World War 3 with Russia could start over Clinton's proposed no-fly zone in Syria, historian says

I agree.

I disagree strongly.

It’s true. The Middle East has been at war since the Stone Age, and here’s proof:

But seriously, this image is from The Flintstones Movie, which came out in 1994. That tells you that by 1994, humorists could joke that the Middle East had been at war since the Stone Age. Now, in 2016, it’s a very old conflict. Like the prophet said, there is nothing new under the sun.

Well I cannot imagine that Kremlin would ever authorize the use of nuclear weapons even if a major transatlantic war breaks out.
What would happen at the end of such a conflict is harder to predict though.

There has only been one nation cruel enough to make use of such demolishing and devilish weapons on soft targets in the history of mankind and that wasn’t the Soviet union just to refresh the memories in CAF.

As a European I’m more afraid of the US military than I’m afraid of Russia.
I’m even leaning to understand and sympathize with Kremlin.

This is as the Russian foreign minister said not a situation willed by Kremlin, but forced upon then from the US.

This is the Cold War, part 2. As Russia moves to counter actual and perceived threats from the US, it will go into Phase One: Large-scale exercises and increased production of essential weapons. This is followed by deployments of forces, weapons and support equipment to key action zones.

Since the news rarely reports news, except if you check foreign sources, people in the US are fed little scary and entertaining bits and learning details is no longer encouraged. Since US citizens have to deal with day to day life, details are also forgotten. Recently, the US has moved tanks to Poland for storage. Storage for what?

US satellite assets are on higher alert for certain regions and are monitoring the situation closely. Of course China, a long-time Russian ally, is also concerned. The most likely scenario would not be a ground war, although the borders of Eastern Europe would have to be defended. It would be through combined space, missiles and manned and unmanned air assets. Since the Russians have seized Crimea and are attempting to annex Eastern Ukraine, those might be flashpoints. I’ll stop here.

Wars are no longer fought for the purpose of winning. They are fought to eliminate the worst part of a threat and contain the rest, with rapid deployment forces left behind should the brush-fire flare up. God knows what the supposedly unmanned X-37B is doing in space. Naval and land-based lasers exist and other types of weapon systems are coming online.

They’re updating their scenarios at the Pentagon, and Turkey is a key oil transport asset. Can’t lose control of that. Our Allies are in the picture but that picture is very vague.


Nobody is flying in Syria except the U.S., Turkey, Assad’s forces, and Russians. Hillary doesn’t have the Turks in mind with her “no fly zone”. She’s talking about Assad and his Russian allies. The first time a U.S. plane shoots down a Russian plane, war is on, and not just in Syria.

Hillary Clinton is a lover of war and killing, and she might really mean to “exclude” Russia from Syrian skies by force. I genuinely believe, however, that her order to do it would be met with resistance on the part of the U.S. armed forces and, perhaps if it came to it, outright defiance of her orders…and it should.

But it might be averted. She might be persuaded by the Armed Forces brass to establish this “no fly zone” in some otherwise ignored corner of desert, so she can claim she did.

Putin desperately needs to ban abortion in Russia. Not only because it’s obviously the right thing to do, but because it will convince a growing number of Americans that Russia is not the enemy.

Russia is indeed America’s enemy. But I doubt Russia wants a war. Hillary Clinton seems to want one. So it’s no wonder the Russians are beefing up their military forces and presence.

This is a matter for Russians to decide. Russia already has more stringent laws that pertain in the US I believe and the rate of abortion has been dropping for some years, nevertheless the assumption that somehow if Russia banned abortion it would not be painted as an enemy is one I do not share.

**Thanks for your reply but I cannot say that I agree with your thoughts. The Lusitania was not a US flag vessel, and it has been proven now that the reason that she sank so quickly was the secondary explosions of the clandestine cargo of artillery shells. My opinion is that the US involvement in the war caused an unjust armistice to be forced on Germany with onerous reparations. Were it not for that, WW II might not have occurred.

If HRC were to be “asleep” as POTUS I could live with that. I do not like her active confrontation of Russia. She did not make agreements with Russia when she had the chance, but instead surrounded them with new NATO countries. I think that HRC would continue with sanctions on Russia, and that I view as a terrible mistake.

As for the USA becoming vulnerable to a new “sneak attack,” that is happening as we speak. Russia is deploying a stealth cruise missile which can be launched from its Kilo- class electric submarines. Both are impossible to detect. The US will only learn of the attack when the bombs start to explode.

Its time to take all necessary steps to persuade the Russians to become our allies again, and HRC is not the person who will accomplish this. **

I found this interesting:

Faith in Putinism: A Church-State Symbiosis.

Undead rat,

Americans still died when the Lusitania sank.

And it would not have prevented WW2 to not do that truce treaty whatever with Germany , as WAR is a punishment for sin. Mary herself said a second worse war would come if people would not turn away from sin. She told this to three shepherd children in Portugal.

