The New Cold War Paradigm

[PokrLikeItsProse]

If the real target is Iran, the U.S. would have been better served by publicly kissing and making up with Saddam Hussein and setting him as a pit bull against Iran and al-Qaeda (remember that Osama bin Ladin wanted to bring in his people and take back Kuwait from Saddam). After it's all over, then you can stab Saddam Hussein in the back and do whatever you want.

[J. Henry Christ]

[ QUOTE ]
If the real target is Iran, the U.S. would have been better served by publicly kissing and making up with Saddam Hussein and setting him as a pit bull against Iran and al-Qaeda (remember that Osama bin Ladin wanted to bring in his people and take back Kuwait from Saddam). After it's all over, then you can stab Saddam Hussein in the back and do whatever you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a great foreign policy for the world's so-called ambassadors of freedom, democracy, and human rights. No wonder we are so loved by all.

[J. Henry Christ]

[ QUOTE ]
the Russians were a superpower that desired a large sphere of influence,

[/ QUOTE ]

Many historians would dispute this assertion. From the Russian perspective, the US was a clear and present threat with 1000s of troops stationed outside Russia's borders, superior technology and economic base, and clearly self-appointed to check and eventually defeat their political system (communism). From this viewpoint, wouldn't you fear US power and the US's desire for large sphere of influence?

Also, Russia generally spread its influence only after US threat, or as an opportunity to hurt the US after it involved itslef in third-party wars (see Korea and Vietnam which both started as nationalistic wars and only received Russian backing after US invoilved itself; the exact same way in which US began backing Osama and Co. once they got involved w/ Russia in Afghan.). Russian influence in Eastern Europe was set up as a buffer to protect the homeland after twice in the previous 30 years being invaded preemptively by a German juggernaut, which led to two wars in which Russians lost millions and millions of lives (Russian military and civilian deaths during WWI and WWII exceed that of any other nation, exceeding the US totals by ~50x).

In summary, the entire perspective of the US when it comes to Russian intentions and offensive goals is skewed by most, as a result of being fed politicians' lies and half-truths for 60 years. From an objective point of view, Russia's actions after WWII are reasonable and the threat posed by the newly ascendent and increasingly aggressive US was very real. This does not mean I condone Russia's aims (I abhor their communism completely), but it is not fair to assert that their aims were to expand and spread their influence. Rather their aims were to secure themselves against the obvious threat posed by the US and its very powerful European allies.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I see a marked similarity in the language and outlook of both excerpts. Anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see the similarities in the excerpts, but the parallels for the most part end with the excerpts.

The Cold War was fought to a standoff, and very little blood was shed in direct conflict between Soviet forces and American forces. The threat of nuclear annihilation restrained both sides, and in the end the stalemate provided time for the Soviet Union to collapse from within due to its malaise and growing awareness of its inherent flaws.

During those years (post Kruschev) I don't have any memories of truly fanatical Communists (perhaps I would had I gone to a "better" University). Our government realized the Soviet leadership was for the most part restrained and sober (no vodka pun intended), and as long as they understood the consequences of their launching an attack (whether it be a missile attack or a tank attack on Western Europe) we could be reasonably certain there would be no attack. We had our own "strike first" nuts (e.g., General Curtis LeMay), but they never had a chance with the strong civilian control of our military.

But the growing strength of radical Islamic ideology among the young in that region is far stronger than belief in communism among Soviet youth ever was (except perhaps in the very early days just after 1917). If a Russian youngster became a member of the Young Communist League (I forget if that was exactly what it was called), it was more to assure a place in the bureaucracy or a good job. But the youth being trained in fundamentalist Islamic schools in the Middle East are more than willing to devote their lifes and die for their cause. And their cause is for the most part subjugation of all to Islamic law.

~ Rick

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
That Iran wishes to see regimes to its liking spread to other countries is important. Accurately assessing what it is doing to bring this about is also important. Ignoring other causes of bad things in the world, as we often did during the Cold War, can lead to tragedy.

[/ QUOTE ]


andy,

This is obviously true, i.e. that no matter how profound a threat posed by a certain state or group, we can't afford to ignore other ones that may become larger problems later. So what is key is determining how serious a threat Iran is right now and thus what priority should be placed on dealing with it (and you really haven't laid out an argument that the administration's assessment of the Iranian threat is wrong per se).

Chuck Norris (yes I will take some kidding for using something he said no doubt), in his book The Secret Power Within, based heavily on his martial arts knowledge and expertise, elucidated a principle which I believe to be applicable to any geo-stategic considerations for our nation. That principle if I can recall approximately the right wording is, "go to meet those who attack first". That is, when faced with multiple threats deal with the one closest to you.

Applying that, I cannot see how there is a more pressing or close threat than Islamic terrorism in all its facets, which includes Iranian backing for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, and the extreme and grave threat that could be posed by Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and either providing some to a terrorist group, or in using same to shield itself from conventional retaliation for its support of terrorism or its own military actions against other states. And as serious a threat as North Korea might pose now, it is not as "ripe" as that posed by Iran. Iran simply is the point man of a squad of various threats, and you take out the point man first.

[dazraf69]

[ QUOTE ]
The Cold War was fought to a standoff, and very little blood was shed in direct conflict between Soviet forces and American forces. The threat of nuclear annihilation restrained both sides, and in the end the stalemate provided time for the Soviet Union to collapse from within due to its malaise and growing awareness of its inherent flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can a history expert chime in here. I believe that much of the cold war revolved around the fear of communism. We went to Korea and Vietnam in the name of democracy where tens of thousands of people died. So the comment "with little bloodshed" seems to be inheritable wrong. And the collapse was strongly aided by US influence.

Thoughts would be appreciated.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the real target is Iran, the U.S. would have been better served by publicly kissing and making up with Saddam Hussein and setting him as a pit bull against Iran and al-Qaeda (remember that Osama bin Ladin wanted to bring in his people and take back Kuwait from Saddam). After it's all over, then you can stab Saddam Hussein in the back and do whatever you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a great foreign policy for the world's so-called ambassadors of freedom, democracy, and human rights. No wonder we are so loved by all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more with you Christ, but i think PokrLikeItsProse wanted to stress something else. IF the real threat is Iran, things would go in totally different direction from the beginning. And here is the point - someone needs another wars / instability and that's scarier to me than Iran threat.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Cold War was fought to a standoff, and very little blood was shed in direct conflict between Soviet forces and American forces. The threat of nuclear annihilation restrained both sides, and in the end the stalemate provided time for the Soviet Union to collapse from within due to its malaise and growing awareness of its inherent flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can a history expert chime in here. I believe that much of the cold war revolved around the fear of communism. We went to Korea and Vietnam in the name of democracy where tens of thousands of people died. So the comment "with little bloodshed" seems to be inheritable wrong. And the collapse was strongly aided by US influence.

Thoughts would be appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume he mean 'very little bloodshed for white people' or such.

Yes I'm being offensive and biased.