Lining up for World War 3?

Suggesting the escalation in Syria is a move closer to World War 3 might be over-dramatic but if the civil war explodes into a wider conflict it will be too late to quibble.

There are already a number of countries who have been directly involved in the Syrian conflict,  including Russia, USA, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UK, France, Germany and Australia.

The Herald asks Are these the battle lines for World War Three?

The US airstrikes on a Syrian regime airbase have hardened the dividing lines across the world in regards to the Assad regime.

They link to MailOnline Are these the battle lines for World War Three? Graphic shows which countries are siding with Russia or the US in their support – or condemnation – of Assad

  • President Donald Trump, 70, launched airstrikes on a Bashar al-Assad controlled airbase in Syria on Thursday
  • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today praised the American airstrike following the chemical attack
  • He said that the strikes sent a ‘strong and clear’ message that chemical weapons will not be tolerated in 2017 
  • Both Britain and Australia praised the US action as an ‘appropriate response’ to what happened in the week
  • Syria and Russia have denounced it as an ‘act of aggression’ with Putin saying it damages relationship with US

The US airstrikes on a Syrian regime airbase have hardened the dividing lines across the world in regards to the Assad regime.

MailOnline has set out world leaders’ positions on the conflict, which clearly shows the split between pro and anti-Assad countries.

It suggests which side of the battle line countries would position themselves on should the escalating crisis turn into an all out global conflict.

3f0c3dad00000578-4389248-image-a-20_1491578726090

The MailOnline has extensive coverage of the position of countries around the world on Syria.

The also have a time line of the conflict that began six years ago.


The U.S. attack on a Syrian air base came after years of heated debate and deliberation in Washington over intervention in the bloody civil war.

Chemical weapons have killed hundreds of people since the start of the conflict, with the U.N. blaming three attacks on the Syrian government and a fourth on the Islamic State group. One of the worst yet came Tuesday in rebel-held northern Idlib and killed dozens, including women and children.

That attack prompted President Donald Trump, on day 77 of his presidency, to dramatically shift U.S. policy, with the first direct U.S. attack on the Syrian government.

Trump blamed Syrian President Bashar Assad for the attack and called on the international community to join him in trying to end the bloodshed.

A timeline of events in Syria leading up to Tuesday’s attack:

March 2011: Protests erupt in the city of Daraa over security forces’ detention of a group of boys accused of painting anti-government graffiti on the walls of their school. On March 15, a protest is held in Damascus’ Old City. On March 18, security forces open fire on a protest in Daraa, killing four people in what activists regard as the first deaths of the uprising. Demonstrations spread, as does the crackdown by President Bashar Assad’s forces.

April 2011: Security forces raid a sit-in in Syria’s third-largest city, Homs, where thousands of people tried to create the mood of Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the epicenter of protests against Egypt’s autocrat Hosni Mubarak.

Aug. 18, 2011: President Barack Obama calls on Assad to resign and orders Syrian government assets frozen.

Summer 2012: Fighting spreads to Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and its former commercial capital.

August 20, 2012: Obama says the use of chemical weapons would be a ‘red line’ that would change his calculus on intervening in the civil war and have ‘enormous consequences.’

March 19, 2013: The Syrian government and opposition trade accusations over a gas attack that killed some 26 people, including more than a dozen government soldiers, in the town of Khan al-Assal in northern Syria. A U.N. investigation later finds that sarin nerve gas was used, but does not identify a culprit.

August 21, 2013: Hundreds of people suffocate in rebel-held suburbs of the Syrian capital, with many suffering from convulsions, pinpoint pupils, and foaming at the mouth. U.N. investigators visit the sites and determine that ground-to-ground missiles loaded with sarin were fired on civilian areas while residents slept. The U.S. and others blame the Syrian government, the only party to the conflict known to have sarin gas.

Aug. 31, 2013: Obama says he will go to Congress for authorization to carry out punitive strikes against the Syrian government, but appears to lack the necessary support in the legislature.