I fear a Clinton presidency more - especially after she reportedly gave out information during the 3rd debate about our nuclear response time.

**Thanks for the Prophecy reference. I do appreciate that. Perhaps the occurrence of WW II was carved in stone, as you say. But that does not mean that things would not have turned out differently if the USA had refrained. That certainly would have compelled France and England to offer a more equitable peace agreement to Germany. As it was Germany was forced to concede defeat and accept reparations, and that injustice had a profound effect on a certain German Army corporal as well as on the German population.

My conclusion is that the Prophet knew that the USA would intervene in WW I. **

So you trust a KGB thug, who runs a mafia state that is capable of murdering a man in broad daylight with carcinogenic polonium that turned London, effectively, into a mini-nuclear attack cite, has blitzed entire cities to the ground with all of their inhabitants without a shred of clemency, has blown planes full of people out of the sky with buk missiles and denied it, created the theatre of a multi-party state full of rubber-stamped puppets while suppressing every morsel of the semblance of the rule of law that his immediate predecessors attempted to instil in the Russian political system and has encouraged glib talk about resorting to nuclear weapons to threaten neighbouring countries into submission while annexing parts of their territory and overturning 70 years of respect for international borders…you trust this guy to avoid a war over and above Hillary Clinton?


I ain’t her greatest fan.

But to compare her with the autocrat of a revanchist, authoritarian regime whose state doctrine is barely concealed Chekhism, and consider him to arise from that analysis looking the better option, is just…mind-boggling.

I understand that you intensely dislike him and I share that dislike.

But I cannot agree that he is more to be trusted to avoid conflict than Mrs. Clinton. His record hitherto is not suggestive of such a conclusion IMHO.

I don’t trust Putin at all, except in one thing. As was the case of the Soviet elites, he has a very good life; enormous wealth, incredible power. The sane among such people do not start wars that could end up destroying that life. In that limited sense, I even trusted the Soviet leaders.

But I said “sane”. I’m not sure Hillary is sane. Or, if she’s sane, I think her extreme greed is capable of causing her to do insane things. To me, that whole Libya/Syria thing smacked of insanity, and perhaps greed as well.

She was told not to use Blumenthal as an advisor. But she did. Blumenthal was an erstwhile arms dealer in Libya. The U.S. ended up supplying arms through intermediaries to both the terrorists in Libya and to terrorists in Syria. Will we ever really know everything that lay behind the Benghazi debacle. Why was Stephens trying to buy back arms to send to Syria? Was Turing paying the Clintons somehow? And why through Qatar, a major donor to the Clintons and to various terrorist groups at the same time? Was the arms trade “service” paid for in advance by Qatar?

Putin, on the other hand, kept very much in the background in Syria for years while the civil war was going on there. It was only when he knew for sure the U.S. would not declare a “no fly zone” that he sent his planes to bomb the anti-Assad forces and gain a greater foothold in Syria and the region.

And now Clinton says she’s going to declare a “no fly zone” somewhere in Syria. Does that include attempting to exclude Russian planes from the area, or is it just one more ruse; perhaps declaring a “no fly zone” over some uncontested piece of desert somewhere in Syria. One hopes she is merely fooling people, intending the latter, and not the former. If the former, she really isn’t sane.

I notice that you omitted the most famous Democrat president of the last century, FDR, and WWII from your list.

Apart from your suggestion - which is a common but historically untenable one IMHO - that WWI was an unjustifiable conflict from the point of view of the U.S. (I would strongly dispute that aka the German decision to resume unrestricted submarine warfare in violation of an earlier agreement with America to not do this and the Zimmerman telegram), why did you leave out FDR?

Sadly, rational actors in international affairs have often succumbed to one-too-many an ill-informed risk: gambling that their opponents would back down, only to miscalculate and lead to all hell breaking loose. The reckless policy of the Kaisereich before and during the July Crisis of 1914 that precipitated the First World War is a classic, textbook example of this.

The Kaiser might have been half-cooked in the head as a result of childhood trauma. His generals, who came up with the bright idea behind the Schlieffen Plan - the strategic doctrine of striking France by invading and passing through neutral Belgium, on the fundamental assumption that Britain would pay no honour to a piece of paper - were not, but their fundamental saneness did not prevent them from getting it badly wrong.

More invariably than not, that is how major wars begin - not from senility or feebleness of mind.

Putin is regretfully veering more and more along this perilous road. Should the Obama administration shoulder some blame for that? Yes, inasmuch as the perceived weakness and vacuum in American moral leadership led the Russian premier - thug and reprobate that he is - to the belief that he could get away with being naughty and resisting the Pax Americana imposed in the aftermath of the Cold War free of weighty consequences other than finger-wagging. It really began with Georgia, though, before Obama.

The ghosts of the past weigh heavy on us. We know where this perilous road will end if he keeps taking risks.

Chamberlain and Hitler played that game. The latter did not intend to start a war with the West in 1939.

She was told not to use Blumenthal as an advisor. But she did. Blumenthal was an erstwhile arms dealer in Libya. The U.S. ended up supplying arms through intermediaries to both the terrorists in Libya and to terrorists in Syria. Will we ever really know everything that lay behind the Benghazi debacle. Why was Stephens trying to buy back arms to send to Syria? Was Turing paying the Clintons somehow? And why through Qatar, a major donor to the Clintons and to various terrorist groups at the same time? Was the arms trade “service” paid for in advance by Qatar?

Her actions may have been ill-judged and ultimately damaging but I see nothing in her resume that would indicate her not being a rational actor.

(ps Trump is also in receipt of foreign donors.)

Putin, on the other hand, kept very much in the background in Syria for years while the civil war was going on there. It was only when he knew for sure the U.S. would not declare a “no fly zone” that he sent his planes to bomb the anti-Assad forces and gain a greater foothold in Syria and the region.

Can’t disagree with your premise and points here.

To be fair to Obama, Britain caused him to rescind his red line pledge over chemical weapons - or rather, our parliament.

That will go down - along with the more general inaction to aid the secular, moderate opposition elements before the Islamists took over and establish American primacy over what was, from the early on, morphing into a proxy war - as a grave cross against the legacy of the present US administration - not least to the extent that it handed the script to Assad, Iran and Russia. But hindsight is a precious if worthless thing…

**I omitted FDR from those who initiated US involvement in war because, as you all well know, Japan opened hostilities, and Germany then declared war on the USA.

Wilson promised to keep the USA out of WW I, but then supported England. Was Germany’s submarine warfare a response to US supplying England with armaments? Did England blockade US ships out of Germany without protest from the USA?

I think that Wilson could have kept the USA out of WW I if he had wanted to. **

Theodore Roosevelt led a pro-British faction in the Congress that lobbied for the US to intervene on the side of the Entente (Allies) and exaggerated every perceived Teuton transgression for max effect.

Wilson consistently defied Roosevelt. To the latter’s umbrage, he made only minimal preparations for war and kept the United States Army on its small peacetime basis. So his campaign pledge in 1916 was sincere. When Wilson protested British violations of American neutrality, the British backed down. He wasn’t partial to the English position like his opponent Theodore.

But Germany ultimately forced his hand. In early 1917, Ludendorf and Hindenburg decided to resume all-out submarine warfare on every commercial ship, in the full knowkedge that this violated the diplomatic accord they had signed with the US and would almost certainly mean war with her. The German Foreign Minister then added insult to injury when he offered to help Mexico regain territories lost in the Mexican–American War in the Zimmermann Telegram, in return for a military alliance.

Americans initially disbelieved that Germany could actually be guilty of doing this and regarded it as a British concoction. But at a press conference in Berlin Zimmerman removed all doubt by flatly admitting that it was legit. He had tried to incite Mexico to invade it’s northern neighbour.

Germany took reckless actions that were deliberately provocative towards the US because it no longer cared about American entry by 1917, having deluded itself that American aid would arrive to late and that she was militarily unprepared. How wrong they were.

Another example of how perfectly sensible, sane people can make terrible gambles that don’t pay off in war.

The German generals who pushed the Kaiser to offer Austria-Hungary a “blank cheque” of military alliance if she invaded Serbia over the assaniation of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in the full knowledge that this would provoke a war with Russia, were not mad. They simply gambled that they could contain the conflict and that it would be their singular opportunity to take out Russia before she had reached her full manpower strength.

Nor did the fact that this would result in France entering the war on Russia’s side as an Entente ally deter them. They weren’t mad, they honestly thought that if they invaded France through neutral Belgium then they could deal her a lethal blow. A war on two fronts had always been expected. Never again would they get another chance to make a military pitch for Mitteleuropa - a German dominated empire in Europe that had long been the dream of pan-nationalists in the army.

Of course, there was the small technicality of British entry over support for Belgium. But that was just paper right? From the 1830s? No way Britain would abandon her splendid isolation to honour her Entente commitments and turn a war originally waged over a small debacle in the Balkans into a European war.


Also wrong about the US in 1917 as well, which turned the war into a proper World War.

But not insane. Just poor gambling and risk assessment.

Putin’s Russia could get it badly “wrong” as well in the coming years.

**Thanks for the history. I don’t agree that the actions of Germany forced Wilson’s hand (as you put it.)
Wilson could have prohibited all USA shipping to the warring powers, Germany as well as England.
And was Germany already cut off due to an English blockade?

I think that Wilson could have tried harder to find a diplomatic solution to the Great War.
His sympathies obviously lay with England.**

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit