No way would i wish to live in the "land of the free" where no doubt a woman right to choose an abortion will dissapear in the next 4 years, where they have one of the highest death rates by firearms of any civalised country. No decent healthcare unless you can afford to pay. And anyone with a slightly alternative outlook is looked on scornfully by the moral majority.
Phil
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
.
last reply
52 replies
1.4k views
2 watchers
0 likes
There is a lot in the theory about the illusion of global warming...the earth has seen numerous climate changes during its history, which occur approx every 15,000 years England has been covered in glaciers and has been home to herds of Wildebeest, Lions and the like. The point is the truth is manipulated by politicians for their own ends.....Overcrowded roads, means we can increase fuel tax as an environment issue. but lets not subsidise or make public transport more efficient. Or pour all that tax into finding a sustainable alternative to the internal combustion engine. No lets continue to increase the number of cars on the road and convince the public to pay more in taxes!
As for Bush and Blair ( they scare the shit out of me) They have constructed several illusions of fear with the help of the neo conservatives. Prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq asked the American Ambassador what the western worlds feelings would be, if they where to invade another country. to which the response was "it would be of no concern to us". Bush and Blair have lied about the treat of WMD and Iraq/al Qaeda links. In fact the whole al Qaeda/ terrorist plot was dreamt up by them to strike fear into our hearts so that they could be seen to be in control. If we have nothing to fear, then lets make something to fear!
The trouble with this last election was three fold. 1) Kerry was not dynamic enough to rise above Bush and he offered no radical alternative, just more of the same. 2) Can 51% of the American voting electorate be unaware/naive of what is really going on. The major campaigning issues came down to heath care, stem cell research and gay marriage!! Excuse me a minute here. What about the 100,000 civilians that have been killed since we invaded Iraq and how unstable the whole middle east has become. So I guess they must be, they voted for Bush. 3) As the 51st state, how come we did not get to vote??
Cold war??? their wasn't one! Another constructed fear, dreamt up...Russia was scared to death WE where the treat! They tried to create an illusion of power to counteract the western treat! It has only come to light in the last ten years that the soviet union was and had been for some considerable time, on the point of collapse.
Do not believe all you are force fed by politicians!
As for Bush and Blair ( they scare the shit out of me) They have constructed several illusions of fear with the help of the neo conservatives. Prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq asked the American Ambassador what the western worlds feelings would be, if they where to invade another country. to which the response was "it would be of no concern to us". Bush and Blair have lied about the treat of WMD and Iraq/al Qaeda links. In fact the whole al Qaeda/ terrorist plot was dreamt up by them to strike fear into our hearts so that they could be seen to be in control. If we have nothing to fear, then lets make something to fear!
The trouble with this last election was three fold. 1) Kerry was not dynamic enough to rise above Bush and he offered no radical alternative, just more of the same. 2) Can 51% of the American voting electorate be unaware/naive of what is really going on. The major campaigning issues came down to heath care, stem cell research and gay marriage!! Excuse me a minute here. What about the 100,000 civilians that have been killed since we invaded Iraq and how unstable the whole middle east has become. So I guess they must be, they voted for Bush. 3) As the 51st state, how come we did not get to vote??
Cold war??? their wasn't one! Another constructed fear, dreamt up...Russia was scared to death WE where the treat! They tried to create an illusion of power to counteract the western treat! It has only come to light in the last ten years that the soviet union was and had been for some considerable time, on the point of collapse.
Do not believe all you are force fed by politicians!
Quote by kryton
Cold war??? their wasn't one! Another constructed fear, dreamt up...Russia was scared to death WE where the treat! They tried to create an illusion of power to counteract the western treat! It has only come to light in the last ten years that the soviet union was and had been for some considerable time, on the point of collapse.
Do not believe all you are force fed by politicians!
I would nt argue over a lot of what you have said, however- No Cold War!!!!!!
