WWIII

[DJ]

Re: WWIII

I take my views of WWII not being mentioned by perusing numerous history books that we intended to use in our home education. Needless to say, we chose the books that were historically accurate, not those filled with re-written opinion.

Some claim that the fight against terrorism is WWIII. I disagree. We do those that fought in the real WW's a great disservice by calling this a "world war".

We are fighting against armed "gangs" as mentioned..

China is the 800 pound Gorilla, in the room, that everyone seems to want to ignore.

The Chinese are NOT stupid. They know a full on attack, against us, would be mutually 100% destructive. As much as the Chi-coms hate the Japanese (justifiably so) they have learned how to take on the US, as the Japanese did.. That is to cripple us economically by eroding our economic/manufacturing base.

As for the Middle East. Yes, it's a hot spot. Other than birthing terrorists, it really is not a world threat.

We, USA, and other G8 countries can bring the middle east to its knees by not supporting their ONE export. There is plenty of oil to go around until we can use technology to find ways to replace it.

But, just like the Muslims, we are ruled by the 1% of the population that squeals the loudest.

 

[rottenray6402]

Re: WWIII

Communicate Txswinner? Spoken like a true liberal and that sounds really warm and fuzzy and nice in theory. IF that would work then the world would be a much better place but you can not negotiate or trust communists. By their nature they will do anything to acheive their goals which is world domination. The only way we won the cold war with the Soviet Bloc and got Germany to tear down the wall was by out spending them on defense. The reason to have the biggest and best weapons is to provide a deterent and not have to use them. If we keep supporting China with trade eventually they will be able to out spend us on their military and then we will be in a very bad position. That coupled with another Bill Clinton type president that allows our military to be come weak and under funded.

 

[QC]

Re: WWIII

DJ,

I understand your concern about labeling as words do matter. Yes, calling this particular war a World War could be offensive to those who fought in the first two. I have used the same argument for the use of Reich to describe the Right, as it is offensive to those who died at the hands of the Third Reich.

With the above said though, the goals of these "gangs" and thugs that we fight today are the same. They do want total world dominance. They do want the world to change to their thinking. They do believe the rest of us are inferior infidels and should be converted or killed. In that regard, this is similar. Similar scope? Not yet, but if they had the means, there is no question in my mind that they would escalate this war to historical levels. This is why anyone who defends or explains their actions, whether an individual or especially a foreign power, is so dangerous. If any major force finds a reason to align themselves with these gangs of thugs, then there would be no dispute as to the label deserved. Iran is close to being an example, except they do not have nuclear capabilities . . . Maybe, just maybe, some can now see how dangerous Saddam could've been if he did have nuclear arms or other WMD at his disposal right now . . .

 

[DJ]

Re: WWIII

Not yet, but if they had the means, there is no question in my mind that they would escalate this war to historical levels.

QC, they do not as of yet-agreed. However, they may never. There are still plenty of people around that recognize those people (sans the US media) for the extremist nuts they are. Us calling each other "extremists" pales in degree, as compared to those people.

Politicians are walking a very fine line by ignoring and encouraging those people. The voter base won't stand for it-for now.

But, times are a changing.

 

[12Footer]

Re: WWIII

.

I don't disagree 12fter that the mentality is out there.....I just think to say that WWII isnt taught is fricken absurd. I took a Class in college that was only about Hitler, took a class in high school that was only WWII..........

Maybe I live in some time warp........idk. Like I said its one thing to say the mentality exists, and quite another to use such a blanket statement.

Oh, the mispelling was me trying to type a response and run to work...............not like this spell check works anyways.8)

If you check, you'll find I never stated that WWII wasn't taught in schoool, Pony. What I was trying to say is even 40 years ago, we had kooks (both teachers and student body), trying to tell us that It didn't go down like it is illustrated in history books. Nothing has changed, really... Ward Churchill and his minions do not miss an opertunity to re-write the history books.


NP on the spelling. When it comes to ignoring proper spelling, I wrote the book, and NEVER use a spell checker. No point in it, the way i see it. I have NEVER been one to "take-off points" for that. We aren't here getting graded, and you got your point accross perfectly well ( i thought). Besides i have been openly chastised for misspelling words on several occasions myself, and should've not mentioned it at all --- Just trying to be "funny".or flippant in a friendly way. Sorry if i overstepped my bounds.
.EDIT---------
OK, i see where you got confused ;Djhons sttated that WWII wasn't taught...But I think he meant the same thing i did.... That it was taught, and then attempts made to "un-teach" it.

------------------------------------------------From SW Florida, A proud member of iboats since
March 25, 2001
The old me

 

[12Footer]

Re: WWIII

.

And I've noted how most people have been indoctrinated to believe that another global conflict would not take place without nukes ending the human race as we know it. This doctrine was drummed-into you in school. "Mission accomplished".... The opinion is now the popular one. But i for one aint buying it.
.
------------------------------------------------From SW Florida, A proud member of iboats since
March 25, 2001
The old me

 

[treedancer]

Re: WWIII

edit

 

[treedancer]

Re: WWIII

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk(Atatürk

He wasfiercely opposed to the expression of the Islamic culture indigenous to the Turkish people.

Any history buffs will recognize this name, the first President of the Republic of Turkey. In my opinion, until a leader that is comparable to Atatürk is found in the Muslin religion, and force changes on them we will have these radicals around. Trying to force our form Democracies on them is futile, some hybrid, maybe, but most likely will have to include some form of state religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemal_Atatürk#Political_consolidation