is the same...
But, i agree w you i believe we will, eventually, come to that (look at them globalisation processes, whether we want or not they affect us all, constantly) im just afraid of what horrors we'll have to go through to achieve tht happy Arcadia...

The main problem w hate groups is tht we pay attention to them Razz

look at the last (norwegian this time) fool... The war on terror is absolutely impossible to win!
Terror is a human emotion, you can 'fight' it, or hunger, or cold... Tht comes from a militarised view of problems, very popular in the US among Republicans...the 'war' on everything 'bad'... It's influenced by religion & is not rational imo...
The other problem comes from strategy, UK commander in Afgh. says NATO does anti-insurgence ops, next Condi Rice says it is anti-terrorist warfare, then Petraeus comes & says they have to win hearts & minds... same as in vietnam, gr8...(seen the movie 'Lions for Lambs'? it explains it better).

I mean, provoking Muslims worldwide & then saying they're violent is very easy to do...
I say you are so & so...u dont like it, well its because you're violent anyway, of course...Wishful thinking.
I can burn a Koran & tht makes me the most peace-loving individual on earth, then i make an offensive movie & i am just 'portraying the truth in the name of freedom' & u need to die to support my right to be a cunt...

As for nukes, i believe we can overthrow any damn dictatorship without any nukes at all, same we've been doing for centuries...(also nukes are very messy, so they are not really for using them, just to deter aggression from ''bad'' (ehem) guys)
We can do without them altogether, it is very easy to find out if anyone is producing them (look at Iran, u cant do it on ur own, it is a very complex industrial process & the world will find out (as we did w Iran).

Well, have u read 'Brave New World' and 'Fahrenheit 351'? (I call it the 'Domination Trilogy' w/ '1984'... Razz

)
...Ppl are told to fight an 'enemy' & do it blindly: 'Northern block' was enemy & becomes ally, 'Eastern block' the enemy...because all need a statu quo & war has become 'institutionalised'... (Check out 'Animal Farm' asw for power politics & revolutionary issues) Very Happy

D...

sry 4 long post agn, dunno if i made too much sense, u cld write a whole library about those subjects...

Aug 07, 2009

No matter what slant you put on it, or fancy words to dress it up, war is caused by many things that i say is human weakness, greed, power and corruption. Also countries economies falling can also lead to war. World war 2 was started by hitler because the German economy died and Germany had massive unemployment, so hitler started WWII and got all German workforce back to work making weapons, tanks and such, this boosted the German economy, then hitler went a bit crazy and wanted to take over the world, that was his downfall, fighting the Russians on the eastern front and fighting the Allies on the western front, but at first he started the war because of poverty in Germany, and at first his intentions were good every German would have a good paying job and every family would own a car, that was the main reason the volkswagon automobile company was formed, but as i said he went a bit crazy killing all those jews, and wanting to take over the world.
Mankind has to change very drastically if we are to never have a WWIII, and i don't think that is possible because,the Animal in human nature will always come out, the greed will always come out, the desire for power will come out, and corruption will alway rear it's ugly head. There is no question about it mankind may be the most intellegent species on our planet but it is also the most bloodthirsty, greedy, corrupt and violent species on the planet.
As my Grandfather used to say, if there is a heaven and hell, then most ordinary people will get to heaven, and all the leaders and politicians of countries will go to hell.

Dec 22, 2010

I really don't think we're on the verge of WWIII.

Mostly due to the prohibitive costs involved.

Poor countries will always have war as it is cheap and mostly consists of militia and insurgents, lightly armed with cheap mass-produced, often antiquated, equipment. Teamed with often unstable or ineffective governments, this leads to inherit instability with groups fighting for control over a relatively small region. When hasn't Africa or the middle-east been at war?!

Developed countries simply cannot afford large scale war. Technology has replaced man and increased precision, however, increasing the cost. It would be impossible to attack another country without massive cost (of both equipment and lives), and using Vietnam as an example, the people wouldn't stand for it if you were to try.

This is the main reason why we are currently 'watching' the situation unfold in Syria. Russia has been supplying Syria with advanced AA defence systems meaning a no-fly zone that was used in Libya is impractical.

As for less democratic countries like China, their economies are based on export. Largely to the very countries that would be likely candidates for war. 'We' would obviously stop imports and basically bankrupt the country overnight. Also, China simply doesn't have the infrastructure yet to support itself. This is why China is currently throwing huge amounts of money at it.

Modern economies are simply too inter-connected for the imperialistic views of the 1900's and armies too modern.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter. If we do all die, then you can all say I told you so Very Happy

Sep 16, 2012

@ nighthawk,
well, i agree in part:
WW2 started due to what is called a 'negative peace', Germany was blamed by winners (given tht , ehem, they won) of starting the war (not exact) & was humiliated by the Versailles Treaty clauses, made for tht purpose only ('We will press the lemon till the seeds crack' said an French politician). Hitler was mainly a product of his time (Ian Kershaw: 'Hitler')
Germans wanted a strong leader, not another war, but he thought otherwise, being helped (IBM), funded (swiss/british/US banks, etc) & encouraged by many, many western admirers (George V and Wallis Simpson among others)
... It is easy to judge fascists now, after the events, but many common people were also inspired by the nazis...
Also a main, direct cause of the war was western (thnks Chamberlain!!) weakness & desire to keep the negative peace status no matter what. Which, in turn made WW2's events even worse...

