View Single Post
Old 11-10-09, 06:21 PM   #54
Aramike
Ocean Warrior

Best of SUBSIM
Chairman
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 3,207
Downloads: 59
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Though the same can be said for a person who is not in the vicinity of an event occurring. Indeed moreso.
Indeed, the same could be said.

Not moreso. Not less so.
Quote:
The thing that killed the Russians in the end was indeed tied into the economic side of things, but not on the part of the United States. Or the Western World for that matter. The USSR killed itself in the end. Blundering military escapades in the Middle East, production and job problems, central planning issues, and a general desire among the people to switch over to a more Democratic Republican form of government, combined with the fact that it was just too massive to manage without incurring serious problems from present problems. Again, it was like the Roman Empire: too big, too many differences among the people in terms of politics, too many problems with trade, finances, and the economy, and too much money with nothing to do with it (or at least implement it effectively).
I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, there are some points to be made. First, the central committee hardly ever cared about the will of the people regarding anything. However, especially following Chernobyl, there was somewhat of a cry for glasnost, as additional transparency would likely have saved lives in that event.

Next, the Soviet adventures in the middle east were indeed costly, made costlier by the fact that they were proxy wars with the United States.

Finally - and I wonder why you gloss over this - the spending of roughly a quarter of their GDP for military build-up in response to Reagan led them into the economic abyss. Under previous administrations they got off rather easily in comparison, what with repeated and sustained calls for detente. Reagan abandoned that approach and literally FORCED them into reactionary spending through a US build-up and a shift in American policy and rhetoric.
Quote:
What are you talking about? The Cold War didn't just end willy-nilly when Communist Russia died. You forget that it was about Communism as a whole, containing it and eradicating it from the face of the Earth. And that was an appalling failure on the part of the United States (and West in general). Cuba's still Communist, China is now a major superpower (bigger than us in terms of population, military strength, and production to name a few things off a long list), Vietnam didn't change any after the United States pulled out of the war (other than becoming a key player in the list of Communist states), and North Korea isn't getting along too well right now with South Korea.
Nice try at "gotcha".

Except that, historically speaking the Cold War is considered to have ended in 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

And your description of the Cold War is, well, uninformed at best.

Here's a more apt one, from the above link:
Quote:
The Cold War (1945–1991) was the continuing state of political conflict, military tension, and economic competition existing after World War II (1939–1945), primarily between the USSR and its satellite states, and the powers of the Western world, including the United States.
Note the date beside "Cold War".
Quote:
Tall... lol. Yet people all over (here alone) are chiming in that the Health Care Reform bill will bring about the death of the United States as we know it; at least they're quick to remember and return to reality that our economy is in shambles, we're borrowing money from China, our job situation (while it has improved) is still pitiful, and we're still fighting (and losing) a war in the Middle East on two fronts. Seems rather foolishly bold to say "tall".
10% unemployment is not hot, but its certainly not an economy in shambles.

But standing tall means far more than economic inconvieniences. Like it or not, the US is a nation quite capable of imposing its will world wide. That is standing tall.
Quote:
I wonder if the Chinese were reading this how they'd be reacting right now. Probably laughing their asses off. Can't blame them.
Actually, I think they'd be laughing, along with me, at your complete misunderstanding at the historical period the phrase "Cold War" refers to.

The Chinese were bit players during the Cold War, despite their communist regime. That's because the Cold War wasn't about communism - it was about communist expansion, primarily westward.
Aramike is offline   Reply With Quote