This is not the start of WWlll

[JAYJDF]

This is a prelude to it though. This is needed by the repubs, they think, to win the Nov. elections. They will save the big one for 2008. They're going to need it.

[Tace]

1. I Don't Think So Either

This is a long resource war that began just after WWII. The "Cold War" was the first chapter.

"I don't know how the third world war will be fought," Albert Einstein once remarked, "but I do know that the fourth one will be fought with sticks and stones."

[CrispyQ]

4. That is such a frightening statement.

Will we go down that road?

[kenny blankenship]

2. I agree it's not WWIII --it's W to the third power though

The timing is just too clever isn't it? Upcoming elections, new war. We're getting used to it now. It's like a fifth season to the year and reliable as daybreak. The suspiciously premeditated feel of the timing is amply confirmed by the non-response of Washington. The day all hell starts breaking loose, the American Secretary of State isn't even interrupting her schedule to appeal to combatants but goes shopping for shoes. See how relaxed we are now about Armageddon?
That shopping trip really says everything you need to know: "Yes we knew all about it, and we're confident it will come off without a hitch." That's not incompetence on display, it's complicity.

[Demeter]

5. The WWW War?

Fought on the Internets, no doubt.

[rodeodance]

3. Newt said several tims on MTP today that was wwiii, but Biden dis-agreed.

[Poiuyt]

8. Newt even said that the Reps need to call it WWIII for political reasons

There is a political element to his talk of World War III. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is, "OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=postman16m&date=20060716

[smirkymonkey]

6. Do they really have that much control at this point?

This latest conflict seems like it could get out of hand in a relatively short period of time.

[Imagevision]

7. I agree, nothing more then a November election ploy as Iraq's civil war

escalates daily -- no wonder Bush would prefer Israel to just keep defending themselves -- makes his fiasco in Iraq seem to be not such a biggie...

[Alcibiades]

9. What was it before?

If it is WWW III now, it must have been something else before.

It's been nearly five years since 9/11/01, and now Newt realizes it's World War III? Why didn't he tell us before? Was he deluded about the nature of the conflict and the enemy? Or was it because a rebranding strategy was not yet necessary?

Rejoice, my friends, for the War on Terror is over, just as the War on Iraq is over, both have been rolled into a new war, World War III!

Only a Republican would think that WWW III could possibly be a good thing.

The War on Terror didn't sell.
The Occupation of Iraq didn't sell.
Rebrand them both, repackage them and change the expiration date!

Sorry, if it's not ethical for my butcher to do it, it doesn't work for this administration, either.

[watercolors]

10. I don't think the people of this country

want to see a third WW, and I'm sure they do not want this administration involved in it! I can't see this as a win win situation for them at all!