Do you think the cold war was ineveatible, even if the allies took over Germany before the USSR did?

I think so, I really don't think the cold war had much to with the Soviet controlled Eastern Europe.  The Berlin Wall obviuously wouldn't have happened so it might have been a little less tense at times, but I think there still would have been a capitolist vs. communist cold war between the super powers.  I was enevitable with two nations with such different systems and so much power to not have a cold war I don't think.

I agree with Felix, there was already some stuff going on before WWII and it was clearly a concern during the war.  A lot of people even believe that part of the reason that President Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to demonstrate the power of the US to the Soviets.  I don't know if thats true or not, but it is certainly believable.

Then why isn't the west in a cold war with China now?

Or are we, but it's just extremely cold.

I really dont think it is correct to call China comunist, sure they claim to be but when you actually look into the economics they are not all that different from over here.

I second what Felix said, for the most part of the Cold War there was no military conflict, in fact quite the opposite, there was a complete lack of comunications between the countries, which i am sure some would argue is the exactly what is going one now between the US and China/ N.Korea. Obviously they do talk, but on very superficial subjects, when was the last time you saw the US or China take any notice of each other?

True, I believe Churchill said that Russia would be more dangerous than Hitler prior the Second World War. Thankfully the World is safe from a nuclear war as we know it.

Quote:


That's the fault. Don't isolate them. Talk to them. Same applies for terrorist groups.

Quote:


Oh yeah, they're terrorizing people for fun!
If they've got a motive, you've got a reason to talk to them.

Quote:


As if...

Quote:


I have to agree with Hagar, this knew breed of terrorist that seem to be emerging have no real motive. I really dont see what groups such as alkaeda are trying to achieve, payback for Western Oppression? But why do this through there current methods i really do not understand. I mean, if they actually explained what was happening maybe people would sypathise with them, but going round killing innocent civillians just is not the way to do things.

Back on the subject of nuclear arms, i do not we are ever going to see a nuclear/bio  attack by these groups, as some sceptics like to believe. The attacks on 9/11 were so effective, there seems no other way for them to suppase that, other than the use of bio/nuclear weapons. also, from what i know it would be so easy for these groups to do, but i suppose they must fear the reaction from the US and other allies, i mean, once again, take 9/11 as an example. Sure Alkaeda wanted a reaction, but do you ever recken Binladen thought he would be at the centre of the biggest manhunt in history, or it would cause the wars in Afghanistan, and the foundations for Iraq. I would say no, and because of this i think they will have to very carefully plan there next move...

Quote:


Everything has an aim. So those guys must have,too.

Quote:

Well, it would be much easier to deal with if they share those aims with the rest of us. As I said before, from where I'm sitting it's terrorism for the sake of terrorism. Their only possible aim is to destroy our western culture. I hate conflict & violence in any form & I'm all for negotiation wherever possible. Even when the IRA was indiscriminately blowing up innocent civilians (including children) in this country I had some sympathy for their cause but I find it hard to understand what these people hope to achieve.

Quote:

So please enlighten me as to what their aim is. They have not attempted to negotiate or demand anything so far.

Quote:


No one has asked them either.

Weren't there some interviews with Bin Laden?

Why why why the most powerful nation in the world can't find this human trash,maybe im changing the theme of what are you talking,but even to heard name make me sick,maybe he's hidden in a far nation and the US justice are looking in the wrong place
                    Sorry my friends

I don't check the history boards as often as I'd like...I do love me the history.  lol

I was also going to stay out of this one, but I can not.

There are several misrepresentations in this thread regarding the current conflicts with terrorist organizations.

1.  They have no aim.  They do in fact have a goal.  It's to destroy all that they despise.  What is it they dislike?  Anything even remotely western in nature.  Capitalism, freedom, equality and the like.

2.  Negotiate with them.  You don't negotiate with terrorists.  Doing so accomplishes nothing.  The most you can do is talk them out of releasing hostages, say in a hijacking situation.  When you're dealing with people who will strap bombs to their children for cash, there isn't much you can do in the way of discussion.  Second, as was mentioned, there is no official representative.  al qaeda is NOT an officially sanctioned organization.  There's no one that can be contacted.  (Not that it really matters, they wouldn't be interested in negotiating even if it were a productive means of resolution.)  Also of importance is a reminder that since al qaeda isn't a governmental body, they are considered to be illegal enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention.  As such, the GC does NOT apply to them.

3.  The media wants you to believe that terrorists are only trying to destroy western culture.  No, the media wants us to believe that they are a legitimate military force protected by the Geneva Convention, and are simply trying to defend themselves.  There were 19 men aboard four airliners that weren't defending anything.  They were on an offensive mission.  They put us in defense mode.

I present you with my typical response to "negotiation doesn't work".

I'm going to virtually hit you over the head with a baseball bat.  I'm going to continue hitting you, beating you essentially into a pulp.

While I do this, I'm going to ask you to have a few of your friends standing beside us, politely asking me to stop.

In the mean time, I'm still beating you silly, and they're still asking.

Eventually, a bigger, stronger guy comes along and yanks me off of you, throwing me to the ground, where I break my leg.

Now I ask you.  Which worked better?  Negotiation or a strong arm?

I think it's safe to say that the United States is bigger and stronger than a renegade terrorist force in the middle of the desert.  Turn off the network news and you'll have all the evidence you need to support that.

It may be bigger and stronger but it's fighting a force it cannot see. Sure you've invaded Afganistan and Iraq all in the name of defeating terrorism but Ql Quaeda is still out there and so is Bin Laden. There is still conflict between the Isrealis and the Palistinians and I don't see much change in the state of world terrorism post 9/11 as it was before.

I would advise you to follow that link Hagar supplied and read all of it. Then reconsider how bleak it looks.

Don't think that just because there have been few attacks since 9/11 that you are beating them. Remember that there were extremely few attacks before and that Bin Laden attacked the twin towers in 1993. And how many attacks came after that before 9/11. As I said, inaction does not mean they are beaten. Not by a long way.

Quote:


Agreed...so I'm going to leave it alone with this. 
 
As for facing problems that could take a while to fix, you're completely right.  We knew that from the beginning it wasn't going to be an easy battle.   

Need I remind anyone how long the American Revolution was fought?  How about the Civil War?  World War I?  How about World War 2, Korea or Vietnam?  Then lets compare the raw casualty data for all of those conflicts in contrast to this one.

In the age of instant gratification, it's easy to call something a failure when it doesn't happen in a month, or even a year. 

Nothing worth having comes easily.  If it did, it wouldn't be nearly as desirable.

It's a work in progress, but things ARE moving forward as evidenced by the long lines at the recent elections, the successful election of leadership and the formation and training of a (less corrupt) military and police force.   Factor in the expulsion of a corrupt, genocidal dictator and you've had yourself a good couple of years.

There are some people who think that it's either a failure or a success, there is no "right direction" for it to be going.  This isn't true.  Until it's done, it can't be deemed complete.  Until it's complete, you can't call it a collective failure or success.

But pound for pound, day by day, we've had considerable success.  That to me makes it all worthwhile.

You're still talking about Iraq. Al Qaeda is a global organisation with cells in many different countries. As Woody points out, it's very difficult to fight a war when you don't know who or where the enemy are or where they will strike next.

Quote:

These people are as much a threat to me & my family as anyone. I'm simply trying to point out the facts as I see them. This is no longer conventional warfare. The David vs Goliath analogy is a good one.

Quote:


They've got a point there,

Of course I agree as I'm sure we all do. However, I'm not convinced that what we call terrorism will ever be beaten, not by conventional military action anyway. This is guerilla tactics & not conventional warfare where force of numbers will always win in the end. These people operate in small units which might not have any connection with the others or any strong connection to Al Qaieda. They could be sleepers & remain inactive for years. How do you tell a "terrorist" from anyone else unless you catch them in the act? Even if bin Laden is captured or killed there are now plenty more to take his place. Whatever happens to him now his followers will see him as a martyr.

Quote:

I have no idea as I've never read it. However, I assume that translation is accurate & don't see the relevance.

Whoops, sorry. The "dumb" headline is from the Daily Mirror.
http://gabeanderson.com/life/extras/59_million_dumb_americans-thumb.jpg

You've got left-wing papers, you've got right-wing papers...whatcha gonna do? *Shrugs*

Quote:



Trust ME and me alone.  Only I am the Source of True Knowledge.  Wisdom comes from listening to me.

Quote:


As if.

Quote:


There was a major administration change in the middle of the Vietnam War, which led to an early withdrawl of American presence.

The Viet Cong were fighting in blatant violation of all existing legislation regarding the "rules" of combat...attaching bombs to children, false surrenders, etc, just to name a few.  And because they were a legitimate military force, the US was obligated to abide by said rules, despite getting our tails handed to us because the VC was violating the same.

That said, no one can predict what the future might have held had the US not withdrawn from Vietnam when we did.  We may have won, we may have lost.  We'll never know, so it's really a moot debate.

Assuming the Viet Cong won, which isn't a stretch considering the above, then it's safe to say that the VC were in fact a stronger force, albeit illegitimately, because they won.

By knowing the land, and how to use it to our advantage.  We were stronger.

You can give me examples all night.  The fact remains that the stronger force - that is the force that knows how to use things to their advantage, that is the force that knows how to exploit the weaknesses of the enemy - will ALWAYS win.

Perhaps the philisophical aspect of this is too much for some to accept, but the truth is that the team that wins will ALWAYS be the stronger team.

They may not have as many airplanes, as many people, or an arsenal as advanced as the other side.  But in some capacity, they are the strongest, or they would have lost.

If this is above your head, I apologize.  But I'm not going to sit here and say the same thing over and over and over and over just because some do not get it.  (Not that there's anything to get.  You've got two teams.  One wins.  One loses.  Which is the stronger team?)

Quote:

Mistakes can, and always will be made in war. All you're saying is that the stronger side wins.

At the battle of Cannae, Hannibal had a force of about 2,300 men. Facing them was a force of 10,000 Roman legions.

Who would you consider to be the stronger side? Hannibals rabble of troops or 10,000 of Romes finest?

The result of that battle was nearly 10,000 romans dead. And one of the greatest military victories in history for Hannibal.

What you have been saying is that America will win the war on terror because America is strongest. You assume America will win because America seems stronger and you make this assumption before any major confrontation. You cannot use Iraq as an example because Al Quaeda and the Islamic fundamentalists were not in Iraq then. You can hardly use Afganistan as an example either as I don't believe either Al Quaeda or the Taliban made any full confrontation with the Americans. If they had then the campaign would have been bloody. Remember the Taliban, lead by Bin Laden drove the Russains out of Afghanistan in the 1980's and Russia then was not a country to be stopped by casualty figures as America was stopped in Vietnam.

My point is, do not assume that you are the stronger force. You have little or no idea what you are facing and to make assumptions is a grave mistake.

I see no point in continuing this discussion. Your original comment seems to imply that by the strongest you mean in a physical sense (sheer numbers & the latest technology) which is not necessarily true. You changed this later to mean that it's the side that uses its resources to the best advantage.

As to who is winning, what are you referring to? The situation in Iraq or the broader issue of global terrorism? Much as I would like to agree with you I think only the most optimistic amongst us would believe that. Now it's reared its ugly head I'm afraid this will be with us for the foreseeable future & the world will never be the same again. The irony is that we taught them these tactics in the first place.

Quote:


"extensive use of chemical weapons"  such as "Agent Orange"?  which was a defoilant, with, tragically, harmful side effects.  Quite unlike using mustard gas, ZyklonB, and more recently, Sarin<?> in a subway station.

napalm ?  Deadly, of course, but a tactical weapon nonetheless.

Events like My Lai, regrettable, are not the norm (although you can find similar events throughout the history of the civilized world.  For that matter, why not bring out how "Black Jack" Pershing got his reputation?  My Lai pales in comparison to Lidice (and a few other towns in France), and what the VC would do to villagers even hinted of "collaboration" ...

Quote:


I would suggest that one of the reasons negotiations fail/have failed in the Middle East is that there is no central authority with whom to engage in binding negotiations. 



