View Full Version : Am I Crazy For Missing The Cold War...?
Maybe it's just nostalgia or an old person's "things were better back when..." kinda thing, but I think the whole "US vs. USSR" thing made the world a better place. Sure we coulda suffered nuclear armageddon at a moments notice but generally both sides were sane enough to wish to avoid that outcome and generally responsible enough to prevent it from happening "by accident."
Also meant we were concerned about being the "good guy", and by comparison showing them as the "bad guy" so generally we didn't accept too much corruption from our leaders, though it did happen of course.
Also with us trying to secure ourselves and NATO from "communist aggression" we didn't waste a lot of money on wars of ideology and money flushing socialist programs. We had them of course, and a war on drugs, etc. but they didn't get the same kind of tax dollars they do today.
Commies and socialists were in the closet. The Russians were the bad guys and so was their system of government. It wasn't McCarthyism during the 70s and 80s but the socialists in government knew they had to tread lightly.
Terrorism was events like Munich, radicals like Baader Meinhoff and a few plane hijackings. Nobody dreamed of shit like the USS Cole as people feared the US and their response. Events like the Ft Hood shooting would have been impossible.
The Russians of course did horrible things like shooting down KAL 007 but compared to 9-11 that is almost nothing, unless of course you were on KAL 007 or knew somebody who was. Not trying to diminish it, just make a point. And of course the Russians invaded Afghanistan, do you think we can give it back to them?
Because we couldn't afford to appear weak to the USSR when dipshits from Arab crap holes like Quaddafy Duck from Libya threatened us we bombed the shit out fo them and taught them to address us in a respectful manner. Leaders of other arab states paid attention.
We had American heroes like Rambo, John T. Booker/Col. James Braddock and even Chevy Chase and Dan Akroyd were with the good guys in "Spies Like Us." We didn't have to suffer too many dipshits like Jake Gyllenhaal in "Jarhead" and Michael Moore wouldn't have stood a chance. Bill Maher knew his place and kept his ass in the Avocado Jungle.
We of course forgave the Germans and Japanese and helped restore their countries after WWII and even helped build their economies. But we didn't kiss their damn ass during the war and weren't afraid to call a Nazi a Nazi and we didn't have a "hands off" policy when it came to Shinto temples. And we sure as hell didn't put the lives of US soldiers at risk in order to prevent civilian casualties in Europe.
Granted we fought Vietnam with our hands tied behind our backs with much of the population cheering for the enemy so maybe things weren't perfect then either. Thankfully that sort of crap wasn't quite as prevalent during the 80s.
GermanSynergy
02-25-10, 01:14
I kinda miss the CW, but really dig going to Hungary, Czech Republic and Romania on holiday and chattin up the ladies there :cool::cool::cool:
rickrock305
02-25-10, 01:23
Also meant we were concerned about being the "good guy", and by comparison showing them as the "bad guy" so generally we didn't accept too much corruption from our leaders, though it did happen of course.
sure, Iran Contra, selling chemical weapons to Saddam, funding the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, none of those things were too bad were they :rolleyes:
Also with us trying to secure ourselves and NATO from "communist aggression" we didn't waste a lot of money on wars of ideology and money flushing socialist programs. We had them of course, and a war on drugs, etc. but they didn't get the same kind of tax dollars they do today.
Yea, Vietnam was nothing right?
Terrorism was events like Munich, radicals like Baader Meinhoff and a few plane hijackings. Nobody dreamed of shit like the USS Cole as people feared the US and their response. Events like the Ft Hood shooting would have been impossible.
Guess you forgot about Beirut and the bombing of the Marine base there?
The 70s and 80s gave us the problems we're dealing with today regarding the economy, terrorism, trade deficits, etc.
You can not compare wars and what happened during them. Simply because of the news coverage and what the public was feed are nothing the same. Just look at when people started freaking out about Vietnam, when they started seeing babies burned by napalm on tv and in print. If everyone had a tv and internet during WW2 and saw what was actually going on it would have been the same, people do not want to see war or what happens during it.
As for Rambo, well that was as the cold war was ending, and most action movies after continued to use the Russians and every other country in the news as the enemy well after the cold war ended. Rambo was also showing how Vietnam vets were being treated like garbage long after the war.
Belmont31R
02-25-10, 06:31
sure, Iran Contra, selling chemical weapons to Saddam, funding the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, none of those things were too bad were they :rolleyes:
Yea, Vietnam was nothing right?
Guess you forgot about Beirut and the bombing of the Marine base there?
The 70s and 80s gave us the problems we're dealing with today regarding the economy, terrorism, trade deficits, etc.
Vietnam was winnable militarily. We "lost" because of how soft America came, and we will lose future wars because of it again and again until something so massive happens the gloves come off. We were at risk of doing the same thing with Iraq and Afghanistan by electing soft leadership.
Beirut and USS Cole are not comparable.
Never heard of the saying an enemy of my enemy is my friend?
rickrock305
02-25-10, 06:40
Vietnam was winnable militarily. We "lost" because of how soft America came, and we will lose future wars because of it again and again until something so massive happens the gloves come off. We were at risk of doing the same thing with Iraq and Afghanistan by electing soft leadership.
i was referring to the OPs statement of wasting money on wars of ideology.
