World war 3

[Natachan]

There isn't going to be a WWIII, not in the same kind of way as the wars at the beginning of the 20th century. The west is no longer willing to fight that kind of total war and this area doesn't have the military power to pose that kind of threat. The issue is that the culture over there is behind by about 60-100 years. They know we won't crush them. They want to create violence and chaos. And we shouldn't get sucked into that.

Honestly, we should just let the area sort itself out. Open up trade and allow western media in. Eventually it will sort itself out.

[tjakey]

There isn't going to be a WWIII, not in the same kind of way as the wars at the beginning of the 20th century. The west is no longer willing to fight that kind of total war and this area doesn't have the military power to pose that kind of threat. The issue is that the culture over there is behind by about 60-100 years. They know we won't crush them. They want to create violence and chaos. And we shouldn't get sucked into that.

Honestly, we should just let the area sort itself out. Open up trade and allow western media in. Eventually it will sort itself out.

I think you are probably right about WWIII, (or I hope anyway). I don't think the leadership of Russia, China, or the US actually believes an all out war is anything but mass suicide. (Unlike some of their citizens, i.e. the fool who started this thread.)

I would suggest that "they" are closer to 500 years behind. I agree that we should let the area sort itself out. I voted for Obama with the small (and utterly misplaced) hope that he was less war-loving than the other side. But this is America and war - at least war were we can use a million dollar missile carried by a multi-million dollar aircraft launched from a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier to blow the shit out of a pick-up truck - is the only "foreign policy" we know.

[Anomalocaris]

The hyperbole is getting out of hand.

What is going on in the worst of the current conflict is still nothing more than a low intensity, regional conflict.

98% of the world's current military capability, 99.9%'of the world's war waging potentials, are uncommitted and have little prospect of being committed.

Compare that to a real world war where perhaps 95% of the world's existing military capability, and well over 50% of the world' total war waging potential were directly committed.

World war my ass.

[Mr Greene]

For feck's sake we've been blasting that region repeatedly since 1798.
The net result is what we have now. We colonised most of of it for a considerable period.
Personally I think it may be time to rethink our strategy.
In any case the major problem for us would appear to be Sharia by bluff at home rather than any direct threat from the ME.

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, the region was under ottoman rule until 1918. We haven't blasted any of it until after the war to end all wars.

It is arguable much of the mess there right now are traceable directly or indirectly to the various longer term consequences of the utter contempt we showed the Arab aspirations directly and sense of solidarity amongst Muslim indirectly, by installing Israel in its midst of the Arab and Islamic world in 1948 at a time of rising tide of nationalism and anti colonialism everywhere, the name of fixing a wrong in which the Arabs had almost no part, at least compared to us. It put the Arab world on the side against the west in the Cold War, hardened the antagonistic attitude between the Arab and Islamic world and the west, prompted the Arabs to believe their salvation must come from something other than westernization, and westernization could only ever lead to ever more through subjugation, and given the choice, they rather be subjugated by the artifacts of their own tradition than by those imposed by us for our benefit.

[StealthySkeptic]

Strike back? A couple of americans get beheaded, and you think it's worth intervening and risking the lives of innocent people?

With the greatest respect, the twin towers felled, Lee Rigby killed, and " a couple of americans get beheaded"...

And I should.. what? go and read the Qur'an to try and understand?

No FFS.. it's quite clear what they want.. and it's time to say no!!

---

Boru you are like my own stalker... bizarre!!

But by war means... killing machines and bombs and guns... a bit like Black Ops !!

How, exactly?

Boru

We tried retaliating in Afghanistan and Iraq. The result is exactly the same: we smash what little organized government there is, toppling dictatorships but leading to more chaos and innocent people dying out of a sense of revenge. What you're proposing WILL NOT WORK. What is working is us standing back and striking from a distance with drones and airstrikes where they cannot strike back and supporting the local governments (it worked in Libya, and it's working in Afghanistan and Iraq).

[Elskidor]

For the sake of argument, which country is the most likely begin world war 3? I'm betting on America. Germany won't be responsible this time.

[Jackalope]

For the sake of argument, which country is the most likely begin world war 3? I'm betting on America. Germany won't be responsible this time.

Define "start". Fires first shot in anger, sets off an inevitable chain of events, or something else?

[Elskidor]

Whichever begins the domino effect.


Google News claims WW3 has already begun. I wish they would have told the rest of us.

[Anomalocaris]

For the sake of argument, which country is the most likely begin world war 3? I'm betting on America. Germany won't be responsible this time.

The most powerful country on the losing side of WWIII would have started it. The actual players and events prior to WWIII would not be allowed to confuse the issue.

But seriously, for The foreseeable future, any war which does not involve the United States and China on opposing sides really has no potential to become a world war. Which ever of the two that ends up on the losing side would be deemed to have started it.