Solzhenitsyn in his novel The First Circle describes how Stalin intended to fight and win a decisive 3rd World War. (Not a politician an academic & writer) he (Stalin) may have had a number of motives – amongst them meglomania, insanity or insecurity. Luckily Stalin died in 1953
Lenin stated that the only way for communism to be successful was that it should be worldwide. Bastions of capitalism in the heart of East Germany i.e West Berlin and on their borders – Western Europe, were a direct threat to communism.
Stalin and successive Soviet leaders were fearful of the West because their peoples could be corrupted by freedom and possible wealth which would result in the Politburo losing power. Not due to fear of invasion. Why did they not hold free elections, allow free speech and easy movements in & out of the countries and outlaw access to western media?
Militarily until the 60’s the US had a far greater atomic arsenal thereafter they more or less cancelled themselves out. The Eastern bloc always had a larger convential force which was offensive in its make up whilst Nato’s was defensive.
Yes the Soviet Union was crumbling partly due to its inefficient centralised system but also its unsustainable military spending (pushed over the edge finally by the proposed Reagan lead Star Wars project). Gorbachev acknowledged this.
Sorry, dismiss the Cold War as a conspiracy - cant buy that.
Sex God
Quote by Happy Cats
Cold war??? their wasn't one! Another constructed fear, dreamt up...Russia was scared to death WE where the treat! They tried to create an illusion of power to counteract the western treat! It has only come to light in the last ten years that the soviet union was and had been for some considerable time, on the point of collapse.
Do not believe all you are force fed by politicians!
I would nt argue over a lot of what you have said, however- No Cold War!!!!!!
Solzhenitsyn in his novel The First Circle describes how Stalin intended to fight and win a decisive 3rd World War. (Not a politician an academic & writer) he (Stalin) may have had a number of motives – amongst them meglomania, insanity or insecurity. Luckily Stalin died in 1953
stalin was not a communis. he was a dictator, who set a trend for all those that followed. lenin was terrified stalin would succeed him. stalins motive was power. pure and simple.
Lenin stated that the only way for communism to be successful was that it should be worldwide. Bastions of capitalism in the heart of East Germany i.e West Berlin and on their borders – Western Europe, were a direct threat to communism.
to defend the russian revolution and it's people from the western powers, all bastions of capitalism on it's borders committed to destroying communism? hardly a novel strategy to try and defend yourself with the very same weapons used by the enemy is it now? and remember that the division of europe into NATO and Warsaw pact countries was agreed at Potsdam between the US, Britain and Russia.
Stalin and successive Soviet leaders were fearful of the West because their peoples could be corrupted by freedom and possible wealth which would result in the Politburo losing power. Not due to fear of invasion. Why did they not hold free elections, allow free speech and easy movements in & out of the countries and outlaw access to western media?
because any revolution that flies in the face of accepted orthodoxy, namely free-market exploittaion and corruption through capital, are a threat to the revolution communism was trying to build.
Militarily until the 60’s the US had a far greater atomic arsenal thereafter they more or less cancelled themselves out. The Eastern bloc always had a larger convential force which was offensive in its make up whilst Nato’s was defensive.
because in the face of atomic weapons held by a superior power with more cash to invest and more expansive industrial technology, conventional weaponry was the only alternative? why do you think the US was so committed to it's hydrogen bomb program at huge expense? cos they hoped it couldn't be copied, or if it was, it would bankrupt the soviet union trying to keep up. which is exactly what happened with Star Wars?
Yes the Soviet Union was crumbling partly due to its inefficient centralised system but also its unsustainable military spending (pushed over the edge finally by the proposed Reagan lead Star Wars project). Gorbachev acknowledged this.
see above.
