New Cold War?

With the introduction of Russia’s Topol-M Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles a few years back, it just happened that America wants to put a new radar system in Poland and a new missile defense system in the Czech Republic. In retaliation, Vladimir Putin authorized the successful testing of their new R-500 missile which has the capability to destroy surface to air defense systems such as the one America wants to create.

With that said, does the Bush administration really want to start a new Cold War? Because the Russians even asked to make a joint missile defense program which of course Bush doesn’t like, making relationships with Putin uneasy


http://news.independ...icle2617438.ece

http://english.pravd...missile_R_500-0

http://www.iht.com/a...-G-8-Russia.php

With that said, does the Bush administration really want to start a new Cold War?

The short answer is;

Yes.

It is the basis of rebuilding the Military Industrial Complex. No continuous war footing and no excuse for the exploitive spending and obese eficit spending.

This administration took this country from a half a trillion dollar surplus to pillaging the treasury and putting us in the deepest level of debt yet. The excuse was Iraq and 9/11 but the underlying motive was a redistribution of federal wealth into the corporate accounts of industries that were being phased down under the Clinton Administrtion, the defense industries.

No enemy, no reason to spend.

Remember Orwell?

As they say there's no business like the war business.

Remember Orwell?

Yeah ... his books Animal Farm and especially 1984

The short answer is;

No.

If anything Russia is looking to start a cold war once again with agressive posturing in the Baltics and consolidation of power under the central government.

If anything Russia is looking to start a cold war once again with agressive posturing in the Baltics and consolidation of power under the central government.

Sure Mind, and it was Putin that tore up the nuclear test ban, ABM, and weapons in space treaties, as well as ending the programs to disarm and recover loose nukes in the Eastern Block States. It was Putin that insisted on building new bases in former Soviet States along with initiating new nuclear weapons systems.

Yeah and it is Putin that is insisting on the placement of troops in dozens of locations throughout the region and it is Putin that is responsibile for invading Iraq and not backing up his commmitments economically, socially AND militarily, which come with such invasions and occupation causing the general destablization and disintigration of security throughout the region and even into other areas of the world now.

Yeah, damn that Putin for starting the Iraq war and forcing us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars extra per year on defense, much of which cannot even be accounted for.

Yeah, damn that Putin for starting the Iraq war and forcing us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars extra per year on defense, much of which cannot even be accounted for.

Does the spending in Iraq (wasteful or not) qualify as cold war spending in an attempt to provoke Russia? Seems kind-of tangential.

Does the spending in Iraq (wasteful or not) qualify as cold war spending in an attempt to provoke Russia? Seems kind-of tangential.

Not tangential at all, Did you notice that former Soviet States used to nearly border Iraq and that the hornets nest we stirred up is in their part of the world?

Let's look at a map.



See that what we have been doing is not only placing bases on multiple sides of the Russian Federation in former Soviet States like Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan but we have troops and combat operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

We are confronting Russian interest in the Balkans on the issue of Kosovo independence and we have contributed to the problems experienced in Chechnya. Everything we are doing in Iraq is contributing to making it harder to live in that part of the world by spreading a new wave of refugees across the borders as well as radicalizing the widespread Muslim populations.

But you seemed to gloss over the fact that even before the Iraq invasion, even before 9/11 Bush began a systematic policy of reversals on long established treaties involving nuclear disarmament, Star Wars ABM and Anti-Sat systems, orbital weapons policy, new nuclear weapons development, and more.

Iraq isn't just a disaster militarily, politically, diplomatically, economically, socially and tactically; it is a disaster strategically that it has exposed our vulnerabilities, provided incentive and training to our enemies and discouraged and disappointed our allies in our abilities. It is *provoking* Russia when seen in combination with the other strategies this administration promotes. We are "baiting the bear."

Iraq is now viewed by many in Russia and around the world as a proxy war, our *Afghanistan* in the old Soviet style, only we aren't even intentionally setting ourselves up to fight the Russians we are simply starting to lash out at any interest that gets in our way and possibly more than anything that hubris is seen as hegemonic and precipitous of the growing Cold War mentality when combined with growing tension over access to energy resources.

Historians will probably categorize this war as the last great battle of the Cold War unless the administration succeeds in getting the next hot one started too or at least succeeds in a return to a constant wartime footing that props up the Military Industrial Complex.

Couldn't it be the other way around? Decline of the sovjet empire leaves "open spaces" that need to develop from dictatorship to something else. Consequently becoming politically unstable. And therefore require some form of intervention.

