CNN: Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by patrick0brien, Apr 3, 2003.

  1. macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #1
  2. macrumors 6502a

    crazytom

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    IL
    #2
    Re: CNN: Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'

    Did you read the article?

    " 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, ..."
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #3
    -crazytom

    Yessir! Couple of times! He's trying to call the cold war World War III, but that's a first in my book.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    crazytom

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    IL
    #4
    I'll admit that it's a first for me, too...

    But I have to wonder what would constitute a war being called a "World War" nowadays?
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    lmalave

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    Chinatown NYC
    #5
    It kind of makes sense, though. He's looking at conflicts that split most of the world into two camps. The Cold war clearly pitted Communism vs. Capitalism and involved most of the world, it was just a much lower intensity conflict.

    His terminology is rather extreme, but this "clash of civilizations" has been foreseen for years now. Like I asked in another thread: Syria or Iran next? Right now my money's on Syria.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    How'd I get here? How can I leave?
    #6
    Despotic regimes. You gotta love 'em.
    We're just cleaning up the mess from the last century.
    When you think about it. This struggle has been going on for millenia. Nothing new.
    Jews, Arabs, political agendas, mistrust, distrust, and plain good ol' hate.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #7
    JesseJames - what are you talking about?
    What mess from the last century are we (US?) "cleaning up".
    I guess you're being sarcastic but about what I don't know.
    To explain away a war by saying "this kind of thing's been going on for years" with a kind of shrug-of-the-shoulders inevitibility seems callous to me. That's the kind of impotent sentiment that tyrants (on all sides) rely on, leaving them free to get on with their dirty business.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    It's easy to see the Cold War as WWIII.

    -- It encircled the globe, that's a fact.

    -- It was a shooting war -- despite the "Cold" designation -- where the two opposing forces used other people and other nations to wage their battles against each other rather than attack one another outright.
     
  9. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    Except in Vietnam and Afghanistan....
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    lmalave

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    Chinatown NYC
    #10
    Vietnam and Korea, you mean? We were never "officially" involved in Afghanistan - we just gave covert aid to the Mujaheedin. Have you been watching too much Rambo?
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #11
    Actually all these wars have their own themes of defeat...

    WWI: Imperialism
    WWII: Facism
    Cold War: Communism
    War on Terrorism

    What's the next one?
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #12
    NavyIntel007:

    Freedom.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #13
    Freedom.

    Edit: Damn. Too quick for me.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #14
    Thanatoast:

    Dude, you're 60 seconds behind. Get with it. :)
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    crazytom

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    IL
    #15
    To follow the trend, Freedom isn't an 'ism'...unless we start calling it 'freedomism'...:eek:

    :p

    The environmentalist in me thinks the last war we'll have to fight will be against the 'organism' we call Earth. With enough SUV's on the road, victory is all ours *sinister laugh*!!!
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #16
    This is probably more like WW VI or something like that.

    The concept of a World War isn't what it used to be.
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    That's kind of a fallacy. I'd say all those wars were the result of expansionist imperialism. You're looking at it from the view of the US having "defeated" all these "enemies," which is a bit oversimplification and a little self-righteous.

    WWI was indeed the result of imperialism, but to say imperialism was defeated is wrong. It simply shuffled the deck as to who the imperialist powers could be.

    WWII was simply the second phase of that war, being that it never really ended. I wouldn't say it was about defeating fascism at all; nobody really cared about fascism until Hitler's imperial land grabs got to be too much. Even then, it wasn't a war against fascism but the German nation.

    The Cold War was about the imperialism of ideas and control -- communism vs. capitalism -- and who could spread their view and influence further.

    The "War on Terror," well, doesn't really exist as there's no one to "defeat." The only way to fight a War on Terror short of becoming a total police state is to make people stop wanting to attack you, and the administration is doing all it can to make sure that's not happening. You could say the War on Terror is an attempt by the US to enforce its ideals and controls on the world while not giving them a voice or a method of striking back. In that sense, it would be a war against opposition.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #18
    Very insightful, pseudobrit. Wouldn't've thought of that myself. Didn't in fact. Ha! But anyways, I find you point intriguing. All major wars so far have been about imperialism...the expansion of power and influence over our external enemies. But now the enemies are internal. I think you're right, it's either police state or less hate. I vote less hate. Do I have a second from the floor?

    :hides face with shame: ;)
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    Kethoticus

    #19
    WWV

    Alien Expansionism. Hey, you never know.

    I half agree with you. When someone's single-minded fixation is to destroy you, I don't see how waging a propaganda war is necessarily going to clog up his efforts.

    However, I do believe that while our war against terror has been multi-faceted, it has ignored one very important dimension: doing what we can to win the hearts and minds of Arab Muslims. The fanatics have a great voice and are able to get their message out to ignorant, poor masses who likely have little in the way of morale or self-esteem. We need to learn how to counter that and show these Muslims that we are not trying to wipe out their way of life or religion--lies the fanatical leaders are pounding into their skulls.


    Oh brother. I'll tell that to Osama next time he tries to blow up a skyscraper or a dam or something. I can picture it now... a tear will come to his eye as he realizes there is an American who understands. There is an American who understands that attacking terrorists is not about self-defense, but about imposing our will on the terrorists... err... innocent sheep-herders of the ME.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    Re: WWV

    I don't think a propaganda war is the right avenue in this case. We've tried that and it rings hollow, as it should. What's needed are serious concessions to Arab demands, aid and providing them with defense. Right now, the US tries to tell the Arabs we're with them while pumping money and guns into Israel. You can't have it both ways; Israel can take care of herself.

    And this is a war against opposition, as we're admittedly no longer after bin Laden. To misquote and misuse the line from that stupid country song, "Bush has forgotten." If Osama is and was not the target, then the target can be whomever we say it is. This month it's Iraq! Lucky them!
     
  21. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    No. I meant Vietnam and Afghanistan, being examples of how the USA and the USSR did not ALWAYS use proxy armies during the Cold War.
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Location:
    How'd I get here? How can I leave?
    #22
    Yeah, I guess I'm getting too cynical for my own good. I need a vacation.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    Yes, but they never fought each other directly and overtly, that's the key.
     
  24. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #24
    Re: Re: WWV

    Who said that? Didn't we send a thousand troops into southern afgnastan to get rid of some more pockets of Al-Qaida and Taliban at the same time we started going into a iraq?
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    ebow

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Trapped in a world before later on
    #25
    Directly and covertly though. As far as I know, it's a pretty sure thing Soviet pilots were flying some of the North Korean MiGs, in a few air battles with US pilots over Korea. No real point here; I just find it interesting that the Cold War did involve a tiny bit of real shooting between the two superpowers.
     

Share This Page