Here we go again: Sabre rattling between the United States and Russia, only this time the sabres are nuclear missiles that would essentially leave no winners in a war between the two nations. Only dust.
Life as people in those countries know it now would never be the same if a war develops to the point that they are bombing each other’s country.
Is it just talk? Or could it really happen? And why is Syria so important to the United States? Why won’t the U.S. just walk away and let the Assad regime continue? Is Syria worth World War III and the loss of billions of lives, including yours?
Or am I worrying too much (again)?
Here’s an article on the Gazette site, one of many about this subject on many media sites: War talk returns to Russian TV as relations with U.S., West hit lowest ebb since darkest days of Cold War
And here is another, from the Russia Insider site: If Hillary Wins, Will She Kill Us All?
Have a look at both articles and feel free to comment here.
— Jillian
Jillian Page 
Because we cannot let the atrocities continue. The United States turned it’s back on Hitler’s actions for too long, with Canada getting involved before we did. Humans suck but that’s all we have and we have to try and be the best that we can.
LikeLike
I wonder: the atrocities continue in Syria, even with the U.S. supporting the rebel forces. Would more people be dying and suffering in Syria if there were no war under an Assad regime?
LikeLike
First, realize that Syria and Russia are allies, and if the U.S. attacks Syria, Russia is bound by treaty to protect Syria. Just as if any NATO country is attacked, the rest of the NATO countries will respond. Turkey, adjacent to Syria, is a NATO country. Iran is also an ally of Syria and attacking Syria would dissolve the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration finalized with Syria early this year. Syria has become a proxy war between the US and Russia, much the same as the Vietnam war was a proxy for the US and China. Then there’s the rebel fighters in Syria. They want Assad gone, so we should support them, right? Which rebel group should we support? They don’t wear uniforms or have a recognizable command structure. Some are loyal to ISIS and some not. There is often infighting between these groups. Any military assistance we provide the rebels *will* find their way to ISIS militia. Then there’s the Kurds. The Kurdish militia is our most loyal ally- they hate Assad and ISIS. But they also want to carve out a separate Kurdish nation from Northern Iraq and Turkey. So, we arm the Kurdish rebels to fight ISIS and Assad, and they use those same weapons to fight for their independence from Turkey. And Turkey is not happy.
Compared to Syria, Vietnam was a simple conflict. It was the US vs China, using North and South Vietnam troops as their pawns.
So, what happens if we leave?
If you can follow the mess in the above paragraph, you might be able to project what will happen. But consider hat Israel and Jordan are adjacent to Syria. If the conflict spills into those areas, consider who in the area already have nuclear weapons. Israel and Pakistan. We’re pretty confident that Putin is not going to be a first-strike country. (Trump has already wondered why we haven’t used nukes yet). But what if Pakistan loses control of a nuke? We already know there are ISIS supporters in the Pakistani military. Would ISIS use a captured nuke to eliminate the Jews in one bomb? Would Israel retaliate?
ISIS is fighting an apocalyptic war. If they can’t win they want to destroy the world.
The US presence in the region is keeping a lid on the ISIS strategies. George Bush created this mess and we have little choice but to try to clean it up without triggering a larger response.
Thank George W. Bush for this mess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geeze. Not a lot of optimism in your response. I was hoping you would tell me I am worrying about nothing.
Now I am getting scared . . .
Consider this article from the Observer:
Obama Blows Off Putin, Encouraging Kremlin Aggression Against NATO: U.S. President just ignored his Cuban Missile Crisis
LikeLike
Bush did not create this mess, this mess is as old as America itself. But the people were marginal until the US started supporting Saudi Arabia after WWII.
LikeLike
Yes, The Bush-Cheney crime syndicate made this mess.
Yes, the various tribes in the mideast have been at each other for centuries. The most classic being the Sunni v Shia muslims. The Kurds wanted independence for themselves going back to the end of WW-1 with the drawing of the western-imposed boundaries. Merciless and criminal as he was, Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, kept a lid on the tribal rivalries. He was the biggest thug in the region, and probably the worst. but he mostly kept within his borders. When Bush-Cheney made up the “weapons of mass destruction” lie to invade Iraq, Cheney is quoted as saying that the “Iraqi oil deposits will pay for the war”.
After deposing Saddam and dissolving the Iraqi army, the tribal differences exploded like baking soda in vinegar. And without Saddam to keep the lid on them, and with the newly unemployed Iraq army looking to “take their country back” from the invaders (us), ISIS was formed.
Yes. The problems in the mideast that we are hip deep in is entirely President Bushes’ fault. 100%.
LikeLike
Also, the Sauds are Shiite Muslim, but it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia that provoked Osama bin Laden. The relationship had nothing to do with Iraq.
LikeLike
It’d damned if you damned if you don’t kid of situation.
In the beginning US did not intervene, then pictures of drawing refugees and beheadings came. Then you cannot not intervene.
LikeLike
Interesting. I just watched a YouTube video from Anonymous (yes, *that* Anonymous): https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=lKOJStdMTmU I’m not sure if I believe all the information in that video, but it makes a scary kind of sense, given what I know about history….
LikeLike
Anonymous are my heroes. They are modern-day Robin Hoods.
LikeLike