Are We Heading Towards Ww3?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341340/Could-Syria-ignite-World-War-3-Thats-terrifying-question-hatred-Muslim-ideologies-sucks-worlds-superpowers.html

While we see our politicians busying themselves with same sex marriages and promisers of a referendum on Europe etc, this Syrian affair has been bubbling away without any particular concern shown.

Is it not time that Parliament should be spending their time debating on this crisis, (after all they will soon be breaking up for their summer recess) and shouldn't the British people be given a say in whether or not we should get involved?

[ichkeria]

No we are not heading for a third world war because of Syria, at least not for the reasons outlined in the unhelpful final few paragraphs of that link.
Russia supports the Assad dynasty, its long-standing and only remaining ally in the region, with intelligence and military hardware. And diplomatic and support as well which is not to be underestimated. But Russia is not a superpower any more. They couldn't even remove the president of tiny Georgia in 2008 when they went for regime change there. Also, China will support Russia at the UN only for its own ends. It will never back the Russians in any conflict.
More of a worry is the role of Iran, and the danger of the civil war spreading to Lebanon, a country with a hugely divided population and a very weak government,

Unfortunately the Mail can't, in its "analysis" see beyond the predictable scaremongering about "Islamic fundamentalists" of whom there are many. But of course what is Assad if not a fundamentalist for his own power?

[Kromovaracun]

I really can't see it starting World War 3. If we really must make comparisons, it's more akin to the Spanish Civil War, or perhaps the Korean War, but even those are a stretch.

[ichkeria]

...and no of course the British people should not have a say.
Sorry if that sounds blunt, but what are you suggesting: a telephone poll on Saturday night TV?
A debate in Parliament would be highly desirable were the government planning something drastic but at the moment there is as far as I know nothing definite on the cards.

[sandyRoe]

Didn't Obama say that the use of chemical weapons would be considered a line crossed, a step too far?
If the Americans decide on action we'll probably be dragged along on their coat tails.

[Kevink]

"Is it not time that Parliament should be spending their time debating on this crisis".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10105384/MPs-get-vote-on-British-involvement-in-Syria.html

[Kevink]

"Didn't Obama say that the use of chemical weapons would be considered a line crossed"

Trouble is, the Yanks would probably class hand-washing with anti-bacterial soap as "the use of chemical weapons" if it suited their purposes (such as distracting from revelations about mass spying on their own people).

[ichkeria]

I don't have a problem with us following America on this, but if anything it's America which is being dragged behind Britain and France, as was the case with Libya.
It's good to see there'll be a vote on sending arms - I'd be interested to hear the debate on that - which I very much doubt would be on conventional party lines as the report in the DT suggests

[Gromit]

As long as I can remember, every conflict from Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq has elicited the headline that it could start WWIII. It never does, and it won't this time.

AOG, I would have though the muslims fighting each other instead of us, would be right up your street.

[sandyRoe]

An added complication here is the fact that the Russians are strong supporters of the regime in Damascus.

[ichkeria]

It's been a complication up to now because they've used their security council veto to block measures against the regime. This was back in the days when intervention would have been comparatively straightforward.

Also, they've been taking Cameron for a ride by indicating that they might be willing to open negitiations with Assad (on the basis: "You speak this man's language - reason with him") but despite the British government even going to the length of saying: "Ok, you can call this the Russian Peace Initiative" they've still refused to do even that.
But basically the Russians are powerless to stop any intervention that bypasses the Securty Council

[Gromit]

On the plus side, Iran has elected a new President.

So farewell then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
You had your finger on the Nuclear Button
But not on the pulse of your nation
And they dumped you.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/iran-votes-for-new-president-farewell-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-well-miss-you--but-not-that-much-8658144.html

[jake-the-peg]

Is it Syria this moth that's going to start WW3

Doesn't seem a month since North Korea war going to send us all spiraling to Armageddon! Do you recall?

The less parliament talk about it the less chance we'll get involved IMO

[youngmafbog]

No we are not it is not in any countries interest, and we should not get involved.

I'm glad our forces are being cut, it means warmongering politicians wont be able to pile in willy nilly as in the past.

[youngmafbog]

Gromit, no new president yet, dinner jacket is on his way though but will only be replaced by another one picked by the Mad Mullahs.

[FredPuli43]

How, exactly, could a civil uprising in Syria cause a world war, aog ? It's not the trigger to a power struggle to rule Europe or the world. Whatever gave you idea that it might be? Can you seriously imagine the great powers launching attacks on one another because of it? Have you considered what damage and loss of life a modern word war would cause? Well, the great powers have.

[anotheoldgit]

youngmafbog

/// I'm glad our forces are being cut, it means warmongering politicians wont be able to pile in willy nilly as in the past. ///

That won't stop them, there are always the part-timers to fill the gaps and if they are not enough, conscription isn't out of the question.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// Have you considered what damage and loss of life a modern word war would cause? Well, the great powers have. ///

Have you some inside knowledge that we know nothing about? And if they have, didn't they also show the same considerations before the start of WW1 & WW2?

[FredPuli43]

Well, I have heard of nuclear weapons, which were never a factor in 1914 or 1939 , aog, but I haven't heard of any power struggle to rule Europe and its possessions (World War I) or Europe , its possessions and the Far East (WorldWar II ). What have you heard?

[emmie]

no, we are heading for Armageddon, if the US sends arms, troops, then this will surely make matters worse.

[emmie]

from little acords Fred, if i recall this is precisely the sort of conflict that happened in Europe, small nation gets stomped on, then all hell broke loose, WW1, then we had the next carnage, 60/90 million dead in that mess, and we haven't learned yet to stay out of the hotchpotch that is the Middle East, they will keep on fighting till it's last man standing. Inter tribal warfare, and we are piggy in the middle, no Syrian will thank us you can bet your Obama bottom dollar.