NationStates Jolt Archive


Did the wrong side win the Cold War?

Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 07:22
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.
Trystrom
11-10-2008, 07:28
yeah because they are doing so well financialy...just look at Latin America if you want to know what nationalizing you economy will do
Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 07:29
The Soviets managed to avoid the entire Great Depression, and even made strong growth during the period. What happened to the US, again? The Soviets could have saved us from this disaster.
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 07:32
yeah because they are doing so well financialy...just look at Latin America if you want to know what nationalizing you economy will do

Well, the UK's not doing that bad, and we've nationalised a few things, including banks.
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 07:33
But to the question, maybe, if the Soviets had taken all or most of the rich world. Communism is more likely to work if there aren't other big economies blocking you out.
Babylonious
11-10-2008, 07:40
The Soviets managed to avoid the entire Great Depression, and even made strong growth during the period. What happened to the US, again? The Soviets could have saved us from this disaster.

Perhaps you should do a little more research on this fantastical economy you are imagining.

I get it though. America bad. Well done.
Tygereyes
11-10-2008, 07:42
Well.... wouldn't go that far.

The only reason why the US won the Cold War was because we out spent them and when they tried to keep up their economy collapsed.

This war in Iraq helped to bankrupt the US for one. And no one wanting to pay their share on the war. Only an idiot would say let's go to war but let's keep tax breaks low on everyone and lets borrow money to fund it instead as a long term solution. No one likes to pay the bills but someone sometime has to pay for it sometime down the line.

The loaning and lending policies were too far open in the US, gee I wonder why? With a president who loves to spend borrowed money, what a prime example for the rest of it's citizenery to do the same damn thing.

Anyway, the messed up banking and finacal sector messed up the US big time, and I should say globally. So all the other countries can thank the US for their debt because of the global market, and the big postion the US takes.

But back to the Cold War, you'd think these idiot politicans would learn from history.... but they never do. *sighs*
Ryadn
11-10-2008, 07:46
Perhaps you should do a little more research on this fantastical economy you are imagining.

I get it though. America bad. Well done.

The troll has eaten, we can all move on with our lives.
Babylonious
11-10-2008, 07:51
The troll has eaten, we can all move on with our lives.

Sorry. Mouthbreathers are irresistable to me.
Anti-Social Darwinism
11-10-2008, 07:58
The troll has eaten, we can all move on with our lives.

Trolls are notorious for their insatiable appetites.
Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 08:02
Anything's better than the US, right now.
Bokkiwokki
11-10-2008, 08:02
Did the wrong side win the Cold War?

Of course not, the sun won brilliantly, hence this current global warming thingy!
Babylonious
11-10-2008, 08:03
Trolls are notorious for their insatiable appetites.

Indeed. And their constant belching.

Anything's better than the US, right now.

Seriously. Are you living in the United States? If so, tell me what is so horrendous about your life.
Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 08:06
Seriously. Are you living in the United States? If so, tell me what is so horrendous about your life.

Any side that would vote for somebody like Obama is the enemy. I'd side with Iran, North Korea or Nazi Germany over the US right now.
Babylonious
11-10-2008, 08:09
Any side that would vote for somebody like Obama is the enemy. I'd side with Iran, North Korea or Nazi Germany over the US right now.

Uh huh.
Tygereyes
11-10-2008, 08:15
Any side that would vote for somebody like Obama is the enemy. I'd side with Iran, North Korea or Nazi Germany over the US right now.


I know I am asking for it....feeding a troll. But how *exactly* is Obama the enemy?

Ooooh I know he's black umm *coughs* add any racial slur you want.

He's an Arab and that makes him bad.

Or let me guess the bible says he's the Anti-Christ and it's states it in the book of Revelations.

Or he had a casual almost non-existant relationship with a former radical, terrorist who did all his anti-government stuff when Obama was only a wee potato tot.

Anyway.... if you don't like the man and if the elections do go for him, you could just leave. You heard McCain say earlier he's not a bad guy, and he's a decent man. So get off your hate mongering....
Dimesa
11-10-2008, 08:19
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

Hell no.
Cannot think of a name
11-10-2008, 08:21
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=charlietunauc5.jpg
Lord Tothe
11-10-2008, 08:21
Ever since at least 1913, the US has been sliding toward Fascism. the problems we faced during the Great Depression, the many recessions since, and the current economic turmoil were supposedly going to be prevented by the Federal Reserve System and a managed economy. Government-regulated industry has failed, and yet the solution is always more government regulation to fix the problem. No thanks.

The Soviet system is utterly abhorrent. People are considered to be just another resource to be used up and thrown away in any dictatorial system, and it's a terrible thing to be told to choose between Hitler and Stalin. I don't want a government that controls my life, my education, my travels, my business, or anything else. Unfortunately, the US government continues to seize ever more power and slides the Constitution further into the paper shredder. Both parties are to blame.
Lunatic Goofballs
11-10-2008, 08:27
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

The leadership was the worst part of their system. :p
Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 08:30
I know I am asking for it....feeding a troll. But how *exactly* is Obama the enemy?

Ooooh I know he's black umm *coughs* add any racial slur you want.

He's an Arab and that makes him bad.

Or let me guess the bible says he's the Anti-Christ and it's states it in the book of Revelations.

Or he had a casual almost non-existant relationship with a former radical, terrorist who did all his anti-government stuff when Obama was only a wee potato tot.

Anyway.... if you don't like the man and if the elections do go for him, you could just leave. You heard McCain say earlier he's not a bad guy, and he's a decent man. So get off your hate mongering....

