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

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_T
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??


was just about to make a similar point




posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by l0rds0fcha0s


'This is not WWIII....'

Nor is it even the beginning of it. ...



Prior to the League of Nations, then the United Nations...
there was the International Parlimentary Union

back then, there were ~100 soverign states on the globe.
Then, the conflict called WorldWar I ensued where 12 distinct nations
& maybe a dozen allies-in-ideology fought a war;

WWI: fought between 1914-18, involving France, Great Britian, Russia,
Belgium, Italy, Japan, USA, and allies
against the defeated Germany, Austria-Hungry, Turk and Bulgaria nations.

WWII: fought between 1939-44, involving France, Great Britian, Soviet
Union, China, USA, assorted allies
against the defeated Germany, Italy, Japan...empires & nations

So, in actuality only maybe 24 nations, out of a global population of 100-120
nations (roughly 25% of the World) fought in 2 extended wars, later called
WW I & WW II.

agreed these multi national wars were far reaching, but they sure weren't
WorldWide in scope...

this present situation, with the war-on-terror, Iraqi Freedom, & the
escalation of combat with Israel-Lebanon-Hizbollah(& allies to all sides)
is not a beginning of a WorldWar III, but rather just a preliminary
skirmish in a better named, "Conflict of Civilizations"

see: www.unog.ch...(httpPages)/B5B92952225993B0C1256F2D00393560?OpenDocument

l0rds0fcha0s, i'm with you to a certain extent,
the above address is to a UN Office at Geneva web site,






[edit on 16-7-2006 by St Udio]

[edit on 16-7-2006 by St Udio]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Hmmm, varying opinions...ok!

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

Just to bring you up to spec. WW2 had the use of nuclear weapons. The arguments for their use are varied, but the usual and most often quoted reason was to save hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost fighting a conventional battle against a foe determined not to surrender.
In our contemporary times, a world-war would be fought with all manner of weaponry, from conventional, to biological, escalating to tactical nuclear usages. This is guaranteed! Countries with the relevant weaponry will use whatever is in its arsenel in order not to lose, or to inflict as much damage upon its enemy, as its enemy does upon it.

AgentT wrote:"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?"

I think that the invasion of Poland and the thousands that died during the course of it, not to mention the invasion of Czechoslovakia and other countries prior to Poland, were indeed a greater justification for Britain to declare war on Germany. The world was not yet in what could be called a world war, as the war then was purely a European theatre. Once Japan attacked America at Pearl Harbour and brought them into the conflict, then the world was at war.

Tommio wrote (somewhat derogatory):"I think anyone that says this currnent conflict is definitley not the start of a new world war is talking out of the(ir) backside quite frankley."

Why the current crisis cannot be termed a world at war has been adequately explained already. What we are seeing now with Israel in Lebanon (imo), is a path towards one goal...to draw Iran in so that it can be attacked.

Regards



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I am not Christian by any standards but had to say this, of course its not WWIII its Armagedon, LOL to funny to listen too... way to go...



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
In our contemporary times, a world-war would be fought with all manner of weaponry, from conventional, to biological, escalating to tactical nuclear usages. This is guaranteed! Countries with the relevant weaponry will use whatever is in its arsenel in order not to lose, or to inflict as much damage upon its enemy, as its enemy does upon it.


Eventually, someone will use a nuclear weapon in a war. That is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to call that war a world war. In my view, currently the world is at war and the point we are arguing here is the intensity of that war. We all carry around a model for world war based on WWII propaganda films, Hollywood, the History Channel, history books, and the Cold War predictions of a global thermonuclear war. There is no guarantee that there will ever be another war that resembles either WWI, WWII, or "The Day After." That will not mean that no war will ever qualify as a world war.

In the current war, there have been attacks on the US, Iraq, Afghanistan, Britain, Spain, Russia, Israel, Lebanon, Tanzania, Kenya, and Indonesia and that's an incomplete list, I'm sure. All these attacks have one thing in common. They all involve radical Islamist terrorism or the perception thereof. It seems like a world at war to me.


[edit on 2006/7/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Its NOT WW3?

I remember you saying that it wasn't WWII when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia.


Thank you for your valuable insight, Ms Cleo.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

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?
We do NOT need nukes for it to be WWIII. Whoever made that comment better check their WWII and WWI histories.


Of course now we stand a chance they will be used because now we have them



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Well I must say some people in here are real jerks. Put your swords away, it's now my turn to be rude as you were to me.
How can you fools sit here and say this is a world war! You got one guy bringing up the war on terror, which has nothing to do with this at all. NOTHING!. There are 3 countries fighting right now, which might I add they do every few years, basically you got Israel, Lebanon, and maybe Iran. That does not make this a world war.
How about Someone please go back to where ATS began, and lets see how many times you fools said a world war was starting, I bet it is at least 30-40. Any time a battle pops up there is at least One narrow minded fool that says it is a world war. You better get some better justifications if you wanna call this a world war. And I never said nukes had to be used for it to be called a world war. I said and I quote "The only way this may turn into a world war is if lebanon or israel launches a Nuke", meaning, Then other countries would have no choice but to get involved.
You think the US and UK are gonna get involved in this? NO! We're to focused on 3 things right now. Iraq, Afghanastan, and North Korea. The major Govt's of the world know as well as I do that this crap happens over there all the time. And I side with Israel on the whole matter, They are fighting to get a soldier back that was fighting for his country, isn't that what a military is supposed to do? I thought so. So until you can show some proof that this is a world war, don't say it is, cause it isnt even close to one yet. NOT EVEN CLOSE!

