Monday, May 08, 2006
War/Not War
[Overheard at Mercury Rising]
Type in "World War III" and "Armageddon" into Google and you get over 130,000 hits. It is commonly believed among many Muslims and Christians that the third time is a charm, that the Third World War brings the end of the world.
So, what kind of moron says this:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III."...The same guy who called it a "Crusade," of course. You'd think he might have mentioned this when he was telling us to just go shopping. We could have bought harps and white smocks while they were on sale. I'm sorry, but people who want to be world leaders need to measure their words more carefully than this.
# posted by Charles @ 2:46 PM
Comments:
Some historians would argue that the systematic subversion of the prodemocracy movement worldwide by both the US and USSR--also known as the Cold War--was World War III. Which would make what's taking place now World War IV, a somewhat ironic corollary seeing how the human rights movement against globalization is effectively led by indigenous peoples and stateless nations such as the Zapatistas, who comprise what are often described as the Fourth World.
# posted by Spartacus O'Neal : 5/07/2006 06:44:24 PM
It gets pretty arbitrary. Alexander the Great's hijinks amounted to a world war, as did the wars forming the Roman empire, and the wars in which it was destroyed. The Crusades, too. So, depending on how one counts, we might be on World War VIII or World War XVII. But I think the Cold War and the present conflict should not be called world wars. Between them, the only countries that got occupied were Hungary, Korea, Nepal, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq... I'm sure I'm missing a couple. Relatively little territory changed hands. What really distinguishes war from low intensity conflict is occupation. Granted, a nuclear exchange without occupation would be war, for certain.
# posted by Charles : 5/08/2006 12:10:38 AM
I doubt those on the receiving end of the right-wing death squads would have called it low intensity.
# posted by Spartacus O'Neal : 5/08/2006 11:22:33 AM
Type in "World War III" and "Armageddon" into Google and you get over 130,000 hits. It is commonly believed among many Muslims and Christians that the third time is a charm, that the Third World War brings the end of the world.
So, what kind of moron says this:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III."...The same guy who called it a "Crusade," of course. You'd think he might have mentioned this when he was telling us to just go shopping. We could have bought harps and white smocks while they were on sale. I'm sorry, but people who want to be world leaders need to measure their words more carefully than this.
# posted by Charles @ 2:46 PM
Comments:
Some historians would argue that the systematic subversion of the prodemocracy movement worldwide by both the US and USSR--also known as the Cold War--was World War III. Which would make what's taking place now World War IV, a somewhat ironic corollary seeing how the human rights movement against globalization is effectively led by indigenous peoples and stateless nations such as the Zapatistas, who comprise what are often described as the Fourth World.
# posted by Spartacus O'Neal : 5/07/2006 06:44:24 PM
It gets pretty arbitrary. Alexander the Great's hijinks amounted to a world war, as did the wars forming the Roman empire, and the wars in which it was destroyed. The Crusades, too. So, depending on how one counts, we might be on World War VIII or World War XVII. But I think the Cold War and the present conflict should not be called world wars. Between them, the only countries that got occupied were Hungary, Korea, Nepal, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq... I'm sure I'm missing a couple. Relatively little territory changed hands. What really distinguishes war from low intensity conflict is occupation. Granted, a nuclear exchange without occupation would be war, for certain.
# posted by Charles : 5/08/2006 12:10:38 AM
I doubt those on the receiving end of the right-wing death squads would have called it low intensity.
# posted by Spartacus O'Neal : 5/08/2006 11:22:33 AM
