Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
I hear this a lot...who do think would be the combatants for each side in such a war?
|
Starting with the obvious, Iran and Israel may become involved in a military altercation. The US would support Israel. Depending on how things occur many ME nations may side against Israel (some side with Iran, there is a subtle difference but the result is the same). There is already conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given further instability North Korea could turn aggressive. Russia and China are wild cards and could further add to the conflict or help bring it to a fast resolution. If there is any use of nuclear weapons, in my view there will be no turning back.
---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i've read through the op several times, even though i wrote it, trying to find the part where stupid theories about world war 3 were mentioned. can't do it. so fascinating as they are, how about you make another thread that you can use to figure out these important geopolitical matters?
|
Perhaps a starting point is a definition of a world war. I define it as a war where the major nations are involved, fought on multiple fronts, involving major international issues or events that can not be ignored by the major nations. An aggressive nuclear event, in my view would force every major nation on this planet to get involved and respond one way or another. Let us not put or heads in the sand.
---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
but even if you can manage to exclude the apartheid dimension, it's kinda hard to figure out how the netanyahu government can imagine itself advancing anything democratic at all by trying to make a boycott movement illegal.
how does that work?
|
Israel is not without fault, however...let me put it this way. I would not sit at a table and try to peacefully resolve an issue where those on the other side use terrorism as a tactic to accomplish their goals. On the other-hand I could not do anything other than reach a mutually beneficial agreement where the other side used pacifism or civil disobedience as a tactic to accomplish their goals. Palestinians could very easily have the support of every reasonable person in the world, but they don't and the reason is the use of terrorism.
Roach, please, there is no need to go through your views on terrorism, I know what those views are and I know what I wrote does not resonate with you in any way. - And that from your point of view, it is pure fantasy on my part. I did not write the above for you or for your response - I understand the difficulty you have with issues vs. ad-hominem arguments, just as I have a problem with responding to silliness with silliness. Let's choose to do things differently, if we can do it perhaps Israel and others can.