What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
128 Comments
- karlthebug, on 10/12/2007, -11/+66I have to agree that we are "locked in a struggle to maintain our way of life" - problem is the struggle is happening here, not overseas. Our government is spying on us, our media lying to us, extremist groups control the debate on every subject. Just look around this site - people who have access to all the information available online are still incapable of describing their beliefs without repeating rhetoric from their favorite news commentators.
I would hope to god you aren't suggesting that our entire way of life is based on keeping our cars running, because that IS what our involvement in the middle east is about. - GregoryHarbin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+52You forgot Poland.
- Butros, on 10/12/2007, -12/+58The cold war was not world war 3. This is not world war 3. When they pass out the ration stamps and start the draft up, then maybe we can consider calling it something else.
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46Just for the sake of discussing what qualifies as a world war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war
- cobaltgrc, on 10/12/2007, -13/+46For the last time, folks. Cold War = Cold War. World War 3 = Hasn't happened yet. Get with the program.
- kodak543, on 10/12/2007, -12/+43This is NOT world war 3. Its a Arab-Israeli-American War . It doesnt involve any countries from East Asia, Africa, Europe, South America, and 2/3 of North America
- saska, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29And by those standards, no, it isn't a world war.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29The Cold War was an extension of WWII. The time line for the "Cold War" overlaps WWII by four year while Russia and the US raced to gain as much of Europe and Asia and the race for nuclear weapons. We used two nukes on Japan not to end the war fast but to prevent Russia from taking Japan and to show case our power.
- GregoryHarbin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28Gingrich is exactly right...as soon as the alarmists in the White House start calling this a World War, it will be easier for them to take extreme action that is completely unnecessary.
He even admits that this is like what Lincoln did during the Confederate Revolution.
Bravo for Republican consistency, I guess... - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Yes. Because anything that is not RNC propaganda MUST be DNC propaganda and vice versa.
- nstanosheck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Islam has not existed for 2000 years. That is Christianity. Mohammad founded Islam, the Muslim religion in the 7th century A.D.
- Ryland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19A world war (or at least a successful public relations campaign that sells the idea of a world war) would be the best thing that could happen to Republicans going into the midterm elections, it's basically the only thing that would keep them in a majority, keeping people paralyzed with fear and making "conservative" decisions. All they have to do is point to Israel and say, "That's what will happen to us if we don't defend our way of life from these terrorists," and the sheep will fall in line and vote, just as they stampeded to the polls to vote against gay marriage in 2004.
- MajorDad1984, on 10/12/2007, -50/+65I'm not sure I agree with Newt's arithmetic. I would remind him that we fought a "cold war" for a little more than four decades before our adversary just realized he couldn't keep up with us....and so away with the Iron Curtain.
I do agree that when we as a nation decide to deal with the current military operations and those that might prove necessary in the next few years as what I'd call WW IV. If you don't believe that we are indeed locked in a struggle to maintain our way of life...I feel sorry for you...and hope that you'll be spared when the revolution comes.
See you on the high ground.
MajorDad1984 - eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I think its no coincidence that the 3 religions that were spawned by Abraham are involved in a lot of conflict, if you believe something to be the ultimate truth you're not exactly open to much compromise, I wonder have the Buddhists or the Taoists ever been involved in this much violence ?
- karlthebug, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20"You forget the cold, deadly hands of Red China hard at work in the shadows arming psychotic Islamo-fascists and stirring up trouble for the west."
Oh man, I hope to god you are joking. I mean, you do realize that it was the US who armed the Taliban in Afganistan to fight the Russians during the cold war? I'm sure the Chinese are indeed "stirring up trouble" for the west, but believe me we have stirred that pot quite well enough on our own the last half-century. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+27You forget the cold, deadly hands of Red China hard at work in the shadows arming psychotic Islamo-fascists and stirring up trouble for the west.
- swingsetmaifa88, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15well i don't think that is world war 3 just yet. i think that we are setting the stage for the next world war. it seems like soon the whole middle east will be locked in war. also nobody knows what north Korea is going to do over in Asia but they aren't backing down that for sure. all i know is that i can see things getting worse and worse as time goes on. and it just a matter of time before everybody gets dragged into it.
- Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20So I take it the fact that the EU, UN, and all of the countries in NATO have taken sides still means that they're not involved? (Not to mention the fact that several of them are already involved in Iraq & Afganistan)
oh, and for the record, Canada has sided with the the US, UK, and Germany. Mexico is the only N. American Country not to take a side (yet). - markab, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Didn't Orwell in his book 1984 warn of such mongering tactics that the governments would use to scare us into keeping them in power? How can we be so blind to take everything that these people are saying with a smile and vote.
