World War III
North Island
05-01-2005, 12:06
Is World War III inevitable?
Stupid CBE Tim Collins
05-01-2005, 12:41
Yes, in order to get some of the world's human population culled. (There are too many people on the planet.)
And to get some of our most stupid people killed off by sending them into battle.
Having played every civilisiation style simulator game ever hundreds of times I can confirm that world wars are inevitable whenever nations sign millitary alliances with each other (even if they are defensive and not targetted at anyone).
Uber weapons like nuclear missiles bring peace for a while because then even the smallest nation can defend itself so alliances are not required
Robbopolis
05-01-2005, 12:59
Well, according to one author I saw, World War 3 started in 1981 when Anwar Sadat was assasinated.
The disillusioned many
05-01-2005, 13:14
How do you define a world war?
Does a certain number of countries have to be involved?
North Island
05-01-2005, 13:20
How do you define a world war?
Does a certain number of countries have to be involved?
I define a World War as a conflict between two or more major alliances and no not a certain number of nations must be involved.
The disillusioned many
05-01-2005, 13:24
thanks, i was just curious
CornixPes II
05-01-2005, 13:28
Personally I can't see a world war happened within the next couple of decades, but yes, it's going to happen.
I personally believe that the war on terror is WWIII. Heres my reason: we have many countries from Japan to Britain, America to Australia involved in this conflict.
Ultra Cool People
05-01-2005, 13:48
I personally believe that the war on terror is WWIII. Heres my reason: we have many countries from Japan to Britain, America to Australia involved in this conflict.
Yes but you can say the same about the war on drugs or the war on crime. In the war on terror there is no central Nation for the opposition unless you count Afghanistan.
North Island
05-01-2005, 13:49
I personally believe that the war on terror is WWIII. Heres my reason: we have many countries from Japan to Britain, America to Australia involved in this conflict.
Okay good but the terrorists are not in a Union, their are many groups fighting for different causes.
The only group that is really in a "war" with America and it's allies is al-quida and they are not really a fighting force in the conventional sence.
The allies of America are not really fighting in the "war" they are more like a peacekeeping force, at least that is what my country is doing in Afganistan.
The U.K. are fighting but not as much as the Americans.
Alinania
05-01-2005, 13:49
Yes but you can say the same about the war on drugs or the war on crime. In the war on terror there is no central Nation for the opposition unless you count Afghanistan.
there doesn't need to be a central opposition country.
North Island
05-01-2005, 13:52
Yes but you can say the same about the war on drugs or the war on crime. In the war on terror there is no central Nation for the opposition unless you count Afghanistan.
I think the same, good.
Ara-akrab
05-01-2005, 14:12
How to prevent a World War:
Don't call any wars world wars.
By the way, Napeoleonic Wars were the first true world war.
North Island
05-01-2005, 14:22
How to prevent a World War:
Don't call any wars world wars.
By the way, Napeoleonic Wars were the first true world war.
Well if that is true then World Wars happen if you call them World Wars or not.
Andaluciae
05-01-2005, 14:37
How to prevent a World War:
Don't call any wars world wars.
By the way, Napeoleonic Wars were the first true world war.
Actually the Seven Years War as Europeans know it, or the French and Indian War was a World War as well, and it preceded the Naploleonic wars.
Psychopathic Warmonger
05-01-2005, 14:45
Is World War III inevitable?
Definatly.
Do you honestly see the world putting up with the actions of the 'President' of the United States, the venerable George W. Bush much longer???
:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:
Eutrusca
05-01-2005, 14:51
Do you honestly see the world putting up with the actions of the 'President' of the United States, the venerable George W. Bush much longer??
Yes, but I don't see US putting up with YOU much longer! :headbang:
Psychopathic Warmonger
05-01-2005, 14:56
Yes, but I don't see US putting up with YOU much longer! :headbang:
Good point. I'll be off then.
North Island
05-01-2005, 14:58
I don't think that the world will go to war over the American president.
It will take much more then that.
Dingoroonia
05-01-2005, 15:19
I personally believe that the war on terror is WWIII. Heres my reason: we have many countries from Japan to Britain, America to Australia involved in this conflict.
It's not WWIII, it's the U.S-Iraq war. (Blairpoodle is an appendage of Bush)
We must have video of Tony blowing a goat to get him to dance like this!
It will not expand much because Bush is destroying the U.S. military - and more recent estimates of the Iraqi "insurgency" are up to 200,000 fighters and active supporters.
My nephew recently quit the Marines (a job he LOVED for 8 years) over this bullshit, and he's got a lot of company. This stupid chimp and his armchair chickenhawks are destroying the world's leading military force.