NationStates Jolt Archive

There are going to be more wars: That's human nature. Now, the question is where and when will it be?

Where do YOU think it will be?

Please explain your choice.

NO FLAMING!

China vs. Taiwan

Come on, people!

SAY SOMETHING!

It's a poll, after all. And polls always atract people.

And this poll is about war. And that's always a plus amoung topics!

Oh, and by Georgia I mean the COUNTRY of Georgia. Not the state.

Georgia and Russia aren't really best of friends at the moment...

*sigh*

bump

Georgia and Russia aren't really best of friends at the moment...
Nor is California

or Arizona

or Colorado for that matter


(:))

Nor is California

or Arizona

or Colorado for that matter


(:))

:D

It's not going to be limited to countries. It will be a battle of western democracy versus Islamofascism.

The US will certainly be involved. It will be them 'fighting evil' some way or another, some place or another

It's not going to be limited to countries. It will be a battle of western democracy versus Islamofascism.

Islamofacism?

Do you mean Western Democracy against Islamic Dictatorships?(Like Iran or Libya?), or against Islam period(which would mean war against alot of democratic muslim states such as Egypt, Bangladesh, Indonesia)?

us is going to start ww3 by invading some one or other

The US will certainly be involved. It will be them 'fighting evil' some way or another, some place or another

So what will all of us who are sane do while this is going on?

Trouble is, no one of us is sane

Guatemala's invasion of Belize. Mexico will make good on its word and after Guatemala invades it will reactivate its claim on Belize. And Guatemala hasn't really gotten over the loss of Soconusco.

And just when people start thinking that nothing will happen, the UK will remember Belize is part of the Commonwealth and they will send two ships and three airplanes. Things start to get really complicated after the task force sinks an Hondurian fishing ship because they can't tell the flag apart (and frankly, who can?).

After that it's the entire Central America against the UK and Mexico. Belize has pretty much retired to a quiet corner to watch. After that the US will try to step in and calm things down "ok, kids, that's it, play nice and give me your gold mines". And since the gold mines by then will be in Chinese hands, well, that means China steps in too. And the USSA (United States of South America) isn't too happy either, so they enter the fray too.

Things go badly from there.

So what will all of us who are sane do while this is going on?

Eating Cheatos and Doritos.

Because even if the United States is destroyed, our great invention of Capitalist Democracy shall live on!

Now wheres my cheese dip...

I'm thinkin' Syria. Reason being that we couldn't find WMDs in Iraq, but will magically find some intelligence that points to Saddam hiding them in Syria just before the US invaded Iraq.

I highly doubt we'll go to war with Iran. As far as funding and technology, Iran has the 2nd best Army in the world and has a lot more global support than Iraq did. It would just be the worst decision the US could possibly make.

Iran really isn't such a bad place. Don't let movies like "Not Without My Daughter" fool you. No, it's not a democracy, but it is a pretty free place (yes, even for women) and Tehran is a gorgeous city.

Then again, S1082 could be seen as a preliminary declaration of war on Iran.

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s1082.html

that last post. cracked me up. from guatemala vs belize to US and China....wow.

Guatemala's invasion of Belize. Mexico will make good on its word and after Guatemala invades it will reactivate its claim on Belize. And Guatemala hasn't really gotten over the loss of Soconusco.

And just when people start thinking that nothing will happen, the UK will remember Belize is part of the Commonwealth and they will send two ships and three airplanes. Things start to get really complicated after the task force sinks an Hondurian fishing ship because they can't tell the flag apart (and frankly, who can?).

After that it's the entire Central America against the UK and Mexico. Belize has pretty much retired to a quiet corner to watch. After that the US will try to step in and calm things down "ok, kids, that's it, play nice and give me your gold mines". And since the gold mines by then will be in Chinese hands, well, that means China steps in too. And the USSA (United States of South America) isn't too happy either, so they enter the fray too.

Things go badly from there.

CRAP! I forgot the Guatemala/Belize thing(and I live in Panama :()

Panama will support the U.S., because Panama is the U.S.' puppet state. Anyhoo, if Guatemala invades Belize: U.N. Alert!

Then it's the FIRST Desert Storm allllll over again.(The first one was the GOOD one, remember?)

I'm thinkin' Syria. Reason being that we couldn't find WMDs in Iraq, but will magically find some intelligence that points to Saddam hiding them in Syria just before the US invaded Iraq.

I highly doubt we'll go to war with Iran. As far as funding and technology, Iran has the 2nd best Army in the world and has a lot more global support than Iraq did. It would just be the worst decision the US could possibly make.

Iran really isn't such a bad place. Don't let movies like "Not Without My Daughter" fool you. No, it's not a democracy, but it is a pretty free place (yes, even for women) and Tehran is a gorgeous city.

Then again, S1082 could be seen as a preliminary declaration of war on Iran.

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s1082.html

Well the U.S. army is WAY more advanced than Irans. So if Iran is #2...

Anyhoo, I agree that Iran isn't as bad as Iraq was, but it still isn't "free" so to speak. It's like "We'll treat you nice if you follow the rules. But if you slip up..."

Just curious, who here is so arrogant that they believe it's our job or even right to go around the world pushing what we believe on other sovereign nations? Because that is one hell of a leap in arrogance!

Just curious, who here is so arrogant that they believe it's our job or even right to go around the world pushing what we believe on other sovereign nations? Because that is one hell of a leap in arrogance!

I do!

Why?

Because we had this little competition between two nations a few years back... we called it the "Cold War". All the nations of the world knew that who ever won would be the world sole super-power, so most of them sided with us. It was the U.S. versus the Cold War. The world choose us(the Nicer, more compassionate one that would let them have freedom), instead of the Soviets(The meaner, more nastier one that would conquer the world.)

So, unless they come up with a country to take our place, we're in charge.

Its been this way throughout history. First it was Egypt, then it was Carthage for a hundred years, then Greece, then Macedon, then Rome, then the Byzantines, then the Ottomans, then the British, then the Nazi's, and then US.

As for who the world will choose to go against us...

That's for another thread :D

I do!

Sorry to hear that.

Oh, and this movie (http://www.frontsteps.com/creations/1503/109/index.php?t=1105830567) basically shows how the world works.

Someone becomes supreme, then someone overthrows them, then someone overthrows THEM, and then...

Sorry to hear that.

You want to leave humanity to go leaderless, that's your belief.

Islamofacism?

Do you mean Western Democracy against Islamic Dictatorships?(Like Iran or Libya?), or against Islam period(which would mean war against alot of democratic muslim states such as Egypt, Bangladesh, Indonesia)?
I mean the ideology that combines Islam and fascism (Al-Quaeda is one such group). It transcends borders.

Oh, and this movie (http://www.frontsteps.com/creations/1503/109/index.php?t=1105830567) basically shows how the world works.

Someone becomes supreme, then someone overthrows them, then someone overthrows THEM, and then...

Makes a good case of why men shouldn't run the world :p

I mean the ideology that combines Islam and fascism (Al-Quaeda is one such group). It transcends borders.

OOOOOOOH.

Ok.

Makes a good case of why men shouldn't run the world :p

Trust me, if women were the dominant group they'd do it too (its nature. If humanity were to survive we'd have to fight. And since we just invented civilization about 10,000 years ago, old habits die hard. It'll proly be gone from our nature in about, oh 100,000 years :D)

I'm thinkin' Syria. Reason being that we couldn't find WMDs in Iraq, but will magically find some intelligence that points to Saddam hiding them in Syria just before the US invaded Iraq.

I highly doubt we'll go to war with Iran. As far as funding and technology, Iran has the 2nd best Army in the world and has a lot more global support than Iraq did. It would just be the worst decision the US could possibly make.

Iran really isn't such a bad place. Don't let movies like "Not Without My Daughter" fool you. No, it's not a democracy, but it is a pretty free place (yes, even for women) and Tehran is a gorgeous city.

Then again, S1082 could be seen as a preliminary declaration of war on Iran.

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s1082.html
You're kidding, right? Iran is one of the most oppressive states in the world. Sharia law does that. And 2nd best army? Are you kidding? Iran's army is large, but only strong in the Middle East. Russia, China, the UK, the US, Germany, France, and a ton of others could mop the floor with the conventional Iranian military.

