• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

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

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,941
4
0
Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former CIA director James Woolsey said Wednesday that 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 possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a post-war 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.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,311
8
81
Perhaps the main problem with that article is that thanks to factors like al-Jazeera (and other Arab propaganda outlets), the fundamentalist Islamic madrassahs of Pakistan and other Islamic countries, the iron control of dictators such as Saddam and Assad, and the rise of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia and its export to other countries, "the people" are not on the side of the US.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
I called it first, several months ago now.

There are a few who might be able to vouch for me, because I don't even begin to remember which threads I posted in several months ago and then some.

But basically, I stated in a few threads that we were witnessing the rise of another fanatical extremist movement of the likes few people have ever seen on this earth except perhaps those who are old enough to remember the Third Reich.

Except this one will make the Third Reich look like a bunch of pacifists. There is no more dangerous fanatic than a religious fanatic...and there are about 250 million of them to deal with.

Before its over, we'll have to kill a whole lot of fanatical Muslim extremists because you're not going to 'undo' or 'pluck-out' the hatred from their hearts and minds. You can't reason with them, because extremists harbor irrational beliefs. You can't have negotiations with them, because negotiation requires the ability to reason.

The only way to 'co-exist' with them peacefully is six feet under. Better them than me.
 

bauerbrazil

Senior member
Mar 21, 2000
359
0
0
Originally posted by: tcsenter

But basically, I stated in a few threads that we were witnessing the rise of another fanatical extremist movement of the likes few people have ever seen on this earth except perhaps those who are old enough to remember the Third Reich.
Yeah, the Bushism.

The only way to 'co-exist' with them peacefully is six feet under. Better them than me.
Hum, better you than me.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,660
33
91
Originally posted by: tcsenter
I called it first, several months ago now.
There are a few who might be able to vouch for me, because I don't even begin to remember which threads I posted in several months ago and then some.
But basically, I stated in a few threads that we were witnessing the rise of another fanatical extremist movement of the likes few people have ever seen on this earth except perhaps those who are old enough to remember the Third Reich.
But it takes two to tango. American geoploitics is more akin to the Third Reich than these small groups. These people are more akin to the Finns during WW2, as they resorted to the definitions of terrorism to resist Nazi occupation. The Nazi government forcibly occupied the territory of other countries in order to push their own BETTER viewpoints.


Before making high accusations like this you need to consider the consequences.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
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.
with regard to iran, he needs to be more specific, since khatami, a democratically elected president, cannot be counted among the
fanatical orthodox elite that hold disproportionate power against growing majority discontent.

It will be America's backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he
said.
iran has more than a 'democratic movement'. its a democratic republic that needs more democratic reform to knock a cadre of
old revolutionary mullahs from their perch.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,660
33
91
Iran's military is who he'd be fingering, not the government. They do not quite see issues eye to eye.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Iran has 62 million people, half of those under the age of 25, once Iraq is democratic and free they will rise AGAIN, hopefully they will bring the change about internally.

Iran is an Islamic Republic, not a democracy.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Iran has 62 million people, half of those under the age of 25, once Iraq is democratic and free they will rise AGAIN, hopefully they will bring the change about internally.

Iran is an Islamic Republic, not a democracy.

khatami was elected, so in that sense it's a democracy.

the u.s. is not a democracy either, it's also a republic.
 

zer0burn

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2002
1,485
0
0
This war will have great ramifications throughout the middle east that we'll be seeing for years to come.

Hopefully troops will not have to be stationed in iraq like they have to be in SK...


I just hope this doesnt explode into a conflict were America tries to make all the middle east countries a democracy and spread their views.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: FallenHero
am i missing something? He said world war 4...when was the third one?
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."
It all depends on how Iraq turns out in the next year. If the propaganda that is being spread can be countered and the truth be told about what really happened in Iraq than it may turn out all right.

I see the spread of misinformation to the "Arab street" as a large part of the problem.
 

zer0burn

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2002
1,485
0
0
I agree there is mis information spread but the hatred of America is deeply routed in past actions that they've taken in regards to middle east policies.

If I was from the middle east I would probably hold a deep resentment towards them.

link
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: zer0burn
I agree there is mis information spread but the hatred of America is deeply routed in past actions that they've taken in regards to middle east policies.

If I was from the middle east I would probably hold a deep resentment towards them.

link
Many of those actions were years ago and it is a type of misinformation to keep bringing up the past as it is still current. For the sake of discussion what past actions do you think were the most egregious on the part of the US, top three?

Do you think that those actions are being overblown as a justification for current Arab state conditions when in reality they aren't?
How do you counter those false perceptions?
 

zer0burn

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2002
1,485
0
0
I believe that mainly the vetoing of isreali un sanctions and the backing of isreali as the one that causes the most damage.

These still should be mentioned and talked about because people maybe able to forgive but you never forget.

I dont believe these has any justification for the current arab conditions as I never mentioned anything about that. Im just relating the two between the hatred of US when a lot of Americans are under the false perception that its due to their freedoms and that they have a democratic government.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: zer0burn
I agree there is mis information spread but the hatred of America is deeply routed in past actions that they've taken in regards to middle east policies.

If I was from the middle east I would probably hold a deep resentment towards them.

link
Many of those actions were years ago and it is a type of misinformation to keep bringing up the past as it is still current. For the sake of discussion what past actions do you think were the most egregious on the part of the US, top three?

Do you think that those actions are being overblown as a justification for current Arab state conditions when in reality they aren't?
How do you counter those false perceptions?
If the below is accurate I guess it would stick in a good many craws. I don't think what's important to them is that something specific happened in '49 - rather that the US has a history of making decisions which adversly affect them.

1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self‑defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.
Cheers,

Andy
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: zer0burn
I agree there is mis information spread but the hatred of America is deeply routed in past actions that they've taken in regards to middle east policies.

If I was from the middle east I would probably hold a deep resentment towards them.

link
Many of those actions were years ago and it is a type of misinformation to keep bringing up the past as it is still current. For the sake of discussion what past actions do you think were the most egregious on the part of the US, top three?

Do you think that those actions are being overblown as a justification for current Arab state conditions when in reality they aren't?
How do you counter those false perceptions?
If the below is accurate I guess it would stick in a good many craws. I don't think what's important to them is that something specific happened in '49 - rather that the US has a history of making decisions which adversly affect them.

1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self‑defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.
Cheers,

Andy
Andy, that's a good example of the type of hate-mongering that I was talking about. You present only one side of the context and no reasons why the US and Israel took those actions. That sort of misleading misinformation is why the Arab street is so confused about what has really happened in the past.

Good example, thanks.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
Andy, that's a good example of the type of hate-mongering that I was talking about. You present only one side of the context and no reasons why the US and Israel took those actions. That sort of misleading misinformation is why the Arab street is so confused about what has really happened in the past.

Good example, thanks.
My point was that regardless of the merit of the actions - people will remeber an event the US did not veto which led to the death of 17,000 civilians (quoting the article here).

I'm not making a judgement of whether they're right to be p*ssed about it given WHY it happened, only that such an event will obviously (along with others) serve to breed hatred towards the US.

ie Sometimes a military war on terrorism might not yield the desired overall result - an increase in security and decrease in hate.

Cheers,

Andy
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
That's the point isn't it? It does not matter why the actions were taken by the US or Israel, all that is portrayed is one side of the story which is often embellished with misinformation thrown in for good measure.

For the record, why did Israel move into Lebanon? Zmag doesn't seem to bother to mention that.

edit
I read some more of that list. When I get home tonight we could have an interesting time going through the misinformation in that list. I use misinformation in the sense of not listing the entire story or both sides.



 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: etech
That's the point isn't it? It does not matter why the actions were taken by the US or Israel, all that is portrayed is one side of the story which is often embellished with misinformation thrown in for good measure.
I do not doubt that there have actions taken by both Israel and the US that have merit. I also do not doubt that because the US supports and is the biggest supporter to be seen supporting Israel - the radical Arab world see them as one with Israel as being responsible for the "occupation". In that way a great deal of hatred is provided for against the US - regardless of your interpretation of the Qur'an. Is any one side completely responsible for this abhorant situation? - certainly not - and so again the US is demonised for sticking by Israel and doing their vetoing for them - unfailingly in their eyes.

IMHO Its now come to the point that every time violence occurs in the middle-east the US/Israel are to blame one way or the other.

How can this move forward? IMHO The same way it was moving forward just 3 years ago. There are branches for dialogue with the Palestinians, and there are those who do not yet know whether to take the extremeist or moderate route - on both sides. IMHO by pushing Israel back to some sort of dialogue (and their current administration needs to be pushed to de-escalate like no other I can remember) - however limited - the US will be doing more for long-term mid-east peace than any amount of other support could possibly provide. I would say push the Palestinians as well - but I think that is more of a "coax" than a "push" as the US does not wield the same influence over them as it does Israel.

For the record, why did Israel move into Lebanon? Zmag doesn't seem to bother to mention that.
I would like to know this too - along with the reasons that whatever problem in Lebanon got to the point it did.

Cheers,

Sorry I waffled on! Andy.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
short of time, just one point to make.

IMHO Its now come to the point that every time violence occurs in the middle-east the US/Israel are to blame one way or the other.
I agree, whether or not the US or Israel had anything to do with the situation, they are blamed for it. That's the problem as I see it and why I am so distressed about the misinformation that is spread. The lies do not help the situation and only lead to more violence and hate. The Zmag site you linked to is a good example of that type of spreading hate. You noted that it did not explain the historical context of the actions in Lebanon. It does not explain the context of any of those "points" it tries to make.

Some people believe that an isolated tidbit of history is all they need to know to understand what happened. They are the ones that keep the violence going.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,941
4
0
Originally posted by: zer0burn
I agree there is mis information spread but the hatred of America is deeply routed in past actions that they've taken in regards to middle east policies.

If I was from the middle east I would probably hold a deep resentment towards them.

link
Any chance you have a list of what the muslim countries have done? Such as Egypt and Syrias attempt to invade Israel? Their support for terrorism and other dictators? Their abuses of their own people?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY