POLL: World War 3?

Remove all ads!

I was talking to a bunch of my friends overseas and we all agree that a World War 3 is inevitable. None of us could agree on which country would be the one that starts it...though Canada is pretty high on the list.
We did agree that it would pretty funny if the US stayed neutral for a while, and then came in and kicked everyone's ass.
We even have an ad for it:
"World War 3, comming to a country near you"

Anyways...I want to know if you think a World War 3 is on it's way.

[ March 09, 2003, 11:11: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 34 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: World War 3??? (34 votes.)

Is World War 3 coming soon? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 24% (8)
* No - 56% (19)
* Yes...it has already started... - 21% (7)

 

I strongly doubt it. Vietnam didn't start a world war. Korea didn't start one. Iraq didn't start one. We'll be fairly fine, and I don't think that Bush, or any other world leader, save for insane dictators, is going to destroy the world.

 

Would you please define 'soon'? As the world looks now I think a third world war will come in the next 50 years if certain countries dont look over their policys and stop for a second to think. But I dont know if that is soon.

 

"Soon" as in within the next couple of years.

"Couple of years" as in 3-5 years...

 

"and then came in and kicked everyone's ass"

No. Just no.

It will NOT work like that.

 

I don't think there will be a worldwar. Why ? Because of Iraq ? That war will be over in the blink of an eye. The Koreans are a bigger issue though. They have to be dealt with too.

 

There is no chance for WW3. I voted no.

However I'd vote differently if you've asked for end of this planet's life because of someone's ability to launch nukes. Not my ability, I don't have such ability.

 

Am I the only one who thinks this *is* world war III? Many historians now are starting to look at the last two world wars as one big war, because the terms that ended the first war sowed the seeds for the rise of Mussolini, Franco and Hitler. In general when you are studying history you find that historians identify the start of a war as having occurred many years before war was officially declared or before most of it citizens noticed they were at war. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that future historians will say that WWIII erupted on 9/11. Like the Spanish Civil War, this is not a war between countries so much as between ideological factions: in this case, democrats vs Islamist theocrats instead of communists vs fascists. That's why there are, just like in the SCW, Americans, Canadians and others fighting on *both* sides, each according to his personal beliefs. I think right now most people and most countries are working out which side of the war they are rooting for and/or willing to fight for, but I think the war is here and will not end until either democracy or Islamism is thoroughly crushed.

Note: I'm differentiating here between Islamism - the theocratic movement espoused by Bin Laden and the Taliban - and Islam. I expect Islam itself will thrive no matter who wins and I hope that most Muslims outside of the middle east will end up fighting as democrats rather than as Islamists. If not, the stakes and the dangers will be far higher.

 

Yes Sprite, you're probably the only one.

Perhaps I should elaborate my previous post more? A war has to have a side that won it and a side that lost it. What will happen with the nukes is that both sides will cease to exist. Thus, such thing cannot be called a war. An annihilation perhaps.

 

Historically speaking, World Wars I and II were started by a powerful country with expansionist ambitions in a continent where there were many powerful countries, almost all of whom were caught up in an intricate web of alliances with one another.

Nowadays, the most powerful nations are democracies - with the notable exception of China - and they have collectively realised that peace is better for them economically than war (perhaps not politically though: guess why Dubya wants to go into Iraq ). The "rogue" states that pose such an apparent threat to world peace are just that: rogue states who the US will eventually nail, probably regardless of UN backing.

There is the previously mentioned issue of China, but unlike many others I don't believe that China wants to go to war with the US or her allies. China is currently quite occupied with trying to get on top of her internal issues, such as trying to exploit Shenzen, Hong Kong, and Macau whilst at the same time trying to slowly communise them (is that even a real word?). China is happy with her current place in the eye of the world, with the hosting of the 2008 Olympics being taken by the Chinese as not only a great source of national pride, as is inspired in most of the citizens of a country when it wins the right to host the Games, but also as proof of the power of Communism.

 

The only thing happening right now is two leaders fighting like little kids. Why the hell should Bush give a damn about Iraq? If they do have warheads, and if they launch them, the U.S. would have a few dozen planes in the air to blow the hell out of it in seconds. Then you can blow the hell out of Saddam.

 

The thing, that troubles me, is what will follow if this "pre-emptive strike policy" becomes an international practice. Just imagine what is going to happen if India decides to make a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan, if China decides to make a pre-emptive strike against Taiwan, if Israel decides to make a pre-emptive strike against an arab country etc.

[ March 09, 2003, 22:53: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

Heh...I'll still be here. I don't think Sadam is dumb enough to attack Utah!

To lighten the mood in here...just imagine if the Vatican was building up it's nuclear arsenal...Non-Catholics beware...the Pope is coming for us!

@ Sprite: I'm with you.

 

No need for nukes... the Vatican has already attacked the United States. They made U.S. (especially Arizona) the dumping ground for all their Pedaphile Priests.

Talk about an act of war!

... so lets bomb the hell out of Iraq. Take out Palenstein (for all their murder-bombers and celebration of 9-11), and then lets bomb the hell out of Rome!

 

LMAO!!!

Wow...now I really like you! Well, maybe not for the Rome part, because I actually want to see the sights there before it gets distroyed...

 

If you ask me, the most likely staging ground for WW3 is the Arab-Israel conflict, not Iraq. Regardless of how many nations oppose the US, very few of them would actually be willing to support Iraq, in a military sense. The Palestinian situation has a much greater potential for the polarization of powers necessary to incite a global war. Still, I don't know if it will actually happen or not, so I haven't voted yet.