Could Syria ignite World War 3? That's the terrifying question as the hatred between two Muslim ideologies sucks in the (McCain, Iran)

[All American NYC]

Could Syria ignite World War 3? That's the terrifying question as the hatred between two Muslim ideologies sucks in the world's superpowers

President Obama wants to downgrade America’s involvement in the Middle East now the U.S. can rely on reserves of cheap shale oil and gas at home, his own somewhat tentatious concern for human rights keeps sucking him back in to side with the rebels. That is also broadly the position of Britain and France, whose leaders seem swayed by lurid and unverified social media footage of atrocities....Russia and China feel they were tricked by the West over the way the Libyan regime was overthrown with Western aid two years ago, and are determined Assad won’t be ousted and murdered like Gaddafi. The war in Syria therefore has had a destabilising effect on the entire region, and could exert a terrifying domino effect as states disintegrate. Whether such a nightmare scenario can be avoided — and global superpowers can be persuaded to keep their powder dry — we must wait to see with baited breath.

We need to raise the draw bridge and put our soldiers where they should be, on our borders.

[HappyTexan]

It's not Syria that will ignite WWIII because their fighting is internal.
It will be the US meddling that will do it.

[Dockside]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

It's not Syria that will ignite WWIII because their fighting is internal.
It will be the US meddling that will do it.

Yup. We'll suck in Russia, still smarting after the collapse of the USSR, then Lebanon, Iran, Israel. Obama and idiots like John McCain are setting the world up for one giant clusterfrack.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

We need to raise the draw bridge and put our soldiers where they should be, on our borders.

Solve your Sweet Crude addiction first.

[Winter_Sucks]

No, the Syria civil war won't ignite WW III. It does have the potential to draw in surrounding countries and destabilize the region. If we are getting involved, then we need to do so at 100% and not half-ass it. Set up a no fly zone and arm the rebels who have been thoroughly vetted with everything they need.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Dockside

Yup. We'll suck in Russia, still smarting after the collapse of the USSR, then Lebanon, Iran, Israel. Obama and idiots like John McCain are setting the world up for one giant clusterfrack.

Let's see..

Korea:

Korean Conflict was the U.S. and the included 15 UN allies vs the North Korea, China and the Soviet Union. So maybe we already had WWIII and didn't notice.

Republic of Korea 590,911
Columbia 1,068
United States 302,483
Belgium 900
United Kingdom 14,198
South Africa 826
Canada 6,146
The Netherlands 819
Turkey 5,453
Luxembourg 44
Australia 2,282
Philippines 1,496
New Zealand 1,385
Thailand 1,204
Ethiopia 1,271
Greece 1,263
France 1,119


Vietnam

Here we go again, we had the U.S. South Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Khmer Republic, and Laos vs North Vietnam with support from the Soviet Union China, Cuba, North Korea, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Burma.

No WWIII.

So, even if the U.S. and the Soviet Union act upon historial precedent would a world war break out... a pretty silly proposition on the face of it. Rather it will be another of a long list of regional conflicts with a myriad of outside players with hostilities remaining in one geographical region. Unlike the two world wars that were fought on multiple continents.

Sorry to pour water on overheated fantasies.

[jsun556]

World War III will not happen because the world is too interdependent on each other nowadays. It wasn't like that in the previous world wars.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

No, the Syria civil war won't ignite WW III. It does have the potential to draw in surrounding countries and destabilize the region.

destabilize the region?

Wouldn't it first have to be stable in order to be destabilized?

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

If we are getting involved, then we need to do so at 100% and not half-ass it. Set up a no fly zone and arm the rebels who have been thoroughly vetted with everything they need.

Personally. I'd vote for 0% involvement.

[Winter_Sucks]

Originally Posted by burdell

destabilize the region?

Wouldn't it first have to be stable in order to be destabilized?



Personally. I'd vote for 0% involvement.

Having Syria go from Assad's rule to a civil war is a destabilization itself and pulling Lebanon and Israel into the mix would further destabilize the region.

[Iamme73]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

Could Syria ignite World War 3? That's the terrifying question as the hatred between two Muslim ideologies sucks in the world's superpowers





We need to raise the draw bridge and put our soldiers where they should be, on our borders.

In the minds of paranoid Glenn Beck fans, Syria can cause world war 3. In the real world, no.