Quote:

I agree, to a point, but given that the Hitlerites "lost"  they were, in the long run, the weaker.

Quote:


Ahh yes, I forget - if it's bad, the "US" knows about it and willingly goes ahead ...


Quote:


An incident, not government ordered, is as bad as a state-ordered mass execution?  My Word!  Who in the SS was even chastized for any village-mass executino (other than for not carrying it out)?

Quote:

In the US, at least there is a central authority willing to engage in reasonable conversations.  Whether a past administration was "successful" or not depends on many things, including whether negotions with one of the parties weas effectively binding on the party that was purportedly represented.

Quote:

On that, I agree with you.  " Might makes Right"  is not necessarily so, in the long run.

Quote:

The SS in France, on leave from the Russian front simply brought their methods with them. The methods they used to suppress the french in the last year of the war was how they were trained and usually, what they were ordered to do. Basically the SS were more trained killing machines than any other military unit in history.

The Americans at My Lai would certainly have not been ordered or trained to carry out such massacres and the fact that they did it out of their own initiative makes it at least equal to anything the SS pulled off.

Quote:

If both sides wanted peace then there would be no need for any single authority to bind negotiations. But the fact that the Isreali's arn't prepared to back down means that the Palistinians arn't going to back down so single authority or not no progress is ever going to be made.

Firstly I've come to understand that rarely are peoples opinions changed through discussion.

Secondly my point was that you don't need three parties to have successful negotiations if both sides are willing to negotiate.

Thirdly I believe that negotiations in the middle east with Isreal and Palestine would be far more effective if Isreal pulled out of the West bank and the Gaza strip, both areas that were left to the Palestinians in the original "agreement" to the set up of Isreal.

It's probably best not to get into an argument on the third point.

Quote:

I've never had any complaints.

Quote:


Understandable.
Imagine you've been living in your house for years, when someone suddely comes and declares your house his, but still allows you to live in it. A few years later, a family of another race/religion/whatever arrives together with the proprietor and they're given a part of your house. You want to protest, but no one listenes to you, not even the other family. In the course of time, the family claims more and more space of your house and leaves its furniture in the parts that actually still belong to you. The rest of the neighbourhood supports the other family without limits, while you have no one to turn to.
I couldn't think of anyone who wouldn't be pissed then...except Jesus maybe.

Quote:

In which case my last words shall be that any ugliness is just an afront to my sparkling personality.


And I managed to get a pun in. Rock on!

Israelites stole the land.
Viva la Palestine.
This'll probably be deleted so..WOOHOO!

A.

Quote:



Throw the bloody Anglos out of Oz!  Give it back to the Aborigines!

Throw everybody out of everywhere!

Quote:


So, instead of letting the Palestinians and Israelis work out their living arrangements, their dear neighbors plunged forth into continuing wars?



Quote:

I'll grant that American money - and I wold propose mostly private fund raising - played a significant part - but most weapons were British, and/or British origin, with a significant helping of Czech weaponry.  (this paragraph as a point of information only, I do not dispute that foreign assistance has played a significant part in the various "hot" wars.)

Quote:


Whether I agree or not with the basic premise of the justification of the existence of a State of Israel, I would agree with you on this statement.

Quote:


Sort of like what "the Left" has been trying to do with Kaleeforneaa?  Now I understand a bit better the situation....

I have not read all the post in this thread.. but I´m very interrested in the cold war history.. so let´s get back to the cold war !

I´ll start with a statement that hopefully will be discussed contoversial 

The question.. who won the cold war ??
I´ll tell you... the Atomic Bomb did !!
why ? Because without the massive nuclear tests
that radiated huge parts of our planet for dozens of years
.. the cold war would have turned into a hot war not long after world war 2 has ended. But nukes were the only thing
that were scarry enough to prevent this. And noone dared to start doomsday.
So my question to you.

Do you think cold war would have turned into a hot one
if there wouldn´t have been nukes ?

If you can answer the questiuon above for yourself with "yes"... do you think the massive nuke tests were justified compared to a hot world war 3 without nukes ?

I´m interested in your opinion !!