CVByrne Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration. WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent. The middle eat only matters because of Israel lobby in the United States and because of Oil. Otherwise nobody would give a shit, like Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Tbh I can only see this going one way and it is not good. World War 3. Muslim countries will eventually get the leaders the population want. When they do there will be a massive cry to stop Israel doing what they are doing or act as a deterrent. No offence intended but is that before or after they stop killing each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Fox news is gash anyway Edited July 31, 2014 by Meath_Villan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration. WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent. The middle eat only matters because of Israel lobby in the United States and because of Oil. Otherwise nobody would give a shit, like Africa. I meant with the US involved. You may laugh but I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility. Tbh I can only see this going one way and it is not good. World War 3. Muslim countries will eventually get the leaders the population want. When they do there will be a massive cry to stop Israel doing what they are doing or act as a deterrent. No offence intended but is that before or after they stop killing each other? I mean a long way down the line. Certainly not in the current state of the Arab/Muslim world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration. WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent. Considering only the US, French and British have any sort of expeditionary capability, and the US ability to project power dwarfs that of the other two, I really don't think we'll see a general war in the Middle East with the Russians or Chinese involved. Not that any regime is queuing up to have the Americans turn them over. Edited July 31, 2014 by Ads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration. WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent. The middle eat only matters because of Israel lobby in the United States and because of Oil. Otherwise nobody would give a shit, like Africa. I meant with the US involved. You may laugh but I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility.Tbh I can only see this going one way and it is not good. World War 3. Muslim countries will eventually get the leaders the population want. When they do there will be a massive cry to stop Israel doing what they are doing or act as a deterrent. No offence intended but is that before or after they stop killing each other? I mean a long way down the line. Certainly not in the current state of the Arab/Muslim world. So unlikely in our lifetime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration. WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent. The middle eat only matters because of Israel lobby in the United States and because of Oil. Otherwise nobody would give a shit, like Africa. I meant with the US involved. You may laugh but I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility. It's entirely out of the realms of possibility. US Senators are happy to turn a blind eye to Israel war crimes, Happy to sign off the 3bln "aid" package the US gives to Israel annually. Happy to sell them arms. But open warfare putting thousands of American lives to assist Israel in an agressive conflict. That's where the actual will of the people matters more the lobbyists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishVillan Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration. WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent. The middle eat only matters because of Israel lobby in the United States and because of Oil. Otherwise nobody would give a shit, like Africa. It could happen out of nothing like WW1. Trade and currency wars are already happening within that group. The BRICS are trying to get away from the dollar (as it is dying) and will more and more support whoever is against US. They already do this in Syria, Iraq and a host of African nations. Didn´t Russia sign a deal with Hamas regarding Natural gas recently? Meanwhile the US is busy fining French banks and spying on Germany. Edited July 31, 2014 by DanishVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Didn´t Russia sign a deal with Hamas regarding Natural gas recently? About 20% of Israelis are Russian or are of Russian descent and more expatriate Israelis live in Moscow than anywhere else. Russia is certainly much more pro Israel these days than it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration. WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent. The middle eat only matters because of Israel lobby in the United States and because of Oil. Otherwise nobody would give a shit, like Africa. It could happen out of nothing like WW1. Trade and currency wars are already happening within that group. The BRICS are trying to get away from the dollar (as it is dying) and will more and more support whoever is against US. They already do this in Syria, Iraq and a host of African nations. Didn´t Russia sign a deal with Hamas regarding Natural gas recently? Meanwhile the US is busy fining French banks and spying on Germany. Utterly proposterous to think WW3 could start in a similar way to WW1. People wanted a war back then, people had yet to see the real devestation modern war can wraught. World War 2 showed what all out war brings, no winners everyone suffers. The modern trials of the world are miniscule compared to that of years gone by. Yes 3000 people dies in 9/11 but how many people died in the Vietnam War? Far worse time for Americans, being drafted to go die in a Jungle. Whatever happens is the middle East for example is only an issue because of the age of information. civilians have been murdered in far greater numbers in almost every decade prior to this. To believe for one second that our worries over the price of oil will be so strong we'd be willing to go into all out war where our own nations can be attacked is so utterly nonsense I worry for the intelligence levels of people who genuinely think that. At the end of the day, Germany really doesn't give two shits about the Ukraine. It cares about it's need for Russian Oil and Gas to power its industry and keep its economy out of recession. People care more about the money in their pockets than dying children in a far away land they happen to read about because of the age of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishVillan Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration. WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent. The middle eat only matters because of Israel lobby in the United States and because of Oil. Otherwise nobody would give a shit, like Africa. It could happen out of nothing like WW1. Trade and currency wars are already happening within that group. The BRICS are trying to get away from the dollar (as it is dying) and will more and more support whoever is against US. They already do this in Syria, Iraq and a host of African nations. Didn´t Russia sign a deal with Hamas regarding Natural gas recently? Meanwhile the US is busy fining French banks and spying on Germany. Utterly proposterous to think WW3 could start in a similar way to WW1. People wanted a war back then, people had yet to see the real devestation modern war can wraught. World War 2 showed what all out war brings, no winners everyone suffers. The modern trials of the world are miniscule compared to that of years gone by. Yes 3000 people dies in 9/11 but how many people died in the Vietnam War? Far worse time for Americans, being drafted to go die in a Jungle. Whatever happens is the middle East for example is only an issue because of the age of information. civilians have been murdered in far greater numbers in almost every decade prior to this. To believe for one second that our worries over the price of oil will be so strong we'd be willing to go into all out war where our own nations can be attacked is so utterly nonsense I worry for the intelligence levels of people who genuinely think that. At the end of the day, Germany really doesn't give two shits about the Ukraine. It cares about it's need for Russian Oil and Gas to power its industry and keep its economy out of recession. People care more about the money in their pockets than dying children in a far away land they happen to read about because of the age of information. Yeah, they are so much better of in a desert. There will be no Yes/No election coming ahead of WW3 btw. Ukraine is about getting them into EU/NATO knowing full well the Russian reaction. To me that means they are atleast willing to bluff about WW3. Dangerous game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I don't see another total war happening but I do predict an increasingly fractious & violent world following mass displacement due to flooding and the decline of natural resources due to a mass extinction event in the nearish future. Of course this will really only effect poorer countries and for us it'll pretty much stay the same but we'll have super strict immigration laws and more lab grown foods to counteract the rising prices of natural foods (which is both down to animals dying out and the price of importing rocketing due to oil running out). For the most part we'll be really lazy and glued to virtual worlds and we'll probably live in a state of denial about what we've gone and done to the Earth.. Obvs the rich will live as they normally do. And Sepp Blatter will still be in charge of FIFA. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 There won't be a war but their will be individuals that look for revenge. Then we can continue to feel sorry for all the innocent victims that were killed by the evil terrorist attacks for the rest of our lives. Maybe even start a war on terror over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Concerns expressed by her constituents have prompted this Tory "Friend of Israel" and PPS to Jeremy Hammond to write to him and Hague, expressing her unease at Israel's actions. Exclusive: Tory MP urges government ‘rethink’ on Gaza The first signs of serious unease are emerging in Conservative ranks about the government’s stance on the conflict in Gaza. The new foreign secretary has been treading a careful line in recent days. Too careful, think some of his colleagues. Channel 4 News can reveal that the Conservative MP Margot James has written to Philip Hammond to ask him to rethink government policy towards the war. Her letter leaves him in no doubt about the strength of feeling not only on the Tory benches, but also in the country at large. Above: left, Margot James, right, Philip Hammond “My constituents, not all of them Muslim, regard the Israeli action as wholly disproportionate to the threat posed by Hamas,” she writes. She continues: “I ask that the government rethinks policy towards the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territories. “The scale of suffering