WW3?

[Black Death]

B wins.  He makes all valid points and I agree with him.

B always wins... don't you know that yet

[Alex Smiley]

Yeah, everyone knows you should trust the B.

[Duckman]

Didn't the EXACT same comments get made after 9/11?  Or when Isreal and Palestine escalted their shit and all that bs went down with that boat?  Remember?

People are so queer about this kind of thing these days.

Mass media driven panic.

There's too much on the line for anyone to start nuking anyone else.

If they do, fuck it, we'll be dead in the blink of an eye anyway.

Cheer up Maddox, life is too short to worry about shit like this! 

Peace

Duckman

[The Dudester]

Whoa.. I never said Nuke... just looking at the situation as it is.

IF N. Korea goes to war with S. Korea do you know who else gets involved? United States. Also, due to membership in the U.N., that means OTHER countries get involved. Much like England has had a pressence along side the US in both iraq and Afghanistan, they would also have one in N. Korea as well.

Thanks to the U.N. and the "pacts", pretty much if Israel, US or England go to war, the others are involved pretty much by default.

WW1 and WW2 weren't "global" wars either in the sense they were northen hemisphere, primarily European wars (with WW2 having some pacific issues with US/Japan).

The whole world is set in "pacts", just like they used to be. Sometimes they were called Axis or Allied, but it was all through Pacts and the LoN (now the U.N).

ALL it takes to severely set something off is Iran/Israel start really bombing, or S Korea and N Korea, or even some other outside country invading another (Ahem.. USA perhaps? We have been known to invade..).

"Peace" isn't going to last forever folks. History should have taught all of you that. It's coming.. whether it starts in the middle east or the far east is yet to be determined, but those are the two "powder kegs" on the planet.

[The Dudester]

Oh, and someone mentioned China is an ally... how so? China has constantly been the most leinent country of the entire UN when it comes to N. Korea, and more often than not refuses to take a stand against them. China is what has kept the US from actually taking out Kim Jong Ill.

The "allies" in the East are Russia, China and N. Korea, with N. Korea basically a pawn and puppet of the other two to see how the Mighty U.S. will react to things. The US (and U.N personel) are "allies" with Taiwan and Japan.

Tiawan and Japan are two of the biggest reasons we and CHina aren't united. (much like how Israel is what keeps us at anger with the Palestine world).

World War 3 isn't as far off as you all wish to believe. Heck.. some people are saying the "Global War on Terroism" is actually the start of WW3..

[Captain Metro]

Oh, and someone mentioned China is an ally... how so? China has constantly been the most leinent country of the entire UN when it comes to N. Korea, and more often than not refuses to take a stand against them. China is what has kept the US from actually taking out Kim Jong Ill.

The "allies" in the East are Russia, China and N. Korea, with N. Korea basically a pawn and puppet of the other two to see how the Mighty U.S. will react to things.

It's exactly like what B said. Even with the deficit the American's have, they still have the manufacturing power, the capital and the markets to support an economy if there were to be war. China does not have all of those, much of their economy is built on employment in manufacturing foreign goods and then exporting them (much like the mother country in mercantalist ideology.) Once their economy goes belly-up, the war will be over as they can't feed their population which is there greatest strength.

You have to remember that China's military power is overstated in terms of technology, the only fear most countries have is just how vast an army they could have compared to theirs.

[Ian "Wolfie" Trumps]

Firstly, if you are going to preach to people involving some sort of historical facts make sure you actual know what you are talking about. Nobody here needs to have the word 'pacts' explained to them and its a completely inappropiate term to be used. The word you would be best using is 'alliance'. A pact makes it sound like a load of 15 years got together and decided to all lose their virginity by the time they were 18 or they would commit suicide. As for the alliances drawn together through the United Nations, the United States proved this was completely irrelevant during the invasion of Iraq. The UN did not want an invasion of Iraq in search for the WMDs and the United States and its allie Great Britain (not England, thats just purely insulting to serving men and women from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) decided to go to war with Iraq...this will be the point if you remember/know anything you will recall the French stance on the subject and Americans pathetic attempt to garner national sympathy for their move by renaming 'French Fries'...Freedom Fries.



Secondly, implying that the League of Nations morphed into the United Nations is completely untrue. The League of Nations disbanded in mid 40s and if memory serves me correct they liquidated assets in either 46' or 47'...the entire point of the League of Nations was an offshot of the Treaty of Versailles which served as a selective governing body with little interest in involving countries throughout the world and more focused on almost being some sort of chosen country super power council brought together by the Treaty which was made to punish Germany for its involvement in the war. The UN was created before the liquidation of the League of Nations and boasts over 190 members. It is not a graduate of the other. Its very important that you and others reading understand that.



