2006-09-15 10:44:25 · 16 answers · asked by dharmabear 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There is not and never can be a War on Terror. Terror is not a physical entity, it can't be destroyed, killed, or captured and therefore cannot be the enemy in a war. The same was true of the War on Poverty, another billion dollar waste of time, but at least that one wasn't also wasting lives. The War on Drugs is nothing more than a new Prohibition and has had the same result as the first one, it's made Organized Criminals into millionaires. As someone who was on active duty from the tail end of Nam through Desert Storm I put it to you that the sole function of the military is to kill people and destroy property. It is the responsibility of the Civilian leadership to decide which people and property to target. Sending in the troops with no target or clearly defined military objective is a waste of resources, and, for the record, spreading democracy is a political not a military objective. You can't spread democracy by killing people and destroying property, as the ever growing body count in Iraq will attest. We are no closer to a stable Middle-East now than we were six months before we went in, in fact a strong case can be made that things are now actually worse. As to this being WW3, please recall, no one anywhere has actually declared war yet. The whole world is at peace, we won in Iraq years ago, Bush said so.
2006-09-15 11:14:22 · answer #1 · answered by rich k 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The lines have been drawn. Alliances are forming. Countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, and China are working together (Iran is being provided weapons by most of these countries), and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela seems desperate to join the group (he is providing false documents to terrorists). The war on terror is a global war, and no one is safe. I read an article yesterday on the terrorist threat France is facing despite the fact they did not go into Iraq. The terrorists hate the west and want to annihilate our civilization. They are determined to succeed, so we must in turn become even more determined to preserve our way of life, even our right just to exist.
2006-09-15 11:00:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
international conflict 3 is an exceedingly solid threat, even nevertheless the terminology would possibly not replicate t as that is been used interior the previous. The international locations that scare me the main at present, broadly speaking via ( of direction) their instability may be North Korea, Pakistan, India and China borders on it. There additionally are the subject concerns an Iran - Israel conflict that ought to boost fairly right now right into a international doomsday. i might pick to have faith that maximum leaders now understand the draw back of a Nuclear action, yet there look to continually be people who merely stay with their palms on the panic button. right this moment there is likewise the possibility of strikes going on on the African Continent, which may be very devastating given the shortcoming of real peace and uncomplicated experience among the a lot there. One faction as against yet another, Muslims as against non-Muslims, tribes as against tribes, centuries long hatred.... maximum of opportunities that we form of stay on the "Doomsday Fault Line". Sorta makes a magnitude 7 earthquake appear like a walk interior the park. Water scarcity? Plague? those ought to be the solid previous days if issues do not quiet down..... and quickly.
2016-10-15 01:05:26 · answer #3 · answered by merkel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Its too contained to be a world war. Both the First and the Second World Wars were pretty gruesome, and should never be repeated again.
As for the war on terror: it would be a no contest if the coalition forces used their full power.
2006-09-15 19:40:46 · answer #4 · answered by aaaaaaa a 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I would say so except we in the West haven't realized what we can do to end it. It being a war of lies.
2006-09-15 10:46:42 · answer #5 · answered by Egroeg_Rorepme 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No it isn't...by definition, a world war requires that a majority of the worlds nations be actively engaged in combat. Jeeessss!!!
2006-09-15 15:27:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
bin Laden said it was WWIII. Let's see: Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela vs. the US, the UK, Germany, Israel, S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and India vs. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan. it's gonna be a bloody mess.
2006-09-15 14:03:27 · answer #7 · answered by dansimp93 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Check out what's next!...
http://www.global-conspiracies.com/fema_concentration_camps.htm
2006-09-15 14:54:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bingo!
2006-09-15 10:51:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Richard K hit that one on the head!
2006-09-15 12:39:41 · answer #10 · answered by trl_666 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