Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Many of us have read or seen on TV fictional future WW3 scenarios...

Few of us have thought that it is happening already.

What US calls "War On Terror" is WW3. Multiple countries attacked other multiple countries.

The difference from other world wars is that since these were initiated by the sole superpower (at least at the time) which picked some of the most unpopular countries to attack.

So the rest of the world either joined in or silently watched as the war was dragged on for years...

There are reasons to believe we're about to enter the next stage of WW3 - US may be using their little game with Georgia as a ruse to cover their preparations to attack Iran.

Will Canada blindly follow, remain sheepishly silent or speak against the conflict?

We have blindly followed in Afganistan.

We are sheepishly silent about the war in Iraq.

Is it time to say something? Or are we too afraid of the Big Bad Brother?

Edited by PoliticalCitizen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Many of us have read or seen on TV fictional future WW3 scenarios...

Few of us have thought that it is happening already.

What US calls "War On Terror" is WW3. Multiple countries attacked other multiple countries.

The difference from other world wars is that since these were initiated by the sole superpower (at least at the time) which picked some of the most unpopular countries to attack.

So the rest of the world either joined in or silently watched as the war was dragged on for years...

This really doesn't work as WW III given history (before the War on Terror). There are just too many factions waging battles at any given time to assign to a sole superpower in such a context. Just pick a post WW2 decade or even post-Cold War period and we can find lots of action with or without "Big Brother".

Will Canada follow....you mean like in Korea, or Iraq (1991), or Somalia, or Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Haiti, or East Timor, or Afghanistan..or....

Just because it's Putin and Georgia doesn't change the name of the game. The real WW III will be very short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of us have read or seen on TV fictional future WW3 scenarios...

Few of us have thought that it is happening already.

What US calls "War On Terror" is WW3. Multiple countries attacked other multiple countries.

The difference from other world wars is that since these were initiated by the sole superpower (at least at the time) which picked some of the most unpopular countries to attack.

So the rest of the world either joined in or silently watched as the war was dragged on for years...

There are reasons to believe we're about to enter the next stage of WW3 - US may be using their little game with Georgia as a ruse to cover their preparations to attack Iran.

Will Canada blindly follow, remain sheepishly silent or speak against the conflict?

We have blindly followed in Afganistan.

We are sheepishly silent about the war in Iraq.

Is it time to say something? Or are we too afraid of the Big Bad Brother?

The CBC reported US troops on the ground in Georgia two days ago. Today the BBC reported the same. CNN is confirming US ships off the Georgian coast in the Black Sea. You have to wonder how the hell they got there.

If this is all true, we are into Archduke Ferdinand territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CBC reported US troops on the ground in Georgia two days ago. Today the BBC reported the same. CNN is confirming US ships off the Georgian coast in the Black Sea. You have to wonder how the hell they got there.

I could be wrong, but the usual way to get there is through the Bosporus. At least that's how we did it when I was in the Navy.

If this is all true, we are into Archduke Ferdinand territory.

No problem...the Americans waited until 1917! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of us have read or seen on TV fictional future WW3 scenarios...

Few of us have thought that it is happening already.

What US calls "War On Terror" is WW3. Multiple countries attacked other multiple countries.

The difference from other world wars is that since these were initiated by the sole superpower (at least at the time) which picked some of the most unpopular countries to attack.

So the rest of the world either joined in or silently watched as the war was dragged on for years...

There are reasons to believe we're about to enter the next stage of WW3 - US may be using their little game with Georgia as a ruse to cover their preparations to attack Iran.

Will Canada blindly follow, remain sheepishly silent or speak against the conflict?

We have blindly followed in Afganistan.

We are sheepishly silent about the war in Iraq.

Is it time to say something? Or are we too afraid of the Big Bad Brother?

I guess one can always make an argument for panic and/or appeasement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWIII won't happen. Too many have too much at stake to "Risk" it all.

I don't think anyone can say that with 100% guarantee. Just look how Bush thought the US would roll into Baghdad and the battle would be over in no time. I think since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, I think countries are going to be very alert to what is happening in the world and I don't there's a lot of mistrust for the US under war monger Bush and if McCain does become President, I think that mistrust will remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can say that with 100% guarantee. Just look how Bush thought the US would roll into Baghdad and the battle would be over in no time.

He did and it was. Was there another battle?

I should be careful though, you do know what a battle is, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can say that with 100% guarantee. Just look how Bush thought the US would roll into Baghdad and the battle would be over in no time. I think since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, I think countries are going to be very alert to what is happening in the world and I don't there's a lot of mistrust for the US under war monger Bush and if McCain does become President, I think that mistrust will remain.

Since the rest of the world really did nothing to prevent the invasion of Iraq. No one prevented the invasion of Georgia. Bush thought Iraq would be a cakewalk. It was for the most part, but the real challenge is rebuilding the country.

Countries are alert, but only certain countries have the big stick. Countries with small sticks or no sticks at all cannot project any power or influence. Sure you will hear about the bitching, but it changes nothing.

