main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

WW3 and Non-Religious End of the World Discussion

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by PRENNTACULAR, Jul 15, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PRENNTACULAR

    PRENNTACULAR VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Israel is at war with Lebanon and has once again occupied the Gaza strip. Syria and Iran both support Lebanon and more importantly Hezbollah, and are drooling at the idea of a war with Israel. Don't forget about the U.S. presence in Iraq (which is geographically in the middle of it all.

    Is this the start of World War Three?

    What should the major developing countries, nuclear powers, and UN Security Council do about this situation?

    Is U.S. intervention inevitable? Is it morally right?
     
    Ghost likes this.
  2. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I don't think its as critical a situation as that. I mean, obviously this can go HORRIBLY wrong, but there's a lot of promise.
    Lebanon is asking for help from the international community with Hezbollah, plus, you've got statements from several of the countries in the region (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority) criticising Hezbollah's actions. For the history of that area, its not what I'd expect.
     
  3. PRENNTACULAR

    PRENNTACULAR VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2005
    The situation hasn't been as bad as it could have been, but I see a lot of similarities between this and the crazyness of WW1 that ensued...As far as treaties and all of the different countires backing one another up and whatnot.
     
  4. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    i'd consider it difference since none of the major countries are outright supporting Hezbollah. Many think Israel has gone overboard, but it doesn't have that same element of devisiveness. The only countries that I've heard taking Hezbollah's side really are Syria and Iran.
     
  5. GrandAdmiralPelleaon

    GrandAdmiralPelleaon Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2000
    Sometimes I think people are longing for WW3 to start. The Israel v. Lebanon situation doesn't in the slightest resemble anything that might lead to a world war. At worst it'll lead to another Israel v. Arab states war. But even that doesn't seem to likely.
     
  6. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    I don't think that a world war three will start...yet

    It will take a lot more countries to enter and the US will probably get involved the conflict.
     
  7. saber_death

    saber_death Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 2, 2005
    unless a global power (presumably russia or china) blatantly and militarily backs the Arab/Muslim nations... no, this is not WWIII.

    WWI and WWII were both based on the nations with all the biggest militaries in the world (which were all relatively equal overall) fighting each other, with battles all over the world. at this point the Middle East war would be, at absolute worst, US backed Isreal vs Arab/Muslim alliance... certainly a bad war in the Middle East, but not global by any means. the fighting would be contained in one region, and one side would be overwhelmingly more powerful than the other if it unleashed its full potential.

    and, as others have said several of the arab powers are trying to stay out of the way (Saudi Arabia and Egypt in particular since they are the traditional leaders of the Arab world) so it probably won't even get past Isreal vs Syria/Lebanon at this point since Iran can't really do much directly with US-occupied Iraq in the way. if the US and half the arab nations are saying "everyone stop fighting", this war won't get very far at all.
     
  8. Warsie

    Warsie Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2005
    World War III would be U.S. and E.U. vs China and allied nations. India and Pakistan would be involved, and Russia....it's close to both the U.S. and China.

    The U.S. attacking Iran, and Israel vs Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Irancould be the start of this.
     
  9. black_saber

    black_saber Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 4, 2002
    Along with North Korea, Cuba, and Hugo Chevzes Goverment.
     
  10. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    It's the whole Judeo-Christian mentality. It's like watching porn for them, but instead it's seeing the world destroyed. The only problem is that they're still at the video store waiting for it to come in.
     
  11. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    It's because most countries have realized, and the emerging one are realizing that the keys to success are tied to international integration.

    Someone above posted something like "WWIII would be the US/EU vs China." But in what situation would the US/EU be directly fighting China? Ever since it started focusing inward, from the 70's or so, China has really taken a hands off approach to international affairs. Even the Taiwanese affair is used more for political leverage, and it would be extremely rare to see that conflict spill over.

    India and Pakistan are nuclear armed out of a sense of mutual mistrust, and wouldn't get involved in the Middle East.
     
  12. VadersLaMent

    VadersLaMent Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
  13. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Except Newt hasn't been a Congressman for 7 years now, and doesn't reflect official policy. He was a effective opposition party leader, but that role has changed.
     
  14. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Given the current situation, though, which is pretty much Israel going after Hezbollah, and Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah... how is that going to get to the U.S. and E.U. vs China and other countries? Its regional, and more key, Hezbollah has very little support. Even though many countries think Israel is overreacting, they still don't support Hezbollah's actions.
     
  15. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    The current Israel-Hezbollah conflict could expand to include Syria and Iran, which would then have to include Iraq and the US forces in it. But Israel could handle them, and with US involvement they would definitely win.

    The only way it could escalate from that to World War III is if a military threat to the United States got involved, and right now I'd say only the Russian/Chinese military could be a threat to the United States'. But why would either one of them get involved? The only way I can see it happening is if the US or Israel commit (or appear to) a horrible atrocity during the conflict. That's the only way I can see them getting involved right now. And if that happens, let's hope it doesn't grow to involve any nuclear weapons. And the only way they could win is if it's both Russia and China against the United States, and the US loses the support of Europe, Mexico/Canada, and other important allies.
     
  16. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    The current Israel-Hezbollah conflict could expand to include Syria and Iran, which would then have to include Iraq and the US forces in it.

    Why would the US have to get involved? Historically, it never has. Unless you mean that the US would provide resources to Israel, but that's been US policy for quite a while. The US-Israel have been allies out of neccesity, but when Israel crosses the line too severely, the US lets them know (at least publically. Again, one would have to separate public and private actions)

    The only way it could escalate from that to World War III is if a military threat to the United States got involved, and right now I'd say only the Russian/Chinese military could be a threat to the United States

    In what way? The Russian military is in such a state of chaos and disrepair it would be hard pressed to project itself anywhere. Russia still has a nuclear stockpile, but that's more of an all-or-nothing proposition.

    The Chinese military is in the middle of modernizing itself, but it's not there yet. The majority of the Chinese military is still 2-3 generations behind the West. Give it about 10-20 years. China has no heavy lift capabilities and/or power projection resources either.

    At any rate, China and Russia (and especially China) aren't going to join up and damage their relationships with the West because of the Middle East.
     
  17. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I believe I read that the G8 has released a statement saying that Hezbollah needs to release the Israelis and stop attacking Israel, and that then Israel can be expected to stop as well
     
  18. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    IF Iran and Syria got involved, the US would have to get involved because we're in Iraq. Israel and Iran would only be able to reach each other by going through Iraq, and since we're supporting Israel and have had problems with Iran, we would have to have a good reason to not continue to help Israel. Then you could expect Iran would cause some more chaos in Iraq, and begin attacking the US forces for their aid. We would then have to help Israel completely, with our military, against Iran and Syria. That's a way to get the US involved. Bush probably wouldn't be against it, to have the chance to spread democracy to more countries in the Middle East, and get rid of some foes in the region that shelter terrorism. And the US hasn't gotten involed historically at first with World Wars because we chose to be isolated until WW2, after Europe was ruined and someone had to step in, especially to stop the Soviet Union from doing it instead.

    And I said the Russian/Chinese military are the closest to what could be a threat to the US, and to make it WW3 it would need some challenge to the US and include more powers beyond the Middle East. We would be able to take them down, without them using nuclear weapons, but it would take a while and be costly if we are humane and don't use our full force against their countries. Do you think there is a greater miltary threat to the US then Russia's and China's?? No other country can compare to the US right now, but Russia and China are the closest, I believe.

    I said the only way I could see Russia and China getting involved out of this crisis is if US/Israel commit an absolutely horrible atrocity, or appear to.

    I know this is all out-there, with a slim chance of happening, but this is a World War III thread! There are many places in the world in which a war could start or spin out of control, but they are very likely to stay regional wars without global powers getting involved on opposite sides (though they can still be devastating). It would take a lot of bad luck to create another World War, with the last one still so close in time. The possibility of a worl
     
  19. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Or Iran could act as its old crafty self and enlist a third party to smuggle rockets, etc.. across the largely deserted area in the Trigis/Southern Turkish region.

    Across the Tigris region--->down through Syria--->BAMO into Israel.

