Most of the world is participating in one war or another.

Think about this.

The 'Coallition of Peace' still has many people in Iraq, in a war state.

Kosovo is again breaking into war.

Haiti is broken into war.

A fair bit of Nepal is broken into war.

At present, more than half of the world is at war with one place or another, and the conflict keeps rising.

Technically, we are already in a worldwide war. The third one to date.

If this continues to worsen as it appears it is only able to, then within 2-3 years, it will be commonly thought that we are in the midst of WW3.

I feel kind of sad about it, but when you really look at the last year or so, we've fallen into this hole rather rapidly. The time of mini-wars is upon us, what do the rest of you think?

When Kosovo broke out recently, I remembered thinking about how quickly that came about. When Haiti broke out, it was only after quite a few days, perhaps weeks, I can't recall, that there was any sort of peacekeeping force deployed there.

Anyone know how and why UN Peacekeepers deployed so quickly to Kosovo? I mean, I had just barely heard about problems there, and the next day there was footage of UN forces moving through some urban setting on the news. Am I the only one who was shocked by this?

Mini WW3 maybe, but it isn't a world war in the sense that the other two were. Those were coalitions of allies fighting against distinct enemies. One side vs another. All these mini-wars could escalate into something much bigger and worse, sure. But I wouldn't say we're at WW3 yet.

there were originally peachkeeping forces in kosovo, as you might recall, during the clinton era, we had a war there. okay, i might be wrong about this, it's quite late, and i'm kind of losing my mind, so if someone would care to verfiy this, that would be great.

[Edited on 21-3-2004 by IKnowNothing]

Hrm, according to Richard Nixon, the Cold War was given the dubious honor of being labeled WWIII.


seekerof

Originally posted by Cappa
When Kosovo broke out recently, I remembered thinking about how quickly that came about. When Haiti broke out, it was only after quite a few days, perhaps weeks, I can't recall, that there was any sort of peacekeeping force deployed there.

Anyone know how and why UN Peacekeepers deployed so quickly to Kosovo? I mean, I had just barely heard about problems there, and the next day there was footage of UN forces moving through some urban setting on the news. Am I the only one who was shocked by this?

Originally posted by IKnowNothing
there were originally peachkeeping forces in kosovo,

It must be late.
That's the first I've ever heard of peachkeeping forces in Kosovo.
Unless Kosovo is a town in Georgia.

-B.

Originally posted by Cappa
When Kosovo broke out recently, I remembered thinking about how quickly that came about. When Haiti broke out, it was only after quite a few days, perhaps weeks, I can't recall, that there was any sort of peacekeeping force deployed there.

Anyone know how and why UN Peacekeepers deployed so quickly to Kosovo? I mean, I had just barely heard about problems there, and the next day there was footage of UN forces moving through some urban setting on the news. Am I the only one who was shocked by this?

Well, I would not be too shocked at this. NATO and the UN has plenty of bases there. Including Brits, Norweigens, Americans, etc. Anything that acts up there will be squelched pretty quickly thank gawd.

Yes its been WW3 since 9/11. And this time it will be the last war mandkind ever sees because it will involve nuclear bombs.


They set this whole thing up and they even have a date selected on which they will cause a nuclear attack on the US im sure of it.


It just blows my mind that someof you act as iif these wars just hapen out of nowhere, as compared to they are created for various reasons, which 9/11 was.




Once one nuke goes off, everything will break loose, and one this economoy goes down which it isprophecied to by many saints, All heck, and I mean all heck will break loose and its a scary thought for sure.


I dread these coming times.



peace.

Originally posted by Viendin
Most of the world is participating in one war or another.

Think about this.

The 'Coallition of Peace' still has many people in Iraq, in a war state.

Kosovo is again breaking into war.

Haiti is broken into war.

A fair bit of Nepal is broken into war.

At present, more than half of the world is at war with one place or another, and the conflict keeps rising.

Technically, we are already in a worldwide war. The third one to date.

If this continues to worsen as it appears it is only able to, then within 2-3 years, it will be commonly thought that we are in the midst of WW3.

I feel kind of sad about it, but when you really look at the last year or so, we've fallen into this hole rather rapidly. The time of mini-wars is upon us, what do the rest of you think?

You have a good point, but I would not call it WWIII yet. They are all separate wars. For it to be one war, and not many, there needs to be a common dispute between 2 or more sides. So all these wars could merge some how, but until then, it's not one war. But still, it IS tragic what you point out that most of the world is at war. So things are definitely getting more serious.

