Pope says 'piecemeal world war III' is underway

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29190890

First off if a mod could properly wrap that in the Linky business, that'd be great. I have shit connection and I don't want to keep reloading to find the button.




Anyway.

So, is the Pope being alarmist?
What conditions make a world war?
What or how opposing sides identified?
Can a world war only be between two camps or is it possible to for one to be a multipolar and disjointed.

And for maybe some historical reference, what about the 7 years war or the various colonial wars fought simultaneously?

[Lily Briscoe]

Not to shit on your thread, but who really cares what the pope says; it's the pope, for god's sake.

I thought this was pretty rich, though:

"War is madness," the Pope said at a memorial to 100,000 Italian soldiers at Redipuglia cemetery near Slovenia.

The Argentine Pope has often condemned the idea of war in God's name.

Only last month, Pope Francis said the international community would be justified in using force to stop what he called "unjust aggression" by Islamic State militants, who have killed or displaced thousands of people in Iraq and Syria, including many Christians...

[Rusty Shackleford]

I really don't give a shit, sure, but a notable figure said something that does have some weight being that there are hundreds of millions of people recognize him as their religious leader.

And yes, he makes contradictory statements, but even then, the point of the thread was more about the questions I posed in the op.

[Sinister Intents]

Not to shit on your thread, but who really cares what the pope says; it's the pope, for god's sake.

I thought this was pretty rich, though:

You posted that like TrotskistMarx. .. I agree the pope is a fuck and the Vatican should burn. I'd rather die than be forced into a war or another bullshit war like that to start. I'm sure WWIII is pathetically a reality

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Not to shit on your thread, but who really cares what the pope says; it's the pope, for god's sake.I don't know, maybe because the leader of the world's largest religious institution is listened to by many people? Maybe because revolutionaries should discuss the words of all folks, no matter how reactionary the institutions they lead are? One might as well say, "Geez Marx, why are you always talking about the Economist?" One thing I can't stand from the Left is purposeful ignorance. Who cares what the Pope thinks? I don't know, more than 1 billion people maybe?


I thought this was pretty rich, though:There are better things to criticize the Pope for than this ... going to a war memorial does not make one a supporter of that war.

[Lily Briscoe]

I don't know, maybe because the leader of the world's largest religious institution is listened to by many people? Maybe because revolutionaries should discuss the words of all folks, no matter how reactionary the institutions they lead are? One might as well say, "Geez Marx, why are you always talking about the Economist?" One thing I can't stand from the Left is purposeful ignorance. Who cares what the Pope thinks? I don't know, more than 1 billion people maybe?

So what? It doesn't mean there is anything substantive or valuable in what he has to say, specifically in his "warning" of WWIII, although plenty of leftists seem pretty enamored with him for some inexplicable reason (which isn't to suggest that the OP is; it's just a general observation). If a 'world war' means total war fought directly (rather than through proxies) between the major international powers, then it seems pretty unlikely for the time being (which doesn't stop some people from declaring literally every single military conflict to be "the start of WWIII").


There are better things to criticize the Pope for than this ... going to a war memorial does not make one a supporter of that war.Er, I wasn't implying that it did. I was just pointing out the irony between his supposed opposition to war and his (albeit wishy-washy) endorsement of the airstrikes in Iraq, something which might be related to the WWIII scaremongering.

[Ritzy Cat]

So what? It doesn't mean there is anything substantive in what he has to say, specifically in his "warning" of WWIII, although plenty of leftists seem pretty enamored with him for some inexplicable reason (which isn't to suggest that the OP is; it's just a general observation).

It does not matter whether or not if he has anything substantive to say. The point is that many people listen to what he says, namely class unconscious religious workers. The Pope is the head of a reactionary organization who holds enormous cultural power over the Catholics of the world. And he does not even have to prove what he says, that's the scary part. One of our reactionary enemies can make claims without having to provide any real proof, other than that the man in the clouds says it is true.

