Sole's Imperialist history 101 for EU gamers - a trivia for the advertising break

[unmerged(4877)]

Originally posted by viper37
Yes, but that threat factor was greatly exagerated. The real threat was really up until the 70's. Then, the USSR was showing signs of regression, and by the mid 1980s, they were completely broke and unable to maintain any kind of military activity, as the Afghan campaign showed us. And in there, the US did the same thing they accused the Russians of doing in Vietnam.

Do you really equate Vietnam, where the US was defending a nation (with all its faults) that was recognized by the world - with the USSR's invasion of an independant nation, also recognized by the world. Considering hindsight, IMO, what the US did wrong was not move into the North in force and destroy the invader's at their base. The North showed their true colors with their brutality after victory.

As to the Soviet's threat. It is easy to use hindsight to say they were not a threat. At the start of the invasion they looked to the to the world like they were resurgent.

It's not the US never did anything good, it's just that, as a nation, they tend to exagerate their good deeds and they'll always point out the one bad deed the other's did (see the thread "French arrogance" for an example of what I mean).

I'm afraid thats human nature. I believe the US has been a force for good in the last century, but no-one is perfect.

Now, if we have cops fighting the Organized crime (Italian mafia, Hell's Angels, Bandidos, etc.) we expect them to play within certain rules, i.e. we don't want them to sacrifice one innocent for the price of a couple of bad guys. Same rules should apply for nations.

But innocents do get hurt in cop/crime battles. I disagree that nations must follow the same rules as police forces.

The drug problems we have today is in part the fault of US govn't (small part, yes, but still in part their responsabilities; anyway, this would make a nice thread ). If it hadn't been of this stupid prohibition law in the 1920's-30's, the organized crime could never have implanted themselves in the drug market as easy as they did. And while one hand was spending billions to fight drug dealers, the other hand was helping the producers (why do our governments insist on prosecuting the dealers when they'll let go the consumers is beyond me; without demand there wouldn't be any supply).

You're right, this should be a seperate thread

Anyway, there are still a lot of things I like about the US. I don't believe anybody (person or entitity) is all bad.

And I believe that the US has done more good in the world than any other nation this century. To reverse your statement: I just don't believe that anybody (person or entity) is all good.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

Originally posted by viper37
Yes, but that threat factor was greatly exagerated. The real threat was really up until the 70's. Then, the USSR was showing signs of regression, and by the mid 1980s, they were completely broke and unable to maintain any kind of military activity, as the Afghan campaign showed us.

The threat continued further than that. From 1974 to 1980 ten countries fell into the USSR's communist orbit. The reason they made no furher inroads after that? The much reviled Ronald Reagan who stopped appeasing and started confronting. Even if he had to get his hands dirty by destabelising regimes, funding guerillas and supporting tinpot-dictatorships. He had no choice but to beat the enemy at the game the enemy had played so succesfully in the past.

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Originally posted by Bylandt

The threat continued further than that. From 1974 to 1980 ten countries fell into the USSR's communist orbit. The reason they made no furher inroads after that? The much reviled Ronald Reagan who stopped appeasing and started confronting. Even if he had to get his hands dirty by destabelising regimes, funding guerillas and supporting tinpot-dictatorships. He had no choice but to beat the enemy at the game the enemy had played so succesfully in the past.

Yeah. I'm afraid that after a couple of generations, when people can look back with more objectivity, ol' "Ronnie Ray-gun" is going to be regarded as one of the greatest presidents in US history. Not for a while, though, and only assuming democracy remains triumphant.

 

[viper37]

Originally posted by Bylandt


The threat continued further than that. From 1974 to 1980 ten countries fell into the USSR's communist orbit. The reason they made no furher inroads after that? The much reviled Ronald Reagan who stopped appeasing and started confronting. Even if he had to get his hands dirty by destabelising regimes, funding guerillas and supporting tinpot-dictatorships. He had no choice but to beat the enemy at the game the enemy had played so succesfully in the past.

Fight fire with fire.

What is the point on fighting for democracy when you support it only if it serves your goal?

I guess I'm too soft-hearted to be a politician.

And also, I guess USSR was too far away from us around here to objectively evaluate the threat or maybe you guys in Europe were way too close to be objective

I never feared a Russian invasion of Canada (in fact, i worry more about French and US nuclear subs sailing in our inland waters in "depth mode"), but for Germany or Belgium, things were different.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by viper37
What is the point on fighting for democracy when you support it only if it serves your goal?

Two conflicting answers:

1) Former Yugoslavia is a clear example of US involvement without a single shred of US self interest in the area. I think Vietnam falls in the same category, but that is perhaps more debateable.

2) One of the beauties of the new American Empire is that we want what (IOHO) is in the self-interst of the people of the world--democracy, stability, human rights, free markets.

 

[unmerged(592)]

2) One of the beauties of the new American Empire is that we want what (IOHO) is in the self-interst of the people

The soviet empire wanted that too.

 

[unmerged(469)]

It's not too tough to defend the US vision of human self-interest over the Soviet one.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
2) One of the beauties of the new American Empire is that we want what (IOHO) is in the self-interst of the people

The soviet empire wanted that too.

No doubt the Berlin Wall, and the rest of the frontiers of communist nations were built to keep the west out

Hard to argue that you fight for the self interest of the people when you have to cage them in.

Regarding the internment of Japanese-Americans in 1941, The US was following the example set by Britain in 1940 when every German and Italian was interned on the Isle of Man, including Jewish Germans fleeing Hitler's oppression. It's a sad chapter in those nation's histories, but perhaps understandable given the threat each faced during that respective time.

Viper, it must be nice to smugly sit by in Canada poking fun at the numerous mistakes made by the US during the cold war. Perhaps you should ask yourself why those actions were carried out. Rather than point at the US, perhaps your venom could be directed at the USSR seeing as it does take two sides to fight a war, cold or hot.

Hindsight is wonderful, but if any of you could have predicted that the Soviet Union was no longer a threat in 1980 perhaps you should enter a new profession -the psychic hotline is always looking for more staff, and it would appear we have a number of people with a gift for fortune-telling after the fact.

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Originally posted by sean9898

Hindsight is wonderful, but if any of you could have predicted that the Soviet Union was no longer a threat in 1980 perhaps you should enter a new profession -the psychic hotline is always looking for more staff, and it would appear we have a number of people with a gift for fortune-telling after the fact.

No joke. Today it seems absolutely normal that we live in a world without a cold war. But after growing up while it was on, and wearing a uniform for part of it, I will never forget my sense of absolute wonder when I watched the Germans swarming and tearing down the Berlin wall.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

Originally posted by von Wittenburg
I will never forget my sense of absolute wonder when I watched the Germans swarming and tearing down the Berlin wall.

Nor will I. And if someone would have predicted it five years earlier, he would have been locked up in an insane asylum.

 

[unmerged(592)]

"Hard to argue that you fight for the self interest of the people when you have to cage them in. "

The USSR built no wall. It was us, the Germans, who did so to protect their economy. If the US faced a rapid loss of needed qualified personnel they cannot replace they took measures to prevent it too. Just as they now prevent too many people coming in because it is no good to the USA

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Originally posted by Bylandt


Nor will I. And if someone would have predicted it five years earlier, he would have been locked up in an insane asylum.

Even five months. I was at the wall in August 89, the thought that it would be moot in a November was unthinkable.

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
"Hard to argue that you fight for the self interest of the people when you have to cage them in. "

The USSR built no wall. It was us, the Germans, who did so to protect their economy. If the US faced a rapid loss of needed qualified personnel they cannot replace they took measures to prevent it too. Just as they now prevent too many people coming in because it is no good to the USA

That is as close to rediculous as anything I've ever seen. The USSR built the original barriers in the 50's (Berlin Airlift period). Their German puppets made it out of brick later on. When it came down, the GDR checked with their Soviet masters to see what they should do.

The US has not, and would not, build walls to stop US citizens from leaving, and shoot them down if they tried. They don't even check people out of the country when they leave. Controlling immigration has nothing to with imprisoning your population.

The tendancy of some people to see equivalency between democracy and totalitarianism is truely frightening for the future of freedom.

 

[unmerged(592)]

Actually the GDR was Autoritarian, not Totalitarian. That we had before.

What si the difference between not letting in for economic reasons and not letting out for economic reasons? There was no wall in the 50's, really. You could pass the border without any problems. It was the allies who decided to make a seperate western Germany and therefore divide it, not the USSR.

The Berlin story isn't half as seen glorious among the people here, even the Berliners. Cold War Propaganda may be a reason for you to have another view on it.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
Actually the GDR was Autoritarian, not Totalitarian. That we had before.

I'm curious for your definition of totalitarian. How can you say that the GDR was not totalitarian?

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
What si the difference between not letting in for economic reasons and not letting out for economic reasons?

Big difference. All democratic countries have some rules restricting immigration. Restricting you own people to leave (or to move to another part of the country) happens only in totalitarian states. Surely you see the difference between not allowing strangers into your own house and locking up adult members of the family in your house to prevent them from leaving?

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
The Berlin story isn't half as seen glorious among the people here, even the Berliners. Cold War Propaganda may be a reason for you to have another view on it.

Maybe the unification of Germany was not all roses and moonshine, but I don't need cold war propaganda to see the fall of a totalitarian dictatorship as a blessed thing.

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
Actually the GDR was Autoritarian, not Totalitarian. That we had before.

It was Totalitarian. It shot down its own citizens for trying to leave. I'm interested in your definition of the difference between Authoritarian and Totalitarian.

What si the difference between not letting in for economic reasons and not letting out for economic reasons?

Name a democracy that doesn't let their people leave for economic reasons. Every nation has a right to protect their borders being crossed by people who are not their citizens.

In any case, in the GDR it was political as well as economic. That's why bricklayers were shot down as easily as scientists. The Communist mythology could not accept the fact that people didn't not want to live in their "utopia."

There was no wall in the 50's, really. You could pass the border without any problems. It was the allies who decided to make a seperate western Germany and therefore divide it, not the USSR.

I have family there. My father flew in the airlift. The USSR isolated west Berlin in the 50s.

The Berlin story isn't half as seen glorious among the people here, even the Berliners. Cold War Propaganda may be a reason for you to have another view on it.

Not glorious, agreed. My family discussed their experiences, not propaganda. The west didn't shoot down their citizens trying to go to east Berlin. Post cold war propaganda (which is very useful for putting to rest an ugly past) may be a reason for you to have another view on it.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

Originally posted by von Wittenburg
I'm interested in your definition of the difference between Authoritarian and Totalitarian.

Twilight zone experience! Telepathy? Or just common sense.

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Originally posted by Bylandt


Twilight zone experience! Telepathy? Or just common sense.

No joke. When I hit submit I first saw your post and thought "I didn't word it that way?"

BTW: I quite like your "letting strangers into your house" analogy.

 

[unmerged(592)]

"I have family there. My father flew in the airlift. The USSR isolated west Berlin in the 50s."

Guess what... We are not the unknowing people you we shall be. If something happens in our country we know it.

If someone violently crosses a defended border he has to be shot. After all, you never know who he is. Could be a spy or worse.

I'm interested in your definition of the difference between Authoritarian and Totalitarian.

I have not invented the difference. It's what stands in the school history books over here. We get all this westernized crap for the polit courses in school but not even the teacher believes what they write nor pretends to do.

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
"I have family there. My father flew in the airlift. The USSR isolated west Berlin in the 50s."

Guess what... We are not the unknowing people you we shall be. If something happens in our country we know it.

Wow. I wasn't saying anything about what you know. I was informing you that my knowledge came from more than the "Cold War Propaganda" you suggested.

If someone violently crosses a defended border he has to be shot. After all, you never know who he is. Could be a spy or worse.

Sneaking over a fence is not violent, and they were leaving, not breaking in. Democracies don't shoot people who are leaving the country. The reason they had to try to sneak over is because they were not allowed to emigrate freely across the border.

I'm interested in your definition of the difference between Authoritarian and Totalitarian.

I have not invented the difference. It's what stands in the school history books over here. We get all this westernized crap for the polit courses in school but not even the teacher believes what they write nor pretends to do.

I didn't say you invented it. I asked what the difference is, as I'm unfamiliar with it.

I'm sorry that you believe polit courses with a western point of view are crap.