A second cold war?

Overheal

If we were to enter a 2nd cold war between russia and the usa:

who would you rather as your commander in cheif?

I'm leaning toward McCain, because I feel like barack obama would spend more time in diplomacy than taking up action than mccain - if Russia rolled into turkey tomorrow say, it would be kind of like the situation now: we'd talk and we'd talk and all the while russia would keep on rolling.

nyarlothothep

I think diplomacy rather than action, whatever that entails, would be preferable, when dealing with nukes. The first cold war was idiotic, the cuban missile crisis was the peak of that idiocy, tbh all nukes should be dismantled, of course thats not the way things work given self interest, greed, power mongering and so on. I think Mc Cain would be sensible enough to deal with any cold war bullsh1t in a responsible manner, given that hes fought in a war and is aware of the immense human cost incurred by any sort of warfare. I would think Obama has the intellectual depth to take an intelligent approach too, rather than lapsing into a rivalry and threats agenda. Man, I really cannot fathom how stupid the cold war was, the very idea of it is repugnant. Thank god Bush and his cohorts are on the way out. Imagine Donald Rumsfeld dealing with such a situation.

MagicMarker

Who's this 'we' you speak of?

Don't go dragging us into your play flights Overheal!!! grrrr

banquo

There won't be a second cold war.

Hobbes

Overheal wrote: »

I'm leaning toward McCain, because I feel like barack obama would spend more time in diplomacy than taking up action than mccain.

To resort to violence should always be the last option when you have exhausted every other means.

I would much prefer someone who is going to use diplomacy long before the threats of ass kicking come up.

I recommend you watching Ritters comment about modern warfare. The same rule would apply with the Russians that it would with Iran. That is "Pick your city".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DokGx_JBWyg

is_that_so

Much of the "cold war" nonsense has been drummed up in the media. We now live in an age where much of what we read is based around "I said it first" and leads to some seriously misguided theories that wouldn't even make US tabloids. We are in the middle of August and it fills column inches and evokes a bizarre re-imagining of that MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) era that many people have no recollection of. Bush is on his way out , the Americans can effectively do nothing about the Russian anyway but it all sounds good. They also need an enemy. The American psyche doesn't seem to see that being the "good guy" can be done without an "enemy".

The world has fundamentally changed since that time. The EU is now a power, one that created the current agreement in Georgia, and also one that favours a better partnership with Russia. Much of this has been painstakingly worked through over the last number of years.

What I do think is more interesting is what the US role in world politics will become during this presidency. Aside from disentangling itself from Iraq and attempting to wind down Afghanistan I can see a more Realpolitik attitude developing, simply because they need to. No point in being the "good guy" when a lot of people think you're the "bad guy".

Sand

Theres two types of world views - those who view every potential confrontation as Munich where diplomacy or neutrality merely allows the aggressor time to achieve his objectives. And those who view every potential confrontation as Vietnam where warfare leads only to inevitable defeat, loss of face and needless slaughter.

Chamberlain would have been the perfect man to deal with Vietnam, in hindsight. JFK would have been the perfect man to deal with Munich, in hindsight.

McCain & Obama will face the same intel, broadly the same advice from their diplomats and generals. They will have the same broad US interests to protect. US foreign policy will not alter noticeably regardless of whose in power. Clinton and Bush foreign policy differed only in tone, not in substance - if anything Clinton bombed and invaded more countries with and without UN approval than Bush ever did.

What I would say is that it is of benefit to the US to be seen as dangerous, to be seen as willing to use their military might to achieve their own objectives should diplomacy fail. Talk softly and carry a big stick works only if others think theres a chance you will use that stick. With McCain in power, there is likely to be more respect for the threat of potential US military intervention. With Obama, several US rivals may seek to "test" Obama, to see what they can get away with when there is a man in the White House whose election campaign is based mostly on pacifist support and accepting defeat/retreating from Iraq.