[edit on 16-7-2006 by l0rds0fcha0s]

[edit on 17-7-2006 by l0rds0fcha0s]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
One more thing, within a month this conflict will be over. Hezbollah cannot, and will not come close to defeating Israel, and honestly Lebanon I don't think want involved, but they are weak and powerless and can't control Hezbollah. The President of Lebanon has already said his country is now a disaster area, the conflict will be over in a month and I will be here to say "Ha, I told you so".

pic of beirut, after israels arial onslaught last night


All night, bombs fell on Haret Hreik, south of the capital, flattening buildings and turning the largely empty neighborhood of Hezbollah’s headquarters into a modern vision of the blitz. Fighter jets circled high above Beirut and once more bombed the airport. Dark smoke from burning fuel tanks billowed sky high. In southern Lebanon, dozens died in the shelling.


Israel is kicking there can and you think it will last long? I don't think so.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by l0rds0fcha0s]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Your not going back far enough. Isreal went into the gaza strip and kidnapped 2 soldiers on june 24th, Before the isreali kid was kidnapped. Prompting them to retaliate by snaggin the kid. And not all responses on this thread were to your initial post, some were to other posters.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Now dont get me wrong, im not supporting one side of the other, i just calls em as i sees em.

and as others sees em apparently.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I do apoligize to those of you who are having an intelligent conversation, but some people were plain rude. you don't tell people to shove it up their as* because you disagree. my post wasn't to everyone just a couple.

GradyPhilpott you aren't included either I was just bringing up a topic you said earlier. at least you aren't being rude. but at least 3 people have made comments that you don't make in a forum, if you can't control yourself from being ignorant, don't post After all isn't the slogan "ignorance denied"?

[edit on 17-7-2006 by l0rds0fcha0s]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
l0rds0fcha0s

You really should rephrase this post, regardless of how angry you are. You really don't have that many points.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
My humblest apologies Valhall, I am a newbie still. I'll get the genders straight soon.


More violence, rockets, killings and attacks are going on. Peace talks have died down, but what will calm the irate Israelies and Hezbollah? Can talk and money stop this war from spreading further? Or will it just grow and grow, like the California wild fires when they met in the middle?

I'm all for a peaceful resolution to this, but my gut doesn't think there will be one. In this case though, I hope I am wrong.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Sorry lordsofchaos, Im going to have to agree with Grady here. Where do you think that these radical Islamist's are going to stop? They hate the idea of democracy, free trade, our God, almost to the point of anything western. They will stop at nothing to eradicate our way of life, eventually if not now then later they are going to have to be stopped. IMO we should go squash them now before they build up and actually stand a fighting chance. However thats Amerika for ya, cant hurt anyones feelings while were at war.

Edit: They are fighting a holy war, one where they are promised eternity in return for their mortal soul. They eat drink and sleep hate for america, and they are not gonna be peaceful anytime soon... We are at war now, wether or not you want to call it a 'world war" is beside the point IMO...

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Scyman]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
l0rds0fcha0s

You really should rephrase this post, regardless of how angry you are. You really don't have that many points.


consider it done. fools instead of idiots, and I have done alot of posts to get my points lol. I'm proud of them considering I was without the net for a few months



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Hey scyman, I'm all for flattening countries that are a threat to the world, I think NK should be mauled right now, I think hezbollah, should be crushed, which I think Israel is doing with no problem, But I don't think this is by any means WWIII.


[edit on 17-7-2006 by l0rds0fcha0s]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by l0rds0fcha0s
Hey scyman, I'm all for flattening countries that are a threat to the world, I think NK should be mauled right now, I think hezbollah, should be crushed, which I think Israel is doing with no problem, But I don't think this is by any means WWIII.


[edit on 17-7-2006 by l0rds0fcha0s]


Well I guess we both agree as to the solution to the problem!
We are just arguing over what to call the problem...



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Maybe it isn't a world war yet, but it seems to me to be the beginnings of a religious war. And right, nukes do not a WW make but how about when the Chem/bio agents are released? Just a matter of time. Our grand children will be fighting this war; whether you call it a world war or not. Religious wars can last a very long time; just ask Ireland and Britain.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
As I said before, what the current series of hostilities will be called will be left to the historians. What we call it now is immaterial, as long as we understand the seriousness of the stakes. The current administration has a handle on that, in my judgement, and it will be imperative to insure that the next one does likewise.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join