• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we on the precifice of World War 3

Are we on the precifice of World War 3

  • Total voters
    80
Luftwaffe said:
There's a difference between idiot moron and Hitler #2, Putin is just an idiot moron.

The reality is that Ukraine is nothing for the U.S. or Russia to go to war over.

As for ISIS, it's strong compared to the ME but is a fly on the world radar for big countries with big standing national armies.
Click to expand...

Putin is no moron, he's a master at geopolitics. That's why you should be real concerned that while Putin is playing chess, Obama is playing checkers.
 
Perotista said:
We could have stayed out of WWI and there are quite a bit of historians who think if we had just let the Europeans slug it out amongst themselves WWII wouldn't have happened. But that is all supposition. As for WWII, Pearl Harbor was bombed and then a couple of days later Hitler declared war on us.

If old Bull Moose TR had of won in 1912, I doubt if he would have taken as long as Wilson to get us involved in WWI. But if Taft the isolationist had won in 1912, he would have kept it us out of WWI. But these are just my opinions.
Click to expand...

It's my historical opinion that WW l was one of the most stupidest wars ever fought in history. And WW ll was just a continuation of WW l.

I would have to go back and look at what Teddy Roosevelt was thinking back then, but T.R. had already lit the fuse for war against Japan in the Pacific before WW l started.

That's why Japan jumped into WW l before America did, Japan wanted the "Mandates" the German Micronesian Islands in the Central Pacific. And Japan got them after WW l.
 
Perotista said:
We could have stayed out of WWI and there are quite a bit of historians who think if we had just let the Europeans slug it out amongst themselves WWII wouldn't have happened. But that is all supposition. As for WWII, Pearl Harbor was bombed and then a couple of days later Hitler declared war on us.

If old Bull Moose TR had of won in 1912, I doubt if he would have taken as long as Wilson to get us involved in WWI. But if Taft the isolationist had won in 1912, he would have kept it us out of WWI. But these are just my opinions.
Click to expand...

and how would have t.r have reacted to the Zimmerman telegram, were germany tried to convince mexico to declare war on the united states and join the central powers, in exchange for part of arizona and new mexico?
 
Gringo allstar said:
What the hell someone has to pick the longshot. Yes
Click to expand...

I went with YES also... strict definition of precipice indicates such... though it hardly indicates a sure thing; historical comparisons are significant.

"Be prepared"

Thom Paine
 
APACHERAT said:
It's my historical opinion that WW l was one of the most stupidest wars ever fought in history. And WW ll was just a continuation of WW l.

I would have to go back and look at what Teddy Roosevelt was thinking back then, but T.R. had already lit the fuse for war against Japan in the Pacific before WW l started.

That's why Japan jumped into WW l before America did, Japan wanted the "Mandates" the German Micronesian Islands in the Central Pacific. And Japan got them after WW l.
Click to expand...

There is a good case to be made that WWII was just a continuation of WWI. Although several countries switched sides. There is really little doubt that the treaty of Versailles lead to WWII.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
and how would have t.r have reacted to the Zimmerman telegram, were germany tried to convince mexico to declare war on the united states and join the central powers, in exchange for part of arizona and new mexico?
Click to expand...

I think you know that answer. Let's just say he wouldn't have took kindly to it. Perhaps the better question is what would have taft have done?
 
Perotista said:
There is a good case to be made that WWII was just a continuation of WWI. Although several countries switched sides. There is really little doubt that the treaty of Versailles lead to WWII.
Click to expand...

It was France and the Versailles treaty that led to WW ll.

The lessons learned was not to repeat the mistakes that were made after WW l. That's why the Marshal Plan was enacted after WW ll.

Basically no Versailles treaty, no Hitler.

But the fuse for war with Japan in the Pacific was lit back in 1905.
 
APACHERAT said:
It was France and the Versailles treaty that led to WW ll.

The lessons learned was not to repeat the mistakes that were made after WW l. That's why the Marshal Plan was enacted after WW ll.

Basically no Versailles treaty, no Hitler.

But the fuse for war with Japan in the Pacific was lit back in 1905.
Click to expand...

The war with Russia, it did show Japan as a naval power.
 
Navy Pride said:
Are we on the precifice of World War 3
Click to expand...

World War Three began a long time ago, in the 1970s. It started when President Carter betrayed and abandoned the best ally we ever had in the Muslim-dominated world—the Shah of Iran—allowing the Khomeniacs to overthrow him and take over that nation. This is when the dangerous, toxic Islamist terrorists first gained control of the resources of an entire nation; from which to spread their poison across the rest of the Muslim world.

All of the trouble that we have had ever since with Islamist terrorist all goes back to that one tragic act of incompetence on Carter's part.
 
