Are we headed to WW3?

[Loren Pechtel]

You started it by invading and annexing parts of Ukraine in 2014. There was no violence before that.

You started it by overthrowing democratically elected president and installing nazi regime.
Crym merely voted to leave nazi hell hole you created.

We did nothing. The Ukrainians threw out a Russian puppet and you reacted with an invasion.

 

[barbos]

We did nothing.

Yeah, right You did nothing. LOL

 

[RVonse]

I define a war monger as the politician who does everything they can to build military hardware and stoke the conflict of killing each other (it always takes 2 sides to fight a war), Especially when you are not fighting in your own defense. There can be an honest argument that WW2 was the exception to all the other past 50 year conflicts.... that being a war monger was the right thing to do. But there really is no argument that Roosevelt (unlike Lindbergh) wanted action and instead of isolation. It is in all the history books.

He was a war monger.

The old adage of it always taking two sides to fight a war is only meaningful if surrender is a reasonable option for one or both sides.

When the choices are fight or die (see Ukraine, Israel) it's not meaningful. Russia has already genocided Ukraine once and shown genocidal behavior in the current war. Think Ukraine can choose not to fight?

Surrender may not be meaningful for Ukraine or Israel but I was referring to US war mongers not the actors of the other countries.

For example, even if Israel has moral standing for their intended blowback.....why does the US have to pay for it by sending them more of our borrowed money? Is US not already dangerously high in debt.... and if you don't believe US debt is not already high enough.... why is there concern about social security and medicare being solvent? Why do we have debt ceiling wars in congress?? Is Israel (a very rich country) so poor they can not borrow any of their own money to purchase weapons like the US does when it goes to war???? Has Israel reached limits to their own financial destruction even close to where the US is today (150% GNP)? Why would you believe an ally to Israel (US) have to financially destroy itself in order to provide more weapons for an already rich and successful country who has superior credit worthiness for THEIR OWN conflict? Why does an ally (US) have to destroy itself financially if its own citizens will not be directly dying in this conflict?

Honest questions for any war mongers (either party) out there.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I define a war monger as the politician who does everything they can to build military hardware and stoke the conflict of killing each other (it always takes 2 sides to fight a war), Especially when you are not fighting in your own defense. There can be an honest argument that WW2 was the exception to all the other past 50 year conflicts.... that being a war monger was the right thing to do. But there really is no argument that Roosevelt (unlike Lindbergh) wanted action and instead of isolation. It is in all the history books.

He was a war monger.

The old adage of it always taking two sides to fight a war is only meaningful if surrender is a reasonable option for one or both sides.

When the choices are fight or die (see Ukraine, Israel) it's not meaningful. Russia has already genocided Ukraine once and shown genocidal behavior in the current war. Think Ukraine can choose not to fight?

Surrender may not be meaningful for Ukraine or Israel but I was referring to US war mongers not the actors of the other countries.

For example, even if Israel has moral standing for their intended blowback.....why does the US have to pay for it by sending them more of our borrowed money? Is US not already dangerously high in debt.... and if you don't believe US debt is not already high enough.... why is there concern about social security and medicare being solvent? Why do we have debt ceiling wars in congress?? Is Israel (a very rich country) so poor they can not borrow any of their own money to purchase weapons like the US does when it goes to war???? Has Israel reached limits to their own financial destruction even close to where the US is today (150% GNP)? Why would you believe an ally to Israel (US) have to financially destroy itself in order to provide more weapons for an already rich and successful country who has superior credit worthiness for THEIR OWN conflict? Why does an ally (US) have to destroy itself financially if its own citizens will not be directly dying in this conflict?

Honest questions for any war mongers (either party) out there.

Rvonse: I can understand and respect your position as an isolationist. I think that it's faulty reasoning. And I think that it's very bad policy for Americans (let alone our allies); but I respect your position. However, to call people who favor internationalism and defensive alliances to prevent war as "war mongering" is totally off base. If we pulled out of Nato (a defensive alliance); all of Eastern Europe would be at war. There is no doubt about that. Our alliances in Asia are holding back an aggressive China. There would be far more war today if alliances were unraveled.

