Which World War is it this week?

Mad Finn

Some confusion reigns on the right (hey, hold the front page, why don't you?) as to the nature of the struggle "we" are involved in. There's more versions of this war than the Rocky Movies.

Here's a link to a Media Matters collection of videos from America in which the sages ponder whether we are in the middle of World War III, IV or V.

They're all wrong of course. Ireland's great military shill Kevin Myers realised back in January, when he was still working for the Times, that we are already in World War VI.

He said at the time, just after the visit of Noam Chomsky:

Chomsky is ...a chump...And he .... is apparently unaware that we are all engaged in an epoch-making conflict: the sixth world war is underway.

The first world war was the centuries-long assault by Islam on India, Asia Minor, the Middle east and Europe, which finally ended when the Hindu Marathas, the emergent Sikh kingdom and the Hapsburgs halted Islam's global jihad, roughly between 1667 and 1683.

The second world war - fought in all four continents - was Napoleon's, an egological attempt to conquer the world.

The third was the so-called Great War.

The fourth, like the second, was caused by an ideological despot, and is known as the second world war.

The fifth was the cold war.

The sixth is this one, which it actually started in 1979 in Iran and Afghanistan; and batten down the hatches brothers and sisters, because like the first, it will last a very long time indeed.


The entire article is posted on the website of the Open Republic Institute, our own home-grown band(wagon) of trendy neocons and ultra-free marketeers.

Only if you must.

Sgt. Sensible

Kevn Myers is a crank though. Like a troll, except he gets paid.

Mad Finn

He's not the only one, judging by the other clips.

The Saint

Myres is an idiot. I forced myself to read that whole article and my eyes are bleeding from all the inane crap he spouts. He obviously has a fairly weak grasp of history and seems to subscribe to the Samual Huntington school of reasoning (although Huntington at least has a better grasp of history and doesn't base his ideas on quasi-racist rantings). Myres is best left ignored. He is like what was mentioned above, a troll.

Dg101

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Kevn Myers is a crank though. Like a troll, except he gets paid.

That's one of the best descriptions of Myers I've ever heard.

I'm delighted he jumped ship from the times. Problem is, they've gotten that Krauthammer fellow in to spew neoconservative vitriole at us now, and he's actually worse. He's a troll that isn't funny, and is fanatical about his work. Like one you ban and he just keeps making alts...

*overextends the metaphor and is crushed under it when it collapses on him*

Since the world wars are moving so seamlessly together, can we just say that WW1 is still going on? Because it contributed to a large degree to WW2, which contributed to the cold war, which left soviet weapons for the Iranians and has so contributed to the current mess. It's a simple solution, save all that scary mathematics.

Mad Finn

Dg101 wrote:

Since the world wars are moving so seamlessly together, can we just say that WW1 is still going on? Because it contributed to a large degree to WW2, which contributed to the cold war,

Ah yes, but you see World War One was really World War Three. Er, wasn't it?

tallus

Myers isn't fit to lace Chomsky's boots, end of story.

Kaiser_Sma

Might be an unnecisary critique, but here it is anyways

Mad Finn wrote:

The first world war was the centuries-long assault by Islam on India, Asia Minor, the Middle east and Europe, which finally ended when the Hindu Marathas, the emergent Sikh kingdom and the Hapsburgs halted Islam's global jihad, roughly between 1667 and 1683.

Theres been conflicts branching out from and through that region throughout history. It's hardly a world war if most of the world doesn't know it's happening. The two established world wars had a profound impact on many areas, the 1st effected every corner of the old world empires, which combined covered almost all the world. The second occured on every continent with battles stretching almost side by side from dunkirk to nanking.

The second world war - fought in all four continents - was Napoleon's, an egological attempt to conquer the world.

Granted it had far reaching implications but it was a sporadic war really, stopping and starting and changing sides depending on englands pocket. The real proving ground was europe and the middle east the rest was just the usual colonial infighting.

The fifth was the cold war.

Save for korea, there were no actual true battles, not that i'm undermining korea, it was a multilateral effort with a true threat of a real world war 3 errupting, but like the rest of the cold war it ended in a stalemate. And even though all the big powers made token appearences it was hardly a world war in itself. People have been making eyes at each other across borders for millenia, but if theirs no world fighting it's not a world war.

The sixth is this one, which it actually started in 1979 in Iran and Afghanistan; and batten down the hatches brothers and sisters, because like the first, it will last a very long time indeed.

Keep your hatches unbattend. Middle eastern islamic countries have a notoriously bad military attendance. While their beliefs can drive them to certain extremes, organized military conflict has never been the favoured way of doing so. Isreal on it's own has the military power to destroy all the armies on the penincula, although it doesn't have a hope in holding them. Because of fundementalist gorrilas, these countries can be very hard to hold, but not impossible (the british empire has many examples). The biggest effect that irans fundementalist revolution will have is because of the illegalistation of birth control, meaning that their young popultions will grow and immegrate to the declining populations of europe, were they will be assimilated eventually and fill the increasing labour gap that eastern europe will not be able to fill for ever.

BlitzKrieg

the term world war is defined by more then just a battle across every continent. It also has to be a war across every type of battlefield (land sea and AIR) and communication has to be at such a state that the war is brought back from the frontlines to the people of each nation. (Engulfing the entire nation.)

There is also an element of stalemate required where the conflict has idealogical roots denying a *easy* ceasefire.

Such conditions existed with firstly the alliance systems of the first world war (which was when the term was coined, to describe these systems and what theu will result in) and conditions also existed in the second world war with its obvious ideological roots in communism and facism.

The Cold War can be argued to not be a world war cause a situation where the polciy of diplomacy between the two ideologies and major forces never existed (closest was Cuban missile crisis) the vietnam and korean wars, can be observed in the same fashion as the spanish civil war and even the colonial wars.

Kaiser_Sma

I don't understand the reasoning behind the land sea and air definition. World war 1s use of air power was small and was largly only usefull for ariel photography and the like. The requirment for air means that the definition for a world war is limited by technology. What if every nation on the planet broke out into conflict and not a single aircraft was used, does that mean it's less of a world war?
In napoleonic era battles they used baloons for observation, i'm told, does this promote that to a world war?

Victor

Mad Finn wrote:

The sixth is this one, which it actually started in 1979 in Iran and Afghanistan; and batten down the hatches brothers and sisters, because like the first, it will last a very long time indeed.

Why does nobody remember the Saudi revolution of 1979?

bonkey

Apparnetly its far more important for some ideologically opposed people to disagree over nomenclature than it is for them to discuss the events (current or historical) the nomenclature refers to....

Its the equivalent of Spell Czechs in an environment where the spelling and grammar are no longer sufficiently flawed to provide a suitable distraction.

jc

Kaiser_Sma

you could be right, what is classed as a world war is wholly unimportant in this day and age, a media concious planet will have their oppinoins and actions shaped on a global scale towards even the most insignificant conflict that gets onto the TV screens and onto headlines.

It's a wonder why wars in and around isreal haven't lost their mass market appeal, much like space shuttle launches. Show anything enough and it blends into the wall paper.

But i think the real reason this argument occured is because every other part of the world wars have been discussed to the point of monotony. Heres one more for the list.

Dg101

Mad Finn wrote:

Ah yes, but you see World War One was really World War Three. Er, wasn't it?

Yes, but if you want to look at it like this, you could say that what we call world war one was really still Myers' first world war still going on, because the fighting never really stopped. :cool: