Will there be war in Europe before 2050?

[Arminius]

Economy and military are very closely connected with each other. So I think that this subforum is the right one for this thread: Will there be war in Europe before 2050?

[Kriswest]

Possibly, I can see one or two countries getting pissy and starting something stupid. I see it occuring in South America first though. Africa always wars within. USA will follow with another civil war.

[Peter Kropotkin]

It seems to me that long before Europe gets into a war, the US will have or be in a civil war.
The only real question is when? there is a cold war going on right now using the various
government branches as proxies, and the Judicial branch being a battleground
with the supreme court being the main battle ground. As the supreme court clearly
has become a partisan institution. Instead of doing its job which is rendering judgments
via legal means, its makes political judgments that are bought and paid for by the cock brothers.
I give it maybe 10 years or so before actually fighting breaks out. (to be fair, fighting has broken
out already. Witness the war between the police and the population its supposed to serve and protect.
think of that as bleeding Kansas before the 1st civil war) Now I am on the lookout for the cause, the cause
the war will be fought on. I suspect that cause isn't even visible right now.

My guess on a scenario that leads to the civil war.
the supreme court makes a ruling that is very popular in some places,
very unpopular in other places. The right wing gets a leader who decides to
fight this ruling with a march somewhere with guns. the state/feds try to stop
this march and violence occurs. The violence spreads especially where guns are popular,
the south and west. Those regions try to declare themselves free of "federal tyranny" and
go for the secession. The supreme court rules in favor of secession because that is what
the cock brothers want and the war is on.

Kropotkin

[Arminius]

Any and every civil war is the worst and the most horrible and terrible war of all wars.

[Kriswest]

Or productive and positive.

[Orbie]

It cannot be Europe, conceivably , since Europe is now unified. Civil war, may not occur in a union which is patterned after the USA, because the presedent cause of civil war in the U.S. has, for all practical purposes laid the groundwork for the causes, therewith. I do not think, in the event of a call for disunion, or secession, that political means be not found.

[Artimas]

Civil war > regular war

[Arminius]

Or productive and positive.

You mean "worst", "most horrible" and "most terrible" could also mean "productive" and "positive"?

It cannot be Europe, conceivably , since Europe is now unified.

Is it really unified?

[Kriswest]

"You mean "worst", "most horrible" and "most terrible" could also mean "productive" and "positive"?"


You did not see the word Or at the beginning of my post???

[Arminius]

"You mean "worst", "most horrible" and "most terrible" could also mean "productive" and "positive"?"

You did not see the word Or at the beginning of my post???

The word "or" must and does have always a reference, and there are often different references possible.

Any and every civil war is the worst and the most horrible and terrible war of all wars.

Or productive and positive.

So please tell me why you think that every civil war is "productive" and "postitive".

[Artimas]

Technically every war is a civil war, between humans at least.

[Arminius]

Wars are not always civil wars. The distinction makes sense. Do you not think so?

[Kriswest]

"You mean "worst", "most horrible" and "most terrible" could also mean "productive" and "positive"?"

You did not see the word Or at the beginning of my post???

The word "or" must and does have always a reference, and there are often different references possible.

Any and every civil war is the worst and the most horrible and terrible war of all wars.

Or productive and positive.

So please tell me why you think that every civil war is "productive" and "postitive".

Not all but, most. Civil development, from such horror and pain a social memory develops which often improves that society. What is the oldest known surviving society?

[Arminius]

What is the oldest known surviving society?

If you agree to the statement that the "societies" of the Stone Age can be called "societies", then I say that the oldest "surviving societies" are those who lived in the Stone Age. But I guess you mean the later societies. Before I answer your question in that way, I have to know what you exactly mean by "surviving societiy". Do you mean a unit of culture or a nation? Nation would be difficult because it is only an occidental, a modern occidental concept.

[Uccisore]

Of course some Eastern-European country that probably doesn't exist yet will attack some other Eastern-European country that doesn't exist yet, sometime in the next 35 years. They hardly ever stop.

[Kriswest]

What is the oldest known surviving society?

If you agree to the statement that the "societies" of the Stone Age can be called "societies", then I say that the oldest "surviving societies" are those who lived in the Stone Age. But I guess you mean the later societies. Before I answer your question in that way, I have to know what you exactly mean by "surviving societiy". Do you mean a unit of culture or a nation? Nation would be difficult because it is only an occidental, a modern occidental concept.

I mean any uninvaded or overturned(civil war) unit, we can say culture if you wish. Anyone that has survived to date peacefully.
Stone age???

[Arminius]

What is the oldest known surviving society?

If you agree to the statement that the "societies" of the Stone Age can be called "societies", then I say that the oldest "surviving societies" are those who lived in the Stone Age. But I guess you mean the later societies. Before I answer your question in that way, I have to know what you exactly mean by "surviving societiy". Do you mean a unit of culture or a nation? Nation would be difficult because it is only an occidental, a modern occidental concept.

I mean any uninvaded or overturned(civil war) unit, we can say culture if you wish.

No, I do not wish that.

Anyone that has survived to date peacefully.

There is no one - accept perhaps that one that has survived because of a Stone Age life style.

Stone age???

Yes, Stone Age.

[Orbie]

Civil war is only productice in that it absorbs the hostility within borders and does not extend it outside of it. I am fairly surer, that international causes co conflict, causing intra national strife between groups n general grounds, will most certainly directed at 'outside' sources of intrusive agitation. This has usually been the case, with prior wars, eneemies were found outside, so as to releive the pressure from internal resposnible authority. This is i voted no, because like in the present conflict, for example Germany's heavily populated Arab extreme groups, those people will certainly be exyended to such groups' original pre emigration places of origin. Just like in the US, after the Pearl Harbor attack, Japanese Americans were interned into camps to contain their suspected agression due to perceived divided loyalties.