Thirdly, China is more of an ally than you think. Their business interests alone in the United States and Western Europe through its cheap labour, exporting of probably a good portion of products inside your home make it that ally. Supply and demand alone is far more important to China than anything else...without their Western exporting ties their economy would crumble.



Fourthly, comparing a potential World War 3 and the term 'Global War on Terrorism' is completely ridiculous. That term is used for Western super powers mostly the United States and my own country to justify their vested economic interests in the middle east. Russia at the moment has some ridiculous amount of access to natural gases that we all crave to power our lives. However you dice it Conservative America is not interested in doing deals with the Ruskies and would rather get themselves some guns, get themselves some ammo and shoot some dudes with towels on their heads with Britain sat along for the ride eating cucumber sandwhiches as they dance around in a shower of oil.



In short...read a book and turn off Fox news.

[The Dudester]

Firstly, if you are going to preach to people involving some sort of historical facts make sure you actual know what you are talking about. Nobody here needs to have the word 'pacts' explained to them and its a completely inappropiate term to be used. The word you would be best using is 'alliance'. A pact makes it sound like a load of 15 years got together and decided to all lose their virginity by the time they were 18 or they would commit suicide. As for the alliances drawn together through the United Nations, the United States proved this was completely irrelevant during the invasion of Iraq. The UN did not want an invasion of Iraq in search for the WMDs and the United States and its allie Great Britain (not England, thats just purely insulting to serving men and women from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) decided to go to war with Iraq...this will be the point if you remember/know anything you will recall the French stance on the subject and Americans pathetic attempt to garner national sympathy for their move by renaming 'French Fries'...Freedom Fries.



Secondly, implying that the League of Nations morphed into the United Nations is completely untrue. The League of Nations disbanded in mid 40s and if memory serves me correct they liquidated assets in either 46' or 47'...the entire point of the League of Nations was an offshot of the Treaty of Versailles which served as a selective governing body with little interest in involving countries throughout the world and more focused on almost being some sort of chosen country super power council brought together by the Treaty which was made to punish Germany for its involvement in the war. The UN was created before the liquidation of the League of Nations and boasts over 190 members. It is not a graduate of the other. Its very important that you and others reading understand that.



Thirdly, China is more of an ally than you think. Their business interests alone in the United States and Western Europe through its cheap labour, exporting of probably a good portion of products inside your home make it that ally. Supply and demand alone is far more important to China than anything else...without their Western exporting ties their economy would crumble.



Fourthly, comparing a potential World War 3 and the term 'Global War on Terrorism' is completely ridiculous. That term is used for Western super powers mostly the United States and my own country to justify their vested economic interests in the middle east. Russia at the moment has some ridiculous amount of access to natural gases that we all crave to power our lives. However you dice it Conservative America is not interested in doing deals with the Ruskies and would rather get themselves some guns, get themselves some ammo and shoot some dudes with towels on their heads with Britain sat along for the ride eating cucumber sandwhiches as they dance around in a shower of oil.



In short...read a book and turn off Fox news.

Wow.. what a unique way of attacking shit I never said. Congrats. First off, I never said the LoN morphed into the UN. Never even implied one was born from the other. I menioned the LoN (and UN) breifly and when referring to pacts that have been made. In fact, my entire mention of both was "The whole world is set in "pacts", just like they used to be. Sometimes they were called Axis or Allied, but it was all through Pacts and the LoN (now the U.N)." I'm fully aware that the failure of the LoN was WW2 and that the UN was formed after. I just didn't think that the Knights needed a god damned history lesson about it. Where you read "The LoN disbanded and morphed into what is now known as the U.N.." I have no fucking clue cause it was never said. I guess I should have read "Viva la France!" in your minscule quip about Freedom Fries. (Which was completely retarded, I agree)

Sorry the word "pact" got you so wound up, but here in the U.S. we have "pacts" and they are titled as such. They may be titled "alliances" across the pond I don't know because I speak American, not Proper English, but here they are called "pacts", hence why ANY war that may come in the Korean Penninsula will have a direct involvement with both the US and Britain (and the U.N)Especially considering th fact that the current Secretary General of the UN is Ban Ki-Moon, from South Korea. . Actually, the word "pact" has been used MANY times in history (Molotovâ€"Ribbentrop Pact, Warsaw pact, etc)

As for China, they are an "ally" in the sense they have a seat at the UN just like we do. The didn't support the US (and other UN forces so I dont offend any Scots or Wales) during the Korean War (or Conflict, if you prefer that term better) or the current Iraq/Afghanistan wars that the US and the UN are involved in. They and have sat back and did neither jack nor shit during the three flare ups in Pennisula since 1999. Korea is little more than an extension of China in land, border, philosophy and culture. True, China has an economic interest in what occurs in the Penninsula, but to just assume they are an ally of the South Korean's because China make all the shit Wal-Mart sales in the US is absurd. China has barely even blinked in the North's direction each time any resemblance of fighting takes place. (now 4th time since 1999). Currently the only thing stopping S. Korea, the US and the UN from completely fucking up N. Korea is indeed.. China becasue no one really is sure where China's loyalty lies on the situation, or how much involvement they already may feasibly have in what has transpired.

