Cold War/ War on Terror?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by blackfox, Apr 21, 2004.

  1. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #1
    It would seem that I am not the best at posting new and interesting threads, but in reading about Iraq, The War on Terror and comparisons to Vietnam...does anyone else feel that this is just an extension/update of the Cold War mentality? Just remove the phrase 'the threat of communism' and insert 'the threat of terrorism'...both the war on terror and the cold war seemed to posit a vague, somewhat irrational battle against democracy/freedom/capitalism and the enemies of such (communism/terrorism). Comments? By the way, as a relatively new contributor to these political forums, I am impressed by the arguments herein, and I hope I am contributing something useful...thanks
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Absolutely: the military-industrial complex NEEDS a constant war/threat of war, moreover a war which by definition is unwinnable, to keep their appropriations, R&D funding, slush funds and the rest flowing unimpeded from us to them. If the US had forces for defence rather than offence, the military budget would be 1/10th of what it is, and you wouldn't have to keep borrowing from the rest of us to threaten us with big sticks.
     
  3. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    Well, there is a significant difference in that the Soviet Union certainly existed, as well as other communist countries. And communist ideology did call for overthrowing capitalism--in other words overthrowing the U.S. government and economic system (among others). On the other hand, the ideology called for this to be accomplished by American workers, not armed invasion.

    Terrorism, on the other hand, is a tactic, not an ideology, nor a country nor a set of countries. The fact is, we are not fighting a war on terrorism. We were fighting a war on Islamic fundamentalism and then we invaded Iraq. Now I have no idea what war we are fighting. The war to transform the Middle East? We seem to be fighting over a territory and region more than any particular ideology.
     
  4. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #4
    Don't be so modest! This is one of the most interesting and provocative threads started here for a while - thanks!

    This goes to the heart of the Iraq invasion as a perceived part of the war on terrorism. The reason I was/am so angry about the war is that I don't like being taken for a fool by my government, giving us reasons for military action which were palpably untrue.

    Their reason, when all others (WMD, terrorist links) were proved false, was to justify it in the context of the "war against terrorism". As far as I can see, this could be used as a justification for just about any action in the future. It's the perfect foil - an invisible foe who crosses borders & nationalities, and is perceived as so dangerous as to warrant relinquishing human rights, international diplomacy and sovereign status, all based on intelligence!
     
  5. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    Good points, milo...although I do feel that it is an ideological battle, especially for our side. Islamic culture is (for better or worse) significantly different than our own, and in a world where western culture is running rampant (exemplified by the US), I feel a certain sympathy for Islamic culture trying to defend its' values against it. It is hard to fight the slick images portrayed via satelite dish, and looking at modern US popular culture, I do believe they have a point. Not that I advocate the tactic of terrorism. I do think it is the same underlying assumptions which fuel this "war", a fear of that which is different and non-compatible to our economic system, the labeling of that as 'evil' and the overzealous attempts at its' destruction, sometimes at the expense of common sense...and again I feel that is true on both sides...as far as fighting territories, it is all we are used to, which brings up the interesting point that within such a mobile world, do we blame countries for activities of groups w/in its' borders? If a German cyber-terrorist brought down the US financial system, would we declare war on Germany? It is this very complicated nature of things that troubles me so much w/ the current US administration and their seeming adherence to a simplistic us/them policy a la the Cold War...
    *edit* rambling, disorganized post...sorry
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    And if you question the intel too hard you can be told 'we know things you don't' before the fact, and 'well our intel was faulty, it's not our fault' after the fact. Inscrutable logic you know.
     
  7. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #7
    Exactly. This was Blair's mantra in the run-up to the war - "if you knew what I new you'd agree with me".

    As we found out afterwards, he knew nothing we didn't know, and the stuff he did "know" was almost entirely rubbish, bought from Chalabi & co by the FBI with US taxpayers money.
     

Share This Page