[Arminius]

"Germany's heavily populated Arab extreme groups"? Okay, there are also some in Germany, but most of them are in France, Belgium, Netherland, and of course England.

You can call it "West Eurpoe's heavily Arab extreme groups". Maybe that in the future some European countries will have more heavily Arab extreme groups than the current European countries I mentioned. This thread is about war in the future of Europe till 2050.

Maybe Europe should approach Russia. I am not sure, but what do you think about that?

[Kriswest]

If you agree to the statement that the "societies" of the Stone Age can be called "societies", then I say that the oldest "surviving societies" are those who lived in the Stone Age. But I guess you mean the later societies. Before I answer your question in that way, I have to know what you exactly mean by "surviving societiy". Do you mean a unit of culture or a nation? Nation would be difficult because it is only an occidental, a modern occidental concept.

I mean any uninvaded or overturned(civil war) unit, we can say culture if you wish.

No, I do not wish that.

Anyone that has survived to date peacefully.

There is no one - accept perhaps that one that has survived because of a Stone Age life style.

Stone age???

Yes, Stone Age.

Well, that might be a small part of the aborigines in Australia. No where else.
All, or majority of societies evolve, change or fail. The common binding element is not peace but, struggle. Comfort breeds or bred most downfalls one way or another, internal or external.

[Orbie]

Germany's heavily populated Arab extreme groups? Okay, thera are also some in Germany, but the most of them are in France, Belgium, Netherland, and of course England.

Arminius, Germany has the largest Arab population after France.

[Arminius]

Germany's heavily populated Arab extreme groups? Okay, thera are also some in Germany, but the most of them are in France, Belgium, Netherland, and of course England.

Arminius, Germany has the largest Arab population after France.

No, Obe. That's not right. The largest Arab population has France. That is right.

And b.t.w.: If we talk about the danger of war, which is the theme in this thread, then we have to consider the Arab or Islamic population per head. Per head!

[Arminius]

Well, that might be a small part of the aborigines in Australia.

And small parts in Amazonia, Central Africa, Papua New Guinea; and due to the fact that they are small parts, the probability that they will survive is even higher.

If their jungles will not completely be cut down, then they will probably have the best chances to survive the global holocaust.

Okay, let's go back to the title of this thread: Will there be war in Europe before 2050? We are talking about the following area (especially the green coloured one):

[Orbie]

Germany's heavily populated Arab extreme groups? Okay, thera are also some in Germany, but the most of them are in France, Belgium, Netherland, and of course England.

______________________________________
________________________________________

ok. So, given the fact that Germany is said to be the de-facto leader of the EU, and have one of the largest
Arab populations, with uncertain affiliation, there is another pertinet question which props up:

Which country in the EU has the most pervasive latent nationalism? I mean the msr deeply buried
one? I think that factor is alo relevant, in light of the fact that yesterday's Hamburg demonstration, was at least as large, as the one which took place in Paris two days prior. The demonstrators had a unifying message to the government, that nothing is being done to address the issue. And what does the charge against Sloterdijk's genetic theory have to do with
the importance in modern philosophy by one of Germany's most outspoken and popular thinkers?






Arminius, Germany has the largest Arab population after France.

No, Obe. That's not right. The largest Arab population has France. That is right.

And b.t.w.: If we talk about the danger of war, which is the theme in this thread, then we have to consider the Arab or Islamic population per head. Per head!

[Arminius]

Ok. So, given the fact that Germany is said to be the de-facto leader of the EU, and have one of the largest
Arab populations, with uncertain affiliation, there is another pertinet question which props up:

No, Germany does not have the largest Arab Population of the EU. France, UK, the Netherlands (Dutchland), and Belgium have the most. Or do you not mean "Arab" but "Islamic". If so, then it is again France, not Germany, but in that case Germany is the second or third Country with the most Islamic immigrants (b.t.w.: thank you for them, Israel and USA!).

Which country in the EU has the most pervasive latent nationalism? I mean the msr deeply buried
one?

The Slavic (slavish) nations with their nationalism and Nazism, of course. But do they really belong to Europe? There is not much nationalism and not much latent nationalism in Old-Europe. The globalistic media lies but has the medial power over all humans, especially the Occidental humans. The globalistic rulers and their media functionaries want the US and other people to think that Europe is evil - it is somehow similar to the situation just before and during the two World Wars -, otherwise they could not so easily reach their goals. I want you to not believe what your corrupted government and your media is saying to you. We don't want any war, and you don't want any war. But do you know the facts about the port of Havanna, about the Lusitania, about Pearl Harbor, about the Gulf of Tanking, about the Twin Towers?

I think that factor is alo relevant, in light of the fact that yesterday's Hamburg demonstration, was at least as large, as the one which took place in Paris two days prior. The demonstrators had a unifying message to the government, that nothing is being done to address the issue.

No, because that is what your media tells you: lies. What you call the "yesterday's Hamburg demonstration" was a demonstration of the rulers and their functionaries. It was not against Islamic terror - the reverse is true.

And what does the charge against Sloterdijk's genetic theory have to do with
the importance in modern philosophy by one of Germany's most outspoken and popular thinkers?

Again a "charge against Sloterdijk's genetic theory"? Really? Again?