Will the US strike against Syria cause a world war?

[Cyt6000]

It's pretty far fetched, but you never know.
_{food for thought}

[Kyle91]

not sure why everyone keeps thinking a world war is going to happen against Syria, bunch of pessimists.

[Lethn]

It's because history always repeats and the Americans are using the exact same tactics they used before to scare everyone into going to war with Syria, I don't know about the U.S but I was pleasantly surprised to see people actually having the balls to stand up to the leadership in our parliament, you may already know they voted down Cameron when he tried to rush us into war again. That said, I'm still feeling pretty suspicious, I expect the leadership is going to go around 'doing things properly' now and the warmongering cunts are clearly still going to try it. Remember how they told everyone that Saddam had nukes and when that didn't work it was gas and when that didn't work he was an evil dictator they were going to dispose of?

It looks like we got listened to but I still have my doubts, also, I don't think a World War will happen with Syria, I think it will happen with Iran and that's because it's close allies with China, Syria is another one of those dictatorships propped up by the Americans so the Eastern powers aren't really going to give a shit what happens to them realistically if the U.S goes in solo.

[marcovaldo]

A world war? I don't think that Syria or Iran can strike and attack Europe or America. It is not a world war because it is a war between countries from all over the world. It is a world war because the war happens everywhere in the world, which is not gonna happen.

[Kluge]

(speculation admission -- pew-pew diplomacy fantasy)

No. It'd be China & Russia (basically the entirety of the remaining countries sticking to the "Partnership for Peace" over fully integrating into NATO) vs. world. They aren't led by complete imbeciles, so the world war fantasy is flat-out implausible.

These asinine strikes on underdeveloped countries aren't an attack on a NATO member -- they're US-aggressive wars "strikes" - so NATO members can fairly safely just say "nah, ain't relevant to my interests." However, if a NATO member were actually DoW'd by another country (like Iran), NATO members would be compelled to strike back at the aggressor. So, basically, the USG can go around shooting at any non-NATO country it likes on its own, but if another country dares to intervene, all of NATO comes down on them. The Partnership for Peace is in no position to intervene in any Western imperialist aggression. Their only real bet is to rattle the nuclear sabers, which'd also be suicide, but they might "win," at least. Economically, they're just as reliant on us as we are on them -- even a conventional war between the US and China would be mutually-assured destruction.

So, anyway - think of it this way. Syria can defend themselves and just play around with the USG until the USG gets tired and says "alright - Al-Assad is replaced, we killed a lot of aggressive natives, and the remaining natives accepted a USG-approved leader. We'll call this victory and head out." However, if Iran decided to walk into the conflict, it'd eliminate any chance Syrians had of negotiating a relatively status quo peace agreement, because Iran (or whatever) would've given valid cause of war, and lawfully compelled the Europeans to join in the massacre. All of NATO would be on Syria and Iran if Iran or any other country were stupid enough to intervene, and they'd almost certainly end up as NATO satellites (Germany-style) instead of possibly being allowed a relative amount of independence if the citizens of Syria realize it's hopeless and bow to the USG. Right now, the US has absolutely no valid cause to occupy and effectively vassalize Syria. They claim they have cause to just pop in, kill off try the executive branch and some other dissidents of US-NATO hegemony, establish a "fair" government, and head back out -- it's BS, but Eurasia isn't going to take a Syrian invasion alone as cause for intervening against the US.

[Lethn]

I don't know about that Kluge, like I said, I think this is a plan the U.S has had in the works for awhile to go after Iran, once they finally get Syria then they'll have Iran almost completely isolated making it difficult for Iran's allies to send help, you ever looked at google maps and seen how the countries the U.S has invaded are positioned? It looks like a classic pincer movement to me, I guess we'll know what everyone will do if the U.S does actually decide to invade all by itself.

You also have the fact that Iran as well has apparently been preparing and learning how to fight against the tactics used by the U.S and all that stuff about the blockades happening awhile ago.

[Lauda]

I doubt it. A few countries might attack Syria but it will not cause a world war.

[jackjack]

No world war
Maybe a new cold war

I'm keeping some popcorn in my cellar though

[b!z]

Iraq war v2.0

[btcton]

A world war? Heck no.

[miffman]

A lot of people think a world war will come from the East

[rpg]

It's pretty far fetched, but you never know.
_{food for thought}

if a missile lands on a certain country (russia)  naval base or flies pass syria into another country (iran)  you can be sure there will be retaliation and all out war.

[bumpk1nK]

Will the US strike against Syria cause a world war?

World war ?  No, with your logic there would be world war every few yeas already

[Lauda]

I'm just saving some popcorn, can't wait to watch the US airstrikes 

[zwanzig20]

NO way that is going to happen.

It's pretty far fetched, but you never know.
_{food for thought}

if a missile lands on a certain country (russia)  naval base or flies pass syria into another country (iran)  you can be sure there will be retaliation and all out war.

How the hell would the first one happen?

[theymos]

A common argument against anarcho-capitalism is that it's not as good at defending against external aggressors, but this situation demonstrates a major weakness in governments: The US government can take total control of Syria by just compromising the Syrian government, which is probably pretty easy. In an ancap region, there would be no central government to take control of; the aggressor would have to fight decentralized groups of combatants until they are all defeated. Compare Syria to Afghanistan, where the decentralized Taliban has still not been eradicated after 10+ years and billions of dollars.

I'd still like to see the current Syrian government successfully stand up against the US. Do you think there's any chance of this?

[Lauda]

When does the congress vote on this?

[Kluge]

When does the congress vote on this?

Two days before 9/11.

[Lauda]

When does the congress vote on this?

Two days before 9/11.

and this made me confused..

[Kluge]

When does the congress vote on this?

Two days before 9/11.

and this made me confused..

September 9th, 2013.