Anybody foolish enough to put that man in charge of Earth should have their voting rights revoked. I'd rather Stalin, and Stalin actually purged some of my family members.
Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 08:31
The leadership was the worst part of their system. :p

How? There was no voting. The most efficient guy always seized power. Works for me.
Cameroi
11-10-2008, 08:35
both 'sides' (if they even really were opposing sides, other then for show and to con their respective populaces) were 'wrong'. over simplifications are easy, and it IS absolutely true that america is NOT "god's kingdom on earth" nor "god's gift" to humanity nor the universe.

procustianism is no paradise, but makiavellianism IS destroying the only planet humans of earth have to live on. what really appears to have won that 'shouldn't have, and i think, really it appears to have been only a temporary 'win' at that, is popular emotional attatchment to a number of big lies.

biggest of these, of course, is that fanatical makiavellianism is in any way shape or manor ultimately sustainable. the second, and the one we've been all to familiar with for just about all of the 60 years i've been alive, is the pretense that everything that isn't makiavellianism has to be procustianism or worse.

yes, today's america is just harmful, if not possibly more so, then, if the old u.s.s.r. had prevailed it would have been. but lets not kid ourselves, of course that wouldn't have been any panacea either.

what we've got to learn to understand, if we want humanity to survive, is that the choice isn't between makiavellianism and procustianism, but between a sane and responsible ecotopianism, or the natural consiquence of rejecting it, which IS the collective mass suicide of the human species
Shofercia
11-10-2008, 08:38
Wait a sec. First off, no one won the Cold War, the Soviets lost. Also, let's take a look at Soviet Leaders: Lenin (well ok) Stalin (fuck no) Khruchev (well ok) Brezhnev (fuck, fuck no) Gorbachev (fuck no). That's 2 ok leaders and 3 horrendous leaders. Something's gotta be wrong with that system.

Now as for the US: "if you do not learn from history, then history repeats itself". Here we go: 1920's - hurrah, deregulation, woohoo, freedom to banks, unsafe loans to homeowners (farmers) hurrah, Roaring 20s! And in the 1930's - hello Great Depression! Then comes FDR and Truman and Ike and JFK. US THRIVES. Then JFK gets assasinated - hurrah, deregulations, woohoo, power to banks, rise to the military industrial comples, invading countries on bullshit pretences! BOOM - 1970's crash! Then come the Reagan years, woohoo, hurrah, it's the 1980's, freedom, Cold War victory, deregulation, expansion of military industrial complex, Star Wars Plan, Clinton Years, NAFTA, unchecked borrowing, Bush Jr, complete deregulation - CRASH! Wow, that's 3 times in one century. (1920-2020). And here we go again! Just look at the Bailout, study it and let me know if it makes you vomit.
The Alma Mater
11-10-2008, 08:39
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

THIS financial crisis would indeed not happen. But the Soviet Union was extremely inefficient due to its "five year plans" and wasteful management of natural resources. So the end results would have been the same.

Of course, I never understood why those silly five year plans were implemented anyway. What could possibly the use be of refusing to adapt ?
The Alma Mater
11-10-2008, 08:41
Anybody foolish enough to put that man in charge of Earth should have their voting rights revoked. I'd rather Stalin, and Stalin actually purged some of my family members.

You know - I feel the exact same way about Palin. Funny how that works :)
Tygereyes
11-10-2008, 08:42
Anybody foolish enough to put that man in charge of Earth should have their voting rights revoked. I'd rather Stalin, and Stalin actually purged some of my family members.


Whatever you say sweetie....

You've obviously been brainwashed by your own BS.

Good Night and Good Luck.
Shofercia
11-10-2008, 08:42
You know - I feel the exact same way about Palin. Funny how that works :)

Win!
Imperial isa
11-10-2008, 08:44
Anybody foolish enough to put that man in charge of Earth

what are you on,as when on earth has this turn to Every one on earth voting on who runs the Earth
BunnySaurus Bugsii
11-10-2008, 08:44
Neither side won. It wasn't that kind of "war."
Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 08:48
You know - I feel the exact same way about Palin. Funny how that works :)

You do know that your not actually voting for Palin, right? She's completely irrelevant.

what are you on,as when on earth has this turn to Every one on earth voting on who runs the Earth

Oh please, everybody knows the US is in complete control. They may be dangerous and psychotic, but Iran, North Korea and Russia are the real heroes for standing up to them.
--Aleutia--
11-10-2008, 08:53
They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

Yeah and that's why they collapsed.
Try to live in a communist country before talking about how good they are pal.
Think about getting in line every morning just to get barely enough food for your family.
The good thing is you don't have to compete with your coworker and you don't even have to criticize your leader when they screw up your tax money.

Damn! Living in a communist country for 20 years surely have made me less of a dreamer.
Shofercia
11-10-2008, 08:53
You do know that your not actually voting for Palin, right? She's completely irrelevant.



Oh please, everybody knows the US is in complete control. They may be dangerous and psychotic, but Iran, North Korea and Russia are the real heroes for standing up to them.

Do you know that McCain is about to hit the bucket and Palin could be President? Also, how's North Korea heroic?

Funny how you put Russia into the "Axis of Evil". As for Iran, I don't think Iran's that bad, unless someone could show me actual ties between Iran and Taliban.
Cameroi
11-10-2008, 08:55
Wait a sec. First off, no one won the Cold War, the Soviets lost. Also, let's take a look at Soviet Leaders: Lenin (well ok) Stalin (fuck no) Khruchev (well ok) Brezhnev (fuck, fuck no) Gorbachev (fuck no). That's 2 ok leaders and 3 horrendous leaders. Something's gotta be wrong with that system.

