Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,903

09 Jan 2017, 11:18 am

When the first two World Wars were happening they weren't called World Wars. It was only afterwards that they were given those titles. There are dozens of countries with their hands in this Middle East mess. How many more need to be involved before we can call it a "World War"?

Furthermore, with Cheeto Mussolini about to be sworn into the White House, with his unabashed praise and support of dictators (Putin and Assad), there's an extremely terrifying imperialist Axis brewing between the US, Russia and Syria.

I believe that when the history books of the future are written, it will say that we are already in WW3.
9/11 will be treated like the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand, a prologue to the conflict.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,690
Location: On top of the world

09 Jan 2017, 12:37 pm

Geekonychus wrote:
When the first two World Wars were happening they weren't called World Wars. It was only afterwards that they were given those titles. There are dozens of countries with their hands in this Middle East mess. How many more need to be involved before we can call it a "World War"?

Furthermore, with Cheeto Mussolini about to be sworn into the White House, with his unabashed praise and support of dictators (Putin and Assad), there's an extremely terrifying imperialist Axis brewing between the US, Russia and Syria.

I believe that when the history books of the future are written, it will say that we are already in WW3.
9/11 will be treated like the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand, a prologue to the conflict.


Interesting thought but a few things are missing: Conscription was a big turning point for the run-up to WWII; it's sudden death in politics now. Food rationing was something everyone participated in. And switching factories over to produce weapons (Singer Sewing Machine making M1 Garand battle rifles) etc, etc, etc.

The idea was it was an all out effort and the winner would wind up controlling the loser. There's really no all out effort at this time: cars, luxury goods, etc., production never stops. Really no similarity other than killing....it's all for very different reasons (business reasons).

If there is ever a run-up to WWIII you'll know it (but all is precluded by nuclear weapons which end world wars forever...I hope).



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,620
Location: temperate zone

09 Jan 2017, 1:46 pm

Both world wars WERE called that as they were being fought. They called the first World War "the Great War", or the "World War" (obviously they didnt put the number "one" after the name). And they continued to call it the great war, or the world war during the peace time of the Twenties and Thirties. And then they did call it "the Second World War" when that broke out in 1939.

The war on terrorism triggered by 9-11 was staged around the globe, but thats not the same thing as a "world war".

A "world war" has to involve the major powers directly fighting each other. If Russia backed small country A, to fight against small country B being backed by the US thats not a world war. Russia and the US directly fighting each other would be a world war. That plus other powerful allies. And millions would by dying.

So we are not at the moment in any "world war".

However....should a sane person worry that we could be sliding toward a third world war?

I would say "absolutely".

Tensions are rising.

Some of this is simply the world returning to normal. For decades we had the cold war-just two sides. Then the post cold war with just one superpower (one side). Now we have a more normal situation in which many nations are emerging- some economically like India and Brazil, and some both militarily and economially (like Russia and China).

Add to that the Middle east: were you have the two local regional powers confronting each other: Saudia Arabia, and Iran over domination of the region. But the outiside global powers also have their fingers in the pie (Russia, and the US/NATO alliance). The Middle East has the makings of both regional general war (like Europe's Thirty Years War, or the wars of Napoleon)breaking out, AND the potential for adding to the tensions between the global powers like the US and Russia.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,513
Location: Aux Arcs

09 Jan 2017, 2:02 pm

I suspect the reason Putin wants to cozy up(or influence)us is China.I think China is making Putin nervous and he would like an alliance with us.Just in case.North Korea would be the small dog that joins the fight(or starts the fight by ankle nipping),siding of course with China.
The whole thing could go down at anytime.


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


Korin
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2014
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 117
Location: ISP will say

09 Jan 2017, 2:12 pm

my theory is that russia joins up with trump-lead nato.
but it's practically world war three already in middle east, that's the combat ground.
we as western allies will fight iran with saudi arabias help.
we will defend israel against anybody including gulf allies.
middle east will be the place where ww3 takes place, the americas are safe.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,690
Location: On top of the world

09 Jan 2017, 4:55 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Both world wars WERE called that as they were being fought. They called the first World War "the Great War", or the "World War" (obviously they didnt put the number "one" after the name). And they continued to call it the great war, or the world war during the peace time of the Twenties and Thirties. And then they did call it "the Second World War" when that broke out in 1939.

The war on terrorism triggered by 9-11 was staged around the globe, but thats not the same thing as a "world war".

A "world war" has to involve the major powers directly fighting each other. If Russia backed small country A, to fight against small country B being backed by the US thats not a world war. Russia and the US directly fighting each other would be a world war. That plus other powerful allies. And millions would by dying.

So we are not at the moment in any "world war".

However....should a sane person worry that we could be sliding toward a third world war?

I would say "absolutely".

