If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Now that the Soviet Union is dead and buried, it's time to learn why diplomacy failed to win the Cold War   (wnd.com) divider line 63
    More: Silly, Soviet Union, Cold War, diplomacy, House Un-American Activities Committee, communist revolution, Bolsheviks, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, collective securities  
•       •       •

690 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Nov 2013 at 10:31 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-15 09:37:54 AM
Because the Dullus brothers royally screwed us over? Because Truman exacerbated the tensions between the US and Soviets? Because Reagan botched a complete nuclear disarmament with Gorbachev because he liked his star wars fantasy? LBJ bought into the domino theory? JFK died before he could pass on the "Don't listen to the generals" advice? Eisenhower ratcheted up the military-industrial complex and then was against it?

All of these things? I'm going with all of these things farked us over when it came to ending the Cold War
 
2013-11-15 09:41:39 AM
DRTFA, but I'm assuming the author took crayon to fist to say the Cold War ended when Reagan's steely gaze felled the Berlin Wall and turned every pair of Turnip Sack Pantaloons in the Soviet Union into Jordache?

Either that or I somehow slept through a total global thermonuclear war and never got to the Piggly Wiggly for the Mutant Repellent.
 
2013-11-15 09:48:17 AM

somedude210: Because the Dullus brothers royally screwed us over? Because Truman exacerbated the tensions between the US and Soviets? Because Reagan botched a complete nuclear disarmament with Gorbachev because he liked his star wars fantasy? LBJ bought into the domino theory? JFK died before he could pass on the "Don't listen to the generals" advice? Eisenhower ratcheted up the military-industrial complex and then was against it?

All of these things? I'm going with all of these things farked us over when it came to ending the Cold War


Let me pick out just one: you really think nuclear disarmament was (is) a possibility?

No way, no how.
 
2013-11-15 09:49:28 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: DRTFA, but I'm assuming the author took crayon to fist to say the Cold War ended when Reagan's steely gaze felled the Berlin Wall and turned every pair of Turnip Sack Pantaloons in the Soviet Union into Jordache?

Either that or I somehow slept through a total global thermonuclear war and never got to the Piggly Wiggly for the Mutant Repellent.


The article argues that FDR should never have recognized the Soviet government and normalized relations.
 
2013-11-15 10:01:01 AM

vygramul: Mr. Coffee Nerves: DRTFA, but I'm assuming the author took crayon to fist to say the Cold War ended when Reagan's steely gaze felled the Berlin Wall and turned every pair of Turnip Sack Pantaloons in the Soviet Union into Jordache?

Either that or I somehow slept through a total global thermonuclear war and never got to the Piggly Wiggly for the Mutant Repellent.

The article argues that FDR should never have recognized the Soviet government and normalized relations.


www.freeinfosociety.com

Oh hai!  What's goin' on in this thread?
 
2013-11-15 10:04:29 AM
George Kennan told us in 1947 why the USSR would fail, and he was absolutely correct.

Of course, knowing who George Kennan was would require studying history, and why would anyone to that when you can just talk about how you feel that Reagan ended the Cold War?
 
2013-11-15 10:05:16 AM

vygramul: Let me pick out just one: you really think nuclear disarmament was (is) a possibility?

No way, no how


Gorbechev was up for it. It would've been the greatest political achievement of Reagan. It could've solidified Reagan as one of the great leaders of human history. He decided his star wars program, which wasn't even possible, was more important. Gorbechev begged him to sign it before Reagan left Geneva. His response? "I'm sorry"
 
2013-11-15 10:09:48 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: vygramul: Mr. Coffee Nerves: DRTFA, but I'm assuming the author took crayon to fist to say the Cold War ended when Reagan's steely gaze felled the Berlin Wall and turned every pair of Turnip Sack Pantaloons in the Soviet Union into Jordache?

Either that or I somehow slept through a total global thermonuclear war and never got to the Piggly Wiggly for the Mutant Repellent.