Now as for the US: "if you do not learn from history, then history repeats itself". Here we go: 1920's - hurrah, deregulation, woohoo, freedom to banks, unsafe loans to homeowners (farmers) hurrah, Roaring 20s! And in the 1930's - hello Great Depression! Then comes FDR and Truman and Ike and JFK. US THRIVES. Then JFK gets assasinated - hurrah, deregulations, woohoo, power to banks, rise to the military industrial comples, invading countries on bullshit pretences! BOOM - 1970's crash! Then come the Reagan years, woohoo, hurrah, it's the 1980's, freedom, Cold War victory, deregulation, expansion of military industrial complex, Star Wars Plan, Clinton Years, NAFTA, unchecked borrowing, Bush Jr, complete deregulation - CRASH! Wow, that's 3 times in one century. (1920-2020). And here we go again! Just look at the Bailout, study it and let me know if it makes you vomit.

somebody noticed!

and that's just THIS (recent 20th) century. simular cycles took place in the 19th century too!

and there IS/could be, a sane middle ground, and i think what europe had going for it from the 50s, pretty much up through the 80s, while both sides around them were moving toward further extremes, while not a perfect example, i don't think there are perfect anythings, is, for the most part a pretty good one.

and there are a million zillion other possibilities no one (on THIS earth) has ever (yet) thought of too. or rather, no one, almost no one, has dared come up with anything that wasn't makiavellian, because, and or if they did, it would be/was, immidiately typecast as procustian, or almost as often, impossibly naieve.

the real point is we don't NEED either one, and we don't need to remain emotionally attatched to the big lie that these are the only two possibilites there can ever be.

that's where the real hope lies, to stop lying to ourselves and stop kissing the ass of either one.

and yes there actually are some things (a very few), that would likely not be as bad had even the old soviet system prevailed, but for the most part no. we might not be that much WORSE off if it had, we just wouldn't be THAT MUCH better off if it had ether, or at least, not in any sense we can be certain of.

but i really do believe there ARE better possibilities out there. just not practiced as governments commonly as yet on this earth.
Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 08:56
Do you know that McCain is about to hit the bucket and Palin could be President? Also, how's North Korea heroic?

Funny how you put Russia into the "Axis of Evil". As for Iran, I don't think Iran's that bad, unless someone could show me actual ties between Iran and Taliban.

Iran had the guts to develop nukes when the US said they couldn't. The same with North Korea. Russia had the whole Georgia thing, spitting right in the US's face. Gutsy and heroic, all of them.
The Alma Mater
11-10-2008, 08:59
You do know that your not actually voting for Palin, right? She's completely irrelevant.

She would become vice president if one votes for McCain. How is that irrelevant ?
BunnySaurus Bugsii
11-10-2008, 08:59
Damn! Living in a communist country for 20 years surely have made me less of a dreamer.

Is it rude of me to ask ... which communist country?
--Aleutia--
11-10-2008, 09:01
Is it rude of me to ask ... which communist country?
It's spelled Vietnam, a Soviet ally, i mean a copy of the Soviet Union.
Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 09:02
It's spelled Vietnam, a Soviet ally, i mean a copy of the Soviet Union.

See, there's another heroic country. We had a lot more of them before the Soviet Union collapsed.

She would become vice president if one votes for McCain. How is that irrelevant ?

What, if anything, does the vice president actually DO?
Laerod
11-10-2008, 09:03
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.Now that's got to be the stupidest thing I've read all day. Wishing for a system that collapsed because of placing values that were higher than their actual worth to prevent something from collapsing because of placing higher values than things were actually worth. You can't be serious.
Shofercia
11-10-2008, 09:04
somebody noticed!

and that's just THIS (recent 20th) century. simular cycles took place in the 19th century too!

and there IS/could be, a sane middle ground, and i think what europe had going for it from the 50s, pretty much up through the 80s, while both sides around them were moving toward further extremes, while not a perfect example, i don't think there are perfect anythings, is, for the most part a pretty good one.

and there are a million zillion other possibilities no one (on THIS earth) has ever (yet) thought of too. or rather, no one, almost no one, has dared come up with anything that wasn't makiavellian, because, and or if they did, it would be/was, immidiately typecast as procustian, or almost as often, impossibly naieve.

the real point is we don't NEED either one, and we don't need to remain emotionally attatched to the big lie that these are the only two possibilites there can ever be.

that's where the real hope lies, to stop lying to ourselves and stop kissing the ass of either one.

and yes there actually are some things (a very few), that would likely not be as bad had even the old soviet system prevailed, but for the most part no. we might not be that much WORSE off if it had, we just wouldn't be THAT MUCH better off if it had ether, or at least, not in any sense we can be certain of.

but i really do believe there ARE better possibilities out there. just not practiced as governments commonly as yet on this earth.

Well I worked in Sims (Simulators/Simulating stuff - similar to Hurricane Katrina's Impact in 2004 - yup Bush had a year to act on Katrina that hit in 2005) and I took this shit ass country, Burundi, and turned it into a thriving economy. Here's what I did:

1. Education - start it up and spend as much on it as you can
2. Community Policing - the most efficient way to fight crime
3. Solar Power - got US to sell me technology in exchange for the right to build a base.
4. Army downgraded to infantry with AA Guns and some trucks - don't need to spend too much on defense, the odds of someone attacking you due to your defense spending are minimal.
5. Tourism - at a later stage, when the starving country was pacified and fed, I instituted it, viola.

In all honesty it's not that hard to make your economy do wonders, most people are just not willing to do it, because they love personal gain instead.
Cameroi
11-10-2008, 09:06
as long as everyone would rather point fingers of blame then look for real solutions, we probably deserve what we get. sorry to say that. its like here we go again, in almost every thread on here, and we see it in media and in how the amarican, and presumably many other, government(s) are run.

the way in which iran is "that bad" is its treatment of Baha'is and a number of other minorities. as far as its being an actual threat to anything, no, nor is the use of military force against it at all likely to solve its real problems.

the worst it could do is lob a couple of short range nukes at israel, if it had them, which it don't and ain't gonna happen anyway.