 

[TomC]

Is US not already dangerously high in debt.... and if you don't believe US debt is not already high enough....

Guess what? The government is deep in debt because billionaires like Trump are "too smart" to pay taxes. That's why, not because Americans are poor.

I do agree with you about aid to Israel. We should have cut them off decades ago. At the very least, cut them off until they end the West Bank settlements and dismantle a bunch of them. After that, there'd probably be little need for our help anyway.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Is US not already dangerously high in debt....

What happens when debt is "too high"?

(Hint: NOTHING)

Trump ran up record deficits and debt (added $7.8 TRILLION) with his trillion-plus dollar giveaway to the rich and "conservative" fiscal policies. How did that impact the economy, Swiz? And what did WE get for our additional $7.8T?
I predict that you won't try to answer that. I think Putin could list some benefits though...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, even if Israel has moral standing for their intended blowback.....why does the US have to pay for it by sending them more of our borrowed money? Is US not already dangerously high in debt.... and if you don't believe US debt is not already high enough.... why is there concern about social security and medicare being solvent? Why do we have debt ceiling wars in congress?? Is Israel (a very rich country) so poor they can not borrow any of their own money to purchase weapons like the US does when it goes to war???? Has Israel reached limits to their own financial destruction even close to where the US is today (150% GNP)? Why would you believe an ally to Israel (US) have to financially destroy itself in order to provide more weapons for an already rich and successful country who has superior credit worthiness for THEIR OWN conflict? Why does an ally (US) have to destroy itself financially if its own citizens will not be directly dying in this conflict?

Honest questions for any war mongers (either party) out there.

Rvonse: I can understand and respect your position as an isolationist. I think that it's faulty reasoning. And I think that it's very bad policy for Americans (let alone our allies); but I respect your position. However, to call people who favor internationalism and defensive alliances to prevent war as "war mongering" is totally off base. If we pulled out of Nato (a defensive alliance); all of Eastern Europe would be at war. There is no doubt about that. Our alliances in Asia are holding back an aggressive China. There would be far more war today if alliances were unraveled.

Exactly. Fundamentally, alliances are about preventing a defeat in detail and thus preventing the fight from ever starting. It's not the warmonger path!

 

[Harry Bosch]

For example, even if Israel has moral standing for their intended blowback.....why does the US have to pay for it by sending them more of our borrowed money? Is US not already dangerously high in debt.... and if you don't believe US debt is not already high enough.... why is there concern about social security and medicare being solvent? Why do we have debt ceiling wars in congress?? Is Israel (a very rich country) so poor they can not borrow any of their own money to purchase weapons like the US does when it goes to war???? Has Israel reached limits to their own financial destruction even close to where the US is today (150% GNP)? Why would you believe an ally to Israel (US) have to financially destroy itself in order to provide more weapons for an already rich and successful country who has superior credit worthiness for THEIR OWN conflict? Why does an ally (US) have to destroy itself financially if its own citizens will not be directly dying in this conflict?

Honest questions for any war mongers (either party) out there.

Rvonse: I can understand and respect your position as an isolationist. I think that it's faulty reasoning. And I think that it's very bad policy for Americans (let alone our allies); but I respect your position. However, to call people who favor internationalism and defensive alliances to prevent war as "war mongering" is totally off base. If we pulled out of Nato (a defensive alliance); all of Eastern Europe would be at war. There is no doubt about that. Our alliances in Asia are holding back an aggressive China. There would be far more war today if alliances were unraveled.

Exactly. Fundamentally, alliances are about preventing a defeat in detail and thus preventing the fight from ever starting. It's not the warmonger path!

Yes, the vast majority of wars are started when a larger country thinks that it can take over a smaller country. This can be discouraged if smaller countries band together for mutual defense.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Is US not already dangerously high in debt....

What happens when debt is "too high"?