The article argues that FDR should never have recognized the Soviet government and normalized relations.

[www.freeinfosociety.com image 300x440]

Oh hai!  What's goin' on in this thread?


Not an unsustainable continuation of the European War that and ends with millions of Americans dead and T-34s "liberating" Paris.
 
2013-11-15 10:14:27 AM
Meh.  Just another FDR hit piece.
 
2013-11-15 10:26:28 AM

somedude210: vygramul: Let me pick out just one: you really think nuclear disarmament was (is) a possibility?

No way, no how

Gorbechev was up for it. It would've been the greatest political achievement of Reagan. It could've solidified Reagan as one of the great leaders of human history. He decided his star wars program, which wasn't even possible, was more important. Gorbechev begged him to sign it before Reagan left Geneva. His response? "I'm sorry"


What wasn't possible about Star Wars?  As I recall, the basic concepts were sound, they just required more research and development.  It wasn't possible during the 1980's, precisely because the basic research hadn't been done yet, but that's what the Strategic Defense Initiative was all about:  Performing that research in order to field a system that we could probably, if we had a reason to, mostly deploy today.

Actually, we *HAVE* deployed a smaller, theater version of it.
 
2013-11-15 10:29:08 AM
b-b-but FDR!!1!

Christ, lady, get over it.  Whining about FDR is lame even if you weren't revisionist about it.
 
2013-11-15 10:31:33 AM

dittybopper: What wasn't possible about Star Wars? As I recall, the basic concepts were sound, they just required more research and development. It wasn't possible during the 1980's, precisely because the basic research hadn't been done yet, but that's what the Strategic Defense Initiative was all about: Performing that research in order to field a system that we could probably, if we had a reason to, mostly deploy today.

Actually, we *HAVE* deployed a smaller, theater version of it.


sooooo....sinking billions of dollars into a boondoggle for no gains whatsoever for a pipe dream of a defense plan that only the president honestly believed was possible, even with today's technology is totally something we should've kept doing instead of an agreement with our "sworn enemies" to mutually disarm all nuclear weapons for the betterment of mankind? Really? this is the argument we should be making?
 
2013-11-15 10:34:22 AM

Lionel Mandrake: b-b-but FDR!!1!

Christ, lady, get over it.  Whining about FDR is lame even if you weren't revisionist about it.


They are still pissed Wendell Wilkie lost
 
2013-11-15 10:35:48 AM

vygramul: somedude210: Because the Dullus brothers royally screwed us over? Because Truman exacerbated the tensions between the US and Soviets? Because Reagan botched a complete nuclear disarmament with Gorbachev because he liked his star wars fantasy? LBJ bought into the domino theory? JFK died before he could pass on the "Don't listen to the generals" advice? Eisenhower ratcheted up the military-industrial complex and then was against it?

All of these things? I'm going with all of these things farked us over when it came to ending the Cold War

Let me pick out just one: you really think nuclear disarmament was (is) a possibility?

No way, no how.


Full, complete disarmament? Not a chance.
Significant draw-down of our current arsenal? Sure.
 
2013-11-15 10:36:39 AM

somedude210: dittybopper: What wasn't possible about Star Wars? As I recall, the basic concepts were sound, they just required more research and development. It wasn't possible during the 1980's, precisely because the basic research hadn't been done yet, but that's what the Strategic Defense Initiative was all about: Performing that research in order to field a system that we could probably, if we had a reason to, mostly deploy today.

Actually, we *HAVE* deployed a smaller, theater version of it.

sooooo....sinking billions of dollars into a boondoggle for no gains whatsoever for a pipe dream of a defense plan that only the president honestly believed was possible, even with today's technology is totally something we should've kept doing instead of an agreement with our "sworn enemies" to mutually disarm all nuclear weapons for the betterment of mankind? Really? this is the argument we should be making?


