Jump to content
  • Advertisement

World War 3?


Ron

Recommended Posts

A lot of horrible things occurring in Syria at this point, reminiscent of what happened in Libya a year ago. However, with Syria, things appear to be in a much graver state.

Could this trigger a third world war in which several major nations are involved? I mean, the conflict in Syria has caused international controversy, with Russia, China, and a few other countries backing up Bashar al-Assad, Syria's dictator, and the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom believing in humanitarian rights versus sovereign rights. It also seems al-Qaeda is interested in taking over Syria, infiltrating the country and starting plans to take over the weakened nation. This is something that you'd think would instantly grab the US's attention, yet it hasn't, which makes me wonder where the government's priorities are at. With such a strong al-Qaeda presence in Syria, I don't understand why our military cannot not just go in and kill two birds with one stone. However, if we were to invide, Russia would most likely combat our forces, considering they're adamantly opposed to military intervention (because they feel military intervention would force Bushar out of power, whom they support). However, al-Qaeda has clearly stated that their motives are to incite further conflict, undermine peace efforts, and expand the conflict into neighboring countries (Israel is already readying itself for invasion), directly affecting the United State's economy which the world is reliant on, thus starting international conflict and instability that will directly stall all economic recovery efforts. They then would to lead a global jihad and install their beliefs across one enormous superpower.

The al-Qaeda spokesman also notes: "If this sounds far-fetched, it is sobering to consider that this virtually describes the downfall of the Soviet Union."

Thoughts? Did I get any facts wrong? :rolleyes: Is it an exaggeration that this could all lead to a third world war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With such high tensions between leaders and countries, who knows what kind of crud will happen in the next few years. We should've listened to George Washington in the first place when he said not to get in to "foreign affairs". But we did! And look at the things it's brought us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With such high tensions between leaders and countries, who knows what kind of crud will happen in the next few years. We should've listened to George Washington in the first place when he said not to get in to "foreign affairs". But we did! And look at the things it's brought us.

Well, I think it's all the eventual interest of the United States. If we were to have no intervened in several things in the past, it would've eventually affected us. For example, with World War 2... we didn't want to get involved with the war. We stayed entirely neutral; however, the attack on Pearl Harbor that resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 Americans, the total destruction of six American vessels and 188 aircrafts, we had to go into war. I think that's the case here, just a decade later. Here are the people who plotted 9/11, sitting right there across the pond, planning the downfall of not only the United States, but the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's all the eventual interest of the United States. If we were to have no intervened in several things in the past, it would've eventually affected us. For example, with World War 2... we didn't want to get involved with the war. We stayed entirely neutral; however, the attack on Pearl Harbor that resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 Americans, the total destruction of six American vessels and 188 aircrafts, we had to go into war. I think that's the case here, just a decade later. Here are the people who plotted 9/11, sitting right there across the pond, planning the downfall of not only the United States, but the world.

Now that, I can completely agree on. Amongst attacks like Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, and 9/11, we didn't ask for those events to happen, did we? And we sure as heck wouldn't sit back and take it. So yeah, you are right in the fact that we had to intervene and fight for our country and our safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its possible but I don't think it will happen anytime soon. What's happening in Syria is the cause of the people trying to claim their rights from the government. Russia has interests in Syria because it offers them with a warm water port to the Mediterranean, and that has been happening since the Cold War era. If Russia decides to betray Assad it will primary be based on interests not on humanitarian grounds.

What it interesting about this conflict is that the U.S has also interests in Syria and since the Syrian Army destroyed a plane from Turkey (a Nato member) they have absolute authority over the matter. After all the U.S wanted to maintain the status quo in the Middle East even after Egypt's Mubarak fell from power. Iran's involvement is also an issue but also a different case because of their desire to be a leader in the region and they are only supporting Syria because Assad is a shia muslim the same as Iranians despite the tensions between Iranians and Arabs.

While the event of a Third World War could happen in some future. World Wars are normally diplomatic confrontations based on geographical interests and culture which is different in this case. But we have to prepare for any eventualities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that, I can completely agree on. Amongst attacks like Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, and 9/11, we didn't ask for those events to happen, did we? And we sure as heck wouldn't sit back and take it. So yeah, you are right in the fact that we had to intervene and fight for our country and our safety.

Well, that's what I'm saying here. I believe al-Qaeda is setting it up to where it'd be too dangerous and potentially damaging to our future to not enter in and stop it; however, that's what they want us to do. There really is no way out.

