Slater
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 02:01 PM |
|
|
World War 3??
With the current "War on Terror" or whatever you want to call it and so many countries being involved, why isn't it being refered to
as World War 3?
Below is a list of coalition countries involved with troop numbers (c/o the internet)
Coalition:
United States - 26,215
United Kingdom - 9,100
Germany - 3,465
Canada - 2,830
France - 3,300 Italy - 2,850
Poland - 2,000
Netherlands - 1,770
Turkey - 1,300
Australia - 1,090
Romania - 860
Bulgaria - 820
Spain - 780
Denmark - 750
Czech Republic - 580
Norway - 598
Belgium - 650
Hungary - 370
Sweden - 290
Croatia - 280
Slovakia - 230
Lithuania - 200
Macedonia - 170
Latvia - 160
New Zealand - 150
Albania - 140
Estonia - 289
Greece - 140
Finland - 110
Azerbaijan - 90
Slovenia - 70
Portugal - 180
United Arab Emirates - 25
Singapore - 20
Ukraine - 10
Luxembourg - 9
Iceland - 8
Ireland - 7
Jordan - 7
Austria - 2
Bosnia and Herzegovina - 2
Georgia - 100
Philippines - 336 troops
Why do they call Port Harcourt "The Garden City"?...... Becauase they can't spell Stramash.
|
|
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 02:19 PM |
|
|
Nowere near the numbers in WW 1 or 2.. To put this in context there are more people in attendance at Glastonbury Festival..
Dan
[Edited on 6/1/10 by Bluemoon]
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 02:30 PM |
|
|
no, nowhere near the numbers, but more countries involved surely? i have no idea how many countries were involve in the first 2
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
A1
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 02:34 PM |
|
|
I always do refer to it as ww3.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 02:52 PM |
|
|
Not for me... a World War conjures up thoughts of conscription, etc.
Was reading the other night about The Battle of The Somme... in total, over 300,000 men died (all sides) in just over 4 months of fighting. 
Statistics show that 2 British soldiers died for every centimeter of land taken!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 02:59 PM |
|
|
I'm with Scootz on this.. Technically you might be correct but, it's not ww 3, that's something I hope never to see, or the world
experience. The next world war is going to be truly nasty if it was to ever happen.
Dan
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 03:04 PM |
|
|
bring back the Thunderdome
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 03:13 PM |
|
|
WW3 will be America versus Islam. We, being gullible fools, will be dragged in with the Americans. The current terror thing is no more a war than
the troubles in NI. It could escalate into one though. All it would take is for a country to side with the terrorists and you have a bona fide war.
Once one middle east country becomes involved in a war where defence of Islam is cited, others will follow. Each time a western country is attacked
by such an alliance, more western countries will join "the war", us being part of NATO mean that once one joins, we all do, and before
long you will have a world war.
We're a fair way from this and there are enough sensible people in governments around the world to stop it getting that far. I can't
promise though.
Should WW3 start, I'm prepared to bet on a marked difference between it and the first two in the UK. More people will rebel against
conscription than did before.
|
|
|
thunderace
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 03:55 PM |
|
|
per head of population we have loads more troops than anyone else.
SO FOR US THEY SHOULD HAVE TO MATCH US 60,000 TROOPS ON THE GROUND .
WHY ? WHY ? IS THE UK DAFT ?
FACTS FROM
EU&q=population+germany#met=sp_pop_totl" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country EU&q=population+germany#met=sp_pop_totl
[Edited on 6/1/10 by thunderace]
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 04:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
IS THE UK DAFT ?
Not the UK as a whole, but then we had no say in the decision.
|
|
|
gottabedone
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 04:21 PM |
|
|
Our government wants to be everybody's friend and thus laways be seen to be doing the right thing and never have the brass ones to upset
anyone
Personally, I think that Iran v Iraq will spark off and force other countries to take sides with the weapons that are being developed over there,
we are stuffed!
The cold war was amongst other things a war of balance, the Russians had nukes and the americans had nukes. OK it came close at times but neither
wanted to use them because of the devasation they would cause.
Unfortunately war is always good for business but at the cost of our boys not coming home? ..........I don't think so..........but then
I'm a patriotic english ex-serviceman
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 04:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
WW3 will be America versus Islam
Nah, if that was going to happen it would have already - there being so many different factions in the muslim world means they could never agree on
how to arrange a p*ss up in a brewery (ok bad example but... ) never mind take over the world....... No, the thing the world has to worry about is
America starting to think the Chinese are getting far too big for their boots...... and China not being any kind of democracy means they are pretty
organised......
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 04:27 PM |
|
|
I always think of it as The War Against Terror. Much more appropriate acronym.
You can't have a war against a concept. The only effective solution for terrorism is not to be terrorised by it. The further we go down the
route of cavity searches at airports, the tighter the grip the governments have over the psyche of their own people.
Don't be scared of Terrorist Bogeyman du Jour, be scared of who is attempting to manipulate your emotions.
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 04:34 PM |
|
|
I hope one of Austria's troops doesn't catch a cold, it would cut their contribution by 50% 
|
|
|
StevieB
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 05:35 PM |
|
|
I'll think you'll find those numbers are a little spurious anyway - the US has way, way more than 26,000 in Afghanistan alone. UK troops
are near on 9-10k in Afhanistan, but both uk and US forces are actively serving in many, many more countries than just those 2.
In fact, it's been the same for more than a hundred years, it's just that the media hypes up and jumps all over these things in this day
and age.
|
|
|
PaulBuz
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 07:23 PM |
|
|
would be very interesting to see the list as a percentage of population.
I have a sneaking suspicion, that we would lead the figures by quite some margin.
ATB
Paul
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 6/1/10 at 08:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by StevieB
I'll think you'll find those numbers are a little spurious anyway - the US has way, way more than 26,000 in Afghanistan alone.
That's what I was thinking... it was just under 70,000 last time I heard.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
