World War IV?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
45
#21
^^^

I think you're missing the point of the quote. He's implying that WWIII will be fought with weapons of mass destruction that will crush society as we know it and set us back to the stone age.

Regarding those who say there was no action in the Cold war, well how do you explain the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, the Khmer Rouge, the Cuban Missle crisis, the us funding of the taliban vs. the Red Army, ect. ect. ect.

I'm not saying the cold war was or wasn't WWIII, but its pretty ludicrous to say there was no action...
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#23
The only potential for destruction during the cold war was during the Cuban Missle Crisis, and that crisis was averted without anyone declaring war. The cold war was not a war - there was no action, just talk. The US used it as an excuse to build their military to ludicrously extreme proportions in order to 'counteract the threat from Russia', and Russia talked big whilst hiding it's activities behind the iron curtain (which, when lowered, revealed an extremely economically weak Russia).
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#24
nhojsmith said:
I mean world war 1 wasnt fought with sticks and stones, can it really be a world war if those are the only weapons
The original crusades of the early 12th century could be considered a world war - France, Germany, Spain, England, Italy, Austria and Poland all got together and fought Syria, Egypt and the empires of the Fattimids and Abbasids. Early in the crusades, they only used swords, shields and other close range weapons, and yet hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives. The level of firepower should not be indicative of what is required to fight a 'world war', by definition it means a war fought between several countries.
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#25
Stockton209SS said:
You can't trust Russia, China, and the Arab Nations, I feel they are heavily alligned.
With the unavoidable effect of opening up a can of worms, does that statement have anything to do with the fact that you're strongly religious (or more specifically, strongly christian?). What's to say that we can all trust America? Many countries have, especially third world countries, and do you think they're better off for it? Hell no.
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#26
Semantics my good man, it's all semantics. Just because we devised this new nomenclature last century doesn't mean that it was the first war fought between several nations of this world.
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#27
Hutch said:
With the unavoidable effect of opening up a can of worms, does that statement have anything to do with the fact that you're strongly religious (or more specifically, strongly christian?). What's to say that we can all trust America? Many countries have, especially third world countries, and do you think they're better off for it? Hell no.
Yes and No, but I view this both from a religious aspect and a political one.
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#35
Y-S said:
Hmm, yeah I know but I mean, the leaders or presidents in this world though?
I stand by my original statement. You have a man who loves Video Games GB, and you have a N. Korean President that loves Gangster movies lol
 
Aug 3, 2005
857
3
0
#36
everybody but bush has charisma.
i think ahmadenijad makes himself out to have the most intellect and common sense of the bunch.
kim jong il has the cool, rich, tough guy thing goin
hugo chavez is the one wit the cojones who talks his shit like a pro wrestler
and bush is...well...a dumbfuck
 

Y-S

Sicc OG
Dec 10, 2005
3,765
0
0
#37
Yeah lol

That's the kind of answer I wanted to hear, Nav

Well then, you know......sometimes charisma can lead to abusing power like for instance, Hitler had a huge charisma and he used ton of power, same with Saddam, and other leaders who wanted to look big...I don't know

Also check this, I came across this....South Korea is all bright and happy, while North Korea is DARK, LOL!



Damn...