Tuesday, August 01, 2006
WWIII
Newt Gingrich has been spreading the word that world war three is emerging. Gingrich cited North Korea, Iran, the various other terrorist organizations and Venezuela and Cuba as our threats that could lead us into WWIII. What do you guys think as far as WWIII being a threat in the near future. thankyou
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Newt is making the classic slippery slope fallacy. There is almost no chance of World War III emerging out of any of this. For one thing, the so-called "bad guy" countries are far from having the technology or military might to even invade their neighbors, much less look for world domination. And it's clear that none of them is particularly interested in world domination. Finally, there have long been problems in the Middle East and with North Korea, including wars in both areas in the last 50 years, and those troubles -- which were much worse than anything going on right now -- didn't lead to World War III.
Yeah I don't see too much escalation in the future of this conflict. The two sides have agreed to sit down and try to come up with a solution which certainly doesn't mean that things are going to work out but at least we're trying diplomacy instead of fighting. You never know what could happen; let's just hope the issue is peacefully resolved.
I don't think I said Israel has "the most advanced" military in the world, I think we do. They are one of the most advanced, but I've seen nothing to suggest they are more advanced than we are.
Keep in mind that Hugo Chavez is democratically-elected. Any attempt to "whack" him would violate just about every law we can think of. Beyond that, he is no military threat to anyone, only an economic threat. He's also at the opposite end of the spectrum from Iran and the two have little to nothing in common.
>So ironically, if they are using this technology before us, then they are more advanced than our own even.
Not necessarily, if they have less of it, less training and have slowed down their research and development, then they wouldn't be as advanced.
>Then why is he forming an alliance with Iran and North Korea?
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." We probably spurred this with our comments about killing him. I would definitely say that it is something to keep an eye on, but I wouldn't call it a concern yet. Chavez is anti-Bush, not anti-America.
>I think this guy is loco.
There hae been numerous claims from both public and private citizens suggesting he should be removed from office, with force if necessary. If he thinks those threats are credible, it is logical to buy arms.
>And the elections that Hugo Chavez got elected democratically in are no different than Saddam's.
This is a burden of proof moment. This one you'll have to back up with evidence.
>The Venezuelian government is headed away from Democracy.
Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most democracies in the world are more socialist than the U.S. Democracy does not equal capitalism (although the two are very closely related in the U.S.). One could have a Communist country and still be a democracy if free and fair elections were held that put the Communists in power.
>This is an example of Socialization right?
Wrong word. Socialism, not socialization.
It was actually quite easy to predict World War II. It was inevitable once the League of Nations failed and it was easy to see that Hitler and Japan were going to have to be dealt with in the early 1930s. The war was a surprise to nobody.
Post a Comment