Cold War vs. Iraq

[Animal]

I'm quite sure we all remember the Cold War between the US and USSR, or at the very least are familiar with the situation. Now, in my opionion the Cold War was much more of a severe issue than the current Iraq situation.
The USSR and US were really the only two super powers at the time, and had they actually gone to war the results would have been devastating. At that time the USSR was viewed as the "Red Menace," attempting world domination, quite considerably more of a proposed threat than Iraq is today.

So, I ask this. If the Cold War was averted without war, the outcome quite favourable for the US, why can't this minor (in comparison) issue with Iraq be resolved the same way?

EDIT:
My views on this impending war are very apparent: I am against war as a solution to a problem that needs solving. You have every right to disagree with me, and I have no problem with that. I do however have a problem with being personally attacked and disrespected for voicing such opionions, as I have not once resorted to such behaviour. If you feel the need to continue to berate me for not agreeing with you, then do so in a PM, and I would be more than happy to oblige you.

[ 03-12-2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Animal ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Other than the fact that it took 45 years? Other than the fact that terrorist with WoMD aren't constrained by MAD as the US and Soviets were? Other than the fact that Saddam can be stopped and that the Soviets couldn't?

[ 03-12-2003, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[skywalker]

The way I see it. We (the USA) never went to war with the Soviets because we were too evenly matched. Never start a war that you can't win. Vietnam taught us some things.

Now, seriously, Iraq has little chance of putting up much of a fight and most experts believe a war would be over in weeks if not days. Iraq has been crippled since the Gulf War and has little chance of withstanding an invasion of USA, nevermind if there is a coalition force.

It makes it appear that we will only strike the easy targets...as Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm not saying that is so, but it looks that way.

Mark

[Animal]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Other than the fact that it took 45 years? Other than the fact that terrorist with WoMD aren't constrained by MAD as the US and Soviets were? Other than the fact that this can be stopped and that couldn't?

The only difference, is that Iraq is nowhere near as powerful as the USSR was at that time. Perhaps, I'm wrong, but if Iraq was a military equal to the US, things would be unfolding a little differently than they are now. The risk of US and British casualties against Iraq today is minimal, where as against the USSR, they're was a serious threat of considerable damage to both sides.

Perhaps it was that threat of damage to US forces, or even US soil that led to a peaceful solution to the Cold War, where as today there really isn't that "little voice" telling Bush he stands a real chance of getting his ass whipped.

I think if a situation as potent and potentially deadly as the Cold War could be averted without resorting to all out warfare, then the Iraq issue certainly can be.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: It makes it appear that we will only strike the easy targets...as Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm not saying that is so, but it looks that way.

Apparently easy targets or not, it's ridiculous to assume we shouldn't deal with the problems we can deal with in an expeditious manner....

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Animal: I think if a situation as potent and potentially deadly as the Cold War could be averted without resorting to all out warfare, then the Iraq issue certainly can be.

The fact that the continued existance of the human race was at stake regarding a war between the US and Soviets was a pretty good reason to act differently during the Cold War wouldn't you say?

Do we wait until Iraq is an equal before considering military action in order to be fair? Do we ignore anything until then or do we act now? Which is the smart decision? I know your answer, but I disagree.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by skywalker: It makes it appear that we will only strike the easy targets...as Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm not saying that is so, but it looks that way.

Apparently easy targets or not, it's ridiculous to assume we shouldn't deal with the problems we can deal with in an expeditious manner....[/QUOTE]But you have to consider the cost of such action. I read that today the Whitehouse has ordered that French Fries by renamed as Freedom Fries and French Toast be renamed to Freedom Toast and would like the rest of the country to follow suit, all because of the French veto issue. The US has pulled business out of Germany, Turkey is now saying they will not let the US use it's airspace and they haven't even declared war yet.

So what happens if the US and Britain do invade? Will sanctions be placed against the US by other countries? What's North Korea up to while the world's attention is focused on Iraq? The consequences of war reach further than just the cost of lives.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: I think if a situation as potent and potentially deadly as the Cold War could be averted without resorting to all out warfare, then the Iraq issue certainly can be.

The fact that the continued existance of the human race was at stake regarding a war between the US and Soviets was a pretty good reason to act differently during the Cold War wouldn't you say?

Do we wait until Iraq is an equal before considering military action in order to be fair? Do we ignore anything until then or do we act now? Which is the smart decision? I know your answer, but I disagree. [/QUOTE]I highly doubt that Iraq would be an equal to the US anytime during Saddam's lifetime. I'm not saying that we ignore the issue, far from it, but the end of the Cold War proved that warfare wasn't necessary and I believe that warfare isn't necessary today. Saddam is effectively boxed in, and has no ability to do anything at this point. His is disarming, albeit slowly, but still disarming. What's the rush? Are the troops stationed there needed somewhere else?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Animal: But you have to consider the cost of such action. But you have to consider the cost of inaction. I read that today the Whitehouse has ordered that French Fries by renamed as Freedom Fries and French Toast be renamed to Freedom Toast and would like the rest of the country to follow suit, all because of the French veto issue. The US has pulled business out of Germany, Turkey is now saying they will not let the US use it's airspace and they haven't even declared war yet. It's a SYMBOLIC protest! Do you oppose non-violent protests or just protests that oppose your view? [img]smile.gif[/img] Has the US government pulled out of Germany? Has the US government forced American companies to leave Germany? Turkey may have decide that (I haven't heard it), but France, who has promised to VETO another resolution about Iraq, says it will allow use of it's airspace to the US in the event of a war with Iraq despite it's position. So what happens if the US and Britain do invade? They win. Will sanctions be placed against the US by other countries? Even if the UN takes action, it will take years for it to take effect. What's North Korea up to while the world's attention is focused on Iraq? The consequences of war reach further than just the cost of lives. So why aren't Russia and China stepping up regarding NK? Because they expect us to solve this for them?

[Ronn_Bman]

[quote]Originally posted by Animal:

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: [qb]I highly doubt that Iraq would be an equal to the US anytime during Saddam's lifetime. I'm not saying that we ignore the issue, far from it, but the end of the Cold War proved that warfare wasn't necessary and I believe that warfare isn't necessary today. Do you ignore the lives that could be saved during 45 years? Saddam is effectively boxed in, and has no ability to do anything at this point. His is disarming, albeit slowly, but still disarming. What's the rush? He isn't disarming, he is cooperating JUST enough to buy him time. Not time for the Iraqi people, but time for his regime Are the troops stationed there needed somewhere else? Yes they are need elsewhere! They are needed to be with their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, children, friends, and neighbors.