Hypothetical idea..

[kitabatake]

Now of course I am not anywhere near as qualified as a military general/admiral to come up with battle strategies but I have been thinking:

Russia says that an attack on Iran is basically an attack on Russia right? Iran seems to be planning a cyber attack on the U.S. Now that alone should be grounds to invade them. I fully support preemptive attacks if the evidence is clear enough to warrant them. Now I am saying all of this with the assumption that news sources (not TV news. I got this info on the web) are not all corrupt. That this is a real threat.

An allied, preemptive attack on Russia might be better, as it would be completely unexpected. Half of the allied forces would attack Russia while the other half attacks Iran a bit later. The attack on Russia would catch Iran off guard. Maybe we could convince India to help. I am not sure. But let's say that we did manage to convince several European powers, India, Israel, and Australia to pull this off. Do you think it would work if it was planned correctly and there were no major complications? Good intel and such? Of course China and North Korea might step up to the plate once it begins but I'd be willing to take the risk that China does not want to truly interfere yet. North Korea is China's bitch so they would stay "seated" until bidden. I am just wondering if it could possibly work. The other middle eastern countries would gather their rabble and try to fight as well but Iran is really the only real threat. With Iran and Russia neutralized I think the rest of the middle east would get scared and stop being so aggressive. You don't get smug when your big bully friends have been knocked out.

[angelthecat]

Originally Posted by kitabatake

Now of course I am not anywhere near as qualified as a military general/admiral to come up with battle strategies but I have been thinking:

Russia says that an attack on Iran is basically an attack on Russia right? Iran seems to be planning a cyber attack on the U.S. Now that alone should be grounds to invade them. I fully support preemptive attacks if the evidence is clear enough to warrant them. Now I am saying all of this with the assumption that news sources (not TV news. I got this info on the web) are not all corrupt. That this is a real threat.

An allied, preemptive attack on Russia might be better, as it would be completely unexpected. Half of the allied forces would attack Russia while the other half attacks Iran a bit later. The attack on Russia would catch Iran off guard. Maybe we could convince India to help. I am not sure. But let's say that we did manage to convince several European powers, India, Israel, and Australia to pull this off. Do you think it would work if it was planned correctly and there were no major complications? Good intel and such? Of course China and North Korea might step up to the plate once it begins but I'd be willing to take the risk that China does not want to truly interfere yet. North Korea is China's bitch so they would stay "seated" until bidden. I am just wondering if it could possibly work. The other middle eastern countries would gather their rabble and try to fight as well but Iran is really the only real threat. With Iran and Russia neutralized I think the rest of the middle east would get scared and stop being so aggressive. You don't get smug when your big bully friends have been knocked out.

Have you ever considered the hypothetical question that Great Britain, America, China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt All have governments? and they will all be on the same side? that it is all created, that only the peoples of those countries actually fight wars and not the governments, have you considered it might be all a scam, and they dont care who win or lose as the controllers always win, the banks always win and the people die.

just thinking out aloud no need to shout

[noobcybot]

Originally Posted by kitabatake

An allied, preemptive attack on Russia might be better, as it would be completely unexpected........ I am just wondering if it could possibly work. The other middle eastern countries would gather their rabble and try to fight as well but Iran is really the only real threat. With Iran and Russia neutralized I think the rest of the middle east would get scared and stop being so aggressive. You don't get smug when your big bully friends have been knocked out.

If the West was to strike first wouldant that make us the aggresors and bullies?......Which is what we are.

I dont get why people find this so difficult...

If your armies are in someone elses country then that makes YOU the aggressor.

Lets play your game for a minute and pretend that the PTB dont choreograph all this stuff.

You are suggesting total war with Russia, China and affiliated states and the few remaining middle Eastern countries that arent owned by the Western PTB?

Suicide.

[kitabatake]

Originally Posted by noobcybot

If the West was to strike first wouldant that make us the aggresors and bullies?......Which is what we are.

I dont get why people find this so difficult...

If your armies are in someone elses country then that makes YOU the aggressor.

Lets play your game for a minute and pretend that the PTB dont choreograph all this stuff.

You are suggesting total war with Russia, China and affiliated states and the few remaining middle Eastern countries that arent owned by the Western PTB?

Suicide.

I have no problem being an aggressor to prevent the deaths of my own. Only cowards stand and do nothing. What if there are no "PTB"? What if this really is a conflict between nations? I am only considering all possibilities. I have see videos for and against the idea of the NWO/Illuminati. If they do not exist then this is something to consider. If they DO exist then yes you are right. Only people fight wars. In that case we are all fucked aren't we?


I am only trying to figure out a solution, not that I could even make that solution a reality, but it does help one understand the magnitude of a situation.