In the end the US and Russia will still be around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The best example of how being the world's only superpower has gotten to US Administration's heads is this:

The Bush Doctrine

Initially, the Bush Doctrine meant that the United States would hold nations that gave sanctuary to terrorists as culpable as the terrorists themselves. This was the doctrine invoked to justify the American intervention in Afghanistan, and it was called the Bush doctrine. We wrote about this at the time.

Then, as Iraq approached, the Bush doctrine morphed or was further elaborated. It held that the United States was entitled to mount a preventive war to stop a state that had weapons of mass destruction from passing it to terrorists. The argument, as you know, was that a state with weapons of mass destruction might provide WMD capability to terrorists, who would then attack the United States. The United States would not know the ultimate source of the WMD. Deterrence would not be sufficient. Hence, preemption or preventive war was justified. Or so the argument went.

President Bush has also talked about a freedom agenda, the notion that the United States will ultimately become more safe if the Islamic nations become democracies. Freedom, it holds, is the ultimate guarantor of security. This is more talk than action, but I suppose it might rise to the status of a philosophy or doctrine.

So it went from ATTACK THE "TERRORISTS" to ATTACK THE COUNTRIES HARBORING "TERRORISTS" to "ATTACK COUNTRIES THAT WE THINK MAY HELP "TERRORISTS"" to "ATTACK ANY COUNTRY WHERE WE DON'T LIKE THE REGIME".

After 8 August 2008 that definition should also include "PROTECT ALLIED REGIMES THAT HAVE COMMITED GENOCIDE".

It is easy to see how even a short unilateral power corrupts the minds and lets the perpetrators feel that they are the CHOSEN NATION (doesn't that remind you of something in the not-so-distant past) that is allowed to do God's will (official name: "Protect the national interests of USA") on Earth.

So far WW3 was slow and uneasy - but things are both speeding up and heating up as the sights of former "Wold's Only Superpower" are set on Iran and as it's trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the horde of its military vassals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far WW3 was slow and uneasy - but things are both speeding up and heating up as the sights of former "Wold's Only Superpower" are set on Iran and as it's trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the horde of its military vassals.

I wouldn't worry to much about Bush/Cheney declaring war on Iran. They would have done it already if they had the resources to invade and occupy Iran -- but they don't! And the talk about a massive bombing run is just that -- talk! The risks of Iran being able to launch missiles against U.S. forces in Iraq keeps pushing that threat forward -- but on the downside, John McCain has never met a war he didn't like. He supported every one of Clinton's foreign ventures, and only got mad at the Bush Administration for being chinsy on number of soldiers sent in to Iraq. He just might be stupid enough to start a war of his own if he became president, even though the reports I've read from military analysts say that even the present force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan can't be sustained much longer......another nice going away present from Bush & Co.

All of the bluster from McCain about supporting Georgia won't put boots on the ground over there even he wants to. I'm still bewildered by the way the Neocons have turned this story upside down to portray the Georgians as victims of Russian aggression, when they were the ones who started the war in the first place.

As for the Ukraine, it seems that there has been a serious rift between the Orange Revolution nationalists who want to revive the Ukrainian language and push for Westernization efforts that include joining the E.E.C. and NATO. But, almost 20% of the population is Russian, and even a significant number of Ukrainians in the eastern part of the country speak Russian and are against an alliance with Europe and the U.S. It seems that the Orange Revolution governments try to push an aggressive policy of promoting Ukrainian, and discouraging Russian -- taken in context of the Ukrainian vs. Russian disputes, and it's easy to see the situation blowing up into a civil war, especially with the meddling from Europe and the U.S. pushing towards a confrontation between the two groups.

From the wikipedia article:

For a large part of the Soviet era, the number of Ukrainian speakers was declining from generation to generation, and by the mid-1980s, the usage of the Ukrainian language in public life had decreased significantly.[110] Following independence, the government of Ukraine began following a policy of Ukrainisation,[111] to increase the use of Ukrainian, while discouraging Russian, which has been banned or restricted in the media and films.[112][113] This means that Russian-language programmes need a Ukrainian translation or subtitles, but this excludes Russian language media made during the Soviet era.

According to the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Ukrainian is the only state language of the republic. However, the republic's constitution specifically recognises Russian as the language of the majority of its population and guarantees its usage 'in all spheres of public life'. Similarly, the Crimean Tatar language (the language of 12 percent of Ukranians[114]) is guaranteed a special state protection as well as the 'languages of other ethnicities'. Russian speakers constitute an overwhelming majority of the Crimean population (77 percent), with Ukrainian speakers comprising just 10.1 percent, and Crimean Tatar speakers 11.4 percent.[115] But in everyday life the majority of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea use Russian.[116]

A look at the map showing percentages of people who consider Russian their first language shows a divided country that will be split in half if push comes to shove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee..then it would be just like Quebec! :lol:

There was a point in time when many people feared that Quebec nationalism was going to push the country into a real civil war. Canadians are more willing to compromise on contentious issues than many other places would be. Putting up with official bilingualism and periodic demands from Quebec for special powers that include threats of separation, are part of a collective desire to cobble together a solution, even if it did create resentment in other provinces.

