Talk:COVID-19/Purposes

I don't see why the WW3 point in the lede should be moved out. Please clarify when there is something wrong. I added more explanation in the citation. I move this out of the article for the time being, can find no logical connection at that position in the text.

and on the geopolitical side, to consolidate supranational government bodies, i.e. the WHO, the Kyoto Protocol, the IMF, the World Bank, NAFTA and other (privately owned) NGO's. House arrests, Face masks and jab legislation are designed to hinder and prevent social movements addressing the injustice and undemocratic transfer of power and wealth from the majority of citizens to the less-than-1% by an unfair monetary system.

-- Sunvalley (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The purposes section is hypothetical in any case. What bothered me: 1) you seem to assume "good intentions" (avert ww3) and 2) you imlicitly assume that ww3 was imminent or unavoidable. I oppose both of these claims. Urban (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to one page please. 1) No I don't. Out of self interest they do his - I think. You from the WW3 discussion: "given that nuclear is not an option", you bind that argument to an initial attack from Russia, along with "it [Russia] has neither the muscle nor the ambition to attack anybody" - I would say Russia does not have the need to attack anybody, but the American / British / NATO alliance are forcing some kind of response. And I have to ask back: Do you believe nuclear is not an option in the (still theoretical) greater conflict between Russia NATO? Can you be certain? Can you know for a fact? 2) It looks the part, why should anybody not say so? There are people way above my paygrade who think that as well. Unavoidable? It can be avoided, but given the mindset in Europe and America (I just bought today's Bild, did you see it? PUTIN GREIFT AUCH UNS AN!), keeping that in mind, looking at the propaganda stream elsewhere (almost everywhere?), I come down with a higher chance for war, indeed.

-- Sunvalley (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

So you admit that there are forces pro and con war. I can live with you putting it as "higher chance". And your position is, that COVID was intended (out of self-interest for survival) to avert WW3, to counteract the pro-war-faction. Did I get that right? Urban (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"Do you believe nuclear is not an option in the (still theoretical) greater conflict between Russia NATO?" - Yes. I also believe that the conventional forces of Russia are no match for NATO. I can imagine that something like Iraq happens and NATO just walks in. Russia can't nuke 'em. They have to watch and stand by. The question is: how will China react? Just take it without response? That's unlikely. So maybe you are correct and China comes into play. Like many times before, a big war would also "solve" monetary/economic problems... There is a systemic (monetary and philosophical) risk that favors conflict and war. Urban (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)