Quote:
Originally posted by TheGiantMidgit@May 7 2006, 06:00 AM
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?N...028003&CatID=9
HabbagabbaWha-?
I'm not normally one for Bush Bashing (We Canucks are pretty apathetic towards all the crap that goes on with our neighbours to the south) But Jesus, World War III? Don't you think you're kind of just throwing around the term just a little, Mr. Bush?
....and, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't at least a good portion of the world involved in the other world wars?
Instead of a "world" war, maybe the US should work on getting another civil war going.
|
The problem with calling the war against terror WWIII is that it is not really a war, at all.
Terrorism, unlike communism, is not even an ideology, it is a crime. You can no more declare war on terror than declare war on crime. If soldiers win the war on terror, it is because they act like policemen; gathering intelligence, talking to informants, and raiding hideouts.
All you have to do to judge the importance of military might in fighting terrorism is look at how it was used to catch the Oklahoma city bombers.
The british did employ their army against IRA terrorists, with more than a little success, but they were performing police work.