Are we headed to WW3?

[RVonse]

Roosevelt was one of the best US presidents yet still was a war monger.

So, looking for ways to thwart the actual, genuine, jack-booted, swastika wearing, fucking NAZIS, using every means possible except direct military action, is, in your mind, being a "war monger"?

Mate, you really do inhabit a completely different reality from the rest of the universe, don't you?

I define a war monger as the politician who does everything they can to build military hardware and stoke the conflict of killing each other (it always takes 2 sides to fight a war), Especially when you are not fighting in your own defense. There can be an honest argument that WW2 was the exception to all the other past 50 year conflicts.... that being a war monger was the right thing to do. But there really is no argument that Roosevelt (unlike Lindbergh) wanted action and instead of isolation. It is in all the history books.

He was a war monger.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Biden is overflowing with support for Israel and Netanyahu right or wrong and threatening Iran.

We have not learned from Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan conflicts.

Biden keeps repeating the manta we are the most powerful country in history, ignoring our failures in the above listed conflicts.

All the while our all volunteer army appears in trouble, recruiting goals are not being met. We spend billions on Israel and Ukraine in the interest of security and democracy, yet our career military chronically has trouble making ends meet.

As we over extend ourselves the chance for direct confrontaion with Russia and Cina go up. Entree to WIW3.

Biden apears to have commited us to militray involvement with Taiwn. We are commited in Korea. We have defense agreemets with the PI. Japa is threated by China. The Mid East. Ukraine.

Were probably over commited and Biden threatens Iran with retaliation. If we directly bomb Iran the lid flies off the Mid East and North Africa.

The US attacking Iran is Netwnyahu's dream come true. He tried hard to pressure Oboma to do it.

Alls it takes is a spark to start a laer dcale conflict. To see that alls that is required is a cursory knowledge of the last 100 years.

So, I'm confused here! Are you advocating that we go the Trump way or fortress America? You want us to become Isolationist? How will the US becoming isolationist prevent WW3? Do you think that Russia and China will just decide to go isolationist also?

If WW2 history is any guide to this, those countries who stay out of the early conflict will be the same ones who do the best after all the killing and destruction is over with. And following that same logic, Trump sounds pretty good with the proven track record keeping the US out of conflict with other countries. Neither Trump nor Carter ever got the US into any conflict or war.

That being said, what would be best for the US may not prove being best for the world.

Well, you are an isolationist. I actually can respect the position. I see why it is so popular. I'm glad that you recognize that it wouldn't be good for the world. Are you okay with China taking most of Asia? Russia taking most of Eastern Europe? I think that western Europe would band together if Nato was abandoned by the US. And I assume that it would fight off Russia. But not positive. You think that all this preventable war would be good for the environment? How about inflation? The cost of all products that you use would probably double overnight. You are big proponent of increasing US manufacturing. If the entire world were at war, who would we export to?

 

[RVonse]

Biden is overflowing with support for Israel and Netanyahu right or wrong and threatening Iran.

We have not learned from Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan conflicts.

Biden keeps repeating the manta we are the most powerful country in history, ignoring our failures in the above listed conflicts.

All the while our all volunteer army appears in trouble, recruiting goals are not being met. We spend billions on Israel and Ukraine in the interest of security and democracy, yet our career military chronically has trouble making ends meet.

As we over extend ourselves the chance for direct confrontaion with Russia and Cina go up. Entree to WIW3.

Biden apears to have commited us to militray involvement with Taiwn. We are commited in Korea. We have defense agreemets with the PI. Japa is threated by China. The Mid East. Ukraine.

Were probably over commited and Biden threatens Iran with retaliation. If we directly bomb Iran the lid flies off the Mid East and North Africa.

The US attacking Iran is Netwnyahu's dream come true. He tried hard to pressure Oboma to do it.

Alls it takes is a spark to start a laer dcale conflict. To see that alls that is required is a cursory knowledge of the last 100 years.

So, I'm confused here! Are you advocating that we go the Trump way or fortress America? You want us to become Isolationist? How will the US becoming isolationist prevent WW3? Do you think that Russia and China will just decide to go isolationist also?

If WW2 history is any guide to this, those countries who stay out of the early conflict will be the same ones who do the best after all the killing and destruction is over with. And following that same logic, Trump sounds pretty good with the proven track record keeping the US out of conflict with other countries. Neither Trump nor Carter ever got the US into any conflict or war.

