Are we heading towards WW3? (poll)

[Stevicus]

Why are people so obsessed with WWIII? The first and second were even retro-named, so predicting the third is somewhat ridiculous in my mind. Shouldn't we be more worried about how to prevent it, rather than anticipate when it's going to happen?

Well, if they call it the "Hundred Years War" from the start, at least we'll know how long it will last.

 

[Incestual_Satanist]

I personally find it extremely unlikely to head to a nuclear nature even in the case of war. Although we may have some erratic leaders at this time, I highly doubt they would escalate it to that point, fully knowing the lose-all situation it places everyone in.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Russia suspends agreement that prevents direct conflict with US forces

Could Trump's Syria Strike Cause World War 3? Observers Are Concerned

another, more recognized source about the WW3 talk but doesn't give opinion:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/04/07/world-war-iii-twitter/100162584/

Due to the Syrian situation talked about in the articles above.

From my understanding of the situation, Russia is suspending the agreement as a way to deter US flights/action in the region. No Russians have been killed, and it's not clear to me that there is going to be any intended military confrontation between the US and Russia. And even if somehow there was a collision or a US plane shot down ,the Russians could easily claim they didn't know it was US.

Even if that somehow escalated it, and there was some kind of skirmish, I'm not convinced that either side would declare war least of all a nuclear war over this. I kind of feel that this type of thing happens a lot where the US sticks it's nose but that the media has picked up on this as Syria is one of the hot beds for the neo-con agenda.

What do you think? Could this lead to ww3 or is everyone freaking out just over reacting?

EDIT: added a source

I would say WW3 could be looming, but I think the 'axis' this time around will be some combination of north korea and the Muslim world.

 

[Glaurung]

Shouldn't we be more worried about how to prevent it, rather than anticipate when it's going to happen?

Of course, but I'm also of the mind that nuclear war is inevitable. Someone somewhere at some point will push that button.

 

[Deidre]

I hope not. If there were to be a WWIII, would anyone be ready?

 

[Alison Wonderland]

I would say WW3 could be looming, but I think the 'axis' this time around will be some combination of north korea and the Muslim world.

Just like GWB said!!!

 

[Alison Wonderland]

I hope not. If there were to be a WWIII, would anyone be ready?

Depends on what WWIII actually entails. I think MAD is still something that will deter nations from a nuclear holocaust - except for people who actually want that to happen (most strains of Islamic radicalism).

Well, capitalism in motion basically asserts that we are always heading towards ww3.
Imperialism only goes on so long until the interimperialist war occurs. "World war" is a bit of a eurocentric label in my opinion.

However the involvement in Syria?
Nope.
Just imperialism as usual.

Interesting theory. All things considered, I think it's dramatically ironic that "capitalism in motion" might inevitably cause mobilization towards another huge international conflict but might very well be the reason for preventing all out nuclear war.

 

[columbus]

Just like GWB said!!!

He rather helped create it after all.
Tom

 

[Kapalika]

Just like GWB said!!!

From my understanding Bush was more explicit in differentiating extremist Jihadists from ordinary Muslims than the two presidents after him. So I kind of find it hard to believe that he would characterize it as a Muslim threat as opposed to an extremist, terrorist threat.

 

[idav]

From my understanding Bush was more explicit in differentiating extremist Jihadists from ordinary Muslims than the two presidents after him. So I kind of find it hard to believe that he would characterize it as a Muslim threat as opposed to an extremist, terrorist threat.

At least he included N Korea in his "Axis of Evil".

 

[Alison Wonderland]

He rather helped create it after all.
Tom

I don't disagree with this.

When he came up with that term, Kim Jong Il was testing nukes in the Pacific, Saddam was alive and well (I'm pretty sure) and Iran was as it is.

Bush 2 intervened, Obama pulled out and the vacuum that was left allowed for the instability to simmer over to what it is now.

In hindsight, maybe the wimp president (Bush 1) never went far enough in the first place. Would've resulted in more dead US solders (rest of the coalition in Desert Storm would have pulled out) leading into the ninties and the US would've looked more like an imperialist mission creep earlier than it eventually did a decade later.

Bottom line is that Islamic extremists who literally want to bring about the end of the world should be dealt with as harshly as they project themselves to be.

Perhaps if neo-cons were just up front with the West about imperializing the Middle East, we could've just stayed and kept calling the shots. Can't be any worse than this current mess.

I still think the third world / middle east is a footnote in all of this (the OP).

 

[Alison Wonderland]

From my understanding Bush was more explicit in differentiating extremist Jihadists from ordinary Muslims than the two presidents after him. So I kind of find it hard to believe that he would characterize it as a Muslim threat as opposed to an extremist, terrorist threat.

I made that post tongue in cheek and I see your point, but I think the current envisaging of the "Muslim threat" has just been a natural progression over the last 20-30 years.

It could come from any mentally ill or disenfranchised individual who just wants to do something "big" in order feel (prospectively) larger than they are.

It's terrifying psychological stuff and the threat is just getting worse and more active.

 

[Tabu]

Very likely,

Hawaii congresswoman says Trump 'acted recklessly' with Syria missile strikes
Gabbard said: "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government."
"Gabbard called the strike "short-sighted," and said it would lead to "more dead civilians, more refugees ... and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia."
Hawaii congresswoman says Trump 'acted recklessly' with Syria missile strikes

 

[Wirey]

No way. Russia and the US must be nervous about the unpredictable schmuck on the other side of the fence, and will avoid provocation accordingly. Next Friday this is all blown over and the Russians are using conventional bombs against children again.

I was too optimistic.

Warplanes strike Syrian town hit by chemical attack last week

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm seeing a lot of reports regarding this "chemical attack," yet no mention of what kind of chemical it was. I am also noticing that rescue workers helping the victims aren't wearing any HAZ-MAT suits.

Color me suspicious.

 

[Wirey]

I'm seeing a lot of reports regarding this "chemical attack," yet no mention of what kind of chemical it was. I am also noticing that rescue workers helping the victims aren't wearing any HAZ-MAT suits.

Color me suspicious.

Multiple sources have said it's sarin gas, and them not having hazmat suits is probably normal. Who owns them outside government agencies?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I've also heard chlorine gas. Other sources reference a sarin gas attack in 2011. Also if they were not wearing HAZ-MAT suits, are they dead too? Because both sarin and chlorine gas would do that.