WW III?

[Iron_Ranger]

Just a quick question to everyone here. Do you think this war we are in now (The entire war on Terrorism, Afghanstan, Iraq, ect...Its all one operation war as far as I can see it) could be considered WW III? It effects most of the world in one way or another. It defanitly a diffrent kind of war then the last two World Wars. But like I said, it effects most of the world in some kind of way.

[ 03-17-2003, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Luvian]

I don't consider it a World War, because it's mainly only the US being in war with other countries.

[the new JR Jansen]

That can be said of every war. So, is this going to be WW3 ? I don't think so. The Iraqi military isn't all that impressive and they don't have any allies that will fight with them. The war on terrorism can not be seen, imo, as WW3. The problem here is that you don't have an identifiable enemy. And terrorism is in itself very subjective. What's terrorism for one person is freedom fighting or resistance against an occupying force for the other.

[Charean]

It could be in some ways.

Some consider the Cold War between US and Russia a world war. There certainly was enough espianage to go around.

As far as this one? There are enough disagreeing countries - not all at war with each other. This may end up being a World War, but more a threat to the world order than anything else.

As the world changes the needs change. For example, the League of Nations is gone. It was around before WW2. Perhaps the time for the United Nations is gone as well, and there will be something else to take its place. Why? Because as long as there are countries in this world, there will be a need for us to deal with each other on trade levels, if nothing else.

So, to answer your question, a positive perhaps. We shall see.

[Night Stalker]

No JR. Terrorism is a very specific type of guerrilla warfare. It is waged against high profile targets (often civilian) to spread fear. "Typical" nonconventional warfare is conducted against targets of military value. While fear and chaos may ensue, they are not the primary goal. They are for terrorism.

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: No JR. Terrorism is a very specific type of guerrilla warfare. It is waged against high profile targets (often civilian) to spread fear. "Typical" nonconventional warfare is conducted against targets of military value. While fear and chaos may ensue, they are not the primary goal. They are for terrorism.

Granted, but again that's your point of view. Others may see terrorism as the only way to defend against an occupying force. Don't get me wrong, i'm not condoning anything with this statement, i'm only saying it's in the eye of the beholder.

[ 03-17-2003, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: the new JR Jansen ]

[The Lilarcor]

Heck, It probably will turn out to be WW3, afterall, it just took the murder of Archeduke Ferdinand to start WW1. And the league of nations didn't work because the senate wouldn't sign the treaty, allowing us to be apart of it, thus toppling it down, which Hitler used as many of the reasons to go to war.

[Azred]

Not really. A "world war" would have multiple countries declaring war upon one another in a flurry of activity and be fought on several fronts simultaneously.

Originally posted by Charean: Perhaps the time for the United Nations is gone as well, and there will be something else to take its place.

Can you imagine our Senate accomplishing anything when each individual member has the power to veto any bill being discussed? The problem with the UN is that it is trying to act like some sort of international Senate, when in fact the UN has run into a problem inherent with the very nature of democracy that many people haven't considered before--a democracy can grow and be functionally viable only up to a certain point. The larger it grows the less effective it becomes. Oh, well. (note: I didn't say democracy was wrong, only that it has that particular shortcoming)
The UN would be a much more useful organization to the entire world were it to restructure itself and do away with the veto power of member nations. They could then discuss a resolution and hold a vote with majority rule taking effect. No, it wouldn't be much more effective than it is now, but neither would one nation be able to derail the efforts of many nations, regardless of the issue at hand.

[Animal]

World War 3? I can't see it. There really is no country that could provide much of a threat to the world as a whole, other than perhaps the US itself.

The UN, still serves a purpose however, even though it may not seem like it today. The UN serves as a conscience, if you will, and acts much the same as many members of this forum. There's nothing wrong with a good debate to ensure you're doing the right thing.

Incidently, I did hear a report today on the radio that France declared it would re-evaluate it's position had Saddam been given 30 days. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

[The Lilarcor]

Saddams been given over a few months. I doubt 30 days will change the opinions of france, to me it just seems they don't want to go to war because they always seem to lose in them. War of 1812, franco-prussian war, WW1. and WW2. They just dont want to be beaten again. (Don't know if they do or not, its a joke at my school so...)