Todd Stadler's blog

Are you ready for some World War III?

So it would seem that, according to an article I recently read, World War III is imminent. Or already here. Maybe it started a few years ago. It's unclear.

(Hey, do you think President Bush pronounces "unclear" as "un-kya-lur"? Ha, trick question! Bush doesn't know the meaning of the word "unclear"! His inimitable resolve is matched only by his amazing foresight! Or maybe his limited vocabulary. But either way, he definitely doesn't know the meaning of "unclear".)

Anyhow, World War III. Says who? Says the leader of the free world, for one. And Newt Gingrich. Why, even bleeding-heart, liberal, dyed-in-the-wool, Democrat-with-a-capital-D Joe Lieberman agrees — it's not just the Great War, it's the Greatestest! What more proof do you need?

That said, I don't really get exactly who or what is supposed to comprise this war. In World War I, we had the Allied Powers vs. the Central Powers. World War II gave us the Allied Powers vs. the Axis Powers. So to have a world war (World War®?), it seems you have to have an Allied Powers, but the only thing I've heard of is that we're part of the Coalition of the Willing, which I guess makes us the Coalesced Powers. I know we're fighting the Axis of Evil (a foolish name for them to pick, but I guess it was chosen to distinguish them from World War II's Axis, which was mum as to its evilness). But one of the countries in the Axis of Evil is now free and democratic (I speak, of course, of Iraq, where they got what we came for). And given that we're not doing anything about them, I assume North Korea has pretty much stopped being evil. And it seems pretty lame for Iran to have an Axis all to itself.

But I'm excited nonetheless. World Wars® are awesome — you've seen the movies, right? And there's little disagreement that a much bigger war would be way more entertaining than the warmed-over fare we've had in the past few decades:

• Iraq: I know we attacked them because they refused to set up a Jeffersonian democracy, and I guess we're still fighting over there to make sure they don't back down on the whole electoral college idea. But still, America set up its own democracy in just a few months after Britain declared war on it. What's taking Iraq so long?
• Afghanistan: Oh, yeah. Um ... we're doing what where now?
• War on Terror: I still get scared sometimes, so I guess we haven't won this one. I'm not actually sure where it's taking place. Terroristan, maybe?
• The Gulf War: Super lame. Admit it, you're embarrassed to wear your "Stormin' Norman" sweatshirt in public now, no matter how excited you were when you first got it.
• War on Drugs: We lost this one, right? But the Christian Scientists are still carrying out some kind of guerrilla tactics, I hear.
• War on Poverty: Hmm. I don't know the status of this one, either, but I've heard about some cops beating up some poor folks. But that would make it less a war and more a police action.

Look, the point is that all those old wars are history, because now we've got us a World War®, part three (III)!

And the main reason this is exciting is that with every World War®, you get a free ineffectual international organization! World War I® gave us the League of Nations, which I think was invaded by the Nazis or maybe burned down by Hitler in time for World War II®, which gave us the United Nations, which was plotted to be blown up by John Bolton, but the Democrats hindered him somehow. Anyhow, we'll need to get rid of the UN before we get our new war-fighting/approving/ignoring and historic-place-certifying organization.

And if there isn't already a name for the new international organization, I have some ideas:

• Super United Nations
• League of Nations 2.0
• Truly United Nations, Really
• League of Gentlemanly Nations
• League of 20,000 Nations Under the Sea
• The Real Hall of Justice
• Fortress of Problem-Solvitude
• The Olive-Branch Garden
• The Peacemake Factory
• Monda Registaro ("world government" in Esperanto ... I think)

So there's that to look forward to. But World Wars® also come with a rich set of traditions that makes the franchise so popular. For instance, just as in World Wars® I and II, in WWIII America was caught sleeping at the wheel until somebody blew something of ours up. And then there's the beloved tradition of marching through Belgium to attack France. Normally Germany plays this role, but they seem to be sitting out this World War® so far — understandably, given their past performances.

But the name — World War III — does that really cut it in these postmodern times? At the very least, can't we agree that Roman numerals are so early 20th century? World War 3.0 has a more hip ring to it, ne c'est pas? Such a naming convention would also allow us to consistently label subsequent squabbles without all those confusing geographical names. The Korean War? The Gulf War? Who cares! But World War 2.1 and World War 2.9, well, they just make sense.

Anyhow, break out the popcorn. This World War® is going to be awesome!