• 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
People have believed in MAD and so far it has worked. It has worked only because we had sane leaders in both countries. There is no guarantee that will last.

Again it would be suicide for either the U.S. or Russia if one sidee started a nuclear war....That does apply to North Korea, Iran orr some terrorist group........That is the scary part.
 
Again it would be suicide for either the U.S. or Russia if one sidee started a nuclear war....That does apply to North Korea, Iran orr some terrorist group........That is the scary part.

So you don't think North Korea or Iran would be committing suicide if they attempted a nuclear attack on the US? Why is that?
 
Ten posters actually believe we're poised on the cusp of WW3?

Wow.
 
Ten posters actually believe we're poised on the cusp of WW3?

Wow.
Conspiracy theorists are the ultimate evil conspiracy.
 
Let's hope so. Maybe we should ship them a few thousand tons of weed to help that process along. :)
What is: "What is the preface?"

OK, I'll take "LSD" for 1,000.💺
 
Everyone should have voted yes, just to see members post 'See! I told you!' They would cite this thread as evidence. But no, we ruined it.
 
So you don't think North Korea or Iran would be committing suicide if they attempted a nuclear attack on the US? Why is that?

The US has the military capability to totally destroy either or both of those nations. Would we?

That's the unanswered question.

Maybe as long as they think we might, we're safe, at least from them.
 
The results of this poll shock me.......All I can say is you people who voted no live in fantasy land..........I am usually pretty accurate on my political positions on the issues but hope and pray I am wrong about this one.
 
Nope. Im in the crowd of WW3 probably will never happen.

I would argue that it is happening right now and has for some time... WWIII is the war against radical Muslim terrorists. It is occurring the world over too...
 
The results of this poll shock me.......All I can say is you people who voted no live in fantasy land..........I am usually pretty accurate on my political positions on the issues but hope and pray I am wrong about this one.
We like our fantasy land and will fight to make it reality?
 
I voted yes simply because I'm always an optimist and I believe global wars could potentially in the future be the only thing that fixes our societies seeing as reform clearly won't.
 
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.

I can agree with that.
 
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.

Since the 60's/late-70's, Democrats have tried very hard NOT to lead the nation into another unjustified armed conflict. Fast-forward to today and you'll hear Republicans make the claim that Democrats are soft on using America's military might. Every time I hear that, I remember the exact same historical context as you. Yet, Republicans will continue to beat Democrats about the head over their willingness to seek peaceful solutions first, and use war only as a last resort. (Of course, many of them got it wrong when it came to authorizing the War in Iraq.)

Who appeased Putin in 2009 and agreed not to station NATO anti ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe with nothing in exchange from Russia ?

From that day on Putin had no respect for a pantywaist who didn't know how to play geopolitic chess.

Almost a year ago when Obama kept moving the "red line" in the sand during the Syrian crisis and got into a staring match with Putin and Obama blinked, Obama went in front of the world calming that geopolitics was obsolete in the 21st Century. All of the worlds leaders laughed at Obama. The world doesn't automatically change because of a date on a calendar. All of the world leaders after having a good laugh that the world changed at midnight on January 1st, 2000 went back to geopolitics.

Obama believes the world should be as he visions it to be. 99.9% of the people in the world don't vision the world as Obama does.

I rest my case. :doh
 
The results of this poll shock me.......All I can say is you people who voted no live in fantasy land..........I am usually pretty accurate on my political positions on the issues but hope and pray I am wrong about this one.

No, you're not.
 
Since the 60's/late-70's, Democrats have tried very hard NOT to lead the nation into another unjustified armed conflict. Fast-forward to today and you'll hear Republicans make the claim that Democrats are soft on using America's military might. Every time I hear that, I remember the exact same historical context as you. Yet, Republicans will continue to beat Democrats about the head over their willingness to seek peaceful solutions first, and use war only as a last resort. (Of course, many of them got it wrong when it came to authorizing the War in Iraq.)




I rest my case. :doh


One problem with "since the 60's", JFK was a hawk, his brother Bobby was even a bigger hawk.

Both the Democrats and Republicans were anti communist and pro military. During the Presidental election JFK vs. Nixon it came down to who would do a better job at stopping communist expansion in the world ?

It wasn't until 1970 when radical leftist (The New Left) began coming under the Democrat tent and first they hid behinde the "liberal" label when you started seeing anti-military and an anti war movement against any war that would be fought against communism or any form of socialism with in the Democrat Party.

It was during the 1970's when the true liberals with in the Democrat Party started leaving the party and came under the GOP tent, they were called neoconservatives. JFK Liberals who were anti communist and refused to surrender during the Cold War.

Now not all liberals fled from the Democrat Party. There still were Democrats who refused to surrender and wanted to continue fighting the Cold War. You had liberals like Rep. Charley Wilson (D-Tx.) who remained in the Party. Yep the same cocain sniffing, skirt chasing, partying Democrat that the movie "Charley Wilson's War" is based upon. The same liberal Democrat who got Congress to support the Mujadeen in Afghanistan by arming them with Stinger missiels.


History rest it's case.
 
Sorry but you just can't bury you head in the sands and hope the problems just go away.

They won't.

Nobody is denying that there are problems in the world. There are always problems in the world. That said, the idea that we're on the cusp of World War III (a globally encompassing cataclysm) is absurd.
 
I voted yes simply because I'm always an optimist and I believe global wars could potentially in the future be the only thing that fixes our societies seeing as reform clearly won't.

Can you imagine the destruction that would happen if nuclear devices were exploded in our major cities in this country? It would be devestating.
 
Back
Top Bottom