<p>"Interesting, though how in the Red Square America was a liberator after the Soviet Union, and the people were grateful for it. "</p>
<p>Say what? Who told you that?</p>
<p>Russians. Aside from a bunch of leftover communists most Russians were very happy that Communism fell.</p>
<p>golani, have you ever been to Russia, or any part of the former USSR? I would advise a visit, it will be very educational. Yes, a lot of people were happy when Communist Party fell. Still, I don’t remember anybody considering US liberators. And very few people were happy when the country broke apart. Now most people in Russia are deeply suspicious of the US, identifying it with Yeltsyn-style corruption.</p>
<p>Yes I have. In fact my parents immigrated from there about 18 years ago. You assesment is pretty much right. People distrust the US now. The old Russians did not like the country breaking up. but the fact that Communism ended was great for the people. They loved that and they are grateful to America for it.</p>
<p>Most of the people in Russia do not identify the fall of Communism with America. More like with Gorbachev. 
Also, I was 25 when USSR broke up( not too old I trust) , but I definitely was not that extatic when it happened. Nobody thought it through and a whole lot of people suffered the consequences. Your parents got out before all that happened. Applauding tha fall of communism from this side of the Atlantic is not the same as to live it.</p>
<p>golani, I wouldn’t talk to a person from South Louisiana about danger in quite that condescending tone if I were you, given recent history.</p>
<p>It’s funny how you keep making all these very tortured comparisions to WWII and the Cold War (both of which had definable outcomes and defined strategies to accomplish them), yet you avoid the one comparision that is valid–Vietnam–as though it never happened. </p>
<p>People said all the same things about Vietnam–that we had to “win” or our way of life would be destroyed; the Communists would kill us all in our beds, etc. We left Vietnam without “winning” much of anything, and somehow we’ve managed to exist another 30+ years. </p>
<p>Even if we could rid Iraq of terrorists, what would that accomplish? As you’ve pointed out, the borders are very, very fluid. Are you suggesting that we keep invading country after country till people learn to love us instead of resent us for it? Where do we stop? There’s alot going on in Africa that could conceivably result in a threat to the folks in Boston. Do we start invading countries in Africa one at a time? What about Asia? Some of them have nukes and don’t particularly like us. Once you decide that waging war is only acceptable solution to foreign affairs, you’re going to be fighting on a lot of fronts.</p>
<p>My family was refusniks for 13 years. They lived through perestroika and glasnot. There was alot more good than bad done with the end of communism. There was even a mass exodus of people ebcause for the first time you could emigrate.</p>
<p>And I worked for one of the sponsors of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, subjecting the USSR to penalties if they did not allow Jewish emigration. This was before your time and intensely opposed by Richard Nixon.</p>
<p>golani, perestroyka and glastnost were attempts to “improve” the USSR-style socialism. Both were endorsed by the Party. When Communism fell your family was in the US( if my arithmetic is correct they emigrated in 1988) . I remember perestroyka time fondly, it was very euphoric. The fall of the USSR was nothing like that, believe me. It was a mess, it was depressing in some places and plain dangerous in others. I would not wish anybody to live through this kind of thing, honestly. Things are SLOWLY getting back on track, but some people( of my parents generation) will never fully recover.</p>
<p>“No one really thought that even then there would be so much resistance and in-fighting.”</p>
<p>Kind of like how “no one anticipated the breach of the levees”?</p>
<p>See: <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki</a></p>
<p>A quote from Gen. Shinseki’s testimony before Congress prior to the invasion about the force needed to stabilize Iraq:</p>
<p>“something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment”</p>
<p>Lots of people predicted severe resistance and in-fighting. Bush just wasn’t listening to them.</p>