Beirut and USS Cole are not comparable..
Why not? Both suicide attacks by radical Muslims. Both on U.S. military abroad.
Never heard of the saying an enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Yes, but we never seem to learn that enemy of our enemy generally turns out to be our enemy sooner or later. Selling weapons and training to Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be a great idea didn't it? :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
02-25-10, 07:05
i was referring to the OPs statement of wasting money on wars of ideology.
Why not? Both suicide attacks by radical Muslims. Both on U.S. military abroad.
Yes, but we never seem to learn that enemy of our enemy generally turns out to be our enemy sooner or later. Selling weapons and training to Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be a great idea didn't it? :rolleyes:
Fighting communism isn't exactly a war of ideology. Its a long term strategic effort...if we just turned a blind eye to communism taking over the world sooner or later we would be the lone duck sitting in a pool full of sharks. It was better to stomp it out instead of waiting until commie hoards really were running over the world.
Terrorism and fighting a war with what you have are not the same.
Yes Afghanistan turned out the way we wanted it to. Has little to do with what happened in Afghanistan after the Russians left. And least you forget it was those evil Muji's who worked with our SF in 2002/2003 to push the Taliban out of power? Not every mujihideen is "bad".
We should have taken Saddam out in 1991. We had a lot more troops, and it would have been far easier in 91 than 03. Another example of our softness get in the way of doing what was militarily possible and what would have been better for us in the long run.
This is kind of a silly post lol.
Being itness to it from the other side of the Iron Curtain... its really silly. lol
I still believe that the US made a huge mistake in helping Mujaheddin. This rediculous fear of communism and the US's McCarthy-istic responce to it was stupid. Honestly, who gives a sh*t if Afghanastan became communist? The soviets were trying to help out a weak Commi government in the country and the US supported those who would later come to hate the US most. Gave them weapons, sholder launched missles, tought them to make bombs. "Now we can go out and get those reds cause the only good commi is one thats dead"
The US then needlesly layed down over 50K men in Vietnam, and for what? The country turned out communist in the end, did the world end? No. So what terrible things would have happend if we simply said "f*ck it" Nothing.
Communism would have run its cource as it just about it. Some would have gone communist, but only the countries that were of no consequence to the US either way. US Allies in Western Europe would not have gone commi, there was no need to. Only 3rd world countries would have done so, and at that point, who cares.
But no, the US had to fight the reds at every corner out of some stupid fear that communism would come to the US.
And 60 years later, with all those men dead, we are closer to a socialist way of live then ever.
What a waste! :rolleyes:
This is kind of a silly post lol.
Being itness to it from the other side of the Iron Curtain... its really silly. lol
While I like the OP, he may have stepped into it a bit here I agree. Too simplistic.
However, if we translate his post into: "The world is more ****ed up now than ever.", then there may be validity to his words after all.
http://westofthewest.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/wolverines.jpg
Wolverines!
rickrock305
02-25-10, 08:33
Fighting communism isn't exactly a war of ideology. Its a long term strategic effort...if we just turned a blind eye to communism taking over the world sooner or later we would be the lone duck sitting in a pool full of sharks. It was better to stomp it out instead of waiting until commie hoards really were running over the world.
fighting communism is the textbook definition of a war of ideology. communism is an ideology, hence fighting a war against communism is a war of ideology.
Terrorism and fighting a war with what you have are not the same.
terrorism is the new communism.
Yes Afghanistan turned out the way we wanted it to.
then why are we there now?
and please, I'm anxiously waiting your explanation on how the embassy bombing in Beirut is not comparable to the USS Cole attack.
Don't forget Korea, or how close we came to the end during the Cuban missile crisis. I fail to see a difference between the marine barracks and the USS Cole. And even if you talk about the Embassies getting blown up in Africa at the very end of the cold war, you still have to compare it with the Iranian Hostage situation at the end of the 70's.
Why include the treatment of enemies during WWII in the analysis? that wasn't cold war behaviour. Sure we were willing to call them Japs, and Huns, and guidos. We were also willing to erect prison camps and stow away Americans that shared the same ethnic back ground.
I think the main difference is that the soviets were speaking for a position of Power. Atomic might meant they could afford to talk a big game and not blow everyone up to prove a point. You'll never see UBL on the floor of the UN slapping his sandal on the podium telling us he is going to bury us.
The only tool the enemy has right now is blood.
Best thing to come out of the Cold war is the space program. It was an economic and technological war. This one doesn't look all that different than Alexanders march to the Indus river.
Heavy Metal
02-25-10, 09:03
selling chemical weapons to Saddam,
A lie repeated often does not make it true.
rickrock305
02-25-10, 09:06
A lie repeated often does not make it true.
Really, we didn't sell weapons to Saddam? The same weapons he turned around and killed innocent people with?