Some of the original motivation for intervention might have been (partly) sincere. At least that is the case in the Balkans. Being very near to the EU there is a high motivation to help in the development of these countries to assure stability in the region. To call that movement a "last step within the cold war" seems to far fetched to me and even old-fashioned 20th century thinking. The IRAQ / IRAN issue is a bit mote complicated, but surely it is not just finishing off the cold war IMO if that is part of the equation at all, which I doubt very hard. That is just to narrow minded and impractical, even for the Bush administration. There's more to it. Oil maybe? [wis] .... Oops, very narrow minded, but in another direction.

Edit: The cold war was just a phase within the implementation of the US republican concept "let's rule the world". We left that step behind years ago, somewhere in 1990 if I remember correct. It are new developments within the current political settings that cannot be compared to the situation of the cold war.

Edited by brainbox, 15 June 2007 - 10:27 PM.

The Balkans were the result of political ineptitude and infighting within NATO and were definitely the result of successful Cold War tactics aimed at the time to break down the former Soviet and its proxy satellite state, Yugoslavia. It is just after the Wall came down and the Soviet collapsed we just kind of ignored the run away tanks we had left in the field metaphorically speaking.

The problem wasn't that our motives initially were bad, it was that after we won we ignored the momentum that had built up for social change in a lot of places like Yugoslavia (Iraq too) and Afghanistan. Remember our abandonment of the region (in Afghanistan) once we were successful against the Soviet made first the Taliban and more importantly Al Qaeda not only a reality but a success.

In Yugoslavia the death of Tito precipitated the break up but age-old factional (internal) interests crippled NATO's peace keeping ability, till it became ethnic cleansing that made it necessary to go in.

The Germans promoted the Croats, the French and Russians the Serbs and our Generals were going to school to learn history to play catch up. Russian support for the Serbs is still an issue and yes these are all legacies of the Cold War because it was the Cold War that exacerbated and exploited historic enmity for tactical and strategic purpose.

As for Iraq, remember the Kurds and their uprising after the first Gulf War?

Well it isn't just Saddam that oppressed them, the Turks made multiple border incursions into the northern Iraq last week to attack cross border Kurdish separatist groups they identify as terrorists because they have been blowing things up in Turkey and we might consider allies if we could use them in Iran.

As for the need for strong arm tactics to maintain stability in the region, that would be Putin's logic but more importantly it was Tito's logic as well as Saddam's. So why did we ignore this aspect when we started destabilizing the region?


Let's see the Cold War hangovers in the region?

There is Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Revolutionary Guards in Iran, the break up of the Soviet into some destabilized Islamic states, some with loose nukes. I don't even want to discuss how Cold War policy screwed up the Israeli/Palestinian issue as that isn't just a book long topic, it is a library.

There is Afghanistan, and there was certainly Saddam in Iraq so by extension the situation it relates to the one in which we find ourselves.

(spelling & grammar)

Edited by Lazarus Long, 16 June 2007 - 07:39 AM.

Maybe we are starting splitting words. For me the cold war is just a step in something bigger. This step, and the accompanying tactics, ended in 1990. After the fall of the iron curtain a new phase started, with new tactics. This bigger thing seems to me to be the concept "this world ain't big enough for the both of us". After the decline of the former partner in crime, the USSR, a new fighting partner emerged from the debree, the Islam. But the old partner did not vanish completely. Put on ice for later uses. In short, I agree with you on your observations and solid analysis of the situation. But I think that these issues were merely inevitable side-effects of which the political effects were underestimated. Or given the benefit of the doubt. Plain silly human error or impotence.

Regarding the EU and the Balkan issues, the main reason the EU exists is, very idealistic, to end war in the European region. A bit over-simplified, but that's the core of it. The fact that later on a bunch of bureaucrats took over it's implementation is an entirely different matter that clouds the original motivation very much, unfortunately. But that's human genome, therefore inevitable. Maybe it's my naivety, but seeing a lot of analogies between the Balkan and the middle east, I cannot see it as finishing of the cold war. If this would have been the case, then why did "the west" not intervene into these area's instantly in stead of leaving them to themselves? That would have been the right course of action as seen from the cold war tactics. It's the timing that makes me believe otherwise.

At this moment, these cold war side effects are partly resolved. Where did the big almighty Al Qaeda go? Islam as a global movement could still be considered a thread, but a slumbering one at most right now. Ok, a set of new unwanted side effects did emerge, like a Vietnam syndrome in Iraq... Plain silly human error / impotence again.

So now, a new phase is starting again, in which the world is starting to deal with the slumbering middle-east Islam thread and the economical rising Russian states. There is a lot of similarity with the old cold war, but the Islam is a new parameter in this equation. Not to forget the effects of Chinese welfare, national feelings and related impulses. And the forever captivating Israeli - Palestinian issues. One of the persistent silly side effects of the phase that came before the cold war, world war II.

Edited some wording

Edited by brainbox, 16 June 2007 - 12:15 AM.

In addition, the fact that Putin did propose (as I understand it and if journalism did not distort reality to much) to develop the new rocket shield together, gives me an optimistic feeling. Just imagine the look on the faces of the Bush administration after they took notice of that. [lol]

There seems to be a healthy pragmatic wind in world politics today. Definitely not comparable with the dogmatic frozen situation of the former cold war.

Laz, i think you have a very niuce view on the situation. Debating cold war / non cold war similarities is almost besides the point, the USA's actions are absolutly provoking russia.

its been a long time since ive seen putin pissed on TV. The aussie news didnt show so much, but the Russian news right after those anti-missle platforms were suggested by Bush... Putin was fuming. I believe he said somthing along the lines of not wanting to build Anti misslie defence systems in his backyard to guard against misslies that dont exist. Bush wants to go ahead with it anyway, as he siad during that *same* press confrence and you wonder why Putin approves the testing of R-500?

If the US push Russia too far they are going to get involved in the middle east. I feel as if the US is almost calling Russias bluff, and seeing how far they can push it before the Russians do finally act. And that is not going to pretty for anyone.

The short answer is;

Yes. 

It is the basis of rebuilding the Military Industrial Complex.  No continuous war footing and no excuse for the exploitive spending and obese eficit spending.

This administration took this country from a half a trillion dollar surplus to pillaging the treasury and putting us in the deepest level of debt yet.  The excuse was Iraq and 9/11 but the underlying motive was a redistribution of federal wealth into the corporate accounts of industries that were being phased down under the Clinton Administrtion, the defense industries.

No enemy, no reason to spend.

Remember Orwell?

I call BS on that one.

A new cold war? Yes! With Russia? LOL.

You, my friend, have not understood the shift of economics that began in the eighties.

Before then, economies were considered internal to the national organism. The outward projection of power was military. We have more bombs, more bombers, more missiles, ect...

This broke the USSR. It also ushered in the new age of warfare - economy.

The new cold war is not to fought with the assurance of mass destruction but with the assurance of mass Elmo dolls and Calvin Klein Jeans, gas in our cars, the cars themselves, the airplanes we fly, the food we eat, everything - including military power.

In world war two we bombed the factories so the enemy could not produce anything. Now, we are getting bombed with low wage earners abroad so our factories cannot produce anything.

The new cold war is with China (mainly) and is no less deadly to our nation than any war ever known.

Militarily, should we ever need to fully commit, could take the world in a fortnight with few repercussions. We are too far advanced. Economically, we are on the precipice of another dark age...

First of all Ganshauk I didn't say this is inevitable or that Russia wants this; I said it is the result of the policies of this administration and it is going to be with Russia as well as China as this administration forces the Russians back into bed with the Chinese. This BTW is what is happening.

I have clearly understood the shift and argued that the right wing has not. They have done virtually everything possible to snatch defeat from victory and we are only in th beginning of the debacle of their creation. I do however think incompetence is less the reason than venality.

Before then, economies were considered internal to the national organism. The outward projection of power was military. We have more bombs, more bombers, more missiles, ect...

This broke the USSR. It also ushered in the new age of warfare - economy.

This is a valid observation of then but not so much now. It is also impossible to maintain the present global market economy without the regional cooperation of government. It is not relevant however to the points I made or the fact that we have been assuming policies involving aggressive yet unnecessary tactics that ignore the consequences to others and what their probable reactions will be.

The new cold war is not to fought with the assurance of mass destruction but with the assurance of mass Elmo dolls and Calvin Klein Jeans, gas in our cars, the cars themselves, the airplanes we fly, the food we eat, everything - including military power.

This is bull. The manufacturing has already left the US. Most of the products you describe or their subcomponents are coming from the protagonists you claim will be the opposition, in what you already accept as the conclusion, that we are entering a new cold war period.


My point is that a cold war is unnecessary and certainly unnecessary with Russia but that Bush policy is so incompetent that it is provoking it. Basically I think you agree though you are tying to shield them from the blame and disagree with the motives I suggest are theirs.