From that point of view, it may be better for world peace and stability if potential US rivals are wary of McCains warmongering reputation and dont push their luck. Obama may either not react to provocation - undermining the security umbrella which has broadly maintained world peace since the second world war, or worse yet try to "prove" his security credentials by escalating an issue into a full blown confrontation.

banquo

<- Some fine points right there.

+1

Hobbes

Sand wrote: »

What I would say is that it is of benefit to the US to be seen as dangerous, to be seen as willing to use their military might to achieve their own objectives should diplomacy fail.

While your other comments are interesting I stand by the previous comment that anyone who has to resort to violence as your first move then you are at a position of weakness.

With McCain in power, there is likely to be more respect for the threat of potential US military intervention.

Bullys don't get respect. If any other country was to make a show of force I doubt very much the US would stand for it, so why do people think that other countries will roll over and let the US threaten them?

I will repeat what I said before.. You pick McCain you pick a city. Because any show of force on another country and a US city will be the first hit in the retaliation.

With Obama, several US rivals may seek to "test" Obama, to see what they can get away

Test in what way exactly? According to Obama himself it appears he is also willing to invest in a big stick (ref). Prehaps you can point out what is lacking in Obamas plan for Forigen policy ?

based mostly on pacifist support and accepting defeat/retreating from Iraq.

First up, Iraq don't want the US there. They have already laid out a plan to remove the troops. It is not a matter of accepting defeat (and according to Bush you already won).

Diplomacy is not the same as pacifism. But refusing to use diplomacy is a show of arrogance, not strength.

Sand

While your other comments are interesting I stand by the previous comment that anyone who has to resort to violence as your first move then you are at a position of weakness.

Who says you resort to violence as your first move? Diplomacy comes down to getting the other side to agree to something they dont want to. Which is difficult. But you can ensure that the other side wants to reach a diplomatic solution by making it extremely clear that you are ready and willing to use overwhelmining military power if they refuse to settle diplomatically.

Marching into a diplomatic conference and the first thing you say is "Guys, dont worry - even if you tell us to go **** ourselves, well not resort to violence - well just send you a polite letter telling you how angry we are...."

Thats a position of weakness. The US has a position of immense strength in most negotiations because its viewed as being willing and able to employ force should diplomacy fail - so people work twice as hard at making diplomacy work.

Bullys don't get respect.

The world is run by bullys. The Chinese arent run by the girl scouts, and the boys in the Kremlin dont spend their days putting ribbons in their hair. And thats just the guys on the UN Security Council.

People are tortured, murdered, executed, starved, beaten, imprisoned, demeaned, abused and spat on across the world every day - often whilst the impotent "international community" looks on, wringing their hands. It is a world of bullies, and their victims who sometimes change positions. Liberal, free "Western" society is the exception, not the rule.

Bullies respect/fear power, and they respect/fear willingness to use that power. McCain is more likely to be able to keep minor regional powers in line. His threat of "or else" will be taken more seriously.

I will repeat what I said before.. You pick McCain you pick a city.

A US city is going to get nuked at some point anyhow. Jihadists arent waiting for a McCain election - they have discussed and agreed they have the moral right to do it, they are already seeking the weapons. Its just a matter of time given the technology is from the 50s - black and white TV stuff.

Whose in office is irrelevant to Jihadists. They dont vote Democrat or Republican. They have their own agenda.

Test in what way exactly? According to Obama himself it appears he is also willing to invest in a big stick (ref). Prehaps you can point out what is lacking in Obamas plan for Forigen policy ?

Credibility. You yourself believe McCain is more likely to use force than Obama [ ...pick your city...?].

First up, Iraq don't want the US there. They have already laid out a plan to remove the troops. It is not a matter of accepting defeat (and according to Bush you already won).

Diplomacy is not the same as pacifism. But refusing to use diplomacy is a show of arrogance, not strength.

I think you may have me mistaken for someone else there.

And firstly, Iraq may not want the US there, but it NEEDS the US there or it would fall apart in a forthnight - which would have dire implications for the region, and the world seeing as most of the worlds energy supplies come from there. The US can act as middlemen between the various Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite power blocks, can twist the arm of the Shiites to make concessions needed to get the Sunnis and Kurds on board, and in many minority areas the US military is fare more trusted than the government police and troops - the police in particular were infiltrated by militias and engaged in campaigns of terror against Iraqi minorities whereas the US has not.

I known theres a desire to view violence in Iraq as some pan-nationalist front against foreign occupation as it suits certain world views, but its a little more complicated than that.

Anyhow, its far too early to tell what the result of the Iraq war will be - 10 years from now Iraq could be a broadly functional peaceful democracy, or it could be a sectarian hell hole of hatred and civil war, or it could simply cease to exist with 2 or 3 countries in its place.

And again, youre assuming that projecting the willingness to use force is incompatible with diplomacy when in fact its inseperable. You need to be able to back up the "or else" part of diplomacy.

Hobbes

Sand wrote: »

Who says you resort to violence as your first move?

McCain has said he would use violence.

Diplomacy comes down to getting the other side to agree to something they dont want to.

No it is using negotiation to have both sides come out with at least the important parts of what they wanted.

But you can ensure that the other side wants to reach a diplomatic solution by making it extremely clear that you are ready and willing to use overwhelmining military power if they refuse to settle diplomatically.

There is a term for that kind of negotiation. It is called pulling the steering wheel off. Basically two oncoming cars about to hit, each telling the other to move, finally one pulls the steering wheel off.

That kind of negotiation doesn't work.

The US has a position of immense strength in most negotiations because its viewed as being willing and able to employ force should diplomacy fail - so people work twice as hard at making diplomacy work.

Sorry but that is Bull. If that was true then there would be war in Iraq, North Korean wouldn't of started going down the road of making nuclear weapons.

His threat of "or else" will be taken more seriously.

Most people when threatened with violence will resort to violence to defend themselves.

Credibility. You yourself believe McCain is more likely to use force than Obama [ ...pick your city...?].

Watch the Ritter speech on attacking Iran. Something that McCain has said he will do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DokGx_JBWyg

And firstly, Iraq may not want the US there, but it NEEDS the US there or it would fall apart in a forthnight

A lot of the division created is due to US forces being their. The Iraq people voted before on wanting the US troops out of their country, the Iraq government has also said they want the troops out within 3 years.

You need to be able to back up the "or else" part of diplomacy.

Like I said, if you are using violence as a bargaining chip, then you are the weaker party.

Sand

McCain has said he would use violence.

Are you reading my posts? Im curious because Im sure I asked "Who says you resort to violence as your first move?" not "Who says you resort to violence?"

No it is using negotiation to have both sides come out with at least the important parts of what they wanted.

.....not worth the effort

There is a term for that kind of negotiation. It is called pulling the steering wheel off. Basically two oncoming cars about to hit, each telling the other to move, finally one pulls the steering wheel off.

That kind of negotiation doesn't work.

Sure it does - The Russians have pretty much ensured that the Geogians wont "Come out with at least the important parts of what they wanted". The actual and implied use of violence is a great diplomatic tool. When you win a war, you dont negotiate with the other side as an equal.

Sorry but that is Bull. If that was true then there would be war in Iraq, North Korean wouldn't of started going down the road of making nuclear weapons.

Right, well I guess Georgia isnt occupied by the Russian army right now having just had its ass kicked. Im sure the negotiations are between equals right there. In no way, shape or form are the Georgians negotiating from a position of weakness because they are currently occupied and totally defeated by a vastly superior Russian military. No, no, Im sure youre right on the money there.

Most people when threatened with violence will resort to violence to defend themselves.

EXACTLY!!!!

Thats my point. The minor regional powers expect the US to resort to violence to defend their interests, to maintain world stability and their hegemony of it. This is why China hasnt invaded Taiwan, this is why North Korea hasnt solved its economic issues by invading South Korea, and so on.

They expect the US to resort to violence because the US has carefully ensured it projects the ability and most importantly the willingness to go to war. With McCain in office they are certain of it due to his supposed war mongering reputation. They dont even chance it.

With Obama....well, lets test the waters a bit shall we....

Watch the Ritter speech on attacking Iran. Something that McCain has said he will do.

I have watched it actually. Ritter starts well criticising the use of tactical nukes [ which is truly stupid], ends in a rant which completly ignores the reality that jihadists are already picking their city - is Ritter saying that he can guarantee that if Iran isnt nuked no US city will be nuked? Is he saying everyone can stop worrying about terrorism if Iran isnt nuked?

Like I said, starts with a decent point, departs from reality and ends in a rant.

A lot of the division created is due to US forces being their. The Iraq people voted before on wanting the US troops out of their country, the Iraq government has also said they want the troops out within 3 years.

Coalition troops are the only thing holding that country together actually. Without US troops the country would have completely balkanised and degenerated into a complete bloodbath. It has stabilised due to the efforts of US and Coalition troops - the elected Iraqi government has a mandate but neither the Kurds nor the Sunnis trust it, and its agencies like the police force have been infiltrated by roaming death squads who participated in widespread ethnic cleansing.

Again, there is some wishful thinking out there that wants to ignore reality and believe everyone in Iraq would get along happily ever after if US troops left tommorrow, but that is not the reality. The reality is the country would descend into true horror.

Some idiots think nuking Iran would be a good idea. Some idiots think abandoning Iraq and leaving it to collapse into a new Afghanistan or Somalia of warlords and terrorism would be a good idea. Pick your city indeed.

Like I said, if you are using violence as a bargaining chip, then you are the weaker party.

Only if you cant back it up. Diplomacy isnt a morality contest. Its getting what you want with the minimum cost. Warfare is a fairly hefty cost, but it must always be viewed as an option.

CtrlSource

Overheal wrote: »

If we were to enter a 2nd cold war between russia and the usa:

who would you rather as your commander in cheif?

I'm leaning toward McCain, because I feel like barack obama would spend more time in diplomacy than taking up action than mccain - if Russia rolled into turkey tomorrow say, it would be kind of like the situation now: we'd talk and we'd talk and all the while russia would keep on rolling.

If i was American, i would want Obama. Obviously your point is hypothetical since it's most unlikely that such a Cold War will happen again (unless Russia goes nuts and tries to re-form the USSR).

On this issue though, i don't think there's a huge advantage for either of the main candidates. Both would have to use diplomacy, just as US Presidents in history did. The first Cold War didn't get solved by "taking up action".

If, as you mentioned, Turkey rolled into Russia however, i'd say there'd be a tad more than just diplomacy threatened by Obama and McCain tbh. Anyway, pigs'll fly first

Hobbes

Sand wrote: »

Are you reading my posts? Im curious because Im sure I asked "Who says you resort to violence as your first move?" not "Who says you resort to violence?"

Like I said, McCain.

.....not worth the effort

Because it is correct.

The actual and implied use of violence is a great diplomatic tool.

I am not sure how you equated that to your example but it is wrong as well. Violence is not a bargaining tool.

When you win a war, you don't negotiate with the other side as an equal.

Why not? You those people as less human then yourself? You get to rape and pillage what you want from the losing side? Sure punish those for war crimes, but it doesn't give you a free license to be a dick.

Right, well I guess Georgia isnt occupied by the Russian army right now having just had its ass kicked.

Are you just listening to the media? Or are you actually doing the research. For example you are aware that Georgia attacked South Ossetia first? Also Georgia is not occupied by Russian forces. That would imply that South Ossetia was Georgias to begin with. Or that the majority of South Ossetia hold Russian passports and majority voted in 2006 itself as a separate country. Also Russia is not currently occupying any Georgia soil.