I mean the ideology that combines Islam and fascism (Al-Quaeda is one such group). It transcends borders.
But that will be mostly an ideological war. With a couple of violent episodes here and there to look good on TV, but mostly it will be fought in the minds of people.

The US should win this one, too. They have very good marketers. However, everyone knows that if the product is crap and it fails to deliver, not even the best marketing can save it.

Why is there no option for U.S Vs Iran?

Cos thats what I think.

It was the U.S. versus the Cold War. The world choose us(the Nicer...

Ok, apart from thinking that you have the right to push your beliefs down everybody else's throat, you also believe that "the world chose" the US because you are "nicer"?
What about the sandman and Santa Claus, do you believe that as well?

Ok, apart from thinking that you have the right to push your beliefs down everybody else's throat, you also believe that "the world chose" the US because you are "nicer"?
What about the sandman and Santa Claus, do you believe that as well?

LMAO :P

Go get him..lol

OOOOOOOH.

Ok.
See, the problem is that all of the things you listed are specific wars or battles. The fact is, the War on Terror is WW3, for it will consume every nation. Mark my words.

I'm surprised that only one person has said India vs. Pakistan.

Afterall, Pakistan and India hate each others guts and have since their creations. They have waged THREE wars on each other an skirmishes along the borders are somewhat common. Not to mention Pakistan is the most powerful(in terms of military) muslim state in the world(it has an EXTREMELY large army, its moderatly well trained, it has experience, AND it has nukes and U.S. support), and India is the worlds largest(in terms of population) democracy. PLUS, India has nukes too.

You want to leave humanity to go leaderless, that's your belief.

Are you giving us a choice between you lead or no one leads? I hope IRL US leaders did the same, 'cause most of us don't need them to lead anything, thank you

Ok, apart from thinking that you have the right to push your beliefs down everybody else's throat, you also believe that "the world chose" the US because you are "nicer"?
What about the sandman and Santa Claus, do you believe that as well?

You'd rather have the U.S.S.R? The U.S.S.R. was nicer than us?

Ok, i'll go call all the communists I can find in the Kremlin and ask them if they wanna get the gang back together again. I see Putin is itchin to get back to the totalarian days, so i'll just say that "The world want's you back now since they think that you were nicer than the U.S.". I'm sure he'd be willing to do it(hell, he's already begun to do it by getting rid of nearly all elections).

i said north korea.
how the hell did they go this long w/o some sort of intervention? the people are like starving to death under a dictator. i'd like to have someone go to war with them just to finish up that mess leftover from the korean war so we can get rid of the 50 thousand troops stationed over there.

Are you giving us a choice between you lead or no one leads? I hope IRL US leaders did the same, 'cause most of us don't need them to lead anything, thank you

Thus my choice of the word "arrogant" I do believe in fact that many folks from the United States sadly do think like that. Makes me want to cry.

Are you giving us a choice between you lead or no one leads? I hope IRL US leaders did the same, 'cause most of us don't need them to lead anything, thank you

Ok.

When your nation is invaded by someone, don't come crawling to the U.S. Since the U.S. makes up about 80-90% of the U.N.s military power. And trust me, without the U.S. the U.N. will loose at LEAST China and Russia(two of the most militarly imposing nations in the world).

Anyhoo, this is getting off-topic...

Ok.

When your nation is unlawfully invaded by someone, don't come crawling to the U.S.

Do you mean like what the United States did to Iraq?

Do you mean like what the United States did to Iraq?

Actually, according to the U.N. resolutions if Saddam wouldn't comply with the members of the U.N. force could be used.

And he didn't comply.

So HAH, take THAT you liberal(at least I think you are)!

Why is there no option for U.S Vs Iran?

Cos thats what I think.

Um, did you see the first option?

Ha. Foolish liberals. SMITE THEM, O' MIGHTY SMITER!

You'd rather have the U.S.S.R? The U.S.S.R. was nicer than us?

Ok, i'll go call all the communists I can find in the Kremlin

There is *only one thing* that I like about the communists you can find anywhere (I guess there will be less of them in the Kremlin than in any bar downtown today) : the communists no longer appear to believe they can save anyone else by imposing their ways of living

BTW, do you know how bad was the mess the US made in South America in the 70s in the name of 'fighting the commies'? Argh!

Actually, according to the U.N. resolutions if Saddam wouldn't comply with the members of the U.N. force could be used.

And he didn't comply.

So HAH, take THAT you liberal(at least I think you are)!

I hope you're not talking about 1441 which was the last resolution, as it never gave the US permission to invade any one.. I can post it here if you want me to, or if you didn't understand it, I will be more than happy to explain it to you.

As for my politics, I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

There is *only one thing* that I like about the communists you can find anywhere (I guess there will be less of them in the Kremlin than in any bar downtown today) : the communists no longer appear to believe they can save anyone else by imposing their ways of living

BTW, do you know how bad was the mess the US made in South America in the 70s in the name of 'fighting the commies'? Argh!

You didn't really respond to my post. Just the second line.

Anyhoo...

THERE ARE TOO MANY OFF-TOPIC DISCUSSIONS HERE!

If you wanna post here, post about the topic.

Do you mean like what the United States did to Iraq?

Her highness the leader of Matriarchiveness forgets this is not a MUD and kisses Hollystan on the forehead

I was just hoping no one would forget just how it was that the USSR collapsed.

You see, when a nation acts like a bully, it tends to piss off the rest of the world and build a formidable political pact against them. The USSR was being an extreme bully, concentrating exclusively on military supremacy and pushing everyone around, even it's Communist 'ally' China.
Then in an ultimate act of bullying the Soviets launched an unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan. Over the next ten years, as their expensive Hinds and tanks were being chewed to bits one bite at a time by Afghan guerrillas, political pressure continued to mount. With their whole army tied down in a pointless conflict, they became a bulldog without teeth, and ultimately caved in to outside calls for domestic reforms. This of course brought their economy crashing down, bringing Communism down with it. Today the gigantic Soviet military sits rusting in siberian fields and the Soviet navy lies rotting in arctic shipyards.

Sound at all familiar? I'm talking about what happened 25 years ago. Who knows where the world will be 25 years from now. Didn't someone once say history repeats itself?

Oh, and by Georgia I mean the COUNTRY of Georgia. Not the state.

Georgia and Russia aren't really best of friends at the moment...

Thank God. I live in Georgia and I was wondering why Russia would invade our piece of crap state.

Us, UK, Israel attacked by Russia, Iran, Vietnam, China, pretty much...the REST of the world
US, UK, Israel will be saved
Be Prepared it will happen

I was just hoping no one would forget just how it was that the USSR collapsed.

You see, when a nation acts like a bully, it tends to piss off the rest of the world and build a formidable political pact against them. The USSR was being an extreme bully, concentrating exclusively on military supremacy and pushing everyone around, even it's Communist 'ally' China.
Then in an ultimate act of bullying the Soviets launched an unprovoked invasion of Afghanistan. Over the next ten years, as their expensive Hinds and tanks were being chewed to bits one bite at a time by Afghan guerrillas, political pressure continued to mount. With their whole army tied down in a pointless conflict, they became a bulldog without teeth, and ultimately caved in to outside calls for domestic reforms. This of course brought their economy crashing down, bringing Communism down with it. Today the gigantic Soviet military sits rusting in siberian fields and the Soviet navy lies rotting in arctic shipyards.

Sound at all familiar? I'm talking about what happened 25 years ago. Who knows where the world will be 25 years from now. Didn't someone once say history repeats itself?

Difference between Afghanistan THEN and Afghanistan NOW.

The Afghani people mostly support the U.S. We brought them true democracy. We brought them religious freedom. We brought them everything good. Most of the guerillas have left for Iraq. Now, IRAQ may be the U.S's Afghanistan, but it wont destroy us. It'll be more like Vietnam.

And remember, the U.S. isn't made up of little countries. It IS a country.

Thank God. I live in Georgia and I was wondering why Russia would invade our piece of crap state.

Actually, Russia is a bit of a strange place.

Mr. Putin could be sending an army to invade right now!

Could be Russia vs a big rebellion in Chechnya.

