The Cold War vs The Current Situation

[Wolfala]

I've been doing some thinking, and i've been trying to figure out if we still lived in a Bi-Polar world between the US and USSR, would the rest of the planet would've been better off.

Logic being, not as much attention would've been put toward Arab tensions between the west like they are now.

Thoughts?

Wolf

[Russian]

Yep...many smart people I speak to say same thing.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Wolfala

Logic being, not as much attention would've been put toward Arab tensions between the west like they are now.

1.  9/11, Al Qaeda, etc, are not a problem of "attention".  They are a real problem.  WTC and Pentagon did not get nailed as a result of too much attention.

2.  What was different during the cold war is that both superpowers were competing to align various muslim nations with themselves.  Usually this involved puppet governments which brutally oppressed the islamofascist movement, or at least kept their activities under control.  Islamofascism was only able to arrive as a "third force" after one of the two forces went tits up and the other force became obsessed with autofellatio.

[Yeager]

well said funked1

[lukster]

We were at greater risk of total nuclear annihilation. Amy Carter would tell you that was bad.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
1.  9/11, Al Qaeda, etc, are not a problem of "attention".  They are a real problem.  WTC and Pentagon did not get nailed as a result of too much attention.

2.  What was different during the cold war is that both superpowers were competing to align various muslim nations with themselves.  Usually this involved puppet governments which brutally oppressed the islamofascist movement, or at least kept their activities under control.  Islamofascism was only able to arrive as a "third force" after one of the two forces went tits up and the other force became obsessed with autofellatio.

Yup that's pretty much spot on.  We also had a much bigger military during the cold war.  I remember the post gulf war draw downs and it wasn't pretty.

[Rolex]

I think one of the greatest contributing factors to Osama bin Laden's actions toward the US was the emotion of betrayal. Of course, he was always a radical, but he was America's radical against the Soviets in Afghanistan until he was betrayed by the US. His ability to mobilize and finance terrorism was enhanced by appealing to that emotion in others, starting with the families of his men killed by the Soviets due to the betrayal, and enraged toward revenge by him.

Betrayal simmers forever and can turn even normal people into revenge-seeking monsters.

I also believe that it is the great failure of Iraq. The best and most reliable estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths are in the magnitude of 50,000 and the lessons of Osama bin Laden's betrayal, betrayal of Iranians before that, betrayal of even Hussein have not been learned.

Every Iraqi civilian death means injury to another 6, conservatively. That is 300,000 people who have family, some of them now united in revenge, or moved to action, by the power of  betrayal felt against the 'liberators' of Iraq. The clear lines of cold war political ideology has been replaced by personal revenge, with no border lines, walls or watchtowers.

On your greater question, the preeminence of the US as the sole superpower has no basis in history for perpetuity and true allies have been dropping like flies. In reality, the unrecognized greatest ally of the US is Japan, by virtue of political alignment and total power.

If the US loses that alignment, it's left alone in the world with only some minor players to fend off the march toward the inevitable dominance competition from China, India and a more unified EU (if that happens).

So, the cold war, or something akin to it, will return soon enough.

[john9001]

<>

oh brother. poor o'slamy, betrayed by the evil infidel imperial US, oh the horror, allah save us.

[Rolex]

"poor o'slamy" is, without a doubt, evil and should have been dealt with by now. You're reaching and mischaracterizing my intent.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Rolex
I think one of the greatest contributing factors to Osama bin Laden's actions toward the US was the emotion of betrayal. Of course, he was always a radical, but he was America's radical against the Soviets in Afghanistan until he was betrayed by the US. His ability to mobilize and finance terrorism was enhanced by appealing to that emotion in others, starting with the families of his men killed by the Soviets due to the betrayal, and enraged toward revenge by him.

Betrayal simmers forever and can turn even normal people into revenge-seeking monsters.

I also believe that it is the great failure of Iraq. The best and most reliable estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths are in the magnitude of 50,000 and the lessons of Osama bin Laden's betrayal, betrayal of Iranians before that, betrayal of even Hussein have not been learned.

Every Iraqi civilian death means injury to another 6, conservatively. That is 300,000 people who have family, some of them now united in revenge, or moved to action, by the power of  betrayal felt against the 'liberators' of Iraq. The clear lines of cold war political ideology has been replaced by personal revenge, with no border lines, walls or watchtowers.

On your greater question, the preeminence of the US as the sole superpower has no basis in history for perpetuity and true allies have been dropping like flies. In reality, the unrecognized greatest ally of the US is Japan, by virtue of political alignment and total power.

If the US loses that alignment, it's left alone in the world with only some minor players to fend off the march toward the inevitable dominance competition from China, India and a more unified EU (if that happens).

So, the cold war, or something akin to it, will return soon enough.

Osama's biggest grudge is the fact that US soldiers defended Arabian soil when Iraq invaded kuwait in 91.  He offered the help of his "fighters" and the royal family said thanks but no thanks.  

I don't beleive he was ever truely "betrayed" by the US.  You also seem to draw some conclusion that all them deaths are at the hands of Americans????

[Rolex]

I am not drawing the conclusion, gunslinger! The Iraqis will draw conclusions, right or wrong. The image and impression of blame will fall onto all the troops of the nations that have participated - right or wrong.

What the heck is wrong with you? You can't understand that?

And in regards to OBL, it was Afghanistan and the killing of his men after the US pulled material support and left him hanging against the Soviets, after encouraging and supplying him for years.

This stuff is all in the past and well known and documented. Are you going to say that the Sun revolves around the Earth too? What the heck are you reading or watching or believing to have such a gross misunderstanding?

I feel like I'm talking to 12 year olds here, sometimes.

The issue is about hidden policy decisions that have future consequences, using proxy fighters. Overt policy decisions concerning fundamental differences and positions that delineate lines creating a cold war are different. And that is part of what Wolfala has asked.

{added} You know what? Some of you jump off the cliff of false assumptions and conclusions too easily. You aren't able to discuss what an opponent's reasoning or motivation may be without assuming the writer supports that reasoning.

Only by analyzing 'why' or 'what' an opponent wants or thinks, can you ever advance beyond animal reactions.

[Squire]

With respect, what does it matter what OBL "biggest" grudge is, or was. He hates the west, as does his followers, and would have no shortage or reasons to draw on. Only he knows what his biggest gripe is, and at this point, who cares.

Secondly, I would caution people who talk of the Cold War with a sense of nostalga. Yes, its true the US and NATO had stronger militaries, but then we were facing a very large military force in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.  It cost a lot of $$$, and the chance for an accidental nuclear exchange was very real.

Look, we ended up with getting the rest of Eastern Europe out of Soviet domination, as well as removing any immediate threat to Western Europe, without having to go through a costly war to do it. Thats a good thing. Ex Soviet client states ran out of money, so they had to get on with getting their economic houses in order, thats a good thing. Now they want to trade, not build more munitions (there are a few holdouts, like N. Korea, but not many).

The Middle East has been a problem for many years, it was a problem during the cold war, and its a problem now, but just because there are issues with Islamic Fundamentalism isnt cause for seeing the old West/East stand off as "the good old days". That is a "glass is half empty" view imho.

As for a bi-polar world, I would argue we still have that. We have states that want to trade and live in peace, or are moving towards that goal, and we have either failed states, or states that have populations or governments that really dont want peace (at least not with us), that need to be dealt with by the world community. Hopefully without war, but we have to have that option if and when its required.

Terrorism, either domestic or foreign (in its many variations) will always be with us, there is always going to be some splinter group somewhere that has enough people who are willing to use violence to their ends, they too need to be dealt with.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Rolex
I am not drawing the conclusion, gunslinger! The Iraqis will draw conclusions, right or wrong. The image and impression of blame will fall onto all the troops of the nations that have participated - right or wrong.

