World War 4

[Proteas]

I was channel surfing yesterday morning, shortly before I had to go to work, and I ran across "America's Black Forum" on the United Parmount Network. Now I don't watch this, but something was being discussed that caught my attention.

There was a gentlemen on there, who's name I did not get, saying that the U.S. started World War Four (yes, WW4) by going over to the Middle east, and interfereing with Iraq and Afghanistan, or something to that effect.

When asked by another person on the show, "If this is world war 4, then when was world war 3?" His response was simply, "That was the Cold War."

I'm not saying this gentlemen was right, but would anyone on here consider the Cold War "World War Three"?

Also, by the U.S. declaring war on all Terrorists, could this be considered another World War?

[lapslf]

The cold war wasn't really a war. It was just the US and the CCCP showing off. There was some battle here and there, but never anything that involved the entire world. So I wouldn't call it a world war.

And the whole war on terror isn't a world war either. It's not a war between nations, just one country persuing muslims. Sure, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a war against country's, but that was nothing compared to WW I and II. Iraq and Afghanistan got pounded in very little time so it wasn't really what I'd call a full scale world war. If Bush is being re-elected and is going to act even more stupid internationally then he is now, he might piss off some powerful nations so much that it really becomes a world war. But that would mean nukes and we'd all go to hell. A well, shit happens.

[bumcheekcity]

We haven't had WW3 yet. WORLD wars should really involve at least 50% of the world's countries in active battle.

At 1/11/04 02:27 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: We haven't had WW3 yet. WORLD wars should really involve at least 50% of the world's countries in active battle.

What about WWI and WWII?

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/11/04 03:05 PM, swallowing_shit wrote:

At 1/11/04 02:27 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: We haven't had WW3 yet. WORLD wars should really involve at least 50% of the world's countries in active battle.

What about WWI and WWII?

I dont consider them world wars at all, European Wars maybe. For the sake of conveinience I will call them World Wars 1 and 2 though.

[CapitalistSocialist]

The called the 1st World War the Great War as it was mainly an European War. It was also supposed to be the "war to end all wars" LOL. Didn't work though did it!

[Empanado]

At 1/11/04 02:04 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: There was some battle here and there, but never anything that involved the entire world. So I wouldn't call it a world war.

Actually, it did involve as many (or even more) nations as the WW I and II. Maybe not at the same time, but man, on this one, i'd say that every single country became affected on one way or another. I mean, all the coups and "battles here and there" around the whole world, weren't independent at all, it was basically everything about the capitalists against the communists. I actually think that the Cold War wasn't exactly a war, it was a... a... a weird thing half way between a feud and a full-scale world war. That's it.

About this "War on terrorism", i don't think that it's a world war or that it will become one, but i'm pretty goddam sure that it's going to last a looooong time. Watch out boys, things may get nasty from now on.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/11/04 04:39 PM, Empanado wrote: About this "War on terrorism", i don't think that it's a world war or that it will become one, but i'm pretty goddam sure that it's going to last a looooong time. Watch out boys, things may get nasty from now on.

No, the "War on Terrorism" isn't goin to become a World War in itself, but I think it may be the cause of one...

At 1/11/04 04:13 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: I dont consider them world wars at all, European Wars maybe. For the sake of conveinience I will call them World Wars 1 and 2 though.

Exatly. In the literal sense of the term "World War", the whole world would have to be directly 100% involved. Since that never happened we have to resolve to the working definition of the term: wars that involved the US, its allies and whoever they were fighting at the time.

The war on Communism involved the US, Cambodia, North and South Korea, Cuba, the USSR, Grenada, North and South Vietnam, China, Chile, Guatemala, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and other countries to a lesser extent. If that's not enough countries on deifferent continents to hold up to the standards of teh first two "world wars" then I don't know what is.

The war on terrorism? The US, Afghanistan, Iraq(?) Lybia, North and South korea, Japan, Australia, Britain, Pakistan, Canada and many others I don't want to try to remember. You get the idea.

