Six in Ten Americans Expect a New World War

[Makalakumu]

6 out of 10 Americans expect WWIII in their futures.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8681159/

Hell, some Americans believe that we are already in WWIV!

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/A11802017_1.pdf

I happen to agree with Mr. Podhoretz on a few things.

What do you think? Is our future going to be dominated by a war that, as VP Cheney says, "will last the rest of our lives..."? Does the future need to be so bleak? What are the alternatives?

 

[sgtmac_46]

6 out of 10 Americans expect WWIII in their futures.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8681159/

Hell, some Americans believe that we are already in WWIV!

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/A11802017_1.pdf

I happen to agree with Mr. Podhoretz on a few things.

What do you think? Is our future going to be dominated by a war that, as VP Cheney says, "will last the rest of our lives..."? Does the future need to be so bleak? What are the alternatives?

We spent from 1945 till 1990 in a state of constant coldwar. Conflict is a natural part of human existence. We all can achieve peace someday....it's called death. Other than that, conflict will continue on some level, large or small.

Though I doubt we'll ever into a state of industrial warfare as we did during WWI and WWII. Things have changed. State sponsored terrorism and covert actions to destablize other nations will be the order of the near future. Guerilla (small-war) warfare will be the situation that we continue to see in the future. Secretly sponsoring of one side or the other by major powers will be how they throw their lot in.

 

[arnisador]

I worry about things like China and Taiwan, the Koreas, Iran, etc. Yes, I can imagine a lengthy WWIII occurring.

 

[sgtmac_46]

What we are seeing are the last vestiges of fascist and communist dictatorships , as well as repressive theocracies, desperately clinging to their last outposts. Is it any surprise that Iran and North Korea have helped each other with their nuclear programs? It's because they are allies in the struggle against the democratic forces arrayed against them. The 20th century was kind to dictators and despots, the 21st century doesn't appear as though it's going to be so accomidating.

 

[Andrew Green]

I worry about things like China and Taiwan, the Koreas, Iran, etc. Yes, I can imagine a lengthy WWIII occurring.

And they worry about the US... hence the problem.

 

[sgtmac_46]

And they worry about the US... hence the problem.

They worry about the US because we threaten their dictatorial regimes. They should be afraid, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that their fear is not unfounded. We should covertly and overtly support democratic groups seeking reform both within their countries and without. We should undermine them at every turn, until the dictatorial governments that run them cease to exist.

Of course we won't do this. We'll take the easy path, as is the western way.

 

[Andrew Green]

They worry about the US because we threaten their dictatorial regimes. They should be afraid, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that their fear is not unfounded. We should covertly and overtly support democratic groups seeking reform both within their countries and without. We should undermine them at every turn, until the dictatorial governments that run them cease to exist.

Of course we won't do this. We'll take the easy path, as is the western way.

Are you sure that US style democracy is the right sort of government for every nation on the planet?

Should they be saying the same thing about how they should be threatening democracy with Communism?

 

[Marginal]

They worry about the US because we threaten their dictatorial regimes. They should be afraid, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that their fear is not unfounded. We should covertly and overtly support democratic groups seeking reform both within their countries and without. We should undermine them at every turn, until the dictatorial governments that run them cease to exist.

Of course we won't do this. We'll take the easy path, as is the western way.

We have done this. That's how Castro came to power. Not to mention the path Iran took after the US removed Iran's leader, and failed to install a puppet dictator and so on.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We have done this. That's how Castro came to power. Not to mention the path Iran took after the US removed Iran's leader, and failed to install a puppet dictator and so on.

Merely pointing out past mistakes gives us no vision of the future. That the US made unpallatable decisions during the cold war, does not help us understand how to deal with the dictatorial regimes created by it. It is merely a way of trying to silence opposing views.