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
Cagemonkey
02-25-10, 10:15
The only thing good about the Cold War was that there was a sense of stability or predictability in the world. We all feared the threat of Nuclear War (MAD). During the CW the world was split into two. The two Super powers fought each other via proxies and trying to strategically out maneuver each other. Unfortunately for the US this lead to us compromising our principles at times. From supporting Dictators simply because they were anti communists. Supplying arms to what we deemed a lesser of two evils. Circumventing US law to support anti communist proxies. Selling out Democratic principles in order to support the colonial establishments of our Allies. Whatever position the Soviets took, we took the opposite position. Many times we never really thought out the long term repercussions. Many believe we won the CW. Some theorize that our enemy just transformed (morphed) itself into something new. While the US expends its resources on low intensity conflicts around the globe, we transform our military strategy and tactics accordantly. Meanwhile a larger enemy lays in waiting, to take advantage at a later time of their choosing. Thats my two cents.
While I like the OP, he may have stepped into it a bit here I agree. Too simplistic.
However, if we translate his post into: "The world is more ****ed up now than ever.", then there may be validity to his words after all.
That I can agree with 100%.
By the time I started school in the USSR it was already the late 80's and tentioned had eased, so I was not tought about the great imperialistic evil that is the US. But my parents were lol.
Either way, we knew who the enemy was, and you guys in the US back then knew as well.
If sh*t was going to go down, we all could expect the direction it would fall from.
Now, no one knows...
Heavy Metal
02-25-10, 10:34
Really, we didn't sell weapons to Saddam? The same weapons he turned around and killed innocent people with?
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
We sold limited weapons to him during the Iran/Iraq war. Most of what he got came from Teh Soviet Union and France.
We sold no, I repeat no chemical weapons to Iraq.
If you really plan on becoming a Navy Seal, I recommend you stop recieving your talking points from the Daily Kos and Democrat Underground.
Again, repeating a lie will not magically turn it in to the truth thru increment.
This is kind of a silly post lol.
Being itness to it from the other side of the Iron Curtain... its really silly. lol
I still believe that the US made a huge mistake in helping Mujaheddin. This rediculous fear of communism and the US's McCarthy-istic responce to it was stupid. Honestly, who gives a sh*t if Afghanastan became communist? The soviets were trying to help out a weak Commi government in the country and the US supported those who would later come to hate the US most. Gave them weapons, sholder launched missles, tought them to make bombs. "Now we can go out and get those reds cause the only good commi is one thats dead"
The US then needlesly layed down over 50K men in Vietnam, and for what? The country turned out communist in the end, did the world end? No. So what terrible things would have happend if we simply said "f*ck it" Nothing.
Communism would have run its cource as it just about it. Some would have gone communist, but only the countries that were of no consequence to the US either way. US Allies in Western Europe would not have gone commi, there was no need to. Only 3rd world countries would have done so, and at that point, who cares.
But no, the US had to fight the reds at every corner out of some stupid fear that communism would come to the US.
And 60 years later, with all those men dead, we are closer to a socialist way of live then ever.
What a waste! :rolleyes:
I tend to agree. Seems like it was more of an economic strategy than anything else.
I tend to agree. Seems like it was more of an economic strategy than anything else.
thats why people say the US won... cause the Soviet Union went bankrupt lol
Communism would have run its cource as it just about it. Some would have gone communist, but only the countries that were of no consequence to the US either way. US Allies in Western Europe would not have gone commi, there was no need to. Only 3rd world countries would have done so, and at that point, who cares.
But no, the US had to fight the reds at every corner out of some stupid fear that communism would come to the US.
And 60 years later, with all those men dead, we are closer to a socialist way of live then ever.
What a waste! :rolleyes:
Aside from the fact that you contradict yourself, it seems that your understanding of the cold war is rather simplistic.
Do you really think being "on the other" side, you got a more objective sense of the struggle than we did?
I kinda miss the CW, but really dig going to Hungary, Czech Republic and Romania on holiday and chattin up the ladies there :cool::cool::cool:
Eastern Euro hot chicks are definitely a bonus.
sure, Iran Contra, selling chemical weapons to Saddam, funding the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, none of those things were too bad were they :rolleyes:
Try reading again, I said these things did of course happen, I never said they weren't too bad. Also at the time Iraq was our ally, giving him chemical weapons was no worse than giving nuclear weapons to France and Israel. Helping the Muj was fighting Russians. Really the only thing really bad on your list was Iran/Contra.
Yea, Vietnam was nothing right?
Wow, I guess you missed the part where I specifically mentioned Vietnam.
:rolleyes:
Guess you forgot about Beirut and the bombing of the Marine base there?
Yep, I did overlook that one. Correction noted. But my point remains that it was a rare event unlike today.
The 70s and 80s gave us the problems we're dealing with today regarding the economy, terrorism, trade deficits, etc.
And they were caused by events in the 50s and 60s which of course were a result of events during WWII which were caused by events of the 20s and 30s so as we can see everything is the fault of Woodrow Wilson.
Heavy Metal
02-25-10, 12:07
The world was better when Sammy Hagar was leading the fight against Communism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c51qJ3Ad_4
i was referring to the OPs statement of wasting money on wars of ideology.
