POLL: WWIII

Remove all ads!

Do you think that Bush, direct* or indirect**, will manage to start World War III if he wins the election? Who will be his enemies? Who will be his friends?


*If he does something stupid like bombing China. Dumb, but hey, it's Bush.

**With his foreign affairs policy or such.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 42 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: WWIII (42 votes.)

Will Bush possibly start WWIII during 2004-2008, if he wins the election? (Choose 1)
* Yes. - 36% (15)
* No. - 60% (25)
* Who's Bush?/Results only. - 5% (2)

 

You're late - they are fighting WW-IV already - so say neocons like Norman Podhorez or James Woolsey ...

They are following the concept of the clash of the cultures, that, while immensely appealing especially since 911, has been thoroughly discredited by colleagues as well as by the author Samuel Huntington himself.

Not that that yet could still stop some rightwinger who has started to believe in that ... after reading through hundrets and hundrets of pages and listening to a few Cheney speeches something like that is almost hardwired.

What I so severly dislike about it is that when you take the conflict for granted - you go and want to strike as long your the strongest, and as the clash, war, is unavoidable anyway, negotiations are futile anyway. Peace offer? They lie anyway! Bombs away!

You deny yourself invaluable options once you're cought in such a thinking, IMO a key problem with the current US administration - their ideological blinkers.
This mindset, that explains terror with the clash of the cultures, is IMO as stupid and unproductive as the commies approach to explain about everything with their class struggle thesis.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/world_war_4.htm and the successive links, especially:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/world_war_4-intro.htm

[ September 27, 2004, 12:35: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

It would be hard for him to start WWIII as there isnt really anyone to fight it against. Others argue that the current conflict between the West and much of the muslim world is the first steps of WWIII or perhaps even number four as Ragusa said with the cold war being three. An all encompassing conflict as the ones we saw in the previous century is at the moment thankfully not very likely. If however the US takes a few more steps on the authoritarian ladder and relinquishes it's democratic heritage turning into a semie-theocratic oligarchy and if the EU continues to expand and integrate and if Russia manages to get out of its current slump and if China continues to grow and perhaps take some steps down the authoritarian ladder then we have a perfect playing board for a superb WWIII which would make the previous WW's look like kids arguing in the sand box. Lots and lots of if's there though. To paraphrase Einstein: "I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought but I know that WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Edited to integrate the thoughts raised by Ragusa.

 

Another point I forgot to make clear:
When you start to believe that there is a WW-IV, the clash of the cultures, underway RIGHT NOW, you might feel tempted to strike first to use your yet superior strength to get the upper hand - then you could well end up conjuring up, crearting what you now only errantly believe to see.

That, and it's popular appeal - it offers an easy answer, is it what makes the concept of the clash of the cultures so very dangerous.

Some US ideologues have adopted a very odd threat perspective, as if arab hordes are about to overrun the shores of Atlantic City to make every woman in the US wear burqas (now that would be a sight) and ban consuption of alcohole and pork - not to mention converting everyone to Islam and drowning helpless little kittens.

That is to say, their threat perspective would be somewhat comprehensible for a tiny country on the mediterranean shores, but not for the US with its huge terrain and large population, and geographic location.

[ September 27, 2004, 13:37: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Talking about WWIII is a bit ridiculous. Everyone knows that such an 'event' would be the end of human civilization on Earth.

We can thank the peace (yes to Reagan too but my point isn't about that now) to the immense amounts of weapons at BOTH sides: both giants knew that a war would mean the end to both of them.

So I certainly voted to No.

Of course there is always some risk of WW3 but I trust mathematics and humane spirit & racio.

 

Yeah, that's right, keep trusting the human spirit, then we'll have another war for sure.

 

I dont think Bush will be the cause of WWIII, but I definetly think it will happen, during my lifetime. I actualy kinda wish it will, too much Fallout (2) I suppose...

 

Uh, the term 'World War' should only be used if there are battles on multiple continents. Compare World War II to any other war afterwards, nothing comes close in scale. Korea, 'Nam and the Gulf Wars were important, yes, but they were the biggest things we've had usually only involving a maximum of 4 countries and the battle only takes place on one continent.

I doubt another World War would be likely. If it did happen there would need to be superpowers on opposite sides and no superpowers want to fight other superpowers. The UN might look like it has more bark than bite yet if a major conflict between two superpowers was to break out (something we haven't seen SINCE World War II) the countries in the UN would get involved.

Bush might be percieved as 'stupid' but he isn't THAT stupid. He's not after world dominiation, he doesn't want to increase living space of Americans by force, he doesn't want to purge the world of a certain race. He does want to protect his country from outside threats - that's all. To throw around accusations that this person is planning or will be responsiable for a World War is both paranoid and God damn stupid. He's not going to pick a fight with a country that possesses nuclear technology or a country with superpower allies. Nobody liked Iraq and few even tolerated them.

