posted
US President George W. Bush has said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III".
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Oh, shut up.
It is not WWIII. For it to be WWIII, there would need to be a definable enemy.
"Them" does not constitute an enemy.
Terrorism has existed for a long time. It did not start on Sept. 11, and the resistance to terrorism did not start Sept. 11. This exercise in hyperbole is really offensive to the victims of prior terrorist attacks.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republicans are really worried about this election, aren't they? Between the flag burning amendment and this little "statement", they are really working overtime...
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Echinodermata Q. Taft: US President George W. Bush has said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III".
posted
Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) started his terrorism before then.
-------------------- Ad astra per asparagus. Posts: 4806 | From: Groton, CT | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
In that train of thought, this group had left bombs throughout Spain since 1953.
ETA: Unless Mr. Bush is willing to say that no one outside the U.S. has ever suffered from terrorism.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought that Antigone's burial of her brother was a "terrorist act" against Thebes, but I suppose that (in addition to being legendary) is going back a little far? I know the crusades had thier fair share of terorristic acts too (campaigns of decimation, well poisonings, biological warfare attacks and such as well.) Can we count those? Would that make this WWI?
Really though WWIII? WTF?
Though I suppose if it was a World War in progress we'd be authorized unilaterally nuking Iran via some string of tortured logic wouldn't we?
-Winged Monkey
Posts: 536 | From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think bin Laden has phrased the conflict in the same terms. Gee, nice to see Bush going along with it and granting terrorists the status of "world warriors".
-------------------- "For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney. Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from the headache inducing problem of when this war actually started, and the likelihood that it will never end...
World War 1 and 2 were so named after they had finished, and those who dubbed them that had the luxury of hindsight, to see the impact they had. (My extension history class examined Churchill's 'The Gathering Storm', published in 1948, and my teacher claimed this was the first text to use the 'World War' moniker. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Until history has a chance to decide if this is a historical blip or a major turning point, delusions of grandeur should be kept to a minimum.
Posts: 43 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was World War 4, with the cold war being world war 3. Defining the Cold War as WW3 would allow the War on Terror to be called WW4 because they were both wars against an idea rather than a army/people/country. But yes, it's hyperbole.
Posts: 1985 | From: Reading, England | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if it is a World War...we're being awfully damned casual about how we're fighting it.
I'll believe the conflict is on that scale when I see things like conscription, gas rationing, sales of war bonds, and mabye even (gasp) a tax increase to help pay for it. (As far as anyone can determine, no nation has ever cut taxes in wartime -- except the U.S. after 9/11.) In other words, actually asking some sacrifices of the civilian population to get the war over with faster -- rather than insisting they should travel, dine out, and buy lots of durable goods or else "the terrorists win."
Oh, and if this is a World War, what does that make the US invastion of Iraq? Something like the Italian attack on Albania? (I.e., something that had nothing to do with the actual conflict, we just kinda felt like it?)
posted
I was just thinking that EQT. It seems like Bush wants it both ways. He wants Americans to believe "we're at war dammit" when it suits him but most of the time he seems to want people to live life as normally as possible and not to really know much about what is going on "over there".
During WWII everyone was involved and people on the homefront aside from making sacrifices for the war effort, were also working in war related industries and of course it was practically guaranteed that every family had a relative, sometimes many relatives directly involved in the fighting.
As long as so few Americans really have their lives impacted directly by this war it's not WWIII.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Electric Shadow: .... World War 1 and 2 were so named after they had finished, and those who dubbed them that had the luxury of hindsight, to see the impact they had. (My extension history class examined Churchill's 'The Gathering Storm', published in 1948, and my teacher claimed this was the first text to use the 'World War' moniker. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)...
The first reference in print to World War II under that name was on September 11, 1939, in Time Magazine. The first time that the Great War was called World War I was in the same magazine, September 18, 1939.
-------------------- "No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/ Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Guess we aren't taking this "I'm a war president" seriously enough anymore. Guess we need to up the stakes. How about "I'm the WWIII president"? That's the ticket. WWII worked for Roosevelt.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he really thinks America is at war why isn't he raising taxes to support the war effort? Better to mortgage your grandchildren's future I guess. He seems to forget, if he is at all concerned about his place in history, that the people who will ultimately decide what kind of President George Bush was, are the people who will inherit the consequences of his policies.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad from Georgia: The first reference in print to World War II under that name was on September 11, 1939, in Time Magazine. The first time that the Great War was called World War I was in the same magazine, September 18, 1939.
Thank you very much. But, that still puts it nearly 20 years after the end of WW1, and there were far more clear parallels between WW1 and WW2 than there are between WW2 and the WoT. So my hindsight point still stands, somewhat.
I still think waiting for the long term impact is necessary. I personally feel that it shouldn't be considered a World War until it brings social change on a scale similar to women's suffrage in the UK, bringing women to the workplace in large numbers, the introduction of atomic weapons or the creation of Isreal. Others may have a different set of qualifications, but it would still be difficult to find a set that this war meets, beyond 'more than two countries are involved.'
