new World War? (poll)

[RavenW]

just one question (please answer briefly - 'Yes'/'No'):

Do you think we are in the middle (beginning) of World War right now?

This is a poll question. Thank You.

"United Strike"
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/564_1087947794_poster.jpg

[n4292936]

NO,
The nature of this war is qualitatively different than the previous ones. The geography of the threat does not make it so per se.... I see flames ahead :D

[RavenW]

Thank you for your answer.

ppl, please be brief in your answer (yes/no). This is just a poll. :)

[EvanL]

Its not a world war per say. Its a new type of conflict. Definately one we havent seen before. But since the enemy doesnt have a face, its not really a war.

[Ratamacue]

World War? No. Worldwide War? Absolutely.

[Midav]

Yes. I believe we are at the beginning of one.

[Nizark]

We are in a world war as much as the world was at war during the Cold war.

[EvanL]

Yes. I believe we are at the beginning of one.
Explain?
How can it be the start of a world war?
Theres no country were fighting against. Just an ideaology.
RTherefore it doesnt make sense to say its a world war. Like Rat said, yes it is a worldwide war, but not a world war.

[RavenW]

Thank you for your brief answers. Keep them coming! woot

Please, leave the explanation of one's opinion for other topic. This is just a poll. You don't have to explain anything, I just want to count "Yes"s and "No"s.

[EvanL]

We are in a world war as much as the world was at war during the Cold war.
Thats a good analogy.

[Kilgor]

I think the we are.

The circle of conflict has returned to relgion.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Yes, the very early beginings. Sides are forming up now for the big mess later.

[Midav]

Yes. I believe we are at the beginning of one.
Explain?
How can it be the start of a world war?
Theres no country were fighting against. Just an ideaology.
RTherefore it doesnt make sense to say its a world war. Like Rat said, yes it is a worldwide war, but not a world war.

Firstly, this is an opinion, like much anyone else posting here. Just a matter of time to find out whether our opinions are right or wrong. Hope I am wrong..... time will tell.

Now, how much longer are Muslim nations going to go along with this? The anger is spreading towards the west.

Can Musharaf hang in there? Mubarak is sick. Should he go, who will replace him?

The problems in India, Chechnya, Indonesia, Phillipeans etc....

Even if none take over a nation, it's a matter of time before this goes nuclear, biological or chemical. If it does, it make people angry. Angry people will want to see blood and all hell will break lose.

Right now as is, a lot of nations, many principal nations, are involved in the war against terrorism.

That is my explanation. That is my opinion.

Edit: Sorry Raven.

[Zarathustra]

NO

[Stl. boy]

We are probably in the beginnings of one. Go read The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington. He wrote it before 9/11. For a brief summary/preview...

http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

[Secret Squirrel]

No. The war on terror is just like the war on drugs; both pop up in a lot of places, neither can truly be defeated, but it's still possible to surpress them as much as possible.

[Pooga]

Oui.

world war, n : a war in which the major nations of the world are involved
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=world%20war

[Zarathustra]

No. The war on terror is just like the war on drugs; both pop up in a lot of places, neither can truly be defeated, but it's still possible to surpress them as much as possible.

That's exactly what I think. :hug:

[Mongrel]

Based on this:
"world war...n : a war in which the major nations of the world are involved"

I say Yes.

M.

[n4292936]

Mongrel, based on that rational the War on Drugs or the War on Organised Crime is also a World War.
I think their are further qualification to the definition which arent being considered.

[Mongrel]

Good point. I stand confused. ;)
M.

[Secret Squirrel]

Good point. I stand confused. ;)
M.

what confuses a lot of people is when someone presents a definition of a "world war" they think its a perfect fit for the war on terror. Well the before mentioned definition of a "world war" is the definition of a CONVENTIONAL world war. The war on terror, just like the war on drugs, is not a conventional war. The war on terror is a war against a tactic. Thus theres no way all the terrorists in the world are all of a sudden going to throw up the white flags and ask for peace and sign the necessary papers to get the enemy out of their countries...why? because terrorists dont have to own anythng to be a terrorist.

[n4292936]

Secret, you've either read Jeffrey Record's paper Bounding the War on Terror or youre refering to an earlier comment I made, which was borrowed from that paper - kudos man, kudos :P ;)
Terrorists aren't subject to conventional military destruction, the war is almost entirely unconventional, it is not against a nation-state, it will not be won with military might (note that law enforcement agencies have arrested nearly 4 times as many terrorists as militaries have killed), it is not a war which seeks to capture, retake, or hold territory... its just not a "war" really. "War" is a convenient analogy and a nice catch phrase which, probably for lack of a better word, is most commonly used to describe the effort to eradicate terrorism - but it is a poor fit to the present scenario.

[Herrmannek]

I like to call it World Wide War because it covers all world but its intensity and characteristics are very different from conventional world war... Like in interent were evrything is less intense/real, but spreaded evrywhere and deviations are main part of it...

[flickme]

No.

[VorpalDoom]

if its a world war, it started at the end of WW2, and the start of the korean war.

So, yea, in the sense that war has been ever present sense the end of ww2.

But I would not call it world war three, more like a world securement war, or humanistic survival war... but its wrong to clump multiple wars into one i belive, as you will forget things... like the war in somalia against the warlords there... that was a war by itself. the slaughter in rowanda... that was a war by itself, it would be a pity to simply call it all ww3.

so, no. its not ww3.

[Bulkowski]

World War? I am not sure, but I have a bad feeling about the whole Middle East... and China...and North Korea...and Iran...

[Freibier]

No, don't be so paranoid

[fdt]

NAY, NO, NON...

[ArtofPain]

Yes. But I think there are OTHER TARGETS of war

[OB Kenobi]

No. There won't be any more world wars, because we'll all be dead if there is one. There's no way out of it, no one can win that kind of thing. That's why we have terrorism instead.

[ash933]

No. I doubt we'll see another world war, in the conventional sense. Thankfully.

[BlackRain]

Yes. Except it is World War IV.


James Woolsey, who served as CIA director under President Bill Clinton, believes we are in the middle of a world war.


(CNN) -- Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.


He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/

Ordinary citizens in Europe believe it is possible as well.

D-Day Survey Reveals World War 3 Fears

Many people fear there will be a Third World War and that it will break out in their lifetime, according to a Sky News Survey.As veterans, heads of state and ordinary people mark the sacrifice made on D-Day 60 years ago, thousands of you think we have not learnt the lesson of World War Two.Iraq, the war on terror and recent events in Saudi Arabia have convinced many that the world is no safer and another world war is inevitable.

Asked if they thought there would be a World War Three, almost half of those taking part in the survey said yes. Less than one in three said no. The rest answered "don't know".

Asked if a world war would break out in their lifetime, 44.7% said yes, 29.3% said no and 25.8% said they didn't know.

Despite their pessimism, or maybe because of it, the vast majority who took part in the poll thought it was important to remember D-Day.

Asked "Should World War Two anniversaries still be marked with formal ceremonies, or is it time to let them go," 87% said they should be remembered.

The same number also said that commemorations like D-Day remind us of our heritage and define who we are today.

About 88% also said they owed a big debt to the troops who put their lives on the line as they landed in France in 1944.

There was much less sympathy for President Bush who is taking part in the commemorations, than with other world leaders.

The majority - 65% - believe the US President could be accused of making political capital out of the commemorations months before the American elections.

However, most people thought it was a good idea that the German Chancellor, Gerhardt Schroeder, was invited to the multi-national tribute in Normandy.

Only 10% said they were offended by his presence.

More than 5,000 people took part in the survey within hours of it being published on the Sky News website.

[cut]

No, I believe that's giving to much credit to al-qaeda.

[Herrmannek]

No, I believe that's giving to much credit to al-qaeda.

rofl

[Brandon]

NO

[RavenW]

I say YES!

War on Terror is pointless because it is a war on tactic. It cannot be won like the war on Blitzkrieg.

But there is clearly a World War with a particular radical ideology that carries out this tactic - Islamo-fascism - ideology that preaches intolerence to people of other religion and uses terrorism as a tactical weapon to achieve its evil goals (world domination of one particular religion and forceful conversion/taxation of others).