The new cold war is with China (mainly) and is no less deadly to our nation than any war ever known.

It is too late if this is true as we are already a debtor nation to them, in part thanks to the Iraq war again. The Chinese have been buying the debt generated by our deficit spending for that occupation and can now fight back economically in more ways than one. You are correct IMO to see a shifting theater of operation but that is not the issue, again you have fallen into the trap of seeing us entering a cold war, just not with Russia.

Militarily, should we ever need to fully commit, could take the world in a fortnight with few repercussions. We are too far advanced. Economically, we are on the precipice of another dark age...

I think this is bull. We not only should not be seeing the world in this manner, the very act of doing so justifies the world seeing us in Orwellian fashion as the great threat to peace. Your assumptions of our military ability are hubris and a part of the Cheney/Bush mindset that is provoking our doom. We are not just picking fights with those we want to confront but those we do not want to confront and even with our allies. The point is that it is the US that is picking the fight, perhaps because we are too insecure to continue to compete economically and want to rely on military might instead.

Economically we could also be seen to be on the verge of a Golden Age but what is certain is that we are not going to be the same nation we are now in 30 years.

I would have to agree with most of you.

While the testing of China’s new anti sat missile might seem to have provoked a new space arms race – I doubt that there are high hostilities between the US and Chinese government.

However, what has provoked me is how the US administration has tried to change the topic from Russia to Iran and North Korea.

Yes North Korea managed to test a successful nuclear detonation underground and yes Iran is trying to build nuclear reactors. But the fact is, neither of these nations are a direct threat to the US. For one thing, most of Iran’s supplies to build their reactors are coming from Russia, and recently Russia has stopped all shipments due to the fact Iran is in debt.

While I agree that a cold war is unnecessary, Putin did indeed make a mistake by purchasing 34 more TOPOL-M Ballistic Missiles to his already 17 existing missiles. And to be honest, the death of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko do seem to make me suspicious of Putin. However, these do not compare to the crimes that Bush has committed.

First of all Ganshauk I didn't say this is inevitable or that Russia wants this; I said it is the result of the policies of this administration and it is going to be with Russia as well as China as this administration forces the Russians back into bed with the Chinese.  This BTW is what is happening.

I dont think anyone wants this. I was a die-hard Bush fan but after the beginning of his second term he started slipping. Bush is no Reagan. His cajones aren't even in the same league.

Despite that, I dont see it. I see the Chinese coming closer to our line while the Russians, unable to step off the line, are turning in order to "save face" and bolster national identity.

Let them.

We have already sown the seeds. Both economies are now so totally dependant on ours that any flunctuation felt here becomes a massive shockwave to them. If the US falls, they will be at the bottom already, ready to greet us in our misery. They both know this. The actual war being waged is them attempting to remove themselves from the US economic hegemony. At this time, it is not possible. Only China has the means to do so...in about a decade...maybe.

I have clearly understood the shift and argued that the right wing has not.  They have done virtually everything possible to snatch defeat from victory and we are only in th beginning of the debacle of their creation.  I do however think incompetence is less the reason than venality.

I call BS again. Bush is weak and he let those clowns in congress run around like unsupervised children but hey, it's just congress. His basic economic policies were sound and remain strong. Dont let the bullshit in the media get to you. Things may not be perfect but then again, would you want them to be? You have not mentioned Iraq yet but I get the feeling that it is the crux of your argument. Dont you see what we are doing there? Its sublime strategy.

Before then, economies were considered internal to the national organism. The outward projection of power was military. We have more bombs, more bombers, more missiles, ect...

This broke the USSR. It also ushered in the new age of warfare - economy.

This is a valid observation of then but not so much now. It is also impossible to maintain the present global market economy without the regional cooperation of government. It is not relevant however to the points I made or the fact that we have been assuming policies involving aggressive yet unnecessary tactics that ignore the consequences to others and what their probable reactions will be.

That was my whole point. Cold war as you know it no longer exists(the young people playing my game dont even know what the hell Cold War is!!). No one can touch us now. Not realistically. Terrorism has been waylaid as long as Iraq is a warzone. The cold war has become a war of global economies.

This is bull.  The manufacturing has already left the US.  Most of the products you describe or their subcomponents are coming from the protagonists you claim will be the opposition, in what you already accept as the conclusion, that we are entering a new cold war period.

Exactly. The products come from abroad. We buy them. China makes them. 70% of everything China makes is sold in the US.

What happens to China if we stop buying them? What happens if we default on thier loans. The USSR? Japan? India? Australia? Chile? Argentina? Venezuela? We, sir, are the market. Without the US economy, most of the rest of the world ceases to exist as surely as if we nuked them into oblivion.

And the simple fact is, we dont really need thier imports. We COULD do it on our own if we had to.

That, my friend, is economic hegemony.

The new "cold war" is ensuring that we retain this hegemony.

It is too late if this is true as we are already a debtor nation to them, in part thanks to the Iraq war again.  The Chinese have been buying the debt generated by our deficit spending for that occupation and can now fight back economically in more ways than one.  You are correct IMO to see a shifting theater of operation but that is not the issue, again you have fallen into the trap of seeing us entering a cold war, just not with Russia.

See above. We WANT China to own our debts. They are our biggest threat. If some guy owes you fifteen trillion dollars, are you going to kill him before you collect? Or are you going to insure that he is safe and sound while he pays the money back?

The theater HAS shifted, so has the nature of war. So, too, the balance of power. Basically, in the past decade, everything that can shift has. I feel like Schroedinger's cat and someone opened the damn box.

I think this is bull.  We not only should not be seeing the world in this manner, the very act of doing so justifies the world seeing us in Orwellian fashion as the great threat to peace.  Your assumptions of our military ability are hubris and a part of the Cheney/Bush mindset that is provoking our doom.  We are not just picking fights with those we want to confront but those we do not want to confront and even with our allies.  The point is that it is the US that is picking the fight, perhaps because we are too insecure to continue to compete economically and want to rely on military might instead.

Economically we could also be seen to be on the verge of a Golden Age but what is certain is that we are not going to be the same nation we are now in 30 years.

Interesting.

I agree. Saying we could mow the world in two weeks sounds like hubris. It is detrimental to our cause and totally outside the pale of rational human thought.

Unfortunately, it is also a fact. Actually, it would take about 45 minutes to an hour. We are the only nation on the planet that is still capable of destroying it.

It would be stupid to do so, however. Such barbarism is no longer needed.

Alternatively, one single well placed intervention in the NYSE would bring down anyone we wished within 48 hours.

In conclusion, all I can offer is this : Despite the government, the US has and always will strive for the best good of all other nations. Administrations come and go. Bush will be gone soon enough. Already the conservative base is mustering to put an end to his foibles , correct the wrongs, and prevent the Dems from mucking things up worse as is thier way.

You should be glad when I speak of the new war. As long as we can sustain war as an economic struggle, few people will have to die. For that, Im willing that my country can play the cowboy diplomat. I dont think Bush has done as bad as the press would like. He just isn't as good as other presidents at fighting off the wolves in the press. The trick is to look at the facts, not the fiction that comes off the AP wire.

See above. We WANT China to own our debts. They are our biggest threat. If some guy owes you fifteen trillion dollars, are you going to kill him before you collect? Or are you going to insure that he is safe and sound while he pays the money back?

And build a weapon system using that borrowed resources so that you are able to finish of your Chinese bank? So that at the end you are back at the situation you started of from, only having some useless military equipment somewhere in the worlds backyard? Oh no, what am I suggesting, that's very usefull for starting the next step in militarising the economy. I'm so sorry for even thinking of that.

Such barbarism is no longer needed.

But another one would do fine, right?

What happens to China if we stop buying them? What happens if we default on thier loans. The USSR? Japan? India? Australia? Chile? Argentina? Venezuela? We, sir, are the market. Without the US economy, most of the rest of the world ceases to exist as surely as if we nuked them into oblivion.

Edit: Removed ad-hominem remark. My apologies. IMO, this kind of self-centered thinking is dangerous and far from the truth. You forgot the EU for instance. But that's not the major issue. Please explain how the current US economy benefits to the world economy? What is the US GNP as compared to other western countries? What's happening internally in the US with the housing market and mortgages people cannot afford anymore? Other financial issues US inhabitants have with high level of loans? The US just needs the cheap products from China, it's the only kind of quality the working class of the US society is able to afford.

To put that into perspective and on-topic again, isn't the US forgetting the balance between civil and military economics the way the USSR did back in the last century?

Edited by brainbox, 16 June 2007 - 03:55 PM.

We have already sown the seeds. Both economies are now so totally dependant on ours that any flunctuation felt here becomes a massive shockwave to them. If the US falls, they will be at the bottom already, ready to greet us in our misery. They both know this. The actual war being waged is them attempting to remove themselves from the US economic hegemony. At this time, it is not possible. Only China has the means to do so...in about a decade...maybe.

