sad thoughts on poly posters

[notyoueither]

GT and Frogger.

How do you justify the bombing of civilians? Forget Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagaski.

What about Berlin and Tokyo?

Only, in the Cold War the combat was fought through factions in various other countries. Did Americans personally man the death squads? No. Did Soviets? No (outside the East bolc). The fact is the puppets of both sides went to great extremes in their own interests and goals.

A struggle for survival is what the 50's through 80's were. It was a democratic, capitalist world or an authoritarian, collectivist world. You have to appreciate the world they lived in.

You may regret some of the tactics. That's OK. That's good. However I doubt you can really appreciate what was at stake if you can see no good in what the US (and Brits, and French, etc.) did.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
I don't recall a war being fought between the two; I recall a bunch of people on both sides getting all worked up and using it as an excuse to slaughter third-party innocents.

Let me quote:

'We will bury you.'

Sounds like a fight to me. What about you?

[GeneralTacticus]

GT and Frogger.

How do you justify the bombing of civilians? Forget Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagaski.

What about Berlin and Tokyo?

That was a case of 'the end justifies the means'. Moreover, the Germans and Japanese had brought that on themselves. The reason I don't extend the same justification to the cold War is that it wasn't just the means that was wrong (for the most part) it was the end itself as well.

Only, in the Cold War the combat was fought through factions in various other countries. Did Americans personally man the death squads? No. Did Soviets? No (outside the East bolc). The fact is the puppets of both sides went to great extremes in their own interests and goals.

Obviously there were no American death squads. However, the US funded, trained and armed the death squads and secret police of their puppets, knowing what their puppets were doing and helping to cover it up.

A struggle for survival is what the 50's through 80's were. It was a democratic, capitalist world or an authoritarian, collectivist world.

The West itself was democratic and capitalist while the East was authoritarian and collectivist. Virtually anywhere else the Cold War spread to you ended up with either capitalist or communist dictatorships.

You have to appreciate the world they lived in.

Why don't we try to appreciate the world Hitler lived in? From his point of view, it was absolutely neccessary to exterminate the Jews, for the good of humanity. The fact that someone may be deluded does not excuse the crimes they commit.

You may regret some of the tactics. That's OK. That's good. However I doubt you can really appreciate what was at stake if you can see no good in what the US (and Brits, and French, etc.) did.

Oh, I do see some good in what they did. Just that the bad far outweighs it.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't justify the bombing of civilians. It's both generally ineffective and morally repugnant. The only explanation I can offer for it is that at the time the Allies didn't know it was ineffective and had just had it done to them. Beyond the mitigation offered by these two facts, the people responsible for taking the decision to bomb civilians are morally culpable. While we might argue about the effectiveness of the puppet dictatorships the US supported in overthrowing Soviet Communism, the second factor is not available to them; Guatemalans weren't busy setting up death squads in the US, so the US wasn't exacting revenge by setting up death squads in Guatemala.

I can see the good in democracy over authoritarianism. I can also, unfortunately for your point, see the good in collectivism over capitalism. Finally, I hope you can see my point: even if we agree that the ends justifies the means (which I think it does, to a certain extent) we have to ask the question: were the results worth the sacrifices which the US forced other people to make, after which they refused to repay their debt to these people or even acknowledge that they had anything to do with their misfortune.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Frogger
I don't recall a war being fought between the two; I recall a bunch of people on both sides getting all worked up and using it as an excuse to slaughter third-party innocents.

We should've kept going east the spring of 45 and crushed the Soviet Empire while we had the chance. Then we would never have seen our ideals corupted by fear. Dictatorships would never have been sponsored. The world would have come out a helluva lot better, and it is doubtful Nuclear weapons would ever have been made in nearly such numbers as they were. The US would have been able to pull out of world affairs again after an occupation period similar to the historical one, and I doubt there would be such strife as there is today. The only flashpoint I can think of that was not directly related to the cold war would be Israel. Granted, science would not be nearly what it is today, but I think it would have been a much better trade.

[GeneralTacticus]

Let me quote:

'We will bury you.'

Sounds like a fight to me. What about you?

Exactly what acts of aggression against the West did the USSR commit after Stalin? I know of none.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Let me quote:

'We will bury you.'

Sounds like a fight to me. What about you?

Sounds like words. Fighting usually nvolves concrete action against another nation. That's why the US wasn't at war with Japan until Japan and the US were actually blowing each other's planes out of the sky.