Tensions are rising.

Some of this is simply the world returning to normal. For decades we had the cold war-just two sides. Then the post cold war with just one superpower (one side). Now we have a more normal situation in which many nations are emerging- some economically like India and Brazil, and some both militarily and economially (like Russia and China).

Add to that the Middle east: were you have the two local regional powers confronting each other: Saudia Arabia, and Iran over domination of the region. But the outiside global powers also have their fingers in the pie (Russia, and the US/NATO alliance). The Middle East has the makings of both regional general war (like Europe's Thirty Years War, or the wars of Napoleon)breaking out, AND the potential for adding to the tensions between the global powers like the US and Russia.


Quote:
A "world war" has to involve the major powers directly fighting each other.

Quote:
"absolutely"]


Absolutely????

Can you conceive of any situation in which we would put attack forces in Russia?
Or in China?
Or join with either (or NATO) to invade a third major super power?

I can not reach any of these conclusions logically. I can "imagine" a lot of different things, but that's not the same. I believe the threat of nuclear war is so real and certain that no country would risk being on the receiving end.
The delight of the politicians running the show is that they get to do all the fighting in someone else's backyard, which keeps radioactivity (etc.) from spoiling their flower garden at home. They won't risk it.

Quote:
Some of this is simply the world returning to normal.


In a roundabout way I think you're correct, but feel the big changes happening now are because of the introduction of China into the big picture (it used to be just a two superpower ballgame remember). Now smaller countries have a plethora of choices (and each superpower gets played against the other)....even by that idiot over in the Philippines....and this gives these smaller countries more autonomy and increases their opportunity for growth....YAY!

I think we'll just see more of the same. :( :( :(



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,620
Location: temperate zone

09 Jan 2017, 6:36 pm

ZenDen wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Both world wars WERE called that as they were being fought. They called the first World War "the Great War", or the "World War" (obviously they didnt put the number "one" after the name). And they continued to call it the great war, or the world war during the peace time of the Twenties and Thirties. And then they did call it "the Second World War" when that broke out in 1939.

The war on terrorism triggered by 9-11 was staged around the globe, but thats not the same thing as a "world war".

A "world war" has to involve the major powers directly fighting each other. If Russia backed small country A, to fight against small country B being backed by the US thats not a world war. Russia and the US directly fighting each other would be a world war. That plus other powerful allies. And millions would by dying.

So we are not at the moment in any "world war".

However....should a sane person worry that we could be sliding toward a third world war?

I would say "absolutely".

Tensions are rising.

Some of this is simply the world returning to normal. For decades we had the cold war-just two sides. Then the post cold war with just one superpower (one side). Now we have a more normal situation in which many nations are emerging- some economically like India and Brazil, and some both militarily and economially (like Russia and China).

Add to that the Middle east: were you have the two local regional powers confronting each other: Saudia Arabia, and Iran over domination of the region. But the outiside global powers also have their fingers in the pie (Russia, and the US/NATO alliance). The Middle East has the makings of both regional general war (like Europe's Thirty Years War, or the wars of Napoleon)breaking out, AND the potential for adding to the tensions between the global powers like the US and Russia.


Quote:
A "world war" has to involve the major powers directly fighting each other.

Quote:
"absolutely"]


Absolutely????

Can you conceive of any situation in which we would put attack forces in Russia?
Or in China?
Or join with either (or NATO) to invade a third major super power?

I can not reach any of these conclusions logically. I can "imagine" a lot of different things, but that's not the same. I believe the threat of nuclear war is so real and certain that no country would risk being on the receiving end.
The delight of the politicians running the show is that they get to do all the fighting in someone else's backyard, which keeps radioactivity (etc.) from spoiling their flower garden at home. They won't risk it.

Quote:
Some of this is simply the world returning to normal.


In a roundabout way I think you're correct, but feel the big changes happening now are because of the introduction of China into the big picture (it used to be just a two superpower ballgame remember). Now smaller countries have a plethora of choices (and each superpower gets played against the other)....even by that idiot over in the Philippines....and this gives these smaller countries more autonomy and increases their opportunity for growth....YAY!

I think we'll just see more of the same. :( :( :(


Maybe.

Not saying that the danger is certain, but there are flashpoints.

Ukraine is a flashpoint. Putin makes advances. A US president not wanting to look like an appeaser stands up to him, then he doesnt back down, then we dont back down to him backing down. Russia directly fights in the UKraine, and then NATO steps in.

Korea is a flashpoint. The north korean tail could drag the dog of China into a confrontation with the south korean tail, which in turns wags the US dog.Then you have the two big dogs growling at each other even though neither China nor the US wants to fight the other.

