Did world war 3 just start?

[T.Lex]

Mmm. Pocky.

Costco has boxes of those that have little packets.

 

[BugI02]

https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article229875434.html
Trump threatens ‘full and complete embargo’ against Cuba for meddling in Venezuela

Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0?

Perhaps we'll find out what Russia really wants, and if superpower war is on that list

"Fill your hand you son of a *****"

 

[indykid]

Between Venezuela and the Russians and Cubans, not to mention the stuff in Ukraine, North Korea, China and the middle east, things look like they can get hot really fast.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

[h=1]US deploys aircraft carrier and bombers after 'troubling indications' from Iran[/h]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...bombers-after-troubling-indications-from-iran

 

[NKBJ]

It's reported the Israelis just staged 1000 troops to Central America.

 

[KellyinAvon]

It's reported the Israelis just staged 1000 troops to Central America.

This just got interesting.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

My guess: "Conflict" in Iran in the next year or so to help Trump cement a 2nd term.

 

[NKBJ]

Two carriers to the Med. China saying so what they're still gonna buy Iran's oil. Two carriers (Atlantic and Pacific) to South America. China, Israel, NATO, Russia, Erik Prince mercs and who knows what else going to Venezuela. Yeah, we could see a war time president and something to lift our industrial output while providing a scapegoat for economic woes all rolled up into one. Maybe someone will come gliding in from Nibiru and save us from our bankers.

 

[BugI02]

My guess: "Conflict" in Iran in the next year or so to help Trump cement a 2nd term.

That's two guesses, with the second seriously wild-assed

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That's two guesses, with the second seriously wild-assed

It's not unheard of though, is it?

Doesn't war/conflict help the sitting President?

Not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. There's probably some **** in Iran that needs dealt with to some extent... and Russia/China probably willing to let it happen.

 

[NKBJ]

Not a Trump thing, a bank thing.

The petro$US has been the reserve currency of the world precisely because of the Nixon era agreement reached with Arabia. The end of that agreements effectivity is plainly in sight. So then what happens? Our banking empire goes down like a tin can hit with two torpedoes. And besides, they're gonna want to cash in all those dadgum thirty year treasuries. Sooo, whacha gonna do now, huh? Well hows about the next big pool of oil in the line up becomes our new protectorate? And that would be where? Uh, well, hopefully someplace closer than Arabia and under our traditional sphere of interest. Hmm, let's see. Who has lots of oil in the western hemisphere?

 

[KellyinAvon]

It's not unheard of though, is it?

Doesn't war/conflict help the sitting President?

Not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. There's probably some **** in Iran that needs dealt with to some extent... and Russia/China probably willing to let it happen.

Winning a war doesn't help the incumbent. Churchill and Bush 41 come to mind there. Ongoing conflict seems like a big part of human history.

 

[BugI02]

It's not unheard of though, is it?

Doesn't war/conflict help the sitting President?

Not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. There's probably some **** in Iran that needs dealt with to some extent... and Russia/China probably willing to let it happen.

I find it despicable that it would be suggested that any president would start a war, and place US soldiers in harm's way, for no better reason than to improve his chances of being re-elected. And we're talking about a real shooting war, force on force. It wouldn't be just lobbing some cruise missiles at a couple of factories. The current supposition is that the Iranians are moving ballistic missiles by sea, either to forward base them on land to allow for attacking targets ordinarily beyond their range or to perhaps launch them from on board those ships. Either stratagem could be used to attack US bases or Naval assets directly, which would be an honest to God Pearl Harbor type act of war. ".. to help Trump cement a second term" is pure supposition and the sort of innuendo unrooted in reality that I would expect from CNN, not from you

You do know that Wag the Dog was a movie, right?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I find it despicable that it would be suggested that any president would start a war, and place US soldiers in harm's way, for no better reason than to improve his chances of being re-elected. And we're talking about a real shooting war, force on force. It wouldn't be just lobbing some cruise missiles at a couple of factories. The current supposition is that the Iranians are moving ballistic missiles by sea, either to forward base them on land to allow for attacking targets ordinarily beyond their range or to perhaps launch them from on board those ships. Either stratagem could be used to attack US bases or Naval assets directly, which would be an honest to God Pearl Harbor type act of war. ".. to help Trump cement a second term" is pure supposition and the sort of innuendo unrooted in reality that I would expect from CNN, not from you

You do know that Wag the Dog was a movie, right?

Never seen it.

I'm thinking of it more as... there are a lot of things around the world that need fixin'

Sometimes, we sit aside and let them continue dicking around.

But, perhaps, we kill two birds with one stone. We see an opportunity to deal with a problem, and (my assumption) help my chances of sticking around.

Honestly, I'm just assuming conflict helps the incumbent. The only conflicts I was cognizant of were GWB's, and the bombing of Iraq during Clinton's presidency. Obviously Clinton had a different conclusion, but in my mind... the Afghanistan/Iraq stuff helped GWB, did it not?

