Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Excellent topic. Keith, you brought up some great points. American here, independent voter, just to be clear. The really uneasy part this time is that all three of the major players in the "will WWIII happen soon" game, Putin, Trump, and North Korea's Kim Jong-Un, are true wild cards. They all believe they do what is best for their country's strength and security, and they all have pride issues in themselves and their countries. If someone does not back down soon, or perhaps all, I don't see why WWIII couldn't be off the table. We just need to hold our breaths basically, to wait and see if the survival of their citizens or their personal and national pride is more important to these leaders. To actually go to war in the USA, Congress must vote to declare it. If provoked, by, say, NK successfully dropping a bomb on any state or territory of the USA, God forbid the USA mainland of the continental 48 states, then I have no doubt Congress will declare war on NK at the very least in Toby Keith's words "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue". America has long held a policy of "no one messes with us", and I definitely do not see that changing in the face of Trump and a possible WWIII. At that point, we could expect a domino effect of alliances jumping in, or at least allies being asked to help, which is what assisted in the other world wars being so devastating. I focus on NK, because I see that issue as the biggest potential starter of WWIII currently. As for the Middle East, think OIL. That is largely the main reason why most Western countries care so much about what happens in that region of the world. I completely agree with you in that the Western world does not comprehend how unstable the Middle East has been since nearly the beginning of recorded history and likely will always be. Some current powers there were obviously formed by the USA and others creating power vacuums in those countries without even realizing it. Perhaps if our congressmen (or Parliament members, whichever your country has) and our other leaders studied their history more closely, we wouldn't be so doomed to keep repeating it.

Well, generally spoken, it seems that Trump finally learned or moved on to use the classic American adage that the best way to cover up your inner political failings is to start a war.

If this can escalate into a new World War is at this point up to anybody's guessing.

I'm not sure how to be brief on this, but, in a nutshell: I think this is Gulf War III happening, no world war by any chance.

The situation in Syria is in many regards comparable to that of Iraq. The already questionable head of state is accused of crimes, the US pounces on the opportunity to intervene (unjustly), because it is in any superpower's interest to intervene abroad, and no one will really stop them or question their motives, because... well, again, the US is beyond any doubt a military superpower, and lesser powers tend not to want to get in the way of those.

To prove my point (to those it still needs proving to) the United States has a whole history throughout the 20th century of destablising and/or invading other nations - especially ones making attempts at realising far-left ideals - in order to create a more favourable climate for its own foreign interest, particularly that of multinationals, and just about always at the expense of said nations' populations. The Batista regime, the military dictatorship of Pinochet, and the Shah of Iran, are only the tip of the iceberg of examples where the United States contributed to the suppression of democracy, peace, and human rights, for its own global dominance, paired with the profit of mega-capitalists.

'Why is all of this even relevant to the current subject at hand?' you might ask. It is because it teaches us, particularly in the light of the previous 2 Gulf Wars in Iraq, that if the United States seeks to intervene, it will always do so with ulterior motives. Motives which can and should never be described as having the best interest of the population at heart. It should be noted that I am by no means defending either the Ba'ath government of Assad, or that under Saddam Hussein, when I point this out. So, if you'd ask me what I have to say about the current crisis with Syria, the answer would be: not much. It's unlikely the Syrian state will effectively fend off the United States without armed conflict, and even less likely that if it succeeds, the United States will not be eager to return and finish the job, with this period of time to look back on and to use as a justification for even stronger military action (just as they did in the second Gulf War).

As for North-Korea... I can say even less. I know for a fact it is no form of society I wish to see implemented, but I am also aware that, by virtue of being founded up resistance of this neo-colonialism by the United States, North-Korea is liable to extreme slander. I'm sure not many of us have thought about this, but let's be honest with ourselves and ask: what can the West not accuse North-Korea of doing? What will we not believe about them? And while we're asking ourselves that, we should also wonder: what nation has a history of effectively using nuclear weapons, invading other countries, and committing serious war crimes in them? To which my answer would be: the United States.

