[Tuff]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...604665629.html

"Russia has criticised a UN General Assembly resolution on Syria, calling it "blatant" support for rebel groups battling President Bashar al-Assad.

Russia and China have three times vetoed UN Security Council resolutions which could have led to sanctions against Syria, and Churkin also criticised the attack on the Security Council's failure to act in Friday's resolution."

This Syria issue shouldn't be a big deal, but it is, and it indirectly involves Iran. Iran supports Syria, Iran hates Israel, Russia hates Israel, USA hates Iran, USA, Saudis, England all want to fund the Syrian rebels, etc. Sides are being formed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7951R620111006

Russia condemns United States for anti missile ships near Spain.

Now some of these "so and so condemns" are political posturing and nothing more than bull****. See below

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/12...-movement.html

Like Russia really gives a **** about the OWS movement.

However: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78K52V20110921

That is something we should not be involved in. If Hawaii secede, we would be pissed if China started selling them weapons. This is no different. China deserves to be angry about that, and we continue to do it.

For the past several months (years?), this Russian/Chinese allegiance has vetoed nearly anything that they think is "Anti American" with Russia usually in agreement. China has made it no secret that it's goal for the Olympics is to beat the United States in total medals. United States condemns both countries human rights violations.

Anyone see a potential World War as a possibility from all this posturing and desire from both sides to see the other collapse and suffer? What would be the prime component to ultimately lead to war? Most people tend to say "A war would be stupid because it wouldn't benefit anyone" but that hasn't stopped two previous World Wars from happening. Neither side wants war, but the military buildup by China isn't just to tinker. All you need are the right people in power at the right time to start a war. Replace Hitler with Obama, and Germany doesn't go on the offensive in World War II. Now imagine if you get a couple of Hitler mindsets into the Oval Office, and front office of Russia and China all at once. A lot can change in a mere 20 year span.

[F1VENOM]

I think this highlights how the UNSC fails in executing its mission rather than the precursor to a world war.

How many carriers do we have parked over there? More than Russia and China have combined.

[Umami (Banned)]

Open conflict between industrialized nations is now far too expensive to have a point.

[kjjm4]

We're not going to war with Russia and China. At worst, we might have another proxy war with them funding the Syrian government and the US funding the rebels.

Nobody on either side is stupid enough to run the risk of getting tons of nuclear weapons dropped on their country. Even Hitler probably wouldn't have invaded Poland if he knew he'd get his *** nuked in the process.

[tsbalr120]

Originally Posted by Umami

Open conflict between industrialized nations is now far too expensive to have a point.

.

[corporationpaintball]

Originally Posted by Umami

Open conflict between industrialized nations is now far too expensive to have a point.

Spot on.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Virility is largely dead anyway. We won't see another world conflict until we run low on fossil fuels and arable land.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by Umami

Open conflict between industrialized nations is now far too expensive to have a point.

Cost is a minor consideration with white-knuckle dick waving on the line. People were saying the exact same things prior to WWI.

[Tuff]

Originally Posted by Umami

Open conflict between industrialized nations is now far too expensive to have a point.

War doesn't need to have a point. And being expensive has not stopped numerous countries from going to war in the past.

[yesme]

The point of war is always the same, wipe out the useless eaters while gaining some resource's in the process.

[chodeyg]

Don't forget Chinas nice population of excess males

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

Don't forget Chinas nice population of excess males

Won't matter, they can't mobilize them for ****. Taiwan's been hanging out just 90 miles off the coast and they couldn't do anything about it until it was too late.

[chodeyg]

I agree their navy sucks, and I don't think anything is lined up for a real war. I think everyone gets a little nervous in a shaky economy. Just a thought.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

Cost is a minor consideration with white-knuckle dick waving on the line. People were saying the exact same things prior to WWI.

.

[eforce]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

We won't see another world conflict until we run low on fossil fuels and arable land.

This.

[Maxpow999]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Virility is largely dead anyway. We won't see another world conflict until we run low on fossil fuels and arable land.

+1

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Virility is largely dead anyway.

Force projection is alive and well in modern militaries. We have sizable segments of our very own economy which rely exclusively upon our military's ability to explicitly show its strength.

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

We won't see another world conflict until we run low on fossil fuels and arable land.

From what basis are we have to believe such a prediction?

[Drex17]

I highly doubt Russia (or even China) would want to go toe to toe with the US in a conventional war, at least not any time soon. Why would china in the middle of a rise to prominence willingly throw it all away?

Puffing out your chest and actually starting a fight are very VERY different things.

[BodyCount81]

I don't think a WW is in the works right now but I do agree that it doesn't take but just a few people. I think it will be for land/resources and it will be Canada/GB/US and smaller nations against Russia/China and others.

[Tuff]

Originally Posted by Drex17

I highly doubt Russia (or even China) would want to go toe to toe with the US in a conventional war, at least not any time soon. Why would china in the middle of a rise to prominence willingly throw it all away?

Puffing out your chest and actually starting a fight are very VERY different things.

Are we to believe that when they claim that if Iran is attacked, that they would disapprove of that, as an idle threat? I do agree with L2K that land or resources (FRESH WATER) could lead to war. I've said in the past that fresh water could most definitely be a major reason to start a war. Right now, North America has a much better freshwater supply than Asia or Europe.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/form...nd-iran-syria/

"Former member of Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov appeared on Russia Today TV to boldly announce that Russia is “defending the entire world from Fascism” — waged, of course, by the U.S. and Israel — and that his country is ready to use military force to defend Iran and Syria from its aggressors."

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/12/chine...r-3-over-iran/

China's famous WWIII threat to defend Iran.

I think it will be for land/resources and it will be Canada/GB/US and smaller nations against Russia/China and others.

Oh absolutely. Sides have been made, and I do not see any shakeup between the major players of US/Britain/Israel/France/Germany (Western Europe) against Russia, China, Iran. Those sides seem set in stone. Other countries such as India and Pakistan would likely want to remain out of it, but there's some instigators worldwide that might want to stir the nest.

I'm shocked so many people think that a war is just not possible because "it's expensive" or due to it not being in a country's best interest. It never has before, and that hasn't stopped countries from going to war in the past. Just doesn't add up to me. I understand that for China to start a war would severely hurt them by losing their main export customer, and us for losing a cheap supply of many products. However, if a store has great prices but they treat you like **** and disrespect you, do you keep shopping there due to the prices at the expense of your self respect?

As far as China's navy goes - no it is not up to our standards, we're 20 years ahead of them. You expect that to last forever? They've made huge strides in the past decade. Ten more years they'll have a few carriers IMO. I don't think China wants a war with us any more than we do with them. I think a war between the countries will be due to someone's actions in the Middle East, making the greater powers forced into reluctant action and things will escalate.

A war, even in 2012, does not have to be nuclear. Something people seem to forget, or just figure it has to go nuclear.

[Drex17]

Originally Posted by Tuff

Are we to believe that when they claim that if Iran is attacked, that they would disapprove of that, as an idle threat? I do agree with L2K that land or resources (FRESH WATER) could lead to war. I've said in the past that fresh water could most definitely be a major reason to start a war. Right now, North America has a much better freshwater supply than Asia or Europe.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/form...nd-iran-syria/

"Former member of Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov appeared on Russia Today TV to boldly announce that Russia is “defending the entire world from Fascism” — waged, of course, by the U.S. and Israel — and that his country is ready to use military force to defend Iran and Syria from its aggressors."

Yes I think it's just a threat, because Russia is in no position to stop us with force. They can try, but it won't end well. Also, Ivashov is not speaking as a representative of Russia in that link.