I think Bush is out of wars to wage anyway. Nobody in their right mind would wage more than two wars while in a democratic country.

 

Highly unlikely. Actually 0% chance. There is absolutely no benefit for the USA if Bush decides to start a World War.

 

Jesus, you love this kind of thing on here don't you? It's not gonna happen. Even if it does I doubt you will know too much about it. So relax, drink some beers, smoke some spliffs whatever and stop talking about stuff you can't change, lol

 

If you wish to believe this propagada, then go right ahead. There is no evidence that Iraq was a big threat to the US. For some of us the war is about:

1. The exercise of American military power - Shrub has been using the military for his own political motives. He is capitalizing on the "warrior spirit" that has gripped a lot of Americans since 9/11. Like most presidents, he wants his four more years.

2. Oil, oil, oil - This is the big one. Do you think this war would be fought if Iraq didn't have any? It must be reassuring to Exxon to know that we now own an oil rich country in the Middle East.

3.Economics - This is related to oil. King George's good buddies here in Texas needed their government welfare checks from the American people (poor people be damned). Can you say H-A-L-L-I-B-U-R-T-O-N?

 

mmmm. Two extremes. Who wants to bet that the truth is somewhere in between?

 

Chandos, I can't see Bush waging war on any country unless he has recieved evidence that the country is a threat to America or America's allies. He was told by intelligence that Iraq possessed WMD or most definatly had intention of producing them. Iraq has a history of being a down right little bastard on the world stage led by a dictator with a perchance for slaughter and torture.

Sure, we find out now that he was acting on incorrect information and you'd say now that he should have checked on this but retrospect in reguards to what someone SHOULD have done is always marred by the result. If Iraq DID have WMD I don't think anyone would have cared if Bush checked up on intelligence or not.

I shouldn't have said "that's all", I should have said "that is the most important reason he would wage war on any country and it is required".

Still, what evidence is there that Bush attacked Iraq for oil? It's there? There's alot of sand there too, did they invade for that? So in World War II America invaded Germany for their beer, sausages and superior household appliances? As far as I know oil prices have 'risen' and that's bad for economics in any developed country.

Using war as a political motive? I know Bush is percieved as stupid but not THAT stupid. Nobody enjoys war. Seeing your sons run off in fatigues to come home in a crate isn't something people enjoy. There is no way in a democratic system that declaring war could be used to gain popularity points.

 

The question has to be answered: Would even the first Gulf War have happened were it not for oil? There are many who feel that the War in Iraq is a continuation of the first(sort of unfinished business with Saddam). If you can answer in the affirmative that America is protecting its interests in the region (oil), then the next step is to look at the results of the war thus far. If you believe that America has no interest in the Middle East because of its oil, you can stop now, since the rest of this won't make any sense to you.

Why is Halliburton being investigated again? Who ran Halli before becoming Vice President? Why was this man even chosen to be VP anyway? Because he may be a "great friend" of big oil? How much is the American taxpayer paying Halli? Is there a connection between the Bush family, big oil, and the Saudi Royal Family? If you believe that there is something wrong with asking these questions, then we have different ideas about what is a democracy.

 

World wars doesent necessarily have to involve 2 or more superpowers. One day might come when the US elects some madman as president, and he might start a war. Even that doesent have to happen. The US, so worried about homeland security, could be making military and missle bases all over the world to protect themselves, and other countries might feel threatened.

 

I think it came in late 2000.

I don't think Dubya is going to start another world war, at least, not in the conventional sense. I think that the concept of "War On Terror" is completely bogus, since it requires a mindset and ethics that are completely foreign to traditional warfare. I would contend, though, that by allowing PNAC into policy-making, that Bush is willing to make war, but not in the military sense.

 

I don't know i do not like that Kerry guy at all but I hate Bush! Whe ever wins Europe loses!

 

World Wars do require more than one superpower. That's why World War I and II were called 'World Wars'. The battles were in so many places and between so many countries (some people forget that China, Thailand, Spain - heck, the ENTIRE British Commonwealth - were involved) it was a 'World War' because most of the world's population were from countries that were in the war.

As for electing a 'madman' and I assume you're talking about someone like Hitler or Stalin, well the topic is about Bush and I doubt America would elect someone like that AND they can only have 4 terms in office before another re-election - something that can't be changed without a general consensus.

 

Just beacause WWI and II had superpowers involved doesent mean world wars HAS to have superpowers involved. A world war could be fighted between alliances, to give an easy example: Asia, Africa and South America vs Europe and North America (I didnt say my example was realistic)
Im pretty sure there is a possiblilty of an multi-continental, non-superpower world war some day.