Sorry, dismiss the Cold War as a conspiracy - cant buy that.
history pretty much says that from the moment of the russian revolution, the US began to come out from it's previous isolationist policies and begin an aggressive campaign of empire building the world over. you need a fairly good smoke screen to do that? what better than the soviet threat to civilisation as we know it?
neil x x x;)
Quote by Roberto
The Americans I've spoken to about Bush seem to think he just has a problem with the English language but behind all that he is not an idiot. Would they have us believe that he has lots of profound, philosophical or political thoughts, but is just unable to verbalise them!? I don't believe it for a second. From being fired from a company board for "not contributing anything at boardmeetings" to president of the USA using the Harvard Business School student method of analysis. Really, the Americans have a dumbass for president (again).
Maybe we can believe that he isn't as dumb as he appears. Although he's a politician of instinct and prejudice, rather than philosophical profundity, he has an impressive academic record, but also a history of alcohol abuse. I don't think that it's beyond the realms of possibility that he's suffered damage to high level brain functions, speak and language being the first to go.
stalin was not a communis. he was a dictator, who set a trend for all those that followed. lenin was terrified stalin would succeed him. stalins motive was power. pure and simple
Quite right, but a threat and the reason for the cold war.
to defend the russian revolution and it's people from the western powers, all bastions of capitalism on it's borders committed to destroying communism? hardly a novel strategy to try and defend yourself with the very same weapons used by the enemy is it now? and remember that the division of europe into NATO and Warsaw pact countries was agreed at Potsdam between the US, Britain and Russia.
Not sure that I understand the first part, just to say that the Soviets saw the very existence of capitalism on their doorstep as a threat to their power hence the Berlin blockade and wall. It wasnt a tactic by the west to destroy communism There was no agreement at Potsdam as to a division into Nato or Warsaw pact countries. It was decided to split Germany into spheres of influence - US, USSR, UK and France (At Yalta). Stalin agreed and signed up to fair and free elections in all countries in Europe and broke his promise.
because any revolution that flies in the face of accepted orthodoxy, namely free-market exploittaion and corruption through capital, are a threat to the revolution communism was trying to build.
No - They with held basic human rights in order to maintain power, as you stated earlier it had nothing to do with communism just power - simple
because in the face of atomic weapons held by a superior power with more cash to invest and more expansive industrial technology, conventional weaponry was the only alternative? why do you think the US was so committed to it's hydrogen bomb program at huge expense? cos they hoped it couldn't be copied, or if it was, it would bankrupt the soviet union trying to keep up. which is exactly what happened with Star Wars?
The USSR wanted to overrun western europe for the reasons US had a monopoly or a vast superiority in atomic weapons for a number of years but didnt use them. They were a deterrent. In the 1950's under Eisenhower the US actually reduced its military spending. Subsequent Presidents - Kennedy and the like spent more money due to believing the scaremongering claims of the US military chiefs of Soviet power (claims made to feather their own nests). The tactic of trying to bust the USSR wasnt employed until Reagan took over
history pretty much says that from the moment of the russian revolution, the US began to come out from it's previous isolationist policies and begin an aggressive campaign of empire building the world over. you need a fairly good smoke screen to do that? what better than the soviet threat to civilisation as we know it?
The isolationist policy came into effect after WW1 (after the russian revolution) and was still prevelant in 1941, although from 1939 fought against by Roosevelt. It took Japan and Pearl Harbour and Hitler declaring war on them for the US to enter the war in both the east and west. As for aggressive empire building, can only think you mean by selling its products worldwide. If it is an empire its not one gained by military means. There has never been a war between 2 democratically elected nations
Sex God
Quote by Happy Cats
............There has never been a war between 2 democratically elected nations
Not strictly true - Hiler was the democratically elected the leader of Germany! Admitedly after a certain point there were no more elections but he was elected on a policy of opposing terrorism and ensuring national defense by unilateral pre-emptive action.
Sound familiar to anyone?
To be honest I am a lot more scared of George Bush than I ever was of Saddam Hussein who was just one of any number of tin pot dictators.
Just my opinion.
Roger the Dragon.
Sex God
No - They with held basic human rights in order to maintain power, as you stated earlier it had nothing to do with communism just power - simple
in much the same way as we and the US are witholding our human and democratic rights now? US patriot act? expansion of the CIA? legislation in the UK re: war on terror to deny us our rights with lies? again, what's new or overwhelmingly different there? same shit, different day!
Not sure that I understand the first part, just to say that the Soviets saw the very existence of capitalism on their doorstep as a threat to their power hence the Berlin blockade and wall. It wasnt a tactic by the west to destroy communism There was no agreement at Potsdam as to a division into Nato or Warsaw pact countries. It was decided to split Germany into spheres of influence - US, USSR, UK and France (At Yalta). Stalin agreed and signed up to fair and free elections in all countries in Europe and broke his promise.
have to disagree there. the USSR sought buffer zones to protect them from the kind of genocide perpetrated during WW2. a genocide i might add the western powers we're happy to see, and did not a great deal to defend. russia was pretty much on it's own and took far greater casualties than the western powers put together? and yes sorry it was yalta not potsdam. but i think the gist of the deal must have been know by those agreeing? or were we that naive? i doubt it!
The USSR wanted to overrun western europe for the reasons US had a monopoly or a vast superiority in atomic weapons for a number of years but didnt use them. They were a deterrent. In the 1950's under Eisenhower the US actually reduced its military spending. Subsequent Presidents - Kennedy and the like spent more money due to believing the scaremongering claims of the US military chiefs of Soviet power (claims made to feather their own nests). The tactic of trying to bust the USSR wasnt employed until Reagan took over
plain wrong! sorry for the bluntness. preparation militairily does not neccessarily signify intent? NATO powers amassing strength in western europe? missile bases in turkey? doesn't necessarily mean they'll be used? they are just part of the game being played! the point of atomic superiority is not to use them, but to intimidate yes? who in their right mind could even consider using them? oh! only the US in japan and korea and vietnam! the ONLY nation to seriously consider their use was the US, cos for a long time they had vast superiority and hoped to survive a limited nuclear engagement! it's well documented. so what if presidents tried to cut costs? bit expensive hydrogen bombs eh? didn't stop the game being played conventionally where they could? and yes it's always been argued the presidency is subject to the military and industry. vested interest in maintaining their own power yes? interesting how since the end of the cold war we now have a vague and undefined threat that justifies all the same shite we had back in the 20th century isn't it?
The isolationist policy came into effect after WW1 (after the russian revolution) and was still prevelant in 1941, although from 1939 fought against by Roosevelt. It took Japan and Pearl Harbour and Hitler declaring war on them for the US to enter the war in both the east and west. As for aggressive empire building, can only think you mean by selling its products worldwide. If it is an empire its not one gained by military means. There has never been a war between 2 democratically elected nations
the isolationist policy that saw the US join WW1 in 1917? when was the russian revolution? 1917 was it? so the game of spheres of influence began to be played out in the very same year? oh and pearl harbour? yes. the same attack churchill knew was coming but decided not to mention to the US? same as subversion in mexico we knew about in WW1 was kept secret from the US? cos it would draw them into a war that the USSR was already engaged in? i don't put it all on the toes of the US. we've been as bad and no mistake. all the same game at the end of the day.
neil x x x ;)
Not strictly true - Hiler was the democratically elected the leader of Germany! Admitedly after a certain point there were no more elections but he was elected on a policy of opposing terrorism and ensuring national defense by unilateral pre-emptive action.
Good point! Forgot he was actually elected - but like you said he then cancelled elections.
Hitler did instigate the terrorism himself in the Sudatentland, East Prussia etc as well as Germany itself in order to have an excuse to intervene. Yes the West helped arm Iraq, Iran, Afganistan etc but not with the intention of using it as an excuse to invade or fight them
Sex God
As for aggressive empire building, can only think you mean by selling its products worldwide.
final thought, cos i've been here before and i don't like it that much!
if you can win a war economically, culturally, and ideologically ((( it's called false consciousness and hegemony and globalisation and whatever else you wanna call it ))) well it saves sending in the soldiers don't it? still conquered a nation! still built an empire. just fewer dead bodies? or is there?
neil x x x ;)
in much the same way as we and the US are witholding our human and democratic rights now? US patriot act? expansion of the CIA? legislation in the UK re: war on terror to deny us our rights with lies? again, what's new or overwhelmingly different there? same shit, different day!
I dont have an agenda of trying to defend what the US or UK policy may be today - rather the fact there was actually a cold war. We are still free to say pretty much what we want to today without fear of disappearing to the salt mines unlike in the USSR. You cant compare our freedoms today with those in the USSR
have to disagree there. the USSR sought buffer zones to protect them from the kind of genocide perpetrated during WW2. a genocide i might add the western powers we're happy to see, and did not a great deal to defend. russia was pretty much on it's own and took far greater casualties than the western powers put together? and yes sorry it was yalta not potsdam. but i think the gist of the deal must have been know by those agreeing? or were we that naive? i doubt it!
I dont see what you are disagreeing to. Yes a major motive was for the USSR to try to surround its borders with friendly or subservient nations particularly with them sustaining
the losses they did in the war. As far as the genocide that was committed I wouldnt disagree that the western powers knew about it and did little to stop it. However, happy for it to happen - why? whats this based on?
As for the Yalta agreement - and Stalin breaking his promises - what do you do - have another war?
plain wrong! sorry for the bluntness. preparation militairily does not neccessarily signify intent? NATO powers amassing strength in western europe? missile bases in turkey? doesn't necessarily mean they'll be used? they are just part of the game being played! the point of atomic superiority is not to use them, but to intimidate yes? who in their right mind could even consider using them? oh! only the US in japan and korea and vietnam! the ONLY nation to seriously consider their use was the US, cos for a long time they had vast superiority and hoped to survive a limited nuclear engagement! it's well documented. so what if presidents tried to cut costs? bit expensive hydrogen bombs eh? didn't stop the game being played conventionally where they could? and yes it's always been argued the presidency is subject to the military and industry. vested interest in maintaining their own power yes? interesting how since the end of the cold war we now have a vague and undefined threat that justifies all the same shite we had back in the 20th century isn't it?
As stated earlier it was a well documentated intention of Stalin to invade western europe - he was a mad insecure dictator. The amassing of forces was with intent (he intended to use them as stated earlier)and it wasnt a vague and undefined threat. The west had to provide a deterrent. Where is there proof that the west intended instigating war with the USSR? Agreed the US did use or consider use of nuclear weapons - how do you know the USSR didnt consider it? The point about military expenditure was that trying to outstretch the USSR was not a tactic until Reagan. Prior to that it was deterrent only - you know, if we have more than them they wont take us on.
the isolationist policy that saw the US join WW1 in 1917? when was the russian revolution? 1917 was it? so the game of spheres of influence began to be played out in the very same year? oh and pearl harbour? yes. the same attack churchill knew was coming but decided not to mention to the US? same as subversion in mexico we knew about in WW1 was kept secret from the US? cos it would draw them into a war that the USSR was already engaged in? i don't put it all on the toes of the US. we've been as bad and no mistake. all the same game at the end of the day.
No! The isolationist policy came after the war as a result of the war. When did the war end? 1918. When was the Russian revolution? 1917. So becoming isolationist was after the revolution. What I am trying to say is - American policy had nothing to do with Russia then, unlike what you stated earlier which was America saw the revolution as a proposed threat and embarked on empire building. As for Pearl harbour, their own intelligence warned them but they rather ineptly ignored it. As did Stalin with Hitlers plans.
Some really good replies here.