[FUNKbrs]

I think we are actually going into the stage of the *ism wars, where battles will be against concepts and not countries. First was the war on communism, then the war on escapism (or war on drugs). Now it's the war on terrorism. Technically WWII was a war on fascism. The next war may be a counterstrike of 3rd world countries, the war on commericialism. Or it may be a backlash against religion, a war on theism.

Basically we're just going to kill all the people who disagree with the government until all that's left are government officials themselves. It's inevitable.

[Jimsween]

If your actually not considering WW1 and WW2 world wars, your too damn picky.

And in the literal sense, a world war would be a war between world.

[ShotInTheHead]

its almost like all these little "fights" add up to a world war.

[SteveGuzzi]

Einstein on what kind of weapons will be used to fight WW3:

"I don't know, but I will tell you what weapons will be used in World War Four...sticks and stones."

[RedSkunk]

At 1/11/04 07:56 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: I think we are actually going into the stage of the *ism wars, where battles will be against concepts and not countries.

Yes, for better or worse. And that's what these ppl who think WW3 happened and WW4 is currently happening are saying.

Myself though, I'm going to avoid calling this current war on terror WW4. Until it escalates at least... IMHO

[diazepim]

Bush can declare all he want on war... but US has not DECLARED WAR since 1941... that's WWII. The declaration of WAR is required by US CONGRESS, not by BUSH.

So in effect, there really hasn't been a US OFFICIAL WAR since WW2.

Everything since has been coined a "CONFLICT"... like the Korean Conflict.

If you consider conflicts as wars... then we'd be like in WWXXV (WW25 or 30) or something, because everytime US get's involved in a war... so does most of UN. That's includes most of the countries.

There was never a COLD WAR... it was just "called" cold war by jouralists... it should be really called and technically, the "Arms Race".

[Jimsween]

At 1/12/04 12:37 AM, Stuporman wrote: Einstein on what kind of weapons will be used to fight WW3:

"I don't know, but I will tell you what weapons will be used in World War Four...sticks and stones."

Thats because we're gunna PWN those commies with our MAD R0x0r nukes!

[RedSkunk]

At 1/12/04 02:37 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 1/12/04 12:37 AM, Stuporman wrote: Einstein on what kind of weapons will be used to fight WW3:

"I don't know, but I will tell you what weapons will be used in World War Four...sticks and stones."

Thats because we're gunna PWN those commies with our MAD R0x0r nukes!

very good =P

have a nuclear cookie

[Vogat]

I dont consider them world wars at all, European Wars maybe. For the sake of conveinience I will call them World Wars 1 and 2 though.

I dont think u can really call WW2 a European War, judging that it was waged in Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa, and the countries involved werent only European, just mainly.

[Ravens-Grin]

Using his logic from the station, we would be in WW9 right now.

[AleksM]

If a war does happpen you can bet America would start it. Whatnot with all their damn greed and pride over shit. They are too power hungry and this is where they will lose control.

[CapitalistSocialist]

WW3 will porbably start with some kinda oil crisis.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/14/04 11:45 AM, JamsterBoyo wrote: WW3 will porbably start with some kinda oil crisis.

No. WW3 will start when a country gets to big for its boots, and then the rest of the world rises up. This could be the USA, but it could be Russia or China, a hundred years into the future. We wont have a WORLD war over oil.

[Jimsween]

At 1/14/04 11:58 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 1/14/04 11:45 AM, JamsterBoyo wrote: WW3 will porbably start with some kinda oil crisis.

No. WW3 will start when a country gets to big for its boots, and then the rest of the world rises up. This could be the USA, but it could be Russia or China, a hundred years into the future. We wont have a WORLD war over oil.

There is a big problem with this though, unless for some reason the country has all of it's forces spread all over the world with no way to get them back, the other countries wouldn't stand a chance. It's not as simple as "There are more of them and combined they equal bigger than us", you could have 1,000 countries like ethiopia combined and they still wouldn't be able to beat the US.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/14/04 05:36 PM, Jimsween wrote: ...and they still wouldn't be able to beat the US.

Who said I was talking about the US? I was, but that's not the point.

[mrpopenfresh]

A world war is something that I think, and im sure some of you would agree, is a war that totally changes everyone. WWI; kickstarted so many things, Europe (arguably the most important region during that time) totally changed and Germany was officially pissed off. WWII; Well for one thing, mass genocide by the nazis was one of the most atrocious acts of the century. Well, thats what I think.

[diazepim]

At 1/14/04 07:40 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: A world war is something that I think, and im sure some of you would agree, is a war that totally changes everyone.

Don't you think war is necessary for change? and to change necessitate war? Without Revolutionary war, US would still be sending taxes to Britain. Without WWII, all of Europe would be speaking German and have mainly blond and blue eyes. There wouldn't be China or Philipines or Vietnam or Thailand or Australia any countries in Southeast Asia... it'd all be the Great Japanese Empire. Of course, the world would be a lot peaceful than it is now, but one good thing (or I can argue that it's a bad thing) ((but being PC, or else I'd be pounce)) that world is still more diverse.

So therefore, I think everyone can agree that war is not necessary a good thing or a bad thing, rather, I agree with you... a profound thing.

:WWII; Well for one thing, mass genocide by the nazis was one of the most atrocious acts of the century. Well, thats what I think.

I disagree. 2 H-bomb dropped on non-military cities in Japan had more impact on the 20th Century than the Nazi's. I don't want to be sounding like an anti-semite, BUT, 6 million Jew perished by the Nazis AND other european countries not Nazis--i.e. many western european countries did not want to take the Jews in for refuge. More atrocious is 12 million Russian that perished under Stalin. But more people talk about Jews than Russian, because US doesn't/didn't care for the Commies that much, and that's not realized by too much in history.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/14/04 08:53 PM, diazepim wrote: Don't you think war is necessary for change?

No, war is not nexessary for change, but change is necessary for war.

So therefore, I think everyone can agree that war is not necessary a good thing or a bad thing, rather, I agree with you... a profound thing.

War is a bad thing. People die in the act of war, however, the ends sometimes justify the means.

[karasz]

just sitting here reading this thread and it dawned on me...

this entire thread is about semantics (what a word means)

when it comes right down to it

world war 1= a basically EUROPEAN war with a few of the americas and asian nations...

it destroyed an entire generation, mainly cuz the young leaders had the idea of how great winning a battle will be so they took their men and ran right into the bullets of the awaiting sides...

world war 2= EUROPE, ASIA not to mention Africa, and the americas...

WW2 was fought throught the entire world... give or take certain areas

also what about the Napoleanic Wars? the ones against Napolean? Aren't those WORLD WARS in the sense that the strong nations fought in them?

which is why im pretty sure they are called WORLD wars and not just regional wars with some help...

so lets see,
world war 1= Napoleanic
world war 2= great war
world war 3= Hitler
world war 4= cold war
world war 5= war on terror

does anyone else see a pattern???

and by the way who really cares whether a world war lives up to its name? it does, its a war... a firing of a single bullet and the death of another human being should not be something we just lump together... but then again this is the politics forum, and to be true politicians we shouldnt care about the names of those dead, just so long as we can use them for our purposes and be done with them...

god i hate politics

[diazepim]

At 1/15/04 02:53 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

War is a bad thing. People die in the act of war, however, the ends sometimes justify the means.

People die everyday!!! Millions die... and millions are born everyday.... War is just a tiny fraction of the cause of death.

What better way to die than in war... it's a lot funner way to die... get shot by a bullet... than wasted away by cancer... it's a better way to die... get blown up by a cruise missile, than mauled by a rabid dog...
It's a faster way to dies... vaporized by a nuclear bomb, then fighting pneumonia on a hospital bed.

And by god, it's the way I'd rather go... playing US vs Terrorist.... fighting with swords like a gladiator... then clinging onto your bedpan having your nursing home attendant leaving you dying away on your own diarrhea for a week...

Fuck dying... It's declare WAR!!!!!

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/15/04 08:50 PM, diazepim wrote: What better way to die than in war... it's a lot funner way to die... get shot by a bullet... than wasted away by cancer... it's a better way to die... get blown up by a cruise missile, than mauled by a rabid dog...

Or maybe you could SURVIVE war, and come back with memories of your friends being shot. Or maybe you could get shot in the shoulder, and not be able to use your arm for the rest of your life. Everything is slow and painful.