Will the third world conflict in Syria lead to a third?
no. But after Iran, yes.Iran is next.
Vanya Rygalov
It makes no sense to talk about politics with this comrade, he stupidly repeats what Western publications write or retells the ravings of Western politicians) There is only one truth, and it is the Russian media that convey it well about events in the world (but not about events inside Russia). So it goes. Observations.
Sima4
August 2013) True, not everyone could even think that six months after the creation of this topic, Ukraine would start to shake so seriously. Syria is an event of several years, and Ukraine has not badly distracted the attention of the world community from Syria for a whole year or even more.
No, why should Assad "have to leave"? Maybe let Merkel leave? ...
There are minor prerequisites (Russian intervention against terrorists, a statement by the US Secretary of Defense about the possibility of a ground operation), but no more. This will remain the arena of foreign policy clashes in one state. Moreover, as long as ISIS exists, the fight against a common enemy is mutually beneficial (as far as I know, there were many foreign oil companies in Iraq, a regime loyal to Russian foreign policy in Syria) and a war at such a pace can happen only in the event of an invasion of the West and US support against Assad and ISIS (the so-called "Libyan scenario"), but I think this will not happen. At least while ISIS controls ~ 60% of Syria. This is all that the fantasy of a 16-year-old schoolboy (that is, me), far from Syria and an objective assessment of the events taking place there, is capable of ...
A.Soldier of Light
A North Korean family escaped the happy socialism of the Kim family. And the grandmother said that now she knows the truth, that people live well in the USA, because there everyone, even a child, has a ration of as much as 800 grams of rice a day. My grandmother could not understand that people in the world do not live like they do in the DPRK, that they can live differently.
So typical scoops see the whole world in a binary flat system, either you are on this side - or on the opposite side, or you believe the Kremlin lies - or you believe the lies from Washington.
Spoiler 
A.Soldier of Light
No, why Assad "should leave"?
If only because he is a usurper, he got the throne from his father.
Not to mention the crimes he committed against the people.
Dipper Pines
"In Iraq, as far as I know, there were many foreign oil companies"
And what follows from this?
No, why should Assad "have to leave"? Maybe let Merkel leave? ...
Very correct questions. Just answering them, they often do not take into account the mentality of the people inhabiting these countries.
Before the departure of such rulers as Hosni Mubarek, Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein (and these guys were far from being angels), their countries were the most prosperous and wealthy in their region. They are gone - devastation, anarchy, lawlessness ... Millions of refugees.
Germany flourished before Merkel, under Merkel, it will flourish after Merkel ... And even without Merkel at all.
If Assad leaves, will Syria be the same prosperous and secular country as it was earlier under the non-democratic tyrant Assad?
stalker7162534 The
benefit of the West is to keep them under control, to recapture them from ISIS.
Vanya Rygalov
As for Egypt, I would not say that there is devastation. The country was on the brink of a civil war under Morsi, but it seemed to be calm. Moreover, Egypt even interferes with other countries (Libya, Yemen). They even want to build a new capital due to the overpopulation of Cairo. And the reasons for the revolution were quite there, if you watch the Egyptian film "Square" - everything is described there in detail by the Egyptian himself.
Vanya Rygalov
Before the departure of such rulers as Hosni Mubarek, Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein (and these guys were far from being angels), their countries were the most prosperous and wealthy in their region. They are gone - devastation, anarchy, lawlessness ... Millions of refugees.
These are the consequences of the unreasonable policy of the United States and other European, supposedly civilized countries that decided to intervene in other people's affairs. They can, and Russia could not even protect its peacekeepers in South Ossetia from the point of view of Westernizers and pro-Westerners. It's obvious, though. Another thing is also obvious: that the principles of democracy do not work in the countries of the Middle East, the mentality of the peoples is different. They need a strong leader who keeps everything under control, and only then will the country have order and prosperity. And cruelty, alas, is needed, just needed, period. There is no way to do without this, as there will always be criminals. An effective fight against evil is possible only by the methods of evil, not good. History has shown it.
Here the Europeans and Americans overthrew the leaders of Iraq and Libya and got the problem of refugees in Europe, the growth of crime in the region and terrorism. And ISIS at the same time. Did they not realize what their pitiful efforts to "democratize" the region would lead to? I believe that they knew all this, ISIS was created on purpose, and the refugees were created to weaken Europe, to continue shaking it. And the leaders of the European Union are still puppets of the United States, especially Merkel - number one. Probably he wants to retire on a good pension, so he plows for the Boss to the detriment of the German people.
In Syria, everything is clear: it is necessary to clear the territory of ISIS, close the borders with Turkey (ISIS accomplices) and recreate a powerful Syrian army with the support of Russia. The only way. Without Russia, Syria will face the fate of Libya: chaos and lawlessness.
There is also another point of concern that exposes all the hypocrisy of the West. They talk about violations of human rights, about cruelty, about a usurper, etc. What about Saudi Arabia, where there are brutal executions and punishments? Where are the same violations of human rights and women's rights in particular? Why are they not imposing large-scale sanctions against Saudi Arabia? ...
I didn’t read the topic from the very beginning, so I’ll just take an interest. Dear professional Playground politicians, what opinion do you take as fundamental?
Wing42
..... what opinion do you take as fundamental?
Heh, heh ... Sarcasm? I understand ... Of course my own. Who can be interested in someone else's opinion other than his own?
Vanya Rygalov
Well, why, I am always interested in an alternative point of view. Maybe I will not consider it correct, but I will take note of it. I personally do not think that someone here benefits from a world war because of the conflict in poor little Syria, but even here there is a layer of people who are actively positioning themselves as militarists, anarchists and other misanthropes, with a fanatical shine in the eyes of "those who want a merciless Third World War! "
And, if the conflict under discussion escalates to the point where a reasonable dialogue between the powers and the superpowers is impossible, will they be able to express their joy in winning such an insignificant and petty dispute to the small man-made sun, which once triumphantly rose over the calm streets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Vanya Rygalov
"They are gone - devastation, anarchy, lawlessness ... Millions of refugees."
February revolution. Civil War. Come on figs with this Nicholas II. I'm wondering what kind of devastation is in Egypt now? As for Gaddafi, it’s probably not just that the Libyans rebelled, despite the assurances that they had rivers of milk flowing there in the jelly banks. And with Saddam, it's a completely different story.
And let's not decide for the Syrian people what to do (especially after listening to the balabols on TV).
A.Soldier of Light
These are the consequences of the unreasonable policy of the United States and other European supposedly civilized countries that decided to intervene in other people's affairs.
NATO intervention ended the war in Libya with the dictator Gaddafi. If they had not intervened, the war would have continued, perhaps still.
Mubarak was overthrown by the Egyptians without the intervention of civilized countries. Learn materiel!
Dictator Saddam didn't need to be stopped? Maybe Hitler shouldn't have been stopped? If I am not mistaken, you, like other believers in the communists, accused the civilized countries of not stopping Hitler when he came to Czechoslovakia. Then why are you defending another dictator?
Your position is simply explained, you always repeat what you heard from the TV.
"the leaders of the European Union are still puppets of the United States,"
All Europeans are idiots, and you are smarter than everyone else - you know the highest truth (just how strange it is, your point of view is a repetition of the howls of some uncles from the TV).
"close the borders with Turkey (ISIS accomplices)"
How can you prove that Turkey, a NATO country, is an ISIS accomplice? Can you smell it in some special place? (or again over the telecom you repeat without thinking)