Does Anyone Not Know We're in World War III ?

[candycorn]

Have you started rationing things yet? Apparently, your preparations include posting on obscure message boards. Not smart for someone with an "excellent" understanding.

Have you started rationing things yet? Apparently, your preparations include posting on obscure message boards. Not smart for someone with an "excellent" understanding.

My preparations include a .380 semi-automatic, an M1A1 fully automatic assault rifle, and a 12 gauge shotgun. And what so "not smart " about posting on obscure message boards ?

If we were really at war, you wouldn't be wasting time trying to convince a whole lot of people who are smarter than you that we are at war...you'd be prepping for it. PS: Three firearms is a laughable cache.

How would YOU "prep for it" ?

Join the LEPC first.

I hate to tell you this but if you are nuked, there won't be any LEPC, there won't be any buildings, and there won't be any YOU. You'll be vaporized. There is only one way to prepare for a World War III nuking. That is to move far away from likely targets, and into a place where the local climatology lessens the chances of the radiation cloud coming your way. (example - around San Francisco Bay, winds generally blow strongly from west to east)

 

[kaz]

kaz 10588443

Not true, Obama has done more damage.

What damage? Just list your too three?

I can name 4484 Bush43 damages in Iraq and that's just American deaths for no reason.

They are not for no reason. Are you blind ? You haven't seen ISIS come into Iraq right after Obama pulled the troops out n 2010 ? And aren't you aware of the significance of the combination of the largest unproven oil reserves in the world in Iraq, and the wealth to acquire nuclear weapons ? Think man, think.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

What a lame answer. Obama didn't try to extend it. Man up and take a position.

My position is we should have left, stayed out and we should stay out of fighting ISIS now. I stand behind leaving.

At least if you say Obama should have tried to stay and didn't, you disagree with him on that you'd be taking a stand on a view.

Just saying it was W means you need political Viagara.

It was for historical accuracy. Not only was the date of withdrawal inaccurate but also the fact that it was President Bushes time frame not President Obama's. Furthermore it was the Shiite dominated Iraq government that is mostly responsible for the rekindling of the Iraq Civil war, and the alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS, not Bush, not Obama.

For political accuracy you pointed out something that is true but doesn't contradict anyone or add to the discussion? Thanks, that was helpful. The Iraqis weren't going to agree to extend the US troops two years before they were scheduled to leave. W is irrelevant to Obama's choice. I wanted the troops to leave, I stand behind that despite ISIS. Obama wanted them to leave, he did nothing to extend them. You wimped out and blamed W, then couldn't even stand behind that you blamed W.

 

[kaz]

kaz 10588443

Not true, Obama has done more damage.

What damage? Just list your too three?

I can name 4484 Bush43 damages in Iraq and that's just American deaths for no reason.

They are not for no reason. Are you blind ? You haven't seen ISIS come into Iraq right after Obama pulled the troops out n 2010 ? And aren't you aware of the significance of the combination of the largest unproven oil reserves in the world in Iraq, and the wealth to acquire nuclear weapons ? Think man, think.

protectionist: I think we have plenty of oil at home. If the Euroweenies, who pay the brunt of the price both in being targets of terrorism and needing middle east oil want to get behind doing something about the middle east, I can see supporting that effort. Allowing them to be the primary beneficiaries of our doing it ourselves while they stab us in the back I'm not interested in. Let's keep developing oil at home, we're nearing energy independence.

I wasn't talking about the US getting oil. Read my post again.....maybe slower this time.

LOL, so we're not in the Middle East fighting wars because there is oil there, only ISIS is doing that? Sure, Virginia, sure...

 

[kaz]

kaz 10588443

Not true, Obama has done more damage.

What damage? Just list your too three?

I can name 4484 Bush43 damages in Iraq and that's just American deaths for no reason.

They are not for no reason. Are you blind ? You haven't seen ISIS come into Iraq right after Obama pulled the troops out n 2010 ? And aren't you aware of the significance of the combination of the largest unproven oil reserves in the world in Iraq, and the wealth to acquire nuclear weapons ? Think man, think.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

What a lame answer. Obama didn't try to extend it. Man up and take a position.

My position is we should have left, stayed out and we should stay out of fighting ISIS now. I stand behind leaving.

At least if you say Obama should have tried to stay and didn't, you disagree with him on that you'd be taking a stand on a view.

