Do you think there will be a World War Three?

as long as the United States stays as conservative as it is (without Bush), which isn't very, there will be no WWIII. Isn't fascism just conservatism to the extreme?

 

No, it isn't. Fascism is the rule of the strongest taken to extremes, not shy of Social Darwinist theories to support itself. Conservatism is moderate compared to that.

As an aside, fascism is not required to trigger wars.

 

...and the USA is not necessarily needed to start a war - it could have war declared on it for reasons it cannot escape, or it could be dragged in to a war without particularly intending to.

 

From all I know there is not necessarily social darwinism in fascism, that's more an aspect of nazism which is a very different matter.
For example in the original italian fascism there was no racism, as the fascist party even contained a lot of jews.

On the other hand I would not say that fascism is conservatism taken to the extreme.Fascism has some features that clearely distinguish and even oppose it to conservatism.
A typical error is often made by calling extremely conservative regimes(for example Franco's Spain, Pinochtets Chili, or let's say Pétain's France)fascist.They certainly were not fascist.

 

I said it's "not shy of Social Darwinism", not that it requires Social Darwinism. However in all cases it is a rule of the strongest, where power lies with those who have strength. That power, then, is virtually unlimited.

 

Did I ever say it was? It is necessary, though, to prevent a major war, like WWIII. It is the world's strongest country, so it can basically take over any threat (not that its willing to, look at Iran).

 

The USA will never attack a nation with the ability to throw nukes, why, we all know why, and what will happen to a nation, like North Korea that has nothing to lose and their leaders are just nuts enough to not give a dam in doing it.

Why is Iran beng targeted and why will they be invaded by the USA and the UK, because both know if Iran gets the bomb they can no longer threaten Iran (Persia for those that call it that) with impunity.

This of course is only the tip of the ice berg; however, here is an author with a PHD that backs this summary up.

Naom Chomsky, MIT, PHD. Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project) 2003, Henry Holt and Company as the publisher.

 

I'm guessing that you don't subscribe to the idea that Iran might not be the ideal country to have nukes, what with its leaders publicly calling for the eradication of other nations and all...

Admittedly it is a little 2-faced for nations like the UK & US to have nukes but deny them to others, but there is a fair amount of 'we would rather not have a nuclear war, thanks very much' in there.

Besides, the closing of Iranian reactors was a UN operation, and the UN is rather more than just America and Britain.


Regarding Dr Chomsky, what is his PhD in, if you don't mind me asking?

 

He works at MIT, and his PHD's are in linguistics and Philosophy. Where did you get the idea that I think Iran and Korea should have nukes, hell I don't even think any country should have nukes, Canada included! Holy smokes! I amazed at how you completely missed my point that "USA and UK will not attack a nation armed with nukes."

 

Sorry, I misunderstood.
I thought you were suggesting that UK & US were deliberately keeping Iran nuke-free so they could continue to apply pressure there, which was unfair.

 

ho yea , there is always some juice in that one ,
a low level of conflict for ressource is already on .but war is not about
seizing some assets , it's about the physical destruction of your oppponent
ability to resist you , money is fine but as Mao tse tung said ,
" there is two side to a gun , the funny side and the unfunny side "

 

I agree and disagree with that statement. If your enemy has resources and a fairly sufficient army (for instance, Canada) that is somewhat efficient at defending land, the only way for a country, even the United States, is to attack.

On the other hand, if a country needs a resource that it doesn't have, such as Japan and oil in the 1940's, AND they have recently ticked off a country and their allies, they can form a trade embargo, which is essentially an economic war (American economics = free trade, which means every country has a right to trade for another country's resource. And like other rights, denying that right, in the proper contexts, can be considered an act of war. As it wasin the 1940s).

 

Well, WW3 could be a step closer. China & Taiwan are back to being worst of friends.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 757568.stm

 

russia is getting ready ! check this


Russia
Non-combat military fatalities in Russia fall in January
16:48 | 13/ 02/ 2006



MOSCOW, February 13 (RIA Novosti) - The number of non-combat fatalities in the Russian Armed Forces registered a month-on-month fall in January, the Defense Ministry said Monday.

A total of 53 Russian soldiers died in January due to accidents or violence, down from 87 in December, according to official statistics.

The highest death toll was caused by accidents, the ministry said. The sources reported no hazing fatalities.

The total January statistics included two people who died from other people's negligence, 11 after violating traffic regulations against 32 in the previous month. In addition, 14 soldiers committed suicide against 25 in December, and seven died from offenses committed by civilians against four in December.

Six deaths were reported in the troubled republic of Chechnya against four in the previous month, with four against three of them killed in action. No soldiers were reported missing.

The overall military fatalities for 2005 were 1,064, both in the army and the navy.

there is no emoticons suitable

 

Getting ready for what?

 

That was irony !

 

That is the popular belief, yes. But not at all true. I guess it much depends on how you define the Middle Ages, which was basically a European phenomen by the way, but the years between 1000 and the Renaissance saw more development in all fields of human enterprise in Europe than ever in the Islamic world.

Ricky, split and move to the appropriate section for further debate. :smok:

 

So, this is where you have hidden the WWIII scenario debate from me!

I wouldn't go as far as to say that we are in WWIII right now, but this period we're in might be seen as the beginning to WWIII in the future. Islamism is on the rise in Europe and it's only a matter of time before we'll have Middle East-like conflicts all over Europe. Terrorism, assassinations and violence are already wearing down the post-WWII tolerance of Europe as we speak. The policy of appeasement followed by most European leaders has only left the gap between the Islamic world and the democratic/secular world wider.

One doesn't need much of an imagination to see that the course we're on right now doesn't lead to anywhere nice.

 

The only thing that is "not at all true" is the arrogant Eurocentric idea that all good and just things emerged from Europe. During the Early Middle Ages and greatly thanks to Christianity, Europe squandered the achievements of Greek and Roman thought and civilization; luckily the Muslims recognized their value and preserved the works for study. This is the path through which, after about 1200, the ancients gradually poured back into Europe. It took until the 13th century before anything started happening in Europe at all since the fall of the Roman Empire.

Meanwhile in the Muslim world, agricultural technology as well as theology, astronomy and mathematics developed greatly.

 

I fail to see what the Muslim accomplishments of 8 centuries ago have to do with the present day assault on western culture by radical islamic folk who seem wish to force other, free nations to conform to their religious practices and prohibitions.