People, something has to change for the world to change.. and our current administration isn't doing anything but making our lives LESS secure and safe. The next elections won't get here soon enough. A huge red flag that some of the greatest minds in our time are worried how we are going to survive as a race over the next 100 years.
I am very scared for my children. - GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13The Atheists aren't the ones advancing this war. So they weren't part of the original comment, smart ass.
And "reconciledthief" You know what I mean. Not to mention that this particular bit of lineage is not false.
Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, From their offspring the Jewish and Muslim religions were born. And again, Christians spawned from Jews.
So the original statement that Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all originally of the same Deity is a completely True statement.
Thus let me reiterate: Stop ***** Killin Each Other. - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Mirunit, you *do* know that, according to the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are not infidels, but rather "people of the book", who are to be treated with respect as long as they are righteous, right? (This also includes the Sabians, of whom Mohammed may have been, but no one remembers them...)
I'm not saying that this is how it's perceived nowadays, but that's what happens when extremists hijack a religion - you know, like red-staters have done with Christianity. (Hint: Christ said "love your enemy", not "blow him up to bits"...) - Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23World War 3? I don't think so. It just seems like another flare-up in a war in the middle east that's been going on for hundreds of years. Sure, there are some other things to worry about, such as the suicide bombing in Pakistan and N. Korea's missiles, but what's new? There will always be a threat, but from my perspective these threats don't really threaten the whole world. Now, if things are not handled properly, it could turn into something really bad, but for right now I don't see that a whole lot has changed
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15This isn't World War III so much as it's Persian Gulf 2. I think they just want to use "World War III" as a buzzword to give this war more credibility, which it doesn't have any of. There are not enough world players and conflicts to call this WW3.
I think that Pirates of the Caribbean and Spider-Man has caused sequel frenzy in DC. Let's stop worrying about buzzwords and start healing some wounds, eh? - GraceMolloy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13---------------
As was the entire western heimsphere (north and south America).
---------------
Pearl Harbor?
I will grant you mainland. - GreatGrizzly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@GraceMolloy
Actually, the Japs did attack the Main land. They actually landed in Alaska, and bombed northern Oregon, in an attempt to start wildfires. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12There won't be any WW3. It is a diversion and part of the Neocons' strategy. The goal is to attack the terrorist groups while the presence of US troops in Iraq keep the sponsors in check. If Saddam had still been around, Israel could have never gotten away with what it is about to try.
Some of you didn't believe that Iraq was invaded partly on Israel's behalf. In coming days, you will have no doubt of this.
What I don't understand is why Bush has never publically criticized Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for 9/11. They're the ones who did it. I guess it's because of the oil and nukes. - natterca, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15From TFA:
Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republican's facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.
Yeah. Nothing like fear-mongering and jingoistic politics to unite the country under the glorious ***** of George W. Bush. Fsck sakes, maybe if there's a war George can call emergency powers and suspend elections. - Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@jamessavik :
China has it's own Islamic extremist problems. China has a very large Muslim minority who have been in China for many centuries. The Muslim terrorists in Xinjiang have been causing problems for China for some time now. China is in the same situation Russia is in. America is fortunate that our Islam extremist problems are not found inside our own population. - Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Where were you two weeks ago?
- strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21Newt Gingrich is a warmonger.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16World War 2 was primarily fought in Europe and East-Asia. Does that mean that wasn't a world war either? I mean, most of Africa was untouched. As was the entire western heimsphere (north and south America). Most of Asia was completely untouched, except for the South-Pacific and East Asian areas immediately around Japan. Not a "world" war then?
In contrast, terrorism is a global phenomenon. Specifically, Islamic terrorism. They have struck all over Europe, all over Africa (most notably, Kenya), North America... and they will only expand their areas of operation. Not a world war?
I'm sure all lthe countries that have had Islamic terrorist attacks will disagree with your notion that "it doesn't involve any countries from Africa, Europe, bla bla bla" - natterca, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@pabster,
OK, I'll bite. I would like to see debate on:
1. The war in Iraq. There was no reason to do this. It wasn't fighting terrorism. The admin. should have kept the ball on Afghanistan and other truly rouge nations. More resources should have been spent working with other countries (such as Pakistan) to ferret out Taliban cells.
2. The economy. Remember the Clinton years? The USA was kicking ass economically. Btw, tax breaks at this time are irresponsible.
