Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

World War III

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 2:06:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Several times today I have seen people mention that the events currently unfolding in regard to Syria are quickly setting up the real possibility of a world war.

Discuss.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 2:44:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
With all the turmoil in the region, rather than war I think we should re-examine our stance against assassination of foreign leaders. Even leaking to the media that we're considering that possibility should give leaders some inspiration to be a little more willing to negotiate a peaceful solution.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 3:39:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
medic, just give up the homosexuality bit already. You're taking strength in numbers now dude, which is insidiously delusional. Be your own man. Why are you so freaked out about sh*t?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 3:54:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just did a little bit of reading on this. America should defer to the wishes of the other super powers for once in its existence. I mean, it's Syria. Is it that America is the only one who could put down this insurgence? No. Are the Russians and the Chinese speaking out against intervening because they can't and they want to save face? No. But then why? Because everyone's looking to America to see if anything has changed.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 10:22:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why should what happens in Syria affect us. Just let them deal with themselves. Only if Syria directly attacks us should we go to war.
If we do go to war, can we please just bomb them flat.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 10:29:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 2:06:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Several times today I have seen people mention that the events currently unfolding in regard to Syria are quickly setting up the real possibility of a world war.

Discuss.

If every country in the Middle East that destabilized caused a world war, we'd be at World War 40 right now. Syria is just another country in a long, long line of Middle Eastern countries that has imploded on itself that has major ramifications for stability within the region, but not nearly enough to provoke a world war.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 11:29:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 2:06:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Several times today I have seen people mention that the events currently unfolding in regard to Syria are quickly setting up the real possibility of a world war.

Discuss.

World wars start because of alliances. They don't start because the entire world gives a sh!t about what triggered the war. 2 countries go at it, than their allies jump in. Alliances are like dominoes. When a nation has many allies, regardless of whether they are military or economic allies, attacking that nation would negatively effect their many allies.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 12:47:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No just...no. The US setting up to fire a few missiles into a middle eastern country is not the set up to WWIII. Who are the combatants in this supposed Third World War?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 5:40:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 10:29:38 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/29/2013 2:06:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Several times today I have seen people mention that the events currently unfolding in regard to Syria are quickly setting up the real possibility of a world war.

Discuss.

If every country in the Middle East that destabilized caused a world war, we'd be at World War 40 right now. Syria is just another country in a long, long line of Middle Eastern countries that has imploded on itself that has major ramifications for stability within the region, but not nearly enough to provoke a world war.

The difference being that Syria is essentially a proxy war with Russia. And Iran has threatened to attack Israel if we attack Syria. China also has high-stakes with Syria and has urged us not to intervene.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 5:50:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a possibility, Obama interveens then RUssia gets offended and they step in and boom, WW3
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 6:07:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 12:47:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
No just...no. The US setting up to fire a few missiles into a middle eastern country is not the set up to WWIII. Who are the combatants in this supposed Third World War?

Well, the concern rises largely from other presences. Russia and China have also sent navy ships to protect the very targets that the US would likely attack. Given the shaky relations we have with those countries, primarily Russia as of late, this could turn into a far larger conflict than just a few missiles.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 6:14:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 6:07:47 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/29/2013 12:47:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
No just...no. The US setting up to fire a few missiles into a middle eastern country is not the set up to WWIII. Who are the combatants in this supposed Third World War?

Well, the concern rises largely from other presences. Russia and China have also sent navy ships to protect the very targets that the US would likely attack. Given the shaky relations we have with those countries, primarily Russia as of late, this could turn into a far larger conflict than just a few missiles.

But who would actually believe that China and Russia, if push came to shove, would risk a war with the United freaking States to back Syria? It's just posturing, and even if they *did* initiate a naval war, the US would devastate the Russian and/or Chinese fleet extremely fast...hardly a world war level conflict, unless they were foolhardy to use nuclear weapons but there's no way they are. In fact all of these countries possessing nuclear weapons makes war all the less likely
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 8:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 10:29:38 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/29/2013 2:06:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Several times today I have seen people mention that the events currently unfolding in regard to Syria are quickly setting up the real possibility of a world war.

Discuss.

If every country in the Middle East that destabilized caused a world war, we'd be at World War 40 right now. Syria is just another country in a long, long line of Middle Eastern countries that has imploded on itself that has major ramifications for stability within the region, but not nearly enough to provoke a world war.

The Middle East has been mired in one gigantic, ongoing proxy war since the end of WWII. The sides have not changed, even with the ending of the Cold War.
http://www.cnn.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 10:57:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 6:14:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/29/2013 6:07:47 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/29/2013 12:47:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
No just...no. The US setting up to fire a few missiles into a middle eastern country is not the set up to WWIII. Who are the combatants in this supposed Third World War?

Well, the concern rises largely from other presences. Russia and China have also sent navy ships to protect the very targets that the US would likely attack. Given the shaky relations we have with those countries, primarily Russia as of late, this could turn into a far larger conflict than just a few missiles.

But who would actually believe that China and Russia, if push came to shove, would risk a war with the United freaking States to back Syria? It's just posturing, and even if they *did* initiate a naval war, the US would devastate the Russian and/or Chinese fleet extremely fast...hardly a world war level conflict, unless they were foolhardy to use nuclear weapons but there's no way they are. In fact all of these countries possessing nuclear weapons makes war all the less likely

You guys have decimated smaller nations for defying you and they're still doing it. Is it that the bigger the country the less defiant they are? Don't think that follows, dude.

The United freaking States, huh?

Of course it's not nice to consider the possibility that nuclear holocaust is imminent, but you lot are definitely retarded. The Russians outlawed homosexuality because you guys sanctioned it - I'm just sayin'.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 8:15:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 10:57:14 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/29/2013 6:14:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/29/2013 6:07:47 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/29/2013 12:47:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
No just...no. The US setting up to fire a few missiles into a middle eastern country is not the set up to WWIII. Who are the combatants in this supposed Third World War?

Well, the concern rises largely from other presences. Russia and China have also sent navy ships to protect the very targets that the US would likely attack. Given the shaky relations we have with those countries, primarily Russia as of late, this could turn into a far larger conflict than just a few missiles.

But who would actually believe that China and Russia, if push came to shove, would risk a war with the United freaking States to back Syria? It's just posturing, and even if they *did* initiate a naval war, the US would devastate the Russian and/or Chinese fleet extremely fast...hardly a world war level conflict, unless they were foolhardy to use nuclear weapons but there's no way they are. In fact all of these countries possessing nuclear weapons makes war all the less likely

You guys have decimated smaller nations for defying you and they're still doing it. Is it that the bigger the country the less defiant they are? Don't think that follows, dude.

The US decimates nations that have no real means of retaliation, not large and powerful countries like China and Russia. Further the nation the US most recently invaded (I assume you're talking about Iraq) wasnt really defiant. Saddam insisted he didn't have any WMDs because, well, he didnt. The US topples nations to secure it's hegemony/ interests not because they are defiant.

The United freaking States, huh?

Of course it's not nice to consider the possibility that nuclear holocaust is imminent, but you lot are definitely retarded. The Russians outlawed homosexuality because you guys sanctioned it - I'm just sayin'.

Mutually assured destruction will ensure that a conflict between these two is not going to happen. A proxy war MAYBE but open WWIII didn't happen when tensions between Russia and the US were WAY higher and their respective military strengths were more equal. You think Russia is going to pick a fight now?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 8:28:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

~ Albert Einstein
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 10:38:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 8:15:05 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/29/2013 10:57:14 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/29/2013 6:14:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/29/2013 6:07:47 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 8/29/2013 12:47:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
No just...no. The US setting up to fire a few missiles into a middle eastern country is not the set up to WWIII. Who are the combatants in this supposed Third World War?

Well, the concern rises largely from other presences. Russia and China have also sent navy ships to protect the very targets that the US would likely attack. Given the shaky relations we have with those countries, primarily Russia as of late, this could turn into a far larger conflict than just a few missiles.

But who would actually believe that China and Russia, if push came to shove, would risk a war with the United freaking States to back Syria? It's just posturing, and even if they *did* initiate a naval war, the US would devastate the Russian and/or Chinese fleet extremely fast...hardly a world war level conflict, unless they were foolhardy to use nuclear weapons but there's no way they are. In fact all of these countries possessing nuclear weapons makes war all the less likely

You guys have decimated smaller nations for defying you and they're still doing it. Is it that the bigger the country the less defiant they are? Don't think that follows, dude.

The US decimates nations that have no real means of retaliation, not large and powerful countries like China and Russia. Further the nation the US most recently invaded (I assume you're talking about Iraq) wasnt really defiant. Saddam insisted he didn't have any WMDs because, well, he didnt. The US topples nations to secure it's hegemony/ interests not because they are defiant.

I dunno, dude - what about the September 11 attacks and all that? But either way, all that isn't all that relevant. There's defiance now.

The United freaking States, huh?

Of course it's not nice to consider the possibility that nuclear holocaust is imminent, but you lot are definitely retarded. The Russians outlawed homosexuality because you guys sanctioned it - I'm just sayin'.

Mutually assured destruction will ensure that a conflict between these two is not going to happen. A proxy war MAYBE but open WWIII didn't happen when tensions between Russia and the US were WAY higher and their respective military strengths were more equal. You think Russia is going to pick a fight now?

Hey, if you back a dog up into a corner it's gonna bite...
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 10:56:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 2:06:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Several times today I have seen people mention that the events currently unfolding in regard to Syria are quickly setting up the real possibility of a world war.

Discuss.

The Chinese and Russians are adament in saying that we should engage. I fear that if we do go to war with them, the Russians and Chinese will ally with the Syrians. I understand that what is happening is wrong, and, instead of going to a long drawn out war in the middle east again, I suggest we just quickly go in, destroy the current government, and leave the UN to help them establish a democracy. In other words, we free them, and then we drop them.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 1:20:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only feasible reason I could see for china and russia reacting to US military intervention is that authoritarian governments are slowly dissolving as the international community liberalizes, so eventually china and russia will see themselves cornered is a progressive world if they do not (forcefully) maintain some authoritarian allies.
Kiroen
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 5:44:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
IMO, it is the interest of the rising imperialists countries (Russia and China) to wait for the NATO countries' economies to be at their weakest state (which hasn't been reached yet, at least in Europe).

For now, Russia has already declared they won't get into the conflict as NATO agreed to leave its bases alone. China simply hasn't invested as much in military as the US has, so they should simply wait and keep growing.

The only way (I think) the Syrian conflict could escalate into something major right now is Iran joining the war, as that would leave the whole Middle East to NATO, which Russia and China couldn't afford.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 4:00:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the war does get more serious, I don't think China will ever get involved. China does have the largest military in the world, but it's really just for show. They are basically non-interventionist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 4:38:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
China wishes for regional hegemony, I think if we allowed japan to re militarize though, china would be in a lot of trouble with an SK-Jap-Taiwan trio, I like the Taiwanese and sk Israel military model, small standing army with a large reserve force.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 4:48:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 4:43:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Japan constitutionally vowed never to engage in war again after WW2.

You and I both know that's impractical and utopian. China will eat japan alive and keep doing what they are doing now, testing the US to see how far they can push us while avoiding direct confrontation. Sounds a lot like hitler, doesn't it?
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 4:48:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/29/2013 2:06:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Several times today I have seen people mention that the events currently unfolding in regard to Syria are quickly setting up the real possibility of a world war.

Discuss.

Syria is very much a proxy for a much broader series of conflicts that have been smoldering in some cases since the end of the Cold War. It's not surprising that this has turned into what it is now, but in no way it will escalate to a World War.

However, there are a fair number of commonalities that the conflict in Syria has with the beginning of WWI:

(1) Major world powers have staked their claim in the outcome of a relatively isolated bout of chaos.
(2) The chaos seems to be escalating.

-but for now, that's it.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 4:54:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This thing with Obama seeking congressional approval is pathetic, though -but exceptionally indicative of how little he wants to get involved in Syria. By seeking congressional approval, knowing that it is almost unquestionable that Congress will say no, he is telling the world that he doesn't want to do this.

Obama, being a constitutional scholar, knows damn well that there is nothing in the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of commander in chief authority, foreign affairs cases involving executive power, or in the comprehensive legislative history of congress which would limit his ability to bomb the Syrians. Even if he didn't know that, his legal team does.

He is looking for a way out, and he damn well may have found it...
Tsar of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 4:56:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The nice thing about the old ages is that nations were mo re direct in diplomacy, now the same nation that you have extremely close economic ties with could also be your political/diplomatic enemy that you play naval war games with.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 5:07:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 4:48:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/31/2013 4:43:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Japan constitutionally vowed never to engage in war again after WW2.

You and I both know that's impractical and utopian. China will eat japan alive and keep doing what they are doing now, testing the US to see how far they can push us while avoiding direct confrontation. Sounds a lot like hitler, doesn't it?

China and Japan are the top two-way trading partners.

There are several countries without any militaries at all. I don't think it's impractical. The very existence of a military invites conflict and hostility. In a world of increasing global trade and economic connectedness, peace becomes more practical.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord