Fuck you, liberal cunts who dismiss the Cold War

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#1
So pants pissers have had this thing, for the last decade and a half, of dismissing the success of the Cold War. They say the Eastern Bloc would have fallen anyway, given their economics (the same economics the libs want to copy...), that Reagan didn't do anything exceot make the eventual victory more dangerous, etc.

Bullshit. I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast on the Eastern front. That Soviet army was fucking SCARY. The Soviet army of 1984 wasn't any less scary. That Reagan stared down THAT fucking force makes me appreciate the Gipper even more.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,660
27,405
898
Seattle
#2
My coworker, great guys, turning into a good friend...but we know not to talk politics too much.

He insists the entire Cold War was a power grab and an excuse to get our armed forced all over the world. He just doesn't believe the Reds were any threat to us.

Maybe someday they will a make slide out of it.
 
Last edited:

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#5
Titanic slide, old O&A reference.

Ahh. I got it. Thought it was a Swype autocorrect thing where you meant to type "sense"

People in Dallas go stand on the X's painted on the asphalt where JFK was shot. Maybe they'll make a giant Gorbachev head bouncy house and you enter through his port wine stain mark.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,660
27,405
898
Seattle
#6
Ahh. I got it. Thought it was a Swype autocorrect thing where you meant to type "sense"

People in Dallas go stand on the X's painted on the asphalt where JFK was shot. Maybe they'll make a giant Gorbachev head bouncy house and you enter through his port wine stain mark.
My post makes a bit more sense now. ;)
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,262
6,862
568
Nothern VA
#7
FOX News rants should go in CE.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,449
8,617
693
Silverdale, WA
#8
The Soviet army was so scary that they got their butts whipped by a bunch of sand negroes with sticks.

Color me unimpressed.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,170
12,938
373
Atlanta, GA
#9
That Soviet army was fucking SCARY. The Soviet army of 1984 wasn't any less scary. That Reagan stared down THAT fucking force makes me appreciate the Gipper even more.
You know who else was scary? The Indonesian military that the Reagan Administration (along with the Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton administrations) supplied with weapons and equipment with the explicit knowledge that they'd be used against the people of East Timor during Indonesia's oppressive, almost genocidal occupation of that country -- all in the name of anti-Communism. Just as scary were Saddam Hussein and the Contras in Nicaragua that the Reagan Administration helped arm and, in the latter case, enthusiastically supported and defended.

What's more frightening than any of that (from a US-centric point of view, anyway) was the transformation of the War on Drugs under the Reagan Administration into an actual war zealously waged against the American public, the Constitution, the criminal justice system, and the very idea of self-ownership.

All in all, the Reagan years were a dark time for liberty and small government.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,423
22,064
398
Northern California
#12
So a "buddy of mine" was working with someone who was leveling ground for houses and may or may not have been employed by medical marijuana growers. Some of these possible medical marijuana growers weren't exactly upstanding citizens. "My buddy" was talking to one who use to do something in a tank (not sure of the job) during the cold war, for the Soviets. He said that when all their tanks and all our tanks were pointed at each other, they didn't have any ammo. If someone from our side started shooting, they would throw the tank in reverse and get out of there as fast as possible.

Now as much as my buddy instinctively trusts an ex-Soviet who moved to America to grow marijuana, the guy may have been full of shit. It's interesting if true though.
 
Last edited:

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,449
8,617
693
Silverdale, WA
#13
Luckily the Russian army didn't have to face off against those Falkland Islanders. Talk about a lopsided affair.
 

DanaReevesLungs

I can keep rhythm with no metronome...
Donator
Jun 9, 2005
9,133
2,536
681
Louisiana
#14
I'm not certain, but I think they're mocking you VMS.
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,298
3,959
563
#16
So a "buddy of mine" was working with someone who was leveling ground for houses and may or may not have been employed by medical marijuana growers. Some of these possible medical marijuana growers weren't exactly upstanding citizens. "My buddy" was talking to one who use to do something in a tank (not sure of the job) during the cold war, for the Soviets. He said that when all their tanks and all our tanks were pointed at each other, they didn't have any ammo. If someone from our side started shooting, they would throw the tank in reverse and get out of there as fast as possible.

Now as much as my buddy instinctively trusts an ex-Soviet who moved to America to grow marijuana, the guy may have been full of shit. It's interesting if true though.
I did read that they found out after the cold war that most of the soviet missiles wouldn't have worked, they still used liquid fuel, it leaked out and they were poorly maintained. Also seems the average Soviet grunt wasn't all that motivated, they weren't treated very well.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,660
27,405
898
Seattle
#17
You know who else was scary? The Indonesian military that the Reagan Administration (along with the Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton administrations) supplied with weapons and equipment with the explicit knowledge that they'd be used against the people of East Timor during Indonesia's oppressive, almost genocidal occupation of that country -- all in the name of anti-Communism. Just as scary were Saddam Hussein and the Contras in Nicaragua that the Reagan Administration helped arm and, in the latter case, enthusiastically supported and defended.

What's more frightening than any of that (from a US-centric point of view, anyway) was the transformation of the War on Drugs under the Reagan Administration into an actual war zealously waged against the American public, the Constitution, the criminal justice system, and the very idea of self-ownership.

All in all, the Reagan years were a dark time for liberty and small government.
And all of that was secondary to fighting off communism.

I will never excuse the war on drugs. A misinformed government making misinformed decisions. But that doesn't change the fact that the soviets were the single greatest threat to the world at the time. Any measures to stop them were acceptable. Yes, including Vietnam.

It's just unfortunate that we could not foresee the future problems that it would cause.

I don't care what you think of the minutia of his policy, sometimes obviously flawed, he's still the best president since FDR through today.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,170
12,938
373
Atlanta, GA
#18
Any measures to stop them were acceptable.
Even behaving like monsters ourselves (e.g., the East Timor thing)? The problem with that way of thinking is that at some point, you lose sight of and forget the reason for opposing Communism in the first place. What is the point of fighting for freedom and justice if you're willing to completely sacrifice freedom and justice to achieve that end?
 

WadsOfShit

Dead to Everyone on Wackbag.
Oct 10, 2013
7,023
5,902
158
#19
I like how no one mentions the Elephant in The Room size blunder Reagan made when he made the decision for the US to help create and arm the Mujahideen through the CIA program Operation Cyclone during the Soviet Afghan War, which helped to create all the wonderful zealous Islamic terrorist groups we now fight in the Taliban, al-Shabaab, and al-Qaeda. So yeah, real good job Ronald Wilson Reagan.
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
18,859
5,679
768
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#20
I like how no one mentions the Elephant in The Room size blunder Reagan made when he made the decision for the US to help create and arm the Mujahideen through the CIA program Operation Cyclone during the Soviet Afghan War, which helped to create all the wonderful zealous Islamic terrorist groups we now fight in the Taliban, al-Shabaab, and al-Qaeda. So yeah, real good job Ronald Wilson Reagan.
The only mistake there was that we left as soon as the Soviets did, and didn't help establish a stable government. We created a power vacuum and then acted surprised when the lunatics filled it.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,765
36,928
628
In a porn tree
#21
The Soviet army was so scary that they got their butts whipped by a bunch of sand negroes with sticks.

Color me unimpressed.
Not so much.

The cossacks annihilated the fuck out of those sand Npersons... to the tune of about half a MILLION of them slaughtered Vs. about 15,000 dead Ivans.

The Afghanis didn't "beat" the Rooskies... what happened was the Rooskie realized that the Afghanis wouldn't ever give up no matter how hard they beat them... so they just left.
 

WadsOfShit

Dead to Everyone on Wackbag.
Oct 10, 2013
7,023
5,902
158
#22
The only mistake there was that we left as soon as the Soviets did, and didn't help establish a stable government. We created a power vacuum and then acted surprised when the lunatics filled it.
We had no right to arm the Mujahideen in the first place. Because even if the USA continued to have the CIA work with the Mujahideen to win the Soviet-Afghan war AND the Afghan Civil War (which the Mujahideen did win), do you honestly think we could have gone through the nation building process and establish a stable government with the leaders of the Mujahideen? We couldn't establish a stable government in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War with Ngo Dinh Diem. How would the US have done it with a bunch of radical Islamic warlords? It's was not possible. The ONLY reason the Mujahideen warlords worked together was do to their common hatred for the Soviet Union's disrespect for Islamic law.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#23
We had no right to arm the Mujahideen in the first place. Because even if the USA continued to have the CIA work with the Mujahideen to win the Soviet-Afghan war AND the Afghan Civil War (which the Mujahideen did win), do you honestly think we could have gone through the nation building process and establish a stable government with the leaders of the Mujahideen? We couldn't establish a stable government in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War with Ngo Dinh Diem. How would the US have done it with a bunch of radical Islamic warlords? It's was not possible. The ONLY reason the Mujahideen warlords worked together was do to their common hatred for the Soviet Union's disrespect for Islamic law.
I think you're confused. First off, The US armed people like Ahmad Shah Massoud, a Mujahideen and later Northern Alliance commander assassinated by Al Qaeda on September 9, 2001. He was not a radical Islamist, he was a moderate fighting against the Taliban (a Pakistani group that had nothing to do with the Mujahideen who fought the Soviet occupation) and Al-Qaeda (a Sunni Arab terrorist organization, not even Afghans).

Second, the reason why Massoud failed to establish a stable government was Pakistani interference, and our failure to continue to support him. Had we supported him, the civil war would've never happened, the Taliban would've never come to power, and Al-Qaeda would've never been able to use Afghanistan to stage 9/11. And defeating the Taliban, and helping the Kabul government stabilize Afghanistan, is still crucial to our security.

Third, what does "we didn't have the right to arm the Mujahideen" even mean?
 

WadsOfShit

Dead to Everyone on Wackbag.
Oct 10, 2013
7,023
5,902
158
#24
I think you're confused. First off, The US armed people like Ahmad Shah Massoud, a Mujahideen and later Northern Alliance commander assassinated by Al Qaeda on September 9, 2001. He was not a radical Islamist, he was a moderate fighting against the Taliban (a Pakistani group that had nothing to do with the Mujahideen who fought the Soviet occupation) and Al-Qaeda (a Sunni Arab terrorist organization, not even Afghans).

Second, the reason why Massoud failed to establish a stable government was Pakistani interference, and our failure to continue to support him. Had we supported him, the civil war would've never happened, the Taliban would've never come to power, and Al-Qaeda would've never been able to use Afghanistan to stage 9/11. And defeating the Taliban, and helping the Kabul government stabilize Afghanistan, is still crucial to our security.

Third, what does "we didn't have the right to arm the Mujahideen" even mean?
First off, Massoud was one of 11 military leaders in the Mujahideen. And even though Massoud wasn't a radical, a decent portion of the leaders which included Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani were. And it doesn't matter where the leaders came from, since the Mujahideen was essentially CIA trained mercenaries meant to repel the Soviet installed government in Kabul.

Second, while I agree the US should have strong armed Pakistan out of the Afghan Civil War waged in '96, there was no way the United States could politically oppose Pakistan especially since Iran was backing Massoud and would never allow the US to support the same side Iran supported. So the United States really was stuck between a rock and a hard place until 9/11, when they could openly join the side of Massoud's army (even though Massoud was dead) due to the fact Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Omar became enemies of the US in the global war on terror.

Thirdly, what I meant by the words "we didn't have the right to arm the Mujahideen" is that it was hypocritical of the United States to fund the Mujahideen and remove the dictator of Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the US had been interfering in the region since the 1950's when we re-installed the Shah as the leader of Iran and had been backing militant dictator after militant dictator since that point as a part of Cold War politics. But when the Soviets go to install a dictator in the country of Afghanistan, we had to immediately try to remove that presence by creating the Mujahideen starting a proxy war the way the Vietnamese and the Soviets did in South Vietnam with the Viet Cong.

All I am saying is that I don't agree with the methods and the hypocrisy that came with that time in the Cold War with all the proxy fights between the Soviet Union and the United States.