It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World War III Draft

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   


Asked about that possibility by a potential voter in Florida during a telephone "town hall meeting," McCain said: "I don't know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III."


uk.reuters.com...

Hello all. My question to the American public is this:

If the draft were to be reinstated during the horrible potential of the next World War, what would you do?




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I would ask when are we going to learn from history as stop being led into destruction by psychopathic maniacs. In other words if you want to play at command and conquer you fight the battle because i,m not



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
This was already posted before and well if there was a world war 3....there would be no need for a draft since mankind wont be here.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


Well that was the belief in the 80's and early 90's , that WW3 would mean mankind's death . It's just recently that this thought WW3 would mean some form of long drawn out conventional war took hold . Heck there are many that believe we are in WW3 right now .

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Max_TO]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
World war involves many countries as opposed to the current standard wars like in Iraq and Afghanistan of just two.World war might start conventional but would always go nuclear.Just makes sense since the superpowers always have to make their claim and butt its head into it.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by alienstar]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
World War Definition:

What constitutes a 'world war'? How many countries need to be involved? And who decides at which point a number of regional skirmishes can be grouped together and called a World War? At the time, who called the official start of World War 1 and World War 2?

And have you noticed that although the term 'World War Three' is freely used in the alternative press and on the Internet, all the major news networks have stoically avoided using any phrase reminiscent of World War.

Since it's difficult to find a definition for an event which has only happened twice in modern history, here's my attempt at an answer to the question 'what constitutes a world war'?

A World War is a military conflict spanning more than 2 continents, in which at least 20 major countries participate in an attack against a common enemy, and which has the attention of the man-in-the-street due to the significant loss of life.

With that definition, we can agree that WW1 and WW2 were in fact World Wars (both wars involved some degree of participation from most of the world's then existing countries: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States and the Soviet Union). We can also agree that we are very close to achieving World War 3. The only requirement left to fulfill the start of WW3 is that of a military conflict spanning more than 2 continents. As soon as Israel attacks Palestine, or North Korea attacks South Korea or the US, or China invades Taiwan, we will have the next World War well underway



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


According to the definition you just reference, the only situation you presented that would meet "World War" requirements would be North Korea attacking US, as all other countries/territorites you reference are located on the Asian Continent.
Also, by those standards, we would need more involvement from Major countries.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Depends on the circumstances really. If their was a general threat to innocent people, such as there was in WWII, I would be in there, but I would only do it to bring round peace quicker.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by astronomine
 


Personally, I'm for mandatory service, and would support a draft if presented. Seeing as I'm currently active duty, my perspective is obviously biased, thus I'll admit my opinion may be one sided. How ever, that is how I see this question.

As to the definition of World War, here is a source which defines it;

Noun 1. world war - a war in which the major nations of the world are involved
TheFreeDictionary



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   
I feel you on it being mandatory... if the cause is for the better. But for the current administration, it is hard to have to go fight for something you do not necessarily believe in.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Is the circumstances such that you would have to drop everything and go fight? I'm not sure I would be able to follow orders if it involved matters that were really against my own conscience.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
World War Definition:

A World War is a military conflict spanning more than 2 continents, in which at least 20 major countries participate in an attack against a common enemy, and which has the attention of the man-in-the-street due to the significant loss of life.

With that definition, we can agree that WW1 and WW2 were in fact World Wars (both wars involved some degree of participation from most of the world's then existing countries: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States and the Soviet Union). We can also agree that we are very close to achieving World War 3. The only requirement left to fulfill the start of WW3 is that of a military conflict spanning more than 2 continents. As soon as Israel attacks Palestine, or North Korea attacks South Korea or the US, or China invades Taiwan, we will have the next World War well underway


By your defination, i think, we are in WWIII already...

In my eyes, this battle is going on on 3 continents, North America, Europe, and Asia(middle East)... Thats a big batle feild, you have to agree that the attacks on the twin towers was the opening shot of WWIII, the attacks in Spain, and London... are we that quick to forget?

Remember, there were a BUNCH of countries that were in the 'Colation of the Willing' with more then a few dozen countrires... but only 4-5 heveay hitters... Plus, right now, the enemy does not fight under a flag, but with ideals...

So, its like USA, UK, France, Germany, Poland, Australia and MANY others, are fighting an unconevtional enemy, From the Taliban in Afgansistan, to Al-Quida all over the World, to Tyranical dictators like Saddam Hussien, while other countries are suspected of funding terrorism. Countires like Syria, and Iran, also some parts of Pakistan, hell, even the Turks had some fights agsint our friends the Kurds...


What will propell this into Total World War? We are fighting on at least 3 continents already, these plenty of countries involed.

What will push this over the edge? Does Iran and Isreal have to get involed? Egypt? Turkey? Saudi? The UAE? Or is it not on until the Chiniese man shoots a gun?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


Excuse me?

From your point of view - that terrorism is how the media prescribes it. The kurds should NOT be your freinds.

The kurds don't have a homeland and you aren't supporting one. The PPK is a terrorist organisation (officially) rather than a poltiical party that wants to give the Kurds an official homeland.

Just because Saddam used chemical weapons on them (apparently) does not mean they are your freinds. If they were your freinds, Turkey wouldn't have got into Iraq.

Kurdistan covers parts of:- Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq (possibly one or two other places too).




top topics



 
3

log in

join