Can’t I just shitpost about WW3?

there's been too many people not shitposting talking about WW3, I'm just wondering if they are doing it for views or if they actually believe it

It could start if enough disinformation about the cause and the aggressor is spread around.

if it's the latter, I'm interested in their reasoning

Tbh Alex Jones freak out was great

Typically, whoever 'starts' WW3 automatically loses by default, since the rest of the world would just dogpile onto them. What if we don't know *why* it started, though? What if we don't know how or who the aggressor was?

What if WW3 "just broke out", and there are too many mixed accounts to get an accurate read as to the cause?

Suddenly it becomes a lot more 'safer' to start such a conflict.

2 WWs isn't enough data to conclude that "whoever 'starts' WW3 automatically loses by default"

I wasn't talking about the previous two World Wars.

Besides, even if I was, what would it take then?

also, I don't think either the US or Russia want WW3 just because of a small country smaller than Texas to pass some pipes through

Two world-rending conflicts with hundreds of millions of deaths isn't enough data?

I didn't say anthing about Syria in specific being the cause. lol

that's what _we_ were talking about before you commented on it though

Alright.

Although wars have been started over more petty reasons, so you never know. lol

any war started is won by america by default these days

as long as the farmers don't go to war 😏

mexico cant fight a war 😛

>doing the los-war-os
>Los clock os strikes 12 os
>Siesta time
>Wake up, lost the war

Too be honest, the reasons for starting a war can look pretty subjective

Like I loved making fun of America for attacking the middle east for so long, cause oil and muh WMDs, but a large country like the US? One WMD if it exists could fuck up an entire nation.

Also, since in that case it was revealed to be a lie, how many were onto it? How many started the war thinking that it was to prevent the WMD?

It wasn't a complete lie. Iraq did have WMDs, but the keyword there is did. We gave them a year to dispose of their WMDs (which we sold to them in the first place) and they did. We then invaded them anyway

Morning. Did civil war 2 start yet?

No

@GingaBomber 'One WMD if it exists could fuck up an entire nation.'

If that nation is Monaco or Vatican City, yes.

Well, look at how two planes fucked up the US.

Point taken.

first generation planes of peace you say?

@GingaBomber#6296 depends on the definition of fucked up. It more pissed us off than do any noticeable damage as a whole. More like look at what 2 planes did to japan. But even then, 2 planes to a small island. You think that would work with something like Russia? Hell, Russia would thank the person for doing their scorched earth campaign for them.

i think he meant in regards to your economy tanking, a massive debt being generated and a war that pretty much is still going on since those 17 years ago

so economic damage, not as much colateral

i think more economic damage was done by the war that followed more than anything

plus the economy didn't really take a noticeable hit until 7 years later

by that standard, ill-advised housing loans are biggest WMD of them all

they are 😛

but thats what i mean, the war that followed was caused by demanding retribution

which put a strain on the economy, that made the housing loan crash just more painful

not saying 9/11 caused the housing incident