What he says will be contradictory to revolutionary aims and thus he is an enemy of us, and we need to analyze him and the Church, as we are to analyze any reactionary enemies so we can predict how to counter them in the face of a revolution.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So, the last two world wars were primarily fought on afro-eurasia. There were clear demarcations of conflict zones and two poles that were in conflict.

The Islamic state is a third actor which is also pretty much a state though embryonic. There are two very rough camps that exist today as well... So...


Edit and holy fucking shit this isn't about the pope, the catholic church, or Italian war memorials.

[John Nada]

There might be two or three sides facing off potentially. On one side NATO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO), GCC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Shield_Force) and possibly some members of the Mediterranean Dialogue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Dialogue). Another consists of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah. And of course there's ISIS. I'm not sure which side various Kurdish factions and Israel will take.

Now at the moment all of them hate ISIS to some degree. However, the GCC countries have backed the Syrian rebels, including ISIS. There remains the possibility that allegiances could change once again, turning into a war between the Sunni and Shia countries. Perhaps something like the Congo War, only with more Western involvement.

Another possible scenario, potentially very bad ones, is ones involving SCO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation) or at least the CSTO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSTO). They support Syria and Iran. Iran has asked to join SCO, but can't due to sanctions. China has accused some Uyghurs of join ISIS. SCO entering into a conflict is very worrying, for obvious reasons(nukes). They might stay out, giving only indirect support. Or they might even support a coalition against ISIS.

Another hotspot might be Ukraine. NATO and Russia(a SCO member) each support fascist on opposing sides. If the cease-fire doesn't hold, one side might eventually gain the upper hand and do something stupid. A potential massacre from the pro-government forces might provoke a response from Russia. Rebels and Russian forces invading the rest of Ukraine might provoke a reaction from Eastern European NATO members.

There's also some other factors involved. The US and Israel both have anti-missile weapons. China might have some too. When China blew up that defunct satellite a few years ago, the US accused them of using it as a cover for testing anti-missile defense. If either side thinks they can survive a first strike, they might be tempted to have war as an option in the future.

For Africa, I don't think they're as likely to have a large-scale war. Some countries are closer to China, such as Zimbabwe. Other to the US, like Kenya. Al-Shabaab and Boko Harem aren't closely linked to ISIS, and most the major wars have died down. However, the Ebola outbreak could destabilized the region, giving groups like Boko Harem and Al-Qaeda more leverage. If Saudi Arabia becomes unstable, Al-Shabaab could benefit via Yemeni allies. Egypt at war could embolden rebels in neighboring countries

In Latin America, doesn't seem likely to have a war. Most the revolutions have burned out, and most countries are on relatively friendly terms

In East Asia, there's less a likelihood of war. DPRK, though they have nukes, seems to be more focused on civilian construction projects at the moment. Thailand's coup hasn't yet turned into a civil war. Basically most of them aren't in major international disputes.

However, Japan, South Korea, and India have elected nationalist governments to varying degrees. China is in a territorial dispute at sea with basically everyone. If a major war happens, other countries might strike out at each other. For example, North Korea upon see Iran(fellow "Axis of Evil" member) attacked, might think they're next and launch a preemptive strike. Japan and China might intervene.

I figured I'd try to get back to the point of the OP. Oh, and the Catholic Church, Italy's involvement in WWI(IIRC Lenin called it "Poor Man's Imperialism", maybe could describe Russia) and the Pope are reactionary, fuck em. Though he does have a point about the potential for war, just not the part about how imperialism is justified, to paraphrase.

[Red Terror Dr.]

You don't need to be "infallible from the chair" or have divine-inspired super-wisdom to arrive at this conclusion that we are heading into a major global conflagration. The Pope is a loon.

[Alexios]

You don't need to be "infallible from the chair" or have divine-inspired super-wisdom to arrive at this conclusion that we are heading into a major global conflagration. The Pope is a loon.
Papal infallibility needs to be formally arranged and proclaimed in an official ceremony, so no, that isn't what's happening here. This is just opinion as far as anyone is concerned.

[MarxSchmarx]

There might be two or three sides facing off potentially. On one side NATO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO), GCC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Shield_Force) and possibly some members of the Mediterranean Dialogue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Dialogue). Another consists of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah. And of course there's ISIS. I'm not sure which side various Kurdish factions and Israel will take.

Now at the moment all of them hate ISIS to some degree. However, the GCC countries have backed the Syrian rebels, including ISIS. There remains the possibility that allegiances could change once again, turning into a war between the Sunni and Shia countries. Perhaps something like the Congo War, only with more Western involvement.

Another possible scenario, potentially very bad ones, is ones involving SCO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation) or at least the CSTO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSTO). They support Syria and Iran. Iran has asked to join SCO, but can't due to sanctions. China has accused some Uyghurs of join ISIS. SCO entering into a conflict is very worrying, for obvious reasons(nukes). They might stay out, giving only indirect support. Or they might even support a coalition against ISIS.

Another hotspot might be Ukraine. NATO and Russia(a SCO member) each support fascist on opposing sides. If the cease-fire doesn't hold, one side might eventually gain the upper hand and do something stupid. A potential massacre from the pro-government forces might provoke a response from Russia. Rebels and Russian forces invading the rest of Ukraine might provoke a reaction from Eastern European NATO members.

There's also some other factors involved. The US and Israel both have anti-missile weapons. China might have some too. When China blew up that defunct satellite a few years ago, the US accused them of using it as a cover for testing anti-missile defense. If either side thinks they can survive a first strike, they might be tempted to have war as an option in the future.

For Africa, I don't think they're as likely to have a large-scale war. Some countries are closer to China, such as Zimbabwe. Other to the US, like Kenya. Al-Shabaab and Boko Harem aren't closely linked to ISIS, and most the major wars have died down. However, the Ebola outbreak could destabilized the region, giving groups like Boko Harem and Al-Qaeda more leverage. If Saudi Arabia becomes unstable, Al-Shabaab could benefit via Yemeni allies. Egypt at war could embolden rebels in neighboring countries

In Latin America, doesn't seem likely to have a war. Most the revolutions have burned out, and most countries are on relatively friendly terms

In East Asia, there's less a likelihood of war. DPRK, though they have nukes, seems to be more focused on civilian construction projects at the moment. Thailand's coup hasn't yet turned into a civil war. Basically most of them aren't in major international disputes.

However, Japan, South Korea, and India have elected nationalist governments to varying degrees. China is in a territorial dispute at sea with basically everyone. If a major war happens, other countries might strike out at each other. For example, North Korea upon see Iran(fellow "Axis of Evil" member) attacked, might think they're next and launch a preemptive strike. Japan and China might intervene.

I figured I'd try to get back to the point of the OP. Oh, and the Catholic Church, Italy's involvement in WWI(IIRC Lenin called it "Poor Man's Imperialism", maybe could describe Russia) and the Pope are reactionary, fuck em. Though he does have a point about the potential for war, just not the part about how imperialism is justified, to paraphrase.

I should say with respect to Japan and India, the governments elected weren't elected really for nationalist reasons but because the previous ruling coalitions failed so spectacularly to deliver on basic economic improvements. In Japan especially, the ruling party has interpreted the repudiation of the opposition as a mandate to ram through a far-right agenda.

As to China's role in Africa, I don't think it's really accurate to say the Americans are vying for influence against the Chinese. Rather, they have similar end goals and the Americans have adopted a "wait and see" approach whilst the Chinese are more aggressive. Part of this is because Africa is seen as "Europe's (or at least France and Britain's) backyard".

But I'd contend the American political establishment has essentially given up on meaningfully trying to develop or even invest in Africa, save for a few strategic thoroughfares like the Somali coast and parts of North Africa (Egypt and Libya almost exclusively). The economic elite in America are similarly happy to let the Chinese try their hand at making African economies viable - viable, at least, for American investment.