What the heck is wrong with you? You can't understand that?

And in regards to OBL, it was Afghanistan and the killing of his men after the US pulled material support and left him hanging against the Soviets, after encouraging and supplying him for years.

This stuff is all in the past and well known and documented. Are you going to say that the Sun revolves around the Earth too? What the heck are you reading or watching or believing to have such a gross misunderstanding?

I feel like I'm talking to 12 year olds here, sometimes.

The issue is about hidden policy decisions that have future consequences, using proxy fighters. Overt policy decisions concerning fundamental differences and positions that delineate lines creating a cold war are different. And that is part of what Wolfala has asked.

{added} You know what? Some of you jump off the cliff of false assumptions and conclusions too easily. You aren't able to discuss what an opponent's reasoning or motivation may be without assuming the writer supports that reasoning.

Only by analyzing 'why' or 'what' an opponent wants or thinks, can you ever advance beyond animal reactions.

I completly disagree with you.  Every day I work side by side with individuals that have worked side by side with Iraqis and they KNOW the difference.  It's not American troops that are conducting suicide bombings and kidnappings its those that do not wish for a better Iraq.  

IPA and ING troops grieve just as much as Americans do when their fellow soldiers die.  You pitting this blame on Americans is pitifull.  Yes image is everything but the simple truth is the every day common iraqi doesn't read western newspapers to see what is going on in Iraq, they just look out the window.  When they see American troops bleeding along side Iraqi troops they don't paint the connection that it's the Americans doing the killings.  They don't see Americans blowing up mosqes to start a civil war.  They dont see American suicide bombers blowing up religious gatherings.  These are down by the "top 3" that we fight againts along side the Iraqis.  I only argue this point because you brought it up.  

I think your conclusions are completly wrong and rather than haveing a discussion about it you procede to insult rather than to reference.

Here's what I am referring to in black and white.  It is a well known fact:

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered to help defend Saudi Arabia (with 12,000 armed men) but was rebuffed by the Saudi government. Bin Laden publicly denounced his government's dependence on the U.S. military and demanded an end to the presence of foreign military bases in the country. According to reports (by the BBC and others), the 1990/91 deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in connection with the Gulf War profoundly shocked and revolted bin Laden and other Islamist militants because the Saudi government claims legitimacy based on their role as guardians of the sacred Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. After the Gulf War cease-fire agreement left Saddam Hussein remaining in power in Iraq, the ongoing presence of long-term bases for non-Muslim U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia continued to undermine the Saudi rulers' perceived legitimacy and inflamed anti-government Islamist militants, including bin Laden. Bin Laden's increasingly strident criticisms of the Saudi monarchy led the government to expel him to Sudan in 1991. Bin Laden was accepted in Sudan by the ruling National Islamic Front (NIF), which may have hoped he could aid them through his wealth and construction company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Jihadist where successfull in repelling the soviets with or without help from the pakis and CIA.  

With reguards to the suads he was globally embarrased and then expelled from the holey land itself.  



In relation to the thread itself I think that humans will allways struggle.  Where there is a power vacum it will eventually be filled by those wanting to step up the plate.  In the abscence of the soviet union there was a huge vacume to filled.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Every day I work side by side with individuals that have worked side by side with Iraqis and they KNOW the difference.

Which indicates that your information is: 1. Hearsay, 2.  Probably comes from too small of a sample, 3. comes from a bias sample (they self select to give this infomation to US military personal).

This is the reason that companies spend a bajillion dollars a year on scientific polling in order to guide thier decisions.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Squire
With respect, what does it matter what OBL "biggest" grudge is, or was. He hates the west, as does his followers, and would have no shortage or reasons to draw on. Only he knows what his biggest gripe is, and at this point, who cares.

Yet surprisingly alot of military strategy scholars think believe that understanding your enemy and thier motivations is a great way to knowing how to defeat them.