Contemplating “World War III”

The American Enterprise Online ^ | August 3, 2006 | David Feith

[MCCRon58]

It will never happen. The last thing the cowards, creeps, cretins and traitors in the democrat party want to contemplate is that they may be called upon to actually do something to fight for and defend the freedoms they so vociferously profess to care about. To call the war WWIII is to acknowledge the severity of the threat we face

[ASA Vet]

He must have been asleep though the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.

[neverdem]

He must have been asleep though the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.

"David Feith is a student at Columbia University and an intern at The American Enterprise magazine."

My guess is that he could only have slept during the end of the 80's, and World War III was never a formal designation for that time.

[NewRomeTacitus]

To most who have to study these issues for a living WWIII was won by Ronald Reagan (the Cold War) and what the author is referring to is WWIV.

[infowarrior]

To most who have to study these issues for a living WWIII was won by Ronald Reagan (the Cold War) and what the author is referring to is WWIV.

Even *that* is actually incorrect (off by one). The "real" First World War occurred approximately 100 years before the acknowledged First World War did. The first "world war" in man's history was the Napoleonic Wars (1805-1815), as campaigns were actually fought globally, and societies were totally reshaped in both the fightuing itself, and the aftermath, around the globe...

the infowarrior

[neverdem]

Even *that* is actually incorrect (off by one). The "real" First World War occurred approximately 100 years before the acknowledged First World War did. The first "world war" in man's history was the Napoleonic Wars (1805-1815), as campaigns were actually fought globally, and societies were totally reshaped in both the fightuing itself, and the aftermath, around the globe...

A middle phase began with the declaration of war between France and Britain, and touched off the first true world war (Seven Years’ War). The North American conflict might well have remained a localized affair, but a realignment of European alliances ignited new rivalries to add to the simmering feud between Britain and France.

[infowarrior]

While it could be claimed that The Seven Years' War was the first "world war" with some plausibility, the fact that the Napoleonic Wars did far more to reshape the world tends to push me to grant the title to that conflict. In fact, it would not be a stretch to combine the two into one larger conflict, with an interregnum of uneasy peace and "cold war" between the major belligerents between the two metacampaigns...

the infowarrior

[NewRomeTacitus]

History is said to be written by the victors but, even worse, it's never decided upon by the scholars! With what I can barely comprehend when reading of quantum mechanics with string theories postulating 18 dimensions and such even the so-called "hard sciences" are wide open to conjecture.

Even so, the fact remains that despite (and in some ways because of) all of these marvelous advances we're still threatened by the shadow of destruction at the hand of man's madness. The sooner we achieve secure DNA banks offworld and terraformed planets the better.

[Mgm3com]

This war is neither WWIII nor WWIV, this is the real WWI long before "the great war" of the 20s. This world war has been going on since the crusades and has yet to end.

[infowarrior]

The sooner we achieve secure DNA banks offworld and terraformed planets the better.

Both those require concerted effort which I haven't seen being expended in those directions... Outlook: Not good...

the infowarrior

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

["To call the war WWIII is to acknowledge the severity of the threat we face..]

My good friend, what you do is take them Patiently
one at a time: Iran, North Korea, and so on...

We don't want to let the Israel and the US get caught up in a similar situation as we (Serbs) did in the Balkans trying to fight these Islamofascists.

[TechnicalEcstacy]

I have always seen the War on Terror much like the War on Drugs. You will never win the War on Drugs, and the best you can do is reduce the percentage. In the same way, we can only buy ourselves time. Even if we won tomorrow, Terrorism would be back within decades. We have to decide how much we want to pay for that time.

[Erik Latranyi]

I have always seen the War on Terror much like the War on Drugs.

You only see it this way because we are fighting it much like a law-enforcement action rather than like a real war.

If there was a *true* war on drugs, we would execute every dealer, incarcerate every user into forced rehab, and make penalties for crimes while under the influence very, very severe.

This War on Terror needs to be fought with a greater ferocity. Unfortunately, we face a media and political opposition that emphasizes the enemies' point of view over ours.

[tgambill]

what you say is true, however, what could be defined as WWIII will happen when not if.....when Russia deploys to the M.E.....with Ethiopia, Libya, Russia, Iran, Syria, form on Israel...this will start a chain of events that will also include China.....long story short. It's only a matter of time.

[DoctorMichael]

Like the "The War of the Roses", the "30 Years War" and the "Peloponesian War", why not personalize this?

My suggestion is the "War with the Neanderthals".

[The_Reader_David]

You, too, are off by one. The first global war was the Seven Years War, which had campaigns not just in Europe, but in India and North America (where our provinicial custom renames it the "French and Indian War").

[The_Reader_David]

Sorry, I should have read the whole thread before posting.

OTOH, the Seven Years War laid the groundwork for British dominance of India, so perhaps it, too should be seen as having global consequences.

[The_Reader_David]

We could just call it the 1400-Years War, and admit it's just a continuation of the one that quiet down after Lepanto and the last Siege of Vienna.

Or, if we really get serious and decide to end it once and for all, we could call it the Last Crusade. (Though as an Orthodox Christian, given how the Fourth turned out, I'm not sure I'd be thrilled with that option.)

[jordan8]

the prospect of terrorism forcing Americans to change our fundamental lifestyle is not far-fetched.

Islamic terrorism in the West happens because there are Muslims here. Adjusting to terrorism is just one of the changes to our "fundamental lifestyle" brought about in the name of promoting diversity, and not a particularly important one.

That it elicits memories of the Great War and the Greatest Generation can remind America of the stakes of the current war, and may help adjust American perspective and resolve accordingly.

In other words, even if it's not true it's OK to lie in order to whip the boobs up to a proper frenzy. Reminds me of that Dan Rather fake-but-true thing.