[noobcybot]

Originally Posted by kitabatake

I have no problem being an aggressor to prevent the deaths of my own. Only cowards stand and do nothing. What if there are no "PTB"? What if this really is a conflict between nations? I am only considering all possibilities. I have see videos for and against the idea of the NWO/Illuminati. If they do not exist then this is something to consider. If they DO exist then yes you are right. Only people fight wars. In that case we are all fucked aren't we?


I am only trying to figure out a solution, not that I could even make that solution a reality, but it does help one understand the magnitude of a situation.

It would seem Ahmadinejad certainly believes that the Illuminati controls the West.

As for " only cowards do nothing" I can only say that many made the same argument just a few years ago when Iraq was a" major threat " and then it turned out they didnt even have any WMDs.

[kitabatake]

Originally Posted by noobcybot

It would seem Ahmadinejad certainly believes that the Illuminati controls the West.

As for " only cowards do nothing" I can only say that many made the same argument just a few years ago when Iraq was a" major threat " and then it turned out they didnt even have any WMDs.

That is a plausible point which is why I said I support preemptive attacks where the evidence is real. Where it is clear. Evidently the "evidence" which prompted the war in Iraq was fake. Or not clear enough. Point proven. However it does not mean that preemptive attacks are somehow "immoral." I would rather prevent the deaths of my own by eliminating a threat beforehand than sacrifice my countrymen for the sake of diplomacy. That said, Ahmadinejad is not someone I trust, as if the Illuminati does exist, then he could be part of them. I do not trust a man who believes that the entire world should submit to his false god. I believe in many gods, I revere a pantheon, and I will never submit to his ways.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by kitabatake

Now of course I am not anywhere near as qualified as a military general/admiral to come up with battle strategies but I have been thinking:

Russia says that an attack on Iran is basically an attack on Russia right? Iran seems to be planning a cyber attack on the U.S. Now that alone should be grounds to invade them. I fully support preemptive attacks if the evidence is clear enough to warrant them. Now I am saying all of this with the assumption that news sources (not TV news. I got this info on the web) are not all corrupt. That this is a real threat.

This is an assumption America and Russia have been fighting proxy wars for years Russia may fund/ arm Iran but at this point have been hesitant to do so at least publicly, such as the non delivery of advanced air defense systems, that said i have suspicion that Russia may be aiding Iran defense industry technically. The issue i see more is not so much Russian sympathy for Iran but more of limiting American influence and control namely of oil, in the region.

An allied, preemptive attack on Russia might be better, as it would bompletely unexpected. Half of the allied forces would attack Russia while the other half attacks Iran a bit later. The attack on Russia would catch Iran off guard. Maybe we could convince India to help. I am not sure. But let's say that we did manage to convince several European powers, India, Israel, and Australia to pull this off. Do you think it would work

An example of this military planing was operation able archer, in which nato forces did a moke exercise of droping 2000 nuclear weapons on the soviet union. The ussr had similar plans, but each also made plans to retailiate in such a senario.fe employing the use of submarine/ship and air craft based nuclear weapons Also from what ive read and seen russia not only prepared to fight such a war but also survive it. Ie i was in flats in poland and the floors were inches of concreat with a bomb shelter in the basement.

if it was planned correctly and there were no major complications? Good intel and such? Of course China and North Korea might step up to the plate once it begins but I'd be willing to take the risk that China does not want to truly interfere yet.
North Korea is China's bitch so they would stay "seated" until bidden. I am just wondering if it could possibly work. The other middle eastern countries would gather their rabble and try to fight as well but Iran is really the only real threat. With Iran and Russia neutralized I think the rest of the middle east would get scared and stop being so aggressive. You don't get smug when your big bully friends have been knocked out.

My personal felling that in the event of a world war scenario that you describe is that basically it will be a war between the major powers of resourses, each fighting each other through proxies out side there boarders, hence the creation of organizations like nato effectively buffer states for the us and in easier reach of attack.

[piskavac]

If you want to attack Russia, USA "air superiority" isn't enough. You then must develop strong arm for soil invasion. You will need at least 1000 battle tanks weigh at least 300-400 tons with fantastic speed and precise gun calibre over 250mm, and each of them must have strong engine with 5-6 megavat power. Because aeroplanes can be easily battered down by strong microvawe beams.

Not to say you must have enormous infantry, and who within USA common folks will be willing to send such big army

Russia is Iran's ally. No pre-emptive strike on Iran. It is wet dream.

[kitabatake]

So I take it that it would not work at all. That's what I have been hearing all over the internet anyways. Granted we could easily defeat Iran if they stood alone but Russia's alliance with them complicates matters on MANY levels. China is a wild card in such a scenario and they have North Korea in their pocket. Who knows what other hidden alliances lie within that eastern alliance I just mentioned? So assuming that the Illuminati does not exist, and that it does matter who fights who, what happens to America now? I am honestly at a loss of foresight in this. I do not know what my future holds and I am not sure that I will ever have the normal life that I envisioned for myself. The nation I was born in may not exist in ten years.