Posts: 43 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad from Georgia: The first reference in print to World War II under that name was on September 11, 1939, in Time Magazine. The first time that the Great War was called World War I was in the same magazine, September 18, 1939.
Thank you very much. But, that still puts it nearly 20 years after the end of WW1, and there were far more clear parallels between WW1 and WW2 than there are between WW2 and the WoT. So my hindsight point still stands, somewhat.
Why would anyone call WWI, WWI before there was ever a WWII?
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: Why would anyone call WWI, WWI before there was ever a WWII?
They wouldn't. But I'm talking about the 'World War' labels, not the numbers that follow it. They called it 'The Great War' until the second one came along. How common is it to retroactively rename a war? Why not 'The Great War' and 'The Second Great War'? There must have been a reasoning behind the scaling up of the names. That's all I was trying to say, not expressing surprise that they didn't dub it WW1 in 1918.
I seem to have cluttered my argument up with pedantics, and I'm fairly certain I don't have anything more of interest to say on the matter. So I'll be quiet now.
quote: Even if he's just including Al Qaida, I think the families of the sailors on the USS Cole might disagree with Mr. Bush.
Or the US embassy personnel in Africa.
Maybe even further back - say, the Lockerbie/Pan Am bombing?
edited for baaad spelling....
Well, Pan Am 103 was committed by Libyans, supposedly in retaliation for Operation El Dorado Canyon, a US airstrike against Libya in 1986. The strike itself was in retaliation against the bombing of a West Berlin disco heavily frequented by US soldiers.
-------------------- Meanwhile, at stately Wayne Manor... Posts: 1316 | From: Oregon | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: Why would anyone call WWI, WWI before there was ever a WWII?
When predicting a second one in the 1920's (Repington or Kellogg).
quote:Originally posted by Electric Shadow: But I'm talking about the 'World War' labels, not the numbers that follow it. They called it 'The Great War' until the second one came along.
quote:Originally posted by Electric Shadow: How common is it to retroactively rename a war?
Actually, I think quite common. The War of X Independence couldn't be named thus before X became independent, could they? Same with the Hundred Year's War and the Thirty Years War. The War of Jenkin's Ear expanded into the War of the Austrian Succession.
-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: Why would anyone call WWI, WWI before there was ever a WWII?
They wouldn't. But I'm talking about the 'World War' labels, not the numbers that follow it. They called it 'The Great War' until the second one came along.....
Actually, the first use in print of the term "First World War" (as applied to World War I) was in 1920: The First World War, 1914-1918 by C.A. Court Replington.
-------------------- "No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/ Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: Why would anyone call WWI, WWI before there was ever a WWII?
They wouldn't. But I'm talking about the 'World War' labels, not the numbers that follow it. They called it 'The Great War' until the second one came along.....
Actually, the first use in print of the term "First World War" (as applied to World War I) was in 1920: The First World War, 1914-1918 by C.A. Court Replington.
Wow, I stand corrected as well. I did not know that.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The contrasts with World War I and II: 1. Shared sacrifice-a draft and really high taxes, particularly on those most able to pay. 2. A large number of allies sharing the burden. 3.Oh yeah, and after five years, we had won both wars.
-------------------- pat "Megadittoes Rush" young
THUMP, THUMP, THUMP Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the first use in print of the term "First World War" (as applied to World War I) was in 1920: The First World War, 1914-1918 by C.A. Court Replington.
First is not necessarily the same as the ordinal number 1. It can also be used as a way to say "This has never happened before", and in this case, "may it never happen again".
A couple of weeks ago, I saw the new Lamborghini Gallardo, which I have never seen before. It was the first Gallardo I saw, but that doesn't mean that I will name it Gallardo1, even if I see another one.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PatYoung: The contrasts with World War I and II: 1. Shared sacrifice-a draft and really high taxes, particularly on those most able to pay.
Woodrow Wilson wanted to cut taxes during WWI but was only able to convince Congress not to raise taxes.
-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How could we forget the War on Christmas? (I served boldly on the Eastern front. But the red coats kept coming.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slight hijack but it always amuses me how out of one side of their mouths conservitive talk show hosts can call liberals/atheists/gays weak, incompitent and few (the whole "lets tell that 14% to shut up!" thing) yet out of the other side say they are a serious threat to extremely intrenched traditions (right or wrong) in the US celebrated by the vast vast majority of the populous..
quote: The war on childhood obesity.
For some reason I picture a modified version of Russel Crowe fighting cancer on South Park.. A much funnier modified version..
-------------------- "All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do" Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the first use in print of the term "First World War" (as applied to World War I) was in 1920: The First World War, 1914-1918 by C.A. Court Replington.
First is not necessarily the same as the ordinal number 1. It can also be used as a way to say "This has never happened before", and in this case, "may it never happen again". ...
Agreed, but the point in question was whether World War I had been called a "world" war before 1939. It had.
-------------------- "No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/ Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad from Georgia: ....the point in question was whether World War I had been called a "world" war before 1939. It had.
Over here it was referred to as "The Great War", meaning "large" not "fantastic". Why would you refer to it as WW1 unless you expected there to be a WW2?
-------------------- "I always tell the truth. Even when I lie." - Tony Montana Posts: 890 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