I will give you props for one inadvertant accurate point. It has been the failure of the US to effectively deal with Iran and it's terrorist activities since 1979 that has created much of the terrorist problem we currently have. Our lack of action against Iran has convinced the terrorists that the US is a paper tiger, and that attacking us will yield only a token response, and, most likely, cause us to cave in. So props for that insight.

 

[still learning]

Hello, History will be correct,(repeats it self) and we will have more than one future world wars......Man has not change, hate is still taught to our children, they will grow to continune our fights!

Untill we (mankind) changes it's violent ways, wars will always be around. As long as we have army's, and hate, fear, distrust each other! We can count on having more than one more world war!!!!!!

That fight or flee instinct in us will it ever change? " Hope" is a big word here..............Aloha

 

[sgtmac_46]

Are you sure that US style democracy is the right sort of government for every nation on the planet?

Should they be saying the same thing about how they should be threatening democracy with Communism?

Name two democratic countries that have declared war on one another in the last hundred years. I'll be waiting a reply. If that reply is "none", then it is in our best interest (our interest is what i'm concerned with) to spread democratic ideals.

For example, would you tell an african american family to simply try and peacefully co-exist with the Klansmen down the block? Is it reasonable to tell the couple to try and "understand" why the Klansmen hate them? Some things are irreconcileable.

As I mentioned, life is conflict. There is no way to peacefully coexist on the same planet with diametrically opposite political views. Hard as it is for the relativists to accept, we have a horse in this race, and it's in our interest to be on the winning side. If you are truly relativistic, sit it out.

Democracy and Despotism are two of those things. One has to go. I'll let you decide which. Some things really are an either/or proposition, much as many would wish otherwise. This is one of those things.

 

[Dan G]

Name two democratic countries that have declared war on one another in the last hundred years. I'll be waiting a reply. If that reply is "none", then it is in our best interest (our interest is what i'm concerned with) to spread democratic ideals.

Cyprus and Turkey - 20 July 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cyprus#Modern_History
http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/pages/cyprus.html
Although technically after the coup instigated on 15 July by the non-democratic Greek government Cyprus was no longer a democracy. It remains a highly controversial area of modern history, but it is generally accepted in Greek Cyprus that elements within the US at the time approved the Turkish response long before the Greek coup was engineered. Makarios was stubbornly against playing the Cold war game, and was hence seen as pro-Russian at the time. He was restored as president after the invasian, and Greek Cyprus remains decidedly democratic. Strangely the UK remained neutral despite having troops based in Cyprus at the time.

Indo-Pakistan wars 1948, 1965 and 1971, 1984, 1999 etc etc.
Pakistan and India have both been in military confrontations over Kashmir whilst Pakistan nominally enjoyed democratic governments at some of those points. (I simply can't be bothered to work out exactly which points - However, 1971 was a civil war in Pakistan, and 1948 doesn't count as it followed straight on from the British leaving)
http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/anatomy.htm

Bombing the Rainbow Warrior - France and New Zealand July 10 1985. Didn't result in a war, but was a blatant act of terrorism and breach of sovereignty.
I actually think the lack of fuss over this incident supports your argument. Geographical distance and respect for international law and the EU precluded an appropriate Kiwi response. Saved another embarassing French surrender.

Technically the declaration of war by the UK against Germany in 1939 was a war between two democratically elected governments.Depends how you define democracy - is it just an internal political mechanism or a commitment to a set of universal ideals and values as well?

I don't think it is democracy in itself that prevents wars it is the treaties and trade bonds, and shared values that most democratic nations have that prevent conflicts escalating.

I do agree with your main point though. Just because democracies have gone to war or perpetrated unjust actions does not mean that spreading "democratic ideals" should be wrong. I think almost everytime a democratic country (generally the UK, US or France over the past 100 years)has either interfered with, or prevented a democracy with true democratic ideals (i.e. not WWII Germany) the results have been unhappy in the long term even if short term interests were served. :asian:

Can anyone think of two instances where this isn't the case?

