Bush said SIX YEARS AGO that we are in World War 3. His statement was something along the lines of, "the people taking over flight 93 and taking the plane back was the first COUNTER ATTACK in WW3"...I don't remember if that's the flight number or what, but I do know he said something pretty damn close to that...point was that he said we're in WW3 already.
So my question now is...Are all of you waiting on the News to tell you it's fucking WW3? How many countries were involved in WW1, and then again, in WW2?
Now tell me how many countries are involved in the "War on Terror" and all the bullshit in Iraq.
I'd like to know what constitutes a "world war." Who the FUCK declares it was a world war? The media? The President? Congress? That's what I'd like to know.
yea bush said this is the begining of ww3..what a dumbass..so it world war becuz US gets attacked on its soil..?? whatabitch..trying to play the victim so everyone can be like "ya!! the attacked the US lets all getm.".
Major battles were fought in Angola, Eithiopia, Yemen, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, The Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, Grenada, Afgahnistan, Namibia, Egypt, Isreal/Palestine, Zaire, just to name a very few.
Not in my backyard, but neither were WWI nor WWII.
Major battles were fought in Angola, Eithiopia, Yemen, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, The Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, Grenada, Afgahnistan, Namibia, Egypt, Isreal/Palestine, Zaire, just to name a very few.
In addition to what H said, many if not most of those wars were preexisting conflicts that merely found increased funding and impetus in the US and USSR during this period.
In addition to what H said, many if not most of those wars were preexisting conflicts that merely found increased funding and impetus in the US and USSR during this period
That sure sounds like a very Eurocentric/western analysis that minimizes the tremendous cost shouldered by the people in the developing world as the super powers jockeyed for control of the globe. I also believe it is a reflection of a stagnant view of warfare which is constantly evolving. Just as the battles of WWII were extremely different than those of WWI so were those of the “Cold War” different from WWII. More covert, more economic, more damage directed at civilians, etc
The conflicts in Southeast Asia and the Korean peninsula should also be counted, they were omitted from the ones I listed, but like I said that was just naming a few.
That sure sounds like a very Eurocentric/western analysis that minimizes the tremendous cost shouldered by the people in the developing world as the super powers jockeyed for control of the globe. I also believe it is a reflection of a stagnant view of warfare which is constantly evolving. Just as the battles of WWII were extremely different than those of WWI so were those of the “Cold War” different from WWII. More covert, more economic, more damage directed at civilians, etc
The conflicts in Southeast Asia and the Korean peninsula should also be counted, they were omitted from the ones I listed, but like I said that was just naming a few.
Ok so basically you're saying you can't post the numbers showing that cold war casualties were greater than WWI and WWII, and that we should gorge ourselves on your philosophical rehtoric...