Just saying it was W means you need political Viagara.

Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

What a stupid analogy

 

[BlindBoo]

kaz 10588443 What damage? Just list your too three?

I can name 4484 Bush43 damages in Iraq and that's just American deaths for no reason.

They are not for no reason. Are you blind ? You haven't seen ISIS come into Iraq right after Obama pulled the troops out n 2010 ? And aren't you aware of the significance of the combination of the largest unproven oil reserves in the world in Iraq, and the wealth to acquire nuclear weapons ? Think man, think.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

What a lame answer. Obama didn't try to extend it. Man up and take a position.

My position is we should have left, stayed out and we should stay out of fighting ISIS now. I stand behind leaving.

At least if you say Obama should have tried to stay and didn't, you disagree with him on that you'd be taking a stand on a view.

Just saying it was W means you need political Viagara.

It was for historical accuracy. Not only was the date of withdrawal inaccurate but also the fact that it was President Bushes time frame not President Obama's. Furthermore it was the Shiite dominated Iraq government that is mostly responsible for the rekindling of the Iraq Civil war, and the alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS, not Bush, not Obama.

This is a current events thread, not a history one.

If you're willing to play fast and loose with facts your conclusion is suspect. Fact is the terrorist threat does not rise to the level of either of the two world wars.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I didn't say ISIS was World War III. ISIS is one jihadist group in the world war, among dozens of others scattered all over the globe.

you can come out from under your bed now...

 

[kaz]

They are not for no reason. Are you blind ? You haven't seen ISIS come into Iraq right after Obama pulled the troops out n 2010 ? And aren't you aware of the significance of the combination of the largest unproven oil reserves in the world in Iraq, and the wealth to acquire nuclear weapons ? Think man, think.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

What a lame answer. Obama didn't try to extend it. Man up and take a position.

My position is we should have left, stayed out and we should stay out of fighting ISIS now. I stand behind leaving.

At least if you say Obama should have tried to stay and didn't, you disagree with him on that you'd be taking a stand on a view.

Just saying it was W means you need political Viagara.

It was for historical accuracy. Not only was the date of withdrawal inaccurate but also the fact that it was President Bushes time frame not President Obama's. Furthermore it was the Shiite dominated Iraq government that is mostly responsible for the rekindling of the Iraq Civil war, and the alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS, not Bush, not Obama.

This is a current events thread, not a history one.

If you're willing to play fast and loose with facts your conclusion is suspect. Fact is the terrorist threat does not rise to the level of either of the two world wars.

Yes, it's not like they are bringing down buildings in Manhattan or anything.

I want to fight anyone who attacks us, I just don't want to fight people who don't and I don't want to be in countries we don't belong propping up dictators.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

What a lame answer. Obama didn't try to extend it. Man up and take a position.

My position is we should have left, stayed out and we should stay out of fighting ISIS now. I stand behind leaving.

At least if you say Obama should have tried to stay and didn't, you disagree with him on that you'd be taking a stand on a view.

Just saying it was W means you need political Viagara.

It was for historical accuracy. Not only was the date of withdrawal inaccurate but also the fact that it was President Bushes time frame not President Obama's. Furthermore it was the Shiite dominated Iraq government that is mostly responsible for the rekindling of the Iraq Civil war, and the alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS, not Bush, not Obama.

This is a current events thread, not a history one.

If you're willing to play fast and loose with facts your conclusion is suspect. Fact is the terrorist threat does not rise to the level of either of the two world wars.

Yes, it's not like they are bringing down buildings in Manhattan or anything.

I want to fight anyone who attacks us, I just don't want to fight people who don't and I don't want to be in countries we don't belong propping up dictators.

Oh please, al qaeda attacked the WTC in 2001. People like you would wage constant war, ala Israel with her neighbors, in order to keep us safe from a mythical giant. People like you would bankrupt us to keep us safe from you mythical giant

 

[kaz]

What a lame answer. Obama didn't try to extend it. Man up and take a position.

My position is we should have left, stayed out and we should stay out of fighting ISIS now. I stand behind leaving.

At least if you say Obama should have tried to stay and didn't, you disagree with him on that you'd be taking a stand on a view.

Just saying it was W means you need political Viagara.

