 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Kim C Date: 25 Jun 01 - 03:08 PM Thanks McGrath. Mister said he thought it went back into ancient history but he wasn't sure. But Alex ----- I like cheese! And chocolate. You forgot the chocolate. Switzerland runs the definite risk of being invaded by chocoholics. And if you don't think that's dangerous... well... try reasoning with a woman with PMS who is in desperate search of chocolate! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jun 01 - 02:58 PM That Vegetius quote slipped off my last post somehow. It was a response to an implied question by KimC, and the rest of the post didn't make much sense without it.
Qui desiderat pacem, preaparet bellum - Let him who desires peace prepare for war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jun 01 - 02:54 PM
Vegetius, 4th century AD.
Didn't work then either. The Roman Empire fell fairly soon after that. More recently, it was exactly that sort of thinking that led up to the First World War, and the general sequence of disasters arising out of that which dominated the last century.
The image that comes to mind at present is of two Sumo wrestlers pushing against each other - and suddenly one of them vanishes. The one that is left is desperately trying to find a replacement, because his way of staying upright involves having someone to push against. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: mousethief Date: 25 Jun 01 - 01:33 PM Preparedness on a national level is a scary prospect because it involves heavy equipment that can kill a lot of people. But it's a necessary evil. Someone mentioned the Swiss. Good example. I wouldn't want to mess with them. Notice nobody has. Why would anybody want to? The only natural resources they have are snow and cheese. Their continued neutrality depends a whole hell of a lot more on the perceived lack of any benefit from invading them than it does on their fierce army (although they DO have nice knives). Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Kim C Date: 25 Jun 01 - 01:21 PM Well, okay, you are right about Switzerland... but I think their philosophy is a good one. Then again, they are a small country, and what works for them may not work for someone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Whistle Stop Date: 25 Jun 01 - 12:44 PM I agree with Kim, that preparedness is the only sane course of action in a dangerous world. It's fine to quote Einstein to reinforce a point, but I too think he was wrong on that topic. [It's interesting how some of the most well-known quotes out there just don't stand up to close scrutiny. From FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", to JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you...", to Einstein's quote above. These were all rhetorical triumphs that obscured the faulty logic underlying them, in my opinion.] However, let's not be naive about Switzerland. Their biggest defense is their neutrality, and the fact that they provide such a useful service to the rest of the world by being neutral. They would not, by themselves, be able to withstand a serious attack by one of the big powers. The USA cannot realistically adopt Switzerland's approach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Kim C Date: 25 Jun 01 - 11:31 AM I was just using Saddam as an example. I personally think he is nothing more than an ant on the great sandhill of life. I disagree with Einstein. It's important to be prepared for disaster, from an individual level all the way up to a national level. One never knows from day to day what might happen. Preparedness on a national level is a scary prospect because it involves heavy equipment that can kill a lot of people. But it's a necessary evil. Someone mentioned the Swiss. Good example. I wouldn't want to mess with them. Notice nobody has. On an individual level, there's a gun in my house and I know how to use it... but I hope I never have to. So far, so good. Even the Boy Scouts know the value of being always prepared.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jun 01 - 10:13 PM No surprise at all, Doug! They've just got a new cash cow: Star Wars II, predicated on a new fictitious 'threat'. They'll make out just fine- better than ever, in fact. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jun 01 - 08:31 PM Yeah! That is amazing. I think we owe it to one man... Gorbachev. He unilaterally bowed out of it, and let Eastern Europe, the Ukraine, and the Russian people go free to determine their own destiny. They have not handled it as well as they might have (in some cases), but at least we didn't all get fried in a nuclear exchange. With a less imaginative man than Gorbachev in Moscow in the mid to late 80's, there's a very good chance we would have been. Bankrupt empires will usually fight rather than peacefully dismantle themselves, and go quietly off into that good night. What if he had acted like the old men in China? There would have been war, bloody war, and maybe world war. As for the profiteers, they have found other ways to keep making money since.... And the game goes on. SINSULL - good point about the Roman leaders! - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: DougR Date: 24 Jun 01 - 08:01 PM It's amazing, isn't it Greg, that those profiteers who made such a killing, and are credited with having so much power, allowed the Cold War to be over, doesn't it? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jun 01 - 07:49 PM I don't believe anyone benefited from the Cold War.
DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: SINSULL Date: 24 Jun 01 - 02:55 PM Can't let this go - "the Romans had real leaders"??? Like Nero and Caligula? Like Tiberius whose excesses make the Clinton years look like Bible school antics? Or the Caesars, Julius and Augustus? Civil war, repression, genocide, matricide, fratricide, incest??? Is this the leadership we are lacking? Sorry for the threadcreep, folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Greycap Date: 24 Jun 01 - 02:36 PM I had from 1945,to say, 1990, scaring myself stupid that I was going to be a casualty of a Cold War gone hot overnight. I don't like the idea of going back to that scenario. My 2 cents worth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: annamill Date: 24 Jun 01 - 02:20 PM I think the guys at the Pentagon had a wonderful time during the cold war... L.A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: DougR Date: 23 Jun 01 - 02:23 PM I'm with you, LH, I don't believe anyone benefited from the Cold War. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Jun 01 - 01:29 PM Doug - Yeah. Ha! Ha! No doubt they would. It's really hard to stop this kind of thing once it gets rolling. It's like trying to stop a runaway train thats freewheeling down a steep grade. The USA could not just withdraw all its forces unilaterally at this point without causing destabilization. All the other empire-builders out there would have to do so as well. For instance, the Chinese ought to withdraw from Tibet...but obviously, it ain't gonna happen. I just wish it would, that's all. Spud - Don't forget that all those empires were "the good guys" from their own perspective, and had they won would probably still be seen in that light in the history books. The victors write the history books. The survivors write the protest songs. However, I am not implying that the USA has behaved in as irresponsible a manner as the Nazis or the Japanese or Joseph Stalin...except as regards North American Indian lands and culture. The other empire builder that I feel is most comparable to the USA in a general moral and cultural sense is Great Britain. The British were quite sure they were doing the world a big favor by colonizing it, and they succeeded pretty well everywhere, except in the 13 colonies which became the USA. On the other hand, the Native peoples whose land was occupied by British or American forces, did not see it as a favor. It all depends which side of the fence you're standing on... Let's not heat up the Cold War. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: DougR Date: 23 Jun 01 - 02:10 AM Well, I for one, would be perfectly happy, LH, if the U. S. would withdraw all of our troops from the many foreign locations all over the world. I'm sure the troops would be too. I wonder, though, how the governments of those countries would feel, were we to do so? Would they feel safe? Relieved? Interesting question, I think. Of course if we did that, though, our critics would criticize us for being isolationists, I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Spud Murphy Date: 23 Jun 01 - 01:02 AM Jeezzus, Little Finch, You equate the USA with Germany, Japan, Russia, Great Britain and Others?? who are the others, the Onandagas and the Assiniboines? If I took you seriously I could really get pissed off. Fortunately, I have read and admired many of your posts that are, shall we say, more cogent and plausible. Spud |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jun 01 - 07:56 PM Oh, and the Soviets had a go at it too, for about 50 years... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jun 01 - 07:54 PM Doug - That's not exactly what I meant. I did not mean to imply that the USA started all those various wars, merely that it has relied on a military arm which was designed primarily for offensive overseas operations on a very large scale, rather than defensive (defending your own ground) ones. Of course, they do say that the best defence is a good offense don't they? Well... That the US has done this is partly because of geography. Between 1812 and the Cold War, there really was no power capable of a serious land attack on the continental United States. England, likewise, built a huge navy which was primarily an offensive weapon, and it allowed them to expand all over the world and establish the biggest colonial empire ever. In a similar way, the USA has expanded all over the world, and practiced economic colonization, rather than official governmental colonization. The USA is an empire builder, and the most successful and aggressive one in the world at this particular juncture in history. That's what I meant. They became so by arming for offensive actions, not defensive ones. In 1941 they maneuvered the Japanese into a situation where war was inevitable, then put the big offensive machine into action after the Japanese attack. It took 6 months to get properly in gear after Pearl Harbour...and then the Japanese were doomed. Some countries which are well armed, but in a defensive stance, are Sweden and Switzerland, for example. This is also partly due to geography, but there was a time when the Swedes were busy aggressively expanding out into the world through their navy. The British, I believe, were the ones who stopped them. Since then, the Swedes have concentrated on defence. Japan, since the end of WWII, has also adopted a strictly defensive stance. I don't like it when countries arm in such a way as to lead them into constantly fighting on other people's soil. They do it, not truly for defence, but for expansion, and they dress it up with all kinds of wonderful rhetoric about how they're helping someone else, when they are really just serving their own interests. If their own interests coincide with someone else's they will help them. That is what's called realpolitik, I believe. The USA is behaving no differently from previous empires in that sense. Before them it was Germany and Japan (for a few short years), Great Britain, France (under Napoleon), and various others. I wish they would all just leave the rest of the world alone. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: DougR Date: 22 Jun 01 - 07:26 PM Oh come on LH! Sure, the U. S. started WWI and WW2, and the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Seems to me we are forever sending troops to help somebody else. And kat, just because he said it, doesn't make it true. Better to be prepared than unprepared, I say. Who wants another Pearl Harbor? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Lyndi-loo Date: 22 Jun 01 - 08:20 AM "A key element of the evolving new strategy is improving the capabilities of U.S. forces deployed in Europe and Asia. He provided no details on the kinds of improvements he had in mind. ``We believe this would pose a stronger deterrent in peacetime, allow us to tailor forces for each region, and provide capabilities to engage and defeat adversaries' military objectives wherever and whenever they might challenge the interests of the United States, our allies and friends,'' he said" President Bush is fast running out of friends in Europe. We do not want "Son of Star Wars", there have been many demonstrations against his defence (defense?) policies during his recent European visit. I think he might be seeing ghosts in the closet and perceiving threat where there are none.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: GUEST Date: 22 Jun 01 - 07:54 AM Blame Uncle Ronnie. We spent a good deal of time and effort fabricating a formidable enemy out of the U.S.S.R., until Ray-gun out-spent them into oblivion. The Hawks have been pining for someone to fill the void ever since.... Maybe we can play 'chicken' with another Chinese fighter jet and have better luck pissing them off this time around. With a population of a billion plus people to defend ourselves against, that would insure hefty military budgets for many, many years to come. Of course, we'd have to figure a way to continue selling Coca-Cola and Big Macs to them while plotting to blow them off the face of the earth... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Amergin Date: 21 Jun 01 - 11:54 PM I wouldn't really equate us with rome....they had real leaders... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jun 01 - 11:39 PM To imagine that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat to the USA is to engage in delusions. These military preparations have nothing to do with small fish like Saddam Hussein. America has not thought in "defensive" terms since the War of 1812. It's offense all the way, folks. Just like the Romans after they eliminated Carthage. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: lady penelope Date: 21 Jun 01 - 06:03 PM Ah, the American defence/peace strategy..............................................COME AND HAVE A GO IF YOU THINK YOU'RE HARD ENOUGH! Nice to kow some things don't change. TTFN ( from the land of the right wing socialists ) M'Lady P. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: GUEST,Karen Date: 21 Jun 01 - 05:58 PM What about Switzerland? It's a neutral country but they have an army for national defense. They aren't "preparing for war". They are "preparing to defend their country." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jun 01 - 05:57 PM Donald Rumsfeld = 'Deja Vu All Over Again'. Yesterday's solutions for today's (perceived) problems. Expect Daddy-Bush thinks its great- his second term. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: katlaughing Date: 21 Jun 01 - 05:44 PM "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." - -Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: Kim C Date: 21 Jun 01 - 05:25 PM And if Gore were President, he'd be scaring the hell out of somebody else. Who was it that said the best way to keep the peace is to be prepared for war? Not GO to war - but be PREPARED for war. Lemme just say, if Saddam Hussein decided he wanted to open up a can of whoop-ass on us, I want our can to be bigger than his can. And if our can's bigger than his to begin with, he'll think twice. That's the theory, anyhow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: CarolC Date: 21 Jun 01 - 01:23 PM One good thing, and I never thought I would be saying something like this, GW has pissed off his right wing twice now (at least that I know of). First on the issue of the Puerto Rican island we were using as a bombing range (he caved in on that one - sort of). And right wing members of his party are pissed at him for saying such positive things about Vladimir Putin. It'll be interesting to see if he caves in to the right wing on that one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: gnu Date: 21 Jun 01 - 01:00 PM ???... "There are dangerous capabilities being developed at this moment that we do not know about..." ??? "Yeah... I see it (the Ginger Bread House) too." Talk about being kept in the dark and fed s**t ! |
|
Subject: Let's heat up the cold war - I'm bored From: annamill Date: 21 Jun 01 - 12:51 PM This man, Bush, is scaring the hell out of me... ********************************************************** WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress on Thursday he expects to recommend to President Bush by late summer a new U.S. defense strategy and new approach to sizing the military. Rumsfeld said he has not yet decided on a new defense strategy but has drawn some preliminary conclusions with senior military officers on how to improve the strategy that has guided U.S. defense planning for more than a decade. ``We need to prepare now for the new and different threats we will face in the decades ahead - not wait until they fully emerge,'' he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. A key element of the evolving new strategy is improving the capabilities of U.S. forces deployed in Europe and Asia. He provided no details on the kinds of improvements he had in mind. ``We believe this would pose a stronger deterrent in peacetime, allow us to tailor forces for each region, and provide capabilities to engage and defeat adversaries' military objectives wherever and whenever they might challenge the interests of the United States, our allies and friends,'' he said. Rumsfeld said the Pentagon would invest more in what he called ``rapidly deployable standing joint forces.'' He defined this as troops based abroad that could undertake a wide range of military missions with a minimal need for reinforcement from U.S. territory. Current U.S. strategy is based on being able to conduct two major regional wars at the same time. Rumsfeld said this strategy was outdated because it overemphasized near-term threats such as North Korea at the expense of preparing for longer-term threats like weapons of mass destruction. Rumsfeld stressed the need to prepare for emerging and still unknown threats, such as attacks on computer networks. ``There are dangerous capabilities being developed at this moment that we do not know about, and may not know about for years, in come cases until after they are deployed,'' he said ******************************************************** Love, Annamill |