Really not trying to look at it as a negative/derogatory thing... more of a pessimistic "this is just what presidents do" kind of thing. I assume all Presidents, right or left, use large-scale events to their favor.

I mean... if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I just don't trust government, at all, to be moral.

 

[NKBJ]

Guys, come on, the problem with Iran is that they are opposing the $US backed hegemony and slapping them down is key to the fulfillment of the neocon zionists' dreamscape. Having a war time election, blaming those rascal Iranians for economic woes, boosting the US industrial numbers, kicking the chicom economy in the shins or revaluing friendly held petroleum pools upward would be lagniappe.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Never seen it.

I'm thinking of it more as... there are a lot of things around the world that need fixin'

Sometimes, we sit aside and let them continue dicking around.

But, perhaps, we kill two birds with one stone. We see an opportunity to deal with a problem, and (my assumption) help my chances of sticking around.

Honestly, I'm just assuming conflict helps the incumbent. The only conflicts I was cognizant of were GWB's, and the bombing of Iraq during Clinton's presidency. Obviously Clinton had a different conclusion, but in my mind... the Afghanistan/Iraq stuff helped GWB, did it not?

Really not trying to look at it as a negative/derogatory thing... more of a pessimistic "this is just what presidents do" kind of thing. I assume all Presidents, right or left, use large-scale events to their favor.

I mean... if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I just don't trust government, at all, to be moral.

Wag the Dog is worth watching for two reasons: it looked like the Clinton Administration (I was active duty during those 8 years, it's pretty spot-on to the BS) and Dustin Hoffman's character (Hollywood producer-type). "This isn't a problem, this is nothing!" Also had Denis Leary and Willie Nelson.

AS for the rest of your post, I'd say you've been paying attention.

 

[BugI02]

Never seen it.

I'm thinking of it more as... there are a lot of things around the world that need fixin'

Sometimes, we sit aside and let them continue dicking around.

But, perhaps, we kill two birds with one stone. We see an opportunity to deal with a problem, and (my assumption) help my chances of sticking around.

Honestly, I'm just assuming conflict helps the incumbent. The only conflicts I was cognizant of were GWB's, and the bombing of Iraq during Clinton's presidency. Obviously Clinton had a different conclusion, but in my mind... the Afghanistan/Iraq stuff helped GWB, did it not?

Really not trying to look at it as a negative/derogatory thing... more of a pessimistic "this is just what presidents do" kind of thing. I assume all Presidents, right or left, use large-scale events to their favor.

I mean... if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I just don't trust government, at all, to be moral.

I just see it as a formulaic hatchet job exhibiting no particular insight

The formula is [insert vague throwaway prediction that will only ever be mentioned again if it seems correct irrespective of temporal accuracy] and [tie it to some vaguely derogatory insinuation about the target]

I could use the same formula now in microcosm

"I predict GP will go to war this November with ATM over how DST is unrelated to the coming bear market, in order to shore up his (GP's) credibility with the T.Lex wing of INGO"

See how it works? I need never refer to this 'prediction' again unless it's to my advantage, and the readers impression about the innuendo is governed by their impression - right or wrong - of your position vis a vis a certain frequency range on the INGO spectrum

It is being done right now with respect to the Trump tax returns from '84 to '95. Trump claimed tax losses of $1.17 billion during that 12 year span. Doesn't say anything about loss to net worth, and the time period coincides with 4 bankruptcies (Chap 11) of over leveraged properties - mostly Atlantic City casinos. It's a HUGE stretch to try to tie that snapshot of IRS filings to - well anything - about Trump as president. Did your investments lose money for the '18 tax year? How should we use that information to judge you going forward? Berkshire-Hathaway lost $25.4 billion in the fourth quarter of '18, should its shareholders be pushing Warren Buffett into retirement? Probably not. The only inferences that should likely be made from either is that both men are businessmen who take risks to make money, with varying degrees of success

You cannot try to be the voice of reason vis a vis propaganda and then elect to spread it yourself. YMMV

 

[NKBJ]

Oh, this might be loads of fun. Reckon I will turn it on tonight while doing reports and T/E.

Wars and Rumors of Wars: Why is the World Racing Toward World War III?

https://www.trunews.com/stream/wars-and-rumors-of-wars-why-is-the-world-racing-toward-world-war-iii

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You cannot try to be the voice of reason vis a vis propaganda and then elect to spread it yourself. YMMV

Maybe I need a second account for when I post personal opinions vs when I post news stuff.

It's really not as deep as you explained it, and I'm not Hough, I don't call back to my past posts to try and score points.

I just assume President_# will always do something in their first term to assist into their second term, under my assumption that conflict helps. Very off-the-cuff and innocent post. Seems like legislators are talking more and more about Iran, so I assume it's building up to something.

 

[actaeon277]

The world is racing, because mostly, everyone forgot, or never new, how BAD war is.