World War 3...

[Tigger of Kai]

Sorry Elven Fury, i don't mean to pick holes in what you said but when you put Shites on page 2 of this thread some might take offence to that as it is a British way of saying S**t.

That reminds me of that old show Murphy Brown, where Corky the ditzy blonde anchor wasn't allowed to do the stories on the Middle East because she was so dumb she sometimes pronounced "Shi'ite Muslims" as "Sh*tty Muslims". Just one of those funny cultural misunderstandings, no reason why anyone should be offended. Just like how Iranians thought our 1996 Presidential election was really funny because Bob Dole's last name sounds the same as the Persian word for penis. Whattayagonnado.

[TheGreatNads]

A consensus among relativists perhaps. Terrorism is one of the most controversial terms around. Obviously. Violence by anyone, for any "political, ideological or religious goal"? That definition is hopelessly broad and loaded so that virtually everyone becomes a terrorist. Maybe you believe this, but you can't be a "consensus" all by yourself.

Tigger of Kai, you seem rather lazy as of late, the part about installing fear or coercing a civillian population you seemed to have missed. And I think it's a pretty good definition, anyone who uses violence or the threat of violence to corece or install fear into a civillian population to achieve any sort of those three goals sounds like a terrorist. And it isn't just The Great Nads who accepts this fair definition. You can find it in U.S. army manuals, it's very similar to attempted U.N. definitions, and you will probably find similar definitions in any dictionary. Every time the U.N. tries to create resolutions on this, the definition comes out at about what I said, although the U.S. and Israel, and occasionally Honduras or the Marshall Islands or some other random country vehemently opposes it. But that really doesn't make it controversial. There may be a small group of hypocrites, who try to confuse the issue, by changing definitions of terrorism so they don't apply to them, but they offer no constructive solutions, because all they are doing is purposely complicating the matter. What definition would you suggest?

[Tigger of Kai]

Well, lazy is as lazy does, but I didn't mention that part because it's redundant, silly. I mean, as opposed to what, violence that's meant to instill cheerfulness? Also, the image of you poring over U.S. Army manuals is too creepy even for this discussion.

I think I may have at some point already shared with you my preferred definition of terrorism, coming as it does from my own "small group of hypocrites", namely, myself and Christopher Hitchens. He and I think that if the word "terrorism" is to have any meaning at all, then it has to apply to goals rather than methods. His subtle study on the subject is short but not light reading, unsuited to both the subject and the tone of this current debate. So I'll link to it here, and leave you youngsters to your gleeful talk of planetary domination and new world orders and such.

[HieiTheDarknessDragon]

I've been away, for a while, and missed out on some interesting talk. But, I'd like to get it started again.

Well, it seems to be fair for me to say that many of us belive the Middle Eastern countries will be the starting, or at least, an involved factor. And I belive this as true. And with the new rumors rising about a terrorist attack on America this summer, i fear that we could possibly be drawing near.

Another very possible situation, involves the heated situation in Korea. I mean, it has never cooled down there, and tension are just rising higher and higher. So that could be a factor.

Well, considering, all the ways something could happen, it is bound to, and in my oppion, fairly soon. Because, in my belive, the United States would sit out for the beginning of WW3 as they did with the other 2. I believe the United States will be attacked (for example, a Pearl Harbor type thing) and they will declare war. And not a war like the one in Iraq, a full blown war, and the rest of the world, would eventually get involved. Well, thats my oppinion, and I also think, along with several others, that if the United States is pushed too far, nukes will fly.

[Liu Pi]

[quote="Tigger of Kai"]Well, lazy is as lazy does, but I didn't mention that part because it's redundant, silly. I mean, as opposed to what, violence that's meant to instill cheerfulness? Also, the image of you poring over U.S. Army manuals is too creepy even for this discussion.

Sorry TGN but that is quite a funny image! I think that it will be North Korea to start World War 3. It's still funny though !!

[Wu Chun]

You guys are missing some key points...

Resons of war:

Resources

power

relegion

political gain

If there was a war, it would have to be a country that had enough power to actually need the world to be invovled. Iraq has the world invovled but its not a world war, its all in one country..

China, north korea, and pakistain are 3 countrys with neculear weapons but all do not get along to well... so there is no axis of evil or any chance at the moment of a war....

that and our technology today makes it more difficult to plot scheme or prepare for a world war without it being noticed and prevented

[HieiTheDarknessDragon]

Personaly, I think, that when nukes start flying, alliences will be formed quickly and war will spread across this whole world.

[Stedfel]

I believe there will be a World War 3, and this is why. I believe that countries will start to catch up to America (Most likely China in my iopinion), and America, feeling threatened, will probably feel threatened, declare this country as 'evil' and a 'threat to national security' and go to war.
Other countries, will most likely pick sides, some heping America, some helping the underdog nation that is rising in power.

There is also a chance that during this time of war, other countires will take advantage of the warring nations, and start there own, smaller wars.

It is my opinion, that this will probably in the political structure we hav today, with the old countries breaking up, old ones finally becoming more powerful, an some places wiped off the map with nuclear warfare.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[HieiTheDarknessDragon]

Interesting view, sounds plausable.

[Lu Wei]

There are several 'hot-spots' in the world that could link together and blow up into world war:

Kashmir, South Korea, Israel, Iraq.

China and Pakistan are actually quite friendly. Both of them have fought wars with India, and Pakistan has called on China to aid them many times before (and China almost did).

Anyways, it would probably be divided Pakistan, China, North Korea, vs. India, US, South Korea. From here, another cataclysmic event in the Middle East involving Israel and the Arab countries would enlarge the war. Perhaps Pakistan would incite revolt in US-friendly Iraq, Israel would intervene, and the Arabic countries would unite against the US and Israel (since this would be their best chance for revenge, seeing as the US is already involved elsewhere).

The major unknowns in this scenario is where Russia, Africa, and Europe will side. It's very possible they will join the US allies, further tipping the balance against the Sino-Islam coalition. Of course, nothing is set in stone, and with this scenario victory is anyone's guess. Any US occupation of China would end in miserable failure (afterall, they wrote the book on guerilla warfare and China is a lot bigger than Vietnam). Most likely it would be stalemate.

Anyways, this is just one scenario I can think of for the next WW. There are tons of other ones that might set it off as well.