It was for historical accuracy. Not only was the date of withdrawal inaccurate but also the fact that it was President Bushes time frame not President Obama's. Furthermore it was the Shiite dominated Iraq government that is mostly responsible for the rekindling of the Iraq Civil war, and the alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS, not Bush, not Obama.

This is a current events thread, not a history one.

If you're willing to play fast and loose with facts your conclusion is suspect. Fact is the terrorist threat does not rise to the level of either of the two world wars.

Yes, it's not like they are bringing down buildings in Manhattan or anything.

I want to fight anyone who attacks us, I just don't want to fight people who don't and I don't want to be in countries we don't belong propping up dictators.

Oh please, al qaeda attacked the WTC in 2001. People like you would wage constant war, ala Israel with her neighbors, in order to keep us safe from a mythical giant. People like you would bankrupt us to keep us safe from you mythical giant

Didn't actually read my post, did you Skippy? You support a President who wages far more war than I would. LOL. What a tool.

 

[BlindBoo]

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

What a lame answer. Obama didn't try to extend it. Man up and take a position.

My position is we should have left, stayed out and we should stay out of fighting ISIS now. I stand behind leaving.

At least if you say Obama should have tried to stay and didn't, you disagree with him on that you'd be taking a stand on a view.

Just saying it was W means you need political Viagara.

It was for historical accuracy. Not only was the date of withdrawal inaccurate but also the fact that it was President Bushes time frame not President Obama's. Furthermore it was the Shiite dominated Iraq government that is mostly responsible for the rekindling of the Iraq Civil war, and the alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS, not Bush, not Obama.

This is a current events thread, not a history one.

If you're willing to play fast and loose with facts your conclusion is suspect. Fact is the terrorist threat does not rise to the level of either of the two world wars.

Yes, it's not like they are bringing down buildings in Manhattan or anything.

I want to fight anyone who attacks us, I just don't want to fight people who don't and I don't want to be in countries we don't belong propping up dictators.

Well if their Air Force had bombed Manhattan or their Navy had been shelling it, I might have a different opinion.

 

[kaz]

What a lame answer. Obama didn't try to extend it. Man up and take a position.

My position is we should have left, stayed out and we should stay out of fighting ISIS now. I stand behind leaving.

At least if you say Obama should have tried to stay and didn't, you disagree with him on that you'd be taking a stand on a view.

Just saying it was W means you need political Viagara.

It was for historical accuracy. Not only was the date of withdrawal inaccurate but also the fact that it was President Bushes time frame not President Obama's. Furthermore it was the Shiite dominated Iraq government that is mostly responsible for the rekindling of the Iraq Civil war, and the alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS, not Bush, not Obama.

This is a current events thread, not a history one.

If you're willing to play fast and loose with facts your conclusion is suspect. Fact is the terrorist threat does not rise to the level of either of the two world wars.

Yes, it's not like they are bringing down buildings in Manhattan or anything.

I want to fight anyone who attacks us, I just don't want to fight people who don't and I don't want to be in countries we don't belong propping up dictators.

Well if their Air Force had bombed Manhattan or their Navy had been shelling it, I might have a different opinion.

LOL, the blind spot of the British as well in 1776. The Americans didn't fight like Europeans on battlefields did, we were no threat to them. It's funny how liberals like to think of yourselves as progressive thinkers when you are regressive. Threats are threats, you don't get to tell your enemy the rules of how to fight you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It was for historical accuracy. Not only was the date of withdrawal inaccurate but also the fact that it was President Bushes time frame not President Obama's. Furthermore it was the Shiite dominated Iraq government that is mostly responsible for the rekindling of the Iraq Civil war, and the alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS, not Bush, not Obama.

This is a current events thread, not a history one.

If you're willing to play fast and loose with facts your conclusion is suspect. Fact is the terrorist threat does not rise to the level of either of the two world wars.

Yes, it's not like they are bringing down buildings in Manhattan or anything.

I want to fight anyone who attacks us, I just don't want to fight people who don't and I don't want to be in countries we don't belong propping up dictators.

Oh please, al qaeda attacked the WTC in 2001. People like you would wage constant war, ala Israel with her neighbors, in order to keep us safe from a mythical giant. People like you would bankrupt us to keep us safe from you mythical giant

Didn't actually read my post, did you Skippy? You support a President who wages far more war than I would. LOL. What a tool.

read your post.

I disagree with some of the President's actions and agree with others. Your type fears criminals and turns them into mythical giants

 

[hangover]

In the 1940s, we had World War II. The Allies were fighting against the Axis powers all over the world. Today, we have the radical Muslims fighting against everyone who doesn't share their insane ideology. Wars are happening on every continent in the world except Antarctica. Radical Muslim groups are attacking and killing people. In some places people fight back. In others, they don't, and are simply slaughtered.

The parallels to World War II are there, crystal clear. Although the various jihad groups go by different names in different countries, they are all fighting in the name of Muslim jihad, in hopes of bringing back the Islamic caliphate, with worldwide domination, same as was Hitler's ultimate plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rorist_attacks

And if anyone thinks the USA is immune to all this madness, guess again. There are NO-GO zones all over the US, and due to current laws, and the current Obama administration's hands off mindset, that's just what is happening. Nothing - while these enclaves of Muslim warfare arm up, train, and prepare to attack America from right inside of it (similar to how we saw the Paris attacks last week).

22 Jihad Training Camps in the US – FBI Refuses to Take Action

Welcome to the GRAND ILLUSION. You really worried about 50,000 radical Muslim nut jobs? There are millions of radical christian nut jobs right here.,and they run the U.S. government.
Here's a clue,...The antichrist is where the money is. The antichrist is where the power of the world is. The antichrist is where the greatest military in the world is.
And in this country, everyone is so used to the insanity, the tribulation is just normal everyday life.

 

[kaz]

This is a current events thread, not a history one.

If you're willing to play fast and loose with facts your conclusion is suspect. Fact is the terrorist threat does not rise to the level of either of the two world wars.

Yes, it's not like they are bringing down buildings in Manhattan or anything.

I want to fight anyone who attacks us, I just don't want to fight people who don't and I don't want to be in countries we don't belong propping up dictators.

Oh please, al qaeda attacked the WTC in 2001. People like you would wage constant war, ala Israel with her neighbors, in order to keep us safe from a mythical giant. People like you would bankrupt us to keep us safe from you mythical giant

Didn't actually read my post, did you Skippy? You support a President who wages far more war than I would. LOL. What a tool.

read your post.

I disagree with some of the President's actions and agree with others. Your type fears criminals and turns them into mythical giants

I want to retaliate when we are attacked. I don't want to be in the middle east at all, I don't want to be engaged in wars like Iraq that aren't our problem, I don't want to be nation building in Afghanistan.

You support a party that is far more militaristic than that. Obama continued the war in Iraq, continued nation building in Afghanistan, got us into war in Libya and saber rattled in Egypt and Syria. And you call me scary militaristic? Dante is completely fucking delusional.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I want to retaliate when we are attacked. I don't want to be in the middle east at all, I don't want to be engaged in wars like Iraq that aren't our problem, I don't want to be nation building in Afghanistan.

You support a party that is far more militaristic than that. Obama continued the war in Iraq, continued nation building in Afghanistan, got us into war in Libya and saber rattled in Egypt and Syria. And you call me scary militaristic? Dante is completely fucking delusional.

nice to know some things in life stay the same

 

[BlindBoo]

It was for historical accuracy. Not only was the date of withdrawal inaccurate but also the fact that it was President Bushes time frame not President Obama's. Furthermore it was the Shiite dominated Iraq government that is mostly responsible for the rekindling of the Iraq Civil war, and the alliance between the Sunnis and ISIS, not Bush, not Obama.

This is a current events thread, not a history one.

If you're willing to play fast and loose with facts your conclusion is suspect. Fact is the terrorist threat does not rise to the level of either of the two world wars.

Yes, it's not like they are bringing down buildings in Manhattan or anything.

I want to fight anyone who attacks us, I just don't want to fight people who don't and I don't want to be in countries we don't belong propping up dictators.

Well if their Air Force had bombed Manhattan or their Navy had been shelling it, I might have a different opinion.

LOL, the blind spot of the British as well in 1776. The Americans didn't fight like Europeans on battlefields did, we were no threat to them. It's funny how liberals like to think of yourselves as progressive thinkers when you are regressive. Threats are threats, you don't get to tell your enemy the rules of how to fight you.

The Americans didn't always fight like the British but mostly they did. Especially after we started receiving aid from the French. The scumbag suicide bombers represent a threat, anyone willing to die in an attack is hard to stop. But it's not a threat like the Wolfe Pack patrolling our east coast and Atlantic sinking our merchant vessels.