Vietnam was not a war against an ideology like terrorism, it was a war against the USSR and China fought by proxy first in Korea and then in Vietnam. They were winnable actions unlike a war on drugs or terror which is never ending.
Yes, but we never seem to learn that enemy of our enemy generally turns out to be our enemy sooner or later. Selling weapons and training to Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be a great idea didn't it? :rolleyes:
You are correct. But does that mean we don't help Stalin fight the nazis and we lose the war? Training and assisting the Muj was a great idea as it DID lead to the fall of the USSR, it was "their" Vietnam. And by the same token we were fighting Iran by helping Iraq. The problem of course is we haven't learned we can't just give people weapons and training and then walk away when we feel they are done doing "our work."
This is kind of a silly post lol.
Being itness to it from the other side of the Iron Curtain... its really silly. lol
I know some people who worked near the Berlin wall and watched people die trying to escape the DDR. They wouldn't agree with you on any of your points and they don't find it silly.
The only thing good about the Cold War was that there was a sense of stability or predictability in the world. We all feared the threat of Nuclear War (MAD). During the CW the world was split into two. The two Super powers fought each other via proxies and trying to strategically out maneuver each other. Unfortunately for the US this lead to us compromising our principles at times. From supporting Dictators simply because they were anti communists. Supplying arms to what we deemed a lesser of two evils. Circumventing US law to support anti communist proxies. Selling out Democratic principles in order to support the colonial establishments of our Allies. Whatever position the Soviets took, we took the opposite position. Many times we never really thought out the long term repercussions. Many believe we won the CW. Some theorize that our enemy just transformed (morphed) itself into something new. While the US expends its resources on low intensity conflicts around the globe, we transform our military strategy and tactics accordantly. Meanwhile a larger enemy lays in waiting, to take advantage at a later time of their choosing. Thats my two cents.
That is kinda where I was going with things and I do agree with your last assessment.
This is kind of a silly post lol.
Being itness to it from the other side of the Iron Curtain... its really silly. lol
I still believe that the US made a huge mistake in helping Mujaheddin. This rediculous fear of communism and the US's McCarthy-istic responce to it was stupid. Honestly, who gives a sh*t if Afghanastan became communist? The soviets were trying to help out a weak Commi government in the country and the US supported those who would later come to hate the US most. Gave them weapons, sholder launched missles, tought them to make bombs. "Now we can go out and get those reds cause the only good commi is one thats dead"
The US then needlesly layed down over 50K men in Vietnam, and for what? The country turned out communist in the end, did the world end? No. So what terrible things would have happend if we simply said "f*ck it" Nothing.
Communism would have run its cource as it just about it. Some would have gone communist, but only the countries that were of no consequence to the US either way. US Allies in Western Europe would not have gone commi, there was no need to. Only 3rd world countries would have done so, and at that point, who cares.
But no, the US had to fight the reds at every corner out of some stupid fear that communism would come to the US.
And 60 years later, with all those men dead, we are closer to a socialist way of live then ever.
What a waste! :rolleyes:
had we not resisted communism through cold war maneuvering and fringe wars, the commies wouldn't have had to burn up the resources and lives they needed to succeed in a global takeover. it's BECAUSE we resisted that they fell.
it's that simple!
assisting the Muj was a great idea as it DID lead to the fall of the USSR, it was "their" Vietnam.
I love seeing this one trotted out. it changes depending on the author is trying to prove.
"Star Wars caused the fall of the USSR." or "The expanded defense spending by Reagan in the 80's brought down the USSR" or "Afganistan cause the USSR to crumble."
Afgahnistan didn't end the USSR anymore than the Chechnya has ended the Confederation of the Independant States.
Simply put, thier version of communism wasn't poorly suited to the life style they tried to lead. Had they tried to actually be an Agrarian workers utopia, the results might have been different. but they didn't. they tried to keep up with the Jones, and that's what ultimately destroyed them.
This maybe overly simplistic, but review of history seems to reveal that a number of wars in which the US has been involved were essentially wars of ideology The Revolutionary War was the result of a conflict between two ideas. The Civil War was the result of a conflict between two ideas. WWII was the result of a conflict between two ideas. Vietnam was a result of a conflict between two ideas. The GWOT is the result of a conflict between two ideas.
I love seeing this one trotted out. it changes depending on the author is trying to prove.
"Star Wars caused the fall of the USSR." or "The expanded defense spending by Reagan in the 80's brought down the USSR" or "Afganistan cause the USSR to crumble."
Afgahnistan didn't end the USSR anymore than the Chechnya has ended the Confederation of the Independant States.
Simply put, thier version of communism wasn't poorly suited to the life style they tried to lead. Had they tried to actually be an Agrarian workers utopia, the results might have been different. but they didn't. they tried to keep up with the Jones, and that's what ultimately destroyed them.
I said "lead" not "directly caused" and everything you mentioned did "lead" to the fall of the USSR in exactly the same way that many divergent factors led to our failure in Vietnam.
This maybe overly simplistic, but review of history seems to reveal that a number of wars in which the US has been involved were essentially wars of ideology The Revolutionary War was the result of a conflict between two ideas. The Civil War was the result of a conflict between two ideas. WWII was the result of a conflict between two ideas. Vietnam was a result of a conflict between two ideas. The GWOT is the result of a conflict between two ideas.