In summary:

While I strongly lack the knowledge necessary to make any viable prediction of North-Korea's actions, I am positive that any active resistance towards the United States by the Syrian government will result in more people being killed, only to delay by several years (at most) the inevitability of US foreign interests still being met. Russia, I am also certain, will not risk open war with the West, not with its own historical lack of military allies, and especially not with UK troops already being stationed at Russia's border. With that in mind, my only real hope is that the Syrian-Kurdish movement's proposed system of Democratic Autonomy will continue to flourish, and that their non-hierarchical principles will remain intact and gain sympathy, enough so that the United States will have no justification to attack them without repercussions.

Some very harsh times are coming indeed, but, in my opinion, nothing so unusual as to constitute a new world war.

I'm from Brazil. Everything seems peaceful here, but most of us do fear Trump's actions towards Russia and North Korea.

But things here are not so peaceful as it seems. Our violence rate is pretty high. A lot of people die in consequence of robbery and drug trafficking. Almost as much as in civil wars. Add into that the biggest political and financial crisis this country's history. If on top of that Brazil is asked to aid in a WW, I have no idea what can happen.

WWII seemed pretty distant to us. We sent soldiers and we helped The USA with port use, but that was all. I don't know what we'd be able to do to help in the next one. Hopefully, there won't be a next one.

I would hope the chances of a WWIII occurring are low, if for the only reason the major military powers realize the consequences are in no one's best interests. A quote from Einstein comes to mind: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.�

Soscha - Your point is exactly my thinking - we are in a waiting game to see what is more important to the leaders: their interests or the obvious consequences. That Einstein quote I've seen before and gets eerily more true every decade.

So, here in Austria it is really peaceful. Since WWII Austria is neutral, and the only thing our soldiers do is serve in humanitarian crises. So, it's very safe for Austria now, but I doubt that will be the case of there is actually going to be a EU army. Right now each country has its own military, and I hope that will remain as it is.

And remember, WWI was initiated by two shots, a war declaration against Serbia, and a lot of alliances, that kicked in one after the other.

Ryan - In a gist, I believe you have it about covered. Except Kim is cool with leaving China alone, mostly because China is his main trade partner. Oh, and he mostly just wants to destroy America and it's western-minded allies, if I'm following correctly. Put in seems to want to restore Russia to its former glory eventually. America- fight for democracy except where there's oil (because we want their oil), and basically remain top dog. All goes back to their egos and what's more important to them - national pride or national population existence.

Keith wrote: "Every time I see the news, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Einstein "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe".

There seems to be a lot of sabre rattling going on, with little thought to either strategic or tactical policy or forward planning. Unless someone backs down it could get very dangerous. POTUS 45 doesn't seem to have a reputation for giving way and who knows about North Korea.

I almost forgot Syria; silly me. Putin's ambitions are always shrouded in mystery and I think he will run rings around POTUS 45.

And since? I sometimes get the impression that, as a species, we are not happy unless we are in conflict with each other.

To an extent we are reaping what we sow. We - America, UK and Western Europe - seem unable to keep our noses out of the Middle East. We don't understand the complexities of the relationships in that part of the world and we never learn from previous mistakes. Russian involvement in Afghanistan in the 1970's/80's should have taught us something, but it didn't.

Is there an answer? I don't know. The UN is impotent at the moment and shouting at each other has never worked.

I don't think WW3 will happen, but localised wars seem to be almost inevitable at the moment."

It's crazy how you worded my thoughts!

I find it hard to make this type of prediction ("do you think there will be a WW3?") as things are constantly changing and human beings are unpredictable, but I find the thought of a new World War quite scary and although it's definitely a possibility, I hope it won't come to war.

