What is Digg?172 Comments
- Andechs, on 10/12/2007, -28/+142Yeah for me its not a World War until France surrenders.
- ViceVirtue, on 10/12/2007, -4/+61World War I was well underway before the U.S.A. joined in (they joined in in 1918)...
Also, I'm no historian; but didn't the U.S.A. only enter WWII after they got bombed in Pearl Harbour (1941).
The U.S.A. doesn't have to be heavily involved for a war to be a "world war" - antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29I think it's far from WWIII, however this is a serious conflict. What happens in the Middle East affects the whole world, not just financially but in terms of survival (everyone has nukes with their finger hovering over the button).
In theory, a body like the UN could go in there and speak for the world. But the UN is probably more corrupt that most people realize. This is a sad and dangerous situation.
There is a time bomb waiting to go off and we need to be ready. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I predict that you're annoying at parties...
- bumuser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25ViceVirtue - I thought we got involved in WWII on the European Front when a German U-boat sank a civilian passenger ship on it's way to England. We didn't get involved in the Pacific until Perl Harbor. In fact, we got involved in the Spanish-American war over the sinking of a ship, as well as Vietnam. I would say, the Americans aren't going to get involved until a ship sinks.
- shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -24/+44"Its not a world war until the USA actually bothers to get involved..."
how very US centric, how long can you guys ignore the rest of the world? - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18In order for it to be WWIII, in my opinion, we would have to invade Syria, in which case Iran would take advantage of the lack-of-anymore-US-troops-situation and attack Israel, and then we'd have to decide to send ground troops into Iran (as opposed to having tactical aerial strikes) which would require a draft. Then China might do something nuts, and North Korea would then test a nuclear bomb using Chinese technology.
THAT would be the start of WWIII.
Oh, and regarding the UN statements above -- the UN is far more useless and indecisive than it is corrupt. - Irimi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23This is a matter of social perception, you know.
- arizonagroove, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26"Yeah for me its not a World War until France surrenders."
When ever I see/hear Americans making negative comments about the French I always wonder if they are aware that France fought on the side of the USA in the American War of Independence or that the Statue of Liberty was a present from France.
Times change I guess. - theOster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21"how long can you guys ignore the rest of the world?"
you'd be surprised... - caffiend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16That ship was WWI, not WWII and it was the RMS Lusitania. It WAS carrying ammunition and it even had gun turret rings built into the ship but of course didn't have the guns installed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@mictester
Did you ever stop to think that a typical US citizen can travel 3000 miles in any direction and not need a passport?
Try that in Europe. - kaboegel, on 10/12/2007, -16/+29the old evil "dictators" against the good old 'democratic' US of A!!!
the problem this world has is that wankers like that Gingrich viewing the world as they do.
The West has been pillaging and using every single country you can imagine for centuries now. Manipulating and extorting, illigal wars and dodgy dealing, anything for power and greed..
..and then they complain if they get hit back. They know damn well why al this is happening in the world, they just chose to keep up the facade and spoon the 'good against evil' crap in every willing mouth. And unfortunately there's a lot of willing mouths.
Fascists wankers - JediMstr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14If you include more than just the Israeli & Hezbollah conflict, it starts looking more like a World War. If you include Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, and the new Somali/Ethiopian conflicts, and role it into the "Global War on Terror" and the various "Coalition of Nations", then you have what amounts to the beginnings of what later generations would consider a World War. It's already more extensive than the beginnings of WWII and the invasion of Poland.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election. The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense. Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction. In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause."
-John Titor in 2000 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14'This war against terror has in fact only been fought by Americans'???
Er... perhaps you should tell that to the English, Australians, Koreans, Germans, French, Swiss, New Zealanders, Japanese... and many others... they might well wonder what their troops have been doing if they weren't doing what they thought they were doing. - repins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15We will never have another World War, they will now be referred to as Global Conflicts.
We have too many wars already
- War on Drugs
- War on Poverty
- War on Illiteracy
- War on - coleman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12i think this could all be settled by sack races on consecutive sundays until a clear winner is defined
- texnofobix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Yeah, that ship you speak of had ammunition on it along with civilians.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10uh...July 23 was 3 days ago.
