world war III

Zip · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:36

miracleboy said:
He even has a map knocked up in Photoshop in 5 minutes to prove it.

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3287

Making all this noise, with a book just out and a possible presidential race in 2008...nice to see how concerned about the world he is.

Here is his map

Why does he not Acknowledge one of his Strongest allies? :mad:

Visage · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:39

The US will drag everyone else into a war, until all our base are belong to them.

ballistic · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:41

miracleboy said:
Making all this noise, with a book just out and a possible presidential race in 2008...nice to see how concerned about the world he is.

so would he look more concerned to you then if he doesn't talk about it at all?

Raikiri · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:41

Zip said:
Here is his map

Why does he not Acknowledge of of his Strongest allies?

And they spelt Sweden wrong.

Zefan · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:42

Zip said:
Just because Israel Cracked the **** with a terrorist group doesnt mean the whole world will be at war.

Just because Gavrilo Princip shot Ferdinand doesn't mean that Europe has to.... oh wait.

Zip · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:43

Zefan said:
Just because Gavrilo Princip shot Ferdinand doesn't mean that Europe has to.... oh wait.

That was a different day and age

Zefan · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:43

Zip said:
That was a different day and age

So?

miracleboy · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:44

ballistic said:
so would he look more concerned to you then if he doesn't talk about it at all?

I think you miss my point.

Rosbif · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:44

anyone capable of fighting a meaningful war are all on our side anyway... iraq/afghanistan are not wars... theyre more like squirrel hunting trips...

Zip · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:45

Zefan said:
So?

Theres is Different ways of dealing with things now.

Might not be extremely Different but its a little bit different.
The UN would step in aswell if it got too much to handle
I dont think the UN existed back then but i could be wrong

dafloppyone · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:47

doesnt appear to be anyone wanting any more empires ....apart from the usa

ballistic · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:49

Zip said:
Theres is Different ways of dealing with things now.

Might not be extremely Different but its a little bit different.
The UN would step in aswell if it got too much to handle
I dont think the UN existed back then but i could be wrong

League of nations did jack **** to prevent naziism, similarly the United Nations are useless with regards to almost anything

LabR@t · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:52

Zip said:
Theres is Different ways of dealing with things now.

Might not be extremely Different but its a little bit different.
The UN would step in aswell if it got too much to handle
I dont think the UN existed back then but i could be wrong

Congress of Vienna pre 1919 then
league of nations 1919-1945
UN 1945-

_PD_ · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:53

No, we aren't.

If it was WWIII, you would know about it. The poo would really have hit the fan.

World Wars are fought between large countries, not between countries (or international bodies) and terrorist groups.

Zip · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:53

LabR@t said:
league of nations ?

Well i did say i might be wrong

Did they have as much say as the UN do?

Glaucus · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:55

nope can't see word war 3..

Possibly in decades to come if things get worse a withdrawing into your own borders. shutting of immagration and global trade. But I dont even think tahts likley.

Cobra said:
If it was WWIII, you would know about it.

if you lived in a city you wouldn't know about it you would be vaporized... Or if you where unlucky dieing slowley from radiation poisoning. Then you would know about it.

LabR@t · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:55

UN powerful what have they prevented lately? TOOTHLESS organisation imo

Glaucus · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:57

LabR@t said:
UN powerful what have they prevented lately? TOOTHLESS organisation imo

the second they didn't do anything with iraq, they signed there own death papers. Whats the point if they wont take actions.

_PD_ · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:59

AcidHell2 said:
if you lived in a city you wouldn't know about it you would be vaporized... Or if you where unlucky dieing slowley from radiation poisoning. Then you would know about it.

Er.... I don't think vapourisation of civilians is usually the first step in international conflict.

I'm just waiting for one pants country to nuke another pants country.
That'll be interesting.

LabR@t · 25 Jul 2006 at 17:59

AcidHell2 said:
nope can't see word war 3..

if you lived in a city you wouldn't know about it you would be vaporized... Or if you where unlucky dieing slowley from radiation poisoning. Then you would know about it.

I class WWIII to be a little more sublte than being vaporised, yes it could in global Nuclear war but who says WWIII has to be about nukes?