Sept. 27, 2013: The U.N. Security Council orders Syria to account for and destroy its chemical weapons stockpile, following a surprise agreement between Washington and Moscow, averting U.S. strikes. The Security Council threatens to authorize the use of force in the event of non-compliance.

Oct. 14, 2013: Syria becomes a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, prohibiting it from producing, stockpiling or using chemical weapons.

June 23, 2014: The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons says it has removed the last of the Syrian government’s chemical weapons. Syrian opposition officials maintain that the government’s stocks were not fully accounted for, and that it retained supplies.

Sept. 23, 2014: The U.S. launches airstrikes on Islamic State group targets in Syria.

Aug. 7, 2015: The U.N. Security Council authorizes the OPCW and U.N. investigators to probe reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, as reports circulate of repeated chlorine gas attacks by government forces against civilians in opposition-held areas. Chlorine gas, though not as toxic as nerve agents, can be classified as a chemical weapon depending on its use.

Aug. 24, 2016: The joint OPCW-U.N. panel determines the Syrian government twice used helicopters to deploy chlorine gas against its opponents, in civilian areas in the northern Idlib province. A later report holds the government responsible for a third attack. The attacks occurred in 2014 and 2015. The panel also finds that the Islamic State group used mustard gas.

Feb. 28, 2017: Russia, a stalwart ally of the Syrian government, and China veto a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing sanctions against the Syrian government for chemical weapons use.

April 4, 2017: At least 58 people are killed in what doctors say could be a nerve gas attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun in the rebel-held Idlib province. Victims show signs of suffocation, convulsions, foaming at the mouth and pupil constriction. Witnesses say the attack was carried out by either Russian or Syrian Sukhoi jets. Moscow and Damascus deny responsibility.

April 4, 2017: President Donald Trump issues a statement saying that the ‘heinous’ actions of Assad’s government are the direct result of Obama administration’s ‘weakness and irresolution.’

April 5, 2017: Trump says Assad’s government has ‘crossed a lot of lines’ with the suspected chemical attack in Syria.

April 6, 2017: The U.S. fired a barrage of cruise missiles into Syria Thursday night in retaliation for this week’s gruesome chemical weapons attack against civilians, U.S. officials said. It was the first direct American assault on the Syrian government and Trump’s most dramatic military order since becoming president. Trump said strike on Syria in the ‘vital national security interest’ of the United States.


Wikipedia: Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War

Leave a comment

31 Comments

  1. David

     /  9th April 2017

    Venezuela can’t even sort out the production and distribution of toilet paper, how on earth is it going to make it to the battle line in WW3?

    It’s just a load of hysterical nonsense,

    Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  9th April 2017

    should a conflict of the scale suggested develop…..you can kiss Israel …goodbye.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  9th April 2017

      If China plays their cards correctly.-and they usually do, as witnessed by them moving their President from officially provided lodging’s into a more secure location once they were informed of impending attacks on Syria- then they have a chance to play America against Russia and gain much ground on becoming the worlds new sheriff with minimal effort. I find the thought of China as the pre-eminent nation, horrifying.

      Reply
    • David

       /  9th April 2017

      You mean just the same as in 1948, 1967, & 1973? When the Arab armies where supported by the Soviet Union?

      I can’t see the Cubans making to the battlefield this time around, but perhaps the Venezuelans will be there once they find a few roles of dunny paper, oh, and some gasoline for the planes….

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  9th April 2017

        if WW3 breaks out…dunny paper will be in very short supply….maybe you should start …stockpiling it.

        Reply
    • Armageddon? Israel hasn’t been defeated in a land battle since 1947 and will be fighting against extinction as the Arab states know only too well. Israel will go nuclear rather than be defeated. The big question is how Russia, Pakistan and Iran react. Is Russia comfortable with an accommodation with Islamic countries? Europe will have something to say as well. China? Hopefully China will stay out of it and enjoy the advantages that the US had post WW2.

