Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

I must have missed this referendum
Posted by: Billy Hollis on Thursday, March 01, 2007

I saw the following in the grocery store parking lot yesterday:

Was World War III on the last ballot? Or is it going to be on the next one? Even though I try to be informed on politics, I guess I just can't keep up with all these referendums.

And if anyone has the exact text of the referendum, I'd love to read it.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

This always reminds me of the still-so-true adage:

"Peace requires two willing parties. War needs only one."
Written By: TallDave
"Peace requires two willing parties. War needs only one."
Uh no, not really, War requires more than 1 party, too...VIOLENCE requires only one party.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
We get to vote on wars?

Well chalk that up alongside of the ability to hunt stranded polar bears from the Valdez as things I just didn’t know.
Written By: MichaelW
Well chalk that up alongside of the ability to hunt stranded polar bears from the Valdez as things I just didn’t know.
Me I’m voting FOR the War on Polar Bears, myself.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
And here I thought it was a stuttering Sony or Microsoft fanboy attacking the Wii...... 8^P
Written By: Crusader
Another funny part is that the sticker was on a big SUV. Maybe it was just protective coloration to keep the leftist environmentalists from nagging the owner.
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Crusader, I’d actually go with your interpretation, except for the upside-down flag in the background. Yours makes more sense.
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
SUBMISSION only requires 1 party.

So go wear your burka, kaffir...
Written By: Resistance is Futile
URL: http://
SUBMISSION requires TWO parties, top and submissive.....Master and Servant....anything that involves an interaction requires at least two parties.

Like the polar bear hunt, requires:
a) Polar bears, Koalas, or Panda Bears, and
b) Exxon Valdez; and
c) Shooter; and
d) Weapon, preferably a large bore automatic grenade launcher of some type.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
My immediate thought was about the WII... but the upside down flag... I might have tripped a few times an inadvertently pounded that vehicle with my shopping cart...
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I am not aware a of WWIII referendum, but there is a WWIII constituency, WWIII promoters in elected office and at least one probable Presidential candidate running on a WWIII platform.

Here is your WWIII Candidate:Newt Gingrich
MR. GINGRICH: ... we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough, we don’t have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel. And frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon and that the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force, not as a political force in the parliament, but as a military force in south Lebanon.

MR. RUSSERT: This is World War III?

MR. GINGRICH: I, I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III..
MR. RUSSERT: But people are going to ask specifically, what would you do? And here’s what you suggested involving North Korea. “The American public is being reassured we have a ballistic-missile defense that will work. No serious person believes this. ... Instead, we should destroy the missile on its site before it is launched. ... America’s actions must be decisive. ... The time for talk is over. Either they dismantle the missile or the United States should dismantle it.”

MR. GINGRICH: Let me give you two citations for that comment. Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, who served both President Clinton and President Carter, who came out publicly and said the same thing.

MR. RUSSERT: And his deputy, Ash Carter...

MR. GINGRICH: No. And Vice President Mondale, who had been ambassador to Japan, who also said the same thing. And, and they said it for a practical reason. You don’t know where an ICBM is going when it’s sitting on the launchpad, and you don’t know what’s in that ICBM.

MR. RUSSERT: But with the war in Iraq going on the way it is, can we risk taking military action against North Korea, against Iran?

MR. GINGRICH: You know, before the show, we were talking about Seattle and the extraordinary port facility there. Can we risk losing San Francisco or Seattle? Can we risk—I mean, people don’t—if nuclear weapons and biological weapons didn’t exist, we would not be having this conversation. But people have got to come to a core grip here. When, when the Hart-Rudman Commission reported in 2001, it said, in March, “The greatest threat to the United States is a weapon of mass destruction going off in an American city, probably from terrorists.”

The North Koreans today—and I think this has been a totally failed policy. We have been talking to the North Koreans through two administrations, and they have been building nuclear weapons while we talked, and I think we have to confront how really dangerous this is. In Iran, by the way, you’ve had riots in Tehran University, you’ve had 1200 people kicked off the ballot for being too pro-reform. If we had an intelligence system that worked, you’d know the first 1200 phone numbers to call in Iran. But, but that would mean you’d have to—you’d have to be in favor of democratizing Iran and, and replacing the current dictatorship, not finding a way to appease them and subsidizing them.
One example of an elected official promoting a WWIII worldview: Virgil Goode

And finally, the WWIII constituency is comprised of the advocates of launching pre-emptive attacks against the world wide "1,400 year old war waged by Islam" against the west that Dale highlighted in an earlier post and Dean Esmay voted against giving a forum on his blog.

It is a very small but vocal constituency.

There may not be a referendum. But there is plenty to vote against.
Written By: mw
Huckabee also thinks we re fighting WW 3. In fact he want to far as to say thhat we HAD to win this war (WW3), implying that we didn’t haveto winn previous ones.

He didn’t mention needing either a draft or a rax increase to sustain us through the war he says we have to win.

So yeah, there is a chance to vote on WW3.
Written By: laura
URL: http://
I’m just surprised that no one’s mentioned that this current or, in some views, still merely threatening war, the anti-terror thing, was actually dubbed WWIV way back in November 2001. It’s WWIV because the cold war between the US and USSR was WWIII, which is of course no longer open to a vote, what with the USSR having been frozen into non-existence.

Norman Podhoretz’s use of this numbering scheme in a 2002 Commentary article, "How to Win World War IV," keeps his name associated with Big #IV on the web, but according to Wikipedia, here, Elliot A. Cohen first suggested the numeric designation on 11/20/2001 in the WSJ opinion piece, "World War IV: Let’s call this conflict what it is."

So, it’s IV, rather than III, that’s presently open for a referendum. I vote win.
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
"I vote win." - Linda
Me too! I vote win too! Of course, there is no objective way to understand what that pronouncement means against an undefined enemy in an undefined war, but by putting unquestioning trust in the pronouncements of the politicians of when we are winning, how to win, who to fight,when to change the defintions and objectives, etc. I am sure it will all turn out just fine.

But gosh, it sure feels good to say it though. "I vote win.!"

P.S. You need to fire off a letter to Newt. He is the one who lost count of the World Wars.
Written By: mw
URL: putting unquestioning trust in the pronouncements of the politicians of when we are winning, how to win, who to fight,when to change the defintions and objectives, etc. I am sure it will all turn out just fine.
I’m not much of one for putting unquestioning trust in the pronouncments of politicians on any matter whatsoever, but if it works for you, that’s swell!
But gosh, it sure feels good to say it though. "I vote win.!"
That’s super, mw! Feel free to say it as much as you like.
You need to fire off a letter to Newt.
No time or inclination for that, I’m afraid. Maybe you can bring him up to speed.
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks