Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WWIII will be MUCH worse than I and II combined.
Liberal Democrat Woodrow Wilson was the President during WWI.
Liberal Democrat Franklin Roosevelt was the President during WWII.
Your statement that liberals won't fight is nothing more than ultraconservative nonsense.
Woodrow Wilson avoided war until it could not be ignored, he may have really waited too long. You could argue his stance on war might be similar to modern liberals at least to some extent. However...... FDR was of a different stripe. He worked to support the good guys in the war as soon as he could. He understood what Hitler was and what was going on. He began lend lease when isolationist America would not back an entry into the war. When the wolf finally showed up at our door he let em have it. FDR led the nation like a patriot during WW2. I detest his socialist new deal policies, but his leadership in the war was correct. He deserves all the credit we can give him for his war leadership. Many of the liberals of the past were still ardent patriots, they loved America just as much as the conservatives. Look at some other democrats like Truman or Kennedy and they both also had a pretty aggressive foreign policy. Kennedy used American military power to force Kruschev to back down without even starting a war. Without his tough stance those missiles would have stared us down for 40 years hanging over us like the sword of Damocles. Even Clinton flexed US military muscle to support an aggressive foreign policy when he used American power to end the Balkan war. It really is modern liberal pacifist types who have given democrats the image of the limp wrist weaklings who let our enemies walk all over us. Obama is the most ridiculous example of this, but other dems also go around preaching the peace at all cost attitude as well. However it seems to be a modern trend. Democrats have a decent history of defending our nation, however it has not been in the recent past.
Not likely to happen; the two-act World War was essentially between the proven democracies (except for the Soviets) and the autocrats and dictators. And luckily for all of us, the right side won (and I expect the open economies had a lot to do with that).
The days of wars between large masses of troops are likely over; it will be higher-tech / low numbers "brushfire" warfare between the democracies (whose numbers are growing) and the outlaws here and there. That, and maybe some "cyber-sabotage" in civilian sectors.
Agree.
Economic warfare, sanctions, and skirmishes at the level we see today will likely be it.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,317 posts, read 8,662,258 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhead
Does anybody think there will be a third world war on the scale of the previous two?.Who would it be against and do you think the "west"would have the stomach to fight it.My opinion is that western society would have no stomach to fight considering the politically correct, progressive,liberal,diversive,inclusive agenda's that seem to be rooted in the west these days.The idea of "macho men"fighting these days is alien to to these people many,who are in positions of power today and, I feel that they would rather meekly surrender that have to fight.I think the west would lose if the gloves came off,
The Stomach to Fight? In my lifetime the USA has been involved in Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iran, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.....
If anything the West and us in particular, should let other countries hash out thier problems without our intervention.
As for surrender, that ridiculous. Say worst case scenario the Russians and the Chinese team up and decide to attack America, truth is we could probably whip them, if all we were concerned about was protecting our Continent and not others, and worse case, last thing you'd want is we just call it a tie and nuclear on them..
That's our doctrine, MAD before losing, everyone know that......
Oh look, another liberal bashing thread. So with that said, if Conservatives held all three houses you can bet there would be a war with the US involved since that is what Conservatives dream of. All 3 of your candidates have said that they wish to bomb the hell out of someone somewhere.
As far of a WWIII, it will be nuclear with no winners, only dead.
The very liberal UN has been given quite an opportunity to heal the world. It didn't work.
The very liberal UN has been given quite an opportunity to heal the world. It didn't work.
Time to try something different.
The UN is a failure because of some of the nations on the security council. China and Russia are often part of the problem, and they almost always defend or shield reckless dictators. The whole premise of the UN is flawed in the respect that all nations have a say, and a few have a big say (security council). Those causing problems can simply block those trying to solve them, then when nothing gets done those aggressive problematic nations just do as they will. If one of the Western Powers acts without the UN to stop them they are sanctioned by this very same UN for their "warmongering". The bad guys do have an advantage here. Who am I talking about when I say bad guys?? Iran, North Korea, Syria etc.
In all fairness nothing has ever really prevented war, it seems impossible to stop. What has made us safe in the US is being a strong nation. The best defense we have to a dangerous world is a powerful military. This is the one factor that has historically deterred aggression and protected us and the powerful nations that come before us. If you are not strong then you are weak and weakness makes you a target.
In my lifetime the USA has been involved in Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iran, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.....
Say worst case scenario the Russians and the Chinese team up and decide to attack America
It's a really long list for a "peacefull" country...
I wonder how did you got to cunclusion that it would be China an Russia who decide to attack America after such list?
Isn't it apparent what country would be firebrand of WWIII?
The UN is a failure because of some of the nations on the security council. China and Russia are often part of the problem, and they almost always defend or shield reckless dictators.
So because of China and Russia the peaceful american bombs should stay at home.
Quote:
Who am I talking about when I say bad guys?? Iran, North Korea, Syria etc.
Can you tell me why are they bad guys? What countries did they invaded during last 20 years? What countries was bombed with their aircrafts?
Quote:
In all fairness nothing has ever really prevented war, it seems impossible to stop. What has made us safe in the US is being a strong nation.
May be you feel yourself safe. But we feel ourselves unsafe. Because the US puts a lot of military bases around our country.
And instead of peacefull life we had to took up our arms.
But don't you understand that when WWIII begins there would be no safe places. And this time you won't stay at your big island just watching how great countries fight.
I think unrest in the US is a greater possibility than WWIII.
That said, unrest within Europe looks to be the same way.
The PC pendulum has swung so far left people are thinking "ok, this is stupid." My only fear is when it swings right, it will bypass all rationality.
There is a real hate brewing, and it it is boiling, and something is going to happen. You can't keep hitting a dog for it's own good. Eventually it bites and goes for the neck.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,317 posts, read 8,662,258 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by serabal
It's a really long list for a "peacefull" country...
I wonder how did you got to cunclusion that it would be China an Russia who decide to attack America after such list?
Isn't it apparent what country would be firebrand of WWIII?
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my quote, I used Russia and China vs the USA as a WWIII scenario because that's what it would take to make a real WWIII.......
I didn't mean to insinuate that they would attack us, it was just an example....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