in Gaza is far too great, the loss of life, and particularly the lives of children and other vulnerable individuals, cannot be justified on the grounds of defence in proportion to the level of threat faced by Israel from Hamas. “I also think that we should make it clear that it is unacceptable for Israel to just dismiss US proposals for peace without any debate whatsoever.” This is directly contrary to Hammond’s repeated refusal just a day ago to say whether Israel’s shelling of Gaza was “proportionate”. In a radio interview he said: “What Israel does in Gaza must be proportionate – that’s a requirement of international law. It would not be legal if it was not proportionate.” Bear in mind James has just been appointed parliamentary private secretary to William Hague, who left the Foreign Office only a few weeks ago, and you get a sense of the pressure building on the government. James goes on to describe herself as “a firm supporter of Israel” for many years. But the shelling of a UN run school (pictured, above) marked, in her view, “a new low” in the conflict. Other MPs and even ministers agree with her assessment. One minister told me they were “really disheartened” by Hammond’s apparent unwillingness to upset Israel. It’s thought that the Foreign Office is making its concerns felt behind the scenes about the horrendous civilian death toll. But that may not wash with MPs for much longer. They want public condemnation from Her Majesty’s Government, without further delay. Below: full text of letter Dear Philip I am writing to you on behalf of many constituents who have contacted me to register their despair at the loss of life in Gaza. My constituents, not all of them Muslim, regard the Israeli action as wholly disproportionate to the threat posed by Hamas. I have for many years been a firm supporter of Israel. I remain a supporter of Israel’s right to security, and to a state in which their citizens can live without fear of bombardment. However I do not think that the swift, and terrible, elimination of so many Palestinian lives, homes, hospitals and schools can be deemed a proportionate response to the crude rocket fire to which Israel is undoubtedly subject. I have visited the town of Sderot and understand, and sympathise with, the concerns, frustrations and fears, of an Isreali community living close to the border with Gaza. But the rockets fired by Hamas, that I saw there, are of an antiquated nature by comparison with the modern weaponry used by Israel to defend their civilians against such attacks. Attacks which are in any case rendered virtually victimless by the air missile defence system that Israel has in place. I accept, perhaps more so than the constituents on whose behalf I am writing to you, that Hamas bears substantial responsibility for the lives lost on both sides. It seems that the original killings of the three young Israeli men was their doing. Neutral observers confirm that Hamas, and related factions, fire their rockets from, and maintain their weapons within civilian areas, and worse still, from hospitals and schools. Likewise the network of tunnels under the border have been built in areas of dense population. This deliberate use of the lives of innocent Palestinian civilians as, in effect, human shields has undoubtedly made it difficult for Israel to avoid the loss of civilian life. However, given the sophisticated surveillance systems accessible to the Israeli army surely we could have expected far fewer civilian casualties from these operations? The shelling of a UN run school, being used as a shelter in Gaza, two days ago, in which fifteen people died, marked a new low in a conflict which has seen a truly terrible level of death and destruction in a very short space of time. Israel makes the point that Hamas has refused several Israeli offers of a ceasefire; even when tabled by neutral players like Egypt. However, it should be acknowledged that Israel has also rejected, out of hand, proposals made by the United States that would not only have enabled a ceasefire, but would also have re-started the peace process. The US proposals would have brought all players in this tragic confrontation to the table. I think that these US proposals are worthy of consideration. We have seen with Isis in Iraq and Syria that there may well be forces within the Middle East, more extreme and violent than Hamas. To conclude I ask that the government rethinks policy towards the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The scale of suffering in Gaza is far too great, the loss of life, and particularly the lives of children and other vulnerable individuals, cannot be justified on the grounds of defence in proportion to the level of threat faced by Israel from Hamas. I also think that we should make it clear that it is unacceptable for Israel to just dismiss US proposals for peace without any debate whatsoever. I will end by wishing you and your diplomatic staff well in your endeavours to help bring about a swift and peaceful resolution to this tragic conflict. Kind regards, Margot Margot James MP Member of Parliament for Stourbridge PPS to the Rt Hon William Hague MP, Leader of the House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 So the US says the Israeli shelling of schools is totally unacceptable. And at the same time, sends more arms. Doublethink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Tbh I can only see this going one way and it is not good. World War 3. Muslim countries will eventually get the leaders the population want. When they do