I hope this doesn't get out of control; I'm hoping to have a honest discussion on this. I have heard some talkshow people starting to call the war on terror world war III and wonder how many of you agree with that? Now that Iran's actions are becoming more clear it appears that we are having a multiple country vs. multiple country war.. when does it become a world war?
War on Terror or WW III?
- Thread starter twenty711
- Start date
- Status
el44vaquero
Member
Why when the french surrender of course! 
Lone_Gunman
Member
I think we have entered a never-ending war. There will always be terrorists, and there is no way to ever have a final victory. There will always be people in this country who are afraid of the terrorists, and be willing to let the government do whatever is necessary to keep them safe.
A state of constant "war" will gradually allow the powers of the federal government to expand, and civil rights will continue to diminish. Americans will give up these rights not only willingly, but also cheerfully in the name of safety. Ultimately, this will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic, and we will become an empire.
This is not World War III. This will end our republic, and begin in the next dark ages.
A state of constant "war" will gradually allow the powers of the federal government to expand, and civil rights will continue to diminish. Americans will give up these rights not only willingly, but also cheerfully in the name of safety. Ultimately, this will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic, and we will become an empire.
This is not World War III. This will end our republic, and begin in the next dark ages.
10-Ring
Member
Let's see, we have an enemy whose mission it is to destroy all those who don't believe what they do...plain & simple. WWIII? 
Oh, yeah! 
Oh, yeah! lacoochee
Member
I voted WWIII but it's not really yet....
It's not WWIII yet, it more like 1935 when no one thought there would be a war and that Hitler was a relatively nice guy or at least not "our" problem. Just as in 1935 there is the peace at any cost crowd crowing about how we just need to understand our adversaries (Lamont's (of New Hampshire fame) father for example is a well known pacifist from this era). Ask this question after August 22nd, after we receive President Ahmadinejad's (I had to Google the spelling) reply to the UN resolution regarding Irans nuclear program, thing may be clearer then. I suspect our grandchildren will be completely floored by the fact that we didn't see this coming....
It's not WWIII yet, it more like 1935 when no one thought there would be a war and that Hitler was a relatively nice guy or at least not "our" problem. Just as in 1935 there is the peace at any cost crowd crowing about how we just need to understand our adversaries (Lamont's (of New Hampshire fame) father for example is a well known pacifist from this era). Ask this question after August 22nd, after we receive President Ahmadinejad's (I had to Google the spelling) reply to the UN resolution regarding Irans nuclear program, thing may be clearer then. I suspect our grandchildren will be completely floored by the fact that we didn't see this coming....
Kaylee
Member
Well, given that the "War on Terror" was a PC misnomer to start with.. I'd say the rumblings you're hearing are more than anything else folks finally feeling able to say what a whole lot of people are thinking.. that it's a war against a particular genocidal flavor of fundamentalist Islam.
Given that said nutjobs have been blowing up folks in Russian schools and theaters, Indian cities, English trains, Israeli pizza parlors, and of course US airliners.. I'd say yes, it qualifies as a world war. It's just taken some of us longer than others to realize we've been declared war on.
Given that said nutjobs have been blowing up folks in Russian schools and theaters, Indian cities, English trains, Israeli pizza parlors, and of course US airliners.. I'd say yes, it qualifies as a world war. It's just taken some of us longer than others to realize we've been declared war on.
Hezbollah has said it will not disarm, Lebanon said it will not disarm Hezbollah, the French general in charge of the UN forces said they will not disarm hezbollah .Same old , same old .Israel once more has not completed the job. bowing the pressure, so will continue to be a victim.
Smith357
Member
Iv'e been saying it's WWIII since 9/11. Make no mistake this enemy is engaged in a Holy War to turn the world into an Islamic theocracy.
"A state of constant "war" will gradually allow the powers of the federal government to expand, and civil rights will continue to diminish."
Name one "right" that has been legally lost since the GWOT.
"Ultimately, this will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic, and we will become an empire."
What will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic is the lack of unity, on every spectrum, that we have been heading into since the 60's. It is now perfectly acceptable not to be simply an "American", but a "insert whaterver stupid adjective you desire here" American. That's fine. If we give our culture and our country away, than we don't deserve it anyway.
Name one "right" that has been legally lost since the GWOT.
"Ultimately, this will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic, and we will become an empire."
