Is the World Being Prepped for WW3?
A friend asked me this question and I was surprised to find that I'd not really considered the possibility. It does seem that the world is becoming increasingly polarized - and that this is not a wholly natural process, i.e. it is being manufactured. Here's a rough sketch of how the lines might be being drawn...
Allies:
U.S.
United Kingdom
Israel
India
Japan
Taiwan
Canada
Australia
Germany
Axis:
Iran
Pakistan
Turkey
China
Russia
I know it's incomplete and possibly incorrect, but I'm hoping to spark a discussion/brainstorming session. One thing to bear in mind is that most average people from countries on both sides of the divide will be the losers, and a select elite from countries on both sides will be the winners. A new World War could, like the previous ones, have a huge impact on global politics. Or is this too alarmist? Is what they're going for more of a slow-burning "Cold War", and excuse for increased military buildups and the racking up of huge new debt loads? Thoughts?
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
Germany and Japan part of the allies?
I would not be too sure about Germany and Japan being firmly in the Western camp.
And where is France in your scheme? I mean, they have nukes and hence a security council permanent seat. They always were Gaullist, meaning anti-Anglo. Only when ex-Mossad agent Sarkozy entered the scene, France became America's lapdog.
Marine le Pen in contrast, leading the polls for the upcoming presidential elections, already said that she would turn to Russia.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110413/163514574.html
Putin is ready:
http://bnn-news.com.wp.team.lv/putin-offers-europe-form-economic-allianc...
The energy situation could force Europe into the arms of Russia when things turn nasty in the Middle-East.
But yes, WW3 is certainly in the cards, with the US being the most likely instigator, as most truthers can confirm.
Regards,
XXXXXXXXXX
notice i left off most of the world's countries...
ive not really followed french politics but France and Germany are in NATO, yes?
They are in NATO indeed, but
They are in NATO indeed, but that did not stop them to refuse joining the Iraq safari in 2003. Neither did Russia.
This sums up the situation at the time neatly:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050704/wd1.jpg
The Americans were furious especially at the French who had to suffer 2 extreme harsh counter measures:
- being called 'cheese eating surrender monkees'
- french fries being rebranded 'freedom fries' in the Pentagon canteen. The measure has now been reversed. :))
If China would launch an all-out invasion of California you can be rest assured that Europe would help defending America. But that invasion is not going to happen of course. More likely would be a Gulf of Tonkin sort of incident. Don't expect European armies to even mobilize in that case.
911I
freedom fries...
...were in the CONGRESSIONAL cafeteria if I'm not mistaken, not the Pentagon. thanks for the link, will check it out.
You are
You are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries
what's the case
for Sarkozy being ex-mossad? I'd not heard that one before. in any case I think most Euro (currency) countries would end up together--you hafta have a certain set of shared values to share a currency I would think. and politically the Eurozone is totally supportive of Israel in any way that matters.
google "sarkozy mossad"
google "sarkozy mossad" :))
The story was launched in 2007 by the French MSM newspaper Le Figaro:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4280
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=7245&context=va
"As if his marital challenges were not enough cause for concern, "Sarco the Sayan" has suddenly emerged as the most infamous accolade of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The influential French daily Le Figaro last week revealed that the French leader once worked for -- and perhaps still does, it hinted -- Israeli intelligence as a sayan (Hebrew for helper), one of the thousands of Jewish citizens of countries other than Israel who cooperate with the katsas (Mossad case-officers)."
As I wrote earlier, until Sarkozy, France was Gaullist, regardless whether a conservative or socialist was president. Sarkozy turned French foreign policy staunchly pro-American, as could expected from someone with roots in one of the capitals of European Jewry: Tessaloniki/Greece.
XXXXX{sorry, if you want to sign your posts, please sign in or register. If you would like to register, email rt ATwtcdemolition dotcom. thanks!)
not too convincing...
Reading the original article at the WUFYS site it's clear that the writer of the article reposted in globalresearch was misrepresenting the content of the story when he said that "Le Figaro revealed" Sarkozy worked for Mossad. Le Figaro reported that an anonymous email was sent to 100 top police officials *claiming* that Sarkozy worked for Mossad. Seems like obvious disinfo to me--true or not, this does not constitute credible evidence.
Good question and one that
Good question and one that has been much on my mind the last few days.
My starting position as I explained here on another thread a week or so ago was that I thought the much pimped imminent invasion of Pakistan was extremely unlikely.
My first reason being that the tactic so far has been to divide and conquer each target as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc where quagmires were in fact the strategic objective in these countries for the imposition of puppet states and exploitation of their assets. Pakistan does not fit because it is already a puppet state and has little resources comparatively, and has a population already very skeptical of its puppet government and American interference. If the US invaded then it would be the messiest occupation in history.
Secondly, other troublesome states with the potential to become rouge militant anti American/Israeli states like Egypt Pakistan, Yemen had/have puppet governments already and much evidence exists to suggest that Al Qaeda has been used extensively in those countries like Yemen and Pakistan (as a false flag) to hold up and perpetuate the puppet against popular distrust of their US client regimes and the high possibility of regime change to non compliant states. For example see this Info clearinghouse article on the effect of the Raymond Davis affair in Pakistan :
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27516.htm
“Why Pakistan Cannot Release the Man Who Calls Himself Raymond Davis”
(Although of course they did later causing even more anti US dissent in Pakistan)
So what is Bin Laden death, the Pakistan government’s acceptance of the dubious US narrative, the subsequent banter between the two sides over credibility in the (entirely fake to us?) war on terror, and the recent pimping of war against Pakistan all about?