That being said, what would be best for the US may not prove being best for the world.

Well, you are an isolationist. I actually can respect the position. I see why it is so popular. I'm glad that you recognize that it wouldn't be good for the world. Are you okay with China taking most of Asia. Russia taking most of Eastern Europe. I think that western Europe would band together if Nato was abandoned by the US. And I assume that it would fight off Russia. But not positive. You think that all this preventable war would be good for the environment? How about inflation? The cost of all products that you use would probably double overnight. You are big proponent of increasing US manufacturing. If the entire world were at war, who would we export to?

If everyone (except the US) was at war it would probably be sort of the same as it was just prior to WW2. But to reach that level we would actually have to increase our own manufacturing output especially for drugs and textiles. The US is one of the few countries that could survive very well on its own without global trade, because the US has oil, farmland, and valuable waterways to successfully trade within its own borders.

That is not to say that global trade was not better or cheaper for the world in aggregate. But it just did not work for the middle class of the US or the UK because there were too many shut out of the world economy. That created populism, Trump, BREXIT and MAGA which will not be going away even if the democrats put him jail. If our ruling politicians must have more globalism for their own profits, next time they need to figure out how to make it work for everyone. Because working people who used to enjoy reproducing, having good healthcare, and southern borders are not now willing to eat bugs and own nothing while the rich fly around in their jets.

 

[RVonse]

 

[Patooka]

That created populism, Trump, BREXIT and MAGA which will not be going away even if the democrats put him jail.

Just to clarify, the Democrats aren't trying to put Trump in jail. They are being forced to by George Soros. He's the one who's actually behind it all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think we will ever fight a full blown World War III. I do think the age of constantly fighting small wars (every few years for the US) is upon us to make sure new tech is tested and proved capable and to give the officers experience.

Unfortunately, I can easily see a route to a full blown WWIII. You need nutters in charge of two major nuclear powers. Both refuse to back down and things spiral out of control. Trump easily could have done it. I don't know if Putin is actually as nutty as he appears but he might be. We have nutters in Pakistan who keep trying to egg on a war with India despite it being obvious that Pakistan would get the worst of it and if the nutters get their way it would go nuclear but probably not WWIII levels. Likewise, we have nutters in Iran that I wouldn't trust not to let one of their puppets have a bomb, but again that would be regional.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the stakes are incredibly higher than they were in 1918 or 1945 or any war since, simply because we (humans) have the capacity to destroy so much more and so much more quickly. We have basically been in a paused suicide pact since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What we have now that we did not before: Billionaires who have space ships. Not yet feasible for escaping destruction on earth for longer than very short term but......

Make no bones about it: billionaires want to decide who survives and it will include them and whoever they are in favor of. In the meantime, they are quite happy pulling all the strings, calling all the shots, funding whatever they choose and living a life where rules do not actually apply to them. That, my friends, is far more horrifying than an atomic bomb.

I don't think they can pull strings enough to launch a war that risks going WWIII. They can see the danger.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You do realize that Trump wants to end Nato? The republicans are wanting the US to withdraw from alliances. What do you think Russia will do if Nato ceased operations. There probably would be a future peace; that is after Russia slaughters millions and millions and takes back most of Eastern Europe. How is that good for peace? IMO, the only way to discourage larger countries from taking over smaller countries. If you know of a better way, please tell me what you think?

NATO would still have nukes even if we pull out. Given what we have seen in Ukraine Russia would not attack NATO.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I define a war monger as the politician who does everything they can to build military hardware and stoke the conflict of killing each other (it always takes 2 sides to fight a war), Especially when you are not fighting in your own defense. There can be an honest argument that WW2 was the exception to all the other past 50 year conflicts.... that being a war monger was the right thing to do. But there really is no argument that Roosevelt (unlike Lindbergh) wanted action and instead of isolation. It is in all the history books.

He was a war monger.

The old adage of it always taking two sides to fight a war is only meaningful if surrender is a reasonable option for one or both sides.

When the choices are fight or die (see Ukraine, Israel) it's not meaningful. Russia has already genocided Ukraine once and shown genocidal behavior in the current war. Think Ukraine can choose not to fight?

 

[bilby]

When the choices are fight or die (see Ukraine, Israel) it's not meaningful. Russia has already genocided Ukraine once and shown genocidal behavior in the current war. Think Ukraine can choose not to fight?

You're right. Neither Ukrainians nor Palestinians can choose not to fight, without losing everything (including their lives).

 

[TV and credit cards]

Trump.

Now he's just as likely to die as Biden so I'll set that aside. And with that said Biden is one ill timed kerfuffle away from losing to Trump in 2024.
2020 scared me. That election did not go anywhere near what I had thought it should. I had thought that enough of the suckers who got suckered in 2016 learned from their mistake and 2020 would be a landslide for Biden. Well that didn't happen. One thing I did not account for is that Trump and people with Trump-like brains do not learn from their mistakes. They press on. They will now and forever try and force their delusions onto their neighbors.
So a 2024 Trump will be worse than the 2016 Trump. There will be no level heads in a future Trump cabinet to restrain him. He will know to surround himself with the worst of the worst from the outset. He will completely throw Ukraine under the bus. He will distance the US from NATO. EU countries will concern themselves with arming and protecting themselves first and foremost. Ukraine will get a trickle of weapons from them. Russia will commit one of the worst acts of genocide in history. Trump and trumpkins/putinistas will call it fake news.
Trump will double his efforts against China. This will be totally haphazard as no one in his cabinet has a clue as to what they are doing. He will change the military's rules of engagement with regards to close calls in the South China Sea. Nothing good will come of it. China will not be bullied in their own backyard. Mistakes happen. A little tit for tat ensues.
Trump takes a pause. Mainly because while Trump does not learn from his mistakes, he does sense fear and knows when things are not going his way. The people in his ear are less than useless. He starts to fire people, searching for someone who knows about this world war stuff.
China sees a shaky US government as it's best opportunity to take Taiwan and positions itself to do so while telling Taiwan to capitulate.
Trump not only wants to end this strife with China he wants to do so and come out looking good. He needs Russia's nuclear arsenal on his side. Knowing that China has no friends only those subservient to them, Russia sees its best opportunity by siding with the US.
Russia gets very favorable trade agreements with the US and a gaudy hotel. The Soviet Union is largely reconstituted without pushback from the US. Taiwan acquiesces to China. China stands down. The US tenuously hold onto its economic and military position in the world. A Democrat is elected in 2028 and tries to clean some of it up but things are so much worse now. The deal is sealed. Our allies will no longer count on the US and have to out of necessity largely turn away from us. Trumpkins just see a Democrat in office and blame everything on them.

So ultimately no WWIII. Just Trump's legacy.

 

[barbos]

When the choices are fight or die (see Ukraine, Israel) it's not meaningful. Russia has already genocided Ukraine once and shown genocidal behavior in the current war. Think Ukraine can choose not to fight?

You're right. Neither Ukrainians nor Palestinians can choose not to fight, without losing everything (including their lives).

Puh-leeze, "ukrainians" had a choice between staying away from NATO/stopping terrorizing Russian regions and being pain in the ass by joining NATO and terrorizing Russian regions. They choose the later, because Nuland told them to.

 

[Harry Bosch]

When the choices are fight or die (see Ukraine, Israel) it's not meaningful. Russia has already genocided Ukraine once and shown genocidal behavior in the current war. Think Ukraine can choose not to fight?

You're right. Neither Ukrainians nor Palestinians can choose not to fight, without losing everything (including their lives).

Puh-leeze, "ukrainians" had a choice between staying away from NATO/stopping terrorizing Russian regions and being pain in the ass by joining NATO and terrorizing Russian regions. They choose the later, because Nuland told them to.

Terrorizing Russian regions!! Sooo funny. They have chosen to embrace the west and freedom. They don't want to be slaves of Putler, like Beluraus.

 

[Elixir]

Terrorizing Russian regions!! Sooo funny.

Yeah, inhabitants of Earth II are a damn riot.
Until they show up at your border in the hundreds of thousands and start raping and murdering your civilians.

 

[Swammerdami]

A recent poll shows that almost 50% of Republicans believe violence will be necessary to get the "correct" result in the 2024 election.

Anyone not quaking in fear for the future of American democracy just doesn't see what's going on. Political discourse has become so hopelessly partisan that many messages are pure sarcasm. Sincere messages are often so stupid that they seem like sarcasm. I "live in a glass house" -- frequently posting pure sarcasm myself -- so mustn't "throw stones" at how ridiculous discourse has become.

Just to clarify, the Democrats aren't trying to put Trump in jail. They are being forced to by George Soros. He's the one who's actually behind it all.

I'm 98.6% certain that this is sarcasm. But I wouldn't stake my life on it.

This one is harder to judge. If it were posted two years ago, I'd guess that the poster had a 6th-grade mentality and was unable to understand why the "All Lives Matter" meme was racist WHEN VIEWED IN CONTEXT. "When Viewed in Context" -- Am I deceiving myself? Do Trumplickers and QAnon addicts even understand things like "context"?

But nobody intelligent enough to post on a message board could have failed to grasp the racist context of "All Lives Matter" with two whole years of contemplation, assuming their TV set got channels either than Sean Hannity and Alex Jones.

So we can be sure that RVonse is indulging in some reverse or double-reverse sarcasm. But I don't get it. Help?

 

[Patooka]

So we can be sure that RVonse is indulging in some reverse or double-reverse sarcasm. But I don't get it. Help?

I can kind of help. Firstly, I was being sarcastic. Secondly, because I hate myself (and also because I like getting a heads up about what the far right will do in Australia and they always take their marching orders from the US MAGAcunts) I lurk in a couple of far right forums. RVonse is being 100% genuine and thinks quoting the Babylon Bee without any context is a type of "gotcha" argument.

I mean the magic word is the word you used in your post - context. There's viewing an argument in the context of when it is said and there is also viewing an argument in the context of who said it. Or to put it another way ask 2 questions; 1) is the argument with merit and 2) is the person making it arguing in good faith?

 

[Toni]

I think the stakes are incredibly higher than they were in 1918 or 1945 or any war since, simply because we (humans) have the capacity to destroy so much more and so much more quickly. We have basically been in a paused suicide pact since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What we have now that we did not before: Billionaires who have space ships. Not yet feasible for escaping destruction on earth for longer than very short term but......

Make no bones about it: billionaires want to decide who survives and it will include them and whoever they are in favor of. In the meantime, they are quite happy pulling all the strings, calling all the shots, funding whatever they choose and living a life where rules do not actually apply to them. That, my friends, is far more horrifying than an atomic bomb.

I don't think they can pull strings enough to launch a war that risks going WWIII. They can see the danger.

I think that they can see the danger but they might not care or may believe that they will still survive and have a survival worth the effort.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When the choices are fight or die (see Ukraine, Israel) it's not meaningful. Russia has already genocided Ukraine once and shown genocidal behavior in the current war. Think Ukraine can choose not to fight?

You're right. Neither Ukrainians nor Palestinians can choose not to fight, without losing everything (including their lives).

The Palestinians would gain from not fighting. When they're peaceful Israel loosens restrictions.

It's just that's completely unacceptable to the terrorists, they have to keep stirring the fires of war to keep their cannon fodder under control.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When the choices are fight or die (see Ukraine, Israel) it's not meaningful. Russia has already genocided Ukraine once and shown genocidal behavior in the current war. Think Ukraine can choose not to fight?

You're right. Neither Ukrainians nor Palestinians can choose not to fight, without losing everything (including their lives).

Puh-leeze, "ukrainians" had a choice between staying away from NATO/stopping terrorizing Russian regions and being pain in the ass by joining NATO and terrorizing Russian regions. They choose the later, because Nuland told them to.

They were doing nothing to Russian regions until you proclaimed part of Ukraine to be Russia.

And they have not joined NATO, they aren't currently eligible. They simply threw out your puppet so you reacted with an invasion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the stakes are incredibly higher than they were in 1918 or 1945 or any war since, simply because we (humans) have the capacity to destroy so much more and so much more quickly. We have basically been in a paused suicide pact since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What we have now that we did not before: Billionaires who have space ships. Not yet feasible for escaping destruction on earth for longer than very short term but......

Make no bones about it: billionaires want to decide who survives and it will include them and whoever they are in favor of. In the meantime, they are quite happy pulling all the strings, calling all the shots, funding whatever they choose and living a life where rules do not actually apply to them. That, my friends, is far more horrifying than an atomic bomb.

I don't think they can pull strings enough to launch a war that risks going WWIII. They can see the danger.

I think that they can see the danger but they might not care or may believe that they will still survive and have a survival worth the effort.

No--because money is only valuable to the extent it can buy things. If most things to buy are destroyed money isn't worth very much.