World War 3? 59 replies

Please wait...

JP(NL)

Flying Dutchman

50 XP

28th April 2003

0 Uploads

8,315 Posts

0 Threads

#51 16 years ago
nitestryker War's not over kid...Iraq is a big place...and agian, there was the 40 tons of chemicals found along syrian border [color=white] [/color]

might I add these chemicals were outdated and no longer of any use in battle.




vivanolaq

Glucose, Gas, and Styrofoam

50 XP

4th May 2004

0 Uploads

352 Posts

0 Threads

#52 16 years ago

Generally I would side with he anti-war part of the populus, but this is pretty much bullshit.

by Cataphract I disagree. America loves a good war, especially a big one. We go to war because we are too stupid to remember what it was like during the last war. And even our historical accounts of past wars are romanticized to make them seem like trashy love novels (see "Pearl Harbor").

The majority of the wars America gets involved with are either because we are drawn into it to defend an ally or to help increase the standard of living within the United States and the rest of the planet. WW1- we stayed out all the way until it was realized that the only way we could save millions of lives and to end the war was for us to enter and get Germany to surrender. Germany did not surrender because they were outmatched, Germany surrendered because of the vast resources the United States brought against it. Had the United States not entered that war Europe would had have been in worse sshape than it was during WW2. And it would have remained that way for quite some time.

WW2- We stayed out of the European war for 2 years and the war in Asia for what 6 years? 2395 men and women died at Pearl Harbor. We entered the war in Asia to defend an attack on the United States. We entered the war in Europe to defend humanity (and cause they declaredwar on us).

Korea- We entered Korea to defend South Korea. Do I personnally agree with the decision? No, but the facts are we entered to help defend a country that was being attacked by another country that had military backing of the Soviet Union.

Vietnam- We went to war in Vietnam for the same reason we went into Korea. This time we let the war efforts be headed by politicians and the war turned into a giant clusterfuck, but we went in for actual reasons. Vietnam was a lot like Iraq in that we went in for false reasons (Gulf of Tonkin:WMDs) but we should have gone in anyway.

Kosovo- Genocide. The crimes against humanity in Kosovo are so catastrophic that they should not be simply brushed aside as political bs as so much other truly detrimental information has been. There is no reason that we should not have gone into Kosovo.

Iraq- We went in to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Regardless of what anybody thinks about the stories about the Weapons of Mass Destruction a man that is capable of knowingly murdering thousands of his own citizens should not be in power.

by Mihail No, liberals have learned that war does not solve anything. They learned from the mistakes of vietnam.

Vietnam wasn't a war so much as it was a clusterfuck. Had Vietnam been run like a war rather than the Presidents personal video game we would have won and something would have solved.




Mike 51

Bush/Cheney 2004 apparently

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

526 Posts

0 Threads

#53 16 years ago

vivanolaqGenerally I would side with he anti-war part of the populus, but this is pretty much bullshit.

The majority of the wars America gets involved with are either because we are drawn into it to defend an ally or to help increase the standard of living within the United States and the rest of the planet. WW1- we stayed out all the way until it was realized that the only way we could save millions of lives and to end the war was for us to enter and get Germany to surrender. Germany did not surrender because they were outmatched, Germany surrendered because of the vast resources the United States brought against it. Had the United States not entered that war Europe would had have been in worse sshape than it was during WW2. And it would have remained that way for quite some time.

Nah. America declared war, among other reasons, mainly because Germany was planning to reinstate Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, which would cost hundreds of American lives, and get Mexico to ally against the United States to keep them busy. It was not really about saving lives, at least, not European lives, above protecting/avenging US shipping, and because Germany was committing a tacit act of war in seeking an alliance with the Mexicans. Basically, a prequel to Pearl Habour.

In any case, America helped with the last days of the war, but the 'vast resources of the United States' did little more than take the slack after Russia was forced out of the war in 1917. Bear in mind that American troops did not see combat until June of 1918, less than five months before the armistice.

Germany really surrendered because it attempted two last ditch offensives in April and July, both of which were defeated. They brought their eastern divisions west in April, launching a major offensive which was repulsed by June, before US soldiers entered the front. Their second offensive was defeated by an allied force of all three nations, but bear in mind America's troop contribution in the second offensive was 200'000-300'000 throughout the German onslaught, rising to 2 million by the end of the war (in perspective, consider that Britain lost 60'000 men in a single day in the Somme).

US forces joined into the last push, and undoubtably hammered the final nails into the Germany coffin. But make no mistake - Germany was on the ropes, really, before the US was even there. They really lost in June and July, when the numbers of American troops was still a trickle. After their failure to capture Paris from the British, French and Belgians, the stalemate of trench warfare was over. I don't think the 'vast resources of the United States' had all that much to do with it, with all due respect.

