2007-01-14 00:21:06 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it will depend on whether entangling alliances drag all major countries into a single massive world wide conflict... this is what happened in the two previous world wars... in world war II,we entered the war in europe not because germany attacked the U.S. but rather we had agreements with certain countries that if you're attacked,we'll treat it as an attack on us and respond accordingly. the same could conceivably happen in the mideast whereby an attack on iran by israel would elicit a response from syria and then we'd join in to help israel and russia may come to syria's aid and the dominos fall until almost everyone except maybe fiji has taken sides and joined the party... the really really bad thing about it coming to that would be that at some point someone would be stupid enough to introduce nuclear weapons into the fight and then it would be downhill to armageddon from there... sorry to be the bearer of bad news,just don't kill the messenger...
2007-01-14 00:35:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Donald's answer was good. From the looks of things, yes! The Middle East could go out of control and contribute to WW3! Anyways, I hope that things don't escalate, and I hope that Bush realizes the price of waging wars.
People suffer tremendously in world wars regardless of technological sophistication in military applications. Just look at WW1 and 2.
2007-01-14 00:54:31 · answer #2 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Iran will be the determining answer to your question. If the Iraqi police force isn't up to the job of achieving and maintaining peace in their own country, and the U.S. brings it's troops home (which will happen in 2 years regardless) then Iran will fill the vacuum. Once Iran has had enough time to tap into Iraqi's oil and enrich itself once again, Saudi Arabia will then be next on the list to annex. That will bring on WW III. It won't happen now, but history may show that this was the real beginning.
2007-01-14 01:23:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
obama could enable the arabs injury Israel, then pay despite value they call for for oil. The shi'ites could take over iraq and form a bloc with iran, a hamas state interior the former Israel, and a hezbollah-run Lebanon. Syria, the wonderful ba'athist regime, could be compelled to bypass alongside, lest they too fall prey to fundamentalists who could decapitate Assad & co. for donning fits. Europe could bow to islamic rigidity. purely Russia, China and India could have the balls and the bayonets to combat a destiny WW3 against an afro-euro-asian islamic empire. that's time u.s. makes ordinary reason with the different capitalist superpowers (confident China is state-controlled capitalism)
2016-10-19 23:17:47 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush does have plans to attack Iran and Syria. You don't think he is sending Patriot missiles and aircraft carriers to the area because the insurgents have fighter jets to use in the civil war do you?
2007-01-14 00:34:51 · answer #5 · answered by Kerry R 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
This is WWIII, started September 11, 2001
with the terrorist attacks in New York City,
the Pentagon and the downing of the hi-jacked plane in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The Middle
East might turn into WWIV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-01-14 00:33:58 · answer #6 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't think WW3 is fair to say, but I do feel if the US pulled its troops out of Iraq it would get very dangerously out of control... which is why we can't do that *crosses fingers*
2007-01-14 00:24:50 · answer #7 · answered by flawed broadcast 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
That is solely up to the Mid-East nations.
2007-01-14 00:27:57 · answer #8 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Ask Bush !!!
2007-01-14 00:28:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