Your question made me think. Thanks.

Dan

 

[sgtmac_46]

Cyprus and Turkey - 20 July 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cyprus#Modern_History
http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/pages/cyprus.html
Although technically after the coup instigated on 15 July by the non-democratic Greek government Cyprus was no longer a democracy. It remains a highly controversial area of modern history, but it is generally accepted in Greek Cyprus that elements within the US at the time approved the Turkish response long before the Greek coup was engineered. Makarios was stubbornly against playing the Cold war game, and was hence seen as pro-Russian at the time. He was restored as president after the invasian, and Greek Cyprus remains decidedly democratic. Strangely the UK remained neutral despite having troops based in Cyprus at the time.

Indo-Pakistan wars 1948, 1965 and 1971, 1984, 1999 etc etc.
Pakistan and India have both been in military confrontations over Kashmir whilst Pakistan nominally enjoyed democratic governments at some of those points. (I simply can't be bothered to work out exactly which points - However, 1971 was a civil war in Pakistan, and 1948 doesn't count as it followed straight on from the British leaving)
http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/anatomy.htm

Bombing the Rainbow Warrior - France and New Zealand July 10 1985. Didn't result in a war, but was a blatant act of terrorism and breach of sovereignty.
I actually think the lack of fuss over this incident supports your argument. Geographical distance and respect for international law and the EU precluded an appropriate Kiwi response. Saved another embarassing French surrender.

Technically the declaration of war by the UK against Germany in 1939 was a war between two democratically elected governments.Depends how you define democracy - is it just an internal political mechanism or a commitment to a set of universal ideals and values as well?

I don't think it is democracy in itself that prevents wars it is the treaties and trade bonds, and shared values that most democratic nations have that prevent conflicts escalating.

I do agree with your main point though. Just because democracies have gone to war or perpetrated unjust actions does not mean that spreading "democratic ideals" should be wrong. I think almost everytime a democratic country (generally the UK, US or France over the past 100 years)has either interfered with, or prevented a democracy with true democratic ideals (i.e. not WWII Germany) the results have been unhappy in the long term even if short term interests were served. :asian:

Can anyone think of two instances where this isn't the case?

Your question made me think. Thanks.

Dan

It is necessary to draw a distinction between democracy in the loose sense that they do hold elections (of some sort, even if only one name is on the ballot) and a liberal democracy, is necessary. When that distinction is made, it is even rarer to find instances of two liberal democracies in conflict resulting in warfare.

Even lumping all technical democracies together, it is exceedingly rare to find those instances. Usually they are instances when a technical democracy is devolving in to a military dictatorship, or is driven by large scale sectarian or religious division. Pakistan and India illustrate democracies driven by undemocratic religious forces in to conflict over a disputed region.

At any rate, it is evident that the clearest path the most peaceful planet we can make it, is for every nation to embrace liberal democracy as a political ideology, even if each of those interpretations varies.

It is also clear that in the pursuit of the lesser of two evils of the cold war, western democracies played a cynical game that has created problems for us far beyond the cold war. It's time we start dealing with those problems, to include abandoning former despotic allies who have now outlived not only their usefulness, but their place in history.

It's time the liberal democracies consigned the anachronistic despotic regimes to the dustbin of history they so richly deserve.

 

[Dan G]

I agree.

That would be a world I'd like to see.

Not sure what the smartest way to get there is though.

:asian:

Dan

 

[silatman]

Forget political reasons as long as there is religion you will always have war. Ban every religion as an organized entity and the world would be on the way to reconcilliation.
Will never happen but it is nice to dream.

 

[Andrew Green]

For example, would you tell an african american family to simply try and peacefully co-exist with the Klansmen down the block? Is it reasonable to tell the couple to try and "understand" why the Klansmen hate them? Some things are irreconcileable.

The KKK is all about intolerance and the superiority of one race, are you sure this is the comparisson you want to go into? How about if we replace "race" with "culture/government"?