APACHERAT said:
There were Democrats sitting in the White House when we found ourselves in WW l and WW ll.
Click to expand...
I think this is known as a "non sequitur".

The political affiliation of the presidents during the last 2 "world wars" is in no way related to the chance of there being a 3rd "world war" currently.

A chance which I consider to be very low.


Edit: This of course assumes that you define "world war" as "multiple major nations all over the world fighting each other".

However, if you defined "world war" as "conflict all over the world", then I think we have qualified for that for a few decades now.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
The war with Russia, it did show Japan as a naval power.
Click to expand...

Perotisa, ever get the chance to read James Bradley's "Imperial Cruise." ?

As usual with all of Bradley's books, "Flag of My Father," "Fly boys," he always starts out mentioning the Philippine Insurrection. I don't know why, I think he actually wants to write a book about the war before the revisionist historians accomplish rewriting history. As you noticed the revisionist just a few years ago have already changed the name of the "Philippine Insurrection" to the "Philippine-American War."

But Bradley's "Imperial Cruise" explains how Teddy Roosevelt lit the fuse for war in the Pacific with Japan.

The book start out really weird, American progressives wanting to continue America's "Manifest Destiny." America expanding across the Pacific and our final goal returning to our ancestors motherland in the dark forest of Germany.

Controversial book when first published.

The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War: James Bradley: 8601400272039: Amazon.com: Books


The Imperial Cruise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Navy Pride said:
Since the world is exploding the question begs to be asked.
Click to expand...

The world is exploding?

I heard a little noise a while back, but I thought it was just the kim chee.
 
Goshin said:
Let's hope so. Maybe we should ship them a few thousand tons of weed to help that process along. :)
Click to expand...

Naaaaw they have Turkish hash... the NSA should hack al-Jazeera and sub in Playboy After Dark along with super sized fries.... :peace
 
The Mark said:
I think this is known as a "non sequitur".

The political affiliation of the presidents during the last 2 "world wars" is in no way related to the chance of there being a 3rd "world war" currently.

A chance which I consider to be very low.


Edit: This of course assumes that you define "world war" as "multiple major nations all over the world fighting each other".

However, if you defined "world war" as "conflict all over the world", then I think we have qualified for that for a few decades now.
Click to expand...

If you read my follow up post and if you're old enough to remember, during the 60's, 70's and 80's during Presidential elections it was always mentioned that Democrats had gotten America into two world wars and Korea and the Vietnam War would be added to the list during the 1968 Presidential elections.

BTW: Do you remember what the 1960 Presidential campaign was mostly about ? Who would be more aggressive stopping Communist expansion in the world, Nixon (Republican) or Kennedy( Democrat)
Americans were pretty split who would be better at the job and not turning the Cold War into a hot war. The voters went to the polls and along with the corpses from the Cook County cemeteries, JFK was elected. The rest is history.
 
APACHERAT said:
Putin is no moron, he's a master at geopolitics. That's why you should be real concerned that while Putin is playing chess, Obama is playing checkers.
Click to expand...

Putin is a Master only in a few right wing fearmongering minds. His epic move with the missiles into Ukraine is a REAL master stroke... :doh

BushII was the checker player in the crowd, and a piss poor one at that.

Putin is just playing with himself.... :roll:
 
Bob Blaylock said:
World War Three began a long time ago, in the 1970s. It started when President Carter betrayed and abandoned the best ally we ever had in the Muslim-dominated world—the Shah of Iran—allowing the Khomeniacs to overthrow him and take over that nation. This is when the dangerous, toxic Islamist terrorists first gained control of the resources of an entire nation; from which to spread their poison across the rest of the Muslim world.

All of the trouble that we have had ever since with Islamist terrorist all goes back to that one tragic act of incompetence on Carter's part.
Click to expand...

You have a credible argument there.
 
APACHERAT said:
If you read my follow up post and if you're old enough to remember, during the 60's, 70's and 80's during Presidential elections it was always mentioned that Democrats had gotten America into two world wars and Korea and the Vietnam War would be added to the list during the 1968 Presidential elections.

BTW: Do you remember what the 1960 Presidential campaign was mostly about ? Who would be more aggressive stopping Communist expansion in the world, Nixon (Republican) or Kennedy( Democrat)
Americans were pretty split who would be better at the job and not turning the Cold War into a hot war. The voters went to the polls and along with the corpses from the Cook County cemeteries, JFK was elected. The rest is history.
Click to expand...
I was born in the early 80s.

However I was aware, vaguely, of these things.

Still don't see how "are we on the brink of WWIII" prompts a response of "democrats were president when WWI and WWII started"..

If you had explained that, in your opinion, democrat control of the government made war more likely, it would have made more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom