WW3 Imminent, or are we already there?

[Zoidberg747]

This is totally untrue. Obama can't do anything major (especially something with far-reaching international implications) without authorization from Congress. There are checks and balances in place, and Presidents do not act on their own with regard to foreign policy. It's not the term that matters -- if you want to get anything done in those 2 years, you need the backing of Congress, and keeping the power to pass legislation is a very narrow path to walk.

It's not about fear -- it's about the necessary caveats of the political machine. Stray too far to one side and you become ineffective for the rest of your term. 'Lame duck president' is a real thing, and the opposition will not hesitate to seize any momentum they can in order to regain control.

I wish things didn't work this way, but it's the system we have.

Well firstly I am referring to the Executive branch as a whole, which is controlled by Obama.

Obama can do the following things when it comes to foreign policy:
Recieve foreign ambassadors, ministers, leaders
Negotiate all treaties(if he calls them "executive agreements" they do not have to be approved by Congress)
Recognize states and nations
Decide where the armed forces are allocated to(he probably doesnt actually do this but he could)
Appoints ambassadors to other nations
Appoints Secretary of State and controls Department of Defense and Department of State

You are right that Congress can have an effect on foreign policy, especially when deciding how much financial aid is given to other countries. But to say Obama cannot do anything major without Congress is just downright false. If you want an example consider the fact that Kerry has been a driving force in creating the Hamas-Israelk cease fire, all without any help from Congress. He also personally was responsible for withdrawing troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. I could go on but you get the point.

 

[Belphegor]

As a person who faught in two wars for America as a Marine and dedicated his life to public service, the isolation mentality pisses me off to no end.

Only complete close minded individuals who have never seen the travasties the world has to offer would spew some garbage such as "Everything is America's fault" or "America should just stay out of everyone's shit."

Seriously...just fucking retarded....

Edit: Also you do realize that the first two WWs had nothing to do with the US and we were either dragged into the war by unprovoked aggression (Pear Harbor) or we were BEGGED by Britan to help (Germany had all but destoyed Britan and the American "Dough Boys" saved the day)? Also lets noy get into the fact that America is the sole reason that BOTH WWs were won....

So we pratice isolationism and the world begs us to help and demonizes us for standing by or we get involved and everyone hates on us... huh funny....

WWI & WWII were not won simply because of the US. Especially for a country that joined few years later when most belligerents had already been at war since war broke out. The US wasn't the biggest contributor and/or the biggest to inflict damage to the enemies. Hence the Allied victory in WWII.

 

[Doombawkz]

Not to say that others aren't guilty, but still, the cold war never ended, and now it's heating up and drawing other people back in.

Everyone is guilty, USA is just the celebrity who everyone tries to dig into for dirt because we are Hollywood as fuck. The only time America wasn't "causing problems" is when people stopped looking for problems.

 

[NRF CharlieMurphy]

WWI & especially WWII were not won simply because of the US. For a country that joined few years later when most belligerents had already been at war since war broke out. The US wasn't the biggest contributor and/or the biggest to inflict damage to the enemies. Hence the Allied victory in WWII.

I think our atomic bombs beg to differ.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

WWI & WWII were not won simply because of the US. Especially for a country that joined few years later when most belligerents had already been at war since war broke out. The US wasn't the biggest contributor and/or the biggest to inflict damage to the enemies. Hence the Allied victory in WWII.

That still doesn't change the fact that the outcome might have been different if we hadn't become involved in someone else's war, though. Which you could also say about any country not in the initial zone of conflict that was dragged into the war

I'm sure another country would say the same if they were dragged into a war on North American soil and had to drop an atomic bomb to help end it.

But if you look at history through an uncolored glass, you notice that many countries exemplify the exact same patterns. The names and places change, but the pattern just repeats itself. The world has been in a perpetual state of war since well into B.C. times, and nothing has changed that.

 

[Belphegor]

I think our atomic bombs beg to differ.

The atomic bombings were only a part of the Pacific War and even that was the very end. China, Australia, Netherlands, Philippines & Britain were also at War in the Pacific and in regards to China they were at war with Japan since the sino-Japanese war that began 2 years prior to WWII.

Plus you should know that the atomic bombs were to mass murder civilians.

 

[MKB]

Look on the map at all the fighting hotspots on the planet at the moment, who's fighting who and where people are moving troops about etc. You'll realise its World War 3, at least geographically.

I've been looking around at all the conflicts going on, and how they're linked, and the potential they have to cause shit storms amongst one another. (CBA to post what I've seen because its too long)

Whats everybody elses thoughts, to anybody else thats been keeping up to date?

Things to consider:

- Flight MH17 (Blown up on the 18th anniversary of a similar incident, and event crucial enough to draw international attention to Ukraine) and MH370
- Middle east, Gaza & Israel
- Chinese Seas
- Korea
- Africa

ISIS is the key factor. They are the new nazi regime, only dare I say worse.

 

[Tony at Home]

Japan and the US's involvement in WWII is insanely complex. I wrote a paper on it in college. If I can still get my old file I can link it here.

My new issue of foreign affairs also had alot of scholarly papers on the Russian/Ukrainian and the ISIS crisis that I can link here or on the political discussion thread if anyone is interested.

The next edition of political science quarterly isn't out yet though: so I'm somewhat low on sources.

 

[Belphegor]

That still doesn't change the fact that the outcome might have been different if we hadn't become involved in someone else's war, though. Which you could also say about any country not in the initial zone of conflict that was dragged into the war

I'm sure another country would say the same if they were dragged into a war on North American soil and had to drop an atomic bomb to help end it.

But if you look at history through an uncolored glass, you notice that many countries exemplify the exact same patterns. The names and places change, but the pattern just repeats itself. The world has been in a perpetual state of war since well into B.C. times, and nothing has changed that.

I agree with you. I also believe that the allied would have not been victorious if the US did not join. The mass production of planes, tanks, ships by the US was nothing ever seen. In a few years they out produced and had the biggest navy than all the warring powers combined. But, to say that the US was the sole reason why WWII was won is just plain false.

 

[Belphegor]

Japan and the US's involvement in WWII is insanely complex. I wrote a paper on it in college. If I can still get my old file I can link it here.

My new issue of foreign affairs also had alot of scholarly papers on the Russian/Ukrainian and the ISIS crisis that I can link here or on the political discussion thread if anyone is interested.

The next edition of political science quarterly isn't out yet though: so I'm somewhat low on sources.

Hope you find it man, I'd like to read it.