What will cause our nation to cease to exist as a republic is the lack of unity, on every spectrum, that we have been heading into since the 60's. It is now perfectly acceptable not to be simply an "American", but a "insert whaterver stupid adjective you desire here" American. That's fine. If we give our culture and our country away, than we don't deserve it anyway.
This isn't just World War 3, it is a holy war.
Every few hundred years the Middle Eastern Moslems try to take over the Christian West. Usually by force of arms.
And every few hundred years they must be repelled.
The history on this is not exactly obscure or confusing.
This time, unfortunately, the Muslims have two new factors working in their favor:
1. They have planted their own 5th column of naturalized citizens within the countries of the West - with those countries' own collusion!
This 5th column desires nothing more than the destruction of their own adopted nation (check the opinion poll demographics on terrorist activity in the Western nations). This is taking non-assimillation one step beyond.
2. The majority of the West is now peopled by Godless heathen liberals, who, in a combination of misplaced generosity and condescending hubris are in the process of appeasing the religious army bent on their destruction.
Yes. World War 3 with a side of Crusades; except for the Democrat party, whose war seems to be primarily with Walmart.
G
Every few hundred years the Middle Eastern Moslems try to take over the Christian West. Usually by force of arms.
And every few hundred years they must be repelled.
The history on this is not exactly obscure or confusing.
This time, unfortunately, the Muslims have two new factors working in their favor:
1. They have planted their own 5th column of naturalized citizens within the countries of the West - with those countries' own collusion!
This 5th column desires nothing more than the destruction of their own adopted nation (check the opinion poll demographics on terrorist activity in the Western nations). This is taking non-assimillation one step beyond.
2. The majority of the West is now peopled by Godless heathen liberals, who, in a combination of misplaced generosity and condescending hubris are in the process of appeasing the religious army bent on their destruction.
Yes. World War 3 with a side of Crusades; except for the Democrat party, whose war seems to be primarily with Walmart.
G
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I Call It WWIII
While Iran and any other country supports the terrorists, it's WWIII. When Ahm-the-dean-of-jihad and friends become our allies, WWIII will be over and it will then be the war against terrorists.
Not to put too fine a point on things, but it is not a war on terror. It is a war against terrorists. It is no different than the war on drugs. It is a war against drug dealers and users. It can't be a war against crime, but it can be a war against criminals. You can't stop corruption, but you can stop the corrupt.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood
While Iran and any other country supports the terrorists, it's WWIII. When Ahm-the-dean-of-jihad and friends become our allies, WWIII will be over and it will then be the war against terrorists.
Not to put too fine a point on things, but it is not a war on terror. It is a war against terrorists. It is no different than the war on drugs. It is a war against drug dealers and users. It can't be a war against crime, but it can be a war against criminals. You can't stop corruption, but you can stop the corrupt.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood
anotherinkling
Member
Given the choices, I'll say WWIII but some have argued that it's probably WWIV. That's probably accurate. Time will tell. WWII was not referred to as such until '45 I believe.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
MrZ
Quite right, my friend. That is why I think I'll label myself as an "Absolute American". That is all the adjective I need, and I've got the arms to back it up.
Woody
"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood
Quite right, my friend. That is why I think I'll label myself as an "Absolute American". That is all the adjective I need, and I've got the arms to back it up.
Woody
"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood
MidnightRambler
Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2006
- Messages
- 74
Smith357 is right. This enemy may be the most formidable our nation has ever faced. Growing followings worldwide, people born in our own country with sympathies to their organizations. In the past enemies have been regional/national, such as Germany, Japan, etc, but this enemy is worldwide and has far more than national followings. It's only going to get worse too, far worse. You can't defeat ideas with bombs and guns. And that's what the Islamic followings are based on, ideas. Whether theological, cultural or whatever, they are ideas. And ideas extremely hostile to the West. This may be a conflict in which we cannot prevail.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Years ago I read a comment to the effect that people aren't happy with a situation unless they can put a label to it. Me, I don't see what difference it makes what we call it. WW III or WW IV if you think the Cold War was #3.
What I think I see, based on what's been publicly stated by those I consider to be Jihadists, is a sort of resumption of the expansion of Islam as in the early Middle Ages. The methodology is different; we don't have the screaming hordes on horseback with scimitars. What we have is this:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1183
There are other apparently worthwhile analyses at the Journal; I've not read all of them...