---------------------

back on track: i like Shofercia's plan. really good solid common sense, and that's what all of us need a good dose of. i'd throw into the mix a transportation infrastructure people didn't have to indenture themselves to in order to make direct and gratifying use of.

other then that, i really think it hit the essential high points, and really, you know what, that's what we SHOULD be doing in afghanistan, in iraq, and right here at home, wherever each of our homes happen to be, you know each in ways that each place can deal with on its own terms, there's no one size fits all at the level of micro fine details. it didn't dictate form of government nor ideology, nor system of belief, and i think its a good point that it didn't need to, that none of those are pertinent, those points it layed out are.

well i guess i'm rambling and don't need to, now its been said, and said well.

Shofercia's plan = win
Shofercia
11-10-2008, 09:06
What, if anything, does the vice president actually DO?

Have you studied this one person named Dick Cheney much?
Imperial isa
11-10-2008, 09:06
What, if anything, does the vice president actually DO?

take poeple out on hunting trips and shot them
The Alma Mater
11-10-2008, 09:10
What, if anything, does the vice president actually DO?

She can claim to have been a choice for running mate the voters for McCain respected. The shame would be unbearable. Better to elect "that other one" instead than to live with the idea that anyone could think there was approval of the (self censorship).

Oh - and she could replace the president if he croaks. But that is an irrelevant side issue.
Alban States
11-10-2008, 09:12
The Cold War was "fought" from a climate of mistrust by opposing political systems.As for a "Winner",it's hard to say.The West seems to have "won" but we have won nothing that we had already.If the Warsaw pact had been victorious, we would still be at war as nations overrun by invaders would have formed resistance groups and fought on or liberated themselves from dictatorship,as happened in Iron Curtain States.Communism practiced on the Russian model is the "wrong" Communism,whereby an unelected elite set themselves up to rule by fear.To conclude,war is bad for business as proved by the ill advised excursion into Iraq (second Gulf War),that poor country has now become a money pit and will take many years of "investment" to sort out.
BunnySaurus Bugsii
11-10-2008, 09:13
It's spelled Vietnam, a Soviet ally, i mean a copy of the Soviet Union.

Oh, OK. I just guessed from your name that you may have been from Kamchatka.

Would Vietnam be better, now, if the US coalition had won the Vietnam War?
Kirchensittenbach
11-10-2008, 09:15
Neither side 'won' the cold war
the USA just put a nice big bribe towards that traitor Gorbachev and he helped dissolve the Soviet Union

The Russians I have talked to about it, all hate Gorbachev, and want their beloved empire back, and I agree, because at least with the USSR at our backs, no-one came near My beloved East Germany
BunnySaurus Bugsii
11-10-2008, 09:17
*snip*

In all honesty it's not that hard to make your economy do wonders, most people are just not willing to do it, because they love personal gain instead.

Or perhaps are aware of their own tenuous grip on power. A weak government needs allies!

Sometimes the only available ally is the arms importer, or the opium cartel.
--Aleutia--
11-10-2008, 09:21
See, there's another heroic country. We had a lot more of them before the Soviet Union collapsed.

Hell yeah! We survived 40 years under the command economy model of the Soviets, during which the majority of the people barely had enough rice to fill their stomach, beef and chicken were considered luxurious, ten households shared a tv, people went to work on bicycles, and we had probably the 4th or 5th largest army in the world with no less than 900,000 standing troops.

Unfortunately some fools in the Politburo decided to adopt the filthy free market system of the capitalists, which effectively transformed our country of starving people into the second or third biggest rice exporters, plus an expanding industry and an average 8% GPD growth rate, and a reduced armed forces of less than 400,000 active troops. What a shame they decided to befriend with the American imperialists after all these years.

Oh wait, recent polls by BBC shows that 96% of the population think that corruption is OK. At least we still retain something from the glorious past, 63 years of communist rule.
Geniasis
11-10-2008, 09:22
Anything's better than the US, right now.

Really? Have fun in Sudan then. Oh? What's that? You weren't serious? Oh, you were just bullshitting. Oh that makes sense then.

Any side that would vote for somebody like Obama is the enemy.

Why? What's wrong with Obama? Give specifics.

I'd side with Iran,

I can only assume you're a heterosexual. The U.S. isn't perfectly fair about how we treat homosexuals, but if you think that we're worse than Iran at that, then you're wrong.

North Korea

Not as a peasant farmer though, right?

or Nazi Germany over the US right now.

...Is this a fucking joke? Did you just Godwin? (Godwin? More like you Godlost).

Anybody foolish enough to put that man in charge of Earth should have their voting rights revoked. I'd rather Stalin, and Stalin actually purged some of my family members.

You'd vote...for Stalin. I certainly agree that someone's rights should be revoked. Normally I'm against the idea, but you make such a wonderful exception.
Laerod
11-10-2008, 09:24
Neither side 'won' the cold war
the USA just put a nice big bribe towards that traitor Gorbachev and he helped dissolve the Soviet Union

The Russians I have talked to about it, all hate Gorbachev, and want their beloved empire back, and I agree, because at least with the USSR at our backs, no-one came near My beloved East Germany
Ooh, you've got your very own "Backstab" delusion.
Kyronea
11-10-2008, 09:39
Any side that would vote for somebody like Obama is the enemy. I'd side with Iran, North Korea or Nazi Germany over the US right now.
Lulz. Because Obama is somehow an even worse extremist than any of these governments.
Cameroi
11-10-2008, 09:43
the short answer to the topic question (mostly just a recapitualation of what others have noted) is: nobody "won" and 'both'"sides" were wrong. makiavellianism is just taking a little longer to crash.
HC Eredivisie
11-10-2008, 09:44
people went to work on bicycles
It's not like that's a bad thing.
Laerod
11-10-2008, 09:51
It's not like that's a bad thing.Not all places are as flat as the Netherlands =P
The Alma Mater
11-10-2008, 10:06
Not all places are as flat as the Netherlands =P

So ? Better exercise = less obesity ;) And much cheaper than a gym.
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 10:13
So ? no food = less obesity ;) And much cheaper than a gym.

Fixed.
BunnySaurus Bugsii
11-10-2008, 10:17
So ? Better exercise = less obesity ;) And much cheaper than a gym.

Don't overlook the advantage of not having registration plates.
The Alma Mater
11-10-2008, 10:22
Fixed.

Fraid not. Just look at those starving African children. Notice the size of their bellies ? That is what you get for not eating - all those weak muscles making you look semi-fat.
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 10:53
Fraid not. Just look at those starving African children. Notice the size of their bellies ? That is what you get for not eating - all those weak muscles making you look semi-fat.

But they're not obese, they just have swollen stomachs.
Naturality
11-10-2008, 11:02
The wrong side won the Civil War.
Laerod
11-10-2008, 11:10
The wrong side won the Civil War.Which one?
Vault 10
11-10-2008, 11:27
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won.

They did. Look at UK and Europe.
Soleichunn
11-10-2008, 11:53
Unfortunately some fools in the Politburo decided to adopt the filthy free market system of the capitalists, which effectively transformed our country of starving people into the second or third biggest rice exporters, plus an expanding industry and an average 8% GPD growth rate, and a reduced armed forces of less than 400,000 active troops. What a shame they decided to befriend with the American imperialists after all these years.

Truth be told the reason why capitalism worked for them was because they got a huge influx of income and technology. It shows what happens when you make new friends :p.

Why do they still have 400k active soldiers? Still expect the Chinese to pop over the border?
Ferrous Oxide
11-10-2008, 11:56
Why do they still have 400k active soldiers? Still expect the Chinese to pop over the border?

Considering their history... yes. They don't exactly have the most stable neighbours either.
Dregruk
11-10-2008, 12:13
Considering their history... yes. They don't exactly have the most stable neighbours either.

Shouldn't you be moving to North Korea right about now, rather than continuing on as one of the 151st Fighting Keyboards? Troll on, Potato Factory. You're so very sub-par.
Zhengri
11-10-2008, 12:40
Ferrous, were you paying attention in the 17 years ago? The Soviet collapse was primarily economic. All societies have their ups and downs and they don't always occur at the sametime.
I suppose you thought Stalin was a good leader. The purges did wonders for the Soviet Union. Finland knocked the hell out of them in the '39 war and they came close to becoming part of Hitler's Reich because a large chunck of their officer corps was either were fertilizing some field in the Ukraine or rotting in Siberia. 20 to 27 Million Soviets died in that war and the purges before the war. A good thing maybe for population control but a horrible thing if you are one of the unlucky ones becoming the honored dead.
Take a closer look at the data on the Soviet economy during the depression and you will see large disparities throughout the population. You will also see that while the Soviets did make some gains their nation was starting from being a land filled with farm working peasants in a war wrecked economy. Even a minor level of industrialization would have been an improvement. "If you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to lose" - Bob Dylan
Fnordgasm 5
11-10-2008, 12:40
They did. Look at UK and Europe.

You mean the way both the UK and Europe are capitalists?
Vault 10
11-10-2008, 13:46
You mean the way both the UK and Europe are capitalists?
More along the lines they vaguely remember trying to be a) capitalist, and b) free.

Oppressive laws, onset of socializm...
Dumb Ideologies
11-10-2008, 13:48
More along the lines they vaguely remember trying to be a) capitalist, and b) free.

Oppressive laws, onset of socializm...

Wait...just checking...you are kidding here, right?
Conserative Morality
11-10-2008, 13:51
*Sends FO to Siberia* What was that?
Vault 10
11-10-2008, 13:56
Wait...just checking...you are kidding here, right?

I'm calling a Commie Alert.
Dumb Ideologies
11-10-2008, 14:03
I'm calling a Commie Alert.

Gah, I hate it when I can't be 100% sure if someone's joking or not:(
Hurdegaryp
11-10-2008, 15:13
Win!

Well, Palin does rhyme with Stalin. If things had turned out differently, Stalin would have become a priest, so there's even something of a religious connection. Both persons are/were also rather fanatical and quite capable of making disastrous decisions.

And on with the absurd flaming... everything must burn!
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 15:16
They did. Look at UK and Europe.

You mean how the UK really isn't and the rest of Europe is too huge an area to generalise? Then yeah, you're right.
Ashmoria
11-10-2008, 15:17
Hell yeah! We survived 40 years under the command economy model of the Soviets, during which the majority of the people barely had enough rice to fill their stomach, beef and chicken were considered luxurious, ten households shared a tv, people went to work on bicycles, and we had probably the 4th or 5th largest army in the world with no less than 900,000 standing troops.

Unfortunately some fools in the Politburo decided to adopt the filthy free market system of the capitalists, which effectively transformed our country of starving people into the second or third biggest rice exporters, plus an expanding industry and an average 8% GPD growth rate, and a reduced armed forces of less than 400,000 active troops. What a shame they decided to befriend with the American imperialists after all these years.

Oh wait, recent polls by BBC shows that 96% of the population think that corruption is OK. At least we still retain something from the glorious past, 63 years of communist rule.
do you still live in vietnam?
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 15:18
do you still live in vietnam?

No, he said earlier that he lived there for 20 years. Lived being past tense.
Intestinal fluids
11-10-2008, 15:21
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

Yes, i dream of the opportunity to wait in long lines for hours or days for toilet paper and stale bread.

You must be too young to remember, and im not really sure how much Russia has whitewashed that part of their history.

I remember when i was young, a woman was visiting from Russia and went into a regular grocery store and was stunned and asked me if it was a Party store because she had never seen such goods amassed in one place and assumed that it was a store for members of the government. Time period if im recalling correctly was early 1980s.
Seathornia
11-10-2008, 15:31
They did. Look at UK and Europe.

The slow and steady decline of the communist parties versus the socialist parties disagrees with you.
Hurdegaryp
11-10-2008, 15:38
The wrong side won the Civil War.

Let me guess, your ancestors were slave owners?
Vault 10
11-10-2008, 16:26
The slow and steady decline of the communist parties versus the socialist parties disagrees with you.

Oh, it more than agrees. The Soviet Union has never been communist. It has always been socialist. Communism was no more than background for the most utopian of their science fiction.
Herasia
11-10-2008, 16:40
Mate, you've gone mad.

How the hell do you support the USSR? Do you want to get into line for two days for a cabbage? Do you want to be in a death camp?

Do you know what **** the USSR did to its citizens?
Soviet KLM Empire
11-10-2008, 17:24
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

Yes, the worng side did.

Get ready for round 2!
Gauthier
11-10-2008, 17:31
Is it just me, or is NSG's ecology trying to fill in the vacuum left behind by Angry Internet Stalinist?
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 17:35
The wrong side won the Civil War.

The English one of the 1100s? The English one of the 1400s? 1600s? American? Russian? The list goes on.
The Atlantian islands
11-10-2008, 18:22
The leadership was the worst part of their system. :p
Well that, and the basic idea and principle they used to form their government....
Wait a sec. First off, no one won the Cold War, the Soviets lost.
I've heard that alot, mostly on left-dominated NSG, and I'd like to take time out to correct it.

How can it be anything other than victory when the two sides were fighting for ideological control of whether the global preference would be democracy or dictatorship and command economy or market economy? How can it be anything other than victory when the Soviets and the Americans both fought for ideological control of the planet (or most of it anyway). How can it be anything other than victory when the Soviet Union collapses in it's attempt to keep up with America's production, loses MOST of it's former influence in Eastern Europe, which then turns pro-Western, capitalist and democratic, the market economy becomes the global economy and nations that try to use command economies tend to fail AND America becomes the single hyper-power following the end of the cold war....

How can it be anything other than victory?
Neither side won. It wasn't that kind of "war."
It certainly was. Russia was the enemy of America. America was the enemy of Russia. See above....
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 18:24
How can it be anything other than victory?
Got there before me

It certainly was.

American and Russian troops weren't attacking each other, so no it wasn't.
The Atlantian islands
11-10-2008, 18:24
The English one of the 1100s? The English one of the 1400s? 1600s? American? Russian? The list goes on.
Cute. If you obviously know what he's talking about, why make yourself seem overly (and unnecesarily) hostile to "America-centric" talk, when it doesn't actually do any harm and you simply hold up conversation....? I suppose next when someone talks about "The Middle East" you'll say, "well, the middle east according to who? The Chinese? The South Africa?...ect"

It gets a bit ridiculious, to be honest. In short, if you understand what he meant, why be annoying?
The Atlantian islands
11-10-2008, 18:26
Got there before me
They call me the fastes gun in the West....:p


American and Russian troops weren't attacking each other, so no it wasn't.
So? It was a war fought through other means. Covert ops, economic warfare, ideological and technological warfare. Proxy wars. Fighting through others. It was a war, just without direct America-Soviet attacks....simply to stop either side from using nukes.

Just because it's not EXACTLY the same war you're used to doesn't mean it's simply not just a different kind of war.
The Atlantian islands
11-10-2008, 18:28
Hell yeah! We survived 40 years under the command economy model of the Soviets, during which the majority of the people barely had enough rice to fill their stomach, beef and chicken were considered luxurious, ten households shared a tv, people went to work on bicycles, and we had probably the 4th or 5th largest army in the world with no less than 900,000 standing troops.

Unfortunately some fools in the Politburo decided to adopt the filthy free market system of the capitalists, which effectively transformed our country of starving people into the second or third biggest rice exporters, plus an expanding industry and an average 8% GPD growth rate, and a reduced armed forces of less than 400,000 active troops. What a shame they decided to befriend with the American imperialists after all these years.

Oh wait, recent polls by BBC shows that 96% of the population think that corruption is OK. At least we still retain something from the glorious past, 63 years of communist rule.
Indeed.:hail:
The Atlantian islands
11-10-2008, 18:29
Yes, the worng side did.

Get ready for round 2!

Aha...so you're pro-Soviet and LIKED the Soviet Union! That explains EVERYTHING....
Dumb Ideologies
11-10-2008, 18:31
Well that, and the basic idea and principle they used to form their government....

I've heard that alot, mostly on left-dominated NSG, and I'd like to take time out to correct it.

How can it be anything other than victory when the two sides were fighting for ideological control of whether the global preference would be democracy or dictatorship and command economy or market economy? How can it be anything other than victory when the Soviets and the Americans both fought for ideological control of the planet (or most of it anyway). How can it be anything other than victory when the Soviet Union collapses in it's attempt to keep up with America's production, loses MOST of it's former influence in Eastern Europe, which then turns pro-Western, capitalist and democratic, the market economy becomes the global economy and nations that try to use command economies tend to fail AND America becomes the single hyper-power following the end of the cold war....