Yes but you can win a war against national socialism IF you declare war on a country that is the source of national socialism. We can win a war with Germany, we cannot win a war against national socialism if we don't hold Germany responsible for national socialism and try not to harm any other Germans who may not be national socialists.
If we want to fight and win a war against global terrorism then we need to identify countries and governments responsible for promoting and or tolerating global terrorism and we need to hold those countries and governments, as well as their populations accountable for the global terrorisms they promote or tolerate.
Yes but you can win a war against national socialism IF you declare war on a country that is the source of national socialism. We can win a war with Germany, we cannot win a war against national socialism if we don't hold Germany responsible for national socialism and try not to harm any other Germans who may not be national socialists.
If we want to fight and win a war against global terrorism then we need to identify countries and governments responsible for promoting and or tolerating global terrorism and we need to hold those countries and governments, as well as their populations accountable for the global terrorisms they promote or tolerate.
yep. That is the problem. We create virtual enemies ("drugs", "terrorism") for which we hold no one responsible.
Cagemonkey
02-25-10, 13:47
That is kinda where I was going with things and I do agree with your last assessment.
Thanks.
Aside from the fact that you contradict yourself, it seems that your understanding of the cold war is rather simplistic.
Do you really think being "on the other" side, you got a more objective sense of the struggle than we did?
Not sure how I contradicted myself. I still believe that the conflicts and wars the US got involved in simply to prevent the spread of communism were useless. People needlessly died because some had a hard on for McCarthyism.
No I do not believe being on the other side makes me know something more that any other person. I simply said that I witnessed it from both sides. I was tought in one school how The Soviet Union won the "Great Patriotic War" [WW2] w/o the help of anyone else, and when I came here I was tought that without the US the rest of the world would be speaking German. Somewhere in the middle I find the truth.
Personaly, I witnessed no great struggle. I strongly believe that communism is a flawed way of thinking from the core on out, and my family did leave for a better life in the US. But we were by no means terribly unhappy.
I know some people who worked near the Berlin wall and watched people die trying to escape the DDR. They wouldn't agree with you on any of your points and they don't find it silly.
So if people die trying to illegaly cross a border that means that their country of oragine is evil and should be seen as a state to fight against? How many mexicans die trying to illegaly cross into the US? Should we play nuclear brinkmanship with Mexico?
Silly argument, sure, but because some were unhappy in Eastern Germany does not mean that the US should let its men die to prevent the spread of communism.
I love seeing this one trotted out. it changes depending on the author is trying to prove.
"Star Wars caused the fall of the USSR." or "The expanded defense spending by Reagan in the 80's brought down the USSR" or "Afganistan cause the USSR to crumble."
Afgahnistan didn't end the USSR anymore than the Chechnya has ended the Confederation of the Independant States.
Simply put, thier version of communism wasn't poorly suited to the life style they tried to lead. Had they tried to actually be an Agrarian workers utopia, the results might have been different. but they didn't. they tried to keep up with the Jones, and that's what ultimately destroyed them.
Communism will not work in the long run. Look at China, even they are turning to capitalism because they know that it is not sustanable. The USSR resisted this, and byt he time theu changed their mind, it was too late.
Communist countries will eventualy turn back when they have eaten their shoes because there is no food left. There was no need for US men to die over it.
So if people die trying to illegaly cross a border that means that their country of oragine is evil and should be seen as a state to fight against? How many mexicans die trying to illegaly cross into the US? Should we play nuclear brinkmanship with Mexico?
Wow. You are gonna compare Germans trying to escape the DDR to Mexicans illegally entering the US?
First off the first example is people who commit a crime trying to LEAVE a country and in the second they are committing a crime trying to ENTER a country. Nobody gets killed trying to leave Mexico, they can leave anytime they want. People were shot trying to leave the DDR.
Secondly, people risk exposure to the elements if they aren't prepared and arrest if they attempt to illegally enter the US. Those who tried to leave the DDR had to risk minefields, lanes of fences between the fields with attack dogs and gunfire when they left the DDR.
How many Mexicans are killed by the US for trying to enter illegally? I'm not aware of a single one that was killed for trying to illegally enter the US. Some may have been killed for shooting at people trying to prevent them from entering but that is much different.
Silly argument, sure, but because some were unhappy in Eastern Germany does not mean that the US should let its men die to prevent the spread of communism.
First of all people trying to escape the oppression of the DDR and USSR is a completely different issue from stopping the spread of communism and communist aggression.
It is hardly "silly" for men to die to prevent the spread of communism. How many Russians died trying to prevent the spread of national socialism and nazi aggression into Russia? What that a silly thing to do? Did they all die silly pointless deaths? Should they have simply learned to be happy with national socialism as you suggest the people in the DDR should have?
If Hitler succeeded and Russians tried to escape the oppression of their German occupiers would you have compared that to fleeing Mexico? If they were killed in the process of trying to escape to freedom would their deaths be silly and pointless?
http://citynoise.org/article/3207
http://citynoise.org/upload/9355.jpg
Memorial to the dead who in their last breath tried to cross the Berlin Wall (just the ones in Berlin, not from the border between East and West Germany), near Haus am Checkpoint Charlie, a very amazing museum.
