Did we really have to fight the Cold War?

[Skidmore]

Or was it a snow job in response to academic exercises like the Iraq war? I wasn't yet born when it started. It seems to me that if you decide you don't like someone else's way of living, you can make any rationale stick for attacking.

[papau]

1. Apparent inability to vote comunism USSR style out made cold war

necessary - IMHO

Communism itself was not a big deal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Considering The Soviet Union Had Annexed Half A Continent We Didn't Have

Much Choice....

[Wonco_the_Sane]

3. Kinda

We didn't "fight" the cold war well a lot of the time (Vietnam) but we didn't start it either. The USSR did when they refused to move troops out of East Germany, Poland etc etc. (+ Russian invasion of Afganistan...just look what that got started)

The USSR's answer to your question was (if you decide you don't like someone else's way of living) send them to Siberia, and build a wall around your country and shoot the ones who try to get out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. It was neither "cold" or necessary.

If you look at history, you'll find that the United States "fought" mostly against any movement, in any country, that looked in the least bit democratic. From the Congo, to Honduras, to South Africa, and dozens of countries in between.

Except for Afghanistan, the Soviet Union, lost almost no soldiers in the "Cold War", while we lost over 100,000 supposedly fighting them.

[Skidmore]

6. In my estimation, it was a basically a war instigated by corporations

frightened by the concept of communal ownership.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. That Would Make Sense If Every Member Of The Warsaw Pact

didn't reject the Soviet system of government the minute they were free from the Soviet Union's yolk....


The Soviet Union sucked... There was no freedom of speech.... No freedom of expression......


You couldn't even legally purchase a Beatles album lest the free expression led to revolution...

[shawcomm]

24. Exactly.

Corporate 'merika sees every closed market as one less profit dollar. Too, defense corporations needed a boogeyman to stay in business. It continues to this day, with the war on terra.

Cuba would be practically a utopia if america wasn't constantly leaning on her. In spite of the weight of america, Cuba keeps going. Just imagine how great their society would be without us attacking them constantly.

[WoodrowFan]

40. communall ownership??

LOL. I think the corporations were smart enough to see "communal ownership" meant ownership by the state. The corporations were eager to do business with the Soviets from day 1.

I am always amzed by the ability of the uber-lefties to scream fascism when something like Ohio's voting is discussed, will then try to excuse, ignore, or deny the much worse crimes of the USSR, like a complete lack of ANY freedom.,



I got news for you kid, there are DEGREES of opression and as bad as bush and Co are, and are likely to get with his bugus "mandate", to compare them to Hitler or Stalin at their worst, shows a moral blindness to the suffering of others that is obscene. or maybe you'd like to explain to someone who survived a slave labor camp how your oppression by bush because some freeper ripped off your bumperstick is as awful as his experiences.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Containing The Soviet Union Was The Correct Policy...

It was supported by every Democratic president from Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter....


That being said that doesn't mean I support or supported the overthrow of legitimately democratic elected leaders......

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. No it wasn't.

Just because it was "supported" by every Democratic President..doesn't make it right or wise.

"That being said that doesn't mean I support or supported the overthrow of legitimately democratic elected leaders......"

Look who we supported in South America, Africa, and Asia during the period of the misnamed Cold War which cost millions of lives. Most were NOT democratically elected. Most of the ones we opposed were either democratically elected or left wing. Protecting us from "communism" was a red herring that gave license to barbarism.

Just as the new "enemy", "militant Islam", is giving us the same license to kill.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I Think HST, JFK,LBJ,and JEC Were Wise....

The Soviet Union was an imperialist power with bad intentions...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. So, you agree with the war in Vietnam?

The "missle crisis" in Cuba?
The support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?
The Bay of Pigs?
The support of the Shah of Iran?
The backing of former Nazi collaborators in the Greek civil war?
etc, etc, etc.

[theboss]

37. Let's see.

Vietnam? No.
Cuba? Yes.
Mujahadeen? Yes, but we should not have abandoned the region immediately afterwards.
Bay of Pigs? No.
Shah? No.
Greece? Tough one. Maybe.
Don't know the etcs.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Unfortunately, the U.S. didn't abandon the Mujahadeen

The CIA actively supported the Taliban because they believed that the Taliban were the only faction organized enough to bring "stability" to a country that fell into factional infighting after the Soviets left.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Apparently the Neocon/Straussian/pre-PNAC people

who were around then were pulling the same WMD tricks about how dangerous the USSR was (exaggerating, forging, lying). The were shocked when the USSR was really an economic mess that was collapsing under its own weight.

If you can, see "The Power of Nightmares" 3-part BBC series. It can be streamed or bittorrent-ed via the web.

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. True. It was Rummy, Wolfie, and Uncle Dick

All of whom worked for the Jerry Ford administration.

Nixon and Kissinger, to their credit, had smoothed relations with the USSR (and China for that matter) considerably. But of course, that was bad for the defense contractors' bottom line, so we couldn't have that :eyes:

[BlueEyedSon]

10. And on of the Krystals. Perle around? I forget....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Democrats Were The Architects Of Containment

Starting with George F Kennan....

[Acryliccalico]

52. Yes you must see this series.........TELLS IT LIKE IT IS!!!

:kick:

[htuttle]

12. They went FAR, FAR beyond 'containing Communism'

The only case I can think of where the US 'fought the Cold War' was in Korea.

In every other action, the US military had been used for the benefit of US and multinational corporations. Somewhere down the line, 'containing Communism' morphed into 'using the military to accomplish US business objectives'.

And in almost every case, the actions of the US were counterproductive (same as in the 'Terror war' right now). By propping up oppresive banana republics for the sake of business, the US created a climate where leftist revolutions thrived.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. As I Said In Earlier Posts American Invention Was Unwarranted In Most

Cases...


But I stand by the assertion that none of the Warsaw Pact nations were members of the Warsaw Pact by choice as evident by the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, the Czech Revolution in 1967 and the Polish worker's strikes in the 1980s...


Susan Sontag had it right " (Sooviet) communism was fascism with a human face"...

[htuttle]

19. And yet in each of those cases you mention

...the US did almost nothing to help them.

I've never even heard of any covert aid to those countries during those times (and I'm sure at least something would have come out by now).

We were too busy making the world safe for US business to help anyone actually liberate themselves.

Corporate-controlled 'Democracy' is also fascism with a human face.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. The CIA Did Lots Of Things To Undermine The USSR...

And militarily there wasn't much we could do to help those folks....



And I am in favor of liberal democracy; a democratic polity coupled with a mixed economy....

[Blue Wally]

28. We did provide aid and assistance where possible...........

The Soviets had eastern Europe in such a tight lockdown that all covert movements were destroyed. Other than Raido Free Europe and some espionage, we couldn't do much. We were always outnumbered in Europe.

[htuttle]

32. So, where our 'assistance' was desired by the people

ie., where the Soviets had actually occupied countries by force, we did almost nothing, spy novels notwithstanding.

But where our 'assistance' was desired by corporations against popular leftist movements (that were supported by the people), THAT is where we threw our weight -- against the people.

To me, it always smelled of hypocrisy and opportunism.

The number of cases where the Soviets actually went out and incited revolutions were extremely rare, outside of Post WWII Eastern Europe. Trotsky was killed and his ideals of spreading world revolution went out with him, as you may recall.

In almost every case, it was a national liberation movement that approached the Soviets for assistance, not the other way around. And in many cases, it was only after the United States turned them down that they went to the Soviets.

We all too often confused home-grown revolutions with Soviet expansionism. The thing is, it was only the American people who were confused. Big corporations knew all too well what was going on. The interventions were almost always to protect their interests.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Actually what the U.S. did in the early 1950s was urge

Eastern Europeans via Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America to revolt against the Soviets. This approach lost favor after the Hungarians actually did revolt in 1956 and the U.S. did nothing to help them.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. As Orwell demonstrated, we needed an enemy "out there" to

focus on. The 1950's version of bread and circus. The Germans and Japanese were no longer our enemies, right? It sure made lots of money for defense contractors and bomb shelter builders. Other than that it was probably all a bunch of crapola.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Diasgree

"Other than that it was probably all a bunch of crapola."


Then why did the USSR send in tanks to put down revolutions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and threaten to do so in Poland....

[American Tragedy]

18. The Soviets said that they were saving those countries from imperialism

oh, the irony! :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. That's Why They Put Up The Wall Up In Berlin

to keep the westerners out...


I'm not a naif... I know about Allende, Mossadegh, shenanigans in Guatemala but as someone who cherishes freedom of speech, worship, and expression the Soviet model blew chunks....

[American Tragedy]

26. I certainly agree.

Oh, and not only to keep Westerners out, but to keep Easterners in.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. People Take Their Bourgeois Freedoms For Granted

and seem to compare the former Soviet Union with Sweeden....



It was a totalitarian mess and imposed it's will on an unwilling continent....At least half of it...

[Nederland]

49. Not sure if you are being sarcastic...

...but I know that when that wall came down, the traffic was all one way.

[tflon]

14. no doubt

Yes but also no

[KittyWampus]

16. Yes, But In The End CNN & MTV Were Way More Effective That Bombs

unfortunately, the Military/Congressional Industrial Complex had other plans....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. The Cold War Ended Without A Shot Because We Spent The Soviet Union Into

Oblivion.....


And the enlightened leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev helped...

[On the Road]

20. The Soviet Union Needed to be Opposed

the question was whether the Cold War was the only way to do it.

One question is whether the Soviets were going to attack Western Europe. Lots of Cold Warriors, including the Committe on the Present danger, pretended this was going to happen in order to justify keeping the economy on a war footing and get all the benefits of having a big bad enemy. After glastnost and all the other political changes in Russia, I still don't know whether any evidence has emerged that the Soviets planned an invasion.

The Soviets did control other countries by proxy, but so did the US. America held onto its territory after WWII just a tightly as the Soviets did. South Korea had no choice of government. We did the same thing to Vietnam that the Soviets did to the Eastern bloc, only a lot more violently. The US was ready to intervene militarily in Italy in 1948 if the Communists won the elections. We sided with military coups like the one in Greece if a country threatened to get too leftist.

Most of those countries turned out much better than communist-controlled ones. However, the US gained economically from its empire while the Soviets paid dearly for maintaining theirs. None of the proxy countries on either side were free to pursue their own form of government and form their own alliances.

The Cold War might have been unnecessary if the US had had a different attitude toward third-world socialist movements and tried to de-escalate tensions with the Soviets. We'll never know.

[theboss]

31. Were the Soviets going to "attack" Western Europe?

Depends on what you mean by "attack" as well as by "Western." First of all, the Soviets clearly wanted to isolate West Berlin and force it into the Soviet Bloc. The Berlin airlift stopped this. Secondly, for years, there was a possibility that both Greece and Italy could fall to Communists in one way or another. If that happened, the Soviets wouldn't have to "attack," they would have been invited.

Also, the Soviets showed repeatedly that they were willing to use military force to keep the Eastern bloc in line. Czechoslovakia and Hungary learned that the hard way. And Afghanistan learned that the Soviets were willing to use force to expand their sphere of influence.

So, yes, Soviet containment was necessary. The fear of nuclear war was probably overblown for most of it (though not at certain moments like the Cuban Missle Crisis). But the Soviets were definitely interested in bringing many more people into their sphere and were willing to use force to do it.

[On the Road]

60. I Hadn't Thought about West Berlin

that would certainly qualify as attacking Western Europe. (On the other hand, I suspect there's a part to the story that isn't talked about much over here.) What I meant, of course, was the reason the US has had so many troops in Germany -- presumably to defend against an all-out conventional Soviet assault.

There was probably less chance of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe than of the US attacking the Soviet Union, at least directly after WWII. There was a vocal element in top US political military circles calling for the US to invade Russia and overthrow the communist government.

The Soviets, of course, knew this. Some of the older officers may have fought American troops and British troops trying to overthrow the Bolsheviks after WWI.

But for some reason, all that is forgotten in the US, and all those Soviet tanks in Poland were only seen as a threat rather than as a defense.

"...there was a possibility that both Greece and Italy could fall to Communists in one way or another."

That is precisely the way it was thought about. But there is a big difference between a Western country being invaded by the Soviets and choosing a communist government. By supporting coups and invasions to prevent either one, the US did to the Western bloc what the Soviets did to the Eastern bloc: send a clear message that "you're not getting away." And in the case of Vietnam, did so a lot more violently.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Afghanistan

was widely touted as an example of "Soviet imperialism," but the true story is more complicated than that.

In March 1978, a group of homegrown Marxists took over the government and announced that they were going to establish a secular state. The local conservative Muslims revolted against such horrors as women's rights, and the U.S. began funding these dissident movements in the summer of 1979, before the Soviets invaded.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was not a mere territorial grab, since if you were just out to grab something, you could do a lot better than Afghanistan. The Afghan Marxists actually invited the Soviets in to help them put down the rebellion.

In that way, it was very much like Vietnam--an unpopular government asking a superpower for help against a popular uprising.

Between 1945, when they began occupying Eastern Europe, and 1989, when the Berlin wall came down, the Soviets held on to the countries in their sphere of influence and assisted local Marxists (It's not as if no one would have read Marx or thought about revolting against right-wing dictators without Soviet help, but that's the way it was portrayed in the media) such as Castro, but they did not take over any more countries.

I have no illusions about life in the Soviet Union, having talked to too many emigres. However, the emigres who left during the Soviet period and go back for visits now find it sad that there are such extremes of wealth and poverty and that some of the better features of the Soviet system have deteriorated or been lost.

[scarletwoman]

51. "The Cold War might have been unnecessary..."

"if the US had had a different attitude toward third-world socialist movements and tried to de-escalate tensions with the Soviets."

You've nailed it!

The Cold War was a macrocosm of elementary human dynamics, it was humanity's collective lizard brain dictating political behavior -- just like what has been happening the last few years.

World War Two brought into being a massive weapons industry, loathe to gear down after the end of "major combat operations". There were HUGE profits to made in modern warfare for many interests -- financial institutions, as you mentioned; as well as oil and nuclear industries, mining, and the Department of Defense looking to protect its budget.

The Cold War served many interests, both ours and the Soviets. The only interests it NEVER served were the People's.

And too many people are willing to go along with the cons that are scamming them because their lizard brains have been stimulated to the point of overriding rational, frontal node thought. Making threats or feeling threatened, the elemental dynamic is the same -- walls go up, stances harden, no rational communication is possible.

I was born in 1949. I've wondered for most of my life what might have happened if the U.S. had truly been an enlightened country and had somehow engaged in an ongoing non-aggressive dialogue with the USSR in the 50's. If we children of both Powers had been taught to think of the citizens of each others' countries as people just like ourselves instead of sub-human caricatures of evil.

The fact is, BOTH state powers - the USA and the USSR, benifited GREATLY by having a constant threat to hold over each countries respective citizenry. We see how well it works right now in the present day.

The key to both the Cold War and the new, improved War on Terror (tm) is the same: lie to, daze and confuse the rabble and keep them afraid.

I really wish more people would recognize this and refuse to go along with the con anymore. It is not YOUR interests that are being protected by this crap, it's the STATE'S. Whether communist or capitalist, the plutocracy works the same.

sw

[On the Road]

59. That's the Only Thing That Could Get Bush Re-elected:

Lizard brains. The GOP knows them well.

There was just enough enlightenment to prevent war. Each of our presidents during the Cold War, even Nixon and Reagan, had enough sense to avoid a conflagration.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. When I first spoke with Chinese visiting professors about the Cold War

they were astonished to hear that we had been brought up to fear the Soviet Union and China.

They themselves had been taught over the years that the U.S. was itching to nuke China, and they couldn't figure out what they had done to deserve it.

[scarletwoman]

71. That rather makes my point, doesn't it.

Our respective governments prefer keeping their citizenry in a state of fear over supposed threats coming from outside. It's a dandy control mechanism and keeps the military establishment well-funded.

sw

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Couldn't agree with you more, sw!

I once thought up a short story in which a State Department interpreter is killed after he hears the U.S.president and the Soviet premier colluding to keep the Cold War going.

I doubt that anything like outright collusion happened, but there was certainly an overlapping of interests.

[SoCalifer]

22. F*ing Wars

When you follow the money, you see that the cold war was no different than any other war. The International Financiers funded the Bolsheviks and thus gave us a war which fueled the Military Industrial Complex for years. Practically in every war, International Financiers fund both sides and sit-back raking in all the dividends that wars generate.

Just guess who was partnered with Averill Harriman funding Hitler, and getting their Union Bank Of New York seized by FBI Director J. Edger Hoover for violating the Trading With The Enemey Act? Yup that's right; a one Prescott Bush.

Every wonder why when you read history text books or watch the History Channel, you never see where the financing came from to fund Hitler and the Nazis into power? That's because that trail leads right to Brown Brothers Harriman, Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, General Motors, Alcoa Aluminum, and other American connections through business with IG Farben.

All through out history we see this pattern. Multinational Corporations, either directly or indirectly, funding both sides of wars and reaping huge profits. They get away with it because of what's known as the Military Industrial Complex. http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/.Movies/barrysays.mov

[WoodrowFan]

39. The International Financiers funded the Bolsheviks

??WTF?? Congrats on the least Historically accurate post I've seen outside of the 9-11 forum., Good job! Nest step, blame the Jews.

total far RW fantasy BS.

[SoCalifer]

41. WoodrowFan Really?

Are you sure? If you don't mind checking back here in a little bit. I'll be gladly to post some info for you.. :P

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Please show me

a link to a work by a recognized historian that suggests international financiers funded the Bolsheviks...


I'm curious...

[SoCalifer]

44. Yes I sure will

Please come back here in a few min's.. I am burning/uploading some video right now..

[SoCalifer]

45. International financiers funded the Bolsheviks... ((Video))

Right Click Save Target -- http://members.cox.net/anti_globalist/wars.WMV ((video))

[SoCalifer]

46. Your Response

See Post #45

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. I Am Looking For Rigorous Scholarship Not Agit Prop

I want citations, documents, et cetera....


Those are the benchmarks of serious intellectual inquiry....

[SoCalifer]

47. WoodrowFan, I would like to set something straight

Where did I ever say anything about this being a Race issue? And "ME" RW? Oh Please!!! If you knew me in RL you'd know how ridiculous that is to say that..

*sigh*

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. I Don't Think That's What Woodrow Meant

He meant it was a crackpot theory...

[SoCalifer]

53. And Why Would

It Be A Crack Pot Theory? Do You Have Any Proof That It Is False? Can You Explain Where The Funding Came From To Finance Them Against The Czar?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. You Know That I Can't Prove A Negative....

The burden is on the person making the charge....



Of course corporations make money from war and I'm sure there were attenuated relationships between financiers and the Bolsheviks but that's different than charging that the business community appauded the Bolshevik Revolution....

[SoCalifer]

55. So Then What You're Saying

Is that you are unable to prove that the video I posted showing a couple of economists, and one other person who was in a position to see first hand, is incorrect and BS?

I am sorry but that's not my burden, it would be yours to prove these people wrong.

And I am sorry if I sound a little blunt. It's just that I don't take lightly to someone (especially someone who doesn't know me) making any kind of a suggestion that I may be racist in any kind of way.

And I feel that is what WoodrowFan did.

Racist people happen to be one group of people that piss me off the most. I can't stand them..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. Woodrow Was Implying It's A Crackpot Theory....That's All

My point is I am sure there were attenuated relationships between American financiers and the Bolsheviks but I find the proposition that American financiers were the underwriters of the Bolshevik Revolution highly dubious...


The Soviets who were in a position to know also found it dubious as can be found in their chronic complaints sbout "capitalist encirclement."....

[WoodrowFan]

57. and also one

favored by the far right wing (including the Larouches) in this country. It's often occompanied by talk about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (not always, but usually)

try searching Google for "International Financiers" funded Bolsheviks and see how many ultra-right wing sites you get. Don't see many, if any, liberal or progressive sites in that list.

[SoCalifer]

58. WoodrowFan

I know the basis upon which you are making your "reaction." But it's a "knee-jerk" reaction. And one that wasn't appropriate to make towards me since I never made any mention what's so ever about a particular race of people.

Let me further explain it like this:

Is there only Jewish people who are International Financiers? No of course not. There are many other races of people who make up the International Financiers. If a group of people are doing wrong and you voice your opposition about it --and-- if a racists group of people happen to use that same wrong doing to justify their hatred towards a race of people, despite the fact that other races are guilty too. Does that some how qualify you as a racist too?

Secondly, may I ask you what your position is on the matter concerning Israel vs the Palestinians? I would be willing to bet that your opinion about it isn't favorable towards the Israelis. I'd be willing to bet that you at one time or another taken up that issue against Israel. If I am correct, then would it be fair for me to assume that maybe you have race issues against Jewish people? I mean after all, that would be a "broader" brush against Jewish people than one against the few who make up SOME of the International Financiers.

