World war 3 possibilities?

[Sakish]

So it all started out with:
Usa, france and great brittain are in fully armed and ready to send missiles towards libya.

Secondly i heard that:
Usa and france had actually sent 112 missiles towards libya.

And then..
Libya shoots down one of france's planes.

Speculations/opinions about the starting war?

[ichliebekase]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_libya

^ More info. Not sure of the validity of the article since it repeats a sentence. Just seems a little fishy with this article but it's the only thing I've seen.

[devonin]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

Why is the UN getting involved in a civil war?

[XCV]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

Oh dear god. I'm scared...

This better not happen. I don't want to die when I'm 17 years old.

[HoneyMelonCalibrator]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread regarding Libya up until now tbh.

[devonin]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

There is no chance whatsoever of some kind of "world war" happening. If direct military intervention happens, the West will just pummel Libya into submission in a week and move on from there.

[ichliebekase]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

Iraq, part 2.

[iironiic]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

Why is it so difficult to drill the fact that war is so stupid? People continue to baffle me.

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

Why is it so difficult to drill the fact that war is so stupid? People continue to baffle me.

This is something I've thought too. Every single time there has been a world war, all that's happened is useless destruction and then countries have to recover again.

How could people prevent war from being a possibility?

[argo15]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

How could people prevent war from being a possibility?

All you need is one stupid, evil leader. Either he will attack somebody or he will oppress his people until they revolt. All countries in the world would have to create a system in which the government is non-violent and the people will be generally happy to live there

as for world war 3, I don't expect Libya has many allies right now.

[Quigly]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

time for the draft

[iamgoodhehe]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

Seems more like Libya getting ****ed over but when you think about it, other countries are also going to get involved. This is so stupid of the U.N.

[AsphyxZero]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

Why is it so difficult to drill the fact that war is so stupid? People continue to baffle me.

Human nature.

[Crashfan3]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

Oh you have got to be ****ing kidding me. We have our hands full in Afghanistan, we're sending aid to Japan, and we're trying to keep things calm in Pakistan as riots begin to surface there.

In announcing the mission during a visit to Brazil, President Barack Obama said he was reluctant to resort to force but was convinced it was necessary to save the lives of civilians. He reiterated that he would not send American ground troops to Libya.

"We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy," he said in Brasilia.

So why do we have to be the hero, Mr. Obama? Libya has done nothing to the US and the entire conflict is remaining inside of Libya. Gaddafi may be an evil tyrant but it's none of our business.

On-topic: I don't see this little fledgling of a war evolving into World War III. To compare it to WWII, Nazi Germany was hell-bent on conquering all of Europe (and nearly succeeded) and it affected multiple countries, which sparked such a big war. The US had a good reason to get involved because the Axis Japanese effed up Pearl Harbor. This conflict is between Libya and apparently now the US/UK. Unless something goes berserk and half a dozen other countries decide to get involved, WWIII is unlikely to occur.

[ScylaX]

Re: World war 3 possibilities?

Why is the UN getting involved in a civil war?

To what I read in french newspapers, the initiative was from Sarkozy but since the USA didn't want to be military involved in this conflict, they just rejected this project.
However, some people (as Bernard-Henri Lévy, the newspaper only talk about him but I highly doubt that a lone person that isn't a politician (he's a philosopher) can have a so high influence) that knows/are friends with Sarkozy and have high influence on him wanted him to launch missiles on the Libyan army to help the revolution.

So in short it's more an indenpendent act that emanes from France that haven't been prevented by the UN. Then GB and USA joined the cause.

Seems more like Libya getting ****ed over but when you think about it, other countries are also going to get involved. This is so stupid of the U.N.

Yes and no.
Yes because you're right about the fact there are other countries IN africa that are in a higher crisis since a lot of decades (Sudan, Ethiopa, Kenya...). If we priviledge one country, we should morally priviledge every country that are in the same case so there isn't any discrimination or anything.
No because the Libya circumstances are REALLY mediatized all over the world and the medias have a high influence on the strategy of politicians.