Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for proving my point... this is exactly the attitude I was alluding to...
Some people go to a bar to have a few drinks and shoot darts with some friends. Some people go to a bar to have a few drinks and pour out their sorrows to the barkeeper. Some people go to a bar to have a few drinks and get in a fight. You'd have thought this last sort would have been bred out of the gene pool by now...
Thanks for proving my point... this is exactly the attitude I was alluding to, that some can't do anything but feel the need to create enemies. How else can there be wars/cold wars?
Believe me, it doesn't hurt to be nice to others and extend a hand of friendship even if they've been on the other side at some point and are open to giving up aggression. But then, I also said that comprehending this isn't within everybody's capability.
you gotta love your liberal elitism. thinking that your silly notion of diplomacy is somehow complex and hard for anyone to grasp. its cute how you think you are smart.
im sure you see the logic in extending an olive branch to people who wouldnt think twice about killing millions of their own people, but thats because you are a silly idealist. you give an inch, they take a mile. give them more time, give them your money, give them everything they want and they will take take take and give you nothing but the hopes of a lasting peace. all the while milking you for everything they can.
sanrene, pointing out why the right is losing all credibility with thinking Americans, wrote;
Quote:
Either one works - accolade, acolyte.
FTW? Let's try a few other of the "either one works" ideas;
"I said thanks, but no thanks, when I didn't say it."
"I never fired the librarian of police chief". Except I really had.
"The AK wildlife department found that polar bears are not endangered". Except if you read the report you find that they did say it.
"Wooten's (brother in law) divorce proceeding had caused his confidential records to be released". Uh, wrong, the court said it did not release them.
I could go on, at last count there are about 30 lies that SP has become famous for. The most telling thing about a liar, or someone who "confuses words and their meanings" is whether they do it when they have little, or nothing to gain from it. This week she is at it again in her lie about the cut on her hand telling the interviewer from "Runner's World" that she "swore everyone to secrecy" about the cut on her hand received while jogging. Except the reporters had the full story when she stepped off the plane. Obviously the reporter from RW hadn't done his homework, and like a lot of national "news" reporters let he get away with another one.
This is kind of a roundabout way of pointing out that people who say "accolade"/"acolyte", same thing, often fall for complete BS when it comes out of the mouths of their goddesses.
No one "wins" any war. One side just loses less. I'm surprised no one else brought up this "minor" distinction.
The US may have "not lost" the Cold War overall, but an entire generation grew up in fear of a nuclear attack, with "duck and cover" lessons and drills run in schools.
The Korean War and Vietnam War were a direct result of the Cold War. Somewhere between 50k and 100k Americans died in those two wars.
Maybe you'll read it maybe not. I'll sum it up as they could wipe out all electronics on the entire planet with a nuclear bomb big enough being exploded 200-300 miles above the earth, above the ionosphere.
i bet einstein loves abe lincoln's diplomacy. killing over 600k of your own people in order to "save the union." its ok to kill people as long as they are americans right?
I didn't read all the responses however didn't someone just post that Fox News/Hannity edited this piece
On the July 7 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity deceptively cropped President Obama's answer to a question from Fox News senior White House correspondent Major Garrett about the Cold War to suggest that Obama did not acknowledge the actions of past U.S. presidents in freeing Eastern Europe. In fact, as part of his answer, Obama stated, "I'm very proud of the traditions of Democratic and Republican presidents to lift the Iron Curtain," a comment Hannity edited out of the clip he aired of Obama's response.
There are - how do I put this - things that happen in the world without the US president pushing things along. Really. (Your first link is not very informative, BTW.)
OK, this is what happened, and it's about money, oil and grain.
Basically, the USSR crumbled because it couldn't feed itself, 8 decades of communism having destroyed their agriculture. Impressive, what with them having some of the best soil in the freakin' world - but they tried for decades to increase output from the state-owned farms, and failed miserably. Meanwhile, the city population grew and grew. So they had to buy food from the West - and the West didn't take rubles.
What else did the USSR have to sell for food? Pretty much oil and natural gas - Ladas (or most other Soviet industrial products) not being much of an export article - that pesky communism again. Which means that in the 80s, the USSR's capability to feed the citizens was directly linked to the world oil prices.
Things went OK, until something happened in the mid-80s: Oil prices dropped like a Stingered Hind over Afghanistan. (I only mention Afghanistan, because that was the other huge money sink for the USSR. R&D for SDI, which some have suggested as the straw that broke the camel's back, was nothing in comparison.) Oops. The Kremlin could have cut their losses at this point, but didn't.
Low oil prices means no food money. So the USSR had to break out the credit card or face WWII style rationing - not an easy sell to people who were pissed that their sons were dying in Afghanistan in the first place.
For a while the Soviet credit rating was still fairly OK, and they could borrow money from commercial banks, no questions asked. Free market at its best.
But as it became evident that they'd be unable to service the debt, they had to change to government-backed loans from the West - roughly $100 billion. And it was known that those loans would not be forthcoming, if the tanks started rolling again.
So in 1989, when the Eastern European countries started their different quests for freedom, Gorbachev faced Hobson's choice: Let the satellite states go and feed your citizens, or use force and face starvation.
In other words, if oil prices had remained at 1980 levels for another decade, it is highly likely that the Soviet Union would have lumbered along for while longer, no matter who was in the White House. But they didn't, and that was why the West had Gorbachev over a barrel.
You didn't even read them because if you did you would understand how "money, oil and grain." were used against the Soviets. For example did you know, it came out in the Iran Contra affair, that William J. Casey made secret deal with the House of Saud to up oil production creating an economic boom in the west and a crippling blow to the "evil empire". The U.S.-Saudi Love Affair Predates Bush - Council on Foreign Relations
My other post got erased for copy write infringement for whatever reason. I'll be more careful.
Quote:
President Carter cancelled contracts for the sale of 17 million metric tons mmt) of U.S. corn, wheat and soybeans to the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, he undermined the effectiveness of the embargo by allowing the delivery of another 8 mmt of U.S. grain which he felt were obligated to the Soviets under the 1975 U.S.-Soviet Grain Agreement.
Washington apparently dealt with these concerns in a direct manner initially. In January 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan purportedly approved a CIA plan to sabotage a second, unidentified gas pipeline in Siberia by turning the Soviet Union's desire for Western technology against it...
..Responding to the Soviet leadership's support for the 1981 crackdown on Poland's Solidarity movement, Reagan announced a program of sanctions on companies selling gas-drilling equipment and turbines for gas-compressor stations to the Soviet Union while urging European states not to buy Soviet gas.
i bet einstein loves abe lincoln's diplomacy. killing over 600k of your own people in order to "save the union." its ok to kill people as long as they are americans right?
Diversion... the last frontier. But there has never been lack of idiocy to propagate wars, as Civil War proved. Was it a good idea? You tell me.
But getting back to the subject, like I said, I don't expect y'all to have a clue but do expect to keep babbling to no end.
Let me get this straight. If we recognize our role in winning the Cold War, we diminish others?
This man is extremely UN-American. The lengths he will go to to prove to the world we are no better than any other nation is appalling.
We (Reagan) were instrumental in bringing an end to the Cold War. There is nothing to be ashamed in that.
Obama seems to carry around quite a bit of shame for America's past.
The man is truly heinous.
You, and those who think like you, are extremely "UN-American".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
