Since the US spending our capital on our people vs. the military is imminent as Mach points out, we will no longer be able to protect Europe. That will be exploited and cause a World War. I actually think World War is imminent.

Yes. A large scale war is always a possibility.

One has to remember that generally wars aren't started by rational people.

Well i like the saying.

'I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

commonly attributed to einstein but was likely someone else.

Personally, I would withdraw from Europe and let them defend their lands from Russia. Let Europe deal with a major war. We shouldn't have been involved in WW1.

(04-18-2016 03:16 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Personally, I would withdraw from Europe and let them defend their lands from Russia. Let Europe deal with a major war. We shouldn't have been involved in WW1.

We wouldn't have been involved in WW1 if the Germans weren't sinking our ships. I'm all for staying out a lot more than we do, but we had to get into that one.

(04-18-2016 08:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would put it at under 1%. Sure could we have one? I guess, but to set policy by it, no way. I can see us going the way of the European countries where we spend our capital on our people vs. the military. Thoughts?

Read your Bible, Mach.

ALL nations will attack Jerusalem right before Christ returns, probably because they will be using nukes to defend themselves from Gog and his allies.

We also Know that Gog's initial invasion will look much like a World war.

Its not very far off now. Russia is currently aligning itself with several of these Muslim nations mentioned in Ezekiel.

Could be in the next few years, or it could be 30 years away, but this is the era it happens in.

I could see the peaceful free world setting out on...another Crusade. Other than that? No.

(04-18-2016 03:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 03:16 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Personally, I would withdraw from Europe and let them defend their lands from Russia. Let Europe deal with a major war. We shouldn't have been involved in WW1.

We wouldn't have been involved in WW1 if the Germans weren't sinking our ships. I'm all for staying out a lot more than we do, but we had to get into that one.

Devils Advocate: It was not our ship, it was the HMS Lusitania which was the triggering event. And the Lusitania had been transporting arms from from the Americas to They would not have been sinking out ships if we were not sending our arms to their enemies..

(04-18-2016 06:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 03:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 03:16 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Personally, I would withdraw from Europe and let them defend their lands from Russia. Let Europe deal with a major war. We shouldn't have been involved in WW1.

We wouldn't have been involved in WW1 if the Germans weren't sinking our ships. I'm all for staying out a lot more than we do, but we had to get into that one.

Devils Advocate: It was not our ship, it was the HMS Lusitania which was the triggering event. And the Lusitania had been transporting arms from from the Americas to They would not have been sinking out ships if we were not sending our arms to their enemies..

What if Russia sank a destroyer with arms going to the Kurds?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(04-18-2016 06:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 03:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 03:16 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Personally, I would withdraw from Europe and let them defend their lands from Russia. Let Europe deal with a major war. We shouldn't have been involved in WW1.

We wouldn't have been involved in WW1 if the Germans weren't sinking our ships. I'm all for staying out a lot more than we do, but we had to get into that one.

Devils Advocate: It was not our ship, it was the HMS Lusitania which was the triggering event. And the Lusitania had been transporting arms from from the Americas to They would not have been sinking out ships if we were not sending our arms to their enemies..

While the sinking of the Lusitania started the process it's hard to say an event almost two years prior was the triggering event. We entered the war when the Zimmerman telegram became public about the same time as the Imperial Navy's unrestricted submarine warfare reached our shores.

(04-18-2016 06:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I could see the peaceful free world setting out on...another Crusade. Other than that? No.

And the world would almost certainly be better

(04-18-2016 07:43 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 06:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 03:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 03:16 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Personally, I would withdraw from Europe and let them defend their lands from Russia. Let Europe deal with a major war. We shouldn't have been involved in WW1.

We wouldn't have been involved in WW1 if the Germans weren't sinking our ships. I'm all for staying out a lot more than we do, but we had to get into that one.

Devils Advocate: It was not our ship, it was the HMS Lusitania which was the triggering event. And the Lusitania had been transporting arms from from the Americas to They would not have been sinking out ships if we were not sending our arms to their enemies..

While the sinking of the Lusitania started the process it's hard to say an event almost two years prior was the triggering event. We entered the war when the Zimmerman telegram became public about the same time as the Imperial Navy's unrestricted submarine warfare reached our shores.

Yea my wife and I often joke about the Zimmerman note. What a terrible idea!

Official - "Sir I had an idea, we sent Mexico a Note saying we would help them fight America"
Kaiser - "You did WHAT"

Those were handy excuses. Ole Woodrow Wilson wanted America in it and he found a reason.

It is actually kind of strange that a person would believe that we wouldn't see another world war.

The more and more our the world's economy becomes a singular economy, the less likely a WWIII will happen. That doesn't mean that a potential world war won't happen either.

It is only a matter of when.

(04-18-2016 10:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It is actually kind of strange that a person would believe that we wouldn't see another world war.

I argue it from a position of weapons and threats. For a world war to really pop off, it would have to be perpetrated by state actors that have super-regional influence IMO. If India and Pakistan get into it, I don't think the entire world jumps into the fray. Because a WWIII would be of that scale, any semblance of victory would include the use of nuclear weapons. I believe MAD is still in effect at this level.

Obviously a rogue state falls outside of MAD theory, but such treats can be eliminated conventionally if there is popular consensus. If Kim Jun Un launches a nuke on SK, I don't think anyone is going to lose any sleep the US bombing NK into oblivion. Hell, China might do it before the UN hold a vote.

So I think what we see now will continue for the foreseeable future. Regional actors like Russia, China and ISIS attempting the expand their influence and seeing if there is real opposition to advancement. In a lot of case the only real resistance is the US, a nation that is trending more towards isolationism every day.

(04-18-2016 10:29 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The more and more our the world's economy becomes a singular economy, the less likely a WWIII will happen. That doesn't mean that a potential world war won't happen either.

Not necessarily. People like their sovereignty and in order for a singular economy to be feasible, it requires taking it. It will might awhile, but it isn't sustainable. Europe in generally civilized and rational so in the case of the UK, they will likely be allowed to exit peacefully... but what if someone wants to leave a "treaty" with China or Russia? That probably won't go as well.

(04-19-2016 07:18 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 10:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It is actually kind of strange that a person would believe that we wouldn't see another world war.

I argue it from a position of weapons and threats. For a world war to really pop off, it would have to be perpetrated by state actors that have super-regional influence IMO. If India and Pakistan get into it, I don't think the entire world jumps into the fray. Because a WWIII would be of that scale, any semblance of victory would include the use of nuclear weapons. I believe MAD is still in effect at this level.

Obviously a rogue state falls outside of MAD theory, but such treats can be eliminated conventionally if there is popular consensus. If Kim Jun Un launches a nuke on SK, I don't think anyone is going to lose any sleep the US bombing NK into oblivion. Hell, China might do it before the UN hold a vote.

So I think what we see now will continue for the foreseeable future. Regional actors like Russia, China and ISIS attempting the expand their influence and seeing if there is real opposition to advancement. In a lot of case the only real resistance is the US, a nation that is trending more towards isolationism every day.

The way the US, the EU and NATO recklessly signs treaties, they would be drawn into just about any regional conflicts by law. I'm no expert in international law, but you mention India and Pakistan. Up until recently, India was a British territory. I believe they still recognize the queen. I would think (though admittedly I don't know) that they would have an obligation to be involved in a conflict with Pakistan, which would likely draw in the US and possible NATO as well.