This is not WWIII!!! Please Stop!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Nor is it even the beginning of it. It could escalate into under one circumstance. That is if either Lebanon of Israel fires a nuke, and as far as i know lebenon doesn't have nuclear weaponry considering Iran had to help them fire off the missle yesterday. On the other hand, Israel does have nukes, and they will use them I believe if Tel Aviv or Jerusalem gets hit by a missle. But I do not see that happening. So could we please stop with the "this is world war III" That is conspiracy, and belongs on ATS not PTS. PTS is more fact based. By saying this is WWIII, That is speculation and opinion only so I'd keep it on ATS. Thanks




posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I beg to differ. This is a World War, but just exactly which one, I will leave to others. Warfare has changed dramatically since WWII for a variety of reasons and we are likely not to see the likes of that war ever again. Right now there is no country in the world that is immune to radical Islamist violence and most of the civilized world is engaged in this war to one degree or another. What is more, this war is likely to continue for the duration of your lifetime, so what it is called is far less important than fighting it in the most effective way possible.


[edit on 2006/7/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Well I beg to differ with you as well. LOL. This is not a world war. here is the definition of a world war :
A world war is a military conflict affecting the majority of the world's countries. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive.

We aren't involved in the "conflict" in Israel and Lebanon. Sure The G8 want then to put down their weapons, but are not literally in the war. We do not have soldiers over their fighting nor does the UK or most countries for that matter.
So calling this a world war is hardly right, And you can't consider us being in a war with iraq a part of this. separate wars doesn't = a world war. It would be major countries fighting the same battle. I.E. If the USA and Britain took sides with israel and Russia and China went and helped lebanon, that would be a world war.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Would you believe if someone like Newt Gingrich said so? Well he did just yesterday.

And your post is speculation also chaos. Unless you live in the heads of all the leaders who are playing this deadly game, you have no clue if or when someone will fire a nuke so "you believe its not gonna happen" is just that, your belief. And since when did firing a nuke make the definition of a world war. Are you privy to intel of all the troops, secret or regular that are in the middle east? How many countries is that? I dont know due to the fact i dont have that info. So technically it could and is being classified as a world war now.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The definition you cite comes from wikipedia. According to that article there are others who feel as I do that global conflict prevailed during the Cold War and that there is sufficient cause to call the War on Terror a world war. Of course, this is all semantic and it will be up to posterity to assign the names that will stick. Remember that WWI was called The Great War prior to the outbreak of what is now called WWII.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Without knowledge of the future, I can hardly see how you can claim that this is NOT WWIII. We could very well be in the beginning stages of that war. It's certainly a possibility. How about you just disagree with those who claim it is a WW and leave it at that instead of trying to get people to stop voicing their opinions?


Some think it is.
Some think it isn't.

And where did you get the notion that conspiracies aren't welcome on PTS? That's incorrect.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Majic
On ATS, we discuss conspiracies. On PTS we discuss conspiracies too.

"What?!?" you say, "but ATS is for conspiracies, not PTS!"

Yes, ATS is for conspiracies, as it always has been and ever shall be.

But to expect members of our community to discuss politics without considering the conspiracies that permeate every aspect of them would be, in my opinion anyway, absurd.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I find it tremendously ironic (and it would be hypocritical if I thought for a minute you stepped into this dookie pile on purpose) that you can declare in all your void of fact opinion that the events taking place right now are not the prelude to whatever number of World War you want to assign to it, while at the same time arrogantly declaring PTS the home of fact and ATS the home of (whatever the fudge that leaves to it).

I'm not real damned sure why the admin decided to litter my pristine ATS new topic list with PTS trash, but I personally pray they reconsider.

I respectfully request you blow it out your pompous pontificating backside.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Well I can tell you the feeling direct from here that all expectations are for a major confrontation between israel and usa against syria and iran,

Rumours of a Nuclear attack against Jerusalem.Can,t find out from where yet but working on it.

Might not even be from the opposing side

They are not even so interested in lebanon as it does not have a powerful enough army to even protect it,s own country.Which is why they are powerless to stop hezbollah from operation in it,s territory..

I,ve just been talking to my friends from jounieh too.Things are going from bad to worse..

$5,BILLION lost in tourism.
10,000 brits,
15,000 aussies
25,000 usa civvies.
all losing everything they have worked for during the last 20 years to repair the damage from the last onslaught, all waiting papers in hand for evacuation



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
i think we should leave future predictions to ats, and only argue what might be in politics, in now terms.

whether it is or it is not, all people should be interested in this crisis, because one day it will be sorted. whether it is this tme or not.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by l0rds0fcha0s
Nor is it even the beginning of it. It could escalate into under one circumstance. That is if either Lebanon of Israel fires a nuke, and as far as i know lebenon doesn't have nuclear weaponry considering Iran had to help them fire off the missle yesterday. On the other hand, Israel does have nukes, and they will use them I believe if Tel Aviv or Jerusalem gets hit by a missle. But I do not see that happening. So could we please stop with the "this is world war III" That is conspiracy, and belongs on ATS not PTS. PTS is more fact based. By saying this is WWIII, That is speculation and opinion only so I'd keep it on ATS. Thanks


speculation! this could easily be the start of ww3 and i have a bad feeling it is... any minute now either of those countries could ACQUIRE a nuclear weapon and use it... they dont exactly have to build one you know there are otherways.

im just keeping my fingers crossed.

[edit on 16-7-2006 by worksoftplayhard]

[edit on 16-7-2006 by worksoftplayhard]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Every time there is a war someone thinks it WW3 and there are always folks who feel like "But this time its different". Only time will tell but if you play the percentages.........



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Can't believe I'm agreeing with LOC!


This has got to be the 200th+ time WW3 has started up

I predict the next start of WW3 will occur sometime in the next two years, and there'll be another start of WW3 after that but within the next 5 years.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I agree with Valhall on his backside comment, lol.

This is WW3 jack, no matter which way you slice it. If the violence continues to escalate further Lebanon will cry until some big guns country backs them up. Whether or not it will be China, Russia or even Iran, who knows. It's going to get ugly unless tempers cool off. I could see Israel and Lebanon being the final tinderbox that finally ignites a huge world war.

If China or Russia back Lebanon, you know the US will be waist deep before Putin hangs up the phone. It'll be just like old times. Keep your eyes peeled.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truthwillsetyoufree
I agree with Valhall on his backside comment, lol.


EMMM her i think you,ll find,


Anyway as far as you saying Lebanon is cying for help,I think they are justified..
They will not be supported by any communist countries..

My opinion only is that if only USA or France would assist them with financial aid.They would have the ability to get rid of Hezbollah

SOOOO many people think they are welcome there..

THEY ARE NOT!!..



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I quite agree with the first poster and a couple of others that the world is not yet embroiled in a world war, not by any definition. The Cold War was not a world war, but a clash of ideologies glued together by paranoia, and only once did it ever bring us to the point of what would have been short, all-out nuclear attacks between East and West.

The date was 1962 in the month of October. The event was the Cuban missile crisis, which grew out of the failed CIA-backed invasion of the 'Bay of Pigs' to oust Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary leader. The Soviet Premier then was Khrushchev, worried that America had nuclear weapons based in Turkey and within 150 miles of the Soviet border, extended a friendly helping hand to Castro, and offered to place equipment and nuclear missiles on Cuban soil. The Americans, through satellite images saw this, prompting Kennedy to order a naval blockade of Cuba.

Khrushchev was angered by this, and thinking Kennedy was a weak President (based upon meeting each other in Vienna) , he authorized his commanders to launch their nuclear weapons if Cuba was invaded by American forces. Meanwhile, Soviet ships were steaming towards Cuba and the blockade of American ships, but upon nearing Cuba the Soviets stopped short of the blockade, and for the next seven days the world held its collective breath while the Soviet Union and America stared each other down.

On this occasion it was Khrushchev whom blinked! He ordered the ships to remove themselves from the area, and the world uttered a collective sigh. This is the closest the world has ever come to a premeditated and nuclear world war 3.

There are umpteen conflicts going on around the world, but only out of a few could WW3 arise, and these are in the Middle-East. The Israeli/Lebanon crisis has the potential to spark it, but I think it highly unlikely. During the last two world wars, the American mainland was not attacked or invaded, but in WW3 you are guaranteed mainland decimation and destruction on a scale Americans have never witnessed for themselves in their own backyard. WW3 will grow out of a conventional conflict, and turn nuclear quite quickly. Then, and only then, will you know that WW3 is upon you. Only then, when you are walking amongst the ruins of your city, helplessly watching the bodies of your family burn, will you be justified in calling it WW3.

Regards



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
The Cold War was not a world war, but a clash of ideologies glued together by paranoia, and only once did it ever bring us to the point of what would have been short, all-out nuclear attacks between East and West.


Will someone point out to me who said that a world war must involve nuclear weapons?



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I agree, this not world war, Russia, China, the European Union have not mobilized.
The number of military personnel active in the conflict number less than a million.
Nuclear weapons have not been launched.

This conflict is a rebel faction vs. the Isreali Empire both being played by the hand
of Emperor Sith Cheney and Count "Jarjar" Bush.


[edit on 16-7-2006 by Legalizer]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Now ive read everything, not only are you classifying a world war due to lack of nuclear attack, but now referencing it to a fictional star wars conflict. Im speechless to say the least.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Don,t forget ww1 started with the assasination of only one guy..

ww2 with a minor false flag attack on germany ....and the resultant invasion on poland

Was this significantly more justification than the capture of three soldiers or the killing of over 100 civvies??



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I think anyone that says this currnent conflict is definatley not the start of a new world war is talking out of the backside quite frankley.

The situation in the middle east at the moment is very finely ballanced and could very quickly escalate further. all it takes is for syria to launch a rocket into israel or vice versa and all hell will break loose. If israel attacked Syria or retaliated against it then surely iran would wade in, along with a number of other arab nations. This would lead to involvement from the US and other nations such as france Germany and the UK etc. then probably not long after that RUssia and China would get involved and im fairly certain the crazy man from North Korea would like to get his 2 cents in aswell which would be disaterous





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join