Art
What I think I see, based on what's been publicly stated by those I consider to be Jihadists, is a sort of resumption of the expansion of Islam as in the early Middle Ages. The methodology is different; we don't have the screaming hordes on horseback with scimitars. What we have is this:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1183
There are other apparently worthwhile analyses at the Journal; I've not read all of them...
Art
Autolycus
Member
It is going to be the war on Civil Liberties for those of us here in the USA. Patriot Act soon we will be disarmed and then we will be living under a big brother government. The tragic events of 9/11 are being exploited.
Think about it? We had Saudi Arabians fly the plane not Iraqi. Yet we (with the senate and house agreeing to it) went and attacked Iraq. We should have gone after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and focused on that. But we decided to go for an oil rich area and take over a country which had not been involved in the War On Terror.
The War on Terror has no clear definition of an enemy. We just know that they are terrorists yet we have no real definate information about them. The people who are fighting in Iraq are insurgents and not terrorists (I would call them guerillas). I am not saying they are good people or not but that they are not currently attacking the United States so we cannot call them terrorists.
The Al Quaeda organization that caused 9/11 is a terrorist group and not insurgent guerillas. They are who we should be after along with their financiers in Saudi Arabia. Yet we are not in Saudi? Why is this?
I chose not to vote because it is neither. It would be closer to a War on Terror in my book. Just that terror is not clearly defined.
Think about it? We had Saudi Arabians fly the plane not Iraqi. Yet we (with the senate and house agreeing to it) went and attacked Iraq. We should have gone after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and focused on that. But we decided to go for an oil rich area and take over a country which had not been involved in the War On Terror.
The War on Terror has no clear definition of an enemy. We just know that they are terrorists yet we have no real definate information about them. The people who are fighting in Iraq are insurgents and not terrorists (I would call them guerillas). I am not saying they are good people or not but that they are not currently attacking the United States so we cannot call them terrorists.
The Al Quaeda organization that caused 9/11 is a terrorist group and not insurgent guerillas. They are who we should be after along with their financiers in Saudi Arabia. Yet we are not in Saudi? Why is this?
I chose not to vote because it is neither. It would be closer to a War on Terror in my book. Just that terror is not clearly defined.
scout26
Member
Art,
Reading that article you posted makes me think that my son (and/or grandson) will have to fight for the same ground that my father fought for in WWII and that I defended from the Russian hordes during the Cold War.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it - Jorge Santayana.
Which is funny in way, as it took the Spanish quite a while to finally kick the Moors out. and the direct Muslim invasion in the 1500-1600's is the primary reason for all the recent unpleasantness in the Balkins.
Europeans seem to have rather short memories.
Reading that article you posted makes me think that my son (and/or grandson) will have to fight for the same ground that my father fought for in WWII and that I defended from the Russian hordes during the Cold War.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it - Jorge Santayana.
Which is funny in way, as it took the Spanish quite a while to finally kick the Moors out. and the direct Muslim invasion in the 1500-1600's is the primary reason for all the recent unpleasantness in the Balkins.
Europeans seem to have rather short memories.
Monkeyleg
Member.
We've been at war with terrorist armies since our surrender in VietNam.
It doesn't matter one bit whether the soldiers in these armies wear uniforms or not. They're still soldiers, whose job it is to kill whatever enemy their leaders tell them to. And they use unconventional tactics, the same way that special forces groups from "respectable" nations have used.
The groups we are fighting want the same thing that the Japanese, the Nazi's, the Italian fascists, the Soviets, and other enemies wanted: more control, more land, more valuable natural resources, and the elimination of any country that would stand in their way.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why some try to make a distinction between the soldiers of groups like Hezbollah and members of the SS. Is it that the SS had such snappy uniforms?
This is not "the war on drugs," or "the war on poverty," or any other government-proclaimed "war" on some social issue.
This is real war, with real bombs, real enemies, real dead people, and real consequences.
It's also a war with a clear end-game: disable the enemy's ability to fight.
The problem is that there are far too many people in the US who think this is some sort of social issue and that, if we somehow can set up a government program to deal with the "disenfranchised youths" in the affected ME countries, we can achieve the same sort of success that we've shown in dealing with gang violence, poverty, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, and other societal problems that have plagued the US for some forty years.
This is NOT an issue for police officers or social workers or psychotherapists.
It's an issue for our soldiers, and we ought to let them do what they've been trained to do best: kill the enemy, and destroy anything that's in their way.
This is WWIII. The longer the politicians allow it to be addressed as some sort of social issue, the more Americans, Brits, Spanish, French, Italians, and citizens of other countries will be slaughtered.
