who will be in ww3

Rather than US & China, the war would be with common enemies. The biggest group of nations affected by something (terrorism / oil shortage for eg.) will fight with the biggest common enemy.

It may very well be a war not against a group of nations but agaist some evil forces like Osama,s Al Qaida terror network.

It may be between netizens & citizens !

Edited by gcle2003 - 13-Sep-2006 at 07:12

Originally posted by gcle2003   Originally posted by Adalwolf What is insane about people wanting their country to be self sufficient? It's insane in the way that people who go off to the wilderness somewhere and try to set up self-sufficient communities are.   You can't be self-sufficient in the modern world.   Civilisation advances through increasing interdependence and specialisation. You couldn't find a country less self-sufficient than Luxembourg but it's the richest per capita society on earth.   (Not that that's a measure of civilisation. But it would certainly be insane to give it all up just to want to be self-sufficient.)       I see nothing wrong with that, in fact, that would ease many of the problems in the world. I disagree that International Organizations are a blessing. International organizations are pretty much useless. They have no way to impose their rules without support of great powers.    They also interfere with the sovereignity states.   And that's the good thing about them.

I know that it would be impossible to be completely self-suffecient, but countries can sure try to be as self-sufficient as possible. That would reduce the risk of flucuations on supplies, markets, etc having devastating effects on country's economies.

Why the tears, and why is interefering with the sovereignity of states a good thing?

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma Read "The world is flat". Perfect answer to this question.

Edited by gcle2003 - 14-Sep-2006 at 09:44

Originally posted by gcle2003   Originally posted by Adalwolf I know that it would be impossible to be completely self-suffecient, but countries can sure try to be as self-sufficient as possible. That would reduce the risk of flucuations on supplies, markets, etc having devastating effects on country's economies. And increase the risk of international conflict, wars and stuff which are even more disastrous for humanity (though occasionally they make money for people )   Being 'self-sufficient' actually increases your dependence on things like harvests and metereological cycles and other causes of fluctuations. If you're 'self-sufficient' in agriculture, and there's a drought, then you are even more dependent on wheat from other countries than you would be if the whole agriculture process was internationalised originally.   The only was forward is for increased interdependence. Attempts to be self-sufficient are just attempts to turn back a clock that is better left to run its natural course. Why the tears, International organizations aren't powerful enough to bank heads together in places like Darfur.    and why is interefering with the sovereignity of states a good thing?   Well, of course it depends on the interference I suppose. But compelling members of the UN to live up to the UN Charter that they all supposedly believe in would be a significant advance on the way things are now.   Most things wrong with the world are attributable either to nationalism or religious factionalism. Getting rid of both is possibly an unattainable ideal, but it is still an ideal.

And I think interdependence is worthless. It weakens nations and weak people. Why do anything if you know someone else will just pick up the slack for you? Nations should be self-sufficient. Those that are will be successful and survive, and those that aren't will fail.

For large countries, like the U.S., agricultural self-sufficiency should be no problem, if it is at all. I agree, however, that it would be fairly hard for small nations to be self-suffient in many areas. That does not, however, mean that the concept of self-sufficieny is wrong for large nation, such as the U.S., which have many of the natural resources needed to be self-sufficient.

Bah, the UN...a worthless, corrupt, and unequal system if there ever was one. The world would be better without this pathetic and powerless organization. It has no way to enforce its rules. The U.N. relies on the support of the great powers, and is powerless without their support.

Nationalism can be a problem...in extreme cases, like Japan in WW2, but there is nothing inherently wrong in the concept of nationalism. What's wrong with people loving and supporting their country? Nothing.

Religious factionalism does cause problems, but it has always caused problems, and will always cause problems.


Edited by Adalwolf - 14-Sep-2006 at 18:56

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Vivek Sharma Read "The world is flat". Perfect answer to this question. ? Luxembourg is a tiny playground for countries like US, China, etc.. I don't know what you mean by that either. 'Tiny' I will grant, but 'playground?'   I am talking about size. You cant expect the same standards of prosparity over a wide geographical area. Of course. My point was that you don't have to be self-sufficient to be prosperous. Granted it's easier for small countries, which is partly why I choose to live in one.   On the whole I'm usually pleased when big countries break up into smaller ones.

On the whole I agree with you. 'The world is Flat' is a best selling book by Thomas Friedman, three times winner of the Pulitzer prize.  Its a wonderful book about the subject of modern economics, self sufficiency, dependence, future of economy etc..

By playground I was only referring to the size.

World War 3,if it happens, will likley havethe United States a couple other countries agansit the whole muslim world.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma On the whole I agree with you. 'The world is Flat' is a best selling book by Thomas Friedman, three times winner of the Pulitzer prize.  Its a wonderful book about the subject of modern economics, self sufficiency, dependence, future of economy etc..

I think Russia is really trying to come closer to Europe. The Russians are constantly pressing Greece to buy russian weapons, and many say that is because if Greece buys russian weapons (apart from the AT and AA missiles, which Greece has already bought), weapons like Su-35, tanks or IFV, Greece as a european country and member of NATO will open the way for the russian market to the west.

Edited by xristar - 17-Sep-2006 at 05:23