    Iran wouldn't have to be directly involved.
     
  20. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Syria and Iran have basically told Israel that if they attack one, then both would answer with full-force. Israel, and the United States, have already blamed both for the conflict.

    And do you think the Russian and Chinese are the biggest military threats to the United States, or is there some other countries we should be keeping our eyes on too?
     
  21. Reecee

    Reecee Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 14, 2004
    A world war requires globally significant powers, and generally, the rest of the world that is not the United States or Israel to be involved. I don't see any reason as to why we should even be speculating on this. This whole shebang in the Middle East has appened before. . .
     
  22. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Syria and Iran have basically told Israel that if they attack one, then both would answer with full-force.

    This is true. But neither country has an conventional military that is worth anything.

    Both Syria and Iran used to quite readily become directly involved in past "Arab-Israeli conflicts." However, ever since Iran basically got its fanny handed to it by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian government has been loath to get directly involved in any dispute.

    Keep in mind, the only reason why Iran wasn't completely decimated by Iraq was because the US and UK were playing both sides so neither would become too powerful. Unfortunately for Iran, and fortunately for the rest of us, the Iranian F-14's that they used so spectactularily back then are now rusted hulks.

    The Syrian military is in even worse shape.

    Iran has invested its resources in missile technology, but we all know what would happen if Iran launched a chemical attack against Israel.

    It used to be that Iran could play the West, and call any bluff that came along. Now the tables are turned against Iran. Iran can threaten all it wants, but if it does answer with "full force," the international backlash would be complete.

    And do you think the Russian and Chinese are the biggest military threats to the United States, or is there some other countries we should be keeping our eyes on too?

    I don't think any in the context of a "world war." Regional conflicts are very much alive, but we are not going to see any sort of world conflict for quite some time.

    The closest maybe I'd see would be Jabbadabbado's "energy peak fight for world's resources," where alliances of sorts would be battling it out for what's left. But I hope we develop different sources before then.

    What do you think?
     
  23. Raj_Vader

    Raj_Vader Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Bugger the international backlash - what Israel is doing in Lebanon is disgusting in the extreme. How can they possibly justify destroying their entire civilian infrastructure? Ordering lebanese citizens to leave their homes, and then bombing the very roads they are using to flee Israeli bomabardments? Straetgic military targets are fair play, as is sending in special forces to extract their missing soldiers. But to kill over 200 civilians for 2 soldiers ? Unacceptable.

    Hell, on their logic the UK should destory all the roads in N.I - as these also constitute 'infrastructure used by terrorists'. Their logic is very simple I guess - why bother policing when you can just destroy. America take note - don't bother putting air marshals on your planes, just blow them all up yourself! That way terrorists will never be able to use them again...!

    Someone needs to step in and do something - Israel should have learnt by now in Gaza and the West bank that destroying infrastructure only fuels resentment towards Israel. They've now polarised a whole nation against them. Problem is, who has the balls to stand up to the mental berserker that is Israel and its indifferent mother the US? I guess its up to Russia and the Europeans again......
     
  24. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Huh?

    You do know that the EU is collectively Israel's largest trading partner, right? Would that fact actually make the EU "Israel's indefferent mother?"

    HERE

    Total EU (25 Member States) trade with Israel rose from ?19.4 billion in 2003 to 21.36 in 2004. EU exports to Israel reached ?12.75 billion in 2004, while imports from Israel were ?8.6 billion. The trade deficit with Israel was ?4.15 billion in the EU?s favour in 2004.

    Other than that, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
     
  25. Raj_Vader

    Raj_Vader Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Yeah neither do I - was a little incensed by the morning news - I only got up to get a glass of water [face_blush]

    I think Israel's actions are disproptionate to their objective to dismantle or curtail Hezbollah and recover their lost soldiers.

    Indeed the EU is Israel's largest trade partner - perhaps economic sanctions would be a good way to signal their disapproval of Israel's actions, if indeed there is such disapproval. Personally, I'm quite frustrated that Israel has been allowed to engage in excessive military action for so long - the situation as it stands is perhaps beyond mere economic sanctions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.