[quote]lixy wrote:
Soviets were doing very bad things to their own people, no denying that, but they were no threat to the world.[/quote]
Did you type that with a straight face?
Lixy, your currency is quickly evaporating.
They were no threat to the world, as long as they supplied all of the terrorists, and nations who opposed the US and Israel with weapons, such as AK-47’s, RPG’s ect. Which means, logically, if you are not indoctrinated by islamic extremist philosophies, that they WERE a threat to the world.
I believe from reading posts here, that the islamic extremists can forgive insurmountable terror and death to fellow muslims, by non-muslims, such as the Communists, and dictators, like Saddam, Assad, the ones in Iran, if you are against Israel and the US.
We took a dictator down in Iraq, and the extemists bitch. Russia put a dictator in charge of Chechnia and no one says a word. They love the Ruskies because they supply them with guns and weapons. That is why they can do no wrong. The Russians spread terror and death to far more countries and people with arms sales alone than the US ever did.
And screw the Iranians for crying foul if we back an anti-Iranian terror group in their country. They fund Hezbollah. Why is that perfectly ok and when the US does it, it is not?
I was talking about indoctrination. This is what I meant:
http://cicentre.com/disinformation.htm
"The below goals of Soviet Communist disinformation and active measures was published 22 years ago in “Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy” by Richard Shultz and Roy Godson, 1984, page 44. It is interesting to note how certain elements continue these goals today.
To influence America, European and world public opinion to believe that US military and political policies are the major cause of international conflict and crisis.
To demonstrate that the United States is an aggressive, militaristic, and imperialistic power.
To isolate the United States from its friends and allies, and to discredit those states which cooperate with the United States.
To discredit US military and intelligence establishments.
To demonstrate that the policies and objectives of the United States are incompatible with those of the under-developed nations.
To confuse world public opinion concerning Soviet global ambitions, creating a favorable environment for Soviet foreign policy."
The Islamic extremists have been duped by the Soviets.
Wow, now when Lixy recites anti-Us propaganda, I can actually site the paragraph from which it was taken.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
How is helping the Afghans battle the Soviet occupation of their homeland any different than helping the Palestinians battle the Israeli occupation of their homeland? [/quote]
Short answer: It’s not.
The principle of siding with the weak is always fine by me. However, the method used might be questionable if it include terror against civilian innocents and a certain extremist sub-culture of Islam.
A country truly dedicated to peace uses diplomacy before ever thinking about using force.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Soviets were doing very bad things to their own people, no denying that, but they were no threat to the world.
Did you type that with a straight face?
Lixy, your currency is quickly evaporating.[/quote]
McCarthy disagrees? How surprising!
Look, Soviets were in decline since the 60’s and everybody knew that. They were more than willing to sit down and negociate but the US wouldn’t accept anything less than the dismantling of the USSR. The rest is history…
There were two sides in the cold war: the US and the USSR. Guess who the powerful countries sided with? Guess who the oppressed sided with? Was it really a surprise that the wall finally fell? I say, no.
The Soviets were against the mightiest army and wealthiest country the world has ever seen backed up with the majority of the industrial world and colonial powers. Looking at that picture, can you honestly say they were a threat to the world?
I rest my case.
[quote]lixy wrote:
McCarthy disagrees? How surprising![/quote]
Ad homimem - not surprising. But if you are attempting to insult me by my being a declared enemy of Godless, illiberal totalitarianism - that is an “insult” I will happily oblige.
Correct - what was to “negotiate”? This is another dubious claim by you. And yes, there was consensus that nothing but unconditional dismantling of the giant totalitarian state was necessary to give effect to defeating the totalitarianism - well, there was consensus among those who could be taken seriously.
Beyond retarded. The USSR was the ultimate “oppressor” - illiberal, controlling, and interested in world conquest - but then, you have never been that good at this game of knowing who does the “oppressing” and who doesn’t.
You confuse “threat” with “capability of winning”. Assuming the USSR had no ability to ultimately prevail, what about the mischief and carnage they conduct in the meantime? You present a silly false choice: that if the USSR likely would not prevail, it would cease its aggression.
The “threat” was that lots of people dead and property could be destroyed, even if they lost.
That is the height of stupidity. As the USSR got backed further and further into a corner with its falures, why assume they would lay down and quit? The opposite is true - they would, in their last gasp, do all they could to realize their totalitarian dream.
What level of destruction would have ensued as they tried to keep the dream alive while we dithered under the assumption they were on their way out the door?
You false choice is dumb.
Whatever “case” you had falls apart under the most basic scrutiny. Whatever money you are paying for your “education” - ask for it back.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Soviets were doing very bad things to their own people, no denying that, but they were no threat to the world.
Did you type that with a straight face?
Lixy, your currency is quickly evaporating.[/quote]
I wondered how he could come to that conclusion also. Low oxygen up in those Afghan mountains?
Lixy,
You are getting a free education from Thunder. You should thank him.
“There were two sides in the cold war: the US and the USSR. Guess who the powerful countries sided with? Guess who the oppressed sided with? Was it really a surprise that the wall finally fell? I say, no.”
“The Soviets were against the mightiest army and wealthiest country the world has ever seen backed up with the majority of the industrial world and colonial powers. Looking at that picture, can you honestly say they were a threat to the world?”
Disimformation:
To demonstrate that the policies and objectives of the United States are incompatible with those of the under-developed nations.
To confuse world public opinion concerning Soviet global ambitions, creating a favorable environment for Soviet foreign policy."
“A country truly dedicated to peace uses diplomacy before ever thinking about using force.”
By stating this, you wish to demean the US. . . . .
Name a Muslim country that has taken this approach in any conflict.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ad homimem - not surprising. But if you are attempting to insult me by my being a declared enemy of Godless, illiberal totalitarianism - that is an “insult” I will happily oblige.[/quote]
No. That was meant as a joke. But, nevermind…
You see? You’re admitting that you have no interest whatsoever in negotiating.
Wrong again. What countries supported the USSR? If you carefully went thru the list, you’d see that they were all (with the exception of China) traditionally oppressed and just came out of colonialism. The empirial powers sided with the US.
Aggression? Remind me again of what these agressions were?
By your logic, I should go kill my aging neighbour who owns a gun. After all, who knows what “level of destruction” he could cause as he tries to stay in the game.
Speculation is not evidence. In my world, use of force is a last resort and requires solid evidence. Yours apparently is a lot more inclined towards violence if you’re willing to sacrifice lives based on nothing but a speculative line.
That’d be none. Zero. Nada.
And I study “molecular electronics.” So, think twice before putting down that snappy line.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
“A country truly dedicated to peace uses diplomacy before ever thinking about using force.”
By stating this, you wish to demean the US. . .
Name a Muslim country that has taken this approach in any conflict.[/quote]
Fuck 'em!
You read that right. I don’t give a damn about Muslim countries. They’re all ruled by corrupt bastards anyway.
Use your common sense, people. Who’s more interested in peace? The weak or the mighty? How you fail to see this simple truth is beyond me.
“A country truly dedicated to peace uses diplomacy before ever thinking about using force.”
Then the Soviets were not dedicated to peace. They invaded Afghanistan. So what if we had proxies set up in the country beforehand, they had Communist cells in many countries. If anything, both sides were not dedicated to peace.
And as far as the US having more money, hense an edge in the conflict, check out some of the Soviet weapon systems, or watch the History Channel when it has programs on their about the Soviet’s H-bombs, MiGs, Submarines, ect. Their arsenal was top notch. If the Cold War had become hot, they would have given us a hell of a battle. No way would they have been easy to defeat, providing we would have defeated them.