I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

jlf1961 -> I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (2/26/2014 5:36:53 PM)

How many people knew that President Obama did not kill Osama Bin laden? Obama has an alibi, he was in residence at the White House in Washington DC when Bin Laden was killed.

Another thing, President Reagan did not actually defeat the Soviet Union and cause its collapse. I googled it and Reagan isn't listed as the cause or one of the causes for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

According to this site and this one the collapse was actually caused by all the problems inherent in a socialist economy, not to mention political corruption.

Now I did confirm Richard Nixon ordered the Watergate Break in, and Ronald Reagan knew about Ollie North's little program to fund the contras after congress got a wild hair up their collective asses just because the Contras moved some cocaine to raise money to fight the communists.

Which begs the question, why is it okay under Bush and Obama for some of our "allies" in Afghanistan are some of the biggest illegal opium suppliers in the world.

Then there was the fact that Carter (D GA) and Reagan (R CA) gave the mujahdeen 3 Billion dollars to fight the soviets.... and stinger missiles to shoot down soviet helicopters, even allegedly had US army "advisers" training them in small group combat tactics in Pakistan as well as some blatantly ignoring orders and going into Afghanistan.

So what if some of those Afghan rebels became the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

And now we have a President that has basically dropped the ball on a few 'incidents" telling Putin to keep Russian troops out of Ukraine.

Considering the world political situation, I really do think we need a cross between JFK and Reagan, JFK risked a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, and Reagan liked pissing matches with the Soviets.



Zonie63 -> RE: I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (2/27/2014 6:10:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Considering the world political situation, I really do think we need a cross between JFK and Reagan, JFK risked a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, and Reagan liked pissing matches with the Soviets.


I think that we should just leave the Russians alone. If one looks over the relationship between the U.S. and Russia over the past centuries, it's just a series of unfortunate misunderstandings and lost opportunities.

There has never been any concrete, practical reason for either of us to be at odds with each other. They sold Alaska to us, fair and square, so they have no claims there, and we have no claims on any of their territory. We might have to share the Arctic Ocean with them and other Arctic Rim nations, but that's certainly not worth fighting over.

Our relationship started to deteriorate with Imperial Russia as we started to get more ambitious in the Pacific and East Asia, and our national security perceptions were becoming more and more aligned with those of Britain and other colonial powers. Britain also found themselves at odds with Russia's expansionist designs all along their southern frontier, from Turkey to Korea. The West has been afraid of Russia for centuries, as well as being culturally separated by long-standing religious schisms. As Americans, we never really made much of an effort to try to understand them or get to know them very well.

From their point of view, they've been invaded and overrun so many times from all directions that they grew to be understandably wary and guarded towards the outside world. They see Americans as spoiled children, arrogant, hypocritical. I seem to recall that Solzhenitsyn said that we lost our souls.

The U.S.-Russian relationship was obviously at its low point during the Soviet period, especially at the very beginning when the U.S. and other Allied nations sent troops into Russia to intervene in the Russian Civil War. While most Americans don't remember this, it's something the Russians never forgot. (They don't have the same problems with short memory and short attention-span that we commonly have in this country.)

Of course, at the time of WW1 and the Russian Civil War, we were still only bit players on the world scene, while it was other Allied powers which were driving the train at that point. So our relationship might have still been salvageable, although with the Palmer Raids and the Red Scare taking place, our country took a completely different direction. Still, our relatively isolationist foreign policy and Russia's geographic isolation made any kind of confrontation extremely unlikely during the 1920s and 30s. We didn't need to get into any pissing matches with them back then.

In WW2, we became allies of convenience, but we both got dirty with global intrigue and fighting over the spoils of war. During the Cold War, both sides pulled their share of crooked shit, and both sides grew to be excessively paranoid about the other. Hell, we all grew up with fallout shelters and the ever-present fear that they could launch the missiles at any time. And for what? What was it all for?

I know that a lot of people thought that the Russians were coming to get us, but that idea never really made sense. The movie Red Dawn was something that people really thought was going to happen, and even the American Conservative Union showed us a movie in school about how the Sandinistas were going to take over Nicaragua, then Mexico, then the United States. This is the kind of lunacy which has dominated the thinking of U.S. foreign policy "experts" over these past decades, and this malady is still as strong as ever.



tweakabelle -> RE: I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (2/27/2014 6:47:22 AM)

One way to think of the situation with the Russians over the Ukraine is to think of the Ukraine as something akin to 'their' Cuba.

The US has been quick to act whenever it perceived its interests threatened in its 'own back yard'. The Russians have a similar history with their back yard.

So yes it would be a good idea if all sides kept cool heads.



Owner59 -> RE: I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (2/27/2014 8:20:40 AM)

The future Pope John Paul, Lech Walesa and the then American employed/backed-future terrorist bin-laden, had more to do with the fall of the soviet union than Reagan did.





vincentML -> RE: I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (2/27/2014 9:31:10 AM)

quote:

I know that a lot of people thought that the Russians were coming to get us, but that idea never really made sense.

Most of what you say makes sense but you cast a blind eye on the expansionist ambitions of the Soviets in 1945. It was by playing off China against the SU that Nixon (gasp!) held the Red Empire in check.

As for the Palmer raids, true it was a red scare but preceded by several decades of Anarchists bombings and killings. Several attempts were made on the life of Attorney General Palmer months before any 'red scare' raids occurred or were planned.



Zonie63 -> RE: I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (2/27/2014 5:22:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I know that a lot of people thought that the Russians were coming to get us, but that idea never really made sense.

Most of what you say makes sense but you cast a blind eye on the expansionist ambitions of the Soviets in 1945. It was by playing off China against the SU that Nixon (gasp!) held the Red Empire in check.


I agree, although the expansionist ambitions of the Soviets may have started before 1945. After the Bolsheviks took power and lost so much territory after signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, there were indications that they wanted some or all of this territory back. They grabbed Ukraine and parts of Poland almost immediately after the Russian Civil War, and Stalin's agreement with Hitler enabled him to take more of Poland, along with the Baltic Republics, portions of Finland, and Bessarabia. The Comintern was also encouraging the idea of world revolution, although one might argue that Soviet-supported revolutions might have been a vehicle for Soviet expansionism.

Of course, in 1945 from the Soviet point of view, they saw that a buffer zone in Eastern Europe was necessary for their own national defense, especially considering what they had just been through. They also would have argued that they weren't doing anything different from what the U.S. was doing, as we also kept troops and a foothold in Western Europe, as well as in Japan and South Korea. I wouldn't say that constituted "U.S. expansionism," although it's conceivable that they could have interpreted it as such, which would have fed their motivation to respond in kind, so to speak.

Historically, Russia has never had much success in launching any aggressive wars of expansionism. They've had great victories defending against Napoleon and Hitler, and made territorial gains as a result. But they had been trying for centuries to push into Turkey with only mixed results. (One such attempt was thwarted by Britain during the Crimean War.) Their attempts to gain an ice-free seaport in the Far East failed when they went up against Japan in 1904-05. They eventually beat the Finns, but not after a bloody nose or two. Their foray into Afghanistan didn't work out very well either.

So, it's not that I'm turning the blind eye to Soviet expansionism, nor have I ever denied any atrocities or excesses attributed to the Stalinist regime. But overall, it's never really been a part of their national character to launch aggressive wars of conquest or build empires. Even when they've tried to do that, they've had more failures than successes.

We in the West have been better conquerors than they ever were. They've had to deal with more than their share of would-be conquerors, whereas we in America have never been conquered during our existence. Yet, we are a nation built on conquest, even if we try to avoid seeing ourselves that way. The Russians might very well judge us by our dark side, just as we have judged them by their dark side.

quote:


As for the Palmer raids, true it was a red scare but preceded by several decades of Anarchists bombings and killings. Several attempts were made on the life of Attorney General Palmer months before any 'red scare' raids occurred or were planned.


True, but after the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, the fear became more intensified and took on a more international dimension. It wasn't just a case of homegrown radicals with a violent grudge against the government, but it had the effect of painting groups of people as foreign agents and spies working at the behest of an enemy regime.



vincentML -> RE: I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (2/28/2014 7:02:03 AM)

quote:

Of course, in 1945 from the Soviet point of view, they saw that a buffer zone in Eastern Europe was necessary for their own national defense, especially considering what they had just been through. They also would have argued that they weren't doing anything different from what the U.S. was doing, as we also kept troops and a foothold in Western Europe, as well as in Japan and South Korea. I wouldn't say that constituted "U.S. expansionism," although it's conceivable that they could have interpreted it as such, which would have fed their motivation to respond in kind, so to speak.

OTOH, the lasting historical criticism of General Eisenhower leveled by Churchill, Montgomery, and even Patton was that he gave Berlin to the Soviets. While Monty rushed north to successfully cut them off from Denmark and Patton was ready to beat them to Berlin, Eisenhower diverted Allied forces south through Bavaria to attack Hitler's empty mountain lair. Stalin's expansionist intentions were blind only to Roosevelt. The Soviets were very late to the conquest of Japan in the Pacific and it can be argued their intention was a Dynasty that spanned the Eurasian continent.

In the case of Ukraine Putin is flexing his (limited) military might to placate his own home base against the local dissidents and to restore Russian hegemony from the Black Sea across the 'stans' of southern Asia. To arouse jingoistic fervor at home is the way a dictator remains in power.

quote:

True, but after the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, the fear became more intensified and took on a more international dimension. It wasn't just a case of homegrown radicals with a violent grudge against the government, but it had the effect of painting groups of people as foreign agents and spies working at the behest of an enemy regime.

