While I was reading the news, I came accross a link to this artilcle.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1215399,00.html

Newt Gingrich proclaims on 'Meet the Press' that the world is in the early stages of WWIII.

According to Merriam Webster and its definition of a world war, the only criteria you actually need to have a world war are involvement by all or most of the principal nations of the world.

This war does involve the principal nations of the world, yet with it being so unconventional in comparison to most other wars, it doesn't come accross the same way. We're dealing much more with an ideology of extremists versus governments themselves.

So, what in your opinion consitutes a world war? Do current events constitute the early stages of WWIII?

I think if things continue on this path, there's no question we're in the midst of a world war. Thinking back several years, I would have considered the potential of a world war to be much less than what I see now.

Thoughts?

It looks like poor Newt has been spending his spare time reading too many of the Left Behind novels, and probably belongs to that growing movement who believe a mideast war that will bring about the Second Coming is imminent.

What twaddle.

Seeing the present political situation, I think it is very likely that the next World War would start in the Middle East. Israel's conflict with Lebanon could easily escalate to include Syria and Iran. The US would stand behind Israel, the UK would stand behind the US, and probably all other NATO members would stand behind the US and the UK. On the other side, the Arab nations would form a pact. North Korea would take the opportunity to team up with Iran, leading to the extension of the war into the Pacific region.

The biggest asset the parties would end up fighting for would be the oil, of course.

Obviously, the easiest way for the US to end such a war would be by dropping their most powerful bombs on Tehran and Pyongyang, but the immediate vicinity of allied nations would make that a difficult decision. It might mean the destruction of Israel as well, meaning that the Israelis have to be moved somewhere else. Cuba maybe?  

Please. What a load of crap. If everyone knows whats right for them they'll stay out and let the middle east sort it out for themselves. Intervening in a local conflict will cause more hatred towards the "west" then what has been caused already.

If they don't stay out it will become very nasty very quickly. Think Hiroshima.

Well he sure misinformed a lot of Americans when he said that the 9/11 hijackers came from Canada. He later apologized for his remarks, but it was too late as the damage was done. Now at least 15-20% of Americans still believe the 9/11 hijackers came from Canada.   

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 4): ow at least 15-20% of Americans still believe the 9/11 hijackers came from Canada.

Please cite your souce. It is unlikely that even 1% of Americans think what you inferred.

Gingrich is a loon.

Quoting TripleP (Reply 5): Please cite your souce. It is unlikely that even 1% of Americans think what you inferred.

FOXnews though I don't believe anythings from those idiots.

Gosh, is this so? Newt probably knows as he has been trying to start it for quite a while.

Isn't there a wife dying of cancer on her deathbed that he has to go divorce somewhere?

Or a secretary he has to have an affair with while said wife is dying?

No one cares about this washed up has-been anymore and he needs to find a way of making sure people notice him.

Quoting Levent (Reply 2): and probably all other NATO members would stand behind the US and the UK.

probably not.....one might not see Spain, Turkey, possibly Germany..and then there are the non-NATO members such as Russia, China, etc....

The current situation could indeed be a catalyst to starting world war 3, but then again, can't any conflict?
The war in Iraq didn't start world war 3, yet involved more countries than the current conflict we see. However, this could again be part of a chain of smaller events creating abother global conflict.
Lets face the fact, WW3 will happen. Its a case of when and how.

Albert Einstein once famously wrote: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."


kev.

Quoting Levent (Reply 2): North Korea would take the opportunity to team up with Iran, leading to the extension of the war into the Pacific region.

Throw in the Peoples Republic of China and Taiwan problem, and that adds to it as well. India and Pakistan would find some reason to fight, too.

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 3): If they don't stay out it will become very nasty very quickly. Think Hiroshima.

   Sadly, you're right.

In general, I don't buy this crap. The EU would support the US/UK, but I don't see them deploying troops until the enemies are at their doorstep. Same with Canada.

Besides...we don't have "wars" anymore...just "conflicts" and "occupations". War is a nasty word that no one wants to use, and sounds really, really bad. The other descriptions sound better in the media outlets.

Why are Americans so obsessed with war?

Quoting Hkg82 (Reply 12):

Because its good for business...................................

Quoting Hkg82 (Reply 12): Why are Americans so obsessed with war?

Why do foolish people generalize?   

Seriously who is Newton Grenwich?

An American Professor of History and Politician. He might be right who knows?

Quoting Pulkovokiwi (Reply 16):

Oh ok, I thought he was some sort of Congress person or something...

(yes I googled it, that's how I realized I read the name wrong I thought it was Grenwich sort of like the meridian!)

As much as I like Newt he is all wrong. The Cold War against communism was WWIII in a sense thus making the war against Islamofascism WWIV of which this Isreali-Lebanese shindig is a part of it.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 18): As much as I like Newt he is all wrong. The Cold War against communism was WWIII in a sense thus making the war against Islamofascism WWIV of which this Isreali-Lebanese shindig is a part of it.

Many in Newt's circle generally share the same view (of the Cold War as WWIII, Islamofascism as IV).

"The anti-war left has to answer the question, if 50 missiles were hitting Miami and South Florida today, what would their argument be about Cuba?"

Depends on whether Newt needed Florida's delegates for nomination or their electoral votes for President. Otherwise, who cares?

Charles, SJ

Quoting Hkg82 (Reply 12): Why are Americans so obsessed with war?

Possibly because for most of them it is a spectator activity (avoided sport but you can change if you wish) rather than one in which they participate, willingly or unwllingly. Even a tawdry bit of crime has to be a war.

Ask the citizens of a beautiful city such as Liege in Belgium what they think of war.

If it's WWIII, it was inspired by Bush and his cabal's example that only force matters. They're just following his example...

Quoting Derico (Reply 15): Seriously who is Newton Grenwich?

A fat bloated ugly lying politician who rose to power in 1994 by exploiting the dissatisfaction Americans felt with Congress, which after over 40 years of Democratic party rule was riddled with corruption, only to turn Congress into an even more corrupt and nauseating instituition within a few short years of his reign.

Think of a Komodo dragon bred with a fleshy pink pig, and stuff it into a suit. You get Newton Grinch.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 22): If it's WWIII, it was inspired by Bush and his cabal's example that only force matters. They're just following his example...

Did you listen to Brooks and Oliphant on Lehrer's Newshour? Your Fri, our Sat and avaiable at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

Oliphant mentioned that Albert Fukuyama (End of History) has suggested that the warlike activities of W are demonstrating the limits to power. Apparently, a part of the Reps are thinking that a focus on war may not be a good idea.

Oliphant is good, but I would have liked a Mark Shields view of invading Lebanon, like Lehrer he was a marine and is not that keen on war. But alas he was on his hols on Friday.

If Newt Gingrich said the sun rose at dawn and set at dusk, I'd doubt it.
How such a silly, descredited person gets any attention is beyond me.