Will the third world conflict in Syria lead to a third?

a waste of money

well why, the Fed is profitable.

I also posted in the "Society" that after Libya Syria buys, and then Iran and III WoW. The ultimate goal, I think is RF. I think so (c)

PS Right now Stalkerâ„–â„–â„–â„– will come and say that I am an amerophobe :))

Yes, what is the world, who needs it? No developed country will fight with another developed country (for if not mutual destruction, then colossal mutual damage) because of some interests in the Middle East. Everything will remain just another operation of the Western powers in a weaker country.

Stels_1313 "Following a chemical attack in a suburb of Damascus on August 21, carried out by unknown persons," the

League of Arab States announced on August 27 that those responsible for the chemical attack in Syria must be brought before international justice, and called on the members of the UN Security Council to overcome their differences and take action to end killings in Syria:
In a statement released after the meeting in Cairo, the organization said it holds the Syrian government fully responsible for the use of chemical weapons and "requires all those responsible for this heinous crime to be brought forward for international investigation," Reuters reported.

The Arab League also urged the Security Council "to bridge the divisions among its members by adopting the necessary resolutions against the perpetrators of this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible, and to end the crimes of genocide that the Syrian regime has been carrying out for more than two years."
Details: http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1699592.html#ixzz2dC2cmwIS
Any use of materials is allowed only with a hyperlink to the IA REGNUM

+1 Simaphor.

GTAman
Another world war is badly needed by the United States. Suffice it to recall after which two events the United States became the most powerful world superpower.

It is hoped that there will be no third world war because of Syria.

"Apparently, the United States does not intend to get involved in another war in the Muslim East - Iraq and Afghanistan are enough for them. And even the proposal of a NATO ally, France, to use force on a limited scale (if the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army is confirmed), without ground operations," obviously unacceptable for Washington.

Responding to a letter from Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel (he is the senior Democratic representative on the House Foreign Relations Committee), America's top military official explained why it is not in US interests to intervene in Syria. General Martin Dempsey, who heads the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, is convinced that the US military intervention in Syria is incapable of stopping the civil war, and the opponents of the Assad regime cannot be seen as reliable allies of America. “We are not afraid or risk averse,” General Dempsey wrote to the lawmaker: the point is, he explained, that the use of military force does not always achieve its goals, although it always comes at a high cost.
....
In Syria, the main warring parties are open enemies of the United States: Bashar al-Assad and Iran-backed Hezbollah are fighting against paramilitary Islamist groups associated with al-Qaeda. Why doesn't Washington let them thin out each other's ranks? "
...
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who voiced his country's decisive position, admitted that there is no agreement within the UN Security Council regarding the latest Syrian events - accordingly, there is no decision. Fabius considers it necessary to act "in other ways", which he does not specify. But these paths are still fresh in the memory: in 2011, France, together with other NATO countries (Great Britain, USA, Canada, Italy, Spain, Belgium, etc.), as well as the Arab state of Qatar, provided a no-fly zone over Libya and bombed Gaddafi's troops. Now, however, Paris can hardly count on a broad collective action by its allies: the orchestra will not play without a conductor. "

ironHAMMER.ms [Judas Priest] "Suffice it to recall the two events after which the United States became the world's most powerful superpower."

This nonsense is quite popular among the Yusaphobes. For some reason, people do not want to think that when a country expends resources for the production of weapons, and loses people in a war, then it does not become more developed from this.

"Another world war is badly needed by the United States"

double facepalm, because one will not be enough

Debts, such debts
http://copypast.ru/2011/07/28/forfriend-1-amerikanskijj_dolg_v_kartinkakh.....8_kartinok.html

ironHAMMER.ms [Judas Priest]
Suffice it to recall two events after which the United States became the world's most powerful superpower.
Only then did the fighting not take place in the States themselves. There were no intercontinental missiles, nuclear weapons, aviation capabilities were more modest.

It is necessary to take and send the government of both countries to fight, since the common people are not up to these conflicts, but they will have to fight. And the government is immediately evacuated.

USA, has already shown its face on the Snowden theme, on German and Russian TV.

Stormwalker "Shindets, no one even tried to throw this information in except me."

Will you give a link to WikiLeaks?
just do not refer to the fact that one woman in the bazaar said that there was such infa in Wikilix

This nonsense is quite popular among the Yusaphobes. For some reason, people do not want to think that when a country expends resources for the production of weapons, and loses people in a war, then it does not become more developed from this.
And so, a small educational program. Firstly, the territory of the United States has never been subjected to air or ground attacks, and irreplaceable losses are minimal. Secondly, when a country spends resources on the production of weapons, it develops its industry, and if we consider that the United States made weapons mainly not for its army, but for sale, then the lost resources paid off very quickly. Well, at the end, let's move on to the sweetest, that is, to the post-war years. Both the field of the first and after the second world wars, the United States, as a state practically not suffering damage, acted as the world's largest creditor. About lend-lease, and the fascist trade with Germany until its fall, there is nothing to say.

GTAman
Well, I somehow dismiss the possibility of a nuclear war right away, because everyone wants to live. And the United States also has aviation and excellent air defense, and the chances that active ground operations will be carried out in America are extremely small. So it is possible that the Pentagon is planning to get away with it again.

ironHAMMER.ms [Judas Priest]
You can arrange not nuclear, but conventional or nuclear, but not in the style of "Doomsday", but as a moderate exchange of tactical charges on important objects. In short, the risks are too great to risk what we have for the sake of uncertain benefit.

ironHAMMER.ms [Judas Priest] "when a country spends resources on weapons production, it develops its industry"

What did you smoke? What is more profitable for the development of industry to make machines or bombs that will be dropped and nothing will remain of them? the impact of military expenditure on the economy

, "if we consider that the US made weapons mostly not for the army and for sale '

History of the need to teach? As Kolya Chernyshevsky said - only a morally undeveloped person does not like history! Lend Lease is a free supply of weapons !!!!!!!!!

"Fascist trade with Germany until its fall, and there is nothing to say."

You are ready to repeat any nonsense, if it contains muck addressed to our allies in the fight against fascism. You are just a fanatic hating the United States.

"Both the field of the first and after the second world wars, the United States, as a state that practically did not suffer damage, acted as the world's largest creditor."

First, you consider only the bombs that fell on the territory of the country to be damaged. Secondly, the damage is all lost due to the war. And the United States also lost a lot. Thirdly http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Lend Lease is a free supply of weapons !!!!!!!!!
Acting by your own methods, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7

ironHAMMER.ms [Judas Priest]
And what was that? Will you assure that Lend Lease is a sale?

Putin will not allow it. All our hopes are in him!

Is the topic becoming relevant?

Americans do not even know that they are so hated. They are naive to think that Russians are
normal people ...