World War IV?

[Sayeret]

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.

In the address to a group of college students, Woolsey described the Cold War as the third world war and said "This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War."

Woolsey has been named in news reports as a possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq.

He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda.

Woolsey told the audience of about 300, most of whom are students at the University of California at Los Angeles, that all three enemies have waged war against the United States for several years but the United States has just "finally noticed."

"As we move toward a new Middle East," Woolsey said, "over the years and, I think, over the decades to come ... we will make a lot of people very nervous."

It will be America's backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.

"Our response should be, 'good!'" Woolsey said.

Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, "We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."

Woolsey, who served as CIA director under President Bill Clinton, was taking part in a "teach-in" at UCLA, a series of such forums at universities across the nation.

A group calling itself "Americans for Victory Over Terrorism" sponsors the teach-ins, and the Bruin Republicans, UCLA's campus Republicans organization, co-sponsored Wednesday night's event.

The group was founded by former Education Secretary William Bennett, who took part in Wednesday's event along with Paul Bremer, a U.S. ambassador during the Reagan administration and the former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism.

[DPGLAW]

I didn't know we even had WWIII...geesh, where have I been :) lol

[cut]

the cold war would have to have gone hot to be called WW3

[Secret Squirrel]

You forgot the link and date...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/
Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 2202 GMT ( 6:02 AM HKT)

[Sayeret]

You forgot the link and date...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/
Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 2202 GMT ( 6:02 AM HKT)

I didn't forget the link, I just didn't think people cared that much whether or not I had one.

[Tane Angle]

I think WWIII is the collective name for the wars during the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

[Fee Fi Fo Fum]

nah no WWIII yet, to the huge scale of 1 and 2 its gotta be around the same thing for WWIII

[Siddar]

WWIII was the war that never happend but at same time if there was another world war calling it WWIII wouldnt be right because WWIII was suposed to be fight between Democracy and Comunism.

So we have to skip to WWIV if we want to talk about any future world war.

[Kitsune]

Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, "We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."

?!?

Is this man stupid ? Or does he think that his audience is stupid ?

Last time I checked, the US was giving financial support to Mubarak every year, that is as high as the one they are giving Israel. So that Mubarak can stay on top of Egypt against the will of his people. If the Egyptian people had its way, a muslim-fundamentalist government would control Egypt.

[cut]

Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, "We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."

?!?

Is this man stupid ? Or does he think that his audience is stupid ?

Last time I checked, the US was giving financial support to Mubarak every year, that is as high as the one they are giving Israel. So that Mubarak can stay on top of Egypt against the will of his people. If the Egyptian people had its way, a muslim-fundamentalist government would control Egypt.

Yep, same with the saudis, the only reason why the house of Saud fear there own people is because there own people listen to the muslim clerics, the very same muslim clerics that started al qaeda off.

[usa320]

the cold war would have to have gone hot to be called WW3

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan. The revolutions in Europe. THe tensions with Cuba...ect...

It was WWIII.

[cut]

the cold war would have to have gone hot to be called WW3

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan. The revolutions in Europe. THe tensions with Cuba...ect...

It was WWIII.

I still disagree, world war, to me suggest great alliances battling it out against each other, now forgive me, but superpowers bullying 3rd world countries into submission (or not as it tended to be) does not fuffil those requirements.

[ZaakM433]

proxy war...

perhaps we need a new term! the world always needs new terms!

just millions and millions of people doing this :bash: :fork: :-*$ :bash: :-*$ :bash: :fork: :bash: :-*$ :bash: :fork: :-*$ :fork: :bash: :-*$ :fork: :bash: :-*$ :bash: :bash: :fork: :-*$ :bash: :bash: :-*$ :fork:

[cut]

proxy war...

perhaps we need a new term! the world always needs new terms!


buzz words!...always good to get peoples attention.

mods won't take to kindly to your use of emoticons :| (check the rules)

[RFSU]

This argument all depends on definitions. Does a war have be be declared to count? eg: Vietnam/Kore were officialy police actions but by anyones definition could be called "wars".
In my opinion "The war on terror" could be called WWIV but I think we all know that if a real "World War", with nukes and major nations figthing it out, were to occure that would be called WW3.