- chase001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10When did Newt and Pat Buchanan become the voices of reason in the Republican party?
- fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"How can you reason with people who have been brainwashed since they were toddlers that blowing themselves up yields 72 virgins?"
You can't. I also fear that fighting a war against an army of such individuals will carry costs to the free world far greater than you and I can imagine. In fact I suspect we will lose against such an army despite our firepower because we will be fighting in their homeland. An all out war with radical Islam will be a losing proposition until the members of our army are as irreconcilably single minded as a terrorist and that will take more than a generation to create from free thinking people. And if we somehow accomplish that, haven’t we just destroyed the free world that we set out to defend?
The question that I am struggling with is: Is there already an ARMY of people who have been brainwashed since they were toddlers that blowing themselves up yields 72 virgins? Yes there is Hezbollah and many other organizations that I think qualify as militias but do they amount to a unified army? I don't think so; at least not yet. I am against the Bush administrations war on terror because it is not trying to keep these groups from coming together united under a common flag. So far, its seems to that the so called ‘war on terror’ is doing the exact opposite, creating a unified army of Islamic radicals.
But hey, I could be wrong. Iraq could somehow sort itself out someday and Israel could destroy all of the Hezbollah rockets without creating that larger problem of anti-western sentiment but it just doesn’t look like that is going to happen. - goldenbb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Their war" was Vietnam and they lost.
- RickySan65, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8'This war against terror has in fact only been fought by Americans'???
Hmm, if they do/did why did they need Dutch commando's to kill 18 taliban folk that they (the us) were unable to find? - baltimoretim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It's not hard at all to play "pin the homicidal conflict on the religion". Save Buddhists (maybe?), I think we could probably come up with a violent campaign organized by radical adherents to most of the major world religions.
Demonizing people other than those like you abstracts the issues to a degree where they become impossible to resolve. I think that this conflict in Israel and Palestine is much less about ideological purity ("the State of Israel must not exist; we will push the Jews into the sea!") and more about land, water, jobs, and other day-to-day resources. This not so much about Mohammed's "demonic visions" (nice Satanic Verses reference, by the way). The people who flew airplanes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field sis not "hate us for our freedom." They were motivated not by an idea, but by a reaction to years of American bungling in central Asia and the Middle East.
Creating a master narrative (there's a massive, secret, 700-year old plot and war to kill us all!) is awfully self-centered. It's got a certain paranoid charm, but that's all. - iplayyouandme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No, religion plays a part. But if you’re implying that Islam is the sole problem, then I think you got it all wrong. The conflict between religious beliefs has always been a destructive force in the world and they all have blood on their hands; saints and sinners all.
The root of the conflict in the middle-east stems from decades of foreign occupation by western powers, decades of cold war power politics, the creation of the state of Israel, politics of oil, and old fashion power & corruption. It's a complicated problem, but we've dirtied our hands in it just like everyone else. Acting like we're always the saints and their the evil sinners is going to get us nowhere. - goldenbb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I think portraying what is happening has the fall of Rome is much closer to the truth.
What can stop it? Shuffle the Baby Boomers off to their just deserves and out of power and change US foreign policy. - z3rgRush, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Is this WW3? NO.
So why do people want to market the conflict as WW3? Yes, you read it right, MARKET a war.
Marketing a war as WW3 would have great benefits in today's world of commerce. Imagine how many people will freak out and will gladly install security systems. Or obey to any other offer that floats on the market.
HEY IT'S WW3!! THE END IS NIGH!! SPEND YOUR MONEY -HERE- and -HERE- and -HERE-.
Oh, and let's not forget the political changes. Certain laws will pass MUCH quicker. Extreme right-wing will be in the winning-team. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9While I do agree that a lot of 'nations' are involved. N. Korea still has not done anything deliberate in the mid-east to consider them in the idea of a world war. Additionally for it to truly be a war, it has to be between nations (sovereign or recently declared), not petty militant groups. I believe it would be more appropriate to call it a mass regional destabilization than an all out blatant war. Now if Lebanon were to mobilize its army and start attacking Israel, THEN it would be a war. Until then, its just a massive conflict between the militant group Hezbollah and the nation of Israel.
- skaughtm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@Andechs
i bet you were watching CNN the other day where they showed a reply in their forums that said exactly what you just said. - myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@shrewduser
Interesting comment considering that that's just what the US was doing during WWII before Pearl Harbor.
Edit: Beat me to it, vice. - gfdsa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@masamunecyrus
"THAT would be the start of WWIII. "
Actually, that will be the very end of WWIII, a very quick one - RyanChappell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Still cleaning up the Clintons mess, 8 years of weak foriegn policy, and cruise missle diplomacy!
- Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I have a solution to all wars.
Liquidate MrTbag and his equivalents on both sides.
Peace will reign.
Come on, you know it's true. - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The dangers are kind of hidden right now. Russia really wants Syria's ports. They invested hugely in them. Wich means anyone messes with Syria, they mess with Russia. Iran is supplying China with oil, mess with Iran, your messing with China.
That's what makes the whole area dangerous. it's a tiny little pressure cooker of death. One rocket gets out of bounds and whoever you hit is go nuts and retaliate massively. Wich gives whoever fired the rocket no choice but to fight back. Then the big brothers start getting involved because they have this interest or that in a particular country. It's an ugly line of domino's. - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Egg-on-a-spoon races would be set up in the event of a tie.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4im glad i moved to the boonies.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So, sinisterkungfu, care to actually refute anything he says, or are you only good for hurling insults?
- myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Slink, bitcloud
Be careful what you wish for *cough*Hillary*hack* - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"There exists a religious totalitarian ideology that seeks complete global domination as its entire purpose for the religon."
Alas, only in your fevered mind. - nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31) Slavery
2) Communism
3) "tear down this wall" - jefree, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9It is not WWIII. It is a fall of Rome type scenario over the next 100 years though. Doesn't mean the USA is going to get nicer. The dark ages of technology enforced by Orwellian type government is right around the corner, which will all go forward based on preventing WWIII. That is truly scary and Newt is one of the harbingers of that.
- cadavreexquis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No conflict is magically self-contained. No conflict is "their" conflict. Instability in one part of the world always affects the rest of us.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It all comes down to defeat vs. occupy. We could easily defeat Iran occupying it as a police force like currently in Iraq is another question though.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@masamunecyrus
Carful about that "lack of any more troops" situation. That's a myth perpetuated by leftists to bring up fear of the draft in young voters. We have plenty of troops available.
In any case, we wouldn't need many troops to destroy Iran. I doubt they'd ever face us with their "sea of blood" army, but let's say they actually did engage in a ground war... I'm guessing we could put 100,000 of ours against 1,000,000 of theirs and all we'd have to worry about is running out of ammo while killing them in the most humane way possible. - munderwood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@nixfu...
"This isn't World War III or World War IV. This is World War I"
Just a wild guess: you wouldn't happen to be, er, American, would you?
I can't envisage *anyone* else taking such a simplistic view.
Of course, I apologise if you're not American, and are just ignorant.... - dannylewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'll believe it when I see it. Hey, what's that blinding flash of light outside?
- grendelwraith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Amazing how easy it is for you to hate your fellow Americans.
And liberals are the ones being called traitors.
So when is Hate week? - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3lol, a draft and producing arms. How quaint.
If the US has to usurp manufacturing to make more weapons, we're all dead. We have the firepower to destroy the planet sitting in silo's right now. With half again as much sitting in reserve. (And that's just the US, the nuclear club ain't so exclusive anymore)
If the US has to institute a draft, it's because our leaders have managed to turn the country into a dictatorship. We have a standing army capable of taking on any threat on the planet, if used correctly. And that's not even considering what our airforce would leave of a country should we decide to invade.
World war 3 won't be a grand battle of grim determination. It will be a flash of death, for the lucky ones. The not so lucky will take longer to die. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's almost as if those who play the "conspiracy theory" card would have you believe that conspiracy doesn't exist.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is