Planetarion Forums

Perle · 28 Mar 2003, 20:32

Rumsfeld has accused syria of delivering several weapons to Iraq and bringing the lives of coalition soldiers in danger. He said the Syrian government will have to take responsibility for their actions.

Dilly_D · 28 Mar 2003, 20:49

I know that if anyone aid's the enemy surely they will become targets, in any conflict. But this bothers me. I have a feeling that if anything comes of this latest development, we may very well have World War 3 happen. Surely some Arab countries will come to help the Syrians...then, imo, NATO would step up and send some of our troops over to help out, then more countries will step in to back up the Arab's and so on and so forth. This could get very scary over the comming weeks/months.

Nusselt · 28 Mar 2003, 21:31

I think its about time we had WWIII, too much fear and argy bargy going on in the world, what everyone needs is a good shítkicking.

This is how i think we should line up

Nato Vs Arab League and Russia (with some help from the chinise)

no WMDs allowed, time of play 4 years 276 days, no respawns.

NEWSBOT3 · 28 Mar 2003, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
I think its about time we had WWIII, too much fear and argy bargy going on in the world, what everyone needs is a good shítkicking.

This is how i think we should line up

Nato Vs Arab League and Russia (with some help from the chinise)

no WMDs allowed, time of play 4 years 276 days, no respawns.

anyone got the link handy where the US got beat 3 times in a row in their own gulf war sim, and only won by refusing to let the other side do anything ?

Woof · 28 Mar 2003, 21:53

Rumsfeld is just jealous he's not part of Bush and Blair's Endless Love

Muslim · 28 Mar 2003, 22:00

it would be pretty interesting
I world war in my lifetime?:???
sweet
thanks god I am WAAAYYY out of the war theather, wich should be europe, asia, bits of africa and USA

/me goes grab some popkorn

Mushroom · 28 Mar 2003, 22:13

that's the second arab nation he's threatened seperate from the Iraq crisis. Joy.
Looks like he's spoiling for a 'rumble' that may turn into WW3 :eek:
And i think the chances of there being a WW3 without WMDs is minimal. ICBMs ahoy!

Vermillion · 28 Mar 2003, 22:36

There will be no WWIII.

Even in the unbelievably unlikely situation that military violece breaks out between Syria and The United States, the only country that MIGHT back Syeria is Lebanon. The rest of the Middle East will continue taking massive US bribes to stay neutral, and allow these nations to be stepped on.

Most Arab nations have a vested interest in watching Iraq burn as it will:
a) increase the price of oil, thus lining their pockets;
b) remove a leader with a history of causing regional instability
c) result in a leadership void which, odds are , will be eventually replaced by an Islamic leader, likely much more closely allied to their interests.

So they get massive bribes to be quiet ($10 billion USD in the case of Jordan) and watch the fireworks.

The only chance of a major escalation at all is if Iraq somehow drags Israel into the war, and Sharon is in a pissy mood that day and retaliates. THEN the arab states might get a bit upset.

Mushroom · 28 Mar 2003, 22:53

but surely if the US started picking through arab states one by one and replacing their leaders, even the ones who have been taking bribes would get rather worried and assist the one under attack wouldn't they?

Texan · 28 Mar 2003, 23:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Mushroom
but surely if the US started picking through arab states one by one and replacing their leaders, even the ones who have been taking bribes would get rather worried and assist the one under attack wouldn't they?

Only we they are the last or maybe next to last country. The Arab countries like to provide their support quietly. Support the United States quietly. Support the terrorists quietly. You get the idea.

Pilatus · 28 Mar 2003, 23:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
Only we they are the last or maybe next to last country. The Arab countries like to provide their support quietly. Support the United States quietly. Support the terrorists quietly. You get the idea.

Which arab coutries are you talking about. Sounds to me like a mix of Kuwait and Irak.

Ste · 29 Mar 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Vermillion
There will be no WWIII.

Even in the unbelievably unlikely situation that military violece breaks out between Syria and The United States, the only country that MIGHT back Syeria is Lebanon. The rest of the Middle East will continue taking massive US bribes to stay neutral, and allow these nations to be stepped on.

Most Arab nations have a vested interest in watching Iraq burn as it will:
a) increase the price of oil, thus lining their pockets;
b) remove a leader with a history of causing regional instability
c) result in a leadership void which, odds are , will be eventually replaced by an Islamic leader, likely much more closely allied to their interests.

