WW III

if it comes it comes, if not it doesn't ...either way i'm prepared for whatever may happen....no point worrying over it, all we can do is be prepared for whatever happens and face it head-on

I think the use of the world in world war is when the risk of the main ideology of the world is at risk of changing (for better or worse). Currently its democratic capitalism isnt it? Not everyone is in synch with it in the same ways, but it seems to be the major stable system in play. Prior to that I think was a colonial empire blend, which saw the first 2 world wars emerge as they clashed, but bred the concept of a global community sharing economic, legal and security sharing arrangements.

The Cold War was the big chance of WW3 because it was a socialist communist et al hybrid coming out of the USSR and China blocs of nations which was competing for being the main world ideology. They have shifted now in line with democratic capitalism mostly because democratic capitalism was slightly more efficient in technological advancement through the supports from a freer market to innovation then the socialist communist approach.

The current issue is that some parts of the muslim world want to operate in I guess a 'sharia capitalism' model. As mentioned not all members of the global community aim for a democratic capital idealism, and its been demonstrated by Saudi Arabia a sharia capitalism can operate perfectly well with models of democratic capitalism.

So the problem seems to be when the use of force/violence is employed to force others to participate in a certain way - which is what colonial nations did when colonizing, the IS and some other radical islamists claim as their purpose now.

So if people stop forcing other people how to structure their societies, then all this could be avoided :woohoo:

The thing is we all live on a small chunk of rock, so we really are a global society, and that should be seen as a reason to celebrate diversity - not punish it.

Silly ramble about why capital democracy might be the best we have at the moment;

I was having a discussion, just the other night, on a very similar subject…

After thinking about it, I can easily see a set up where WWIII could happen. One scenario could be that a President of the US was elected at the upcoming elections that was not popular internationally because of his ideology and political views (that and they run their mouth, rude). This of course could fuel extremist propaganda resulting in another strike on the US. And having someone of little patience for the current situation another war could ensue. Leading to more strikes on targets of opportunity in closer countries by extremist.

Muslim is one of, if not the largest religion in the world. But… most, and I know not all just most, countries with a standing army large enough to combat extremist are founded either by leaders of the Christian faith or with Christian or more conservative (western) moral and honor based systems of belief. This influx of terror, the passive majority of Muslims not aiding in the stopping of terrorism and differing ideology could result in the “banning” of the Muslim religion.

This banning would only have to occur in one country to trigger a set of events that could quickly drag the world into WWIII. But it would be a different war “we” would NOT be used to. I can see armies being deployed to different countries to quell the terrorist threat while militant fronts at home are combating in the streets.

This would be the worst case scenario for sure. But one I could see unfolding in the next ten years.

There are many reasons I can see this happening, far more than I have time to type up now. But I thought I’d throw this out there and let others ponder it.

One scenario could be that a President of the US was elected at the upcoming elections that was not popular internationally because of his ideology and political views (that and they run their mouth, rude).

i wonder who this out of touch, rich, pompous, rude twit is :whistle:

a tuft of weird goldish hair comes to mind :lol:

i couldnt venture a percentage but i would guess MANY or more likely MOST muslims support the idea of a caliphate - at least they support the idea that one should be allowed to exist

and who am i to disagree?
theyve as much right to an oppressive caliphate i have to my corrupt democracy lol

so a great way to recruit otherwise passive muslims into fighting will be to sell the idea that what is really at stake here is the right of the muslim caliphate to exist at all, which will translate psychologically for many into the right of the muslim to BE muslim, and the right of the "muslim culture" to have an epicenter or heartland, or basically their own place in the world which is THEIRS, as muslims, in some sense, even if they dont live there

if the situation can be framed (by daesh) in this context then its easy to imagine that most every muslim might feel that they are obligated to jihad - just as i would feel obligated to fight against an enemy that was dedicated to the downfall of democracy

P.S. dont sweat trump, he doesnt have a chance

distraction/entertainment candidate just like ron paul was
he'll never get the primaries

I would not call it a world war
Since Daesh is not a country nor haram that makes this war not a world war, and that's just the supreme forces that is fighting, unless the entire europe, and maybe more openly declares conflict upon them it can be close to a world war

OB1Shinobi wrote: ...trump, he doesnt have a chance

distraction/entertainment candidate just like ron paul was
he'll never get the primaries

wanted to add to this - something that candidates like trump and r. paul do is act as "feelers" for different issues

byadvocating what is essentially a fringe view and running a RIDICULOUSLY unlikely platform, the level of support they get is is useful to the more serious candidates in developing their own campaign strategies without ever really challenging the status quo

its only the illusion of challenge

basically its a kind of game where someone gets to come out and say whatever they want to say on whatever issue they want to address because they really dont have any risk - r paul for example said from the beginning of his campaign that he would not run for president if he couldnt run as a republican - which anyone who listened to him talk for more than two seconds knew - or should have known - would never happen

because his message resonated with a lot of people, myself included, there were a lot of people who took him seriously, but he was never a serious contender

its different but the same w trump - r. paul actually made a lot of sense on a lot of issues, whereas trump, he just gets a pass to go on tv and shoot his mouth off and be a jerk, and in the end it makes everyone else look smarter than they really are and more moderate than they really are and it gives the party some insight into how far the real players can push whichever envelopes are current

Streen wrote:
The world is becoming a very scary place. Your thoughts?

All I can be sure of is things will change. I do believe/hope we have learned form our past mistakes. In the short run it's tough to believe this but have faith, us humans have a bright future.

Adder wrote: I think the use of the world in world war is when the risk of the main ideology of the world is at risk of changing ... Currently its democratic capitalism isnt it? ...

... The current issue is that some parts of the muslim world want to operate in I guess a 'sharia capitalism' model. As mentioned not all members of the global community aim for a democratic capital idealism, and its been demonstrated by Saudi Arabia a sharia capitalism can operate perfectly well with models of democratic capitalism.

So the problem seems to be when the use of force/violence is employed to force others to participate in a certain way - which is what colonial nations did when colonizing, the IS and some other radical islamists claim as their purpose now.

So if people stop forcing other people how to structure their societies, then all this could be avoided :woohoo:

... Silly ramble about why capital democracy might be the best we have at the moment ,,,
The benefits of the democratic capitalism model is that it is meant to incorporate democracy as the human element in how the system operates, which is meant to afford the system some capacity to at least give humanity the opportunity to elevate ourselves individually ...

I don't think that was silly at all! Especially the comment regarding the use of force in influencing people how to structure their societies. A lot has gone wrong over millennia because of that practice.

This has made me ponder the idea of whether there should be a "main ideology" in the world at all. On the one hand, the differences between our ancient cultures are what made them interesting and innovative, and allow us to detect new (to us) ways of doing things that may be an improvement on the way we do them now. On the other -- the ancient world is gone, as we are interconnected across the globe in an unprecedented way. Maybe we do now benefit from a dominant ideology, provided it is one that secures human rights and maximizes human potential.

I'd quibble with the assertion that Saudi Arabia's sharia capitalism is a healthy model, but in the context of this discussion that's a nit.

Thanks Adder for referring me here.

I too noticed that the focus is on trying to make everyone afraid of immigrants and afraid to travel. They issued a travel advisory to warn about the possibility of violence abroad. With that, I couldn't help but wonder whether this is just the first steps in trying to shut down the borders; prohibit travel of any kind entirely?