blog blog baby!

We never start out calling these things "World Wars".  The history books are usually written by the winners, and we did quite well in the first two.

Who started WWI - some go back to an assassination in Serbia, other point to a power vacuum by a fallen Prussia, but it's clear who won - the good old U S of A.  When things got ugly in Europe we, against our better judgment, jumped in and helped the allies to a victory.  Forget that most of our immigrants at the time were German and Polish, and Britain had sworn at least 5 times in the proceeding 100 years to wipe us off the face of the map and tried twice. 

What about WWII - was it Hitler or Hirohito?  Well, for us, it was Hirohito, but Hitler had, as early as 1933, made no bones about taking over Europe.  Japan was equally as aggressive in Manchuria.

Only historians for the victors will be able to put a finger on WWIII.  Was it 9/11 - that started the unilateral war in Afghanistan, but didn't have any connection whatsoever to the invasion of Iraq.  So maybe it was the invasion of Iraq.  That in itself will likely not be a catalyst.  Look at the under trooped quagmire in Vietnam in the name of Communist Containment that eventually went belly-up with no world-wide consequences.  Maybe it is the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and blockade of Gaza?  Better possibility.

Or possibly our ire over attacks on country and resultant lashing out created the whole thing?  Maybe the goal of al-Qaieda is to start WWIII.  Maybe, but I really just think they had a terrorist plot cause destruction beyond their wildest dreams.

Are we fighting a nation?  Not yet.  As much of a "Dove" as I am, I would not be opposed to open declared military actions on North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and a few others.  We could consider letting Cuba and Lybia off the list.  We should be mindful of China, India, Pakistan, Khazakstan, Russia and every country in Africa.  The world is not friendly to us right now.  5% of the population controls 45% of the resources.  That is never a means to a happy ending.

Does WWIII mean nuclear/non-conventional weapons - not necessarily.  It all depends on us.  Thanks to the strategy developed during the 90's, we created a military presence allowing us to fight almost instantly 3 regional wars successfully.

WWIII is not a given.  It is possible that all of our long time allies will decide that it's worth neither the cost nor the discomfort to get involved.   Countries will comfortably align themselves to avoid take-over, but other than that will stay our of the way.

Or, we may sell to the world the bill of goods that we are locked in an epic battle of civilization, and those who wish to take it away.  Good luck, but there are a few out there who owe us some very big favors.

War is the most expensive thing any empire can choose to do.  All resources are diverted from civilian work products, and into a military/industrial empire.

So what will it take to start WWIII.  I believe it is more deliberate terrorist attacks aimed at the U.S. - the previous ones were meant to be symbolic, and they worked possibly worked too well.  Which would have a more devastating effect on U.S. psyche and sensitivities -  An explosion under the Holland Tunnel (plan in the making several times.) or a series of near lunch time bombs detonated at suburban shopping malls in the U.S.?  What would make you go to war?

I know I would love to join the National Guard.  I'd love to be on the first line of defense in case of a natural disaster or a home attack.  I also don't want to be deployed for 2 years to a "war on terror" in Iraq.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this