3. Eroding of America's privacy and freedoms. The scary nuts are in charge now. Anything can be justified by saying "it's fighting terrorism".
4. The incredibly divisive politics of Bush. It seems to me that his success relies on driving wedges between people - that's not a statesman.
5. Alienation of American allies. Being a Canuck, this is one of the sorer points from my perspective. Even Canada couldn't ally with the insane notion of going to war in Iraq. A more general debate as well on how much American "prestige" has been lost under Bush. Issues like Gitmo come to mind.
6. What is being done with regard to foreign competition? Why is America fighting trade rulings such as softwood lumber tariffs against Canadian lumber?
7. What is being done to better the quality of life for the average American? Does Bush have a health plan? An education plan? Does he even give a *****?
8. What about electoral or political reforms? It seems to me there isn't much democracy anymore when there are just two choices (rep./dem.) and both are so inured in lobbying and political corruption.
Btw, just because I'm not an American doesn't mean US politics aren't import to me. Keep in mind the USA is the only superpower left and its domestic issues affect everyone in the world. Yes, it's your decision, please make the right one. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11[quote]so away with the Iron Curtain.[/quote]
Away with the Iron Curtain and in with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Nothing has changed.
Except maybe the loss of Democracy in America. - jayc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7And I can fly. Good thing evidence is a requirement around here.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The "Cold War 2" concept is interesting, but in my opinion, the reason why this comparison comes to the fore is that the guys trying to understand this current conflict (ie. the ones whose job it is, the guys in the Bush administration/Pentagon/etc) grew up under a Cold War, started their careers under a Cold War and then successfully fought a Cold War.
That is to say, I think it's only a Cold War because that's the (only?) template that these guys understand and that's the template that they try to suggest to other people as a way of understanding and grasping the complexities of the situation. - CravenTwain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I agree with the posters who say that to call the "War on Terrorism" WW III is hyperbole.
However, George W Bush has already called the ongoing conflict "World War Three" several times, most recently in May 2006:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1632213.htm - mendosaprime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9This isn't World War 3 in the conventional sense, the other two have been massive standing armies of nation states battling it out. Now I'm highly skeptical of anything this man says, remember the "Newt Gingrich experiment," in Congress.
Current tensions in International Relations are made much worse by the media. This constant 24 hour glare upon things. Now i speak from a British standpoint here. The IRA tried to assassinate the government, killed many civilians, bombed many cities. Belfast in the late 70s and throughout the 80s was more like Baghdad is today. The media focus was no where the level of intensity it is today.
Yes the conflict in the Middle East is bad, but there has been conflict in the region for over 40 years now, this is nothing new. Violence of this type in India is common place after partition. Yet the way the Indian media handled the entire thing you would think 10,000 people had died and this was the first time India had been hit.
To many people the recent American military activity is a push for oil, a sizable percentage of people believe 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government (see the hijacked planes going above set G force rating news story. To see what I'm talking about).
It may be Oil, but in this day and age of the Internet and globalization, i personally feel these events are over hyped to draw people to newspapers, websites and TV News. To a level where the tiniest infractions are Breaking News and countless levels of "analysis,"
It's all just getting rather silly. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5OK dammit, that last comment was a tad nonsensical. It should have read:
Interesting strategy, you up the rhetoric - and thereby up the stakes. Nothing like visions of WWIII to plant the idea in people's minds that the American way of life is under threat (which BTW it isn't).
Anyway, even if it was WWIII (which is just a plumb ridiculous notion) I suspect most Americans will already be pretty aware of exactly who was responsible for dragging us into much of it with their half assed adventurism and that they will simply choose to vote accordingly.
Even if the President did declare the nation in a formal state of war, as well as being nothing but a blatant ploy, this would only serve to grant him even more extensive war time powers than he has assumed for himself now - which really, all things considered with the huge erosion in many Americans basic freedoms over this past 6 year period, is probably the last thing that the majority of Americans would want to agree to.
One other thing I thing that is worth noting is the way that most neocons and hard assed Republicans are supporting the idea that this is a 'real war.' It may be a real war in Iraq - but we know who was responsible for creating that. However elsewhere, in the supposed 'war on terror' you have to remember that the 'enemy' is nothing more than a relatively small band of backwards (almost stone age by comparison to us) Arabs, who no matter how many backpack bombs they let off, or even if they managed to pull of another 50 (or more) 9/11 type attacks, are still insignificant in every possible sense of the word in military terms. They are NOT a threat to the American way of life - not by a long way - and indeed the biggest threat to the American way of life is the American people themselves; if that is they allow themselves to give in to the 'terror' aspect of what it is that the terrorists are trying to achieve. (And in so doing grant their government sufficient power to put the way of life that they all claim to cherish so much at risk). As has been pointed out before, the real threat comes not from without the borders of the US, but from within - from those leaders we elect to protect us from those very things that they are now increasingly saying are necessary. - swingsetmaifa88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6seems likr they both are tossing missiles around already...that or they are giving them to other people to toss around.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Well there are european troops in the middle east, in limited numbers. China is arming the arabs with newer weapon technology, and Russia is threatening europe with oil supplies. Meanwhile NK is firing missles into the Sea of Japan while america fights the war in Iraq and hezbollah fires random rockets into israel and then israel attacks lebanon to combat hezbollah. There is conflict happening all over the world, remember the madrid train bombings, Indian train bombings, 7/7 attacks in london, and 9/11 in america.
- joelmole, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That's what I took away from this. What Gingrich advocates is that the administration use this language to convince Americans to fall into line and push America into the conflict with Isreal and Lebanon. It's the same sort of message they used to push America into the war in Iraq, and once again, it will be disastrous. In fact, it would be even more disastrous, as it will be a direct provocation to the muslim nations and I have no doubt they will strike out against us. In effect it will create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quoted:
He said the reluctance to put those pieces together and see one global conflict is hurting America's interests. He said people, including some in the Bush Administration, who urge a restrained response from Israel are wrong "because they haven't crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war."
"This is World War III," Gingrich said. And once that's accepted, he said calls for restraint would fall away:
"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."
There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?" - Katana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I remember reading somewhere that WW2 didn't officially end till Germany was reunited in the early 90's.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Interesting strategy, you up the rhetoric - and thereby up the stakes. Nothing like visions of WWIII to plant the idea in people's minds that the American way of life is under threat (which BTW it isn't).
Anyway, even if it was WWIII (which is just a plumb ridiculous notion) I suspect most Americans will already be pretty aware of exactly who was responsible for dragging us into much of it with their half assed adventurism and that they will simply choose to vote accordingly.
Even if the President did declare the nation in a formal state of war, as well as being nothing but a blatant ploy, this would only serve to grant him even more extensive war time powers than he has assumed for himself now - which really, all things considered with the huge erosion in many Americans basic freedoms over this past 6 year period, is probably the last thing that he would want to do. - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@mirunit: Do you think that stating war solved problems may be immoral from a philosophical standpoint?
I'm saying this because most people that are pro-peace are mostly well-educated in history, while many of them are historians, while those who think war is necessary sometimes are the ones who don't follow history as closely. I'm a bit in the middle but I'm pro-peace, I want to understand your standpoint without nationalistic prejudices or any political colorization if possible.
What if we take the pros and the cons and "weight" them. Maybe I'm not too smart but I've found that peace has a lot more advantages from war and I am mostly speaking about revolutionary technology which can change even how we conceive ourselves, like for example electricity, computers, Internet from the past and Virtual Reality or extended lifespans of the future. The first three technologies was maybe made for war purposes but they were glorified under a peaceful state, conversely the tech of the future which is even more revolutionary is being made under peaceful conditions, I find that technology progress a lot faster because of this much needed peace. I feel that a great war can potentially destroy anything good is going to be made. Just my too cents, - echosierratwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Good stuff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_United_States_territory_in_North_America_during_World_War_II#The_Battle_of_Los_Angeles
- chase001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Remember the good old days when Newt was as extreme right wing as it got?
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"He said the reluctance to put those pieces together and see one global conflict is hurting America's interests."
What he really means by "America's interests" is surely "the Republican Party's interests". His entire argument revolves around getting his party to win the fall elections, not on winning this perceived war. - LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@OBKenobi
Israel will always get away with what they want militarily, and rightfully so, they have as much right to defend themselves as we would for defending ourselves. They can hold their own too, they successfully fought off Syria, Iran, and Egypt in the 60's and 70's. That's one of the reason why the Palestinians, and all the other Arab countries dislike them being there, because they acquired a ton of land back then and kept it. I'm not saying this is the only reason, because there are certainly a lot of other reasons, but I think they should be doing exactly what they are doing. It's basically them saying "Stop blowing yourselves up in our cities, because we're here to stay." - strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's probably one of Karl Rove talking points. Most Americans view Word War one and two as "good wars" they want to associate their current imperialistic conflicts with these wars in the public's mind.
- fahrenheitlf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The title only matters for those whom base their position on simple things like titles (which makes propeganda easier).
-
Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is