The reason the US seems to be so hated amongst many countries is the superiority complex of many of its people and government. So your idea on how to solve this is to use force to make them all think like you? What am I missing here?

 

[sgtmac_46]

[/QUOTE] The KKK is all about intolerance and the superiority of one race, are you sure this is the comparisson you want to go into? How about if we replace "race" with "culture/government"? [/QUOTE] Seems you don't understand the analogy. The statement that the US should try and understand the motives of despotic regimes and terrorists (i.e. Klansmen), and try to live with them, is the point of the analogy. Yeah, i'd say that's pretty accurate.

[/QUOTE] The reason the US seems to be so hated amongst many countries is the superiority complex of many of its people and government. So your idea on how to solve this is to use force to make them all think like you? What am I missing here? [/QUOTE] Your missing a basic understanding of human behavior. You're operating under the false assumption that we can appease our enemies away, and that doesn't work.

Many people hate us for a lot of different reasons, some of which we may have encouraged, but many are just a natural consequence of being a successful nation. Envy plays a huge role in much of the hatred we have around the planet.

There are many people hungry to take what we have, by force if necessary. Now, we can do the altruistic thing and just surrender immediately and step aside, or we can do what will ensure the survival of our children and grandchildren. You can do the former, I choose the later.

This neurotic penchant that many in the western world have, this self-hate that forces them to blame themselves and their neighbors for the problems of the world, isn't shared by our enemies. They have absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause. While we pontificate and equivocate, they move forward with their agenda, with no doubt of it's righteousness. It seems they have the resolve that many of us apparently lack.

I'm starting to see it as an immune deficiency disease in the immune system of western society. Our ability to defend our culture from threats has been undermined by several maladaptive philosophies. It is not clear to me that our culture will long continue. The ideology that tells me to empathetically understand my enemy who is trying to destroy me, seems more like an ideology of suicide than a real plan of action.

Further, I have to find it amusing whenever people who consider themselves progressive liberals, suddenly find themselves, for political reasons, defending the right of despotic regimes to exist. Are you actually suggesting that is the case, that you feel strongly that despotic regimes have the right to continue to exist? So much for belief in universal human rights.

 

[Andrew Green]

I'm starting to see it as an immune deficiency disease in the immune system of western society. Our ability to defend our culture from threats has been undermined by several maladaptive philosophies. It is not clear to me that our culture will long continue.

So you're saying American culture is the "right way", but yet it is under threat of other cultures that are far more self-secure?

Maybe American culture is not the only way that works afterall. If people living under different cultures are that much happier with there culture then Americans are, that seems to be saying something doesn't it?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree.

That would be a world I'd like to see.

Not sure what the smartest way to get there is though.

:asian:

Dan

The only secure world for my daughter and son to live in, is one free from despotic regimes. Only when every country on earth grants it's citizens equal representation, and universal sufferage, will an organization like the UN mean something. Only then will nations be able to reason together under fair international law.

Any time someone tells me that a nation violated international law, I shake my head. As it is, there isn't currently anything that can be called international law. There are loose nit agreements between nations. But I digress.

In short, yeah, that's the world i'd like to see. But how to get there is the real question.

 

[sgtmac_46]

So you're saying American culture is the "right way", but yet it is under threat of other cultures that are far more self-secure?

What i'm saying is that western style liberal democracy is the right way. You disagree?

And what does "Self-secure" mean?

Maybe American culture is not the only way that works afterall. If people living under different cultures are that much happier with there culture then Americans are, that seems to be saying something doesn't it?

As far as happier, you actually believe that North Koreans are happier living in abject poverty and totalitarian splender? You don't get out much do you? But lets not talk about vague generalizations, it's too easy to get bogged down in vague relativistic BS.

Instead, why don't you name one of these happier, more successful, more "self-secure" totalitarian paradises and we'll discuss it.