No, Libya just had the most extreme example, and with NATO committed, who else would join? China and Russia are against UN intervention in Libya, and with full veto, they could stop anything to do with Syria or Yemen. Not to mention Libya was in a full uprising, not just riots. I suppose Yemen could qualify as an uprising, but no where near the scale of Libya.Pierce Graham said:
Where do you think WW3 will start?
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not.
Why? The world's one big economic clusterfuck, sort of like the Aristocrats but with money and countries. Too many important economic links for countries to really want to fuck each other up. Why do you think the issues with Tibet haven't been solved yet? No important country wants to do something, as everyone is pretty much China's economic butt-buddy.
Why? The world's one big economic clusterfuck, sort of like the Aristocrats but with money and countries. Too many important economic links for countries to really want to fuck each other up. Why do you think the issues with Tibet haven't been solved yet? No important country wants to do something, as everyone is pretty much China's economic butt-buddy.
My point exactly. Russia and China Veto'd UN intervention in Libya, so the US goes and drags NATO into it. Why did they bother asking? Why not just start dropping bombs on them and get it over with.(Also, if the US thinks we're stupid enough to believe that only 9 civilians have been killed so far, I feel insulted. Over 4000 bombing runs=hundreds of dead innocents.) And don't tell me people aren't dying in Syria. Assad's tanks and troops are rolling through towns. But, no oil, so no help for the innocent people.
It'll probably be something to do with a resource shortage as countries will try to enforce supplies (probably oil but food shortages could occur) so the wars will likely start in the oil rich countries (or they already have). The countries with the biggest need will be the first to fire so the USA, China, India and the other giants..
Another point is that this war would start slowly with proxy fighting like in the Cold War in the Middle East and Africa, maybe Asia with the biggest countries backing their allies.. Later though as sides become more desperate for resources it will escalate and no matter what military power any country currently holds, no matter how powerful the big boys are you can expect people to not be happy with occupations and bigger countries taking their resources. Eventually the whole result (assuming no-one goes nuclear) is a destroyed world with social, economic and political crash globally resulting in the greatest age of darkness to be compared to the fall of Rome in Europe or the collapse and defeat of the Nazi regime in germany (1945)..
In essence no-one will be better off due to this war.. it will only take us back several steps..
Another point is that this war would start slowly with proxy fighting like in the Cold War in the Middle East and Africa, maybe Asia with the biggest countries backing their allies.. Later though as sides become more desperate for resources it will escalate and no matter what military power any country currently holds, no matter how powerful the big boys are you can expect people to not be happy with occupations and bigger countries taking their resources. Eventually the whole result (assuming no-one goes nuclear) is a destroyed world with social, economic and political crash globally resulting in the greatest age of darkness to be compared to the fall of Rome in Europe or the collapse and defeat of the Nazi regime in germany (1945)..
In essence no-one will be better off due to this war.. it will only take us back several steps..
Current Events failure. Russia and China abstained from voting, and the UN put NATO in charge. The US agreed to spearhead the initial push, but is currently on refueling missions, AWAC support, and Predator Drones.Pierce Graham said:
Once again, yes Syria is having a major crackdown, but there isn't a revolt like we saw in Libya, where they took over towns and set up a separate government asking for UN/US support. Even then, it wasn't until the Arab League took up a vote to ask for intervention that anything happened. Has any other country gone to these lengths? Nope.
The U.S. is a net exporter of food and 40% of our oil comes from domestic supplies. IN the event of an emergency, we have enough oil stored for about 6 months, and we have yet to tap into some known oil fields off shore and in place such as ANWR. For the most part, all of American's needs are met by domestic supplies. Wants are another story, we get those from poor people.Lord Kloo said:
I see, so because Syria hasn't murdered a pre-requisite number people, we do nothing? No. It wouldn't matter if Hitler himself ran a country, and he murdered millions of people, no oil= no help. (After all, the US did nothing about Hitler until HE declared war on them, and they probably would have done nothing had he not.) And I take note that the US waited a while before doing anything about Libya, likely in hopes that the rebels would lose and they could go back to buying Gaddafi's oil.
Luckily, the world has started to open it's eyes and cast off the century of American propaganda. And not a moment too soon.
Luckily, the world has started to open it's eyes and cast off the century of American propaganda. And not a moment too soon.
We had only been buying oil from Libya for a few years.Pierce Graham said:
Also, Roosevelt had wanted to get into the war from the beginning, however America was in an isolationist period, and wanted nothing to do with Europe, let alone a costly war. Then Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, which led America to declare war on Japan and Germany. Hitler was furious about it since he wanted to keep the US out of it while he conquered Europe.
Also, I never said Syria hadn't killed enough people, I said they hadn't truly revolted in an armed rebellion, setting up a ruling panel that then asked for UN support, alongside the Arab League. The West has learned not to get involved in the Middle East unless they explicitly ask us to.
