A poll: Who sees the Kurd v. Turkey/Saudi v. AlQaeda/Israel v. Palestine

[iconoclastic cat]

and the Brit Commando v. Iran convergence as the beginning of the next world war?

Also, who else thinks that the aforementioned world war will be the real October surprise---and yet, not all that surprising?

[Darranar]

1. Not at all, actually...

The Kurds in Turkey have already been dispossessed; an oppressed, poor minority fighting against a military with US-funded weaponry has little chance of presenting any real resistance.

Saudi Arabia versus Al Qaeda is really just a sideshow; Al Qaeda and the other groups working to destroy the House of Saud have little chance of doing so anytime soon.

Israel versus Palestine is rather unimportant in the great scheme of things; it is small-scale, and the only importance to the region is geographic, something less and less important with air travel and advanced communications.

Iran may be the next target, but it won't be the next world war. They're tougher than Iraq, but the US, assuming it withdraws from Iraq first, should be capable of defeating them without extreme trouble.

A more likely situation for a world war is the East Asian powers (China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, maybe some of Southeast Asia) versus the US versus the EU. Since all of those powers have nuclear weaponry, it will probably be more of a cold war than a world war similar to the first two.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. Ah, you are wise as well as crafty...

The eye that has brains sees much!

[EstimatedProphet]

6. I don't follow your reasoning

Iran may be the next target, but it won't be the next world war. They're tougher than Iraq, but the US, assuming it withdraws from Iraq first, should be capable of defeating them without extreme trouble.

We still haven't defeated Iraq. I think it's premature to believe that we would defeat Iran, which is far more likely to turn to the partisan tactics that gave us trouble than Iraq exer was.

[Darranar]

7. Well, yes...

I basically agree.

The US has not yet defeated Iraq, and Iran would be considerably more difficult to defeat.

I was speaking principally of the regime in power however, which has been defeated in Iraq. Actually subduing that nation or Iran is likely to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, but it won't really constitute a world war.

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Good point

From the previous leaders of Iraq's view, we won. From our view (mine anyway) we haven't.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. you missed one

India and Pakistan will be the start of WWIII.

[iconoclastic cat]

4. Now, that I could see, too...but the Eastern countries mentioned above

are in a more volatile and precarious cycle of violence and extremism.

[Darranar]

5. Now THAT could pose as a catalyst...

an important question yet to be answered: which of the three factions I outlined above (East Asia, US, EU) will control the Middle East? The current mess-ups and idiocy by the US hegemonists in regard to the region will weaken their hold, but they do have much strength there. The EU also has a number of oil interests there, though the US invasion of Iraq dislodged several. East Asia, except for Japan, doesn't seem to have invested much there.

If the current situation in Pakistan remains (unlikely) it would probably align with the US, and India probably with East Asia, so a war between the two could well incite a third world war. Even if they don't align with anyone, the total population of those two nations tops a billion; it will have massive effects, and may well start a world war anyway.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong about the three faction thing, certainly a great possibility at this early date. We'll have to wait and see.