We lost the war in VietNam on the very day that we won it, when Walter Cronkite convinced Americans that the Tet offensive that we had won had been lost. I hope there's a special place in Hell for Cronkite, because his message cost the lives of millions.
I've never served my country by wearing a uniform. I've never been shot at. I've never seen one of my friends cut down in battle. I've never had to make the sacrifices that so many guys I know had to make.
But I know this with absolute certainty: we are at peace with the countries that were formerly our most despised enemies. With the possible future exception of China, we are not threatened by any nation or group of nations.
Except the Middle East.
Some say that it's not possible to bring some form of self-government to "these people," because they're not capable of self-government. They're accustomed to tyrants, kings, princes, and all other sorts of deities.
Really?
The same was said about Germany, Italy, and Japan.
And some would even say the same about African-Americans in the US today.
Compared to the world I was born into in 1950, things are pretty quiet. The only exception is the Middle East.
We have an opportunity now to perhaps bring about the peaceful world that so many of my generation thought could be achieved by merely lighting candles or singing Pepsi-cola songs.
The price for that opportunity will be paid with the lives of young US men and women who believe in what they are doing.
Those who take a long-term view of international issues will recognize the end-game, and give solemn thanks to the young men and women who sacrificed their lives to achieve that worthy goal.
Those who only look at the short term goals will likewise give thanks to those same servicemen and servicewomen, but will do to our country what Walter Cronkite did.
It doesn't matter one bit whether the soldiers in these armies wear uniforms or not. They're still soldiers, whose job it is to kill whatever enemy their leaders tell them to. And they use unconventional tactics, the same way that special forces groups from "respectable" nations have used.
The groups we are fighting want the same thing that the Japanese, the Nazi's, the Italian fascists, the Soviets, and other enemies wanted: more control, more land, more valuable natural resources, and the elimination of any country that would stand in their way.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why some try to make a distinction between the soldiers of groups like Hezbollah and members of the SS. Is it that the SS had such snappy uniforms?
This is not "the war on drugs," or "the war on poverty," or any other government-proclaimed "war" on some social issue.
This is real war, with real bombs, real enemies, real dead people, and real consequences.
It's also a war with a clear end-game: disable the enemy's ability to fight.
The problem is that there are far too many people in the US who think this is some sort of social issue and that, if we somehow can set up a government program to deal with the "disenfranchised youths" in the affected ME countries, we can achieve the same sort of success that we've shown in dealing with gang violence, poverty, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, and other societal problems that have plagued the US for some forty years.
This is NOT an issue for police officers or social workers or psychotherapists.
It's an issue for our soldiers, and we ought to let them do what they've been trained to do best: kill the enemy, and destroy anything that's in their way.
This is WWIII. The longer the politicians allow it to be addressed as some sort of social issue, the more Americans, Brits, Spanish, French, Italians, and citizens of other countries will be slaughtered.
We lost the war in VietNam on the very day that we won it, when Walter Cronkite convinced Americans that the Tet offensive that we had won had been lost. I hope there's a special place in Hell for Cronkite, because his message cost the lives of millions.
I've never served my country by wearing a uniform. I've never been shot at. I've never seen one of my friends cut down in battle. I've never had to make the sacrifices that so many guys I know had to make.
But I know this with absolute certainty: we are at peace with the countries that were formerly our most despised enemies. With the possible future exception of China, we are not threatened by any nation or group of nations.
Except the Middle East.
Some say that it's not possible to bring some form of self-government to "these people," because they're not capable of self-government. They're accustomed to tyrants, kings, princes, and all other sorts of deities.
Really?
The same was said about Germany, Italy, and Japan.
And some would even say the same about African-Americans in the US today.
Compared to the world I was born into in 1950, things are pretty quiet. The only exception is the Middle East.
We have an opportunity now to perhaps bring about the peaceful world that so many of my generation thought could be achieved by merely lighting candles or singing Pepsi-cola songs.
The price for that opportunity will be paid with the lives of young US men and women who believe in what they are doing.
Those who take a long-term view of international issues will recognize the end-game, and give solemn thanks to the young men and women who sacrificed their lives to achieve that worthy goal.
Those who only look at the short term goals will likewise give thanks to those same servicemen and servicewomen, but will do to our country what Walter Cronkite did.
Lupinus
Member
I think it is the build it to WW3. Not there yet but in the opening stages
WW3 will take a large attack by the muslims on a Western target. Large as is a nuke or some such that even the Frenchies will have a hard time not condeming.
