Since terrorism is a world wide issue (FARC in Columbia, IRA in Ireland, ETA in Spain, al-Qaida in Pakistan, muslim separatists in Phillipines, etc.) , shouldn't Bush's war on terror be classified as a World War?
Or is Bush's war on terror an irrelevant war (like drugs and poverty) ultimately intended to make a few corporations a lot of money?
I know this, every time someone questions the validity of Bush's war on terror, the neocons get their panties in a twist.
So what constitutes a world war nowadays?|||That will be determined by Congress, when they pass the first Declaration of War since 1941. Technically, Bush's War on Terror with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are not 'wars,' they are military engagements.|||Well, the other two wars involved political powers and domination. None of those things that you mentioned envelope the entire globe. For instance, when Hitler came to power before WWII, he conquered territory after territory. In WWI, the nations sided according to their ally nation, for it really was just a conflict between two nations ( a single assassination). Both wars started from a single conflict. WW III would also would have to be a single conflict, but I do not think terrorism would be it. It would have to be more specific. Terrorism has happened for centuries. Both world wars started from national conflicts; the war on terrorism is much different. It is not a single nation, but either a religious group or idea.|||A military conflict large enough to require:
The mobilization of the National Guard and Reserve components en mass.
Recall of all inactive reserves to active duty.
Removal of all manpower caps for the US Armed forces.
Reorganization of the US economy to focus on the production of war material.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment