mrken30

sky news is reporting that the US may be aiding Israel , not sure how far fetched that idea is.

morpeth

Or many posters on the BE forum.

scot47

Amazing how people fall for the line that their government peddles. Saddam had "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Now..........

morpeth

So how does one distinguish ? Does one assume it is a lie when one disagrees with the action ? Is there any convincing evidence the rebels have chemical weapons, or have any incentive to use such weapons that would cause them loss of support ?

Pulaski

There is an argument that WWIII has already started, only "when" is open for debate - maybe when Saddam invaded Kuwait, as that led to the American involvement in the Gulf, and later the invasion of Iraq, which led to the power vacuum and the rise of ISIS/Daesh.

Or perhaps it was when Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, which led to a power vacuum when they left a decade later, and the rise of the Taliban in the 1990's?

robin1234

I have a feeling that this can only be determined in retrospect. Say, for instance, Germany and the USSR partitioned Poland between them in 1939 as they did. Britain and France declared war, but thought better of it a few months later and signed a peace treaty with Germany with status quo ante. Germany was content with its new lands (Austria, Czechoslovakia and part of Poland.) Peace ensued.

If that happened, we wouldn't look on the events of 1936 to 1940 as an inevitable build up to world war.

morpeth

Good point, and maybe the economic future of the UK after 1945 would have been better, maybe the USSR would have collapsed earlier. Who knows. I think you are correct , we will get a better picture of the significance of what is going on 10 to 20 years from now. Especially after participants today write their memoirs, documents declassified or otherwise available, and we see what the results are.

I keep hearing that Islam is a religion of peace, and that multi-cultural societies are a good thing, so maybe we are about to enter a Golden Age led lead by Islam, or Euro-Islamic states spreading peace and prosperity throughout the Middle East. Or maybe continued disaster in the Middle East somehow gets the developed world working together and pacifying the region, and turning instead to using the world's resources to dealing with poverty and the environment- and this period seen as a necessary catalyst.

robin1234

On your first sentence - I have a feeling Germany would have eventually gone to war with the USSR. Germany would probably have won (Germany being at peace with the rest of the world.) And the USA? No war economy stimulus, and the U.K. still with an empire, and not impoverished by war debt?? Whether Japan would still have attacked the US in this scenario I wonder..

On Euro-Islamic states there's an intriguing novel, Submission, by Michel Houellebecq about France with an Islamic/Socialist coalition government - sharia law is introduced etc. I haven't read it but I might give it a try...

Asg123

Maybe that's what Chamberlain was thinking, but I don't think Hitler would've stopped there, and the US would've wanted to protect Britain, but not the empire.

RedApe

IMHO Trump did this more for "domestic consumption".

He warned the Russians beforehand, to make sure that no Russian advisors would be killed...but also allowing the Syrians to evacuate their aircraft (and presumably any nerve gas or any other high value materials). Even the airfield runways themselves were not seriously damaged and most of the bunkers seem undamaged.

The only thing that was achieved was to clear 59 Tomahawk missiles from the aged US stocks aboard the navy missile destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea. Each was valued at an inflation added $832,000 each. That means the cost for this "wag-the-dog" attack cost the US $49,088,000.

Meantime Russia, Syria and Iran will likely howl about the "US Aggression" and will use the attacks to justify countermeasures.

Pulaski

Maybe this was a dry-run for North Korea.

BEVS

I have to say that I do hope not. He needs to calm that lot down.

North Korea has , in the past, stated it would & could nuke New Zealand. So if the US wants to get tough on NK, it could be that NK retaliation would be to hit sideways on.

zzrmark

...or California? #calexit

robin1234

...which could easily include terrorist attacks...

Pulaski

I have every confidence that the North Koreans will have as much success trying to hit Japan as Saddam did trying to hit Jerusalem with scuds. The chances of them actually hitting NZ is negligible. And in any case, I think you can also take some comfort that, with all due respect, NZ isn't important enough to even try to hit.

I suspect that before long the Americans will "test" one or more of their anti-missile systems against a North Korean missile in international airspace.