Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey told attendees of the Institute of World Politics symposium that World War IV began on Sept. 11.

Woolsey argued that the Cold War was World War III, and that the new world war should target Saddam Hussein as its first major adversary.

Woolsey has been touted as a possible candidate to replace current CIA Director George Tenet, if Tenet resigns.

Before his speech, NewsMax editor Christopher Ruddy chatted with Woolsey.

Asked if there was a need for leadership shakeup at the CIA, Woolsey told Ruddy there was no need for one.

Woolsey explained that the CIA bore no culpability for Sept. 11, since the terrorist operations took place within the borders of the U.S.

Another CIA official, who has been critical of the agency's role in 9-11, told Ruddy he was perplexed by Woolsey's response. The Sept. 11 attacks were planned and orchestrated outside the U.S. – well within the clear jurisdiction of the CIA.

Doubleplusungood.

Under the spreading chestnut tree, I saw you and you saw me...

Actualy It would be World war V. Like many others I count the Napolionic Wars and Bonaparte as WW I

There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree.

Julia. Do it to Julia.

If you want to go that route, Then the 7yrs war (F&I to us americans) could be the 1st world war, since it was a global war involving France, England, India, The Natives (The Iroquis were considered a "nation" at the time, as well as the Shawnee, Cherokee, Miami, Abanaki, etc.) Even Spain had a part.

Of course, the Mongol invasion, The roman wars, the crusades, Etc, were "Global wars" as well, since no one in europe was aware of the americas yet. [argue]

Well, even is we keep the titles "WW I" and "WW II" as applying to the two minor disagreements we went through in the last century, I have to ask....

Did I miss WW III? What channel was it on?

[>:/]

WTF are you guys talking about???

As well as the German states of Prussia, Saxony and Austria, as well as Poland, Russia and a few others, who fought, amongst other things, over possesion of Silesia (compare to the WWs of 14-18 and 39-45). Since in the 7yrs/F+I War we've seen the first destructive mess of alliances and counter-alliances that triggered the WW of 14-18, plus fighting going on on different continents, I have to agree with you that the 7y/F+I War was indeed the first true World War.

I really don't see how you can classify the Cold War as WW3.  I mean, from observation (only 23 so don't have a clear picture of the 50's to 80's) the Cold War seemed more of a preparation for WW3 and a lot of sabre rattling to rial up the other side just to see what they'd do.


Good point about where the WW1 designation should begin though.  Think the reasoning for calling the Great War WW1 is since it was in essence a new type of warfare (trench warfare) with new types of weaponry.  That caused mass casualties.  I mean it was supposed to be the war to end all wars, until WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc...

I mean look at the Boer War.  Its considered the last Gentlemens War.  Somehow standing in an open field firing at people was considered proper...which seeing as how the British troops considered the American snipers in the Revolutionary War and the Germans thought of the shotguns in WW1, I guess it all had a sort of gentlemen quality to it, somehow...

Another reason to call the 7y/F+I Wars the true First World War: they lost initially, and later allied with the (then young) US.

So, for now, our criteria to call a conflict a World War would be:

Fighting on at least 3 continents.
Alliances and counter-alliances that trigger widening of the conflict.
The people of Yugoslavia (or Hungary-Austria back then) fight against each other.
Germans are somehow involved and march into the general direction of Moscow.
The French surrender.
The US wins.

Thus, the 7y/F+I wars were indeed a true World War, so were the wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45.
The Vietnam Wars: no world war, although the French surrendered, and Waffen-SS fought there, Yugoslavia wasn't involved and the regular German army stayed within it's borders.
Next closest suspect: the Yugo Wars of the early 90s. Let's see: Yugoslavia was involved, German Luftwaffe flew missions over the theater, but the French didn't surrender. No world war either.
The Second Gulf War: All of the usual relevant armies played, even France surrendered properly (by forbidding USAF to fly over her territory) but fighting was limited to the Middle East. No world war.
The Cold War: lots of skirmishes and proxy wars all over the place, (East) German military involved in only one minor invasion (Czechoslovakia, 1968), complex alliances, France surrenders (multiple times). We won. But no shot was fired in Yugoslavia. No world war (but that was a narrow decision).

Damn,
Did I miss another war?

ahh, orwell would be proud, the ministry of truth is hard at work today..

How's this for doublespeak:

Let it not be misconstrued that I do not disapprove!

Balming

Well, take it up with the historians.  They're the ones who 'name' the wars in history.

Seems pretty reasonable to me!

LOL!!

Before those, there was the Inquisition... The British Colonization.... hell what was Ghengis Kahn or even the Roman Empire???

Lets see there was the Civil War,spannish American War,Indians WAR,and  some that were there thought of Korea as a war,how about Viet Nam,maybe even the Gulf War,War on Usalma,WW1 and WW2,(quess the Idians was a campain not a War) even if it seamed like it to the Indians at the time!


Any way in my thinking Al Gore should have been President,and Bill Clinton should have been Vice-President(in charge of vice)

 So back to the current thread,just what War are we about now?

 Bob  [8D]              [50]

Damn, that makes my head hurt, just above my left eye!