Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > World War III **NEWZ** 24/7/6....Could this be the start of World War III, peoplez ?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!
| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?wr9BbiBleWUgZm9yIGFuIGV5ZSB3aWxsIG1ha2UgdGhlIHdob2xlIHdvcmxkIGJsaW5kLsK3OirCqMKoKjrCty4g4pmlwqnCruKEoi7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuSE9PUk9PLsK3OirCqMKoKjrCty5zaGVpw59lICEhISE=?=" |
| Date: |
23 Jul 2006 10:06:45 PM |
| Object: |
World War III **NEWZ** 24/7/6....Could this be the start of World War III, peoplez ?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!??! |
?!?!?!?!?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-bosco23jul23,1,36795=
45.story?coll=3Dla-news-comment&ctrack=3D1&cset=3Dtrue
ARMAGEDDON
Could This Be the Start of World War III?
As the Middle East erupts, there are plenty of scenarios for global
conflagration.
By David Bosco, David Bosco is a senior editor at Foreign Policy
magazine.
July 23, 2006
IT WAS LATE JUNE in Sarajevo when Gavrilo Princip shot Archduke Franz
Ferdinand and his wife. After emptying his revolver, the young Serb
nationalist jumped into the shallow river that runs through the city
and was quickly seized. But the events he set in motion could not be so
easily restrained. Two months later, Europe was at war.
The understanding that small but violent acts can spark global
conflagration is etched into the world's consciousness. The
reverberations from Princip's shots in the summer of 1914 ultimately
took the lives of more than 10 million people, shattered four empires
and dragged more than two dozen countries into war.
This hot summer, as the world watches the violence in the Middle East,
the awareness of peace's fragility is particularly acute. The bloodshed
in Lebanon appears to be part of a broader upsurge in unrest. Iraq is
suffering through one of its bloodiest months since the U.S.-led
invasion in 2003. Taliban militants are burning schools and attacking
villages in southern Afghanistan as the United States and NATO struggle
to defend that country's fragile government. Nuclear-armed India is
still cleaning up the wreckage from a large terrorist attack in which
it suspects militants from rival Pakistan. The world is awash in
weapons, North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear capabilities, and
long-range missile technology is spreading like a virus.
Some see the start of a global conflict. "We're in the early stages of
what I would describe as the Third World War," former House Speaker
Newt Gingrich said last week. Certain religious websites are abuzz with
talk of Armageddon. There may be as much hyperbole as prophecy in the
forecasts for world war. But it's not hard to conjure ways that today's
hot spots could ignite.
Consider the following scenarios:
=E2=80=A2 Targeting Iran: As Israeli troops seek out and destroy Hezbollah
forces in southern Lebanon, intelligence officials spot a shipment of
longer-range Iranian missiles heading for Lebanon. The Israeli
government decides to strike the convoy and Iranian nuclear facilities
simultaneously. After Iran has recovered from the shock, Revolutionary
Guards surging across the border into Iraq, bent on striking Israel's
American allies. Governments in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia
face violent street protests demanding retribution against Israel =E2=80=94
and they eventually yield, triggering a major regional war.
=E2=80=A2 Missiles away: With the world's eyes on the Middle East, North
Korea's Kim Jong Il decides to continue the fireworks show he began
earlier this month. But this time his brinksmanship pushes events over
the brink. A missile designed to fall into the sea near Japan goes
astray and hits Tokyo, killing a dozen civilians. Incensed, the United
States, Japan's treaty ally, bombs North Korean missile and nuclear
sites. North Korean artillery batteries fire on Seoul, and South Korean
and U.S. troops respond. Meanwhile, Chinese troops cross the border
from the north to stem the flow of desperate refugees just as U.S.
troops advance from the south. Suddenly, the world's superpower and the
newest great power are nose to nose.
=E2=80=A2 Loose nukes: Al Qaeda has had Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
in its sights for years, and the organization finally gets its man.
Pakistan descends into chaos as militants roam the streets and the army
struggles to restore order. India decides to exploit the vacuum and
punish the Kashmir-based militants it blames for the recent Mumbai
railway bombings. Meanwhile, U.S. special operations forces sent to
secure Pakistani nuclear facilities face off against an angry mob.
=E2=80=A2 The empire strikes back: Pressure for democratic reform erupts in
autocratic Belarus. As protesters mass outside the parliament in Minsk,
president Alexander Lukashenko requests Russian support. After
protesters are beaten and killed, they appeal for help, and neighboring
Poland =E2=80=94 a NATO member with bitter memories of Soviet repression =
=E2=80=94
launches a humanitarian mission to shelter the regime's opponents.
Polish and Russian troops clash, and a confrontation with NATO looms.
As in the run-up to other wars, there is today more than enough tinder
lying around to spark a great power conflict. The critical question is
how effective the major powers have become at managing regional
conflicts and preventing them from escalating. After two world wars and
the decades-long Cold War, what has the world learned about managing
conflict?
The end of the Cold War had the salutary effect of dialing down many
regional conflicts. In the 1960s and 1970s, every crisis in the Middle
East had the potential to draw in the superpowers in defense of their
respective client states. The rest of the world was also part of the
Cold War chessboard. Compare the almost invisible U.N. peacekeeping
mission in Congo today to the deeply controversial mission there in the
early 1960s. (The Soviets were convinced that the U.N. mission was
supporting a U.S. puppet, and Russian diplomats stormed out of several
Security Council meetings in protest.) From Angola to Afghanistan,
nearly every Cold War conflict was a proxy war. Now, many local crises
can be handed off to the humanitarians or simply ignored.
But the end of the bipolar world has a downside. In the old days, the
two competing superpowers sometimes reined in bellicose client states
out of fear that regional conflicts would escalate. Which of the major
powers today can claim to have such influence over Tehran or Pyongyang?
Today's world has one great advantage: None of the leading powers
appears determined to reorder international affairs as Germany was
before both world wars and as Japan was in the years before World War
II.
True, China is a rapidly rising power =E2=80=94 an often destabilizing
phenomenon in international relations =E2=80=94 but it appears inclined to
focus on economic growth rather than military conquest (with the
possible exception of Taiwan). Russia is resentful about its fall from
superpower status, but it also seems reconciled to U.S. military
dominance and more interested in tapping its massive oil and gas
reserves than in rebuilding its decrepit military.
Indeed, U.S. military superiority seems to be a key to global
stability. Some theories of international relations predict that other
major powers will eventually band together to challenge American might,
but it's hard to find much evidence of such behavior. The United
States, after all, invaded Iraq without U.N. approval and yet there was
not even a hint that France, Russia or China would respond militarily.
There is another factor working in favor of great-power caution:
nuclear weapons. Europe's leaders on the eve of World War I can perhaps
be forgiven for not understanding the carnage they were about to
unleash. That generation grew up in a world of short wars that did
limited damage. Leaders today should have no such illusions.
The installation of emergency hot lines between national capitals was a
recognition of the need for fast and clear communication in times of
crisis. Diplomatic tools have advanced too. Sluggish though it may be,
the U.N. Security Council regularly gathers the great powers'
representatives in a room to hash out developing crises.
So there is reason to hope that the major powers have little interest
in playing with fire and the tools to stamp it out. But complacency is
dangerous. The British economist Norman Angell once argued persuasively
that deep economic links made conflict between the great powers
obsolete. His book appeared in 1910 and was still in shops when
Europe's armies poured across their borders in 1914.=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D0=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Could this be the start of World War III? With so much tinder ready to ignite, we can't afford complacency...25/7/6
Uncle Wally 'z World War III NEWZ FILEZ....uH-OH, peoplez !!!! Iz this bad or iz this BAD ?!??!?!?
"This is the biggest move we've done ... since World War II,"
Is this world basically FRICKED ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Looks like this iz IT, peoplez !!!! World War III **NEWZ**special...17/7/6
Uncle Wally 's 'What the FRICK peoplez' ?!? Another exciting editionof newz around this weird & wacky El Weirdamundo world !! HOOROO !!
So why all this talk of world ending
THIS IS HUGE! Plot to get rid of two World Leaders - Bush and Blair
| The douglas' of this world.
Psycopaths tend to crave power --no wonder this world is so screwed up !
If this is true, it's Hellooooooooooooooooooooo World War III...... !7/1/5
What iz this frickin' world coming to, peoplez ?!?!? Women admitkilling 'irritating' girl, 16
"Iz this world, in which we are now living, basically FRICKED beyond all repair ?!?! A Brief Dissertation by Uncle Wally, Esq.
This is World War III
Re: This President Spoke for the People of the World
|
|
|