As a sidenote, the nationalistic policies of Quebec governments from the 70's on have led to a sort of 'soft' ethnic cleansing, as language laws depressed the economy and restricted employment opportunites; much of the English speaking population left Montreal, the Eastern Townships and the south Gaspe shore where my father grew up has almost no English left today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a point in time when many people feared that Quebec nationalism was going to push the country into a real civil war. Canadians are more willing to compromise on contentious issues than many other places would be.

Oh sure....just ask the First Nations, Ukrainians, Chinese, Japanese, and Acadians. Isn't compromise grand?

Putting up with official bilingualism and periodic demands from Quebec for special powers that include threats of separation, are part of a collective desire to cobble together a solution, even if it did create resentment in other provinces.

Sure...they will soon forget, eh? PET is dead!

As a sidenote, the nationalistic policies of Quebec governments from the 70's on have led to a sort of 'soft' ethnic cleansing, as language laws depressed the economy and restricted employment opportunites; much of the English speaking population left Montreal, the Eastern Townships and the south Gaspe shore where my father grew up has almost no English left today.

If you say so....Vive le Québec libre ! Vive le Canada français ! Et vive la France !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone see the interview with Sarah when she was asked by Charlie of ABC news, what she thought of Bush's Doctirne? She didn't know what it was and Charlie had to explain it to her. I don't think McCain or Obama want to send troops into a new war, at least not until this one is done and over.

Nope...nobody here has seen that interview. Who is Charlie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope...nobody here has seen that interview. Who is Charlie?

There is no official document known as the "Bush Doctrine". Palin was right in not playing "Jeopardy" (a game where you guess the question) on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no official document known as the "Bush Doctrine". Palin was right in not playing "Jeopardy" (a game where you guess the question) on this one.

If she wasn't trying to guess the question, she certainly was trying to guess the answer by trying to get a few hints from Gibson: "do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? In what respect Charlie?"

Nice try, but all of the Republican spinning of the term Bush Doctrine as not being a clearly defined term, especially by bionic neocon Charles Krauthammer, who claims credit for inventing the term -- misses the point that Charlie clarified the question: "no, the Bush Doctrine annunciated in Sept. 2002, before the Iraq War?"

Now, if she had a clue, and didn't need to buy a vowel, she would have recognized that Charlie Gibson was going after the Bush Doctrine of Preventive War that was used to justify the Invasion of Iraq. If she had any vague notion, or even heard the term before, she would have pointed out that there were several definitions for Bush Doctrine. But her mind was a blank as the stare on her face, and she went right back to her memorized talking points. Is this the kind of person Americans want for a leader? A female George W. Bush!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh sure....just ask the First Nations, Ukrainians, Chinese, Japanese, and Acadians. Isn't compromise grand?

As opposed to places like the former Yugoslavia, where the majority chose to fight a bloody, sectarian war of attrition, compromise is better!

Sure...they will soon forget, eh? PET is dead!

If you say so....Vive le Québec libre ! Vive le Canada français ! Et vive la France !

And Quebec wasn't worth fighting a civil war for either! Now, it's starting to sink in with the majority that all of the restrictive language laws and nationalistic talk of separation ended Montreal's status as the business and financial capital of Canada, and has been a major deterrent to attracting investment into Quebec over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As opposed to places like the former Yugoslavia, where the majority chose to fight a bloody, sectarian war of attrition, compromise is better!

Your version of "compromise" leaves much to be desired.

And Quebec wasn't worth fighting a civil war for either! Now, it's starting to sink in with the majority that all of the restrictive language laws and nationalistic talk of separation ended Montreal's status as the business and financial capital of Canada, and has been a major deterrent to attracting investment into Quebec over the years.

But it was worth an October Crisis...eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try, but all of the Republican spinning of the term Bush Doctrine as not being a clearly defined term, especially by bionic neocon Charles Krauthammer, who claims credit for inventing the term -- misses the point that Charlie clarified the question: "no, the Bush Doctrine annunciated in Sept. 2002, before the Iraq War?"

Now, if she had a clue, and didn't need to buy a vowel, she would have recognized that Charlie Gibson was going after the Bush Doctrine of Preventive War that was used to justify the Invasion of Iraq. If she had any vague notion, or even heard the term before, she would have pointed out that there were several definitions for Bush Doctrine. But her mind was a blank as the stare on her face, and she went right back to her memorized talking points. Is this the kind of person Americans want for a leader? A female George W. Bush!

Are you saying she needs to learn the content of all columnists' writings to be qualified for the job?
And Quebec wasn't worth fighting a civil war for either!
At least we have a real nation as a result of the US Civil War. The South is actually the most patriotic part of our country these days
Now, it's starting to sink in with the majority that all of the restrictive language laws and nationalistic talk of separation ended Montreal's status as the business and financial capital of Canada, and has been a major deterrent to attracting investment into Quebec over the years.
That's for sure. Any major restriction in liberty, especially ones as intrusive as Bill 101 drive away business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,772
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Matthew earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CouchPotato earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      First Post
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...