Each cross has the picture and name of person who died from that monstrosity. For the most part, in Mitte you won't see any trace of it. Remnants can be found all over the city, though.
hindsight is 20/20
or not
Communist countries will eventualy turn back when they have eaten their shoes because there is no food left. There was no need for US men to die over it.
There was a definite need. US service men died to PROTECT our country, our government and our people from communism. We don't have to wait until we are eating our shoes to know we don't want it. And we will not have it forced on us in the meantime while communist countries try and figure it out.
There was a definite need. US service men died to PROTECT our country, our government and our people from communism. We don't have to wait until we are eating our shoes to know we don't want it. And we will not have it forced on us in the meantime while communist countries try and figure it out.
Protect from what!? Was there a threat of imminent communist revolution in the US? No. How was preventing the spread of communism in Afghanastan and Vietnam protecting Americans?
Wow. You are gonna compare Germans trying to escape the DDR to Mexicans illegally entering the US?
First off the first example is people who commit a crime trying to LEAVE a country and in the second they are committing a crime trying to ENTER a country. Nobody gets killed trying to leave Mexico, they can leave anytime they want. People were shot trying to leave the DDR.
Secondly, people risk exposure to the elements if they aren't prepared and arrest if they attempt to illegally enter the US. Those who tried to leave the DDR had to risk minefields, lanes of fences between the fields with attack dogs and gunfire when they left the DDR.
How many Mexicans are killed by the US for trying to enter illegally? I'm not aware of a single one that was killed for trying to illegally enter the US. Some may have been killed for shooting at people trying to prevent them from entering but that is much different.
First of all people trying to escape the oppression of the DDR and USSR is a completely different issue from stopping the spread of communism and communist aggression.
It is hardly "silly" for men to die to prevent the spread of communism. How many Russians died trying to prevent the spread of national socialism and nazi aggression into Russia? What that a silly thing to do? Did they all die silly pointless deaths? Should they have simply learned to be happy with national socialism as you suggest the people in the DDR should have?
If Hitler succeeded and Russians tried to escape the oppression of their German occupiers would you have compared that to fleeing Mexico? If they were killed in the process of trying to escape to freedom would their deaths be silly and pointless?
http://citynoise.org/article/3207
http://citynoise.org/upload/9355.jpg
Memorial to the dead who in their last breath tried to cross the Berlin Wall (just the ones in Berlin, not from the border between East and West Germany), near Haus am Checkpoint Charlie, a very amazing museum.
Each cross has the picture and name of person who died from that monstrosity. For the most part, in Mitte you won't see any trace of it. Remnants can be found all over the city, though.
Here is where I think stories get a little ahead of the facts.
I am not sure I agree with your statement of them being so opressed that they were willing to risk life and limb to escape.
As far as Russians dieing to fight Nazi's, that is as silly as my examples with the mexicans. Nazi Germany attacked the USSR. The Soviet Union did not go to war in Austria to prevent the Nazi annexation. They did not fight the spread of Nazism untill they were attached, and even then, they fought the source, not a third party accociated with the source in the hopes that it wont come to them. Which is what the US did during the cold war.
Protect from what!? Was there a threat of imminent communist revolution in the US? No. How was preventing the spread of communism in Afghanastan and Vietnam protecting Americans?
Let's turn that, what gave the USSR the right to expand communism into Afghanistan and Vietnam? We pledged aid to South Vietnam and Afghanistan and backed it up with force.
There was no real risk of German invasion of the US during WWII. Should we not have helped England, France and Russia?
Here is where I think stories get a little ahead of the facts.
I am not sure I agree with your statement of them being so opressed that they were willing to risk life and limb to escape.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe they risked minefields, attack dogs, snipers and never seeing friends and family they might leave behind because they didn't like the wallpaper and couldn't get Mtv. As for facts, are you saying all the people who died trying to flee the DDR are just "capitalist lies"?
As far as Russians dieing to fight Nazi's, that is as silly as my examples with the mexicans. Nazi Germany attacked the USSR. The Soviet Union did not go to war in Austria to prevent the Nazi annexation. They did not fight the spread of Nazism untill they were attached, and even then, they fought the source, not a third party accociated with the source in the hopes that it wont come to them. Which is what the US did during the cold war.
And Russia annexed and attacked Poland. Russia didn't need to attack most places because Hitler and Stalin divided them up before hand. Russia was no more entitled to their conquests than Hitler was entitled to his. Russia was allowed to keep the spoils because nobody was willing to fight WWIII to free Poland and the other occupied countries.
But the example is hardly silly. People trying to escape from oppressive governments are the same, it doesn't matter if they are trying to escape the DDR, USSR or German occupied Czechoslovakia. You comparing them to Mexicans trying to sneak into the US is a joke.
And btw, the Russians DID invade Germany. It was during the same war where the Germans invaded Russia first. Only unlike England and the US, the Russians KEPT every country they entered. But the US was the bad guy.