      Reply
  3. Zedd

     /  9th April 2017

    ‘Mother do you think they’ll drop the bomb ?
    Mother do you think they’ll like this song..’

    ‘mother should I build a wall……..’ (Pink Floyd)

    I remember hearing that WW2 started where WW1 ended; Germany wanting to ‘reclaim their control in Europe’… so I’m guessing ‘WW3’ will likely start where WW2 ended.. ‘Mother do you think they’ll drop the bomb’.. maybe led by another German (herr Drumpf ?)

    Reply
  4. Pythagoras

     /  9th April 2017

    Trump was put up to the attack, by his advisors. Putin is winding him up. Trump took the bait and is out of his depth. Putin knows what he is doing. Watch him humiliate Trump in the coming weeks.

    I am not saying nothing should have been done; if UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc., etc., support the bombing, perhaps they should have made some formal agreement to step in. USA should not have acted alone, or have been seen by the world as acting alone, on this.

    Reply
    • Nelly Smickers

       /  9th April 2017

      Don’t know if I could agree with you there Thago…..Wayne’s always been a fairly astute observer of world events…. and he reckons*Trumpy* will have *Putin* quietly pooping himself.

      Reply
    • Corky

       /  9th April 2017

      Have to agree with Nellie’s theorem over yours, Pythagoras. Putin has been sent a clear message and Trumpy has been able to gauge world opinion after his strikes.

      I’m more interested in how he will deal with that crew-cut sociopath running North Korea.
      He needs to be leaded, but does Trumpy go for unification with the South ( unacceptable to China) or involve China in a united Korea ( unacceptable to Korea).

      That’s a hard one.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  9th April 2017

        You reckon?

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  9th April 2017

          Eh?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  9th April 2017

            Are you saying you think The Vladimir is going to back off?

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  9th April 2017

              No, however, the ball is in Trumps court.

            • Gezza

               /  9th April 2017

              Well would you at least concede that Putin may know a thing or two about handling a show pony?

            • Corky

               /  9th April 2017

              Putins problem is he’s only a star when the show pony is castrated. Anything with balls makes him think twice.

    • David

       /  9th April 2017

      You think?

      1. This sends a message to Russia without doing much damage. Possibly even helps them with Assad.
      2. It depowers the ‘Trump is a Russian stooge’ story almost completely.
      3. Sends a message to China that actions have consequences.
      4. I’m looking at you Kim.
      5. Makes Obama look like a fool for his redline BS

      The only downside is with the voters who want Trump to be isolationist.Trump did the maths.

      “if UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc., etc., support the bombing, perhaps they should have made some formal agreement to step in.”

      Why would he fuck around with this? It would take weeks and likely result in exactly the same mess Obama ended up in,

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  9th April 2017

      Nonsense. Putin is smart and the Middle East is a shambles but Trump is not over-extended there. So far his intervention is limited to attacking ISIS and telling Assad chemical weapons are a red line. Drones and long range missiles are an immediate threat to any enemy getting out of line there.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  9th April 2017

        Over there in the Middle East, who exactly is an *enemy*, of who, & what exactly is not getting *out of line*?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  9th April 2017

          People that try to blow you up are often considered enemies, G. Not getting out of line = staying behind the red lines.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  9th April 2017

            High explosives from Russian, Syrian, German, French, Australian, US coalition etc aircraft or drones that kill innocent Muslim people just as a by-product, or a *Whoops – Sorry about that!* These are ok?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th April 2017

              You are running around the field with the goal posts under your arm, G. I said it was a shambles. Shambles in general are not very ok.

      • Nelly Smickers

         /  9th April 2017

        *Chuck* in LA tweets….

        ‘UP YOUR NOSE’

        Reply
  5. John Schmidt

     /  9th April 2017

    Bugger it all, lets do it. History shows that the human race is hopeless at maintaining long lasting peace. We need a major war every now and then just to sort a few things out and eliminate evil at least for a while until the cycle repeats.

    Reply
  6. But, that is if the goodies win John! What to do if the baddies win?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s