How can it be anything other than victory?

It certainly was. Russia was the enemy of America. America was the enemy of Russia. See above....

Agreed. While the way victory was achieved was unusual (the United States and its allies didn't win militarily, as the combatants fought only in limited proxy wars), the opposing bloc collapsed after economic stagnation and failure, pressurized by the arms race. If your opponent falls and ceases to exist, you kinda have "won" the war, surely? For clarification, I'm moderately left-wing, from Europe, and often not a big fan of American policies around the world. But even I can see that the USSR lost the Cold War. It collapsed, its opponent didn't. Fact. And an astoundingly obvious one too.
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 18:33
They call me the fastes gun in the West....:p So fast his t moves at the speed of light and is invisible.


Just because it's not EXACTLY the same war you're used to doesn't mean it's simply not just a different kind of war. But that's what he said. He said "it's not that kind of war".
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 18:34
Aha...so you're pro-Soviet and LIKED the Soviet Union! That explains EVERYTHING....

Also Russian can beat China and America in a war, and the Russians "accidentally" killed civilians in Georgia while the Georgians rampaged through the entire world, killing millions.
The Atlantian islands
11-10-2008, 18:44
Agreed. While the way victory was achieved was unusual (the United States and its allies didn't win militarily, as the combatants fought only in limited proxy wars), the opposing bloc collapsed after economic stagnation and failure, pressurized by the arms race. If your opponent falls and ceases to exist, you kinda have "won" the war, surely? For clarification, I'm moderately left-wing, from Europe, and often not a big fan of American policies around the world. But even I can see that the USSR lost the Cold War. It collapsed, its opponent didn't. Fact. And an astoundingly obvious one too.
Indeed.

But that's what he said. He said "it's not that kind of war".
He also said "neither side won", which is simply incorrect.
Also Russian can beat China and America in a war, and the Russians "accidentally" killed civilians in Georgia while the Georgians rampaged through the entire world, killing millions.
:confused:
Imperial isa
11-10-2008, 18:57
:confused:

second that
Aperture Science
11-10-2008, 18:57
Thats it, I'm sending THE ENTIRE THREAD to Kolyma until you all learn to appreciate the Glorious Socialist Regime of the Soviet Union. All those who disagree will be shot until they're sorry.
Geniasis
11-10-2008, 18:58
Also Russian can beat China and America in a war, and the Russians "accidentally" killed civilians in Georgia while the Georgians rampaged through the entire world, killing millions.

The only thing that isn't horribly wrong with this sentence is the period at the end. Mind you, I'm still suspicious.
Sdaeriji
11-10-2008, 18:58
Aha...so you're pro-Soviet and LIKED the Soviet Union! That explains EVERYTHING....

I didn't realize this was some sort of secret.
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 18:59
:confused:

Yeah, sorry. You were talking to KLM and then I posted basically what he believes. Read any of his posts, it makes for a good laugh.
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 18:59
The only thing that isn't horribly wrong with this sentence is the period at the end. Mind you, I'm still suspicious.

See above.
Soleichunn
11-10-2008, 19:11
The English one of the 1100s? The English one of the 1400s? 1600s? American? Russian? The list goes on.

The Three Kingdoms War. :p
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 19:12
The Three Kingdoms War. :p

The what?
Knights of Liberty
11-10-2008, 19:13
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

It appears you know as much about history as everything else.

If the Soviet economy and leadership was so strong....they wouldnt have collapsed.
Imperial isa
11-10-2008, 19:21
The what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
Soleichunn
11-10-2008, 19:21
The what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms

I'd say the bloodiest Chinese civil 'war' (well, a series of wars), at least in percentage of population killed.

EDIT: Awww, beaten someone else (at 4:21am).
Skinny87
11-10-2008, 19:22
Hey, K-P is back!
Imperial isa
11-10-2008, 19:23
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms

I'd say the bloodiest Chinese civil 'war' (well, a series of wars), at least in percentage of population killed.

i was more thinking of what i posted, but lol
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 19:24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms

I'd say the bloodiest Chinese civil 'war' (well, a series of wars), at least in percentage of population killed.

EDIT: Awww, beaten someone else (at 4:21am).

Beaten to a different war at 7:21 pm.
Adunabar
11-10-2008, 19:25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

That's just the civil war trying muscle in on everyone else.
Imperial isa
11-10-2008, 19:27
That's just the civil war trying muscle in on everyone else.

yur how rude
Vetalia
11-10-2008, 19:52
You've got to be kidding me...they weren't kidding when they called the 1980's Soviet Union Upper Volta with missiles. Poverty, extreme income inequality and political repression, and the best part was you really couldn't emigrate unless you defected. Even East Germany, the wealthiest Communist country, was required to build a wall to keep their people from leaving.

Just look at the pictures of the Eastern Bloc during the 1980s and you'll get a good feel for their living standards.
Hurdegaryp
11-10-2008, 20:02
yur how rude

Sorry, what? I suppose you're writing English, but the lack of punctuation and the unknown word 'yur' don't make it easy to understand what you're trying to say. Maybe it's better to assume that you didn't have anything worthwhile to say anyway.
Imperial isa
11-10-2008, 20:10
Sorry, what? I suppose you're writing English, but the lack of punctuation and the unknown word 'yur' don't make it easy to understand what you're trying to say. Maybe it's better to assume that you didn't have anything worthwhile to say anyway.

sorry that yur is only used by us Australians and i don't give a rat ass about what you think ,seeing your post not worthwhile at all
Hurdegaryp
11-10-2008, 20:11
If you really didn't give a rat's ass, you wouldn't have replied, now would you?
Jocabia
11-10-2008, 20:55
Anybody foolish enough to put that man in charge of Earth should have their voting rights revoked. I'd rather Stalin, and Stalin actually purged some of my family members.

