|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 3, 2021 19:08:48 GMT
If this theorized ww3 comes to be, what would be the coalitions that fight against each other ?
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 3, 2021 19:41:03 GMT
If this theorized ww3 comes to be, what would be the coalitions that fight against each other ? Well, the election changed a ton. I would say China + S. America v. NATO + SEATO +India. If US DOW Russia, then Russia joins, if not, Russia just supplies China. N. Korea would pretend like it was dangerous. Other EU members who are not in NATO would probably stay neutral, and MidEast is inconsequential, apart from being a battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 3, 2021 19:48:19 GMT
If this theorized ww3 comes to be, what would be the coalitions that fight against each other ? Well, the election changed a ton. I would say China + S. America v. NATO + SEATO +India. If US DOW Russia, then Russia joins, if not, Russia just supplies China. N. Korea would pretend like it was dangerous. Other EU members who are not in NATO would probably stay neutral, and MidEast is inconsequential, apart from being a battlefield. why S. America ? maybe later but right now, you have Pinera, Bolsonaro and many more who are pro-american neo-liberals.
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Brock on May 3, 2021 22:11:32 GMT
Well, the election changed a ton. I would say China + S. America v. NATO + SEATO +India. If US DOW Russia, then Russia joins, if not, Russia just supplies China. N. Korea would pretend like it was dangerous. Other EU members who are not in NATO would probably stay neutral, and MidEast is inconsequential, apart from being a battlefield. why S. America ? maybe later but right now, you have Pinera, Bolsonaro and many more who are pro-american neo-liberals. ehe, Morales. Also, is Madura still alive?
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Brock on May 3, 2021 22:15:41 GMT
Well, the election changed a ton. I would say China + S. America v. NATO + SEATO +India. If US DOW Russia, then Russia joins, if not, Russia just supplies China. N. Korea would pretend like it was dangerous. Other EU members who are not in NATO would probably stay neutral, and MidEast is inconsequential, apart from being a battlefield. why S. America ? maybe later but right now, you have Pinera, Bolsonaro and many more who are pro-american neo-liberals. I don't think they would have choice either. The Mexican-American Border is still a very tense location. The government no longer has any kind thoughts for refugees, and they are all coming from Latin America. Countries like Greece and Austria might also tolerate this because they themselves had to deal with refugees. I think France's handling of refugees can be summed up into one picture: 6c11a0cf7d197e28d11c00a8763e4cbb.webp (90.4 KB) huh, looks like you have to download it. It is Banksy's Cosette
|
|
|
Post by Juan Carlos Bodoque on May 4, 2021 1:38:36 GMT
why S. America ? maybe later but right now, you have Pinera, Bolsonaro and many more who are pro-american neo-liberals. I don't think they would have choice either. The Mexican-American Border is still a very tense location. The government no longer has any kind thoughts for refugees, and they are all coming from Latin America. Countries like Greece and Austria might also tolerate this because they themselves had to deal with refugees. I think France's handling of refugees can be summed up into one picture: View Attachmenthuh, looks like you have to download it. It is Banksy's CosetteMaybe the masses are fed up with the U.S but the elites in power don't want war because they know it's against their interests. Consequently, the government (in S.A a tool of the rich) will take no action against the Empire that feeds them
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 4, 2021 13:57:10 GMT
why S. America ? maybe later but right now, you have Pinera, Bolsonaro and many more who are pro-american neo-liberals. I don't think they would have choice either. The Mexican-American Border is still a very tense location. The government no longer has any kind thoughts for refugees, and they are all coming from Latin America. Countries like Greece and Austria might also tolerate this because they themselves had to deal with refugees. I think France's handling of refugees can be summed up into one picture: View Attachmenthuh, looks like you have to download it. It is Banksy's CosetteAmerica has struck a trash compromise between lax and rigorous on illegal immigration. It is like Hitler on D-Day. Either we let them come up without government interference, or we hit it hard, stepping up security, not half-measures.
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Brock on May 5, 2021 21:37:06 GMT
I don't think they would have choice either. The Mexican-American Border is still a very tense location. The government no longer has any kind thoughts for refugees, and they are all coming from Latin America. Countries like Greece and Austria might also tolerate this because they themselves had to deal with refugees. I think France's handling of refugees can be summed up into one picture: View Attachmenthuh, looks like you have to download it. It is Banksy's CosetteAmerica has struck a trash compromise between lax and rigorous on illegal immigration. It is like Hitler on D-Day. Either we let them come up without government interference, or we hit it hard, stepping up security, not half-measures. you are speaking of their inaction, yes? Don't step up security. These immigrants are people too. America did try to win the drug war, but they lost in one decisive battle against Opioids. It is like the British being one of the most surveilled nations. Like prohibition, it is pointless. People are going to s till using drugs to a dangerous extent, and they always will no matter how much we do. That is why we built that damned wall, correct? Or do you really believe in that Chain Migration bull??? The wall was pointless. It only terribly deteriorated our relations with Latin America. Watch Which Way Home. It may have been made in 2008, but it still speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 6, 2021 13:04:08 GMT
America has struck a trash compromise between lax and rigorous on illegal immigration. It is like Hitler on D-Day. Either we let them come up without government interference, or we hit it hard, stepping up security, not half-measures. you are speaking of their inaction, yes? Don't step up security. These immigrants are people too. America did try to win the drug war, but they lost in one decisive battle against Opioids. It is like the British being one of the most surveilled nations. Like prohibition, it is pointless. People are going to s till using drugs to a dangerous extent, and they always will no matter how much we do. That is why we built that darned wall, correct? Or do you really believe in that Chain Migration bull??? The wall was pointless. It only terribly deteriorated our relations with Latin America. Watch Which Way Home. It may have been made in 2008, but it still speaks volumes. America brought the drugs into America, then made them illegal under Tricky Dick Nixon. It is a pointless affair meant to keep the African-American population out of power. There is a reason they have disproportionate rates of drug incarceration. I agree with your comparison to Prohibition. Another comparison is to Gun Control. I also believe that illegal immigration is very wrong and that they are taking opportunities away from both natives as well as legal immigrants. I love immigration, but hate illegal immigration.
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Brock on May 7, 2021 22:14:34 GMT
you are speaking of their inaction, yes? Don't step up security. These immigrants are people too. America did try to win the drug war, but they lost in one decisive battle against Opioids. It is like the British being one of the most surveilled nations. Like prohibition, it is pointless. People are going to s till using drugs to a dangerous extent, and they always will no matter how much we do. That is why we built that darned wall, correct? Or do you really believe in that Chain Migration bull??? The wall was pointless. It only terribly deteriorated our relations with Latin America. Watch Which Way Home. It may have been made in 2008, but it still speaks volumes. America brought the drugs into America, then made them illegal under Tricky Dick Nixon. It is a pointless affair meant to keep the African-American population out of power. There is a reason they have disproportionate rates of drug incarceration. I agree with your comparison to Prohibition. Another comparison is to Gun Control. I also believe that illegal immigration is very wrong and that they are taking opportunities away from both natives as well as legal immigrants. I love immigration, but hate illegal immigration. those immigrants stick themselves in a hole anyway, working only menial labor because of their lack of registration. You also must understand the trouble of legally immigrating. If it was easy, why wouldn't they do it? During the Trump Administration, they were using the immigrants as a scapegoat for the drug problem. They ignored the African American population, like almost every other old white man in office. (Not saying that would change if there wasn't) Gun Control is a hard topic for me to discuss...targeting children pisses me off. Removing their innocence of childhood is worse than murder, and that is what was happening in schools very recently. I will notice that this all started when gun restrictions became a thing in the '80s, but now there is no undoing it now, is there? It isn't terrorism from other countries now, it is hate crimes from our very own racist population.
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on May 31, 2021 7:12:36 GMT
If this theorized ww3 comes to be, what would be the coalitions that fight against each other ? Well, the election changed a ton. I would say China + S. America v. NATO + SEATO +India. If US DOW Russia, then Russia joins, if not, Russia just supplies China. N. Korea would pretend like it was dangerous. Other EU members who are not in NATO would probably stay neutral, and MidEast is inconsequential, apart from being a battlefield. SEATO includes Pakistan. You are also putting India on American side. That makes little sense.