US intervention in Venezuela. Too much oil and too leftwing for the US to tolerate Hugo Chavez for much longer. It will however give the lie to the US wanting to spread democracy as Venezuela is highly democratic.

Difference between Afghanistan THEN and Afghanistan NOW.

The Afghani people mostly support the U.S. We brought them true democracy. We brought them religious freedom. We brought them everything good. Most of the guerillas have left for Iraq. Now, IRAQ may be the U.S's Afghanistan, but it wont destroy us. It'll be more like Vietnam.

And remember, the U.S. isn't made up of little countries. It IS a country.

I don't want to be insulting but i think u missed the point that the post was trying to suugest that russia was a "bully" and that any "bully" who "bully's" to much is gonna go down. didn't someone say "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". Case being America

I don't want to be insulting but i think u missed the point that the post was trying to suugest that russia was a "bully" and that any "bully" who "bully's" to much is gonna go down. didn't someone say "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". Case being America

It took the Romans over 1,000 years for that to happen. It took the Carthaginians 500. It took the British... well, they aren't gone yet!

And since the U.S. has been around ALOT less than those were, I can safely say that the U.S. still has a while.

Also, "He who doesn't use a sword is killed by the guy with the sword."
Peace is a two-way street.

the keyword is 'bully', dear, not 'sword'

Also, "He who doesn't use a sword is killed by the guy with the sword."
Peace is a two-way street.


who said that then?

And its funny how you didn't mention how long the soviet union lasted

the keyword is 'bully', dear, not 'sword'

A bully uses a form of a agression be it mental or physical (sp?) the sword is used as a representasion of that

(sorry my english is not that great)

It took the Romans over 1,000 years for that to happen. It took the Carthaginians 500. It took the British... well, they aren't gone yet!

And since the U.S. has been around ALOT less than those were, I can safely say that the U.S. still has a while.

Also, "He who doesn't use a sword is killed by the guy with the sword."
Peace is a two-way street.

It took the germans less than a decade, it took the huns only some twenty years, It took the Italians about five minutes :p Why do you compare the US to military dictatorships thet persecuted their enemies. Do you really think that the US is as primitive as the Romans or Carthaginians. I do conceed that they are at least as arrogant and self important as the Empire British.

it only takes one bad leader to topple an empire

A bully uses a form of a agression be it mental or physical (sp?) the sword is used as a representasion of that



sorry, Gataway, my reply was an attempt to explain what was the point to TheLStar, who decided to grab to the word 'sword' and missed the fact that being a bully should not be desirable

(sorry my english is not that great)
neither is mine, I am not a native speaker

who said that then?

And its funny how you didn't mention how long the soviet union lasted

1. I made up that quote.

What? People have to MAKE the quote before it really becomes a quote. They don't magically pop outta the ground.

2. The Soviet Union lasted 69 years (from 1922 to 1991). Problem is, it wasn't the sole world superpower. It was a contender, and it was defeated.

A bully uses a form of a agression be it mental or physical (sp?) the sword is used as a representasion of that

(sorry my english is not that great)

OK, a bully is someone, or some entity, that uses the others fear to make them do what the bully wants. The typical bully is only content when all around are cringing and hoping not to be noticed. The sword is not representative of this, it is representative of either pure malicious violence, or of justice when combined with a set of balances.

It took the germans less than a decade, it took the huns only some twenty years, It took the Italians about five minutes :p Why do you compare the US to military dictatorships thet persecuted their enemies. Do you really think that the US is as primitive as the Romans or Carthaginians. I do conceed that they are at least as arrogant and self important as the Empire British.

I compare the U.S. to them because they are ALL we can compare too! There WERE no other Democratic Superpowers since the Romans, and they were only democratic for about 30 years of their time as superpower.

1. I made up that quote.

What? People have to MAKE the quote before it really becomes a quote. They don't magically pop outta the ground.

2. The Soviet Union lasted 69 years (from 1922 to 1991). Problem is, it wasn't the sole world superpower. It was a contender, and it was defeated.

The USSR came into being formally in 1922, but existed in practice since 1917. So add another 5 years, just to make the number a less appealing 74 rather than the attractive 69.

sorry, Gataway, my reply was an attempt to explain what was the point to TheLStar, who decided to grab to the word 'sword' and missed the fact that being a bully should not be desirable


neither is mine, I am not a native speaker

Then i retract the statement. I thought there was an implication of the difference between the two

Why discussing the dirty dictatorships the US reinforced in South America in the 70s was off-thread but discussing the Roman Empire and the likes is not? It appears that off-thread is what is not according to US schoolbooks in here.

I compare the U.S. to them because they are ALL we can compare too! There WERE no other Democratic Superpowers since the Romans, and they were only democratic for about 30 years of their time as superpower.

This depends on what you count as democracy and as a superpower. Britain, in the 1800s was a democratic monarchy, as was Holland. France was a war torn attempt at democracy, but a superpower all the same. Germany was a superpower by the end of the 1930s, and, technically, a democracy. China and the USSR were technically democracies. The USA is only technically a democracy. (You do not have complete sufferage for all tax payers, ask any foreigner living there.) You have other choices, but apparently you want to be considered a war mongering aggresive empire hungry state, Just like the Romans .
This is way off topic now. Perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss this.

Why discussing the dirty dictatorships the US reinforced in South America in the 70s was off-thread but discussing the Roman Empire and the likes is not? It appears that off-thread is what is not according to US schoolbooks in here.

It is off-topic. I shouldn't have responded. I made a mistake.
And i'm not as narrow-minded as you think. How many countries have you lived in? How many cultures have you seen? How many continents have you walked on? How many buildings of another religion have you entered?

I'll answer my own questions:
I have lived in: 6 countries
I have seen many cultures(Pakistani, Punjabi, Bengali, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, American, British, Arab, Malay, American, German, Polish...)
I have been on the continents of: Asia, Europe, North America, and Africa.
I have been in: A jewish Cynagogue, a Hindu Temple, a Muslim Mosque, a Christian Church, a Buddhit temple, and an Atheist Internet Cafe.

So i'm not Narrowminded.

WAit...

That's off-topic...

so don't respond.

NOW NO OFF-TOPIC POSTS!

OK, a bully is someone, or some entity, that uses the others fear to make them do what the bully wants. The typical bully is only content when all around are cringing and hoping not to be noticed. The sword is not representative of this, it is representative of either pure malicious violence, or of justice when combined with a set of balances.

as i have already said my grasp of english is no not perfect especially in the time of P.C (I wait to be corrected on ths aswell :) ) but what should I have used to describe as my example that america might have the same mishap as the former ussr?

And i'm not as narrow-minded as you think.


I did not call you narrow-minded.
Anyway, I agree that we have gone off-topic but for better. I think a pretty good other topic is begging to be initiated. Unfortunately I cannot go on with it right now but I hope someone else will set it running

1. I made up that quote.

What? People have to MAKE the quote before it really becomes a quote. They don't magically pop outta the ground.

2. The Soviet Union lasted 69 years (from 1922 to 1991). Problem is, it wasn't the sole world superpower. It was a contender, and it was defeated.

thank you
1. cos i never heard it before obviously :). but fair enough

2. because i didn't how long the soviet union had power but i had the inclination that it didn't last as long as the examples you gave

Good.

Now...

Lets get back ON topic!

Um, did you see the first option?

No I did not. Sorry about that :headbang: I've been reading all day so my eyes are a little tired.

China's economy is gearing up at an unheard of rate. They'll need lots of oil...
Where will they get it you ask? Nobody knows but you can bet they'll go to war if anybody gets in their way.

NOW NO OFF-TOPIC POSTS!

You can't keep doing that and expect people to follow.. If you take your own thread off-topic, you can't expect people not to reply to your off-topic responses by simply saying.. "You can't dissent because it's off-topic" Tsk! you know better!

You can't keep doing that and expect people to follow.. If you take your own thread off-topic, you can't expect people not to reply to your off-topic responses by simply saying.. "You can't dissent because it's off-topic" Tsk! you know better!

1. OMFG! I thought you went away forever!

2. If you didn't notice, I didn't say anything after that. No one did, we made truce and now we're back ON-topic.

3. Power Corrupts.

Difference between Afghanistan THEN and Afghanistan NOW.

The Afghani people mostly support the U.S. We brought them true democracy. We brought them religious freedom. We brought them everything good. Most of the guerillas have left for Iraq. Now, IRAQ may be the U.S's Afghanistan, but it wont destroy us. It'll be more like Vietnam.

And remember, the U.S. isn't made up of little countries. It IS a country.


The United States is made up of, well... states. 50 of them last time I counted. And remember that Russia and the Eastern Ukraine accounted for 80% of the Soviet economy.
As for whether Iraq will be our downfall, that is as of yet unknown. I do know however that if our army is still in Iraq ten years from now, it will unquestionably be our downfall.
The United States became a global superpower almost overnight. Don't be arrogant enough to think it couldn't end just as quickly. It did for the Soviets.

The United States is made up of, well... states. 50 of them last time I counted. And remember that Russia and the Eastern Ukraine accounted for 80% of the Soviet economy.
As for whether Iraq will be our downfall, that is as of yet unknown. I do know however that if our army is still in Iraq ten years from now, it will unquestionably be our downfall.
The United States became a global superpower almost overnight. Don't be arrogant enough to think it couldn't end just as quickly. It did for the Soviets.

We moved back on topic...

Seeing as the last on was called WW II there is an assumption it will be called....

Seeing as the last on was called WW II there is an assumption it will be called....

No.

The last one was called "The Second Gulf War", or "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

I don't mean cataclysmic wars. I just mean wars.

No.

The last one was called "The Second Gulf War", or "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

I don't mean cataclysmic wars. I just mean wars.

I thought you said major world conflict...

I thought you said major world conflict...

I did.

An actual war is a major world conflict.

A regular world conflict is a few skirmishes here and there.

A conflict is a bunch of pissed off people fighting with each other.

I'd say a US invasion of North Korea, as I see it as inevitable in a few years. However, with the exception of Taiwan, none of the conflicts will be major. They are all minor conflicts that will have no major impact on everyday life for much of the world.

The US can bomb the shit out of a nation, but we are no longer in a position to put significant troop numbers on the ground. We will only instigate hostility if the conflict can be won by air.
We have no strategic reason to attack North Korea. They have no natural resources to stage a corporate takeover of and they are in no way an economical threat to us. We also remember what happened the last time we invaded North Korea.
They will not directly attack us either as long as they have no backing from China, which is already angry at them for refusing to rely on Chinese nuclear protection.

I think the most immediate opportunity for conflict would be a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Now would be the time to take advantage of America's growing international unpopularity. China could launch an invasion and within a month have a chinese soldier on every square foot of Taiwanese soil. They know that we would never use our nuclear arsenal against China without ABM technology, because that would mean Chinese nuclear retaliation against us.
That would leave us with economic sanctions as our only recourse, and who in this day and age would join the US in sanctions against the fourth largest economy on the globe? Mainland Europe would probably just tell us to piss off, given the amount of Anti-Americanism there.
And that would be that. We could bomb Chinese targets in Taiwan all we wanted but it wouldn't force them out. There'd be just about nothing we could do.

I don't know if it will be the next major conflict, but I have almost completed my droid army, and shall be taking over a Calafornian Suburb with it soon.

Why isn't Humans vs. the Robots in the poll?

China vs. Taiwan

China just declared that they don't give a damn about the Olympic Games or Economic Development, or even some tenthousand lives.

After all, it's not the sons and grandsons of the decision makers that go to war.

If the communist leaders are really at the forefront, they should be in the first wave to step on Taiwanes soil.

China is more like nationalist Germany before WWII at this moment.

If I compare the nationalism, the economy, and of course the applause of the west to both countries (Hitler as Times' Man of the Year), I don't see a difference.


The war will come and then as 60 years before - nobody "did see it coming" or "knew anything".

Only General Motors, General Electric and IG Farben (oh sorry, BASF and Bayer) will make a killing.

China's economy is gearing up at an unheard of rate. They'll need lots of oil...
Where will they get it you ask? Nobody knows but you can bet they'll go to war if anybody gets in their way.