Ok so we know about the pipeline route, but could that justify another (worse) US war in Pakistan with little assets to exploit? I don’t buy it. I have also read all your articles here recently re the Indian connection and that Israel have okayed their takeover of Pakistan etc, but I still don’t see what the benefit of such a costly and dangerous war would be to India either.
Also we have the threat that Pakistan could become non compliant in future, and would be a rouge Islamic state with the bomb. But whilst it is already a puppet state for the foreseeable future, until that happens then why rock the boat now?
I could not find any logic to fit the events that seem to be unfolding, until I considered a much grander, much more heinous scenario like what you are proposing here.
The next primary target for many reasons has to be Iran.- Oil reserves, non compliant state, doing business with Russia/ China cutting off the USA and the dollar, and of course the biggest perceived enemy to the Zionists ‘security’.
However if Israel or the US made a move against Iran, THEN the importance of Pakistan would be crucial, as it would immediately support Iran on a popular basis, would have nukes, and any puppet Pakistani regime that tried to hold back the already simmering masses would fall in a flash. So here I have my first logical reason why the pre emptive Patsystan pimping is getting out of hand.
Longer term, I am afraid that all we need to know was written in the Project for the new American century document which seems to be the enduring primary policy of the US and allies to date. America has very little assets, a decaying infrastructure, is financially, morally, and culturally ( educationally that is) bankrupt . The ONLY asset it has is its military and it has ONE chance to play its one card –NOW!,
Capture the major oil fields, and create ‘Full spectrum dominance militarily worldwide and in cyberspace’ before Russia and China use their increasing wealth and power to rearm and defend themselves against all out ‘pre emptive’ war.
how does this grab you?
Mubarak was deposed in order to destabilize Egypt in order to allow an "undesirable" regime to come to power so that a war can be sparked on the merest false flag incident, a war that will lead to the occupation of the Sinai?
notice...
...i'd left Egypt off the lists above because it seems too hard to guess which way it will go...
I think Egypt was a genuine
I think Egypt was a genuine people's revolution, and now empowered and proud, the people will not be easily hoodwinked by future political subversion. When I mentioned it, it was as an example of a puppet state formerly/Mubarak regime.
Certainly there will be hard thought on plans to find a way to subvert the new regime to bring Egypt back under control at some stage. The suez canal is too strategically important to be left to people power, and Israel could always use more swimming pools , so why not muck rake and invade Sinai under 'Security' pretexts.
I think Iran, and Pakistan's nukes would have to be taken care of first though, before they can all relax by the pools in Sharm El Sheik.
I think so too that Egypt
I think so too that Egypt was a genuine people's revolution.
It was a huge embarrasment for the US-government, who initially did not know how to react.
Previously they had Egypt in their pocket for the price of some 1.5 billion$/year for the army plus wheat deliveries that feeds half of the population since 1979 at subsidized prices:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis237.html
The US-government waited to see who was winning and than choose the side of the population.
I am not sure whether the Egyptian population choose for Anerica in return.
Egypt at the next election, I believe in coming autumn or so, will follow the path of Turkey and will gradually turn fundamentalist.
My gut-feeling is that the Middle-East and Northern-Africa in the long run will turn more and more Islamic, just like Samuel Huntington predicted. I expect Turkey to dominate the region, just like it did during the Ottoman era. America/Western influence in the ME will disappear and a multipolar world will arise. The Washington run NWO has no future. Certainly not when 9/11-truth will come out, as it eventually will.
rafah
so far so good...rafah border open
Where was George?
If that were true, we would have seen George Soros in Cairo delivering PA-systems, banners and t-shirts for free, like he did in Kiev/Ukraine and other places in the former USSR where he organized color coded revolutions. George always is very much in favour of democracy and 'open society', unless of course the country in question was already in the American (read: Zionist) orbit. Like was the case with Egypt.
Ukraine, Georgia, etc., were initially in the Russian orbit and that was a good reason for George Soros to act, but not in Egypt.
No, the Magreb uprisings were sincere and an embarrassment for the US-government. And for Israel.
Damage control was on the agenda.
Brazil should stay neutral...
...we don't want the Amazon carpet bombed.
Someone posted a link to
Someone posted a link to lewrockwell so I did some snooping around and saw this article on the unsustainable debt of the US Gov't.
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north985.html
There is nothing new about the info but what if the US, or more specifically, the people running the US has no intention to pay off it's creditors (a large part of which I assume is China), and the way to get out of this debt is through world war.
The other possibility is that the US is being primed to fall and self destruct. This is less likely, but the unsustainable borrowing and the counterproductive expenditures in costly wars is downright suicidal to the country's wellbeing.
Who benefits from all these, it is not the US population, not the US government, not good either for the US elite unless they intend to move outside the US.
The U.S. population could be a "loser"
Even if the "allies" were to "win", in the process Americans may find themselves footing the economic bill for the victory in one last gasp for the petro dollar, after which they may find themselves "restructured". This would be politically undoable (as much as actually paying off the debt would be) UNLESS there were major psychological trauma in the form of a war first...