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jun 1, 2021 17:18:19 GMT
America brought the drugs into America, then made them illegal under Tricky Dick Nixon. It is a pointless affair meant to keep the African-American population out of power. There is a reason they have disproportionate rates of drug incarceration. I agree with your comparison to Prohibition. Another comparison is to Gun Control. I also believe that illegal immigration is very wrong and that they are taking opportunities away from both natives as well as legal immigrants. I love immigration, but hate illegal immigration. those immigrants stick themselves in a hole anyway, working only menial labor because of their lack of registration. You also must understand the trouble of legally immigrating. If it was easy, why wouldn't they do it? During the Trump Administration, they were using the immigrants as a scapegoat for the drug problem. They ignored the African American population, like almost every other old white man in office. (Not saying that would change if there wasn't) Gun Control is a hard topic for me to discuss...targeting children pisses me off. Removing their innocence of childhood is worse than murder, and that is what was happening in schools very recently. I will notice that this all started when gun restrictions became a thing in the '80s, but now there is no undoing it now, is there? It isn't terrorism from other countries now, it is hate crimes from our very own racist population. A couple things: Legally immigrating is not Easy. I wish they would make it either easy or virtually impossible, rather than this uneasy compromise. I realize they were used as a scapegoat. I too, hate targeting children. I have met some victims of gun violence, but Gun Control isn't the way. Criminals don't follow laws, be they Gun Control or otherwise. Primarily, I hate the phrase "Hate Crimes." Call me a bigot for saying this (and yes, I realize how respectful you are, I am just saying this to make a point, and I apologize), but I don't believe laws should be based off of feelings and/or even morality. Government is not there to apply morality (should we trust those in Washington with that?), but rather to keep society from falling apart. I especially don't like morality being in law based upon other people's fragile egos. So I disagree with "hate crimes." Another thing about what you said about a racist population, I am not one to say that everyone's racist, but everyone is racist. Everyone has something in them that one might call racist. Support Affirmative Action? Racist! Oppose Affirmative Action? Racist! Don't know what I'm talking about? Racist! So in a way, we live in a population where everyone is "racist" but, in my limited eyes (out here we see less people than trees), only a select few are actively racist.
|
|
|
Post by rommel323 on Jun 2, 2021 5:17:33 GMT
Well, It would all depend on who is winning the war. If the Chinese have an upper, then Pakistan, Iran, probably North Korea and even Russia could join, against NATO and Brazil. The others would definitely not because war would only hurt them. And also, I don't think any European countries would be willing to participate because they have already seen many wars in Europe. So basically, it would be USA, Canada, Brazil and Britain vs China, Iran and North Korea (Only if China has the upper hand). If Pakistan joins or China attacks India, then India would join in the US side, where she would mostly play defensive, save for the destruction of Pakistan.
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on Jun 2, 2021 6:38:02 GMT
Well, It would all depend on who is winning the war. If the Chinese have an upper, then Pakistan, Iran, probably North Korea and even Russia could join, against NATO and Brazil. The others would definitely not because war would only hurt them. And also, I don't think any European countries would be willing to participate because they have already seen many wars in Europe. So basically, it would be USA, Canada, Brazil and Britain vs China, Iran and North Korea (Only if China has the upper hand). If Pakistan joins or China attacks India, then India would join in the US side, where she would mostly play defensive, save for the destruction of Pakistan. I don't think China would like to fight 2 front war, they would probably not accept Pakistan as ally, also it depends upon who starts the conflict.
|
|
|
Post by rommel323 on Jun 2, 2021 7:50:11 GMT
Well, It would all depend on who is winning the war. If the Chinese have an upper, then Pakistan, Iran, probably North Korea and even Russia could join, against NATO and Brazil. The others would definitely not because war would only hurt them. And also, I don't think any European countries would be willing to participate because they have already seen many wars in Europe. So basically, it would be USA, Canada, Brazil and Britain vs China, Iran and North Korea (Only if China has the upper hand). If Pakistan joins or China attacks India, then India would join in the US side, where she would mostly play defensive, save for the destruction of Pakistan. I don't think China would like to fight 2 front war, they would probably not accept Pakistan as ally, also it depends upon who starts the conflict. Yep and that's what prevents a war, or at least prevent them from attacking India. They might not accept Pakistan as an ally, but they will defintely jump in if they see a weakened India.
|
|