And to close, your final paragraph, I didn't coin the phrase compairing WW3 to "The Global War on Terrorism", I said some people have said that. The true cause of WW3 will be decided and chosen once WW3 actually starts (and it will), much like when the Archduke was killed in Europe no one was expecting that to kick off an entire 4 year, continent absorbing war. Perhaps someday someone does say the "War on terror" was the beginning. Then again, someone may be able to say "WW3 begain when North Korea shot the shit out of Yongpyang". Ya know the powder keg of sorts that explodes and kicks off WW3 may not even be ready to pop yet... or it may already have and we just aren't aware yet. History in the future will decide that.

In short, quit being a dick.

[Duckman]

Wow, this is going to end well....

Some people just don't know when to stop talking - especially on subjects they really don't know much about.

Peace

Duckman

[Alex Smiley]

Lay down your fucking weapons, and pick up your fucking forks. Happy Thanksgiving!

[The Dudester]

Wow, this is going to end well....

Some people just don't know when to stop talking - especially on subjects they really don't know much about.

Peace

Duckman

Probably intended for me, but Trump came through attacking what I didn't say.

[The Dudester]

And Happy Thanksgiving, Alex.

[Ian "Wolfie" Trumps]

Wow.. what a unique way of attacking shit I never said. Congrats. First off, I never said the LoN morphed into the UN. Never even implied one was born from the other. I menioned the LoN (and UN) breifly and when referring to pacts that have been made. In fact, my entire mention of both was "The whole world is set in "pacts", just like they used to be. Sometimes they were called Axis or Allied, but it was all through Pacts and the LoN (now the U.N)."

Actually I attacked 'shit' you EXACTLY said. You said League of Nations (Now the U.N)...while you are sat there trying to understand the difference between American and English language you will become aware (seeing as now I will have to give you an English lesson) that your use of brackets there implies the League of Nations became the United Nations. More than likely you thought this was the case...and when I pointed it out because my education extends beyond the internet and my local TV station, you researched it. Understood I was right. I am pretty sure of this seeing as your opening tirrade of sarcasm and butt hurt feelings would imply your desperate sense to try and stop yourself looking like a complete retard...only for you to then deny you said something...and then quoting it. Lmao!

I'm fully aware that the failure of the LoN was WW2 and that the UN was formed after.

Actually the league of Nations was disbanded and liquidated in 46' or 47' I can't remember the exact year and the United Nations was formed before that. I quite clearly stated that in argument two. So you are apparently fully aware of nothing...I suggest a little recap in how to read as well.

I just didn't think that the Knights needed a god damned history lesson about it. Where you read "The LoN disbanded and morphed into what is now known as the U.N.." I have no fucking clue cause it was never said. I guess I should have read "Viva la France!" in your minscule quip about Freedom Fries. (Which was completely retarded, I agree)

Yet you spent how long imparting a history lesson on us all a misinformed one at that? And my minscul quip about Freedom Fries is the argument which completely defeats your argument that members of the United Nations do exactly what the United Nations requires of them. My oh my you really aren't fairing very well here are you. Maybe a little more reading is needed on your part.

Sorry the word "pact" got you so wound up, but here in the U.S. we have "pacts" and they are titled as such. They may be titled "alliances" across the pond I don't know because I speak American, not Proper English, but here they are called "pacts", hence why ANY war that may come in the Korean Penninsula will have a direct involvement with both the US and Britain (and the U.N)Especially considering th fact that the current Secretary General of the UN is Ban Ki-Moon, from South Korea. . Actually, the word "pact" has been used MANY times in history (Molotovâ€"Ribbentrop Pact, Warsaw pact, etc)

It didn't get me as bent out of shape as you think kid and I find it equally as amusing that your two examples of the word pact being used are based around a pact that is NEARLY 80 years old between Nazi Germany and Russia and the other one which came about in the mid 50s lmao. Try and get something a wee bit more modern! The word pact is commonly used in all languages, my point being all along the term of phrase you needed to have any sort of argument would have been 'alliance' seeing as the relevance of 'pacts' in 2010 are about as relevant as your original post in the first place...here's a clue...not very relevant! Your talking about a modern war in the 21st century reliant on documentation signed years ago. Back onto my original point the United States and Britain proved with their invasion of Iraq that documentation and approval of governing bodies is no longer relevant in modern day foreign politics. So unfortunatley once more you have missed the point and your 8th grade education has failed you again.