So they get massive bribes to be quiet ($10 billion USD in the case of Jordan) and watch the fireworks.

The only chance of a major escalation at all is if Iraq somehow drags Israel into the war, and Sharon is in a pissy mood that day and retaliates. THEN the arab states might get a bit upset.

Except in the case where the population overthrow there own government and cause further instability.

Scoot951 · 29 Mar 2003, 00:08

3 cheers for imperialism!

(And I'm not even sure if I'm sarcastic here or not)

Texan · 29 Mar 2003, 00:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Pilatus
Which arab coutries are you talking about. Sounds to me like a mix of Kuwait and Irak.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Yemen. They support the United States but do very little to hinder the terrorists in their own countries.

BuddhistPunk · 29 Mar 2003, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Woof
Rumsfeld is just jealous he's not part of Bush and Blair's Endless Love

That has got to be one of the funniest things I have seen on the net

Judge · 29 Mar 2003, 01:08

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
That has got to be one of the funniest things I have seen on the net

You dont get out much do you?

wu_trax · 29 Mar 2003, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Vermillion
There will be no WWIII.

Even in the unbelievably unlikely situation that military violece breaks out between Syria and The United States, the only country that MIGHT back Syeria is Lebanon. The rest of the Middle East will continue taking massive US bribes to stay neutral, and allow these nations to be stepped on.

Most Arab nations have a vested interest in watching Iraq burn as it will:
a) increase the price of oil, thus lining their pockets;
b) remove a leader with a history of causing regional instability
c) result in a leadership void which, odds are , will be eventually replaced by an Islamic leader, likely much more closely allied to their interests.

So they get massive bribes to be quiet ($10 billion USD in the case of Jordan) and watch the fireworks.

The only chance of a major escalation at all is if Iraq somehow drags Israel into the war, and Sharon is in a pissy mood that day and retaliates. THEN the arab states might get a bit upset.

you might be right about the CURRENT goverments in these arab country, but how long do you think they will stay in power after the next muslim country is attacked? i doubt it will be very long. some countries already face some serious trouble because of the iraq war.

Atamur · 29 Mar 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Perle
Rumsfeld has accused syria of delivering several weapons to Iraq and bringing the lives of coalition soldiers in danger. He said the Syrian government will have to take responsibility for their actions.

Syria is safe for a while. Since we are taking countries out in alphabetial order, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will go down before we get to Syria. Notice that Iran and Egypt are safe forever.

Anaximander · 29 Mar 2003, 03:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Vermillion
There will be no WWIII.
Most Arab nations have a vested interest in watching Iraq burn as it will:
a) increase the price of oil, thus lining their pockets;
b) remove a leader with a history of causing regional instability
c) result in a leadership void which, odds are , will be eventually replaced by an Islamic leader, likely much more closely allied to their interests.

a) the price for oil dropped with the start of the war.
b) probably true
c) the leadership void is a nightmare for the arab nations.
They don't want a western democracy, as the US tells everybody they would like to see in Iraq - it would be a threat for the autocratic governments.
The "Islamic leader" is not necessarily a moderate one. An extremistic leader would be a threat for the autocratic systems too.

The only nation in this region, that fullhearted agree with the war is Kuwait. The rest is bribed and weak, because they don't manage to achieve a political unity.

If Syria got attacked by the US, I think the arab nations wouldn't join this war. They might try to decrease their oilproduction. About the rest of the world - no idea what will happen. But if the US attacks Syria next, it would remind me somehow of the German history.

W · 29 Mar 2003, 05:14

What's this **** about ww3? Noone capable of creating a world war have any interest in doing so.

Apothos · 29 Mar 2003, 05:33

Quote:

Originally posted by NEWSBOT3
anyone got the link handy where the US got beat 3 times in a row in their own gulf war sim, and only won by refusing to let the other side do anything ?

http://www.jolt.co.uk/paf/showthread...hreadid=161651

Tron · 29 Mar 2003, 05:51

(sarcasm)

KILL EM ALL!!!!

(sarcasm)

wu_trax · 29 Mar 2003, 12:53

rumsfeld is an idiot anyway, he doesnt want the us to pay anything at all for rebuilding iraq. what kind of policy is that? we blow up your country, but we dont give a damn about how you repair the damage afterwards?
of the 75 billion bush got for the war, 2.5 billion will be used for aid.

Fifth_teletubbie · 29 Mar 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
rumsfeld is an idiot anyway

That sums it up nicely.