WWIII

You should have said "No, not yet, but heading in that direction."

Will I see WWIII in my lifetime? 6 years ago I would have said no. Now I'm thinking yes, and getting closer and closer to a possibility.

And "the bomb" will be used. And probably on U.S. soil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 22 2006, 07:32 PM) [snapback]290734[/snapback]</div>

I can agree with your first two statements, but I sure hate to think you might be right on the third one. That's darn scary!

 

We have been in WWIII since 1949; GWOT is just the latest warm spot..

 

i think we have a long way to go before we can proclaim any major war has started.

 

I hope you are right. Maybe Condy can talk some sense into the boys next week. BTW, I have a question for any of you veterans or history buffs out there. Does anyone know at what point they starting referring the First and Second "World Wars" as WWI and WWII? I know one of them was called "the Great War" and then "The War to End All Wars" But when did they actually start calling them WWI and II? Was it while WWII was in progress or only later on, in retrospect? Just wondering.

 

Give it time. If anyone can get us into WWIII, it's Dubbya. We can count on him.

 

I don't think it's full on WWIII yet. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. Besides, France hasn't started crying yet.LOL

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AuntBee @ Jul 22 2006, 09:34 PM) [snapback]290806[/snapback]</div>

WWI was still called the Great War back then, so this war was not considered "II" until the Great War was renamed World War I after the END of the second World War. Mostly, names are applied afterwards.

One could also claim that the several wars occurring between England and France and Spain, beginning (or renewing) with the 'War of Jenkin's Ear' (1739) which blended in to the larger War of Austrain Sucession, through the Napoleonic Wars and thence the War of 1812, all of which encompassed global actions and concerns. French and Indian wars and our own Revolutionary War are considered a part of the larger venue of wars between the 3 major European powers: England, France, and Spain. The colonies were considered a backwater, poor piece of real estate compared to the riches of the Orient and even the Caribbean/South American holdings. Some even consider that France and England only cared about North America in order to irritate the other.

In any case, our current effort is called the General War on Terror (GWOT), the efforts immediately after WWII and beginning in 1949 through the fall of the Soviet Union was loosely considered 'Cold War'. Warm/hot periods during the Cold War were the Korean Police Action and the Viet Nam War. But both of those are also considered to be extensions of the Indo-China portion of WWII.

 

History of humankind seems to be one long series of wars, interrupted by a few brief episodes of peace.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AuntBee @ Jul 22 2006, 11:34 PM) [snapback]290806[/snapback]</div>

I'm not holding my breath.

None of the parties involved have a great deal of respect for either women or the U.S. So the U.S. sends a woman as a representative and expects to get positive results? I don't think so.

 

Silly question...

All media sensationalism aside, how can two relatively small adjoining countries going at it across a single border even begin to constitute a World War? A war - certainly. A major conflict - sure. But a WORLD WAR... eh? That really, by any definition I can find, really requires active fighting on the part of more than two countries...

-Ken

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kdmorse @ Jul 23 2006, 11:06 PM) [snapback]291329[/snapback]</div>

I was writing in the larger context of the region and the proxy war on the part of Iran and Syria. It can also be noted that Hezbollah, in spite of its seeming legitimacy as part of the Leabanese government, is, like its brethern Hamas, a separate entity.

Since 1949, the 'West' had been in a struggle with the 'Soviet' bloc.

For the majority of the 18th century wars between England and France, neither actually struck the other's mainland; those wars were fought on the high seas or in their extended colonial empires (North America, Caribbean, Asia). The Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th century were the same, except for the one Thames raid by the Dutch. Even during the war of Spanish Succession, the main battles were on Flemish and Dutch soil, not in Spain.

 

Yep, its WWIII. How can it not be ? Just two weeks ago trains in India were bombed, did we forget already ? Before that the British subway, the French riots burning cars, Madrid, Bali, 9/11, African embassies, etc., etc. etc... It is world wide.

Who are the combatants ? The civilization of arts, education, learning and technology vs. the 7th century and one book.

 

religious beliefs of one type or another have been the root cause of nearly every war. WWII genocide i still consider a religious issue. (more likely self-deprecation on hitler's part)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Jul 26 2006, 08:00 AM) [snapback]292556[/snapback]</div>

I don't follow your reasoning here, care to expand?

I understand the blanket comment that in some cases, religions have been root causes of war. But in Hitler's case, he used the near-inherent anti-Semitism of Europe to get elected long before any pograms were instituted.

The near-genocides of WWII were not only visited upon the Jews, but also Catholics and homosexuals, as well as the infirm and insane. The Turkish near-genocide of the Armenians in WWI was closer to a jihad or ethnic cleansing.

Our current GWOT is in reaction to a (real or perceived) religious war visited upon the world by a few so-called Islamic Radicals.

 

as i said, its my opinion. i see little difference in the enforcement of religious dogma and genocide. both enforce one's beliefs onto another group of people perceived to be different is some way.

i guess a definition of religion is more in order. but that would not be possible, because for some reason, it is deemed acceptable to go out and kill in the name of god, but not to kill because we perceive ourselves to be genetically superior and to define religion would show that the two are not really different after all.

the crusades were supposed to be a religious conflict so is that the only reason why they were carried out?? i would find that hard to believe. as i said, religious agendas are used as a basis for most conflicts.

 

Doesn't France first have to surrender to qualify as a world war?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 28 2006, 05:42 PM) [snapback]294079[/snapback]</div>

Judging by the number of Muslims now in Paris and surrounds, haven't they already