BF2S Forums The Cold War

I think it's ridiculous that the cold war started in the first place.
And the MAD policy? What was that? "Don't attack us cause we'll blow up the world 10x over with our nukes."
Dr. Strangelove was the best movie about the cold war ever.

.robzored. wrote:

I think it's ridiculous that the cold war started in the first place.
And the MAD policy? What was that? "Don't attack us cause we'll blow up the world 10x over with our nukes."
Dr. Strangelove was the best movie about the cold war ever.

Don't forget about "Star Wars". 

Clinton could have done the same job i think as Reagan did back then if he had faced Gorbatsjov, not so sure about this paranoid Putin character !

Reagan - Gorbi
Clinton - Yeltsin

Best post cold war presidental combos to secure peace !

CameronPoe wrote:

Who here thinks that it is a marvellous thing and a great example of what can be achieved through diplomacy that Reagan and Gorbachev could bring an end to the cold war without having traded blows, exchanged fire or launched missiles at each other? I'm not a fan of US Republicans, especially not Reagan, but you have to hand it to them - diplomacy worked great for them that time. I wish modern US Republicans would take a leaf out of this chapter of history, one element of the Reagan legacy I don't despise.

Give kennedy some of his due credit as well. The cuban missile crisis didn't end itself.

It was due to the large spending on the military and its techology. I know you don't like that.

The_Mac wrote:

As well as actually flexing muscles. I figure liberals and left wing nuts don't like that as well. Showing strength and purpose is evil in liberal land.

And, do tell, what is a liberal?

And why has it, once again, been brought into a completely unrelated debate?

Back on topic: Yes, I think the way the Cold War ended was good - in some ways. Only in some.

CameronPoe wrote:

Who here thinks that it is a marvellous thing and a great example of what can be achieved through diplomacy that Reagan and Gorbachev could bring an end to the cold war without having traded blows, exchanged fire or launched missiles at each other? I'm not a fan of US Republicans, especially not Reagan, but you have to hand it to them - diplomacy worked great for them that time. I wish modern US Republicans would take a leaf out of this chapter of history, one element of the Reagan legacy I don't despise.

Just when I thought we would never agree on anything... +1

Thanks CP for acknowledging the Gipper.

The_Mac wrote:

You're baiting, or simply naive if you don't think they're related. I'll give you liberal:
a liberal is someone who is anti war, anti any war that the media tells them is bad, a liberal is someone who attempts to limit the constitution- guaranteed rights to achieve their own agendas. Another liberal is an individual who thinks that high taxes will help the economy, as well as introducing welfare because they believe it will keep bums off the streets. A liberal could also be someone who tears down at other religions, Christianity in particular, and wants to keep Crosses out of public sight, because they have an inferiority complex or something.
A liberal is one who wants to increase government regulation, in the hopes that one day it'll good, in the mean while, citizens are being hassled, and companies that are going strong become weak. New companies will soon die out because the government is interfering. Huge companies will get bigger, because liberals like that. No competition, no innovation.

Liberals, gotta love them.

Oh cool, I love generalizing as much as the next guy.  I'll give you a conservative: a conservative is someone who is pro-war, any war that their leadership tells them is good, a conservative is someone who attempts to marginalize the constitution - taking away or misinterpreting rights to achieve their own agendas.  Another conservative is a conformist who thinks that deficit spending without taxing will help the economy, as well as crushing welfare because only lazy and stupid people ever need a helping hand.  A conservative could also be someone that promotes their religion relentlessly, Christianity in particular, and wants to have every tax-payer paid public instiitution adorned with Crosses, because they believe everyone will immediately repent their sins and join their cause if they just get exposed to enough advertising.
A conservative is one who wants to stifle public dissent, in hopes that their policies will be made better if no one is arguing against it, in the meanwhile, citizens are being hassled and companies that are going strong are the only ones that can buy influence from government to make them stronger via selective deregulation, tax breaks, and corporate welfare.  Huge companies get bigger at the expense of consumer health and employee benefits, because conservatives like that.  No competition, more profits.

Conservatives, gotta love them.

Why am i doing this. Why oh why oh why. Oh well.

The_Mac wrote:You're baiting, or simply naive if you don't think they're related. I'll give you liberal:
a liberal is someone who is anti war, anti any war that the media tells them is bad,[b]News flash: Most wars are bad, yes? Most liberals don't like wars.

a liberal is someone who attempts to limit the constitution- guaranteed rights to achieve their own agendas.

Where'd you get this from? Liberals are the ones who emphasise INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. And the constitution, believe it or not, has a lot to do with individual liberty.

Another liberal is an individual who thinks that high taxes will help the economy,

Well, I don't see many problems with Scandanavia's economy... nor do I see the demographic problems that would occur if they didn't introduce their universal healthcare/childcare and education which are the main tax-raisers.

as well as introducing welfare because they believe it will keep bums off the streets.

AFAIK it's a lot better and a lot more ethical to give someone a hand than to spit on their feet.

A liberal could also be someone who tears down at other religions, Christianity in particular, and wants to keep Crosses out of public sight, because they have an inferiority complex or something.

And conservatives are automatically superior beings! Yes, yes! The logic is astounding! Now where the fuck is your evidence to back this up?

A liberal is one who wants to increase government regulation, in the hopes that one day it'll good, in the mean while, citizens are being hassled, and companies that are going strong become weak.

Evidence....? I don't see many problems with Scandavians. And liberalism is - gasp - ABOUT REDUCING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT! If there's a way to reduce government power by making it bigger, please tell me.

New companies will soon die out because the government is interfering. Huge companies will get bigger, because liberals like that. No competition, no innovation.

Liberals, gotta love them.

Because giving maximum power to the biggest companies really helps small business. /sarcasm.

Worst logic I've seen in a few days, well done.

The Cold War effectively ended when the USSR collapsed internally.  Reagan did little to end the cold war (except possibly increasing debt spending on the military-industrial complex).  Some people argue that having a bipolar system in place is beneficial for world politics.  Regardless, the Soviet government and people brought down the Cold War government there.

Without digging through my university course notes (which are sitting in storage), I can offer up these three major reasons the cold war ended and the USSR disbanded into the Commonwealth of Independent States: the political corruption and illegitimacy of the Soviet Government (and by extension the Soviet Communist Party); micromanagement and mismanagement of their economic capabilities and social handouts; ethnic and cultural tension inherent in ruling by force large, culturally and ethnically diverse areas.

There is one area that the Gorbachev and Reagan government DID work together on, and that is nuclear deterrence.  However, Reagan should not be mentioned (except maybe in passing) when talking about the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the ending of the Cold War.

Kmarion wrote:

Reagan turned the economy around allowing the US to stay on top. Perhaps the Soviets were self defeatist, but if someone drops out of the race you still win if you come in first across th line. Over simplification I know.. but I'm running late for dinner .

Well, you can call the war "won" by the US, and by extension, Reagan, but he did nothing to bring it about.

Reagan turning the economy around is an entirely different topic.  He increased spending while lowering taxes (especially on corporations) claiming that this would help investment into the economy, when the fact is that investment decreased until corporate minimum taxes were introduced.  Unemployment grew during a lot of his years in office.  The gap between the rich and poor increased dramatically during his reign.

You can start a new topic about that (Reagan turning the economy around) and we can debate that too!

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-07-14 15:19:00)