St. Ronald was just buying time until he could get to Berlin and single-handedly tear down the Berlin Wall and topple the Evil Empire.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-15 10:36:54 AM

doyner: Meh.  Just another FDR hit piece WND conservative hack book promotion disguised as a column.

 
2013-11-15 10:38:57 AM

Diogenes: doyner: Meh.  Just another FDR hit piece as a thin veil for a WND conservative hack book promotion disguised as a column.


FIFBOU
 
2013-11-15 10:40:10 AM
"Does the phrase "global communism" ring a bell?"

Not really, to people under thirty!
 
2013-11-15 10:40:25 AM
Because both sides used each other as a boogeyman to try to justify a lot of ultimately unjustifiable behaviors around the globe for so long neither side really wanted a peace wrought by diplomacy?
 
2013-11-15 10:41:45 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: vygramul: Mr. Coffee Nerves: DRTFA, but I'm assuming the author took crayon to fist to say the Cold War ended when Reagan's steely gaze felled the Berlin Wall and turned every pair of Turnip Sack Pantaloons in the Soviet Union into Jordache?

Either that or I somehow slept through a total global thermonuclear war and never got to the Piggly Wiggly for the Mutant Repellent.

The article argues that FDR should never have recognized the Soviet government and normalized relations.

[www.freeinfosociety.com image 300x440]

Oh hai!  What's goin' on in this thread?


Um, in 1933.
 
2013-11-15 10:42:29 AM
Wow, talk about old news.
 
2013-11-15 10:42:39 AM

somedude210: vygramul: Let me pick out just one: you really think nuclear disarmament was (is) a possibility?

No way, no how

Gorbechev was up for it. It would've been the greatest political achievement of Reagan. It could've solidified Reagan as one of the great leaders of human history. He decided his star wars program, which wasn't even possible, was more important. Gorbechev begged him to sign it before Reagan left Geneva. His response? "I'm sorry"


Never would have happened. The confirmation regime alone would have been a non-starter. I'm sorry - but the only time a country got rid of its nukes was because racists didn't want brown people having them.
 
2013-11-15 10:45:14 AM
Because we didn't try it? Is that the answer?
 
2013-11-15 10:45:21 AM
This is the kind of argument you make in a well researched book, THEN write articles about to gain awareness. My guess is if you spent any serious time looking into it, your strongly held hatred for normalization of relations would melt into nothingness. I assert the author is a dimwit moron.
 
2013-11-15 10:45:48 AM

Lionel Mandrake: somedude210: dittybopper: What wasn't possible about Star Wars? As I recall, the basic concepts were sound, they just required more research and development. It wasn't possible during the 1980's, precisely because the basic research hadn't been done yet, but that's what the Strategic Defense Initiative was all about: Performing that research in order to field a system that we could probably, if we had a reason to, mostly deploy today.

Actually, we *HAVE* deployed a smaller, theater version of it.

sooooo....sinking billions of dollars into a boondoggle for no gains whatsoever for a pipe dream of a defense plan that only the president honestly believed was possible, even with today's technology is totally something we should've kept doing instead of an agreement with our "sworn enemies" to mutually disarm all nuclear weapons for the betterment of mankind? Really? this is the argument we should be making?

St. Ronald was just buying time until he could get to Berlin and single-handedly tear down the Berlin Wall and topple the Evil Empire.


I was still a kid when that happened, but I still remember it. He rode a tyrannosaurus into battle against, Shredder, and the explosion destroyed the wall and freed the Germans, right?
 
2013-11-15 10:46:49 AM

qorkfiend: vygramul: somedude210: Because the Dullus brothers royally screwed us over? Because Truman exacerbated the tensions between the US and Soviets? Because Reagan botched a complete nuclear disarmament with Gorbachev because he liked his star wars fantasy? LBJ bought into the domino theory? JFK died before he could pass on the "Don't listen to the generals" advice? Eisenhower ratcheted up the military-industrial complex and then was against it?

