General Question

seVen's avatar

Is War on Terror categorized as WWIII or WWII & a half or what?

Asked by seVen (3461points) December 26th, 2008 from iPhone
Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

26 Answers

MrItty's avatar

Asking a question like that shows a ridiculous level of ignorance about the size and scope of the actual World Wars.

seVen's avatar

Well it’s often labeled as “Global War on Terror” so it’s not isolated you know.

richardhenry's avatar

The “War on Terror” may be ‘global’, and it is certainly horrendous, but it is not really any bigger than the Cold War or the Vietnam War.

It is certainly not a “World War”, as the devastation is localised and reasonably limited.

The WTC attacks and London bombings may seem huge, but they are not on a global scale and pale in comparison to WWI and II.

In addition, they were sanctioned by a political activist group, not by a nation.

bythebay's avatar

World War II and a half?

seVen's avatar

Wikipedia says that in 2006 G.W. said it’s WWIII, look under keyword WWIII in wikipedia.

richardhenry's avatar

Bush is a sensationalist. It is not a World War and will not go down in history as one.

bythebay's avatar

By sheer virtue of scope it cannot be classified as a World War.

MrItty's avatar

seVen, forget looking up quotes from the media and those talking to the media, and start lookiing up some actual facts.

El_Cadejo's avatar

wait…seriously…. you just quoted bush….as fact?!


Zaku's avatar

It’s a war on intelligence.

Jack79's avatar

There is no such thing as a “war on terror”. Just Dubyah terrorising the rest of the planet.

I have never felt under threat by either the Palestinian schoolchildren throwing stones at tanks, or some Iraqi farmer buried alive in the dessert sands, or even the stupid fundamentalist Talibans forcing their women to wear headscarves 5000 miles away. But I’m certainly afraid of accidentally being bombed during a stray NATO attack. And I’ve always lived in NATO countries and even served in the NATO army.

LKidKyle1985's avatar

Seven, I see what your getting at by saying the war on terror is global, and so was both world wars. However, there are some key differences that would not put it on the same level as the world wars. First, the war on terror is not a Total War Nor is it a war between two industrial powers which would not make it an Industrial War Most people just assume all wars are like this, and that is the common mistake. the war on terror is not against industrial powers, and it is limited. In fact the way you fight a war like the one on terror is completely different from a traditional industrial war. The failure to realize this in time is a major factor to the United States losing in vietnam, and the problems that grew like a cancer in Iraq until tactics were adjusted. We have all heard people say, “we must win the hearts and minds” and that is the only way to win the style of war we are in now.

For some really interesting info, check out the Malayan Emergency and the comparison between that war and the vietnam war. Very interesting how the british army and the american army think and fight this style of war. I could write you a 10 page report on the subject if you wanted, I did it about 3 weeks ago for my poli sci class lol

Maverick's avatar

Yes, the “War on Terrorism” is actually just a “War OF Terrorism” depending on what side of the cruise missle you reside. Gee, I wonder why it’s done nothing but destabilize the world and grow resentment against America.

LostInParadise's avatar

Interesting question, though I think world war is a bit of an exaggeration of what is going on. What is significant is that whereas previously battle lines were drawn between industrial nations, the fissure is now between industrial and non-industrial nations. It makes no sense to talk of a war on terrorism, but terrorist tactics are about all that poor weak nations can use against rich and powerful ones.

janbb's avatar

It’s not a war and it’s a total inaccuracy to frame it that way. Terrorism is a tactic that needs to be combatted in many different ways in different places. Calling it a war is simplistic and harmful.

Mizuki's avatar

War on Terror is a BS construct designed to dupe an ignorant electorate into re electing George W Bush, and giving tax cuts to rich pricks.

bythebay's avatar

” a BS construct”
“Rich Pricks” – wow, what an intelligent response.

tessa's avatar

The war on terror is much like the war on poverty or the war on drugs. It is nothing like a world war. And to address what Bush said, and others thought, at the time of 9/11 is that this COULD lead into a WWIII (not II since it happened and not II and a half since that would imply a continuation of WWII). That clearly has not happened.

richardhenry's avatar

@bythebay: Could have been better. It’s very true though.

Mizuki's avatar

@bythebay——where is your rebuttal? is your partner a home land security czar, and you by proximity, an expert?

you forgot to mention “ignorant electorate”

richardhenry's avatar

Alright, flame off please. No need to turn this into a chain of personal attacks. bythebay was merely commenting that your response could have done without the use of “BS” and “pricks”.

Mizuki's avatar

prick is the best part of a man though, right?

Jack79's avatar

Incidentally I knew there was going to be a war in Afghanistan 6 months before the Twin Towers attack. And I’m not even a journalist. So it was never about “the bad guys attacking Good-Olde America and the good guys fighting back”. The “war” would have happened anyway, they were just looking for a good excuse to start it (which is why I am willing to believe all the conspiracy theories for a change).

Mizuki's avatar

what made you think there was going to be a war in Afghanistan 6 months before the Twin Towers attack?

Jack79's avatar

Because all of a sudden there were reports on the BBC about the Taliban. The Taliban had been operating for ages and nobody cared, and then all of a sudden the propaganda started. As a former journalist I can tell the difference between “real” news and “directed” news. I’m not saying the news was fake (the Talibans really were just as bad as the reports were saying), I’m just saying that the focus was given to the particular news items for political issues. It was obvious to me then that there would be a war in Afghanistan pretty soon, and that of course the US would start it (this is in combination with other stories). I just didn’t know exactly how they would justify it, and I’m sure neither did they at the time. I’m talking about Feb/March already. The CIA meetings with Bin Laden were in June.

Maverick's avatar

Yes, I remember the same thing before 911. Afghanistan was being talked about a fair amount and everyone was assuming Baby Bush wanted a war in Iraq, so there was already a sense that it was inevitable in one of those 2 places. Although I don’t think anyone thought it would happen for years. When the towers went down though, my friend and I even said, “well, it looks like the US is going to get it’s war now”. So it was definitely in the air.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther