Bush has decided that the War On Terror is now “Would War III.”

In commenting on the new United 93 movie President Bush described the acts depicted in the following way:

Bush said: “I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

So now we’re in World War III? I’d argue that if we don’t get this asshole out of office sooner rather than later that he’ll probably end up turning it into WWIII. He certainly seems hell bent on it.

26 thoughts on “Bush has decided that the War On Terror is now “Would War III.”

  1. Now, maybe I’m mistaken, but don’t you have to have more than ONE superpower involved in a war for it to be a WORLD WAR? Of course calling it WWIII sounds a hell of a lot better than “The Biggest Fuck-up of My Career”. Oh well.

  2. Um, I can count 3 countrys involved in this “war”. It’s FAR from a “world war”.

    Besides, Germany was the cause/focus of the first two wars and it’s behaving too well right now.

  3. There is one current military superpower in existence and that is the United States. I did not mean that we are the only country involved, but rather, that we are the only SUPER POWER involved. Traditionally, World Wars were defined not just by the number of countries involved, but by the number of super powers involved. For example, WWII involved four: England, the United States, Germany, and Russia. Last time I checked, the United Kingdom no longer qualifies as a world super power, for that matter, neither does Germany or Russia. Either way, I don’t necessarily see a point in using the term “war”. This is, in fact, a war. If you don’t believe me, question the veterans returning from Iraq. I myself recently returned from a deployment to Baghdad and I believe what I saw there would definitely constitute a war. Quotations or otherwise.

  4. This is probably just the latest example of Bush’s Christian fundamentalism sneaking its way into his public rhetoric. There’s no other way to explain such an inane comment.

  5. I’d have to agree with Sadie on this one. By using the term “World War III” it creates an emotional response within the public. World War II was a prime example of good versus evil for the Allied Powers. It was a war in which we truly did fight against tyranny and oppression. The nature of this war and the reasons behind it are not as clear as our justification for fighting the Axis powers. It is interesting to note that Hitler used the same excuse for the final solution to the Jewish problem and his justification for invading the Rhineland. He often spoke of the granduer of a long-dead era in which Germany prospered and typically depicted Germany as a veritable David in the fight against Goliath. Bush is doing the same, the only exception is that it would seem this is more of a David versus Ahmed. If he can successfully lead the public to believe that we are truly engaged in some form of mortal combat against an unweilding enemy then he will win. He used the same technique in 2003 as a justification for the war in Iraq. The phrase, “When there is a mushroom cloud over Washington, it is too late.” often comes to mind. This is nothing more than a simple fear tactic designed to sway the public. Anyone who has studied group psychology could spot this from a mile away.

  6. Neodromos:

    I myself recently returned from a deployment to Baghdad and I believe what I saw there would definitely constitute a war.

    No one will argue that point but, you and I were both sucked in to the ‘war game’ by Fear for our countries, Patriotic Propaganda … and LIES. red face
    Vietnam was just as ‘noble’ as this one but, we still lost – so did the people, as will these people. downer


    There’s no other way to explain such an inane comment.

    But doesn’t calling it WW3 sounds so … so … big, important, official … justified?

  7. LuckyJohnny: But doesn’t calling it WW3 sounds so … so … big, important, official … justified?

    On an emotional level, yes. On an intellectual/factual level, no.

    But then, we already know that facts and the truth don’t resonate with our Dear Leader.

  8. at least 23 countries, in the Coalition of the Willing, with troops on the ground in Iraq

    Do you know exactly how many people from the “Coalition of the Willing” have died (Other than Iraq citizens)?

    According to http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ 2417 American’s have died as of 5/6/06.

  9. Bush isn’t going to start any more wars (unless Ahmendjajev really forces his hand, and seeing todays ‘peace offer’ I gather that Irans new big man knows how the game’s played).

    Anway, he is not going to start any more wars. He will sit among the smoldering ruins for the rest of his term (or less) and wonder where his presidency and his “mandate” went.

  10. And I am really curious if history is still going to ‘rehabilitate’ him, at least in the eyes of a substantial fraction of the US populace.

  11. Triple-dipping, even if I am only culling stuff from wikipedia:

    Britain: 79 (combat) deaths
    Italians: 24
    Poland: 11
    Romania: 1
    Denmark: 2
    Ukraine (withdrawn): 12
    Bulgaria (withdrawn): 7
    Spain (withdrawn): 10

    A smattering more, sorry for not getting all…

  12. Do you know exactly how many people from the “Coalition of the Willing

  13. The casualty figures make me giggle a bit.  2500 ish casualties in 2 years?? 
    Appoximately 6800 people die every day in America of natural causes and highway deaths.
    Source: Cia Factbook.  I calculated that number by multipling population by death rate.

    I find it hard to believe it is a war anyway.  The American people were asked to sacrifice things during real wars.  Where are the gas ration vouchers and the weekly recycling drives?

  14. If this were a just war started with honest intentions against a real threat to America then I would think the casualty figures to be remarkably low as well.

    We’re sacrificing people. Shouldn’t that be enough?

  15. We’re sacrificing people. Shouldn’t that be enough?

    If that’s not enough for Mr.Death, Les, there’s a certain amount of money involved too, if I’m not mistaken.

  16. A mind numbing amount of money. It’s likely our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying it off.

  17. Ingolfson- as far as rehabilitating Bush goes, he might have a stab at being considered the funniest President ever.  Remember when he looked under furniture in the Oval Office for the “missing” WMDs?  What a card…

  18. The casualty figures make me giggle a bit…I find it hard to believe it is a war anyway.  The American people were asked to sacrifice things during real wars.  Where are the gas ration vouchers and the weekly recycling drives?

    I’m sorry… you fucking “giggle?”  This is funny?  This is light hearted and meaningless?  This is OK?  Death is justifiable? quantifiable?  Wars are   justifiable when “Americans have to sacrafice?  WTF is wrong with you? Comparing number of dead attributed to various causes somehow makes each death OK? 

    Of course, I’m sure someone can find satistics to compare gang related deaths to “the war effort” death count or simply criminal murder/ manslaughter to American soliders’ dead in Iraq over the past 2 years.

    And of course, this makes all the difference in the world right? 

    It’s justification that we kill more of ourselves every day, week, month, year driving drunk than the number of American Soliders dead or dieing   in relation to our presence in Iraq.  Hey, it’s OK that there are ONLY about 2500 American casualties in 2 years due to our presence in Iraq, because MORE American people have died in the same amount of time in the US of other causes.

    Now, let us compare the number of Americans dead (not total dead, of course.  Only those of us who really count… you know the American dead) to satatistics of other American deaths today, this week, this month, this year, this decade, this century (whatever) by any other number of causes:

    Any variety of cancers
    automobile accidental deaths
    recreational drug overdoses
    mistakes by surgeons that result in deaths
    organ failure do to eating of too much fast food
    bee stings
    rabbid dog attacks
    hunting accidents
    *Insert here: any and all other way(s) you can think of…*

    HOW is death by murder, accident or natural causes comparable?  How is comparing causes of death a justification for any death in this “war?” or otherwise?  Nevermind.. I don’t really want to know.

    When is a violent, painful, and/or premature death ever, ever, ever considered a good thing?  As in.. oh well, it wasn’t me and at least I don’t have to use gasoline vouchers or bother with recycling?

    Again, I find myself thinking: how is any unnessary death, (and don’t tell me our soldiers dieing in Iraq is “necessary” on any level, because the only thing you’ll get me to express in regards to that opinion is HORSE SHIT!) especial, over the number 1 ever considered acceptable or a justification or a support factor for more death?  For that matter when is 1 acceptable, reasonable, necessary, or OK when not peacefully, painlessly at the end of one’s long, fulfilled life.

    Death by any other means than simple peaceful, painless, after a long life fulfilled, in one’s sleep is never OK?  Is it a part of life. Yes… Are most deaths unpleasant?  Yes.  Should they be?  No… Will that change the fact that they will be?  No… Does it make it right, simply because that is the way it is?  No. Will it continue?  Absolutely.  Death is inevitable and as long as it is happening to someone else, right now, who cares!  It’s not me! Let them others die as long as it’s not me.

    Where do you get off Mr. Death justifying any number of other people biting the bullet (quite literally) for you so that you might enjoy life without gas vouchers and weekly recycling mandates? I think you should go stand on the streets of Bagdad, wearing RED, WHITE AND BLUE while singing the Star Spangled Banner and eating McDonald’s Cheeseburgers.  Then tell me this is not a war. 

    Is it WWIII?  Not yet… thank goodness.. and I hope it never is… but I’m not so sure this was not one of the events to thrust the human race forward into just such a catechismic event.

    Side Note:

    Uh “gas ration vouchers?”  UH, Why would they give us those?  Gasoline prices are soaring out of control nicely, making the rich richer. Which was a part of the motivation (small or not… debatble and irrelevant to quantify) that collected “support” for George W. and this “war.”

  19. And where do you get off telling me what i am allowed to believe?  All i was pointing out was, during a war there tend to be casualties, and sacrifices from the civilian population.  Do you really think that 2500 lives (.0000083% of US population) is a significant figure?  While the families of the dead sure would feel it significant, In the greater scheme of things it is not even a ripple. I giggle because 2500 casualties would have been considered an incredibly low weekly casualty figure during WWII or WWI. For comparison, during 30 months of fighting in WWII, America suffered 295,000 casualties, and that is on both fronts.  The Soviet Union suffered 25,500,000 casualties during the 4 years of the war. 

    P.S. I am Canadian

    P.P.S.  Of course Death is quantifiable.  There is an entire industry based around quantifying death.  The Life Insurance that you pay for every month bases your premium on a statistical analysis
    of your likelyhood of dying.

    P.P.P.S.  Did you think i was in support of this war?  You are highly mistaken.

  20. Oh… so sorry.. let me clarify.  I wasn’t telling you what you are “allowed” to believe.  I was expressing how much of a shallow, selfish asshole I believe you to be for believing that 2500 lives or .0000083% of the US population or .0000083% of any population is indeed insignificant.

    That is still two thousand five hundred people.

    It appals me that you actually believe that 1 life let alone 10 or 25 or 250 or 2500 can be insignificant.  Oh yes, that’s right… YOU aren’t one of them, hence the insiginificant status.  You did graciously point out that the friends and families of the dead may have a different opinion.  However, it seems to me that to you it doesn’t really count, because YOU aren’t one of them either. 

    Percentages are neat and tidy. Percentages make large numbers managable.  You are using percentages to devalue the people being counted.

    Started by devaluing a few thousand, but that’s less than one tenth of a pecentage point; so, why not a few thousand more or a few ten thousand more?

    How far does this philosophy of percentages go?  It makes it all “ok,” because then we don’t have to think of the real people involved.  So when do the lives you are counting start to matter?  When the percentages rise over 1%? Over 10%? Over 25%?  Over 30%? Only over 50%? Or not at all if it doesn’t touch you personally?

    Ok, you weren’t and are not in favor of this “war.”  It still doesn’t explain your seeming total disregard for people as individuals… of the value of a human life when it doesn’t involve you directly.

    It was and is inappropriate to “giggle” at any number of deaths whether we are talking about the statistics of human death in Afghanastan, Cuba, China, Iraq, Indonesia, India, South Africa, The US or even Canada. 

    These are human beings…  Maybe you didn’t mean to portrait yourself as being disrepectful of the dead or completely ambivalent to the value of a human life on the whole, but you did.

    Okay, it is your right to believe that.  And I can believe you are part of a bigger problem, a disease of ambivalence that will choke this world and become one of the leading causes to the self-desruction of our human race.

    I was irritated by your seeming disregard for the value of a human life.  Now, I realize you are a symptom of the disease, a willing apathetic participant and that is just depressing.

    Congratulations… I abdicate to you.  You win. You’re facts out weigh my emotions in regards to the sanctity of a human life. 


  21. not to gang up here but….

    human life is overrated.

    as for killing each other, this becomes much more important to everyone once they are attacked by yet another human.

    thats my pittle.

  22. Phew, MrsSEB, you completely pwned. smile

    It’s an insult to the veterans of WWI and WWII to call the war in Iraq (and it is a war, anyone who denies that is ignorant) WWIII.

  23. Mrs.SEB :  You go ahead and think what you like about me.  For a war, these casualty figures are a JOKE.  I am not giggling at the dead, i am giggling at the concept that you can fight a war without people dying.  Millions of Americans laugh and cheer at gory death every day.  While i find no entertainment from these deaths, i am actually very impressed at the skill of the American military in keeping casualties to an absolute minimum in a very bad situation.  You certainly have every right to be against this “war” or whatever it is.  But when the time came for a decision, your fellow americans decided it was justifible. 

    Treating these casualty figure as a terrible thing devalues those who gave there lives for far more important reasons.  Is it only justifiable to fight a war against a genocidal enemy if the targets of genocide are white people?  Have you forgotten Saddam gassing the kurds, and putting whole towns to death because their town was the site of an assasination attempt?

  24. Phew, MrsSEB, you completely pwned. 

    What he said – I even looked up how owned became pwned. LOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.