So, from what I can see, the war might have dragged on a few months without the United States, and the surrender might have been less absolute (which, with hindsight, would have been no bad thing), but that's as far as it goes. The stalemate had already been exhausted by the time America arrived on the scene in June-July 1918, and the British and French were launching massive counter-attacks across the Western Front after Germany's failed offensives that, with American help, culminated in the Armistice. But I think it would have happened, one way or another, even without the welcome, but relatively minor, successes of Pershing, the American First Army, and America.

Edit. I don't know what the hell happened to that quote, by the way...




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#54 16 years ago
I disagree. America loves a good war, especially a big one. We go to war because we are too stupid to remember what it was like during the last war. And even our historical accounts of past wars are romanticized to make them seem like trashy love novels (see "Pearl Harbor").

What I meant by this was the way the American people in general view wars. I wasn't saying that the reason we go to war is this, but once we're in a war, the American attitude tends to be like I stated above, unless of course the war isn't going well. I'm not anti-war, the Iraq War was a good thing.




mwace

Matthew Weigang

50 XP

25th August 2004

0 Uploads

853 Posts

0 Threads

#55 16 years ago
NiteStrykerI have heard some comparisons of this war on terror as World War 3, because of the number of nations involved... Do you agree or disagree with this title?

Ugh, I dont believe in this "War on Terror" crap - I think its George Bush's means of pushing his status up to that of some kind of great hero leader guy. Its not even a real goddamn war, a real war on terror would just be the United States trien to get everybody to discourage un-orthidox acts of warfare, and then try to prevent that from happening inside the USA (pfft, theres no supersecurity in, say, Iceland. Were just wallin ourselves in, we really havnt helped anyone else..). Plus, this "war on terror" isnt at all effective - its just fueling the hatred for us, which often results in more terrorists. We lost more fucking heros in our armed forces since the 911 attacks than buisnessmen in the World Trade center. Were just egging each other on and its gonna start building up into a real damn conflict if you ask me - heh WW3. We need to stop this crap now, take out Osama, and get the hell outta everywere were not supposed to be. Then we can prevent this possible third world war.




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#56 16 years ago

Ugh, I dont believe in this "War on Terror" crap - I think its George Bush's means of pushing his status up to that of some kind of great hero leader guy. True, it's not really a "war," it's more of a manhunt. It will end up being like the War on Drugs: impossible to win. Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't defend ourselves against terrorist attacks.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#57 16 years ago

Biggus DickusLink? (I've already looked around, BTW)[/QUOTE]

Ive posted it many times, go look around for it, its in my 'reasons why we went to war' thread...about 5 times

[QUOTE=Good Ol's Cataphract]I'm not anti-war, the Iraq War was a good thing.

Ur kidding, right? Pretty much most of the crap u say is agianst the war.

I was always in agreence with the reasons behind the war, but even I think its just a mess now.




FireSphere

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

13th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,646 Posts

0 Threads

#58 16 years ago

Ur kidding, right? Pretty much most of the crap u say is agianst the war.

I was always in agreence with the reasons behind the war, but even I think its just a mess now.

Nope. Not anti-war. I would have gladly went along with the Iraq War if it were humanitarian reasons rather than the false national security reason. Also, it would need to be handled better than it has. Bush recently admitted that he underestiminated the difficulty in rebuilding Iraq. Number of mistakes Bush has admitted to: ONE. It's a start. One of the reasons I'm going to vote for Kerry is because he's not one of these angry anti-war Democrats like Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich. I know more about Kerry than you: trust me, Kerry is not what you think.




-Logic-Is-A-Virtue-

Bush/Cheney 2004

50 XP

28th August 2004

0 Uploads

320 Posts

0 Threads

#59 16 years ago
mwace We lost more fucking heros in our armed forces since the 911 attacks than buisnessmen in the World Trade center.

When you stop posting what you think might be true and actually go out to get facts I will start to listen to your opinions seriously. Just the fact that you don't use facts shows me you don't care much about your own opinions to back it up. Heres a link that disproves this and it was easy to find, all you have to do is :google: .

[color=white][/color] [color=white]www.http://icasualties.org/oif/[/color]




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#60 16 years ago
CataphractOne of the reasons I'm going to vote for Kerry is because he's not one of these angry anti-war Democrats like Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich. I know more about Kerry than you: trust me, Kerry is not what you think.

So if Dean was the nominee and not kerry you would vote for Bush?