I'm waiting for India and Pakistan to just decide to screw it and both try to destroy each other at the same time. Either that or Israel vs Palestine.
It just takes one stray bullet or one moron with a thirst for fighting...and BOOOM!
It just takes one stray bullet or one moron with a thirst for fighting...and BOOOM!
Yeah, that's generally how it goes. If you say stuff like that in front of certain people here they will think that you "want the terrorists to win". I am not a huge fan of America either and I am Muslim so I am a terrorist and Al-Quaeda member by default just for disagreeing with an American (but still, there are great people here despite the large amount of idiots).Pierce Graham said:
OT: This is all hypothetical thinking right? I really nope everyone here is not seriously thinking there will be a WW3 guarantee. I wish there were no more wars...Because war (and not religion) is the worst thing that mankind has created. But hey, God gave us free will and he promised not to interfere with choices we make with our free will, but unfortunately...this is the world we have created; full of violence, greed, lust, and hatred.
I guess I'll play along. If there is a WWIII, then nukes (or at least the threat of launching them) and oil will definitely be a key ingredient in the conflicts. Many nations that have nuclear power will be standing by with their finger on a button that launches nukes and whoever gets trigger happy will decide what direction the war will go.
The US never declared war on Nazi Germany. It was Germany that declared war on them. They didn't want to get involved, because there was no profit to be made in helping Europe. There was money to be made in selling war materials to the Allies, but that was all they were willing to do. Many historians agree that had Hitler not declared war on the US, the US would never have gone to war with them. And I believe that.
And it's not like the US hasn't gone to war with countries where they had absolutely no business (i.e Vietnam, Korea,etc, where they only went to prevent the spread of Communism, which means to defend the rich 1% of society. And they failed.)
And it's not like the US hasn't gone to war with countries where they had absolutely no business (i.e Vietnam, Korea,etc, where they only went to prevent the spread of Communism, which means to defend the rich 1% of society. And they failed.)
War and religion go hand in hand. If a war isn't fought over religion (crusades, US invasion of Afghanistan) then someone will often try and justify the war with it. Even Hitler used religion to promote the Aryan race and demonize the Jews as inferior. The world would be better off without either, but that's not likely to happen.DesiPrinceX09 said:
The United States formally declared war on Germany on December 11, 1942. Same day as Germany declared war on the U.S. They were effectively at war since 1939, when the US navy began to fire upon German warships and aircraft. They also seized German merchant vessels before this time because, as I stated earlier, Roosevelt saw Hitler for the threat he was and wanted to go to war, but Congress wouldn't approve war. Getting the Lend-Lease Act was as far as they would go until the U.S. was attacked.Pierce Graham said:
The U.S. also had every business being in the Korean peninsula, what with our ally under attack. The entire U.N. went into the Korean peninsula to stop the North and later, the Chinese. Vietnam... I will agree with. But, the only reason we lost that war was television. Strategically, the U.S. was beating the North Vietnamese into submission, but this was the first war to truly be televised, and the American people turned against the war (rightly so). I would also add Iraq II to the list of unneeded invasions.
Also, defeating the spread of Stalin/Mao's control was a far greater mission than stopping communism. Communism is harmless, but Stalin and Mao were quite ruthless and preventing it's spread to South Korea did them a very large favor, just look at North Korea right now.
Call me a futurist, but I don't think there's going to be another World War. At least not within the foreseeable future.
The only real front these days where things could go south to the extent of a new world war is China (ie, China invades Russia, or China invades India, or the other way around). To be frank, I don't see this happening.
Anywhere else, it'll just be another Iraq.
The only real front these days where things could go south to the extent of a new world war is China (ie, China invades Russia, or China invades India, or the other way around). To be frank, I don't see this happening.
Anywhere else, it'll just be another Iraq.
Right now it does, but I don't think that this interdependence will last very long. If the global economy takes enough blows, the U.S. (for example) may decide to withdraw from it. Already there are movements to "buy local" on a small scale; I think that trend could become bigger over the next few decades.Sarkule said:
You're right, though; until a country becomes much more self-sufficient, it can't afford to attack any other country.
I think if it happen, it will propablly happen in one of Koreas.
But i don't think we will face a global scale conflict in the near future. Because world is a global village right now, and developed nations with ties to other countries will not get involved into attacking other developed nations. Also there is no ideology factor involved, since fasiscm or communism in big european countries, are things of the past. So no to a global war, but i forsee a lot of small conflics in underdeveloped nations, third world countries, or former eastern soviet nations.
But i don't think we will face a global scale conflict in the near future. Because world is a global village right now, and developed nations with ties to other countries will not get involved into attacking other developed nations. Also there is no ideology factor involved, since fasiscm or communism in big european countries, are things of the past. So no to a global war, but i forsee a lot of small conflics in underdeveloped nations, third world countries, or former eastern soviet nations.