[scott]

am i the only one that remembers that this is old news?
john pike's got a really nice section on the topic
at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/world_war_4.htm

take care all

[Zapp Brannigan]

You forgot the link and date...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/
Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 2202 GMT ( 6:02 AM HKT)
Woolsey laid out the World War IV them well before CNN bothered to notice: World War IV (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4718).

A May 2003 white paper sets it out in greater detail: World War IV: Who We're Fighting - And Why? (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_doc/World_War_IV.pdf)

And Woolsey didn't coin the term. Dr. Eliot Cohen of SAIS did, back in November 2001: World War IV: Let's call this conflict what it is (http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=95001493)

Personally, I disagree with Cohen and Woolsey (and I am sure they are distraught to learn that). I consider this current campaign, though primarily focused on Islamists (as a totalitarian political ideology, as distinct from Muslims in general), as one phase of a larger, longer conflict against illiberal totalitarian ideologies. From my perspective, we are still in World War II, which began as a shooting war in 1931, and had ebbed and flowed since, with the 1939-45 period being one major series of campaigns. Obviously, from a purely military perspective almost all of what has occured since 1945 pales by comparison to that period, but the war is more than its campaigns and battles.

Paul Berman has advanced a similar thesis from a decidedly leftist perspective in his book Terror and Liberalism. I find some of his analysis erroneous and his analogies occasionally glib (not that I am immune to that tendency), but for those who are interested in yet another perspective, a summary of his book may be read here (http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/18/berman-p.html)

There is of course ample room to disagree on this matter. Even for people who limit themselves to a War on Terror focused primarily on al-Qa'ida and related Islamists, there is little agreement on when it began. For this phase, I go back to the late 1970s, with the rise of Egypt's Islamist terrorist groups, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and the founding of Hizbullah in Lebanon. Others focus more on when it became an open war between Westerners and Islamists, with the April 1983 embassy bombings and the simultaneous suicide attacks on French paratroopers and US Marines in October of that year. Of course, arguably, Hizbullah was just filling a power vacuum created by the blows inflicted on the Syrian armed forces, the Shi'ite 'Amal, and the PLO as a result of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Broadening one's scope to include non-Islamists such as Syria's Ba'athists, North Korea's old school Stalinists, or Colombian terrorists of the left and the right just complicates the picture (unless you accept my larger thesis, in which case the differences among Ba'athism, Juche, Wahhabism and Khomeinism, among others, are not as important as their similar attitudes toward liberalism, while the differences among, for example, the SPD, Labour and the GOP pale to insignificance in comparison).

[Shadow]

I knew Einstein was wrong with his WWIII, WWWIV thing. :P
Oh and who started both WWs then?

[Viktor_s]

?!?

Is this man stupid ? Or does he think that his audience is stupid ?

Last time I checked, the US was giving financial support to Mubarak every year, that is as high as the one they are giving Israel. So that Mubarak can stay on top of Egypt against the will of his people. If the Egyptian people had its way, a muslim-fundamentalist government would control Egypt.

CNN isn't it? :D

World War means literally World is fighting, i.e. a LOT of countries fighting, not a few ponsy ones that are supplied with weapons and told "Go them 'em tigers!"

[Pandy]

I most have fell asleep too many times in history class, what you guys think?

[TRACER_BULLET]

Zapp Brannigan
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/avatars/160580610540d092a564f63.gif
Location: In the Lovenasium



AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! rofl rofl rofl

[Yosy]

There are historians that say that WW1 and WW2 were the same conflict with a 20-year gap in the middle.

I don't think that the Cold War can be classified as a world war. There were a lot of conflicts, yes, but that doesn't make it a WW. If so then, since the 1800s Europe was involved in a WW bacause there were always conflicts between the colonies of rival nations in Africa.

This is a new war, but not a World War. A Worldwide War yes, but not a WW. This war is fougth, not with invasions and military stuff, but with intelligence, intelligence and more intelligence. And it's just like the old days - HUMINT, recruitment of agents. Forget all the 007 gadgetery - the terrorist organizations use XIX century techniques!

[aartamen]

Actually there was a "world war" before people woke up to the fact that they need to number their wars. It was fought on several continents and most European powers were involved. It was the war of the Augsburg League vs. France in early 18th century. The Napolenic war would probably qualify as well.

[aartamen]

You wanted to say smthng?