:rolleyes:
Just for fun why don't you tell us about the Hungarian revolution. You know when the Russians were just minding their own business in Hungary trying to help them after the war and they were attacked without provocation.
Submariner
02-25-10, 16:10
the Cold War was all about strengthening the hold of the Military-Industrial(-Banking) Complex on these united States and their economies. He simply neglected to mention the banking portion.
The 70s and 80s gave us the problems we're dealing with today regarding the economy, terrorism, trade deficits, etc.
For that matter, 1919 gave us problems that we are still dealing with today.
superbestiality
03-06-10, 10:17
I don't really think any of us can accurately end this debate. None of us know what could have been if different actions had been taken and none of us know all of the facts relating to the cold war and the proxy wars fought during it.
In regards to the OP, I agree with whoever said that the cold war period did seem like a simpler time when you knew what you had to worry about.
Also, this is my first post so forgive me if I'm out of line.
Outlander Systems
03-06-10, 10:40
Today sucks. The 80s were where it was at.
Quit worrying about the BS and go hug your loved ones. That is what the cold war taught me. Plus, I was drunk most of that time, when not working. I figured I might as well have some fun since I might be going to Vietnam or see the big flash.
Honestly, as students of history, we would still be having these problems right now even without the cold war. The back and forth conquering of east vs west has been going on a long time. BTW, the Persians started this crap!!!:D
Today sucks. The 80s were where it was at.
i wanna vomit every time i see some douche walking around with ankle-huggers and converse and spiked black hair with black eye-liner and a three-sizes-too-small hoodie on.
the 80s were terrible the first time around, they're even worse now
Outlander Systems
03-06-10, 20:45
Yeah, but in the 80's my biggest worries were which Ninja Turtle figure I want next, and when the next episode of G.I. Joe was going to air.
As well as, how to get 100 lives off of one turtle in Super Mario Brothers.
My perspective is dangerously skewed. ;)
While I like the OP, he may have stepped into it a bit here I agree. Too simplistic.
However, if we translate his post into: "The world is more ****ed up now than ever.", then there may be validity to his words after all.
Amen to that. Pre-August 1990 U.S. Army service consisted of traveling in and out of the field. Post August 1990 I have spent more time deployed and no one knows what a training exercise (FTX or field problem) is any more. The world seemed simpler back then but the reality of the matter is that we were naive. I am a member of the 40+ crowd and I was a starry eyed 18 - 21 year old at the end of the 80s/beginning of the 90s. Well Saddam ensured that my naivete ended pretty quickly.
since I am 46 I know what the OP meant with the post I got it without trying to read to much into it :)
Today sucks. The 80s were where it was at.
That is so true - Duran Duran, the Cure, Echo and the Bunnymen...MTV playing music videos...
Honestly, I joined up in 85 after feeling it was my duty, and how else to prep for the red tide, not that Red Dwan affected me, no way. I was a child of military and govt. Conflict was innevtiable. Heck, initial MOS being a combat engineer, training on tank traps and blowing up the base of trees to slow down the inevitable echelons of Soviet tanks - thats were our focus was.
I tell you, form where I worked, it was nice to be one giant org against another. Big ass chess games it was, as opposed to now where you better hold a tennis raquet, because you dont know where it is coming from...
Since I was born in 1990, I have 90's nostalgia, not 80's (obviously).
I can see why people miss the cold war in terms of good vs evil. Back then you knew who the enemy was, and where they were.
1811tactikool
03-07-10, 18:24
It has always seemed to me that the Soviets could be reasoned with... I don't believe that any Islamic Terrorist can be reasoned with...:mad:
since I am 46 I know what the OP meant with the post I got it without trying to read to much into it :)
And thank you for getting it.
Guess it really does take one to know one.
:D
It has always seemed to me that the Soviets could be reasoned with... I don't believe that any Islamic Terrorist can be reasoned with...:mad:
Precisely. Commies can be reasoned with, which is why MAD worked.
Let's see, Cold War, I would be speaking out of place with my input since I am only 27 yrs old. I barely have a link to the 80s and was a young kid in the 90s. I watched the fall of the wall on TV but obviously could not grasp its significance. The same can be said for the Gulf War, and pretty much anything else that happened from the late 80s through the 90s.
However, "being around" does not necessarily always make one more in tune to what was going on. 9/11 was the penultimate event of my generation. I was in the service prior to 9/11 and eventually served in OIF, but I can't say that I'm in the loop about what is going on any more than anybody else. 50 yrs from now, people will be talking about what is going on now as history, and the future students will analyze it a million ways. Who knows, the future "me" may learn something from those students. I just hope it doesn't end up being in vain.
Virtually any time period prior to now would be preferable to live in. You can find a lot of excitement these days, but very little fulfillment.
January 1, 1970
The day they put the first nail in the coffin of federalism. California streamlined their divorce laws to allow a spouse to leave a relationship unilaterally, without cause. We went from a nation of strong families, to a nation where half of people never start a family, and half of all families are destroyed by the government.
Most people no longer believe in liberty, or the responsibility that comes with it. They have caused a lot of damage to this country. We need to get the ship back on course.
