Posted on 07/23/2006 5:29:30 PM PDT by blam
The one that lasted for more than 40 years, between Communism and the West. As I recall, the West won. Relatively few actual shots were fired (beyond Korea, Vietnam, Kampuchea, and various other third-world locations) because if they had been, the world itself would've been destroyed wholesale.
This one, the Fourth, is between radical Islam and everybody else. Unfortunately, some of the other players haven't clearly allied themselves on the correct side yet. They're still playing games. Also unfortunately, unlike the Dark Side in WWIII, the Dark Side in this war has no sense of self-preservation, so MAD is no deterrent. In fact, the only thing that will keep them from coming for us is if we either kill them first, or find an effective way to destroy their ideology.
It's debatable. In a way, it's largely a matter of semantics and how you choose to use them.
It was certainly a prolonged period of struggle for global supremacy.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)
It nevertheless calls for a much more urgent diplomatic effort than the Bush administration seems to have in mind.
I don't see how this conclusion follows from the rest of the article. I'm with Bolton (and Bush). Syria already knows what it need to do. "Diplomacy" would only give further legitmacy to the Hezbos.
Given that of the 68 conflicts going on in the world today, all 68 involve Muslims ... I think that qualifies as a "world war".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.