The Neocons' Crazy Dream of World War III

Chronique de Rodrigue Tremblay

There are roads one does not follow.

There are armies one does not strike.

There are cities one does not attack.

There are grounds one does not contest.

There are commands of the sovereign one does not

Sun Tzu (c. 544 BC – 496 BC), "The Art of War"
I believe that it [events on the United Airlines

plane that crashed on 9/11] was the first

counter-attack to World War III.

George W. Bush, May 5, 2006
I've told people that, if you're interested in

avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be

interested in preventing them [Iranians] from having

the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

George W. Bush, October 17, 2007
U.S. President George W. Bush "threatens humanity with

World War III, this time using atomic weapons.

Fidel Castro, Cuban dictator
World War III will be a guerrilla information war

with no division between military and civilian


Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980), Canadian thinker
The unleashed power of the atom has changed

everything save our modes of thinking and we thus

drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
I know not with what weapons World War III will be

fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks

and stones.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
The two greatest human catastrophes of the 20th

century were World War I (10 million deaths)
and [World
War II (62 million deaths). ->]
In February, 2002, neocon journalist Norman Podhoretz
(a leading warmonger who is currently senior adviser
to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani)
wrote an article calling for a new World War. He did
it again in an article titled [“World War IV: How It
Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win”
(Commentary magazine, September 2004), calling for
what he called “World War IV“, i.e. a war against the
country of Iran that he demonized by calling its
leaders "Islamofascists" who
cannot be trusted with having nuclear weapons as can
some other countries in the region that already have
them (Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India).
[Podhoretz and other fellow neocons
-> label
their pet world war "World War IV" because they have
decided that the Cold War
( was really
“World War III“.
As a matter of fact, there never was a Third World War between
the nuclear-armed USA and the USSR. Indeed, because of
the policy of containment and deterrence, such
a nuclear holocaust was
avoided and the world lived through the last half of
the 20th century in relative peace.
Unless one is a madman, nobody in his right mind would
contemplate a nuclear world war that would likely kill
hundreds of millions of human beings, and which could
bring forth the collapse of civilization. and lead
to the extermination of human life on
earth. Indeed, nuclear armaments have made total war a
crime against humanity and civilization. It is of
paramount importance to avoid such a calamity.
But when someone is so deeply wrong and confused in
his reading and presentation of history, as Norman
Podhoretz seems to be, why would anyone want to listen
to such a flawed analyst, irresponsibly calling for a
new world war? Well, crazy as it seems, the current
sitting American president does invite [Podhoretz to
the White House
to get advice on how he should frame American foreign
policy in the Middle East. President George W. Bush
went so far as to bestow the [Presidential Medal of
to Podhoretz in 2004. Does he really agree with
crackpot Podhoretz' ideas about preventive nuclear
What's going on? Is the world getting crazy or what?
Let us remind ourselves that 25 years ago, neocon
Podhoretz and other dimwits wanted President Ronald
Reagan to launch a (preventive) nuclear war against
the Soviet Union. Indeed, in the early '80s, [some
neocon advisers->]
around Reagan were deluding themselves and were
arguing that the Soviet Union was preparing for a
pre-emptive attack on the United States. They opposed
President Reagan's efforts at rapprochement. They were
pushing for the U.S. to achieve ''nuclear dominance''
and argued that only a ''strategy of strength''
matters. — Mr. Reagan ridiculed them with their hairy
plan and he was wise enough to dismiss these
exceptionally naive and warmongering "advisers".
What is frightening today is that many of the same
insane Neocons (Podhoretz, Pipes, Perle, ... etc.) are
now advising the current Bush-Cheney administration.
With the operative help of Vice president Dick Cheney, they
have already succeeded in persuading George W. Bush to
invade Iraq, telling him that it would be a "cakewalk"
and that the "war will finance itself" out of Iraq's
oil revenues. Amazingly, Bush's ears are still open to
such wrong-headed advice. Will he be persuaded to
launch a campaign of nuclear bombing against Iran, and
fall into the neocon trap that President Ronald Reagan
If we read into Bush's public pronouncements, he may
be well advanced in fostering that very idea. Indeed,
on October 17, Bush II
speculated aloud, in apocalyptic terms, about getting
engaged in "World War III" if Iran does not bend to
his wishes about its perfectly legal uranium
enrichment program! What is odd is that President
George W. Bush seems to be obsessed about getting
involved in a World War III, while he is probably the
only person on earth who could possibly start one.
— This is most eerie.
Last October 25, the Bush-Cheney administration
pursued its unilateral approach to international
affairs and announced new sanctions
against Iran, designating [Iran's Revolutionary Guard
as a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction" and
its elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism.
Previously, the Bush-Cheney tandem had labeled Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps a "terrorist" organization.
This is reminiscent of the fall of 2002 when Bush Jr.
was cynically swearing on his mother's head that he
was doing anything he could to "prevent" a war against
Iraq, when it is now known that he had already given
the go-ahead to attack Iraq.
Incredibly, the same cynical neocon scenario seems to
be at play during the fall of 2007. The Bush-Cheney
administration is inching up its gratuitous threats
against Iran, while it has stationed three military
naval armadas, more than 150 war ships, in or around
the Persian Gulf. This represents an act of war in
itself. It seems to me that Bush and his real putative
father, Dick Cheney, are trying very hard to start a
fight, and will seize any opportunity or pretext to
launch a hot war against Iran, possibly using nuclear
bombs. As experienced senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.)
has said, the Bush-Cheney's aggressive war action
"not only echoes the chest-pounding rhetoric which
preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2002, but also raises
the specter of an intensified effort to make the case
for an invasion of Iran."
The Bush-Cheney team is now attempting to push aside
Mohamed ElBaradei,
head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
who says that there is no proof that Iran seeks atomic
weapons, just as it pushed aside [chief U.N. inspector
Hans Blix->]
who said, in early 2003, that Iraq had no weapons of
mass destruction. The same charade goes on.
No responsible leader starts wars of aggression (this
is against international law and the U.N. Charter) and
no responsible leader should talk lightly about an
immoral World War that could kill millions of people
and that could threaten the survival of the planet.
Above all, he should not be itching to start one.
— Instead, President George W. Bush should be actively
working to prevent a nuclear war and to make such a
disaster illegal, and not muse aloud how he could
personally be involved in one.

Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached
Also visit [his blog site
Author's Website:
Check Dr. Tremblay's coming book ["The Code for Global
Ethics" ->]

Laissez un commentaire

Aucun commentaire trouvé