The WWIII Thread

Bombogenesis

Bombogenesis

Active member
Hope shit doesn't hit the fan, I don't want to be drafted next year. Weed's almost legal over here and I SWEAR to god I'm going to get my first BJ before 2015.
 
...and people voted for Obama because he "wanted peace" and "to end the war in Iraq"..... lmao

No Hope for the Human Race. Seriously

It's all because of fucking oil. our need for fucking oil... *sigh*

I'm just going to move to B.C. and ski pow for the rest of my life. fuck the world
 
Not going to happen. The US would destroy every country on the planet before we lost a war with Russia. We won the cold war and we would win an actual war as well.

You suck gnartron
 
really? We arent the only country with nukes? Thanks for the info.

We would still destroy the world before we lost a war. No doubt in my mind.

moron lol
 
Everyone said that Obama would make the world love us etc. whoops.

Bush was a war mongerer but Obama will be defended somehow by the left. Meh
 
It's like they're expecting no retaliation from a cruise missle strike. Like they're just gonna hit them an they'll stand down. It doesn't work like that.
 
it was a different time thats for sure

Operation%20Frantic%2001.jpg


Nuclear-Bomb.jpg


300px-Dauntless_bomb_drop.jpg


adolf_hitler.jpg
 
I believe they had a similar threat during the Gadhafi overthrow. Also the trade interests and such between the west and countries like Russia are just too high to risk large scale conflict. Unfortunately stupidity can always take over the better half of some people.
 
It's not like russia would do anything to attack america directly. Same with china. They might have a lot of military stuff and different views and everything, but I don't think the leaders of those countries are stupid enough to think they (or humanity) in general could survive a war like that.
 
did you even read that article you posted? It goes on to claim that the "Obama Regime" planned to commit an act of false flag terrorism by using chemical weapons in Syria in order to justify an attack...
 
The article was kind of a not serious supplement to the thread, sorry if I made it seem like that was my justification. I really do think that if we attacked Syria wed piss of some people we don't want to piss off though..
 
I don't know how anyone could possible read more than three or four paragraphs from that "article" and not realize what they were actually reading. Where's your critical thinking? I'm more scared of people actually consuming a website like the eu times and accepting it blindly than I am of the Syrian civil war sparking WWIII. I think it's pretty ironic that you started this thread to avoid the idiots...

Is there where you say you're just trolling?
 
Just as Obama claims that Assad's regime launched chemical weapons on his on people at a time when he was winning the war while UN inspectors were performing a probe literally next door. Assad would have to be literally the stupidest person alive to launch chemical weapons at that time. He had everything to lose, the rebels had nothing to loose. It seems as if the US government and its allies don't give two fucks about evidence or congressional approval, or the constitution or anything for that matter. Why so assertive kerry?

"Obama Regime; planned to commit an act of false flag terrorism by using chemical weapons in Syria in order to justify an attack..."

So he didn't? You know this for sure?

We need to protect the homeland, shut the fuck up.
 
The US attempted to frame the Syrian Government. Be without evidence, and accusations including, "We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said of the assault.

They knew they had no evidence, but concluded to carry out the attacks anyway.

Funny how the US, UK, and France were pushing for a ‘response’ to the Syrian ‘gas attacks’ just as the UN chemical probe gets delayed.

Brought up before, Western nations have a conditioned aversion to chemical weapons. Historically, because of the conditions of World War 1 their usage became taboo, in spite of their minor role in combat. Having no doubt, chemical weapons are barbaric, but so is land-mining, machine-gunning, napalming and other 'orthodox,' 'legal,' methods of warfare the US and its allies utilize regularly. Not to mention, the untied states government DU and use of white phosphorus during military combat operations in Fallujah.

In any case, the very actuality of the taboo permits Western nations to selectively cite use of chemical weapons as reasons for military action. This use is, of course selective; if it's a client regime using them against enemies of the US or its allies, no enforcement, and perhaps even outright aid, as in the case of Iraq against Iran. And of course it's all hypocritical, and downright irrational: hence the importance of media saturation campaigns and consistent government propaganda concerning WMDs. The US government was without a doubt deprived of rational thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top