[jon galt]

I think the biggest problem facing america is that opec nations will stop transactions in dollars, with the world dropping the dollar as the reserve currency.
Add to that china is the biggest holder of us debt and could flood the market with us government bonds further destabilising the currency

[piskavac]

Originally Posted by jon galt

I think the biggest problem facing america is that opec nations will stop transactions in dollars, with the world dropping the dollar as the reserve currency.
Add to that china is the biggest holder of us debt and could flood the market with us government bonds further destabilising the currency

If it happens, common response from Canada USA, and Mexico would be setting Amero as new curency. In that case china will lost all it's debt holding.

I don't know what is connection between it's lost of debt holding and Amero. In my country before Euro was set up main curency was Germanian marka.

And if you lend from someone 100 marks you simply needed to return him 55 euros which had the same currency as 100 DM (deutsche mark).

It is such simply that can't be simplier.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by piskavac

If it happens, common response from Canada USA, and Mexico would be setting Amero as new curency. In that case china will lost all it's debt holding.

I don't know what is connection between it's lost of debt holding and Amero. In my country before Euro was set up main curency was Germanian marka.

And if you lend from someone 100 marks you simply needed to return him 55 euros which had the same currency as 100 DM (deutsche mark).

It is such simply that can't be simplier.

I get what your saying, but from my view the dollar is mainly backed by oil, ie opec sells in dollars, and this is essential to the american economy, from what i know ametica imports way more than it exports and usually a countrie needs a balence between their exports and imports for there currency to have value. The world trading oil in dollars is is the only thing giving us currency value, regardless of it being dollars or amero. Hence the petrol dollar. I remember reading shortly before the iraq war that sadam wanted to stop accepting dollars for oil. Iran has made similar call to opec.america not only needs to control the oil but also its sale and trade, look at the afgahn oil pipe plans direct to europe.

On the china thing if america did not honer its gov bonds no one would by future bonds based on a new currency.

[kitabatake]

Originally Posted by jon galt

I get what your saying, but from my view the dollar is mainly backed by oil, ie opec sells in dollars, and this is essential to the american economy, from what i know ametica imports way more than it exports and usually a countrie needs a balence between their exports and imports for there currency to have value. The world trading oil in dollars is is the only thing giving us currency value, regardless of it being dollars or amero. Hence the petrol dollar. I remember reading shortly before the iraq war that sadam wanted to stop accepting dollars for oil. Iran has made similar call to opec.america not only needs to control the oil but also its sale and trade, look at the afgahn oil pipe plans direct to europe.

On the china thing if america did not honer its gov bonds no one would by future bonds based on a new currency.

Precisely. The economy has already crashed as far as I am concerned. It's like calling a dead horse sleeping. What the hel is the U.S. government trying to accomplish by delaying the news? We are completely dependent on foreign trade/possibly aid to survive at this point. I say announce the Amero and be done with it. It's about survival and stability at this point. Yes it will be a blow to the ultra right wingers (I have no political affiliation) to completely move away from tradition, and yes I have a certain affection for tradition myself, but I am willing to move away from some tradition, such as the U.S. standing alone monetarily, in order to keep the economy alive. Maybe that is the plan anyways! They are certainly catering to Mexicans a lot. Canada probably would not have much of a problem uniting economies. It's about getting Mexico on board and neutralizing the drug cartels. Honestly I think Mexico is a worthless piece of crap. Their economy is about as bad. But it would be politically incorrect of course to not include Mexico in an Amero based economy.

[mr_i_disagree]

the problem is america have done such a bad job with libya, tunisa, egypt etc, its no wonder the 'arab spring' stopped, you may want to tell the arabs in these countrys what america is trying to push, like heroin in afghanistan

[learner]

I would certainly suggest how David Icke himself very well puts it "How many people actually voted for war?"

There is no cowardice providing for ones own family by means other than going to war with other countries.

To add to the absurdity,Even the so-called spoils of war never go/went to the people. I am not a revolutionist per se,but so-called wars like this is so highly illogical and senseless to the ordinary man!

[mr_i_disagree]

did you never watch threads?

[learner]

did you never watch threads?

Apologies i disagree,I was not referring to your previous post,if it seemed that way

Hypothetically, i disagree.

[mr_i_disagree]

exactly grow a pair and get on with it, if it happens it happens like in threads, it wont be at your pleasure get over it.

[learner]

exactly grow a pair and get on with it, if it happens it happens like in threads, it wont be at your pleasure get over it.

I keep on coming across people that preach to the already converted.
I really don't understand how your quote relates to mine .

but if it is for your own pleasure then all is good I'm over it.