Reply With Quote
For it to be a world war, doesn't more than 1 nation have to be involved?
...we don't even have to argue over the merits of this commentary; but, if you want a sober view of the President's supporters on the current war on terrorism (World War IV) and the Bush Doctrine, you won't find a better article than this one:
THE WAR AGAINST WWIV
For it to be a world war, doesn't more than 1 nation have to be involved?
Suit yourself Scott! How bout the nation of "terrorists"? They're just like Santa Claus. They're everywhere....They're everywhere!
The coalition of the willing vs. global terrorism in at least 104 countries and counting. I'd say it's a World War.
How about the nation of drug dealers? Shouldn't the War on Drugs be WW4?How bout the nation of "terrorists"?
How many times did you count Poland?The coalition of the willing vs. global terrorism in at least 104 countries and counting. I'd say it's a World War.
I wasn't talking about the number of nations in the coalition but, the number of nations (including the U.S.) in which terrorists are found and being engaged in one manner or another.
Scott, you're seem much brighter on some occassions than others. If you do drugs, decide when it is that you're most reasonable and then, quit or increase your dosage accordingly.
"WWIV" is nothing more than a propoganda scare tactic. If we are going to label The Nations of the World vs. Non-Nations as wars, then we should be at WW43243. We don't want to forget the War on Hunger, the War on AIDS, the War on Poverty, the War on Crime, the War on Illiteracy, and so forth and so on.I wasn't talking about the number of nations in the coalition but, the number of nations (including the U.S.) in which terrorists are found and being engaged in one manner or another.
If you want to call it the War on Terror, then please, be my guest. But when Politicians and media alike decide to come up with cute acronyms in order to drum up support and/or fear, then it gets to be a little much.
Now excuse me, I have to get back to The War on Tetris.
..
Yoni = Red-Stated WARbler.
There have always been people seeking to overthrow their governments, often violently. I'm not sure how this qualifies as a new world war, it has always been that way. If there is any difference, it is the potential threat of WMDs.
I don't know that I would call it a "world war" like the ones 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 involving multiple nations in theaters around the globe.
But this is a conflict against a worldwide Islamic insurgency bent on nothing less than conquest and conversion of as much of the world as they can get. Right now it is in its infancy, and U.S. leadership has gambled that taking major pre-emptive action to undermine it will do more good than harm.
The writer of that article appears much more hawkish than George Bush. While there are military options with Iran and North Korea, they pretty much involve annihilating those respective countries rather than restructuring them a la Iraq, and I hardly see cause to do so pre-emptively. If you have to go utterly scorched earth, wait until it is absolutely necessary.
If that's the best article on the subject then this subject is ridiculous.
Anything to try to save Bush's stupid ass decisions.
will read it later, haven't had time yet today.
"Anything to try to save Bush's stupid ass decisions." ...........................................See, now, you were doing just fine till you made this "stupid" statement. You just showed your "stupid ass".
Stupid is as stupid does.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