So clearly to me the use of violence as a first option did not work at all. Especially when Georgia believed they had the US backing on their side.

EXACTLY!!!!

That isn't diplomacy. That is just an outcome of using violence. Using your example, why is it then North Korea created nukes? Because they were afraid of US using violence? So clearly violence help stabilized that region?

China doesn't need to invade Taiwan. It makes enough profit with the current status quo and has laws in place that ensures that Taiwan doesn't go fully independent (that USA actually follow).

Which completly ignores the reality that jihadists are already picking their city

Exactly which Jihadists is this then?

is Ritter saying that he can guarantee that if Iran isnt nuked no US city will be nuked?

So you are saying that Iran is going to nuke USA? If so you need to tell the administration because they would love to have actual real proof of it to justify an attack.

Even senior US generals (4/5 star) have said they would quit if asked to attack Iran as they believe it is monumentally stupid to do so.

Coalition troops are the only thing holding that country together actually.

A lot of the division in Iraq is created by the US troops being there. Whole borders put up around communities by US troops.

The majority of Iraq want US troops gone from Iraq. The Iraq government want US troops gone and have set a timetable. Regardless if it descends into horror or comes out smelling like roses. The majority of people who live there have made their point clear. To not follow it means you are invaders, not a liberating force.

and its agencies like the police force have been infiltrated by roaming death squads who participated in widespread ethnic cleansing.

Where did you pick this bit of sensationalism up from?

Some idiots think abandoning Iraq and leaving it to collapse into a new Afghanistan or Somalia of warlords and terrorism would be a good idea. Pick your city indeed.

You are calling the Iraq people stupid for wanting their own freedom?

Only if you cant back it up. Diplomacy isn't a morality contest. Its getting what you want with the minimum cost. Warfare is a fairly hefty cost, but it must always be viewed as an option.

This speaks more about you and your character then what actual diplomacy is.

banquo

Hobbes, out of curiosity, who's your guy? McCain, Obama or another?

irish_bob

Sand wrote: »

Who says you resort to violence as your first move? Diplomacy comes down to getting the other side to agree to something they dont want to. Which is difficult. But you can ensure that the other side wants to reach a diplomatic solution by making it extremely clear that you are ready and willing to use overwhelmining military power if they refuse to settle diplomatically.

Marching into a diplomatic conference and the first thing you say is "Guys, dont worry - even if you tell us to go **** ourselves, well not resort to violence - well just send you a polite letter telling you how angry we are...."

Thats a position of weakness. The US has a position of immense strength in most negotiations because its viewed as being willing and able to employ force should diplomacy fail - so people work twice as hard at making diplomacy work.



The world is run by bullys. The Chinese arent run by the girl scouts, and the boys in the Kremlin dont spend their days putting ribbons in their hair. And thats just the guys on the UN Security Council.

People are tortured, murdered, executed, starved, beaten, imprisoned, demeaned, abused and spat on across the world every day - often whilst the impotent "international community" looks on, wringing their hands. It is a world of bullies, and their victims who sometimes change positions. Liberal, free "Western" society is the exception, not the rule.

Bullies respect/fear power, and they respect/fear willingness to use that power. McCain is more likely to be able to keep minor regional powers in line. His threat of "or else" will be taken more seriously.



A US city is going to get nuked at some point anyhow. Jihadists arent waiting for a McCain election - they have discussed and agreed they have the moral right to do it, they are already seeking the weapons. Its just a matter of time given the technology is from the 50s - black and white TV stuff.

Whose in office is irrelevant to Jihadists. They dont vote Democrat or Republican. They have their own agenda.



Credibility. You yourself believe McCain is more likely to use force than Obama [ ...pick your city...?].



I think you may have me mistaken for someone else there.

And firstly, Iraq may not want the US there, but it NEEDS the US there or it would fall apart in a forthnight - which would have dire implications for the region, and the world seeing as most of the worlds energy supplies come from there. The US can act as middlemen between the various Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite power blocks, can twist the arm of the Shiites to make concessions needed to get the Sunnis and Kurds on board, and in many minority areas the US military is fare more trusted than the government police and troops - the police in particular were infiltrated by militias and engaged in campaigns of terror against Iraqi minorities whereas the US has not.

I known theres a desire to view violence in Iraq as some pan-nationalist front against foreign occupation as it suits certain world views, but its a little more complicated than that.

Anyhow, its far too early to tell what the result of the Iraq war will be - 10 years from now Iraq could be a broadly functional peaceful democracy, or it could be a sectarian hell hole of hatred and civil war, or it could simply cease to exist with 2 or 3 countries in its place.

And again, youre assuming that projecting the willingness to use force is incompatible with diplomacy when in fact its inseperable. You need to be able to back up the "or else" part of diplomacy.

agree with every word in the above post , especially the bit about how bullys run the world
its a cliche to say all bullys are cowards and that all bullys get there comeuppance ,, something you tell your kids is all , all bullys may be unhappy but they do get respect

Sand

Like I said, McCain.

Id love for the quotation where he said that "**** talking to anyone - bomb them first, and then if they call a second time, bomb them again, just to be sure"

I am not sure how you equated that to your example but it is wrong as well. Violence is not a bargaining tool.

Why not? You those people as less human then yourself? You get to rape and pillage what you want from the losing side? Sure punish those for war crimes, but it doesn't give you a free license to be a dick.

This is the problem we have discussing this issue.

Youre subjective. You see the world you wish it was. I am objective, I see the world the way it is. Its handy the Russian-Georgian war has come along actually as I can demonstate how you blind yourself to reality to pretend the world runs the way you think it *should*.

The basic reality is when you win a war you can demand unconditional surrender [ which the Russians basically achieved in that they got a peace deal with loopholes they could literally drive a tank column through - theres disagreements over what the peace terms were, but the Russians have tanks and the Georgians....dont, so the Russians can dictate terms] where the interests of the losers are not exactly high on the list of priorities. And if the losers dont like it, tough ****, theyll like it more than a continuation of the war they lost.

You mightnt think thats fair, but thats the way the world is. Its run by assholes and its not a bad thing for the US to have a reputation of being willing to resort to force more easily than Ghandi. Hence its not a bad thing for the US to be led by a President whose respected or feared when it comes to saying "...or else".

If anything, such a situation reduces conflict - most wars start because one side or the other feels certain the other wont fight. If people are convinced the US is led by a warmongering bastard, then theyre less likely to risk a conflict with perhaps the most advanced military on the planet. If they believe the US is led by a relatively isolationist, pacifist leader then quite simply the military power of the US fades away in their formulas as theoretical power without the will to use it means zero power in reality.

Are you just listening to the media? Or are you actually doing the research. For example you are aware that Georgia attacked South Ossetia first? Also Georgia is not occupied by Russian forces. That would imply that South Ossetia was Georgias to begin with. Or that the majority of South Ossetia hold Russian passports and majority voted in 2006 itself as a separate country. Also Russia is not currently occupying any Georgia soil.

So clearly to me the use of violence as a first option did not work at all. Especially when Georgia believed they had the US backing on their side.

I am coming back to the question of if you even read my posts really. I mean, honestly, do you? Or do you simply think :Sand: and write some stuff that addresses some point I didnt make?

Do you even read the news? Russia is not currently occupying any Georgian soil? Jesus wept.

Ive looked at the rest of your post and Id simply be repeating myself, clarifying my position, which is a waste of my time as you blatantly dont even read my posts, or even inquire into events youre discussing, before you swing into posting some rebuttal of someone elses argument.