Interesting Read on the ignored significance of 1989

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

Don't forget Europe, Italy was stricken with terrorism in the 70's.

We should all learn from the SAS, once engaged, kill every last one of them.

Madrid, Berlin -- U.S. forces got hit in good old Europe on several occasions in the 80s.

[OrangeEmpire]

Terror has definately been around for a good while. Heck, the Dutch even got hit.

[rjd970]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Most by Islamic fundamentalists. None on U.S. soil but not sure how the USSR stopped that.

There have been 2 on US soil total (by IF) - are you telling me that are a result of the fall of the USSR?

The first attempt on the WTTs was in the early nineties - did the fall of the USSR suddenly make that possible? No.

Islamic fundamentalism is not a result of the fall of the USSR.

Again I go back to the core issue. The notion of "safer" is so vague that one can't say for sure that we are safer or less safe as a result of the fall of the USSR. There are anecdotal bits of info to apply to one side or the other but it's pure speculation to make a claim one way or the other.

Given nuke tensions in our early history with the USSR, I'd bet we came closer to world destruction then than we are now.

I'm not saying it is a result of the USSR, I am saying those attacks would have never happened during the Cold War. Given what OBL has stated as hatred for the US (primarily US military bases in the ME) I can't see Desert Shield ever happening because during the cold war we supported Iraq as a buffer against Iran, which was indirectly supported by the USSR to wage Jihad against the US because of Israeli support. Again, after the USSR failed, Iran was no longer the threat it was and Iraq wasn't needed anymore. A vacuum is created, Iraq is without US support and decides to invade Kuwait, and we are forced to intervene. Now we have military bases in Saudi Arabia, OBL doesn't like it and has support fresh from his US backed victory against the Soviets, and we have now two enemies (Iraq and OBL) who were former allies, wanting nothing but US destruction.

So I still contend as long as were supporting Iraq and OBL to fight a common enemy, we don't need to worry about them attacking. Without that common enemy it created a vacuum and we got WTT attacks.

I think you are overlooking the complexity of how the cold war worked and oversimplifying things by saying the fall of the USSR didn't cause the WTT attacks.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by rjd970

I'm not saying it is a result of the USSR, I am saying those attacks would have never happened during the Cold War. Given what OBL has stated as hatred for the US (primarily US military bases in the ME) I can't see Desert Shield ever happening because during the cold war we supported Iraq as a buffer against Iran, which was indirectly supported by the USSR to wage Jihad against the US because of Israeli support. Again, after the USSR failed, Iran was no longer the threat it was and Iraq wasn't needed anymore. A vacuum is created, Iraq is without US support and decides to invade Kuwait, and we are forced to intervene. Now we have military bases in Saudi Arabia, OBL doesn't like it and has support fresh from his US backed victory against the Soviets, and we have now two enemies (Iraq and OBL) who were former allies, wanting nothing but US destruction.

So I still contend as long as were supporting Iraq and OBL to fight a common enemy, we don't need to worry about them attacking. Without that common enemy it created a vacuum and we got WTT attacks.

I think you are overlooking the complexity of how the cold war worked and oversimplifying things by saying the fall of the USSR didn't cause the WTT attacks.

If we go this route, then after the fall of the USSR the question became, why provoke the sole remaining superpower? Is the US comparable to the USSR? After all, the latter was attacked in Afghanistan at the nadir of its power.

The US sought to control Eurasia to prevent a Russian resurgence and to maintain their global dominance.

During the breakup of the USSR, Muslims were used as a new tool to thwart post communist Russia so that it couldn’t return to regional ascendancy. It fell to the mujahids to confront the global power imbalance. They had not liberated Afghanistan to see one hegemon be replaced by another.

This does not mean that alQaeda wants to fight all enemies at the same time. They wish to neutralize some enemies before others.

The essence of the US’s problem is that it arrived at its global dominance prematurely, before it was capable of handling it. Its body developed before its brain was capable of handling its new capabilities.

What happened on 9/11 was not an attempt to hurt the US economy, even if the strike caused enormous damage. It was a symbolic, ideological strike that has sought to accelerate the decline of America.

[rjd970]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

If we go this route, then after the fall of the USSR the question became, why provoke the sole remaining superpower? Is the US comparable to the USSR? After all, the latter was attacked in Afghanistan at the nadir of its power.

The US sought to control Eurasia to prevent a Russian resurgence and to maintain their global dominance.

During the breakup of the USSR, Muslims were used as a new tool to thwart post communist Russia so that it couldn’t return to regional ascendancy. It fell to the mujahids to confront the global power imbalance. They had not liberated Afghanistan to see one hegemon be replaced by another.

This does not mean that alQaeda wants to fight all enemies at the same time. They wish to neutralize some enemies before others.

The essence of the US’s problem is that it arrived at its global dominance prematurely, before it was capable of handling it. Its body developed before its brain was capable of handling its new capabilities.

What happened on 9/11 was not an attempt to hurt the US economy, even if the strike caused enormous damage. It was a symbolic, ideological strike that has sought to accelerate the decline of America.

I think you are underestimating the hatred for US foreign policy in the ME which was set aside for the sake of settling old scores and religious differences during the cold war. Also the fact that you are assuming the rogue elements of the ME think rationally when they attack the US. Why attack the remaining superpower? Because you have a reason to and don't particularly care what they do to you in return.

I think your last paragraph isn't completely accurate. OBL has said all along he wanted to draw America into a prolonged insurgency quagmire which would have direct economic and military impact.

[OrangeEmpire]

I underestimate nothing. There is a reason that the US, UK, France and Italy have been terror hot spots for the past 30 years.

The simple answer is support of Israel.

As for the last paragraph, Bin Laden wants to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and establish an "Islamic state" according to Shari'a law, to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs (Muslim religious leaders who once governed the Ottoman Empire)." His vision calls for an extremely strict version of Islam, but perhaps not as strict as the version being implemented in some Middle Eastern governments today.

Attacking the US is merely a step in taking back Saudi Arabia.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by rjd970

I think you are overlooking the complexity of how the cold war worked and oversimplifying things by saying the fall of the USSR didn't cause the WTT attacks.

If I'm guilty of this you are guilty overly simplifying the control 2 battling super powers imposed on other countries.

Bottomline, your statement we were safer then is pure conjecture.

It's an even bigger stretch than the debate about are we safer after Bush or less safe because of Bush. Arguments can be made both ways (and are) and we simply do not know. Anyone who claims to know is living in a fantasy world.

[rjd970]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Bottomline, your statement we were safer then is pure conjecture.

Fair enough, but it is no more conjecture then yours saying we weren't. Like you said, this can be argued both ways.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by rjd970

Fair enough, but it is no more conjecture then yours saying we weren't. Like you said, this can be argued both ways.

To clarify; I never claimed we were safer as a result. I've been reacting to your claim that we are with reasons why that statement can't be verified