Maybe it's just nostalgia or an old person's "things were better back when..." kinda thing, but I think the whole "US vs. USSR" thing made the world a better place. Sure we coulda suffered nuclear armageddon at a moments notice but generally both sides were sane enough to wish to avoid that outcome and generally responsible enough to prevent it from happening "by accident."
Also meant we were concerned about being the "good guy", and by comparison showing them as the "bad guy" so generally we didn't accept too much corruption from our leaders, though it did happen of course.
Also with us trying to secure ourselves and NATO from "communist aggression" we didn't waste a lot of money on wars of ideology and money flushing socialist programs. We had them of course, and a war on drugs, etc. but they didn't get the same kind of tax dollars they do today.
Commies and socialists were in the closet. The Russians were the bad guys and so was their system of government. It wasn't McCarthyism during the 70s and 80s but the socialists in government knew they had to tread lightly.
Terrorism was events like Munich, radicals like Baader Meinhoff and a few plane hijackings. Nobody dreamed of shit like the USS Cole as people feared the US and their response. Events like the Ft Hood shooting would have been impossible.
The Russians of course did horrible things like shooting down KAL 007 but compared to 9-11 that is almost nothing, unless of course you were on KAL 007 or knew somebody who was. Not trying to diminish it, just make a point. And of course the Russians invaded Afghanistan, do you think we can give it back to them?
Because we couldn't afford to appear weak to the USSR when dipshits from Arab crap holes like Quaddafy Duck from Libya threatened us we bombed the shit out fo them and taught them to address us in a respectful manner. Leaders of other arab states paid attention.
We had American heroes like Rambo, John T. Booker/Col. James Braddock and even Chevy Chase and Dan Akroyd were with the good guys in "Spies Like Us." We didn't have to suffer too many dipshits like Jake Gyllenhaal in "Jarhead" and Michael Moore wouldn't have stood a chance. Bill Maher knew his place and kept his ass in the Avocado Jungle.
We of course forgave the Germans and Japanese and helped restore their countries after WWII and even helped build their economies. But we didn't kiss their damn ass during the war and weren't afraid to call a Nazi a Nazi and we didn't have a "hands off" policy when it came to Shinto temples. And we sure as hell didn't put the lives of US soldiers at risk in order to prevent civilian casualties in Europe.
Granted we fought Vietnam with our hands tied behind our backs with much of the population cheering for the enemy so maybe things weren't perfect then either. Thankfully that sort of crap wasn't quite as prevalent during the 80s.
I'd say that you've misinterpreted or have been missing the signals recently. The Cold War hasn't "gone anywhere" except in print and the lips of politicians (which can include generals). We (i.e., NATO members) are encroaching upon what was/is/should be Russian sphere of influence. Russia has been complaining about it and they responded brutally with the tie-eating moron from Georgia during the month of August 2008. Georgia is rearming and we are still encroaching.
No, the "Cold War" hasn't gone anywhere, my friend. It may have gotten a lot HOTTER. Try reading Brzezinski's materials in Foreign Affairs magazine and his interesting book titled The Grand Chessboard. I recommend googling it as you can download it free of charge in .pdf.
I'd say that you've misinterpreted or have been missing the signals recently. The Cold War hasn't "gone anywhere" except in print and the lips of politicians (which can include generals). We (i.e., NATO members) are encroaching upon what was/is/should be Russian sphere of influence. Russia has been complaining about it and they responded brutally with the tie-eating moron from Georgia during the month of August 2008. Georgia is rearming and we are still encroaching.
No, the "Cold War" hasn't gone anywhere, my friend. It may have gotten a lot HOTTER. Try reading Brzezinski's materials in Foreign Affairs magazine and his interesting book titled The Grand Chessboard. I recommend googling it as you can download it free of charge in .pdf.
OK, let me rephrase.
I miss the overt Cold War and the predictability of the USSR.
OK, let me rephrase.
I miss the overt Cold War and the predictability of the USSR.
The point has been honed to sharp perfection. :D
I'm 40 and I also agree to a large extent, but oddly enough we'd likely never have imagined so back then.
I'm beginning to think the only bad thing we ever did to the Russians was not invading in 1945 and rebuilding it as a prosperous country like Germany or Japan. If the AK is any indication, they might have built more reliable and better selling cars than the Japanese.
I'm beginning to think the only bad thing we ever did to the Russians was not invading in 1945 and rebuilding it as a prosperous country like Germany or Japan. If the AK is any indication, they might have built more reliable and better selling cars than the Japanese.
There was some stick and carrot going on. We helped Germany and Japan but the price was they would cease being warlike empires and become productive democracies similar to us.
Not sure Stalin would have gone for the same deal, also not sure we had the resources to fix things in Russia even if he did.
He would have necessarily got the same deal as Hitler.
The Soviets always had a weak economy, I don't think it was ever the equal of California's at any point in Soviet history. If hitler and the germans hadn't hated slavs worse than they hated jews, and if we didn't bankroll the red army in WWII through lend-lease, it might have come crashing down then and there.
As the famous Soviet saying went, we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.