 

[Syriusly]

protist 10585507

And if anyone thinks the USA is immune to all this madness, guess again

Stupid comment #001. Who thinks the USA is immune to terrorist attacks? It is rather stupid to think such an opinion prevails in sufficient quantity to argue that in building a case that World War Three is upon us.

The far left does apparently as they continue to vote for the destruction of America and the support for ISIS.
..

More posts by the Conservative wingnuttery faction.

 

[protectionist]

protist 10592937

didn't say they that they already did, fool.

You said ISIS poses that danger. The Germans certainly posed that danger. We just got there first. That is your mental fumble.

DAIISH is not threatening to take over any significant oil lands. They can't hold what they did take in Syria. They have no air defense.

They could not take the refinery in Baiji Iraq. They have no Air Force.

Their terrorist recruits are living in squalor.

They could not take Kobane?

NO, the germans DID NOT pose that danger. If they had they woud have HAD nukes. They didn't exist yet.

kaz 10588443

Not true, Obama has done more damage.

What damage? Just list your too three?

I can name 4484 Bush43 damages in Iraq and that's just American deaths for no reason.

They are not for no reason. Are you blind ? You haven't seen ISIS come into Iraq right after Obama pulled the troops out n 2010 ? And aren't you aware of the significance of the combination of the largest unproven oil reserves in the world in Iraq, and the wealth to acquire nuclear weapons ? Think man, think.

protectionist: I think we have plenty of oil at home. If the Euroweenies, who pay the brunt of the price both in being targets of terrorism and needing middle east oil want to get behind doing something about the middle east, I can see supporting that effort. Allowing them to be the primary beneficiaries of our doing it ourselves while they stab us in the back I'm not interested in. Let's keep developing oil at home, we're nearing energy independence.

I wasn't talking about the US getting oil. Read my post again.....maybe slower this time.

LOL, so we're not in the Middle East fighting wars because there is oil there, only ISIS is doing that? Sure, Virginia, sure...

Dolt! We've been there for years, and haven't gotten one drop of Iraq's oil. We get our oil from Canada, KSA, Venezuela, Mexico, and what we drill here. NUCLEAR WEAPONS is the issue here.

 

[protectionist]

kaz 10588443 What damage? Just list your too three?

I can name 4484 Bush43 damages in Iraq and that's just American deaths for no reason.

They are not for no reason. Are you blind ? You haven't seen ISIS come into Iraq right after Obama pulled the troops out n 2010 ? And aren't you aware of the significance of the combination of the largest unproven oil reserves in the world in Iraq, and the wealth to acquire nuclear weapons ? Think man, think.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

Iraq 8217 s Government Not Obama Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence TIME.com

What a lame answer. Obama didn't try to extend it. Man up and take a position.

My position is we should have left, stayed out and we should stay out of fighting ISIS now. I stand behind leaving.

At least if you say Obama should have tried to stay and didn't, you disagree with him on that you'd be taking a stand on a view.

Just saying it was W means you need political Viagara.

Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

What a stupid analogy

Pretense will get you nowhere.

 

[Syriusly]

kaz 10588443

Not true, Obama has done more damage.

What damage? Just list your too three?

I can name 4484 Bush43 damages in Iraq and that's just American deaths for no reason.

They are not for no reason. Are you blind ? You haven't seen ISIS come into Iraq right after Obama pulled the troops out n 2010 ? And aren't you aware of the significance of the combination of the largest unproven oil reserves in the world in Iraq, and the wealth to acquire nuclear weapons ? Think man, think.

If we- the United States- had not taken down Sadam, ISIS would be no danger in Iraq.

Sadam was a nasty son of a bitch- vicious- lying- etc- but he kept Islamic extremists down. We dismantled Iraq, and opened it up to Islamic sectarianism and ISIS.

And no- ISIS is not World War 3- ISIS is a regional problem, with the potential to harm Americans- not America.

I didn't say ISIS was World War III. ISIS is one jihadist group in the world war, among dozens of others scattered all over the globe.

Not one of which is as strong militarily as Hungary was at the beginning of World War 2.

None of whom are actually allied with each other- most are fighting each other.

If you want to say that we are at war with Muslim Extremists or Jihadists scattered around the globe- fine with me- nothing at all like World War 2.