yes, most of the muslim countries are against the United States and our allies. There looking for any reason to go to war with anybody who doesnt believe in the single minded teachings koran.
2006-08-18 01:25:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
This question has been asked multiple times. Check those answers too. The answer is, No. WWIII would require one or two "enemy" nations that MANY nations were protecting themselves against. This tiff that's going on in Iraq is Bushie's little pissing contest. Yeah, there are several other nations involved, but its more a show of Western-power cohesiveness, not an all-out attack.
Now let's say that ole Bushie decides to up and invade Turkey, then Greece, make his way up the Adriatic coast taking over countries to add to his empire. He might piss a few people off then who will band against him. Now you have the world involved and, TADA! A "World War." A bunch of nations banded against a common enemy for the preservation of their own singularity.
2006-08-18 08:24:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by April M 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not in the next 5 years, but it will become a real possibility once rogue nations like N.Korea and Iran acquire nuclear weapons and an intercontinental delivery system.
2006-08-18 08:20:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by sparks 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes but first you have to understand the fragility of global trade and infrastructure. and what that could mean.
Lets say we have a collapse of oil globally.
trucks and trains stop due to a lack of fuel. farmers watch crops wither in their fields because there’s no gas for their tractors.
food lines turn to riots as the shortages. People in the worlds largest cities start to walk away as first the power goes out then the violence erupts. governments try to maintain order but shortly fail as they too are forced to find food water shelter.
think of places like London, New York and Beijing and the millions of people walking out of the cities...
Humans starve only when there are no other choices. One of those choices is to attempt to take either food, or food-producing land, from someone else. People do perceive resource stress before they are starving. If no state or central authority is there to stop them, they will fight before the situation gets hopeless.
Some are better off than others. they have a stable safe drinkable water supply, grow much of their own food.
they will want to defend that. But a nation or group of struggling to keep their people alive would assess the value of taking over someone else’s home.
so what would it take to suddenly stop the global flow of oil?
Perchance if Iran got a hold of a Nuke and started to bomb
the major ports and production fields.
it wouldn’t take many bombs as were talking about nukes here and even after the blast it's going to be millions of years before it's safe to go back and rebuild.
the Stock markets would react and I can see a loaf of bread costing $100.00 USD over night...
Okay so that sounds a bit far fetched
what if we change oil to every port/sea side city on the world being flooded in a few short years?
this was a news blurb from this past Jan.....
An area of 3,250 square kilometers (1,300 square miles) of the Larsen B ice shelf, off the Antarctic Peninsula's eastern coast, has shattered over a 35-day period, the US National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
And with continued warm summers, other ice shelves are on the brink of collapse, the NSIDC warned.
That would portend increased flows of glacial ice from Antarctica and a rise in global sea levels, endangering low-lying land areas.
On its website (www.nsidc.org), the University of Colorado-based center said the Larsen B, a 720-billion-ton block of ice which could be as old as 12,000 years, began to disintegrate on January 31.
"The shattered ice formed a plume of thousands of icebergs adrift in the Weddell Sea," the NSIDC said.
Those things melt you know and again were dealing with millions of people fleeing inland and there all seeking food water and shelter...what do you think the powers that be would be to grab that even at the expense of others?
Forget about the thugs with guns in the middleeast.
there not the problem. snap one key item in the global trade and infrastructure chain and think about what would happen?
2006-08-18 09:03:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by BigBadWolf 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
not exactly. if you asked me two months ago the answer was probably yes but since one side of this war should be Israel and its Allys and they were fool enough to weaken themselves in the war against Lebanon,(so week that they can't fight a war in a decade) I think there will be no world war.
2006-08-18 08:20:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by CH4 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, the only countries that are at war are a bunch of worthless third world countries who could be turned into a parking lot with a few scuds.
2006-08-18 08:17:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Sammy 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not any time soon..but I do think when other countries technologies catch up then we will see some major uprisings happen..
2006-08-18 08:24:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by *toona* 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It sure looks that way to me although I truly hope not!
2006-08-18 08:16:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by April G 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
WWIII started years ago. we are in the middle of it now.
2006-08-18 08:16:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by bakbiter 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ya we are on!!! But I hope it doesn't happen.
2006-08-18 08:17:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Just4u 2
·
0⤊
0⤋