In all seriousness, it's a belligerent statement, not a declaration of war. Sabre-rattling...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


I said STALINISM ended with Kruschev, not dictatorship. I'm not arguing that the Soviets were nice, but the USSR was far bette after Stalin than before.



Democracy in Germany and Japan was before the Cold War really began. And how exactly did US action bring about democracy in Eastern Europe?



Does the appearance of a political group which you don't like justify destroying an entire national economy? The Contras were set up for the specific purpose of attacking civilian targets such as health clinics and agricultural collectives.



How exactly was the US any better than the USSR during the Cold War? The dictatorships they set up weren't intended to give way to democracy whenpossible, they were there to prevent democracy.

1. I say Stalinist so as not to piss off communists who might have good intentions and honest beliefs.

2. How did winning the Cold War and bringing about the fall of the USSR bring about democracy in Eastern Europe? You need to ask? Draw a line. A goes though B then links C, D, and E as it ends up in F (for freedom) in Eastern Europe. Do you think it would have happened if the Americans had not driven the Soviets into the dirt during the arms race?

3. You should pay some attention to the fact that the Cold War was not some passing squabble between like minded, but disinterested peoples. It was a struggle for global supremecy. I don't think the good people of Oz would be too happy with the result if it had gone the other way.

4. The puppets in the the world outside of the West were intended to further winning. If they weren't, they should have been. Now those countries can go on in their own development with far less attention from both sides. Unless you have oil. If the 'other' side had won, I'm pretty sure they would have a whole lot less freedom to choose.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dan Severn


We should've kept going east the spring of 45 and crushed the Soviet Empire while we had the chance. Then we would never have seen our ideals corupted by fear. Dictatorships would never have been sponsored. The world would have come out a helluva lot better, and it is doubtful Nuclear weapons would ever have been made in nearly such numbers as they were. The US would have been able to pull out of world affairs again after an occupation period similar to the historical one, and I doubt there would be such strife as there is today. The only flashpoint I can think of that was not directly related to the cold war would be Israel. Granted, science would not be nearly what it is today, but I think it would have been a much better trade.

I don't know if you could have done it. It would certainly have cost you a lot more lives than WWII in its entirety to that point had.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


Sounds like words. Fighting usually nvolves concrete action against another nation. That's why the US wasn't at war with Japan until Japan and the US were actually blowing each other's planes out of the sky.

In all seriousness, it's a belligerent statement, not a declaration of war. Sabre-rattling...

South Korea. South Vietnam.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Exactly what acts of aggression against the West did the USSR commit after Stalin? I know of none.

Exactly what acts of aggression did the US make, ever? After 1848, that is?

[GeneralTacticus]

We should've kept going east the spring of 45 and crushed the Soviet Empire while we had the chance. Then we would never have seen our ideals corupted by fear. Dictatorships would never have been sponsored. The world would have come out a helluva lot better, and it is doubtful Nuclear weapons would ever have been made in nearly such numbers as they were. The US would have been able to pull out of world affairs again after an occupation period similar to the historical one, and I doubt there would be such strife as there is today. The only flashpoint I can think of that was not directly related to the cold war would be Israel. Granted, science would not be nearly what it is today, but I think it would have been a much better trade.

Do you think that the West could have actually taken on and defeated the USSR immediately after WWII? The only advantage the US and UK had over the Soviets was the A-Bomb, and I doubt they would have been available in great enough numbers to make a difference. The Soviets would have driven through Western Europe, and the US would have had to nuke the people it had liberated in order to stop the Soviets.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


South Korea. South Vietnam.

Proxy wars. In the case of SK, by way of 2 proxies on the part of the USSR.

It still doesn't demonstrate a state of war between USSR and US.

[notyoueither]

GT. Here it is simply. It was the West or the East. No compromise.

When the Americans propped up dictators, they were the weapons of the conflict.

When the Russians or the Chinese did the same it was the same.

That is the sad bit. The rest of the world (for the most part) paid the price in blood. But make no mistake, if the West had taken the high road, we'd all be learning Russian and saluting the Politburo by now.

[KrazyHorse]

The USSR funding China to fund NK to invade SK, which was funded by the US+UK etc. is a long way from the USSR invading the US. And how does it justify propping up a corrupt dictatorship in SK? It can jsutify helping to defend SK, not stomping down on freedoms in SK.

The US forced others to make sacrifices it wouldn't ask of its own citizens. Repugnant.