|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 12/27/2009
Posts: 3,253
Points: 9,940
Location: UK
|
TFD defines "World War" as - a war in which the major nations of the world are involved.
Right now, NATO or ISAF forces consist of 27 countries in Afghanistan and 28th is Afghanistan itself, 29th is Pakistan and 30th is Yeman.
Is it fair to title that war against terrorism as "World War", keeping in mind the above definition? or should we have any other definition of "World War"?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/15/2011
Posts: 774
Points: 2,093
Location: Earth
|
There certainly seems to be a lot of terrorist activity from islamist organizations declaring jihad throughout the world. Doesn't seem very peaceful nor tolerant. Is it fair to say that Islam has declared war on the world? If not then why do the vast majority of islamic people sit idle and watch the jihadists carry out their terroist acts? Why do they allow it to happen within Islam? Should their silence be interpreted as compliance, approval or cooperation? kaleem wrote:TFD defines "World War" as - a war in which the major nations of the world are involved.
Right now, NATO or ISAF forces consist of 27 countries in Afghanistan and 28th is Afghanistan itself, 29th is Pakistan and 30th is Yeman.
Is it fair to title that war against terrorism as "World War", keeping in mind the above definition? or should we have any other definition of "World War"?
Forgiving is Love, Love is For Giving.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,542
Points: 4,693
Location: United States
|
kaleem wrote:TFD defines "World War" as - a war in which the major nations of the world are involved.
Right now, NATO or ISAF forces consist of 27 countries in Afghanistan and 28th is Afghanistan itself, 29th is Pakistan and 30th is Yeman.
Is it fair to title that war against terrorism as "World War", keeping in mind the above definition? or should we have any other definition of "World War"? Well, it's "global" but I don't know if that means it qualifies as a world war simply because the word "war" is probably not appropriate to describe the campaign against terrorism any more than it is appropriate to describe the fight against international drug smuggling (the so-called "drug war.") I think in most people's understanding, "war" is when the nation's population is mobilized towards the conflict. At present, there have been shifts in government resources, but the population's of the countries involved haven't really been involved in anything more than a tangential way.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/15/2011
Posts: 774
Points: 2,093
Location: Earth
|
Very true. As far as the United States is concerned it takes an Act of Congress to officially declare a state of war against another nation or sovereign power, which they haven't done. However, some Islamic organizations have publicly declared 'jihad' and 'war' against many governments and their civilian populations. Those organizations in general aren't considered sovereign nations, and their tactics are considered 'terrorist'. Some countries, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan apparently have a history of harboring and supporting some of those organizations or at the very least condoning their activities. Geeman wrote:kaleem wrote:TFD defines "World War" as - a war in which the major nations of the world are involved.
Right now, NATO or ISAF forces consist of 27 countries in Afghanistan and 28th is Afghanistan itself, 29th is Pakistan and 30th is Yeman.
Is it fair to title that war against terrorism as "World War", keeping in mind the above definition? or should we have any other definition of "World War"? Well, it's "global" but I don't know if that means it qualifies as a world war simply because the word "war" is probably not appropriate to describe the campaign against terrorism any more than it is appropriate to describe the fight against international drug smuggling (the so-called "drug war.") I think in most people's understanding, "war" is when the nation's population is mobilized towards the conflict. At present, there have been shifts in government resources, but the population's of the countries involved haven't really been involved in anything more than a tangential way.
Forgiving is Love, Love is For Giving.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,542
Points: 4,693
Location: United States
|
nowherenothere wrote:Very true. As far as the United States is concerned it takes an Act of Congress to officially declare a state of war against another nation or sovereign power, which they haven't done. However, some Islamic organizations have publicly declared 'jihad' and 'war' against many governments and their civilian populations. Those organizations in general aren't considered sovereign nations, and their tactics are considered 'terrorist'. Some countries, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan apparently have a history of harboring and supporting some of those organizations or at the very least condoning their activities. I'd compare the current "war on terror" with The Cold War. It really has more to do with events that happen in the shadows, an intelligence/commando conflict, than conventional war. Arguably, the "hot" wars in Korea, Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan were the results of the Cold War, just as one could argue the war in Iraq and the U.S. in Afghanistan are now... but those "hot" wars are too small to qualify the situation as a "World War" and the nature of that global conflict just differs too much from the standard usage for that term to qualify.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/30/2010
Posts: 158
Points: 460
Location: United States
|
Geeman wrote:nowherenothere wrote:Very true. As far as the United States is concerned it takes an Act of Congress to officially declare a state of war against another nation or sovereign power, which they haven't done. However, some Islamic organizations have publicly declared 'jihad' and 'war' against many governments and their civilian populations. Those organizations in general aren't considered sovereign nations, and their tactics are considered 'terrorist'. Some countries, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan apparently have a history of harboring and supporting some of those organizations or at the very least condoning their activities. I'd compare the current "war on terror" with The Cold War. It really has more to do with events that happen in the shadows, an intelligence/commando conflict, than conventional war. Arguably, the "hot" wars in Korea, Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan were the results of the Cold War, just as one could argue the war in Iraq and the U.S. in Afghanistan are now... but those "hot" wars are too small to qualify the situation as a "World War" and the nature of that global conflict just differs too much from the standard usage for that term to qualify. Well, balderdash. The combatants on all sides end up just as dead. The 'cold' war was so caled because of proxy skirmishes in which weapons were not used. But then, like Lewis Carroll, words cam mean whatever you wish for them to mean, right Geeman?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 3,079
Points: 9,258
Location: United States
|
War is war. If it's your house, your loved one that get's killed or maimed, then whether or not it is a "world war" is not worth a moment of consideration.