Not only China but also India and Russia in a decade or so will have the potential to break free from their dependency on the US economy. Especially if Putin decides not to step down and take another term. Putin managed to turn all of Russia around and if he continues, then the US better be afraid, very, very afraid.

What happens to China if we stop buying them? What happens if we default on their loans. The USSR? Japan? India? Australia? Chile? Argentina? Venezuela? We, sir, are the market. Without the US economy, most of the rest of the world ceases to exist as surely as if we nuked them into oblivion.

Wrong … short of. For instance, the EU is dependant on Russia and not the other way around. If Russia closed their pipe lines and stopped exporting natural gas to Europe, it will be an economical disaster!

In conclusion, all I can offer is this: Despite the government, the US has and always will strive for the best good of all other nations. Administrations come and go. Bush will be gone soon enough. Already the conservative base is mustering to put an end to his foibles, correct the wrongs, and prevent the Dems from mucking things up worse as is their way.

You should be glad when I speak of the new war. As long as we can sustain war as an economic struggle, few people will have to die. For that, I’m willing that my country can play the cowboy diplomat. I don’t think Bush has done as bad as the press would like. He just isn't as good as other presidents at fighting off the wolves in the press. The trick is to look at the facts, not the fiction that comes off the AP wire.

Total BS! The US government isn’t looking for the best interest of other nations! It’s a power hungry administration looking to maximize profit. Iraq for example … why did we invade it? To save the people from a dictator who had no armed forces left, or to establish a beachhead? Why don’t we invade Somalia or Sudan and save those nations from poverty and war? If we really wanted Saddam out, then we should just have done what we did in Libya with its dictator problem.

We’re the ones who supplied BOTH Saddam Hussein and the Taliban with weapons – or don’t you remember? Hint: look up the Iran/Iraq war and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

As a US citizen myself, I am truly disappointed in the US government. And how one can even consider Bush a good president? Don’t you know how HUGE his family’s oil company is, and how much profit he’s making out of that? Plus, provoking war as a means to keep us economically sustained happy and safe is also BS.

Enough said … just look up in Google … “Project for the New American Century” then tell me that the US is not corrupt.

Kotas, imo all goverment is corrupt. But moving on...

And to be honest, the death of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko do seem to make me suspicious of Putin. However, these do not compare to the crimes that Bush has committed.

Putin has comittied more crimes against his own nation then Bush could ever dream of. the problem is he is in a position to get away with it. There is still the sketchy details of how putin got elected in the first place, and the convienent timing of the new wave of terrorost activity in moscow just as the election started. oh, and that his first move was to shut down all free media in russia. this was particuarly spectacular to watch. each week, there would be a new news station broadcasted, complete with new anchor person and back drop, and the old media people would be on the wanted list, usually having fled the country. Bush cannot compete with Putin on the civil terror front.

And what ever good Putin has done, you can be sure its come at a greater cost elsewhere. But still Russia is improving, and its in noones interest to see realtions between the USA and the world dissolve. Economy or no economy, the world will be a far more stable place if these leaders can just stop trying to rub eachother up the wrong way. And if putting missile defenece systems anywhere near those regions is not a way for the americans to piss off Russia, then im not sure what it is.

the defense industries

No enemy, no reason to spend.

Seems to be a good idea to spend money on defense industries. We want to protect the damn country.

I wish Congress would shit a trillion dollar brick into border security. It will probably take a nuke to persuade America to do that, but at this rate it's only a matter of time before some terrorist sneaks a snuke into the country somehow.

To everyone involved in this thread I think I am now going to pull rank early so it won't have to be often.

Politics, and especially a topic of this nature is one that will become heated and I am not sure it shouldn't be. Many of the aspects of this debate involve impacts that threaten the lives of millions and the welfare of all. This topic deserves to be treated seriously and even with passion; however....

We must be careful to not make it personal between us.

I am glad this topic has arisen and I am also looking forward to seeing it pursued. In fact I suggest that we link a number of other related threads that are in the archives but for the sake of the newbies I suspect I should explain a few things.

Mind and I for example vehemently disagree over many aspects of this topic and I am confident we both feel passionate on the subject but we each also strongly respect the other and care very deeply about each other's opinion AND feelings. We might argue passionately and with strong language about one another's opinions but we must all try our best to never insult one another.

Ganshuck happens to have returned from a long absence and is quite familiar to me ideologically as some of you will learn from reading our archives but while we strongly disagree I suspect we could share more than a few intoxicating beverages at leisure without beginning to brawl. I do not take offense at his use of the phrase "BS" with me and tried instead to meet the challenge of his strong language with the substance of ideas. I did however return the favor linguistically.

I have wondered since doing so if it was a good idea regardless of how relatively benign the language was. I think it is vital that topics like this that are both important and risk emotional baggage which violates our rules of conduct, be rigidly moderated and conducted according to rules of debate so that not only the participants but all future readers of the thread can learn something from our explorations of the subject.

To that end I am stating that I will try and refrain from using any ad hominems in the future and warn that I might invoke moderation privileges I possess if anyone else does. With that in mind let's all return to the core of this debate, which is antithetical to the very idea of rules and yet ironically compatible with the idea of a *Cold War*, which is after all a form of debate backed up with arms and risking dire consequences for the loser.

Laz, agreed. I did remove my ironical remark that could very well be percieved as ad hominem. With a glass of good beer it would have sounded a lot better I guess.

What happens to China if we stop buying them? What happens if we default on thier loans. The USSR? Japan? India? Australia? Chile? Argentina? Venezuela? We, sir, are the market. Without the US economy, most of the rest of the world ceases to exist as surely as if we nuked them into oblivion.

IMO, this kind of self-centered thinking is dangerous and far from the truth. You forgot the EU for instance. But that's not the major issue. Please explain how the current US economy benefits to the world economy? What is the US GNP as compared to other western countries? What's happening internally in the US with the housing market and mortgages people cannot afford anymore? Other financial issues US inhabitants have with high level of loans? The US just needs the cheap products from China, it's the only kind of quality the working class of the US society is able to afford.

To put that into perspective and on-topic again, isn't the US forgetting the balance between civil and military economics the way the USSR did back in the last century?

Edited by brainbox, 16 June 2007 - 04:00 PM.

Mind and I for example vehemently disagree over many aspects of this topic and I am confident we both feel passionate on the subject but we each also strongly respect the other and care very deeply about each other's opinion AND feelings. We might argue passionately and with strong language about one another's opinions but we must all try our best to never insult one another.

I agree. I myself will try not to use words such as “BS” again, and I will try to talk in a neutral frame of mind.

Putin has comittied more crimes against his own nation then Bush could ever dream of. the problem is he is in a position to get away with it. There is still the sketchy details of how putin got elected in the first place, and the convienent timing of the new wave of terrorost activity in moscow just as the election started. oh, and that his first move was to shut down all free media in russia. this was particuarly spectacular to watch. each week, there would be a new news station broadcasted, complete with new anchor person and back drop, and the old media people would be on the wanted list, usually having fled the country. Bush cannot compete with Putin on the civil terror front.

Ok … I would have to agree with you on this one. On a civil front Putin does seem to be guilty of many crimes. Putin (obviously) was never elected, but was appointed by Boris Yeltsin (who recently died). And his control over the media is no doubt dominant. It is also interesting how Putin managed to silence the war with Chechnya.

But lets not get carried away Hugo Chavez is also doing the same thing with the media in his country by recently closing down a news station.

Putin is responsible for many crimes, but also managed to boost Russia’s economy at the same time. However, Putin has not even come close in creating a death toll like the one Bush created in Iraq … 3,800 troops … 72,000 civilians.

Oh ... and lets not forget the new Patriot Act Bush passed.

> But lets not get carried away Hugo Chavez is also doing the same thing with the media in his country by recently closing down a news station.

Sure, but Hugo like Putin is an autocratic thug. Why should we find it comforting that these countries (and I would include Iran and others as well) are working in concert with one another (militarily and diplomatically) instead of being isolated.

> Oh ... and lets not forget the new Patriot Act Bush passed.

Silly me, I thought it was the congress which passed laws.

> But lets not get carried away Hugo Chavez is also doing the same thing with the media in his country by recently closing down a news station.

Sure, but Hugo like Putin is an autocratic thug. Why should we find it comforting that these countries (and I would include Iran and others as well) are working in concert with one another (militarily and diplomatically) instead of being isolated.

> Oh ... and lets not forget the new Patriot Act Bush passed.

Silly me, I thought it was the congress which passed laws.

I don't exactly find it comforting if these countries are working together, then again I don't find it realistic for them be working with each other.