I'm usually not into expressing myself on this type of subject online, as it tends to spark debates that are better had in face-to-face situations and with some nuance, but I totally agree with Keith saying "we reap what we sow".
It seems the "Western" countries always poking their nose into other countries' business when to me it seems they should just stay out of it. Then again, I'm not a country leader, so it's pretty hard to judge these situations objectively.

Keith wrote: ".A starting point maybe to look at the structure of the UN. Although its aims and objectives are laudable, somewhere along the line it has lost significant influence and any ability to take decisive action on a number of policy fronts. "

So very true. The UN needs a total overhaul.

"We are stuck in what seems to be an insidious cycle of power politics where threat levels ebb and flow with monotonous regularity. As bad as things got in the Cold War, the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) provided a certain level of consistency. The knee-jerk reactions that now pass for foreign policy mean those lines are blurred, making everything more dangerous. Our so-called leaders are playing games of one-upmanship, pampering to their own egos instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing - governing a country for the good of the people. "

And thus is the human race. What is the old famous saying? You cant have light without the dark? Or something to that effect. There will never be a perfect utopia for mankind. Too many different values regarding culture, faith, politics, etc with individuals who all believe they have the answer and solutions. The only thing preventing WW3 is fear. Even for some of the biggest assholes who run various countries deep down they understand that once you go down a certain path there is no turning back. So they will posture and one up each other until one simply gives in and blinks. Unlike previous World Wars the technology at humanity's hands is far more destructive than in the past. As stated, it will probably be more about regional wars and not a global one, the cost is just to great at this juncture.

Keith wrote: 2. Voting

Here here! Local and State elections are the big ones! Primaries for those in the US are coming up in May so make you are registered to vote! and take some time to look up the issues.

Keith wrote: 4. Stand Together As Feminists And Offer Feminist Solutions And this is a big one. We need to listen to others, to actively go outside of our comfort zone. This is not necessarily something we can do from our favorite reading chair. But it is something we can do from our schools (creating clubs or joining like minded organization - holding events, etc) from our places of work (joining toastmasters, joining high performance teams, networking!) and from our communities.

4. Stand Together As Feminists And Offer Feminist Solutions

I'm going on a march against sexualised violence and assault in the public space against women on friday.

Marching is so great!

Ryan wrote: "Why aren't there ads on every major website, app one uses and billboards to correct the misinformation and disinterest in changing the way things are run?."

Long story short: Money

James wrote: "Long story short: Money"

And those that have the money already control the message through certain platforms that already generate tons of content to a general base. i.e. Fox News, Huff Post. Why pay for an advertisement when their content already is 24/7 skewed to one direction? And not to tip my tin-foil hat, but those with the money are quite happy with how things are going now - the masses stay uneducated and pliant, the masses buy what they tell them to buy, and stay the heck away from looking too closely at their business dealings.

(Side note: which is why I am just fascinated with the developments with Bill O'Reiley as well as Tomi)

Now, there are some advertisements out there that do help the world. Check out the UN Women Google Search Ad ()

or the invisible child campaign to end Child Abuse.

Pam - With the media being controlled by who owns it, essentially that money aspect, we always should be mindful to check out any news topics that we are truly interested in by reading about those from multiple sources - with varying degrees of bias even and always watching for facts vs. emotion storytelling. I find this to especially be true, the more we rely on the internet for our news and the more globally connected we all are. If you pay careful attention, you'll notice more often many news sources are actually ripping their information off from other news sources to the tee. The possibility of WW3 also is weighed heavily by public opinion, and most of the public is too absorbed in social media or their own lives or even just one side of the news to form a rational opinion. Rational public opinions or irrational, I highly doubt anyone wants to repeat the mistake of the USA, the U.K., and others from the Vietnam War and the hugely unpopular public sentiment that still surrounds those who remember the time. That being said, WW3 is not only a question of leaders' egos against national survival but also propaganda and how well the public can weed it out.

world's been ending for centuries trick is to keep the processes going. There is light and people fighting for that even in dark times.