With all the tension in the Middle East already, this trouble with Syria could push the world to the breaking point. Relations with Russia are bad enough, but if we go to eat with Syria, that could be it. Yes, I'm referring to world war three. What do you think? Is war with Syria worth WWIII? Personally, I don't think so. Yes it's horrible what they're doing with the chemical weapons, but I'm not sure it's worth nuclear war. "I know not with what weapons WWIII with be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Albert Einstein.
Don't care, really. Humanity is insufferable as it is mostly, sans the sane few who don't rely on shelled words and false facts to stay alive. I think WWIII would cause a lot of problems in the short-term, but maybe it can be the restart society needs.
Strangely enough, I agree with you. A reset it what society needs, though I would prefer to live through it.
Thankfully parliament voted no to going into Syria to intervene, so if anything does start off it is going to be the US' fault...surprising. I don't think WW3 would be a result of them going into Syria anyway, I know Russia is against America getting involved but there is literally nothing of gain for all parties involved. So as long as 'murca doesn't stomp it's so called freedom fighting boot into Syria there shouldn't be a problem at all. c: After all, it is a civil war, let them fight it out. The FSA are putting up a good fight against the state anyway...as long as Al-Assad hasn't been flirting with GLaDOS again.
It'll never happen. Well, almost. It's practically impossible though if you look at it from a modern perspective. People have been worrying about the issue because it's been said that China and Russia would retaliate at the United State's entering in the Syria conflict, however, this is more or less erroneous for a couple of reason, let me lay it down for you to put you guys at ease. Let's start with the easier one, Russia. To start off, Russia has never actually said they would retaliate to this conflict, they simply said that they would be disapproving of it, and while that may not seem like a credible bit of information to know they won't be involved, let me give you a bit of context. Russia and the United States butted heads at one point a few decades ago, they didn't actually go to war, they simply butted heads. Want to know what the end result of that was? Economic collapse for the Soviet Union. Keep in mind, that this wasn't even a direct conflict. This was the cold war, the two countries didn't combat each other directly and still such vast damages were done to the Soviets. The damages from this still echo throughout Russia today as they're far from the superpower that they used to be back during the Cold War. Do you honestly believe that they would want to enter a conflict with the United States knowing this? Now China on the other hand will likely stay out of the issue for a simpler reason. In recent years the economy in China has been skyrocketing upwards at an insane rate, and the choice of throwing themselves into the ring could put all of that into jeopardy as it would greatly interfere with the international relations in regards to their sales. I think we all remember freedom fries back in the beginning of the century, and that was because the French didn't want to get involved. Considering America is one of the greatest sources of Chinese income, entering in a conflict against us would likely spark a similar reaction that would result in the decline of the Chinese economy. The name of the game here, is economy and international relations. International politics isn't how it was back in the early 20th century. Almost every country is economically linked to other countries in such a way that full scale war is a near impossibility in this day and age, so you can all relax, there won't be a WWIII unless something goes seriously wrong and there is a worldwide economic collapse.
I'm more worried about the whole 'US organized the Syrian Chem Weap runs for practice on European countries' theories. Only need a few biased/blind politicians to think it's true to start a conflict.
I've been researching into the war in Syria for over a year now, and i can assure you now. It's the real deal. World War 3 is what all the worlds governments fear, but it's what they all need to solve many of their problems. If it really does happen, i will like to live through it. Seen enough Post-Apocalyptic films and games to know how to survive after.
The Oatmeal really summed up Syria well... Getting mad about the chemical weapons is kinda ridiculous when compared to the rest of what's gone on there...
"John Kerry's "Moral Compass" comment in his pathetic attempt to bolster the official story reveals that the US Government now realizes belatedly they have overstepped. They crossed the "red line" of believability with the American people, and even that segment of the population still desperate to cling to the illusion that the US are the good guys and all these wars, overthrows, drone strikes, and torture, were somehow necessary and right are awake, and angry. I am bumping this back to the top in light of Israel's firing of missiles in the eastern Mediterranean earlier today. Although claimed to have been an unannounced test, the fact is that military tests are always announced ahead of time to allow civilian shipping and aviation to get out of the test area. So what it looks like to me is Israel fired those missiles hoping to provoke Assad into firing on the US fleet, to get the war going. Fortunately, Assad didn't fall for it. However, I don't think Israel will quit after this failure. I don't think Netanyahu is willing to risk a vote on Congress. So I am expecting Israel to try again to get the war with Syria going. Israel may use their Dolphin submarines to fire a torpedo at the US ships and blame it on Syria. Israel could, in the worst case, launch a nuclear-armed cruise missile and destroy several ships, then claim Iran gave a nuclear weapon to Syria. But those pushing war are desperate. The usual tactic of lies to thew public to invent a cause for war is not working any more in this age of the internet. Desperate people will take desperate chances"
I wish I knew a single word in the English language for the cliche, angsty apathy of someone who is so absorbed into what they are doing/feeling that they feel secure in saying that millions of people deserve to die. I would go into how much I agree with this but it might just sound repetitive.
Right now it's actually France that is the one nation pushing for an invasion force into Syria, from what titles I can skim at work from time to time. The real problem would be if Iran decided to check in to the war as well, Russia is still the odd ball on this one though it seems. WWIII? It's humans we're talking about here anything is possible. On a little side note it would take less than half of the world current nuclear weapons cache to send the world into a nuclear winter. It has also been hinted that the U.S. is in possession of a very deadly viral substance, though what it is is highly classified( it's on par with the World Eater Virus from 40k)
Well, even if parliament or congress says no, being that it is a "no boots on the ground" type action, the president still has the authority to do it. It seems like he's masking his true intentions with false courtesy. Of course, I could be totally wrong, but I'm afraid just like everyone else of the Third World War. The reason most react to chemical weaponry is because it ups the anti. WMD's are on a totally different level, and work with things that people can't see with the naked eye, like atoms and germs. Plus, the doomsday clock is at five minutes to midnight, so...the next worldwide disaster would technically signify the end of the world. Starting conflict in Syria certainly could be that pebble in the pond, but also not. Well...I hope not. Lol
Congress doesn't actually have to give consent on the issue if the President deem's the issue important enough I believe. That might not be the exact loophole, but I remember it being something just as ridiculous, and if memory recalls, the same thing was used during Desert Storm.
You are correct. Congress has to declare "war" in 90 days if the President enacts a war. That's why everything is a "police action" or whatever jargon they use. It's never "war" anymore. People still die the same though. Guess those 100,000+ deaths there before the chemical weapons weren't enough. I really don't agree with us doing any military action there at this point.
I just found out from my parents, just now, that congress approved...ugh...daddy said that a Patriot missile would probably hit the royal palace before I even wake up tomorrow.