One could easily imagine Iraq reverting to direct W.Bush era style US occupation while at the same time Syria falls under Russian occupation to prop up Assad. In effect making the mideast neighbors (Syria and Iraq) also bordering military bases of the two superpowers. Both russia and the US might still be bombing ISIS (thus accidently bombing each other near the Iraq Syria border). Turkey (our NATO ally, but enemy of our Kurdish allies) might play Russia and the US off each other. Sumpin could go wrong.



Aspinator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 595
Location: AspinatorLand

09 Jan 2017, 6:43 pm

The US is not a dictatorship; the countries you mentioned are.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,620
Location: temperate zone

09 Jan 2017, 6:56 pm

Aspinator wrote:
The US is not a dictatorship; the countries you mentioned are.


Your point?



Aspinator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 595
Location: AspinatorLand

09 Jan 2017, 7:38 pm

My point? The US has 3 branches of government. Just because someone is president does not mean that person can act arbitrarily.



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,903

10 Jan 2017, 12:54 am

Aspinator wrote:
My point? The US has 3 branches of government. Just because someone is president does not mean that person can act arbitrarily.


I don't think our system is as stable as you think it is.

The last few years have proven that our system is at the very least extremely broken. Now the reactionary obstructionist party is going to control all 3 branches and the new leader of the executive branch (who the majority didn't vote for) is an aspiring dictator with deep admiration for and business ties to Russia and Syria.

History tells us that the average length of time that a major civilization lasts is only about 250 years. The US is already rapidly approaching it's expiration date.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,566
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

10 Jan 2017, 1:32 am

Geekonychus wrote:
When the first two World Wars were happening they weren't called World Wars. It was only afterwards that they were given those titles. There are dozens of countries with their hands in this Middle East mess. How many more need to be involved before we can call it a "World War"?

Furthermore, with Cheeto Mussolini about to be sworn into the White House, with his unabashed praise and support of dictators (Putin and Assad), there's an extremely terrifying imperialist Axis brewing between the US, Russia and Syria.

I believe that when the history books of the future are written, it will say that we are already in WW3.
9/11 will be treated like the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand, a prologue to the conflict.


It's not even close to being World War III.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,566
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

10 Jan 2017, 1:36 am

ZenDen wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
When the first two World Wars were happening they weren't called World Wars. It was only afterwards that they were given those titles. There are dozens of countries with their hands in this Middle East mess. How many more need to be involved before we can call it a "World War"?

Furthermore, with Cheeto Mussolini about to be sworn into the White House, with his unabashed praise and support of dictators (Putin and Assad), there's an extremely terrifying imperialist Axis brewing between the US, Russia and Syria.

I believe that when the history books of the future are written, it will say that we are already in WW3.
9/11 will be treated like the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand, a prologue to the conflict.


Interesting thought but a few things are missing: Conscription was a big turning point for the run-up to WWII; it's sudden death in politics now. Food rationing was something everyone participated in. And switching factories over to produce weapons (Singer Sewing Machine making M1 Garand battle rifles) etc, etc, etc.

The idea was it was an all out effort and the winner would wind up controlling the loser. There's really no all out effort at this time: cars, luxury goods, etc., production never stops. Really no similarity other than killing....it's all for very different reasons (business reasons).

If there is ever a run-up to WWIII you'll know it (but all is precluded by nuclear weapons which end world wars forever...I hope).


The nature of the military has changed greatly since Viet Nam. Conscription isn't needed these days. The caliber of soldiers we need are gotten by being selective on picking from volunteers. We don't need the typical draftees -- they would almost surely be a net negative.

If we did need to bring back the draft, we would have plenty of time and we would need that time to ramp up our training centers. It would probably take at least six months to be ready to take in any draftees at all.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,497
Location: Long Island, New York

10 Jan 2017, 3:59 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Both world wars WERE called that as they were being fought. They called the first World War "the Great War", or the "World War" (obviously they didnt put the number "one" after the name). And they continued to call it the great war, or the world war during the peace time of the Twenties and Thirlties. And then they did call it "the Second World War" when that broke out in 1939.

The war on terrorism triggered by 9-11 was staged around the globe, but thats not the same thing as a "world war".

A "world war" has to involve the major powers directly fighting each other. If Russia backed small country A, to fight against small country B being backed by the US thats not a world war. Russia and the US directly fighting each other would be a world war. That plus other powerful allies. And millions would by dying.

So we are not at the moment in any "world war"


Wikipedia World War Article
Quote:
The Oxford English Dictionary cited the first known usage in the English language to a Scottish newspaper: the People's Journal in 1848, “A war among the great powers is now necessarily a world-war.” The term, “world war” had been used in 1850 by Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels[1] in The Class Struggles in France. Rasmus B. Anderson in 1889 described an episode in Teutonic mythology as a “world war” (Swedish: världskrig), justifying this description by a line in an Old Norse epic poem, "Völuspá: folcvig fyrst i heimi" ("The first great war in the world".)[2] German writer August Wilhelm Otto Niemann had used the term "world war" in the title of his anti-British novel, Der Weltkrieg: Deutsche Träume (The World War: German Dreams) in 1904, published in English as The Coming Conquest of England.

In English, the term "First World War" had been used by Charles à Court Repington as a title for his memoirs (published in 1920) having discussed the matter with a Major Johnstone of Harvard University in September 1918. The term "World War I" was coined by Time magazine in its issue of June 12, 1939. In the same article, the term "World War II" was first used speculatively to describe the upcoming war. The first use for the actual war came in its issue of September 11, 1939.[3] One week earlier, the Danish newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad used the term on its front page, saying "The second World War broke out yesterday at 11 a.m."[4]

Speculative fiction authors had been noting the concept of a Second World War in 1919 and 1920, when Milo Hastings wrote his dystopian novel, City of Endless Night. Other languages have also adopted the "world war" terminology, for example; in French: "world war" is translated as Guerre Mondiale, in German: Weltkrieg (which, prior to the war, had been used in the more abstract meaning of a global conflict), in Italian: Guerra Mondiale, in Spanish and Portuguese: Guerra Mundial, in Danish: Verdenskrig, and in Russian: Мировая война (Mirovaya Voyna.)


The idea that we are in a World War between the Judeo-Christian world and Islam is central to the world view of the neo-conservatives, Al Quieda, and ISIS. Might be true because it involves multiple countries in multiple locations. It is bieng fought very differently from the 20 Centrury world wars but WWI and WWII were fought very differently.


_________________
We live in a society that is perfectionistic in its expectations and intolerant of what were previously considered to be normal and expectable distress and individual difference - Dr. Allen Frances Chairman of the DSM IV Task Force

Barely verbal due to tongue cancer but working on it
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Moderate to Severe Aspergers


ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,690
Location: On top of the world

10 Jan 2017, 9:40 am

eric76 wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
When the first two World Wars were happening they weren't called World Wars. It was only afterwards that they were given those titles. There are dozens of countries with their hands in this Middle East mess. How many more need to be involved before we can call it a "World War"?

Furthermore, with Cheeto Mussolini about to be sworn into the White House, with his unabashed praise and support of dictators (Putin and Assad), there's an extremely terrifying imperialist Axis brewing between the US, Russia and Syria.

I believe that when the history books of the future are written, it will say that we are already in WW3.
9/11 will be treated like the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand, a prologue to the conflict.


Interesting thought but a few things are missing: Conscription was a big turning point for the run-up to WWII; it's sudden death in politics now. Food rationing was something everyone participated in. And switching factories over to produce weapons (Singer Sewing Machine making M1 Garand battle rifles) etc, etc, etc.

The idea was it was an all out effort and the winner would wind up controlling the loser. There's really no all out effort at this time: cars, luxury goods, etc., production never stops. Really no similarity other than killing....it's all for very different reasons (business reasons).

If there is ever a run-up to WWIII you'll know it (but all is precluded by nuclear weapons which end world wars forever...I hope).


The nature of the military has changed greatly since Viet Nam. Conscription isn't needed these days. The caliber of soldiers we need are gotten by being selective on picking from volunteers. We don't need the typical draftees -- they would almost surely be a net negative.

If we did need to bring back the draft, we would have plenty of time and we would need that time to ramp up our training centers. It would probably take at least six months to be ready to take in any draftees at all.


You said:
The nature of the military has changed greatly since Viet Nam. Conscription isn't needed these days. The caliber of soldiers we need are gotten by being selective on picking from volunteers. We don't need the typical draftees -- they would almost surely be a net negative.

Conscription isn't needed these days. Why don't you tell that to China? Or India? Or etc.?

Just because we 've been good at letting others do our ground fighting for us does NOT mean these countries will continue to supply us with an endless stream of fighters. The strength of countries with gigantic populations is in fielding millions of soldiers to control and occupy. This is why China only fields one aircraft carrier....they don't need them to control other countries and the relative ineffectiveness of our air power has been thrown in our face by a rag-tag army; they now know how to more effectively avoid our air/missile strikes and can't even be driven out of cities, let alone countries.

That air power stuff is now mostly nullified in most cases and can not be relied upon, especially since once the air siege stops the more numerous enemy troops come right back in and take over again. If you don't have troops to occupy you've just wasted lives and resources. And this is now the "modern" method of war.

The reliance on others to die for us is an open joke and leads nowhere. And rest assured, if they plan for "ALL OUT WAR" there will be training plans a-plenty. But in a world where politics is "ALL" none of these leeches will jeopardize their own nest. It will all be happening "over there", except for the terrorist actions we will see here.