Another WW, or ColdWar?

[Individual]

The topic has come up before (and not a thread, so I am not reposting) of which would result in better outcomes.

Do you think that another World War would prove to have a better outcome than another Cold War?

Or do you think that another Cold War would surely result in the destruction of life on this Biosphere?

Or there is even the extremely possible option that another WW would also host a Cold War. In which opposing nations are in a stand still waiting to push the destruction button.

Obviously a World War would host many casualties, and could possibly change the World again. However what is to say that another Cold War did not mean the end of life on this planet? Hopefully both of these options can, and will be avoided as best as possible. Then again, isn't it inevitable.

So what is your opinion on which option you think would be more destructive, and do you think that both would combine into a giant countdown to change Universal history?

[Individual]

What.. No comments?

bump.

[Osman Ghazi]

Who exactly are the belligerents?

[Individual]

How would I know. This has not happened yet. Most likely the countries in power with the weapons of World destruction.

My question is what do you think would pose a larger problem. Another WW or a Cold War? Or do you think that the two will involve eachother?

[LuZhiming]

I don't quite understand the question. The "Cold War" was a complete fraud.

[Fidel Castro]

Well, on the one hand the last world war resulted in the deaths of millions and destroyed whole nations.

The Cold War on the other hand never developed into full scale conflict, casualities were very few I would imagine.

[Individual]

Perhaps you guys are completely misinterpreting my question. Actually, you are.

If another WW or Cold War were to happen. Which do you think would have a worse outcome? Would you think that another Cold War would result in actual nuclear exchange?

A complete fraud? And your reasoning and/or proof of this would be? Explain to me exactly how it was a fraud. This I would like to hear.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:59 AM
A complete fraud? And your reasoning and/or proof of this would be? Explain to me exactly how it was a fraud. This I would like to hear.
The Cold War was nothing but a fantasy. 'Communism' just became an imagined threat that the U.S. used to attack people it didn't like. The Soviets were simply carrying out their own selfish agenda as well, they cared nothing about battling Capitalism, especially the U.S.

I could give you plenty of examples.

The Eisenhower administration made the decision to overthrow the government of Cuba before there was any Soviet connection, and before Cuba declared itself Communist.

Mohammad Mossadegh wasn't a Communist at all, he simply wanted to nationalize Iran's oil, but that didn't stop the CIA from overthrowing him and using the "Communist" excuse.

Jacobo Arbenz Guzman of Guatemala also made the mistake of nationalizing businesses in Guatemala. And being a Capitalist wasn't enough to keep the U.S. from overthrowing Arbenz. They used the excuse that he had bought weapons from Czechoslovakia. Of course, no one bothered to mention that the embargo forced Arbenz to purchase weapons from the East. There was also the excuse that there were Communists in Guatemala. That's true, there were, because Arbenz allowed political freedoms. He didn't have any Communists in his cabinet.

The Vietnamese weren't 'Communist' either. Ho Chi Minh wrote letters to Truman and the State Department asking the U.S. to help the Vietnamese for their independence. He modeled the Vietnamese declaration of independence after the U.S.', he admired the U.S. But after constant refusals, Ho Chi Minh suddenly became Communist overnight and suddenly started recieving weapons from the Soviet Union. And so the U.S. had to launch a war to stop the Communism from destroying Vietnam(By destroying Vietnam).

Sukarno of Indonesia was also accused of being a Communist. The reason being that he actually recognized the legitimacy of the Communist Party, among others. He never actually claimed to be a Communist, he never made Indonesia Communist, but he had to be overthrown, along with 1,000,000 others.

In Angola, the U.S. started a civil war and backed the FNLA and UNITA, as well as the Portugese, South Africans, and even Mobutu of Zaire. The MPLA, were of course somehow Communists. Although all details of the groups show they weren't much different from eachother. There were supposed to be elections, but the U.S. decided to send arms to FNLA months before the scheduled elections, and the group subsequently attacked MPLA headquarters and later murdered 51 men. Somehow they were Communists.

There was Salvador Allende of Chile. The U.S. had no worries about bringing Democracy to Chile, he was democratically elected. One problem: He was a Socialist. Allende followed all of the rules, but that wasn't enough to save him. He was overthrown and replaced by dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Take a look at Cambodia. Pol Pot came to power and overthrew the U.S. backed dictator Lon Nol. The Soviets backed him, Pol Pot claimed he was Communist. He was a bad guy then. He turned out to be a much worse dictator than Lon Nol, and launched small attacks on Vietnamn's borders. He was still a bad guy. But when the Vietnamese responded to his attacks, and overthrew him, he was now a good guy. So the U.S. had to make sure the U.N. kept Pol Pot as the legal ruler of Cambodia, and had to make sure their dictatorial friends in Thailand shipped some of the U.S.' weapons to him. The Communist threat was somehow over.

The most ridicolous example is that of Nicolae Ceauºescu. He was also a 'Communist.' According to Reagan however, he was a "good Communist." He was one of the cruelest dictators of the time, but somehow that didn't change the idea that Ceauºescu was a good guy. No U.S. interventions against this benign ruler.

The example could continue, Nicaragua, Grenada, Greece, Dominican Republic, the Congo and others are all worthy examples.

[General A.A.Vlasov]

KA:" Second cold war started as soon as Vladimir Putin and bUsh has taken control of their countries!

bUsh want to make american empire...fuckin' bastard!
And Putin don't want Russia to be weak and silent! Only STRONG and powerful!"

[Individual]

LuZ.

All of those examples explained no solid evidence against the actual Cold War. You meantioned the USSR and the US in very minute detail. You did nothing to dissprove the actual tension between the US and USSR and the spy attempts made by both sides.

You did nothing to explain the military and technology advances made by both sides in order to 'out-do' the other. You did nothing to explain the surplus of Nuclear and Hydrogen weapons. You have done absolutely nothing but explain how 'communist' countries that had a small role in the Cold War.

Maybe your defintion of the Cold War that took place may be different than that of mine. I have a feeling you are thinking of all of this as a fight against communism by the US.

[LuZhiming]

You meantioned the USSR and the US in very minute detail. You did nothing to dissprove the actual tension between the US and USSR and the spy attempts made by both sides.

There wasn't tension. In reality, the USSR would have loved to end conflicts with the U.S. It was the U.S. versus anyone it felt like fighting against.


You did nothing to explain the military and technology advances made by both sides in order to 'out-do' the other. You did nothing to explain the surplus of Nuclear and Hydrogen weapons. You have done absolutely nothing but explain how 'communist' countries that had a small role in the Cold War.

Those don't make the Cold War. That could happen between any two countries. Those are completely irrelivant details. The idea that the Soviet Union and the U.S. were enemies trying to defeat eachother's ideology is a complete fantasy.

[Individual]

There wasn't tension. In reality, the USSR would have loved to end conflicts with the U.S. It was the U.S. versus anyone it felt like fighting against.

Whether or not either side wished to end the tension, the USSR came close to bankruptcy in the process.

Explain to me how there was not tension. Really this is clearly information that has never presented itself to me, would really like to see it.


Those don't make the Cold War. That could happen between any two countries. Those are completely irrelivant details. The idea that the Soviet Union and the U.S. were enemies trying to defeat eachother's ideology is a complete fantasy.

What exactly is your definition of 'Cold War'? I think you are on a totally different page of the book here.

Please explain to me the exact reasoning for the events that took place between the USSR and the US then. What exactly would you call this, friendly relations? Honestly, where did you come up with this from?

[Individual]

For everyone else that wishes to respond to my original quesion.

Which do you think would pose a more destructive consequence? Another WW or a Cold War between powerful Nations? I am curious for answers to this.

It is really something logical to think about, yet nobody seems to wish to respond.

[LuZhiming]

Whether or not either side wished to end the tension, the USSR came close to bankruptcy in the process.

And?


Explain to me how there was not tension. Really this is clearly information that has never presented itself to me, would really like to see it.

The concept of the tension is a fantasy. Of course they didn't have friendly relations, but the USSR didn't even want unfriendly relations with the U.S. Its leaders were simply building up to fullfill their own ambitions against poorer nations, as well as defending against the U.S.


What exactly is your definition of 'Cold War'? I think you are on a totally different page of the book here.

Basically, a definition that implies there being some sort of power struggle between the U.S. and Soviet Union.


Please explain to me the exact reasoning for the events that took place between the USSR and the US then.

1. U.S. tries to exploit poor nations around the world
2. Soviet Union tries to exploit poor nations around the world
3. U.S. decides to destroy Soviet Union
4. Soviet Union decides not to be overthrown
5. Soviet Union makes Capitalist reforms
6. Fall of Soviet Union

You may notice how the Soviet Union and the U.S. never fought eachother. All they did was fight a bunch of nations they pretended had some sort of role in aiding the other side. But they never fought eachother. Do you get it? Both sides used this "Cold War" justification battle weak nation and exploit them. That's all it was. So how is there a war between the U.S. and USSR?

[Saint-Just]

I would agree with you to some extent Lu Zhiming, on perspective of the Col War. However, Arbenz may not have been a communist, but ideologically he did pose a threat to the U.S. The same with Ho Chi Minh since 1930. The adoption of Ceauceascu as a 'good communist' was down to Ceaucescu's own efforts, and whether the U.S. was leading a crusade against communism they would have likely favoured Ceaucescu anyway.


Which do you think would pose a more destructive consequence? Another WW or a Cold War between powerful Nations? I am curious for answers to this.

I would suggest it would be another world war, particularly if nuclear weapons were used, assuming another cold war ran a similar course as it did in the 20th Century.

I don't see much chance of another world war for at least a couple of decades. The powerful nations are generally in league with each other. U.S., Britain, Germany, China, Russia.

[LuZhiming]

However, Arbenz may not have been a communist, but ideologically he did pose a threat to the U.S.

He posed a "threat" in the sense that he could spread an influence to the surrounding regions, which would threaten the profits of corrupt U.S. businessmen. That isn't actually a threat to the U.S., nor was it meant to be, or ever would be. That's my point, no country challenged the U.S., no country wanted to have any sort of war or power struggle with the U.S. The Cold War was a fraud.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 10:30 PM

However, Arbenz may not have been a communist, but ideologically he did pose a threat to the U.S.

He posed a "threat" in the sense that he could spread an influence to the surrounding regions, which would threaten the profits of corrupt U.S. businessmen. That isn't actually a threat to the U.S., nor was it meant to be, or ever would be. That's my point, no country challenged the U.S., no country wanted to have any sort of war or power struggle with the U.S. The Cold War was a fraud.
Yes of course. They were not a military threat, but I would suggest that the U.S. regards economic threats as highly significant since its system relies on economic involvement into other countries. I do agree that you may be right in saying that the cold war was to some extent 'a fraud' in that the U.S. knew the Soviets would never attack and used the pretence of the communist threat to expand their influence. Also, they were able to develop ideological control over their own country through escelating this threat of communism.

I have not really studied the Cold War in much detail but your theory seems sound to me, and from a leftist perspective it is not suprising that you would want to expose this truth about the Cold War.

[General A.A.Vlasov]

WE wote for new WW...it would be nuclear war... :(