All of these things? I'm going with all of these things farked us over when it came to ending the Cold War

Let me pick out just one: you really think nuclear disarmament was (is) a possibility?

No way, no how.

Full, complete disarmament? Not a chance.
Significant draw-down of our current arsenal? Sure.


Not clear. Of course, WE can always draw down, but it's confirming the other guys did. That's very hard to do and there are limits as to what kinds of inspection/confirmation you're ever going to get a sovereign nation to agree to. Those limits are what places a practical bound on how few nukes you can be sure the other guys have. Some very smart people feel that limit was reached under START II, much less "New START" in 2010.
 
2013-11-15 10:49:42 AM

lockers: This is the kind of argument you make in a well researched book, THEN write articles about to gain awareness. My guess is if you spent any serious time looking into it, your strongly held hatred for normalization of relations would melt into nothingness. I assert the author is a dimwit moron.


The only thing the author said that I felt had any merit (and only for considering the timing of it) was that Stalin was just wrapping-up the Holodomor. But those ere different times, and the US had only wrapped-up its last Indian fight a decade earlier, so the moral outrage was not what it is now.
 
2013-11-15 10:49:51 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: Lionel Mandrake: b-b-but FDR!!1!

Christ, lady, get over it.  Whining about FDR is lame even if you weren't revisionist about it.

They are still pissed Wendell Wilkie lost


Thanks to Looney Tunes, I learned about Wendell Willkie when I was about tree-and-a-half years old



i159.photobucket.com

IT AIN'T VENDELL VILLKIE!!!!
 
2013-11-15 10:52:02 AM
 
2013-11-15 10:53:43 AM

sendtodave: "Does the phrase "global communism" ring a bell?"

Not really, to people under thirty!


I prefer "Domino Theory" myself.
 
2013-11-15 10:58:03 AM
"...time to learn why diplomacy failed to win the Cold War "


It did become pretty evident by the 70's that we had no 'so called normalized relations' with those bastards in the Soviet Union.    Even the Philadelphia Flyers understood what it took to deal with the Ruskies.

"Listen, Dr. Kissinger, would you kindly explain the meaning of your word detente to Bobby Clarke and all the Philadelphia Flyers before they get involved in another international incident? Clarke probably thinks detente is some new Parisian after-shave lotion. Playing Boy Scout and being hospitable and diplomatic with the Russians is, in Clarke's language, treachery, Henry, not detente. "I hate the S.O.B.s," Clarke snarled last Sunday as the Stanley Cup champion Flyers squared off against Moscow's Central Army Club in hockey's first Super Bowl at the packed Spectrum....
..."The way we figured it," said Flyer Defenseman Joe Watson, "we had to hit the Russians and hit them again every time we had the chance. If you let them skate around and play dipsy doodle with the puck, they'll kill you. If you hit them, though, they'll play just like any ordinary hockey team."  - 1976 Sports Illustrated

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1090656/i nd ex.htm


We need this book to remind us what a mistake it was to recognize them in the first place.
And we needed the 1976 Philly Flyers to remind us about detente through sport.

The Broad St. bullies knew how to handle diplomatic relations with the Commies....
 
2013-11-15 10:58:04 AM
How dare World Net Daily sully the name of the great Saint Ronald Reagan! RINOs! Heaten pinko commie nazi liberal hippies that ain't worth pig spittle!
 
2013-11-15 10:58:55 AM
The boomers just won't let go.

Most of our politicians are now retirement age! And Ronald Reagan still matters, for some reason. He left office twenty five years ago! Communism is still scary! Except, of course, for a quarter of our country, who were born after the Soviet states fell. But don't count, do they?

Heck, just turn on the radio, it's all classic rock. The "new" stuff? 90s alternative!
 
2013-11-15 11:00:03 AM
Diplomacy during the cold war is why there is still a human race, you cretin.
 
2013-11-15 11:03:55 AM

Fart_Machine: sendtodave: "Does the phrase "global communism" ring a bell?"

Not really, to people under thirty!

I prefer "Domino Theory" myself.


Like, the pizza?
 
2013-11-15 11:07:19 AM

sendtodave: Fart_Machine: sendtodave: "Does the phrase "global communism" ring a bell?"

Not really, to people under thirty!

I prefer "Domino Theory" myself.

Like, the pizza?


I prefer "Papa Murphy's Theory"
 
2013-11-15 11:08:00 AM

Lionel Mandrake: b-b-but FDR!!1!

Christ, lady, get over it.  Whining about FDR is lame even if you weren't revisionist about it.


I like to think that FDR is pleased up in heaven, knowing that he's still pissing off republicans 70 years after he died.
 
2013-11-15 11:10:38 AM
Oh god, Diane West. If you forgot, she's the one hawking a book about how the FDR and Truman Administrations were both working against US interests to empower the Kremlin since they supported communism. If you haven't read  this vicious rebuttal from a conservative who is actually a respected historian, you owe it to yourself.
 
2013-11-15 11:12:56 AM
It is the date on which the U.S. government institutionally learned to lie.
WTF am I reading?
 
2013-11-15 11:15:22 AM
The Cold War isn't over.  The U.S. is still fighting the backwards imperialist doublethink tyranny of the Reds.

dialectblog.com
 
2013-11-15 11:23:36 AM

Grungehamster: Oh god, Diane West. If you forgot, she's the one hawking a book about how the FDR and Truman Administrations were both working against US interests to empower the Kremlin since they supported communism. If you haven't read  this vicious rebuttal from a conservative who is actually a respected historian, you owe it to yourself.


Oh. I see.

She's a crazy person.
 
2013-11-15 11:25:24 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: It is the date on which the U.S. government institutionally learned to lie.
WTF am I reading?


Surely the US government institutionally learned to lie (if that is considered a real thing) when the words were written  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, "
 
2013-11-15 11:27:26 AM

xria: Because People in power are Stupid: It is the date on which the U.S. government institutionally learned to lie.
WTF am I reading?

Surely the US government institutionally learned to lie (if that is considered a real thing) when the words were written  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, "


Depends on what your definition of "men" is.

I'm pretty sure theirs was "white male landowners."
 
2013-11-15 11:31:35 AM
Because a young woman's ass doesn't look good in tight diplomacy. A tight pair of Levis, yes. Diplomacy, no.
 
2013-11-15 12:03:21 PM
 Neo-McCarthyist nutjob.

Ehrmagahrd Commiez!
 
2013-11-15 12:06:56 PM
 
2013-11-15 12:08:01 PM
It was definitely Reagan that took down the Soviet Union. Communism is such a strong, stable governing philosophy that they never had any internal problems and only a steely-eyed conservative superman like Reagan could have brought it down.
 
2013-11-15 12:28:49 PM
Didn't Diplomacy win the cold war though?  I don't remember an actual war being fought.
 
2013-11-15 12:34:28 PM

vygramul: Mr. Coffee Nerves: DRTFA, but I'm assuming the author took crayon to fist to say the Cold War ended when Reagan's steely gaze felled the Berlin Wall and turned every pair of Turnip Sack Pantaloons in the Soviet Union into Jordache?

Either that or I somehow slept through a total global thermonuclear war and never got to the Piggly Wiggly for the Mutant Repellent.

The article argues that FDR should never have recognized the Soviet government and normalized relations.


Ah yes, not having the Soviets taking so much pressure off of us with the Nazis would have been so great!
 
2013-11-15 12:36:42 PM

manimal2878: Didn't Diplomacy win the cold war though?  I don't remember an actual war being fought.


Well, except for Korea, and Vietnam, and Afghanistan, and Iran/Iraq.  But yes, diplomacy is why we didn't nuke each other over stupid ideological differences.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report