It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who really won the Cold War?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:42 PM
The recent news of the US military spying on American citizens, on American soil is just the latest installment of a story that started when George Bush took office in 2001. The "Patriot" Act, which did away with such niceties as habeas corpus, allowed the government to hold citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime, allowed the FBI to search an American's home without even NOTIFYING the citizen, etc etc, was another part of the story. People suspected of crimes are now whisked out of the country on secret airplanes, to secret locations, where they are tortured, and all without a charge against them. Government secrecy is at an all-time high. The percentage of government documents which are signified as being TOP SECRET is nearly 30 times greater now than it was during the most critical parts of World War II.

Today, we are fighting a war in Iraq that the Bush Adminstration claims will bring freedom to the people of that country, while he works overtime to deny basic freedoms to the people of our own country. Free and fair elections were held in Iraq just a few days ago, but here in America, the very computer equipment that will be used in future elections is manufactured by a corrupt corporation with ties to powerful politicians, and the equipment itself is shown to be easily manipulated to change the results of elections. During the term of his father, the walls, both real and figurative, surrounding the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union were torn down. Under the leadership of the second George Bush, a new wall is being put up to create a new totalitarian state right here in America. I guess, in the election of 2000, when the guy who got the fewer votes became president, we should have gotten some idea of what was coming.

Americans, both Democrat and Republican, conservative or liberal, are finding themselves in the same sinking boat of freedom. While coopted media figures, who describe themselves as "fair and balanced" while being paid to push certain opinions, create make-believe conflicts to keep the population focused on meaningless issues like "The War on Christmas", the very soul of a nation which began as an experiment in liberty is having a prison built around it, brick by brick.

So Merry Christmas, everyone. While you're walking through the mall with bundles of consumer goods whose only purpose is to distract you from the death of a great nation, while you stare at a television with glassy eyes, watching arrogant fools like Bill O'Reilly making fools out of you, while the credit cards in your pocket buy you only a future of enslavement or poverty, the most important resource of the United States, the freedom which gives this country the opportunity to change the world for the better, but is only being used by insignificant bullies to cover for their own shortcomings, is leaking away like air out of a balloon.

Is this the great "victory" we are told was ours in the Cold War?

posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:15 PM
No one wins wars, no side wins.
Just the people suffer

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 02:17 PM
Welcome to America; take it or leave it.

Even though we have our problems, some of which could be easily resolved, if the gears of politics weren't coated in concrete (see: they don't accomplish much, outside of their own political agenda), it's still better than a lot of what's out there.

Eventually, the typical "sheep-consumer-soccermom-etc-ad naseum" will get sick of the tired BS the politicians are slinging around and try to do something about it. I only hope that day does not come to late.

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by intrigue
Welcome to America; take it or leave it.

Unfortunately, I think it's that kind of mentality which makes the political growth of the US as stagnant as it is. The government has not changed to meet the needs of the citizens, but rather expects the citizens to change to meet the needs of the government.

People need to take a step forward and say "Welcome to America, take it, leave it, or change it".

Unfortunately, no one really steps up for changing it - as the first people to do so are labelled terrorists, communists, or simply "un-american".It's a deep-seeded problem that needs to be worked out sooner rather than later.

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:46 PM
Personally, I think the "Cold War" was a sham. How much of a threat to the United States was communism, really? Doubtless it was blown way out of proportion. Nazism was even semi-popular amongst certain groups here in the US before we entered WW2.

And I seriously doubt that Russia was ever a threat, either. Russia had absolutely no reason, so far as I can see, to be immediately hostile towards us after WW2 in such an impoverished state, let alone because of our "freedom" or what-have-you. Was it not one of our generals that wanted to invade Russia while they were weak after WW2? I want to say Truman but I'm not entirely sure so don't hold me to that. At any rate I'm under the impression that it was the US that started the hostilities and got the ball rolling on a good excuse for pumping $$ into the military-industrial complex despite a lack of major war. And that was your "Cold War" as I see it.

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:04 AM
The reason, as far as I've been able to research it, was that the government was afraid that a similar "communist revolution" would happen to the US - which would mean that those in power would lose power. They feared this because Russia had done most of the fighting in World War II (and were on their way to winning against the Germans before D-Day or even the Italian campaign!) and had still come out on top. What's more, with a war-driven economy, Russia had been able to become an economic super-power within but a couple of decades. The government feared that people would see communism as a viable alternative - as a working alternative - and so demonized it.

Mind you, I'm not saying that communism is a viable alternative. The Stalinism that was running in Russia was as brutal as it was effective. In the end, however, you have to give Stalin his due respect. The man did horrible things, but also accomplished things that seemed to be impossible. In the same way, you have to give Hitler his due - at least politcally for actually being able to supercede the government in record-breaking time (and almost completely legally too, and with public support! remings me of some other world leader...).

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:53 AM
The word "hostilities" sure is getting knocked around a good deal here and sorry if I don't buy it. If you call undertaking the most massive humanitarian airlift in the history of the world a hostile act then let me buy you a dictionary for christmas. We took a tough stand with the Russians after WW2 because they started to eat up every piece of non allied occupied Europe regardless of what the native countrypeople wanted. And giving Stalin and Hitler their due? I'm not going to even try and dismantle the logic in that. If you want to know who won the cold war then first research what country has lines for bread a couple blocks long and which one has regular elections on the state, local and federal level. Once you got that then I'll let you figure out who came ahead in the freedom game. And by the way the Patriot Act sure steamrolled through the Senate didn't it, oh and how many international calls do you make? Regardless of the number do you discuss illicit or unlawful activities in them? Well if the answer is no (and I hope it is) then what do you care if the NSA is listening you talk to your European friends and family. Beyond that I'm gonna have to agree with the opening post calling us out on watching a good nation go down the drain due to our fat lazy suburban lifestyles/debt/ letting the rest of the world fleece us of our money while figuring out ways to suprass us in technology and economics. And yeah Merry Xmas.

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Agent47
And giving Stalin and Hitler their due? I'm not going to even try and dismantle the logic in that.

I think you misunderstood me
. I'm saying that it's an impressive feat to have done what they did. The morality of the topic is WITHOUT QUESTION horrible beyond reprive - but the fact that they did it, and succeeded in doing it, and for a time THRIVED in doing it, is something that must be acknowledged and respected.

Look at the Roman Catholic Church. They have done incredible things. They have performed acts of charity and support that exceed human limitations. But they have also committed some of the worst atrocities in human history! However, we give the Church respect do we not? Are you not impressed that they were able to literally seize control of countries and armies, and declare pointless wars (ie, the Crusades), and lie, and cheat, and yet still be the ones in power, and still even today have such influence in our world? I give them their due for that.

I hate Bush. I think he's led the American people astray, and has caused wars and disturbance of global peace, and greed and lies and torture and shames... but for as much as I hate him - I give him the respect he deserves because, like it or not, he did get into power, not once but TWICE. The simple fact that he became president is testimony to the power and force of will that's being flexed to get him there.

Imagine Einstein had performed a bunch of illegal experiments, yet still came up with Relativity and what not. Would you not respect him for his remarkable achievement, even if it came at such a high cost and you hate every other part of him for doing that?

What about the people who invented the atomic bomb? I may feel remorse and pity because they invented something which was made to kill people by their tens of thousands (and even more now) - but I respect that they were able to accomplish it.

So, Hitler, Mao Se Tung, Che Guevera, Stalin, Lenin, Clinton, Jean Cretein, Ganghes Khan, Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Roman Catholic Church, extremist religious fanatics, Mussolini, King Henry VIII, the list goes on and on for people who changed the HISTORY of this planet (or at least the continent we live in). I give them their due of RESPECT. Not admiration, not aspirations, but respect - for changing the history of our world in ways that will never be forgotten.

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:43 AM
I understand your logic and although I don't personally agree I do have to give you credit because it isn't a stupid belief. You make a solid argument sorry for the misunderstanding.

new topics

top topics


log in