And thanks for correcting me on congress, I got carried away. [tung]

> then again I don't find it realistic for them be working with each other.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/4932814.stm

http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=6906839

(Note: in light of the recent Russian uproar over the possible placement of components of the U.S. balistic missile *defense* system in former Eastern bloc countries, I find this quote by Russian Defense minister Sergei Ivanov particularly amusing: "If Iran wants to buy defensive, I underline defensive, equipment for its armed forces, then why not?" I guess message here is that defensive capabilities are o.k. as long as you happen to be a fundamentalist Islamic regime which sponsors terrorism throughout the Middle East and has clearly stated goal to annihilate the state of Israel.)

http://www.chinadail...tent_395320.htm

http://www.iht.com/a...news/russia.php

http://www.nytimes.c...tner=rssnyt

Putin (obviously) was never elected, but was appointed by Boris Yeltsin (who recently died). And his control over the media is no doubt dominant. It is also interesting how Putin managed to silence the war with Chechnya.

Again, this comes down to who you believe. This was the story that was fed to the media, but it seems more that Yeltsin actually had little to no controll over who he appointed. When it looked as if yeltsin was going to loose the election, it seemed he basically gave in to the higher stakes of corperate russia, at that time somthing equivant to the Mob i guess. they gave him money, they expected much in return. They levied Yeltsin out of power and placed Putin there. Putin very quickly, once he had the power, sezied all of the assets of this group, imprisoned 2 of them and the other 3 fled the country. Putin was then pretty much able to do as he pleased. Many still attribute the Moscow bombings that restared the force of the war in Chechnya to Putin, as apprently the kinds of explosives they found on those apartment buildings were Russian military and set up with a great knowedge of how they worked. Somthing they said was not really possible for the Terrorists they pinned it on.

Putin is responsible for many crimes, but also managed to boost Russia’s economy at the same time. However, Putin has not even come close in creating a death toll like the one Bush created in Iraq … 3,800 troops … 72,000 civilians.

Also the military startergy in Chechnya for Russia is: Sweep the entire country destroying it villiage by villiage. Noone knows the casualty count, its hard to count when the entire point is to wipe out the whole country. but of course, the western media know little of this, and as you say the war is kept rather quiet in the west. but not in Russia. in Russia its always a matter of bravado, and much talk of how the terrorirsts are slowly being subdued.

But doing bad things and yet keeping the country going strong seems to be a dual stratergy of many rulers. Not to even compare them, but john howard here in oz is about the same. There have been terrible things done with the refugee problem we have here, and it was actually called upon back in the day in the "shildren overbaord" scandel, where the govermenet tried to make it look like refugees were actually willing to throw their children over the old rusted boats they were trying to get here in so they could drown. when infact they were trying to get off said boat as it was sinking and the navy was going to start shooting at them. And yet australias economy has been stronger then its ever been...

Again, this comes down to who you believe. This was the story that was fed to the media, but it seems more that Yeltsin actually had little to no controll over who he appointed. When it looked as if yeltsin was going to loose the election, it seemed he basically gave in to the higher stakes of corperate russia, at that time somthing equivant to the Mob i guess. they gave him money, they expected much in return. They levied Yeltsin out of power and placed Putin there. Putin very quickly, once he had the power, sezied all of the assets of this group, imprisoned 2 of them and the other 3 fled the country. Putin was then pretty much able to do as he pleased. Many still attribute the Moscow bombings that restared the force of the war in Chechnya to Putin, as apprently the kinds of explosives they found on those apartment buildings were Russian military and set up with a great knowedge of how they worked. Somthing they said was not really possible for the Terrorists they pinned it on...

Well, if it comes to speculation, I have a better option. Yeltsin discovered that the transfer to a free market economy, almost without any central guidance, was destined to derail into an extreme form of capitalism. The Russian economy became almost entirely controlled by only a few very big companies. Which was more or less predicted by Gorbatsjov, who stood for a more gradual approach. From that background, it seems very logical to put someone like Putin in control. If the election was orchestrated or not, I really wouldn't know, but at that time it was one of the better options. It is just not feasible to expect from a society that has been a communist central guided economy for more then a century to transfer to a healthy free market economy in a jiffy. Just not possible. The possibility of manipulation of election or election results is not preferable of coarse, but hey, we do live in a real world with real world limitations.

i would not call it speculation. Im sorry to sound like the conspiracy theorist that i am certianly not, but what is 'known' to be the case in ech country seems to be very diffrent. the story you tell is absolutly indicative of the western view on events. In russia they have a very diffrent story they tell. thats all i was trying to point out.

Im not arguing that these moves were bad for the russian ecomony. Just commenting on the events that allowed such a change to run the way it did.