100+ people are dying every day in Syria since the uprising began eighteen months ago, and the United Nations is voting on Wednesday to extend the UN's observers mission for another 45 days, as well as seek a resolution that will result in threatening Syria with economic and diplomatic sanctions if they don't withdraw troops and cease firing on their own country. However, Russia has declared it will veto those Western-backed (United States, United Kindgom, France, and Germany) proposals that are allowable under Chapter 7 of the UN charter. China and Russia, however, provide no reasons as to why they disagree, which further strengthens my belief that they are in it solely to support Bashar. They're calling it "blackmail" as the Western side pressures for them for this resolution.

Along with this, if resolutions continue to fail at the UN Security Council, countries will be able to move around the scope of the council which is bad, to say in the least. The UN is the stronghold maintaining peace at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A solution for Syria's conflict would be for the U.S and Russia to come into an agreement that will allow the UN to solve the problem following the accords established by Kofi Annan. I don't think the UN Security Council is going to help since Russia and China are vetoing any resolution against Syria given to their interests in such country. The only real way out is through negotiations although I'm certain that's not going to happen since the UN tried the same tactic unsuccessfully in Libya and it didn't help in stopping the violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, which is why I believe some sort of military intervention is eventual, if not imminent. Russia is already supplying arms to the Syrian government, yet the Obama Administration is choosing to ignore it. Syria and Russia are strong allies, and if it comes down to it, I think Russia will fight against the Western countries.

I wonder if the US/UK/France/Canada/Germany could match the huge superpower that is Russia/China. China alone would be a monster, but with Russia riding on its back? Yikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the US/UK/France/Canada/Germany could match the huge superpower that is Russia/China. China alone would be a monster, but with Russia riding on its back? Yikes.

Oh crud. Do you think that will happen? With forces like that, they could be virtually unstoppable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh crud. Do you think that will happen? With forces like that, they could be virtually unstoppable.

I think some sort of military conflict MAY occur sometime in the future in the vein of what's being described here. I don't think Russia will make a move until someone else on the opposing side does (even though they already have taken action by supplying the Syrian army with arms). They're standing behind the statement that military intervention will make everything bloodier, and that probably would be the case. However, at this point, more is at stake than the future of Syria. Should al-Qaeda gain control of Syria as they're planning, they'd definitely invade neighboring countries like Israel and Turkey. At that point, American forces would enter. However, the idea that al-Qaeda is running the government may not be entirely public; it probably wouldn't be "Hey, we're al-Qaeda and we're running Syria!" The current government would proceed as puppets, and it would cause controversy and more problems.

We're nowhere near this point, although al-Qaeda certainly is trying to get us there, and by ignoring it, we're not doing the Syrians any favors; the rebels, the government, and al-Qaeda are all trying to gain control, and if someone else tries to intervene, who knows how much the death toll would increase?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Risking a war is not the right choice, especially with the likes of China/Russia. But the world is changing and the center of the global economy is shifting east to places like China and India which now make a large part of the world's economy. The U.S entering another war at this point could be risky to its superpower status and could allow China to take full advantage of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Risking a war is not the right choice, especially with the likes of China/Russia. But the world is changing and the center of the global economy is shifting east to places like China and India which now make a large part of the world's economy. The U.S entering another war at this point could be risky to its superpower status and could allow China to take full advantage of it.

I can see that, but completely ignoring both the Syrian rebels' cries for help and furthermore, the al-Qaedaian presence is something that I just don't understand. I can see maybe wanting to wait, but at this point, when tensions are so high, it doesn't make sense. If Russians are supplying the Syrian army with weapons, I think the least the United States could do is stop ignoring people who are striving for freedom and supply the rebellion with arms and weapons.

Then again, it appears the FSA (Free Syrian Army) is doing fairly well in the Battle of Damascus (which is currently going on); the regime of al-Assad is notably weaker if the FSA is able to shake the foundation of the capital of Syria. If they were to successfully overthrow the capital and take control, what happens after that? How will al-Qaeda respond? Either way, I think United States intervention is necessary sometime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't think a U.S intervention is the solution for this problem. It could risk a new Cold War with Russia/China and the beginning of diplomatic struggles for the west. Like I said before, I think the Kofi Annan plan could work out and Russia seems to subscribe to it although they are playing double-agent in all of this. But putting all aside, Obama met with Putin a while back and there were hints that negotiations are taking place, plus the Syrian National Council which is the opposition, met with Russia's foreign minister to come into an agreement to stop the violence. We'll just have to wait and see if the negotiations are successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't think a U.S intervention is the solution for this problem. It could risk a new Cold War with Russia/China and the beginning of diplomatic struggles for the west. Like I said before, I think the Kofi Annan plan could work out and Russia seems to subscribe to it although they are playing double-agent in all of this. But putting all aside, Obama met with Putin a while back and there were hints that negotiations are taking place, plus the Syrian National Council which is the opposition, met with Russia's foreign minister to come into an agreement to stop the violence. We'll just have to wait and see if the negotiations are successful.

Even if that were to all work out, what would stop al-Qaeda? There's no negotiating with them, they've crashed planes into buildings, blown up trains, bombed London's subway system, without any hesitation. I doubt they'd think twice about invading Israel or Turkey; eventually, unless al-Qaeda is completely diminished, it won't be an option for the U.S. to remain silent and ignore the problem. At this point, Russia doesn't seem to be anywhere near lightening about about not opposing the newest resolution, and the Kofi Annan plan did little before simply collapsing in May, and in that instance, it was the rebels who broke it. That brings up another question: how do you stop the bloodshed without pleasing the rebels? They clearly aren't happy with the dictatorship (who would?) and they won't stop fighting until they are given rights. I don't believe al-Assad would simply be willing to 'quit' and give up the country. Either way, with so many opposing sides and different viewpoints, I don't see this realistically ending without war when al-Qaeda, the Syrian Army, the FSA, and strong-willed nations on both sides are applying huge amounts of pressure on one issue; at some point, something's gotta give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest hilaryfan80

Honestly, I have a strong opinion that if North Korea were to fall, that would be the major cause of World War III. You see, South Korea has always wanted to reunite with North Korea, so if North Korea were to fall, South Korea would invade and take over. China, on the other hand, has a problem with population, and with North Korea being next door, it would be the perfect opportunity to expand. China would try to invade as well. America would then get involved because not only do we support South Korea completely, but since China is trying to expand, their economy will go south, making our own economy plummet to the ground. The rest of the world widely depends on America as well, making this entire thing a world affair. This makes South Korea, China, America, and numerous other countries involved, making World War III.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single region doesn't make a World War. To be considered a world war there has to be countries from all over the world involved and different frontlines throughout continents. So what hilaryfan80 is saying is correct, North Korea is somewhat of a buffer zone for China to defend against democratic influences from South Korea and Japan. If a war involving all world powers happens in the Middle East, there would also be a war in the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, etc. Giving it World War status.

The same happened in WW1 when the U.S got involved despite being a mainly European war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's necessarily true. Syria would only be the trigger, as Germany was the trigger in WWII when it invaded Poland. There's nothing to say that the Syrian Civil War won't be the spark that sets the world on fire. At this time, the Syrian government looks to be weakening, and if the current battle in Damascus is any indication of where the civil war is heading, it appears the rebels might have a chance. al-Qaeda is fighting amongst the rebels, supplying them with weapons and money, so if they were to win, what happens then? al-Qaedans are among those in charge of Syria, and then they decide to invade Israel and Turkey. How does the UN respond to that? You can't talk something out with al-Qaeda. If they were to invade Israel, there's no doubt in my mind we'd send some military reinforcements. Perhaps this wouldn't result in a third world war, but it certainly would cause a very large dispute between many nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah shoot why don't we just take some A-bombs and bomb the crap out of our enemies. Were playing things too nice with the enemy.

Not trying to sound preachy here, but it's this kind of thinking that would lead to an absolute mess. If the United States bombed the crap out of our enemies, it would lead to nuclear conflict and just total worldwide chaos. That idea is just a flat out global disaster. I mean nuclear weapons don't resolve everything. Just take a look at the Cold War. That was all due to mind games over which country has more powerful nuclear weapons. Plus, have you seen the effects of just what happens to countries after nuclear disasters? If we simply used nukes to resolve every single situation we get ourselves into, it would just put an even bigger target on our back and make our country out to be completely unreasonable.

As for this World War 3 stuff, I don't want to jump right into things, but this is all simply just wait and see with what's going on in Syria. It is interesting to think about though when the next massive worldwide war will break out though.

I tried my hardest to resist making a wrestling reference with this topic since WCW actually had a short lived PPV series called World War 3. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...