Yes indirectly.
There are a few reasons why Bush's 'War on Terror' has not been designated as World War 3.
1. Just as I said, that term is a Bush slogan and has not been recognized globally... not like WW2 or WW1 where enemies on both sides recognized the conflict.
2. Before Bush invaded Iraq, there was no one country seen as the instigator... like the way Germany was seen as the instigator of WW2. Because this is not a war of nations but rather, a war of philosophies, the definitions get skewed.
Some would argue that once Bush invaded Iraq, he caused the USA to be the focal pt of this WW3... that the rest of the world is either protecting itself from USA control, defending itself from a USA attack or trying to not be associated with current USA actions.
3. When you have one side declaring a war of ideas (Laden against the USA) and the other side physically declaring a war (USA invasion of Iraq) the terms of the actual war are difficult to define.
4. Because the Iraqi invasion turned out to be unnecessary and based on false intelligence... no Al QED involvement or WMDs... the entire conflict gets confused.
For example, some argue there is no precedent for this conflict but, there is. There wasn't when we were just going after Laden in Afghanistan; but, the second we invaded Iraq, there is a precedent.... ppl just don't like that we are the side of the enemy when you look at the precedent. Example, are Iraqi insurgents not the exact equivalent to USA militias that we used to defeat the British invasion during the Revolutionary War... we had to use militias because we did not have the technology and equipment to take them head to head... this is the same situation for the Iraqi insurgents fighting for their territory against an occupier.
With all this said, I agree with you actually... no matter what type of conflict it is, etc... the bottom line is that the entire world has been touched and is involved in this conflict in one manner or another.
2007-10-06 01:06:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by BeachBum 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
A world war is a war in which a substantial number of the "world" powers are at war with one another. This often results when alliances are made where there is a clear ideological, economic, or military disagreement between the two (or more) sides. A single country whose autonomy is being usurped or at least in danger can be the single spark that leads to world wars-which actually was the case for both world wars.
The war on terror is difficult to classify simply because it has no precedent. However, it is certain that it can't be classified as a world war, because the U.S. is the only country that has invested a significant amount of time and money in revising military and security infrastructure and has, of course, actually waged an internationally recognized war against another autonomous country partly on the basis of alleged terrorist associations or intentions. We can cite many countries who have remained as allies of the U.S. in the war against terror, but their conviction is barely palpable. With the exception of a handful of European countries (notably the U.K.), most of the countries who support the U.S.'s war against terror hasn't really felt the need to change much of anything. Look at most of the industrialized world, look at asia (korea, china, and japan)... do you think their lives have changed at all? Sympathy doesn't equate substantial military involvement.
Just my 2 cents written at 3 a.m.
2007-10-01 20:13:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by dudnaito 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
"Every country" in the world does not need to be actively fighting to make it a world war... it only has to move into 3 or more continents. World War 1 and 2 did not directly involve any Central or South American Country. It did involve North America, Europe, Asia and Africa.
Sound observers know that the "war on terror" (which Dems say does not exist) is a world war. The conflict between Western democracies and Radical Islam has caused casualties in North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. It is global in nature.
2007-10-01 20:16:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by A Plague on your houses 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you're going to equate the "war on terror" with the world wars, it would have to be World War 4. The "cold war" would then be World War 3.
2007-10-01 20:18:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
World War is the involvement of most countries in a fight against world domination.
2007-10-01 23:40:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
actually world war 4, by the same definition then WW3 was the Cold War, were most countries were on either our side or the soviet union.
2007-10-01 20:34:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Krytox1a 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
World War one million: one million)Franc Ferdinand Asassinated by way of Serbian Sparking World War one million two)Germany march into Belgium, Britain claim warfare on Germany three)German's U-two submarines sink U.S.S Lusitania four)Zimmerman notes Brought the U.S into warfare five)Treaty of Versaille ended World War one million World War two: one million)Germany invade Poland sparking World War two two)Japan assault Pearl Harbor bringing the U.S into WW2 three)Japanese Internment camp, All Japanese in America have been despatched to camp for the period of the warfare four)D-Day Allies holiday into Europe five)Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki utterly destroying the citys.
2016-09-05 14:29:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by mish 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You have a point, however to me WW3 will be when armies go to war and civilians and infrastructure protection doesn't matter for either conflicting parties. U.S. doesn't seem to go to war only major policing action.
2007-10-01 21:49:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