As for China, they are an "ally" in the sense they have a seat at the UN just like we do. The didn't support the US (and other UN forces so I dont offend any Scots or Wales) during the Korean War (or Conflict, if you prefer that term better)

Yeah because during the Korean war...China was thinking...hmmm we better support this war because in 2010 we might be supplying cd players to the United States. Lmao! You are a riot.

or the current Iraq/Afghanistan wars that the US and the UN are involved in.

Which would kind of prove what....yes all 'pacts' don't mean jack shit! 2 POINTS AND THE FOUL SHOT!

They and have sat back and did neither jack nor shit during the three flare ups in Pennisula since 1999. Korea is little more than an extension of China in land, border, philosophy and culture. True, China has an economic interest in what occurs in the Penninsula, but to just assume they are an ally of the South Korean's because China make all the shit Wal-Mart sales in the US is absurd.

Hmmm...pretty sure I didnt say there were an ally of South Korea. Man, your argument keeps going further and further down the loo kid. I am pretty sure I said they were an ally in respect of their vested exporting interests to Western Europe and the United States of America. In others words...they ain't going to sit there and bomb the shit out any Western attack on North Korea. So in other words we have nothing to fear from China what so ever.

China has barely even blinked in the North's direction each time any resemblance of fighting takes place. (now 4th time since 1999). Currently the only thing stopping S. Korea, the US and the UN from completely fucking up N. Korea is indeed.. China becasue no one really is sure where China's loyalty lies on the situation, or how much involvement they already may feasibly have in what has transpired.

I am glad to see you are in the inner circle of foreign political agendas and concerns of the US, UN and everyone else...oh wait you are not. Maybe the reason they haven't done jack shit at this point is that maybe there is no reason to do jack shit at the moment. Maybe there isn't a massive pot of oil sat in South Korea that the United States and Great Britain wants to get their hands on and maybe the United Nations whos first point of call is talking and not fighting are doing just that. Seriously...you really are so incredibly short sighted.

And to close, your final paragraph, I didn't coin the phrase compairing WW3 to "The Global War on Terrorism", I said some people have said that.

Way to backtrack there! Seeing as also in this final paragraph you said "World War 3 isn't as far off as you all wish to believe. Heck.. some people are saying the "Global War on Terroism" is actually the start of WW3.."



You are using that line on Global War on Terrorism to SUPPORT your theory a World War 3 isn't that far off. You are seriously dense as anything. If you have any opinion then at least stick to your guns even when challenged. Its pathetic how spineless you are.

The true cause of WW3 will be decided and chosen once WW3 actually starts

Really...thanks for clarifying that for everyone lmao!

much like when the Archduke was killed in Europe no one was expecting that to kick off an entire 4 year, continent absorbing war. Perhaps someday someone does say the "War on terror" was the beginning. Then again, someone may be able to say "WW3 begain when North Korea shot the shit out of Yongpyang". Ya know the powder keg of sorts that explodes and kicks off WW3 may not even be ready to pop yet... or it may already have and we just aren't aware yet. History in the future will decide that.

With that last line you should be writing slogans for the history channel...you are wasted here lmao.

In short, quit being a dick.

Apparently your clarification of being a dick is being far more intelligent than you and far more educated than you by all accounts. I can sort of see based on your personality your frustrations at wanting to come here and have people be all over your nut sack and it not happening. What EFK does and the people here do is actually challenge opinions. Maybe other communities you are in aren't that versed in current affairs, thinking outside the box or challenging other posters. Thats really a YP (your problem)...I and nobody else here will stop challenging you because you don't like it and its further not our fault you are so far up your own backside you don't like be shown up to be wrong. Like I said to you before...this site doesn't need you. You need this site by all accounts. And whats this...yet another example of how you don't like to be challenged which is in stark contrast to your joust post were you said



"If you all want to flame me, or be angry, that's cool. I wont get my proverbial man panties in a bunch."



and yet...all I am doing is challenging your opinion in the same blunt way you claim to speak to everyone else on here. Seems like you might have well put the word dick in the term contridiction...

[Adam Wrong]

Ahhh this is going well...

Where is Judge when you need to point out the difference between Koreans, Chinese and others?

[jagilki]

Wold War Three will be fought between the Poor and the corporations that are wanting to rape our souls for profits.

We will lose, the rich will get richer and the poor will live cruel meaningless lives working for "The Man".

That Man?































































Ian Trumps.