But of course it would be absurd for me to think that just because you oppose an issue that; that automatically qualifies you as a racist.

So all I am saying about this is. Please be careful about how you throw accusations or suggestions about someone.


**offers friendship handshake**

[leftofthedial]

33. It was 99% a scam just like Iraq WMD

I lived through it

my dad was a cold warrior who gave his life fighting the godless commies

it was a protection racket run by the MIC

[Barney Rocks]

35. snow job.

we were taught to hate "the evil communists" because they believed differently from us. We could have learned a lot from the communist societies--and we should have concentrated on living peacefully with them instead of trying to destroy them.

[theboss]

36. I don't want to mulch

There, I said it. Someone had to.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barney Rocks]

62. Well--I am fortunate in that

I have a Spanish passport--this has enabled me to travel and observe firsthand some of the so-called "evil" communist regimes (such as Cuba where I have lived for 3-month intervals on multiple occasions).

This experience has taught me a lot--and I learned not to be judmental. "Communists" are not necessarily "evil bad people who are enemies".

YES we can learn by observing others--we see that there are other ways of life that are viable and we learn to accept and not judge. We broaden our perspectives and become bigger people. This is freeper talk?

PLEASE! The paranoia here is becoming overwhelming.

Lots of progressive people have always thought that we should not be knee jerk judgmental and full of mindless hatred towards anyone who lives differently. IMO it is this mindless turning away from humanity that is freeperish.

I am sorry and sad that any so-called "Democrat" disagrees with me.

I am not a communist or a socialist myself--but I do not think people who live in such societies are "wrong" or "evil" or "bad".

[NashVegas]

64. My Experience With Communism

via the web-based game, Utopia - http://games.swirve.com/utopia/

Early in the game, people discovered the resultant massive, exponential growth incurred when a group of four pooled resources in the following manner: players A, B, & C would ship 1/2 of their day's income and other generated products to player D. On the next day, AB & D would ship to C. And so on ... the massive boost would allow the player on the aided end to grow wildly beyond ordinary means, and have that much more to add back into the pool.

It was a great growth strategy. But it sucked if you got attacked and the supply chain was interrupted.

Another instance of Soviet-style communism the game saw was the focusing on hyper-specialization - usually as dictated by the kingdom unit's alpha players.

Also great for growth - *if* everyone is willing to comply. For many (myself, included) it killed the game - it came at the expense of experimentation / exploration in defining what type of playstyle best suits oneself. Some of us just preferred to have flexibility. Those intent on riding at the top of the charts were big on removing flexibility.

The rest of the world has adopted more from communism than I think most people realize, especially in the way of specialized economies & labor.

Personally, I can't stand it.

We Saved the World for Capitalism, but not for democracy and self-determination.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. While You Were In Cuba

Could you go to the movies and see an American film?


Could you go to the store and buy a record by U2?


Could you get on the net and view any website you want?


I value my freedom and would rather die than live in the absence of it...



I have nothing against people voluntarily living in communal societies however I oppose forcing people to live in such societies at the point of a gun...

Hey, when's the last time somebody drowned trying to swim from Miami to Cuba...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. What Can We Learn From Them?

To ban freedom of speech?


To ban freedom of assembly?


To ban freedom of religion?


To put a pick axe in the brain of our political opponents(the hit Stalin ordered om Trotsky) ?


To kill over fifty million through forced collectivitization (Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin)?


To build nukes while your people are eating grass ( Kim Jong)11?

To quarntine homosexuals that are HIV positive (Cuba)

[Barney Rocks]

63. see my reply above n/t

[LSdemocrat]

61. Only in the beginning to keep Western Europe and Japan free

By the time the 1970's rolled around the Cold War was essentially nonsense put forth by right-wingers on both side to bolster defense spending. By then both sides knew that the other was not going to invade any country decidedly in one camp or the other.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Both sides needed it

Once it got started, it was a handy way for both the U.S. and the Soviet Union to keep their people in line.

The worst part of it was the many "proxy wars" in which people, mostly in the Third World, suffered due to the power plays and posturing of the two superpowers.

Stalin was definitely nasty, at least as bad as Hitler. After World War II, he de facto re-established the old Russian Empire. But once Khrushchev came on board, there could have been more reconciliation than there was, a kind of "You stay on your side of the line, and I'll stay on my side of the line" type of agreement.