(Hint: NOTHING)

Trump ran up record deficits and debt (added $7.8 TRILLION) with his trillion-plus dollar giveaway to the rich and "conservative" fiscal policies. How did that impact the economy, Swiz? And what did WE get for our additional $7.8T?
I predict that you won't try to answer that. I think Putin could list some benefits though...

I would think at some point the financial markets will not be able to absorb all this debt, so we will reach a point where interest rates will have to increase to make the debt more attractive to investors. Does it all cascade from there? I'm not sure how it will all play out but why do I keep seeing Mr. Creosote being offered a wafer-thin mint?

 

[bilby]

Is US not already dangerously high in debt.... and if you don't believe US debt is not already high enough.... why is there concern about social security and medicare being solvent? Why do we have debt ceiling wars in congress??

Concern about a problem is rarely proportional to the size of that problem, and frequently exists even when no problem exists to be concerned about.

You have concern about social security and medicare being solvent, for the exact same reason that you have concern that homosexuality may lead to tornadoes - lots of stupid people believe stupid things about subjects they don't understand at all, but which they sincerely believe that they do understand, in great detail.

Few congressmen are economists, meteorologists, or atheists. They believe nonsense, and they fight for their nonsense to be used as the basis of legislation. The existence of such fights is not in any way evidence that they aren't wildly wrong about the things they're fighting for.

 

[Patooka]

Why do we have debt ceiling wars in congress??

Look at the type of people who participate in them the loudest and how consistently misinformed they are. If you actually knew what the debt ceiling does, you'd realise it's a really bad name for it. But it's what everyone calls so it can reduced to soundbites on Twitter so here we are.

 

[Elixir]

I would think at some point the financial markets will not be able to absorb all this debt, so we will reach a point where interest rates will have to increase to make the debt more attractive to investors. Does it all cascade from there?

Nah, the increased interest rates constrict the money supply (for everyone except the very rich, who become the lenders, in effect) and slow the economy, until lowering the interest rates becomes the obvious "solution" du jour.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So, if there were viable trigger events to grow this conflict into a broader Middle East conflict, what would those be? [My view is that I could see Iran getting more involved and perhaps some viable triggering events for conflict and "regime change" with Iran. BUT people in surrounding areas are far too factionalized to group together well beyond some populations in Syria, Yemen, mostly associated with Houthi people. Other Muslims may look on and be seriously disturbed by the events but not take action and so the scope might not become too large. There'd have to be something else triggering there, not sure what?] But then, after that, what would be other viable events that could increase the scope to global what would they be? [My view again is that I see China and Russia as keeping a bit of a low profile. So what would trigger them into more involvement?]

Well it turns out I wrote this in Oct 2023. It seems to be still relevant to today in the sense that there's now actually an attempt for regime change in Iran, there's instability across the region. Russia and China are keeping a "low profile," but actually not exactly considering Ukraine is a thing. And also Russia is kind of supporting Iran with intelligence and perhaps arms but Trump does not talk about it a lot. China is supporting Iran economically by buying crude oil.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Elon Musk said a thing?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

World War 3. Currently there are three flashpoints that could lead to it, and two of them are already flashing. I am referring to Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran. The third is currently quiet, Taiwan-China.

The comparison to WWI is a good one, because it was caused by a chain of alliances until the major powers were fighting each other. A Serb killed an Austrian duke. and the English were in France fighting the Germans.

Declining empires tend to wage foolish wars. The US is in that state. If the US directed US or NATO troops to Ukraine that would be all that is needed. Worse would be if the Israel-Iran connection led to WW3 because it could result in a general Middle-East vs. Europe conflict. There's already some discord in Europe between the native population and the Islamic immigrants.

If the US actually decides to land troops in Iran, that would be a disaster. Right now we're "merely" bombing them. We just remembered the 25th anniversary of 9/11, declared to be the worst attack in US history. We visit that upon other countries regularly. It's sad, really.

 

[bilby]

If the US directed US or NATO troops to Ukraine that would be all that is needed.

The US could direct US troops to Ukraine, but not NATO ones; NATO has its own command structure that is not beholden to the US or its President, and the non-US members of NATO would have no reason to go along with any such US demand - they would, quite reasonably, ask which article of the North Atlantic Treaty was being invoked, and the answer would be "none".

If a Russian attack (on Poland or Germany, for example) caused the attacked nation to invoke Article 5, then at that point NATO command might decide that an attack on Russian forces in Russia, or Ukraine, or Belarus, was strategically justified. Or they might not. The US would get a say, but not a veto, nor a unilateral right to order any specific action.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

World War 3. Currently there are three flashpoints that could lead to it, and two of them are already flashing. I am referring to Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran. The third is currently quiet, Taiwan-China.

I largely agree with your assessment. China is an interesting case here because, despite their massive economic and military growth, they strategically maintain a low profile. Avoiding direct confrontation with the US has been highly beneficial for their continued expansion, so I doubt they will initiate an unprovoked attack.

The primary risk for escalation over Taiwan would likely come from unpredictable US actions. For instance, if Donald Trump were to take a highly provocative military step--such as attempting to establish a US base in Taiwan--China would undoubtedly respond in kind. Ultimately, a conflict in that region seems more likely to be triggered by erratic US policy than by China striking first. Also I do not think China would do so without having Russia's backing in some way, even if through secret deals.

I suppose this is a lot of speculation on my part. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If the US directed US or NATO troops to Ukraine that would be all that is needed.

The US could direct US troops to Ukraine, but not NATO ones; NATO has its own command structure that is not beholden to the US or its President, and the non-US members of NATO would have no reason to go along with any such US demand - they would, quite reasonably, ask which article of the North Atlantic Treaty was being invoked, and the answer would be "none".

If a Russian attack (on Poland or Germany, for example) caused the attacked nation to invoke Article 5, then at that point NATO command might decide that an attack on Russian forces in Russia, or Ukraine, or Belarus, was strategically justified. Or they might not. The US would get a say, but not a veto, nor a unilateral right to order any specific action.

Agreed. I largely agreed with Jason's post that you replied to. I think that the most likely flash point is Ukraine. But I think if it were to occur, it would be due to Russia attacking a NATO country. Russia wants to weaken or destroy Nato because it's preventing Russian imperialism. Russia is getting desperate and the US is distracted and weakened by attacking Iran. Sadly, for Ukraine, there won't be any NATO troops or US troops sent in while there is an active war. Another huge flash point is if peacekeepers are sent into Ukraine after a peace agreement is reached between Russia and Ukraine. I think that Russia will reinvade Ukraine as soon as their forces are rebuilt. Would America and/or nato defend the peacekeepers? The world is going to be at risk for nuclear war as long as Russian imperialism continues. I actually think that it is ironically China that is preventing Russia from attacking Nato and/or using a battlefield nuke in Ukraine.

 

[RVonse]

World War 3. Currently there are three flashpoints that could lead to it, and two of them are already flashing. I am referring to Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran. The third is currently quiet, Taiwan-China.

The comparison to WWI is a good one, because it was caused by a chain of alliances until the major powers were fighting each other. A Serb killed an Austrian duke. and the English were in France fighting the Germans.

Declining empires tend to wage foolish wars. The US is in that state. If the US directed US or NATO troops to Ukraine that would be all that is needed. Worse would be if the Israel-Iran connection led to WW3 because it could result in a general Middle-East vs. Europe conflict. There's already some discord in Europe between the native population and the Islamic immigrants.

If the US actually decides to land troops in Iran, that would be a disaster. Right now we're "merely" bombing them. We just remembered the 25th anniversary of 9/11, declared to be the worst attack in US history. We visit that upon other countries regularly. It's sad, really.

When all else fails, they they never fail to take everyone to war.

 

[bilby]

I actually think that it is ironically China that is preventing Russia from attacking Nato and/or using a battlefield nuke in Ukraine.

Quite possibly; However I would like to think that the British and/or French would have quietly made clear to Moscow that any use of nuclear weapons would be responded to in kind.

Under any other Presudent, I would have expected the USA to do likewise. But the US is not the only nation with the capability to nuke Moscow.