At a time, when the US makes war in Iraq, China buys pump rights in Kazachstan, Sudan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Nigeria, etc.

And they deliver a subway to Thehran to get oil from them.

The Chinese are not all that stupid. They don't care much for their own who live right now. They care about the country as a whole and how it will be in 200 or 300 years. Even their population control policy has targets set for 2100 and 2200.

A vote for other, as very few of the options are realistic, at least in the next several years.


U.S. "liberation" of Iran
U.S. invasion N. Korea
U.S. invasion of Syria
Cuba vs. U.S.

All unlikely, at least as worded, for the simple reason that the US is stretched to the point of not being able to adequately prosecute the conflicts it's in now. A conflict between the ROK and the DPRK would of course draw in the US, but wouldn't be a US invasion.

Chinese invasion of Taiwan

Not for a minimum of at least 10 years. The PRC simply doesn't have the projection to carry it out.

Pakistan vs India

The only one on the list that is feasable. However things seem to be patched up nicely for the moment.

Russia vs. ?
Georgia vs. Russia

I'd consider that the same thing. ;)
Maybe.

French Conquest of Ivory Coast

Unlikely, as peace seems to be breaking out there (but I'm not holding mu breath).

Hotspots to watch:
Chile vs Peru
Zimbabwe
Yemen
Mali
Ghana vs Equatorial Guinea
DPRK vs ROK (and possibly PRC)
Israel vs Iran

Everybody has done ones I would do, so....

UK vs Spain: Spain invades Gibralter, claiming sovereignty on it. They are confident they will have the EU's backing on the move.

The UK counter attacks, and a land war on Gibralter ensues.

This could become a real test for the EU.

The US backs the UK, and in turn the EU backs Spain and tells the UK to give up sovereignty of Gibralter.

The UK tells the EU to "fuck off".

America claps.

Things may get worse from there.

The next major world conflict will be "War of the Worlds"

i heard in the news that there are reports already of guys in iran marking places out for bombing

pity we can stop america the best we can hope for is that britain doesnt help

more dead soldiers for no reason

The French are already doing the Ivory Coast, so we can take that one off the list.

The US will certainly be involved. It will be them 'fighting evil' some way or another, some place or another

do you think george bush has a batman complex

do you think george bush has a batman complex

Not Batman. Lone Ranger.

Not Batman. Lone Ranger.

who plays tonto?

good point tho - batman is a bit butch for ole georgey. he needs to camp it up with spurs and a sexy mask

Crusade vs. Jihad.

who plays tonto?

good point tho - batman is a bit butch for ole georgey. he needs to camp it up with spurs and a sexy mask

The faithful sidekick is Tony Blair (complete with Indian headdress and war paint)

Hotspots to watch:
Chile vs Peru


Agreed. And once Chile gets involved, most likely Argentina will back them as well.

I think another Korean action will be fought by the U.S. and N. Korea in the not so distant future. ca. 5-20 years from now.
The reason is that America invaded Iraq because of WMD that they had according to Bush, Powell and others.
It is now clear that they did not but North Korea has a nuclear arsenal and are willing to fight the U.S. In other words the North Korean government are warmongering.

On a different note, can anybode here tell me what is going on in Ivory Coast? Is France in a war? I heard they (France) bombed the shit out of the native airforce in retaliation for the murder and rape of French people or an attack on the French Military.

You want to leave humanity to go leaderless, that's your belief.most of humanity does not want the US to bully them.

coordinated chinese and north korean nuclear attacks on taiwan and south korea (non-aggression pact with Russia) ...

depends on a necessary lack of american determination to retaliate with nuclear weapons for an attack not against their own soil

results in new United People's Communist Republics of Asia (UPCRA), with japan as its next target

An invasion of Luxembourg in Belgium (for people who doesn't know: Belgium lays in Africa). Why do they have Humvees? I don't trust Luxembourg. :mad:

An invasion of Luxembourg in Belgium (for people who doesn't know: Belgium lays in Africa). Why do they have Humvees? I don't trust Luxembourg. :mad:

Hmmmm... "The War of the Really Small Countries No one Cares About".

It's a bit long, but it'll do!