there will be a massive cry to stop Israel doing what they are doing or act as a deterrent. Te hilarity of this comment knows no bounds. WW3 WW3 might be a bit of an overblown description, but a very serious regional conflict is definitely in the post. Syria and Iraq have effectively ceased to be as unitary states and will not be coming back to pre Arab spring borders. The ramifications of this could easily drag in neighbouring countries like: -Turkey (until recently a sponsor of ISIS in Syria, ruled by an autocrat who is altogether too Islamic in outlook and ripe to get popped by the army), -Iran (already engaged in Iraq and backing multiple non state actors in other conflicts - sometimes more than one side in the same fight), -Jordan, (with a weakening state) -Saudi (much wobblier internally than it appears from the outside), -Yemen (a failed state in all but name with a population of 25 million, 60 million plus weapons in public hands and a decade or less of fresh water), -Lebanon (weak and divided in a shitty neighbourhood with a Hezbollah AND AQ shaped problem), -Qatar (a piss pot fly blown gas bubble, seemingly intent on infuriating everyone and getting close to being slapped hard), -Israel (a serial abuser of the Palestinians, at the zenith of its regional power but stoking up existing hatreds to epic levels through its current enthusiasm to murder innocent kids), -Egypt (back under the military thumb, for now, up for a ruck), -Libya (gone as a unitary state and without any functioning government) -more besides. Trying to predict exactly how all of those variables overlain with religious, nationalistic and tribal loyalties might play out is nigh on impossible, but there is a gradual and palpable ratcheting up of tension that isn't getting chance to recede before the next incremental raise. That's where the WW1 comparison stands up IMO, i.e. An unforeseen event (assassination of the Saudi king, a WMD attack by state actors or proxies of, etc.) could send things spinning totally out of control. Given global dependence on the region for energy supplies the scope for first world nations to rapidly be sucked in to a conflagration can't be discounted. Should we be worried? Well throw in a rabidly expansionist Russian regime under Putin, an EU with underlying economic fundamentals that are unsustainable and hugely destabilizing in the medium term (sustained 50% youth unemployment in club med is very dangerous), weak states in the Sahel and Mahgreb regions of Africa suffering major insurgencies etc... then yes, things are looking pretty serious. A great indicator of how people are thinking is the fact that ammunition producers in Europe and the US are running at full tilt....and none of it is being exported. That's unusual. People paid to think about this stuff see very big trouble on the horizon, and frankly it's hard to disagree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 So the US says the Israeli shelling of schools is totally unacceptable. And at the same time, sends more arms. Doublethink. Of course they send more arms. The US has laws preventing the export of certain bits of military kit to all but the most trusted allies. The Israeli's, by coincidence, then sell on this sensitive technology with alarming regularity. Some heavy tutting in Congress later the exports of the next tranche of restricted tech resume without question. Israel is the route by which the US circumvents its own laws on arms exports, so if they need a few dozen more school buster bombs to drop on future terrorists in Gaza then mafi mushkila. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 There won't be a war but their will be individuals that look for revenge. Then we can continue to feel sorry for all the innocent victims that were killed by the evil terrorist attacks for the rest of our lives. Maybe even start a war on terror over it. Terrorism kills basically nobody. More cyclists will die in London than people killed by terrorism. It's a non issue, no rational thinking person would fear it. Governments though, the love it. Use fear to encroach on civil liberties and privacy in the name of anti terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 There won't be a war but their will be individuals that look for revenge. Then we can continue to feel sorry for all the innocent victims that were killed by the evil terrorist attacks for the rest of our lives. Maybe even start a war on terror over it. Terrorism kills basically nobody. More cyclists will die in London than people killed by terrorism. It's a non issue, no rational thinking person would fear it. Governments though, the love it. Use fear to encroach on civil liberties and privacy in the name of anti terrorism. 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' But cyclists are just words removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 There won't be a war but their will be individuals that look for revenge. Then we can continue to feel sorry for all the innocent victims that were killed by the evil terrorist attacks for the rest of our lives. Maybe even start a war on terror over it. Terrorism kills basically nobody. More cyclists will die in London than people killed by terrorism. It's a non issue, no rational thinking person would fear it. Governments though, the love it. Use fear to encroach on civil liberties and privacy in the name of anti terrorism. I'm sure the Palestinian people would disagree, the Israeli government has killed loads of civilians.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts