What really was the "Cold" war??

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
dr_strangecraft: Finally, someone who realises Hitler was the junior partner of the big three of murder incorporated. The other two senior partners were Mao-Zedong and Joseph Stalin.
Stalin killed something like thirty million!!!!!!!! of his own people even before Hitler invaded in 1941. And to think that there are those who still worship the guiy as a paragon of Communist "Leadership"
I'll google Kissinger and Communist spy when I log off ATS. I must say I enjoy this back and forth wwith you, I get the feeling you're a Rush Limbaugh type personality...That's not a bad thing.
You're screen says writer beneath your name, you certainly know your craft.




posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Actually, I'm not sure how to take that.

Do you mean

1. That I have the ability to vigorously speak up for important concepts in a time when lots of people who consider themselves enlightened are actually being intellectually sloppy?

2. I remind you of the Hindenburg ( that other Nazi blimp) ?

3. I sometimes twist my opponents words and views to make them appear even more ridiculous?

4. I have a flair for sticking to the "big idea" and presenting it in a way that reminds you what is great about the ideals of America's founders?

5. I'm much better versed in history and political philosophy than most people, because I've actually read 3 volumes of Marx's Capital, 3 volumes of the Warren Report, and a whole lot of classics of Western Civ that most people under 50 have never heard of?

Is that what you mean?

.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Err...Yes! Not that you were just like Rush Limbaugh, but that you typed in his vein of speaking.
Using facts to support arguments and yes, very well read.
It was not a backhanded insult, I assure you.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Here are some questions, if you believe that some central conspiracy had a serious impact during the cold war. I'll call them the "Illuminati" for convenience, but they could be any group working behind the scenes.

1. The goal
What would have been the goal of illuminati-style intervention in history after WWII? World takeover by a single superstate? If so, and they were backing the Soviet Union, then they seem to have failed. If the goal was to sink their hooks into society, or to "own everything," then they could have done this without intervening in geopolitics.

2. Loose cannons
One of the big problems for them if they were engineering the Cuban Missle Crisis would be men like General Curtis Le May. He was highly unpredictable, and I was talking with one of you about how he may have acted on his own in authorizing a dogfight somewhere over Cuba at the very height of the crisis. He had soviet counterparts. How do you control for types like him, who are liable not to take orders from anyone but their own moral code in the midst of a crisis?

3. How to explain setbacks.
If the illuminati were "using" the cold war, they must have failed when the war ended, right? If the setbacks were "really" a behind-the-scenes-success for the illuminati, then everything was a success, and they must have gotten total control by now. (I'll be watching to see if this line of my post "dissappears")


Now, all of that said, I will say that from a purely American viewpoint, there has been some traiting going on in very high places in US cold-war politics. And JFK himself was guilty here, spectacularly so. He LIED during the 1960 election, claiming that America had a "missile gap" with the Soviet Union, and the Republicans had allowed the Soviets to gain superiority over us. Second, the bay of pigs fiasco. And third, the fact that the whole Cuban missile crisis was caused by American agression; the US had already placed missiles in Izmir, Turkey, at a time when our sub missiles could already hit moscow anyway.

So, while the Illuminatiacs might be trying to control the US govt, they sure don't control lone presidents, loose cannons, or dictators like Krushchev.


.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I'm not so sure if its possible to have complete, total control. There's always going to be someone to rock the boat. Always some politico who's going to make your side look retarded (hmmm...Howard Dean anyone?)
That said, it still might be possible for some sort of cabal of higher ups to at least fluidly play events to their own profit.
Not just monetarily but even so as a certain viewpoint comes across as more appropos.
After 9-11 (I'm really not that convinced by alot of those conspiracy theories, alot of it sounds like leftist propaganda to me) the intelligence services were united so to speak, giving more power to the intelligence community as a whole. (Not that can always be a bad thing. It's pretty obvious we fight Islamic fanatics who are far more deadly than traditional terrorists of the IRA vein, only extermination of either side will decide the issue, therefore a powerfull intelligence apparatus I beleive is neccessary to ensure that they're the ones exterminated, not us.)
Now I'm going out on a really big limb here, but maybe alot of industrialists from both sides saw the "Cold" War as an oppurtunity to make a whole hell of a lot of money on limited conflicts.
And I'm not so sure that the wall coming down would have been a setback for those who wanted control. it's not inconceivable that the Soviet cabal might have been in conflict with the aims of the Western one. The Soviet collapse was due to the failed Communist system as it related to markets anyway. It's only real value for those in a conspiracy of control was that it offered a better means to control than free markets.
But if kenneddy was a closet Commie as you have seemingly implied (I might have misread that) then why when LBJ sent us into Vietnam were we hampered from pursuing the war effectively?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpecAgentDW
I'm not so sure if its possible to have complete, total control.

Now I'm going out on a really big limb here, but maybe alot of industrialists from both sides saw the "Cold" War as an oppurtunity to make a whole hell of a lot of money on limited conflicts.

But if kenneddy was a closet Commie as you have seemingly implied (I might have misread that) then why when LBJ sent us into Vietnam were we hampered from pursuing the war effectively?


'Coz LBJ was a commie, too. Our takeover of South Vietnam kept them from mounting their own, successful, defense, and kept corrupt corporatists in power against the popular will, making sure that the next govt would be communist and not libertarian.

LBJ gave us the biggest upsurge in the welfare state since FDR. He also changed the democrats from the party of racism and the KKK, and pinned those labels on the Republicans. . . .



Certainly, if the illuminants were going for power and greater control, the Cold War certainly did centralize all kinds of power. Both East and West.

Or, if Illuminants were purely western, anti-soviet, then certainly certain socialist ideas would aid their cause. Socialists espouse big govt with big control, and that makes it easier for profiteers, as well as for quashing dissent.

Additionaly, if the USA and its spokespeople (Goldwater, Reagan) could be softened up a bit and discredited, it would help lessen the voice of liberty in the world.

And, come to think of it, look at Nixon as an NWO total sellout.

As a young politician, he campaigned as a red-fighter and free marketeer. Then, look at his record in office:

-rent controls
-price controls
-limiting US military tactics in Vietnam to the innefectual.
-"cutting a deal" with China
-routed from Vietnam in dissaray and calling it "peace with honor."

Sounds like a NWO sell-out to me. So, if JKF,LBJ, and Nixon were shills, then that is 14 years of NWO in power. Include Ford and Carter and your looking at 20 years.


.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
3. The SU didn't support Vietnam. It was Purely Chinese. Same with North Korea.


.


I cant really agree with this the SU didnt even really hide its aide that well in N Korea. Russian fighter pilots flew in direct combat against US pilots in the Korean war.

Kim Sung even asked Stalin's permission before he invaded the south. Stalin refused permission though. He didnt want to risk direct conflict with the US over Korea. When Kim invaded anyway the Soviets helped with stuff like the MiG-15 jet fighters, piloted by experienced Soviet Air Force pilots. This war even produced a few Russian aces I would call that support.

The UN allies knew this but deliberately overlooked it not wanting to get into direct battle with the Soviets.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
3. The SU didn't support Vietnam. It was Purely Chinese. Same with North Korea.


.


I cant really agree with this the SU didnt even really hide its aide that well in N Korea. Russian fighter pilots flew in direct combat against US pilots in the Korean war.

Kim Sung even asked Stalin's permission before he invaded the south. Stalin refused permission though. He didnt want to risk direct conflict with the US over Korea. When Kim invaded anyway the Soviets helped with stuff like the MiG-15 jet fighters, piloted by experienced Soviet Air Force pilots. This war even produced a few Russian aces I would call that support.

The UN allies knew this but deliberately overlooked it not wanting to get into direct battle with the Soviets.


You know, you're right about that. My mistake. The whole period of divergence between China and Russia is fuzzy in my mind. And it shows.

.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
LBJ as a secret Commie or at least someone with their vein of thinking certainly makes sense.
His politics towards Republicans were in your face, lowbrow and honestly very effective. I only wonder why the media to this day still espouses the same tenants you describe LBJ giving to the Republicans. (Racists, biggots, homophobes)
Just look at Senator Robert Byrd, the Democrat from West Virginia, he used to be a member of the KKK. Yet obviously no one in the media says that at all. But Bush beign in the Skull and Bones...Shouted from the rooftops despite the fact that Kerry was also.
I'm beginning to see not just a media bias in this country towards the left end of the political spectrum but an all out propaganda campaign to make anyone in this country who resolves to make us stronger as a nation and to project our National Security overseas to be a Fascist warmonger.
I think this might be the legacy of the Cold War.
The average American is far more informed about the world around him than was his successors in the 60's and 70's. And many even on this sight support the war on terror and especially the war in Iraq. I do not beleive it is out of the realm of possibility that someone controlling the hierarchy of the media ensures that only a leftist message is sent. What the purpose could be is this...to weaken this country, cause enough internal turmoil to cause people to seek a way out, a new direction. Maybe there still is a Communist conspiracy to overtake America, Hollywood is still obviously full of them.
But then listen to Conservative talk radio, and a war has begun politically. Limbaugh, Hannity and others are known members of the CFR and Trilateral Commision. What if those in the media and the Conservative side are two sides of the same conspiracy, now finding itself at war with its own self?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Gary Allen (the author of that great text I referenced, None Dare Call It Conspiracy,) said that they ARE two sides of the same coin.

Hannity and Combes and CNN vs FOX keeps you thinking left/right instead of liberty/control.

For instance, they ALL agree that Katrina should have been averted. Just think about that for a minute. Maybe it was poorly handled. Maybe mishandled is a better term. But they infer that no one should have lost anything, and that what was needed was BETTER GOVERNMENT. hmmm.

A category 5 storm hits downtown in one of America's largest cities, and there are what, less than 150 casualities in the WHOLE STORM and its entire aftermath throughout the region? Just think about that and compare it with other countries and what they suffer from disasters.

But, regardless of political affiliation, "everybody knows," that it could have been avoided, and better government would have "saved lives" and "gotten everyone out of there."

Now, the media is complaining that the mess hasn't been cleaned up. All the millions of tons of broken trees, floating garbage, and just . . . mud. But it should be gone 90 days later, from Galveston to Pensecola. . . .

Phase 3 will be how much money is wasted while people are starving and homeless. Yes, all the pundits agree, more government would have saved us.

When it comes to shouting down alternatives, they all sing like the Vienna Boys Choir.

.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I am not so sure more government would save anybody, especially considering they'd have to have a committee to decide on a committee to decide on what to do to help someone. By then...they're dead.
Left/Right as a means of control does make alot of sense, it in and of itself is a system of control.
polarize the populace and you have less to worry about yourself.
honestly, I think I've learned a lot through this thread.
Can't really think of much more to point out.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpecAgentDW
I am not so sure more government would save anybody


My point exactly. But for some reason, the TV thinks everything can be fixe with added regulation.

.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I would love to pick the brain of Vladimir Putin for all of insight into the Cold War.
It is my beleif that there was a massive KGB presence in this country during the Cold War, and still might be considering Putin is a former Cold Warrior and former director of the KGB.
It also begs the question, that since the Cold War was great for the US economy, especially the defence industries, would they love to find a new enemy in Red China?
I think China will dominate global politics in the enxt twenty years, and we might fight a series of wars (small limited ones over strategic points most liekly)
I can't see how this woulod be viewed as a bad thing by certain people in power.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
i still dont think this is about communism, its about america having a social control mechnaism, plus i still dont think we r talking about communism. we are talking about an offshoot which started in russia ,Karl Marx himself i think would of be ashamed of the soviet empire. after its revolution

wikipedia quote

"he Soviet Union and other countries ruled by Communist Parties are often described as 'Communist states' with 'state socialist' economic bases. This usage indicates that they proclaim that they have realized part of the socialist program by abolishing private control of the means of production and establishing state control over the economy; however, they do not declare themselves truly communist, as they have not established communal ownership"

commnal ownership, see that sounds like communism , but wait,the union didnt do that

Heres another one from the Wiki
"Theories within Marxism as to why communism in Eastern Europe was not achieved after socialist revolutions pointed to such elements as the pressure of external capitalist states, the relative backwardness of the societies in which the revolutions occurred, and the emergence of a bureaucratic stratum or class that arrested or diverted the transition press in its own interests. Marxist critics of the Soviet Union referred to the Soviet system, along with other Communist states, as "state capitalism," arguing that Soviet system fell far short of Marx's communist ideal. They argued that the state and party bureaucratic elite acted as a surrogate capitalist class in the heavily centralized and repressive political apparatus.

this part "the state and party bureaucratic elite acted as a surrogate capitalist class in heavily centralised and repressive political apparatus"



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
so, does all that rhetoric mean that Americans had nothing to fear from Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, The German Intel chief who was spying for the Soviets, etc.?

It was all in our heads, huh?


.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
There are only a few reasons why any nation would send spies into another.
To scout out the possibility of that nation attacking you
To scout out that nation for your own attack
To try and steal state secrets which would give you an advantage in either of the two scenarios listed above.
Certainly the American people had reason to fear the presence of Soviet spies.
As far as Communism beign the whole savior of mankind thing: It would never work for one simple reason, it's unfair. Some people simply produce more and should therefore receive a bigger slice of the economic pie.
I know I'd revolt if we went Commie.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
The failing of communism is that it appeals to what is best in people; people are rarely at their very best.


The success of capitalism, in spite of itself, is that it appeals to the worst in people, and people often revert to their worst.


I am a religious person, but I am wise enough to understand that religion divides people.

You want to know what divides people? Profit.

Nafta and the EU have done more for their citizens (in spite of the corruption and exploitation) than "being faithful to religion" has.

Look at the middle East. As long as it was about oil, we could get along with them and them with us.

But draw a cartoon about religion, and suddenly being right is more important that economics.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I know that this has nothing to do with the current thread, but since I started the thread to begin with I'll ask it,
I was under the impression that NAFTA only improved those in Latin America, Mexico etc... but that here in North America it takes away jobs from Americans.
Am I wrong in beleiving that?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join