They set this whole thing up and they even have a date selected on which they will cause a nuclear attack on the US im sure of it.

Any sort of tactical force (even terrorists) know how deep the US intel roots go and they know they are most likely black-listed for nuclear retaliation incase the US gets attacked. It would be in the best interests of many groups to not launch nukes, or coordinate the attacks so precisely that the US cannot strike back. Of course on the flip-side one can assume the US has no plans but that would be an under-statement to say the least.

The concept of a 'World War' is fleeting. The world has always been at war. It has taken many Different forms, Different Aliases, Different Agendas. Delineating War into numbers is kind of... A-B-C like. It is a means in which history can be taught to youngsters in a linear, cause-effect way. IMHO.

a world war has to have only 2 sides. one force with one set of views against another force with another set of views. having multipule conflicts all over the world doesnt make it a world war. it only makes the world a violent place

'Any sort of tactical force (even terrorists) know how deep the US intel roots go and they know they are most likely black-listed for nuclear retaliation incase the US gets attacked. It would be in the best interests of many groups to not launch nukes, or coordinate the attacks so precisely that the US cannot strike back. Of course on the flip-side one can assume the US has no plans but that would be an under-statement to say the least.'

Last I saw mujahideen were going out of ther way to kill others as well as THEMSELVES. It's an interesting question you raise: With the 'Glory' of suicide in the plans of many of these fighters, is there a longer-term situation in which a bunch of mujahideen are sitting around ruling the 'cleansed' planet? I think death is the agenda here all the way around. Do these men still fear reprocussion being that they are suicidal in methodology?

a world war has to have only 2 sides. one force with one set of views against another force with another set of views. having multipule conflicts all over the world doesnt make it a world war. it only makes the world a violent place

So by this rationale, a WW is fought between at least 2 sides with a different set of views?

For arguments sake, if AQ were to nuke half the country would we then be in another WW? What constitutes a WW in your opinion? Does the size of the nation matter? What if an army is operating autonomously? I'd like you to qualify 'sides'.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
a world war has to have only 2 sides. one force with one set of views against another force with another set of views. having multipule conflicts all over the world doesnt make it a world war. it only makes the world a violent place

That's one of the most ill-logical posts I've ever read.

WORLD = (Entire Earth)
WAR = (At odds, killing, death, etc.)

Is it necessary that I elaborate further?

insiders call it WW IV, because III was waged with silent weapons aimed at breaking the spirit of mankind(slow acting psychological factors, like compound interest, unpayable debt, wars on nouns and adjectives, giving reasoning facilities to the media, and the gloom and doom of the corporation's ever-tightening grip, are a few). it worked like a charm. people are too lazy to even entertain the thought that it might be true.
...'cause wakin' up is hard to do....

Is it fair to say that WW II never ended, and it has continued unabated?

Our planet has known more War since that time, and more firepower has been created in only a few possble ordnance or less, than was used conventionally in all of WW II. Nonetheless the military spending has continued at wartime levels and higher, so even upon those very few years of "peace," the "war," never really has ended.

Face it by all consistent definitions, WW III is when all the weapons go off, and we face nuclear winter and possible extinction.

Otherwise WW II never really ended since its controlled but expansive manner, continued since allegedly being over?

I am all for celebrating WW II, and avoiding WW III indefinitedly.

So when "WW II ever ends," if you will, then begins the real peace.

The alternative is unthinkable, only if we continue to "think the unthinkable," and hence avoid WWW III entirely. Right now we are playing at the thresholds of it, but that is not unusual in a world where substance is too often taken as more important than bona fide human values.

there are always little wars and battles going on here and there throughout the world though... this isn't WW III

even if it were another world war, i wouldn't call it III... what about wars like the crusades. they were fought in basically all the known world at the time. there were two sides. or what about napoleon's domination of europe? alexander the great? atilla the hun? they were the leaders of huge, and basically world, wars.

Is it fair to say that WW II never ended, and it has continued unabated?

One could make the argument that WWII was an extension of WWI. The names change but the song remains the same.

Face it by all consistent definitions, WW III is when all the weapons go off, and we face nuclear winter and possible extinction.

So that's what all those kids were doing under there desks in the 50's... Crazy kids

The alternative is unthinkable, only if we continue to "think the unthinkable," and hence avoid WWW III entirely. Right now we are playing at the thresholds of it, but that is not unusual in a world where substance is too often taken as more important than bona fide human values.

Your right on. But WHEN will we learn? Hindsight is twenty-twenty, but not after a nuclear war.