1975: Saigon surrenders

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lancer
The soviet economy was dieing before the breakup of the empire. Things have to get worse before they can get better. Look at how the rest of europe compares. Had the soviets never been there, eastern europe would be prosperous like the rest of europe. All the problems they are now having can be laid at the feet of the communist empire. It will take some time for eastern europe to get back on its feet.

Agreed. Way to high a percent of GNP on military and a lot of collective agriculture with no way to stimulate the economy. That empire was doomed by failure from within, not pressure from without (although that was rather extensive in many quarters as well)

[Az]

You know, the soviet union didn't fall because of it's economy. Its' restructuring began because of it's economy, which was a beneficial step forward. The government fell by the will of the people, since the soviet leaders actually thought that the people were behind them, they couldn't believe that people would want to overthrow them.

This, of course, was illegal. and, as time has shown, highly counterproductive, as well.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Azazel
You know, the soviet union didn't fall because of it's economy. Its' restructuring began because of it's economy, which was a beneficial step forward. The government fell by the will of the people, since the soviet leaders actually thought that the people were behind them, they couldn't believe that people would want to overthrow them.

This, of course, was illegal. and, as time has shown, highly counterproductive, as well.

I dare say that economic conditions helped fashion the will of the people

[Az]

No, the Illusion that once the SU is gone they'll live like "The West" did.

It reminds me of the time than people call the soviets hypocritical by showing their successful ventures to visitors, and tourists, not the failing ones.

I am sure that capitalists show child labour on plantations and sweatshops as well.

[PLATO]

No, the Illusion that once the SU is gone they'll live like "The West" did.

Is this not a manifestation of the economic condition? Other than economics or economically driven things, Religion is the only other "live like the west" item I can think of.

[Az]

Oh no, religion is not strong in Russia. It has rebounded, but I wouldn't call them devoutly religious people.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Azazel
Well, GP starting raving about how great that intervention to help religious fundies against a secular government was, and one of his points was that it helped the US to bring down the SU. Yes, it was an international game achievement. But starting to run around with it, like it some sort of grand moral victory?

I didn't start raving. And I never mentioned religion.

You asked me if I thought it was a good idea and I said yes. I think the communist dictators in USSR were dangerous evil people. And the world is better off for us stopping them.

You asked what I thought. I told you.

[Az]

Fair enough, I apologise for the "raving" remark. ( though I don't mind "raving" at all, that's what rave parties are for, after al. ).

By "Religious Fundies" I meant various Islamist groups that are a geopolitical factor. I actually never mentioned religion, too.


Why do you consider the Soviet leaders dangerous people? more dangerous than the US government? Who was walking on the edge and who retreated for the sake of the world, Kennedy or Khruschev?

[TCO]

Because they were evil. I hate them.

[TCO]

[Az]

Good reasoning.

[Az]

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why don't you tell it like it was: "America soundly defeated and utterly humiliated by a bunch of peasants and students with guns."

That's a fantasy story if I ever heard one. Betcha can't name one battle which the U.S. lost because there wasn't one.

The U.S. pull out from Vietnam was not because of a military defeat. It was a political decision.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


That's a fantasy story if I ever heard one. Betcha can't name one battle which the U.S. lost because there wasn't one.

The U.S. pull out from Vietnam was not because of a military defeat. It was a political decision.

Classic superpower response when defeated by guerilla warfare tactics. The US lost thousands of battles in Vietnam, they were just never given names.

[Lord Merciless]

Level of evilness in US eyes:

Nazism > Communism > Fundamentalism > 'Normal' Dictatorships


The decision to use military means is a functions of:

F(perceived threat, estimated cost of war, level of evilness in US eyes, potential economic interests)


Apply this formula, you can find out the probability of an US-led intervention.


Iraq as a case study:
perceived threat = high
estimated cost of war = low
level of evilness in US eyes = medium ( Very very bad 'Normal' Dictatorship)
potential economic interests = high
Conclusion: WAR!

China as a case study:
perceived threat = low
estimated cost of war = very high (large scale nuclear war possible)
level of evilness in US eyes = medium high (Communism)
potential economic interests = very low
Conclusion: Engagement

North Korea as a case study:
perceived threat = high
estimated cost of war = high
level of evilness in US eyes = very high (Very very bad Communism)
potential economic interests = none
Conclusion: Undecided