Better Calling War on Terror, WW3?

i'm just thinking the word 'war on terror' people have been getting sick of lately and people think there is no point of it due to all the protests around the world ie. gatherings and marches demanding allied troops to pull out of the middle-east (most recently washington this weekend).

so question, instead of the bush administration saying 'war on terror' and hoping to get support from other nations (even support from americas own people), would the US government be better off saying WW3 in order to gain support?

now i know the word 'world war 3' sounds scary, but i think that is the only way to make EVERYBODY sit up and take notice, epically with country’s like north korea and iran wanting to gain nuclear technology.

Your views?

[edit on 18-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

It could be that they are worried the wrong people will sit up and take notice from a phrase that will indicate possible conflict everywhere. Specifically the Russians and the Chinese.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
... would the US government be better off saying WW3 in order to gain support?

The War on Terror is NOT a World War. The US Gov would look silly if they sought to pain the current conflict as a world war.

I am sure there are a number of opinions as to what a world war actually is, but I suspect the main features are...

- Involving the most or all of the world's major nations.
- Where the national economic output of the belligerent's is principally directed to the war effort.

There you go. War on Terror is not WW3.

Regards

read my post again please.

i said would bush be BETTER OFF using the term 'world war' rather than 'war on terror' in order to gain more support from other countrys?

at the moment apart from NATO nobody wants to be apart of it, with some NATO member nations even reluctant in sending troops for that.

and your term of 'world war' is incorrect, ww2 as an example started out with germany (and later russia) invading poland, then britain and france declearing war on hitler.

(another example) say if iran decided to stand by iraq during the 2003 invasion and said, "we will help saddam" - it would have been a world war.

2 or more countrys vs 2 or more countrys = world war.

and i have a feeling iran/korea would stand by each other should UK/US decide to attack one or the other in the future.

so with 2 nations desperatly wanting nuclear technology (1 of which as even tested a nuclear weapon) has 'war on terror' evolved that step futher?

[edit on 20-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

This war, in my opinion... involves...

Israel
Lebanon
Syria
Iran
Iraq
Usa
Britan
Australia

Thats a pretty decent chunk of industrialised nations contributing to the war..

Mod Edit: Removed Double Post

[edit on 21-3-2007 by chissler]

When was there NOT a war on terror?

Was terror ever not fought against?

And no, Iraq doesn't count as there was no terror coming from there and no WMDs either.

Calling this a world war at this point would garner some support, but it's far from the truth. (At this point.) It's more like a coalition of forces who have a threat of being attacked, have been attacked or are located in the region where attacks have occured fighting against a handful of paramilitary forces.

While over half the world is "neutral" in this struggle, only a few countries capable of supplying armed forces in WW2 had remained neutral throughout it's entirety. If you take into account countries which let either the Allies or Axis work inside it's borders, no countries were completely nuetral.

Sources:
Wikipedia: War on Terrorism: Allies
Wikipedia: War on Terrorism Map of Terrorist Attacks
switzerland.isyours.com...

Originally posted by st3ve_o
(another example) say if iran decided to stand by iraq during the 2003 invasion and said, "we will help saddam" - it would have been a world war.

2 or more countrys vs 2 or more countrys = world war.
[edit on 20-3-2007 by st3ve_o]

No, sorry but that is not world war.

To the original question was about Bush. I don't think Bush would get any additional support by renaming the War on Terror. In afct, I think he would be ridiculed because world war it is not.

Regards