Wednesday, July 26, 2006

World War III? Nah.

Why does everyone start talking about World War III whenever Israel does something militarily? Everyone keeps saying, "The Anti-Christ is about to reveal himself!" or "It's a sign of the end!" I doubt it's a sign of the 'end'. Back in the '60s and '70s, when Egypt, Syria, and every other Arab nation decided to attack Israel, yeah, that might could've been seen as a sign of the 'end'. When Israel regained it's independence back in the '40s, yeah, that might coulda been seen as a sign. But Israel attacking suspected Hezbolla cells in Lebanon... nah.

If China, for some wild reason, decided to attack Israel in response... yeah, that's a sign. If Russia decided to attack any western nation, yeah, that's a sign. If any western nation attacked any other western nation, that's more than a sign, that IS World War III. But when a country that probably covers less area than the land covered by the rivers of Alabama attacks a country the size of Dallas County, no, that's not a sign of World War III.

BUT I'm not saying it's not a symptom of an unstable global political climate. It's this instability that might lead to some sort of global conflict, not anything Israel, or any middle eastern country, could instigate; there would have to be a military response by a western, or large far-eastern, nation. The 'big-one' might be coming, but, more than likely, I think people just LIKE to scare themselves into thinking the 'end is near'.