It was pure selfishness to avoid intervening in Czecoslovakia & Spain ('We will not risk the life of even our most humble corporal for the Czecs.' said the French leader of the Nazi party in his country)
Hitler didnt really 'go crazy' until 1943 more or less, because war was lost...
He always told his 'worldview', it was no secret what he wanted to do...
Problem is, the west wanted to use him vs the USSR it backfired asw...

So, no, i believe there can be just & unjust (99% so far) wars.
Its our weakness/greed because we, ourselves, allow it to take over...greed comes from a good impulse for ex: protection vs the 'Unknown'...

@ Odini,

Well, war is never a rational, fully desired outcome by anyone, & never for too long either...It just happens by a deadly conjunction of events, etc...like Economic crisis (Kondratieff cycles theory: every so & so we get eco crisis & every so&so those crisis lead to wars)

But yea, i agree $$$ is key in this equation, & war is bad for business (the butter, not the guns business tho!!)

Sry, but I'm tired of ppl saying how unruly people are in Africa & Middle East & (well, anywhere not 1st world, and even so...)
They stay down, because it is in our 'interest' (selfish, stupid, close-minded, short-term, greedy interest, not REAL interest, of course)

So called 'poor' countries stay poor because we really, really need them to be!!!!
(& they are also rich in other things, we are destitute in, such as moral values, humanity, emotional intelligence, etc..)

''Gimmegimme cheap Coltan for all our mobile/portable fancy stuff, gimmegimme cheap food, gmgegme cheap (slave/child) labour for our fancy clothes'', theres no limit...
have u heard of the Opium war? UN trade agreements?
They all, always favor the west, ever since we started colonisation..
Exploit exploit, same as in Germinal (the book & the movie)...this time round theyre not French, we just moved the problem to Africa heheh...

Its all a big exploit, but fot tht to work, public opinion needs to keep believing 'poor little blackies' are still 'like children' (Ever read 'Into the Heart of Darkness'?) & need our silly 'aid' & western food to change their food habits &disrupt their economy in favor of our wheat-producing one, becuse we need to sell excess production.

To sum it all up, like a friend of mine says: 'they keep pissing on us & saying its raining'...

Nevemind their politicians, we all put them there! (see Robert Fisk: 'The War for Civilisation: The conquest of the Middle East' or Ryszard Kapuscinski: 'Ebony', 'Empire', 'The Emperor', etc)

Name a single decent leader we left in power/alive...Salvador Allende? DEAD, Patrice Lumumba? DEAD, Ali Ben-Barka? DEAD, Steven Biko? DEAD, whos left??? Castro? Mao? the usual suspects...

Even ppl like Evo Morales; now he's the pawn of bigger interests it seems...(''Pacha-Mama/Mother Earth is cool but we cn build a Highway thru indigenous lands it will be even cooler & more modern, yea!!!'')

As for what u say..Quote: ''Developed countries simply cannot afford large scale war. Technology has replaced man and increased precision, however, increasing the cost. It would be impossible to attack another country without massive cost (of both equipment and lives), and using Vietnam as an example, the people wouldn't stand for it if you were to try.''

Tecnology's main advantage is to reduce costs (drones, unmanned boats & land vehicles) and increase effectivity, so we'll need less soldiers in fact...
But i agree, full-scale war has become obsolete, too expensive to field 2 million men in a theatre of ops...
But i dont think it will dissapear, just be fought like in the 15th Century: small professional armies, mercs, lots of new tech...Its a cyclic process, eventually we'll get to big armies agn...

The problem w/ Syria is that they (Assad clan) are friends w everyone!! Western countries, Iran, Russia, China, Sunni Muslim countries... you name it!!

As for China, i do not agree to the first part:
China has bought LOADS of western debt, they won't even need to fight (like Art of War recommends) eventually we'll all be working for them!!!!!
..all theyd have to do is 'fire' us....haahahah!!!!!!

Stopping imports, as u say, would crush our economies 2...we'd have no spares...no supply...they would be left holding the handle...

although, yes they do not have infrastructure yet... but its a necessary investment, will reslut in further eco growth like Keynes pinted out, so its cool for them...are WE doing the same??? :PPPP

Well they always soldiers are fighting the last war...like it happened to French/UK High Command at the start of WWI AND WW2... Afghan/Iraqi/Chechen insurgency have managed to resist & keep fighting w/ very cheap methods...

Power politics doesnt require tht we play under XIXth century rules: they keep on evolving, coming back from the past to bite us in the arse, etcetc.. also, i minetioned 2 miles earlier, war is a conjunction of factors, not all military, even the opposite...

Sry for the mega-long post... Razz

i hope i made some sense Razz

P

Well, im relieved, at least we have someone to blame!!!! well hold u responsible for any WW3 occuring then Very Happy

Dec 22, 2010

Sep 07, 2012

Id like to bring an important element into consideration that is often overlooked

Food.

manpower and weapons are important components of war, but an army marches on its stomach as the old saying goes.

aside form the USA not many nations can produce enough food to feed there populace.

if America stopped trading its food many countries would be in serious food shortages as the remaining food surplus rich countries would be unable to make up the needed (needed not let alone wanted) supplies

in fact i noticed that the vast majority of "agricultural exports" that keep many nations from having a negative agricultural rating are for cash crops (coffee beans, spices, cotton, tabaco, etc.) so they would require a transition period before they could actually begin to attempt to start feeding themselves (far too long about 6-18 months)

Donate

Discord

User Info

Teamspeak