Well yeah. The Third International Cominturn had declared their goal to arouse the working classes in the Capitalist countries:

"The International intended to fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."[1]" Wiki



LookieNoNookie -> RE: I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (2/28/2014 6:46:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

How many people knew that President Obama did not kill Osama Bin laden? Obama has an alibi, he was in residence at the White House in Washington DC when Bin Laden was killed.

Another thing, President Reagan did not actually defeat the Soviet Union and cause its collapse. I googled it and Reagan isn't listed as the cause or one of the causes for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

According to this site and this one the collapse was actually caused by all the problems inherent in a socialist economy, not to mention political corruption.

Now I did confirm Richard Nixon ordered the Watergate Break in, and Ronald Reagan knew about Ollie North's little program to fund the contras after congress got a wild hair up their collective asses just because the Contras moved some cocaine to raise money to fight the communists.

Which begs the question, why is it okay under Bush and Obama for some of our "allies" in Afghanistan are some of the biggest illegal opium suppliers in the world.

Then there was the fact that Carter (D GA) and Reagan (R CA) gave the mujahdeen 3 Billion dollars to fight the soviets.... and stinger missiles to shoot down soviet helicopters, even allegedly had US army "advisers" training them in small group combat tactics in Pakistan as well as some blatantly ignoring orders and going into Afghanistan.

So what if some of those Afghan rebels became the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

And now we have a President that has basically dropped the ball on a few 'incidents" telling Putin to keep Russian troops out of Ukraine.

Considering the world political situation, I really do think we need a cross between JFK and Reagan, JFK risked a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, and Reagan liked pissing matches with the Soviets.


No we don't.

We need a truth teller.

Ron Paul told the truth. Many said he was a whack job. Ross Perot told the truth. Many said he was a whack job. John Anderson told the truth. Many said he was a whack job.

I read an article recently/interview actually, about/with Ralph Nader (whack job)...fucker's a whack job....said some rational shit though....

Guy told the truth.

People buy what they're sold.

As long as the bill goes to the other guy.




Zonie63 -> RE: I am shocked, disbelieving even.... (2/28/2014 6:58:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Of course, in 1945 from the Soviet point of view, they saw that a buffer zone in Eastern Europe was necessary for their own national defense, especially considering what they had just been through. They also would have argued that they weren't doing anything different from what the U.S. was doing, as we also kept troops and a foothold in Western Europe, as well as in Japan and South Korea. I wouldn't say that constituted "U.S. expansionism," although it's conceivable that they could have interpreted it as such, which would have fed their motivation to respond in kind, so to speak.

OTOH, the lasting historical criticism of General Eisenhower leveled by Churchill, Montgomery, and even Patton was that he gave Berlin to the Soviets. While Monty rushed north to successfully cut them off from Denmark and Patton was ready to beat them to Berlin, Eisenhower diverted Allied forces south through Bavaria to attack Hitler's empty mountain lair. Stalin's expansionist intentions were blind only to Roosevelt. The Soviets were very late to the conquest of Japan in the Pacific and it can be argued their intention was a Dynasty that spanned the Eurasian continent.


The Allies gave Berlin to the Soviets at Yalta. That wasn't Eisenhower's decision.

Russia already had spanned the Eurasian continent even during the Romanov Dynasty. They didn't need it as an intention; they already had it.

We were the ones who insisted on a Soviet declaration of war on Japan once Germany was defeated. That was another outcome at Yalta, so we essentially enabled whatever expansionist intentions they may have had. Perhaps FDR was blind to those intentions, but his primary goal at that time was the defeat of Germany and Japan. He knew that the Soviets were bearing the brunt of the fighting and taking most of the casualties for the Allied side against Germany.

quote:


In the case of Ukraine Putin is flexing his (limited) military might to placate his own home base against the local dissidents and to restore Russian hegemony from the Black Sea across the 'stans' of southern Asia. To arouse jingoistic fervor at home is the way a dictator remains in power.


Yes. However, I think if Putin tries to restore Russian hegemony over Ukraine, he may unleash a hornet's nest. It could backfire on him. He's got his own problems at home. He has some billionaires living like tsars and doing whatever they please, while the bulk of the population is living in poverty. When have we seen that before in history? And then, wanting to go to war to expand the Empire? Wasn't that what Nicholas II tried to do? A fat lot of good it did him.


quote:

quote:

True, but after the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, the fear became more intensified and took on a more international dimension. It wasn't just a case of homegrown radicals with a violent grudge against the government, but it had the effect of painting groups of people as foreign agents and spies working at the behest of an enemy regime.

Well yeah. The Third International Cominturn had declared their goal to arouse the working classes in the Capitalist countries:

"The International intended to fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."[1]" Wiki


Yeah, but that idea never really got off the ground. And even if it did, it didn't necessarily mean that everyone who might have been working for a similar (but more moderate) cause was automatically a communist or a puppet of the Soviet Union. Some people were unfairly branded as "communists," and that's an unfortunate direction our country took.







Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875