I have to say my politics are much further to the left than the middle so the fear factor of another 4 years and the potential invasion of Iran being next on the shopping list makes me realise how little control we have over a possible 3rd world war. This makes for great headlines but not for day to day living. I hope in my lifetime I do not witness a third world war - not so much bothered about me - bothered about the legacy for my family and their families. Sorry if this is a sobering thought but sometimes a serious moment is worth reflecting upon....................................................................................
I have to say my politics are much further to the left than the middle so the fear factor of another 4 years and the potential invasion of Iran being next on the shopping list makes me realise how little control we have over a possible 3rd world war. This makes for great headlines but not for day to day living. I hope in my lifetime I do not witness a third world war - not so much bothered about me - bothered about the legacy for my family and their families. Sorry if this is a sobering thought but sometimes a serious moment is worth reflecting upon....................................................................................
Here you go, a little light argument ;)
The cold war was an inevitable conclusion following the break up of Europe into two opposing ideological camps in the aftermath of WW2. Neither side instigated it per se.
They did. It's well documented that Soviet advisors considered a strike on the US during the Cuban missile crisis and again in the early 80s. However, it seems likely that only US advisors actively supported a first strike and the US remains the only state to have used nuclear warheads (so far
)
That's not the case, escallation on both sides began in the immediate aftermath of WW2. Hence the 'arms race'. The space race and the wars by proxy in the middle east and south east asia are a further example of the intent not merely to deter but actively to win.
Luckily, we did win, but it's questionable as to whether that was by design, or accident of history.
Quote by Happy Cats
Where is there proof that the west intended instigating war with the USSR?
Agreed the US did use or consider use of nuclear weapons - how do you know the USSR didnt consider it?
The point about military expenditure was that trying to outstretch the USSR was not a tactic until Reagan. Prior to that it was deterrent only - you know, if we have more than them they wont take us on.
The cold war was an inevitable conclusion following the break up of Europe into two opposing ideological camps in the aftermath of WW2. Neither side instigated it per se.
They did. It's well documented that Soviet advisors considered a strike on the US during the Cuban missile crisis and again in the early 80s. However, it seems likely that only US advisors actively supported a first strike and the US remains the only state to have used nuclear warheads (so far
)That's not the case, escallation on both sides began in the immediate aftermath of WW2. Hence the 'arms race'. The space race and the wars by proxy in the middle east and south east asia are a further example of the intent not merely to deter but actively to win.
Luckily, we did win, but it's questionable as to whether that was by design, or accident of history.
Quote by JonJon
Here you go, a little light argument ;)
Where is there proof that the west intended instigating war with the USSR?
Agreed the US did use or consider use of nuclear weapons - how do you know the USSR didnt consider it?
The point about military expenditure was that trying to outstretch the USSR was not a tactic until Reagan. Prior to that it was deterrent only - you know, if we have more than them they wont take us on.
The cold war was an inevitable conclusion following the break up of Europe into two opposing ideological camps in the aftermath of WW2. Neither side instigated it per se.
They did. It's well documented that Soviet advisors considered a strike on the US during the Cuban missile crisis and again in the early 80s. However, it seems likely that only US advisors actively supported a first strike and the US remains the only state to have used nuclear warheads (so far
)That's not the case, escallation on both sides began in the immediate aftermath of WW2. Hence the 'arms race'. The space race and the wars by proxy in the middle east and south east asia are a further example of the intent not merely to deter but actively to win.
Luckily, we did win, but it's questionable as to whether that was by design, or accident of history.
Havent got an argument - well said! Apart from perhaps the tactic of outspending the USSR. I was responding to the argument that the cold war was a conspiracy in order to justify the west spending lots of money deterring a ficticious enemy
Sex God
wot?
:lol2:
n x x x ;)
:lol2:
n x x x ;)
Sex God
no!
it's bedtime and i'm too tired to argue. maybe tomorrow! :lol2:
n x x x :P
it's bedtime and i'm too tired to argue. maybe tomorrow! :lol2:
n x x x :P