What I hope for though is WW3 will mean unleashing on the enemy, and not more of the same crap we are seeing now. IE half assed attacks telling the dog to attack yet at the same time keeping it on a tight leash and scorning it every time it so much as hints at not playing nice, as well as infrindging on the people on the home front.
WW3 will take a large attack by the muslims on a Western target. Large as is a nuke or some such that even the Frenchies will have a hard time not condeming.
What I hope for though is WW3 will mean unleashing on the enemy, and not more of the same crap we are seeing now. IE half assed attacks telling the dog to attack yet at the same time keeping it on a tight leash and scorning it every time it so much as hints at not playing nice, as well as infrindging on the people on the home front.
115grfmj
Member
It isn't a war until we need to liberate france.
JBusch8899
member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Messages
- 98
Unfortunately, any local military conflict that occurs is a global
conflict.
Its also unfortunate that this country still has enough Jimmy Carter types without the gahoonies to face reality enough to realize that the only way to save lives and property, is to attack the enemy without regard to anything but victory.
It seems that many in this country are more intent upon not losing "friends" than saving American lives.
So before this war on terror becomes a true global conflict, I would urge our leaders to finish the job as General George Patton would: Quickly, efficiently and decisively.
conflict.
Its also unfortunate that this country still has enough Jimmy Carter types without the gahoonies to face reality enough to realize that the only way to save lives and property, is to attack the enemy without regard to anything but victory.
It seems that many in this country are more intent upon not losing "friends" than saving American lives.
So before this war on terror becomes a true global conflict, I would urge our leaders to finish the job as General George Patton would: Quickly, efficiently and decisively.
Last edited:
thumper723
Member
I voted WWIII. Still in opening stages. The Iraq war and afghanistan is analagous to Spain and Manchuria in the 30s. Not that it is the same situtation, but a part of the conflict that is not considered WWII proper.
cbsbyte
Member
Neither
Sorry, It is not a war, since congress never gave Bush war powers, though he has created his own powers by using the jingoistic, "War on Terror" title to scare Americans into freely giving up their freedoms. Militants of all stripes have been waging war for generations by conducting both military and terrorist acts. This time is no different. If USA would just leave the middle east alone, let them decide if they want to be democratic, without ramming our values down their collective throats, then most of out problems in the ME would be history. But sadly that will not be the case until we have an admistration that better understands the history of the world. If the rest of the world feels compassion for the Arabs and their plight then they should spend their tax dollars on rebuilding ME countries, and societies through public works projects.
Sorry, It is not a war, since congress never gave Bush war powers, though he has created his own powers by using the jingoistic, "War on Terror" title to scare Americans into freely giving up their freedoms. Militants of all stripes have been waging war for generations by conducting both military and terrorist acts. This time is no different. If USA would just leave the middle east alone, let them decide if they want to be democratic, without ramming our values down their collective throats, then most of out problems in the ME would be history. But sadly that will not be the case until we have an admistration that better understands the history of the world. If the rest of the world feels compassion for the Arabs and their plight then they should spend their tax dollars on rebuilding ME countries, and societies through public works projects.
Nitrogen
Member
Holy Excrement. that brussels journal article was scary.
Glad we have 2nd amendment rights in case some toughs decide to take over our neighborhood.
As far as attacking the enemy with out regard to anything but victory, I don't see us currently doing that. I think we need to look to Israel to remember how to really fight a war.
To put it as one of my coworkers, an ex-marine from Desert Storm put it:
"You send in the marines when you want to completely destroy your enemy in an area. You don't send us in, then not let us fight with all our might."
Israel, when threatened, will not care what others think of her. Israel will do what it needs to do.
Not going to discuss wether or not we should be fighting right now, but if we decide to fight, we need to go forward like we mean it.
Glad we have 2nd amendment rights in case some toughs decide to take over our neighborhood.
As far as attacking the enemy with out regard to anything but victory, I don't see us currently doing that. I think we need to look to Israel to remember how to really fight a war.
To put it as one of my coworkers, an ex-marine from Desert Storm put it:
"You send in the marines when you want to completely destroy your enemy in an area. You don't send us in, then not let us fight with all our might."
Israel, when threatened, will not care what others think of her. Israel will do what it needs to do.
Not going to discuss wether or not we should be fighting right now, but if we decide to fight, we need to go forward like we mean it.
- Status