In my opinion, the war on terror is mostly about intelligence, special operations, and international police work. It really isn't a "war" at all. The enemy is a shadowy minority of extemists that don't hold territory. It is an irregular conflict fought across international boundaries. In that, it has more in common with international smuggling rings: arms, drugs, human trafficing.
It isn't General Patton, Normandy beaches, it's shadows in the rain, and bodys floating in the harbor.
"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/30/2010
Posts: 158
Points: 460
Location: United States
|
Cheap people speak cheap and hollow words. America has spent overmuch blood and treasure in ongoing wars
on behalf of the unappreciative. Declare victory and bring our troops home. To those who have served: thank you.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 3,079
Points: 9,258
Location: United States
|
It's been a twilight struggle fought with improper tools, making enemies we didn't need, losing lives that need not have been lost. America's service men and women did as they always do: a dangerous and an often thankless job without complaint. They are the best of us. It's a shame that some of our politicians lacked the intelligence to see defeating terrorism for what it was and is.
BTW. Kudos to Obama's people. They took Down another high level Taliban operative, along with most of Al Queda's leadership, to include Bin Laden. So much blood and treaure could have been saved had such an approach been tried from the start.
If we had to have a war, it wasn't with Iraq, it was with Pakistan. That, is manifestly obvious based on events.
"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,542
Points: 4,693
Location: United States
|
niblick wrote:Well, balderdash. The combatants on all sides end up just as dead. The 'cold' war was so caled because of proxy skirmishes in
which weapons were not used. But then, like Lewis Carroll, words cam mean whatever you wish for them to mean, right Geeman? I'm not real clear on what you're driving at here, so I have a few questions. I assume you mean nuclear weapons, right? Other than that, you don't see a difference between the Cold War and WWII or, for that matter, WWI? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at regarding Lewis Carroll. Is that a Jabberwocky reference?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,542
Points: 4,693
Location: United States
|
HWNN1961 wrote:BTW. Kudos to Obama's people. They took Down another high level Taliban operative, along with most of Al Queda's leadership, to include Bin Laden. So much blood and treaure could have been saved had such an approach been tried from the start. Yet, somehow Obama is still portrayed as not tough enough. It's mystifying.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 2/20/2011
Posts: 1,297
Points: 3,887
Location: Spain
|
If the populations of the countries involved were not really involved, and if it wasn't with Iraq -was it then a mislead war?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/15/2011
Posts: 774
Points: 2,093
Location: Earth
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/21/2009
Posts: 1,447
Points: 4,336
Location: Pakistan
|
kaleem wrote:TFD defines "World War" as - a war in which the major nations of the world are involved.
Right now, NATO or ISAF forces consist of 27 countries in Afghanistan and 28th is Afghanistan itself, 29th is Pakistan and 30th is Yeman.
Is it fair to title that war against terrorism as "World War", keeping in mind the above definition? or should we have any other definition of "World War"?
By defination, yes. Otherwise some pro-war groups stricktly believe war as a "peace process." Like death is considerd a cure for people having chronic pain: even some magnificiant minds found their relief in suicide. You would have to be some brave to accept that world's major countries are directly involved in the wars not only physically but have engaged maximum of their institutions including intelligence, propoganda machineries, financial even educational institutes etc. What I have observed is that people from the countries who directly have waged conventional wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and non conventional or proxy wars on Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, Somalia etc believe that "every thing is right in war." I think they believe in it because of the Christian culture as for Christianity doesn't help the believers on and no criteria is defined so "every thing" is considered "right" inevitably. Now when "everything" like nukes, is not (publicly) used, some people think it's not yet war. Not war, so not world war. Another aspect that should not be neglected that the invading countries are Christian dominent with their religious stealth settings and all the Christian missionries working around the world are from those countries. And whatever they are doing with the most sofisticated weapons -if you feel shame calling it war or not, they are on the Muslim dominated countries. If the invading countries think that they are fighting with terrorists, they either are fools or making their voters fool, they are fighting with the (Muslim) people of the countries. If they quit war ends. Muslims are educated about wars' ethics, they very clear on it for example deception has nothing to do with peace time, don't attack unless you're attacked, those who are not fighting or not in the battle is not your enemy etc. It becomes difficult to persuade Muslims that it's not war waged on them when bombs fail to differentiate freedom fighters and civilians. So all those concepts named like "war on terrorism" occures as multiplying terrorism, with result in reverse. Then you would have to expand your war perhaps on another country with the same pattern, then another and on and on. We have yet to discuss the role of the world's spy agencies. And the role of China, Russia, India, Israel and Saudi Arabia in the war and its cold-n-hot aspects.
*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood. *
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 10/17/2011
Posts: 3
Points: 9
Location: canada
|
The original title of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' was 'My 4 & 1/2 Year Struggle, against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice'. The first part was written while he was incarcerated in Landsberg prison after the 1923 Beer-Hall Putsch. His publisher, Max Amann, later changed the title to Mein Kampf (My Struggle)
after reading it i thought definitely a man's ego can be bigger than many nations...!
|
|
|
Guest |