It's interesting that you claimed the President of the US rules the world in this thread and in another...

Congratulations. Your preferred candidate is going to win in an election that really decides nothing.

The US is becoming irrelevant, and Obama will be there when it happens. He's a wonder president!

When you're trolling, it's best to work out whatever position you're going to have before you start posting. That way you don't end up saying completely contradictory things like the above.
Hurdegaryp
12-10-2008, 02:45
As I said before, the lad chose for himself a fancy name, but it still means nothing but rust. When it comes to sheer malignancy, there've been more impressive trolls on this forum. Ferrous Oxide's role is more like being the fly in your cup of tea.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 06:23
It's interesting that you claimed the President of the US rules the world in this thread and in another...





When you're trolling, it's best to work out whatever position you're going to have before you start posting. That way you don't end up saying completely contradictory things like the above.

I was lying to myself. The US is in completely control of everything; they can do whatever they want. Why else do you think I don't want Obama to become President? Do you really think he won't retaliate against whites everywhere because of slavery/civil rights?
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 06:24
As I said before, the lad chose for himself a fancy name, but it still means nothing but rust. When it comes to sheer malignancy, there've been more impressive trolls on this forum. Ferrous Oxide's role is more like being the fly in your cup of tea.

Ferrous oxide isn't rust.
Vetalia
12-10-2008, 06:30
Ferrous oxide isn't rust.

Rust is comprised of ferrous oxides, but not all ferrous oxides are rust.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 06:36
Rust is comprised of ferrous oxides, but not all ferrous oxides are rust.

Rust is actually ferric oxide.
Jocabia
12-10-2008, 07:37
I was lying to myself. The US is in completely control of everything; they can do whatever they want. Why else do you think I don't want Obama to become President? Do you really think he won't retaliate against whites everywhere because of slavery/civil rights?

Uh-huh. You should get your stuff straight. You did a complete 180 on the same day. You're full of it. We know you're full of it. And you're not fooling even one of us.

Why do I honestly think you don't want Obama to become President? Do you really want to know? Because you're a racist. That's what I think. Your claim is idiotic. The suggestion that someone would retaliate against whites just because their black is blatantly racist and wildly ignorant. And, no, you don't get a pass when you admit you're just taking the piss. You're a racist.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 07:53
Of course I'm racist. I'm scared of him because he's black. He's going to attack white people everywhere to get revenge. I know I would if I was him.
Jocabia
12-10-2008, 07:55
Of course I'm racist. I'm scared of him because he's black. He's going to attack white people everywhere to get revenge. I know I would if I was him.

Come on, at least make this fun for us. Pretend to be someone we can actually at least remotely believe is real.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 07:57
Come on, at least make this fun for us. Pretend to be someone we can actually at least remotely believe is real.

What, am I speaking French here?
Jocabia
12-10-2008, 09:05
What, am I speak French here?

Actually, it seems you're not entirely correctly using any language here.
Hamilay
12-10-2008, 09:09
Well shit, Ferrous' trolling has really gone downhill. Andaras did the DEATH TO AMERIKA shtick much better than you did, give up now.
Aperture Science
12-10-2008, 09:15
Actually, it seems you're not entirely correctly using any language here.

NANI? :eek:
Skinny87
12-10-2008, 09:26
Of course I'm racist. I'm scared of him because he's black. He's going to attack white people everywhere to get revenge. I know I would if I was him.

Oh, K-P, you wag. First it was the immigrants, then it was the Russians. Now it's the blacks who are going to destroy white culture?

Come on man, have a little variety. Something believable, like Lizard-men, or aliens.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 09:39
Oh, K-P, you wag. First it was the immigrants, then it was the Russians. Now it's the blacks who are going to destroy white culture?

Come on man, have a little variety. Something believable, like Lizard-men, or aliens.

Are you honestly saying that you wouldn't attack whites if you were Obama?
Anti-Social Darwinism
12-10-2008, 09:41
Are you honestly saying that you wouldn't attack whites if you were Obama?

I suppose he'd start with his mother and maternal grandparents.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 09:49
I suppose he'd start with his mother and maternal grandparents.

Pfhhh, just having white family members wouldn't make Obama consider himself white.
Skinny87
12-10-2008, 10:07
Are you honestly saying that you wouldn't attack whites if you were Obama?

I can't even begin to fathom how you can seriously, legitimately, even make that point or believe it to be true.

Why would Obama 'attack whites' when he was President? What possible motivation would he have?
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 10:10
I can't even begin to fathom how you can seriously, legitimately, even make that point or believe it to be true.

Why would Obama 'attack whites' when he was President? What possible motivation would he have?

Revenge? They did have that whole slavery and civil rights thing.
Skinny87
12-10-2008, 10:17
Revenge? They did have that whole slavery and civil rights thing.

What?

I just...

No, of course he wouldn't. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Much like the rest of your ideas, come to think of it.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 10:31
It makes plenty of sense. I would if I was him.
The Alma Mater
12-10-2008, 10:31
What?

I just...

No, of course he wouldn't. That makes absolutely no sense at all.


Of course it makes sense. FO would take revenge, therefor everybody would. After all, it is not possible that other people are just that much more mature.

It is similar to the reasoning of some believers that all atheists must be without morals - after all, if the Believer did not fear God as much there would be no reason for them to not plunder, pillage and rape. That other people might not be so primitive is of course an unacceptable idea to them.
Dumb Ideologies
12-10-2008, 10:35
It makes plenty of sense. I would if I was him.

He'll take his revenge through his taxation of all the rich whites, he will steal their property and give it to his people. ZOMG!!! BLACK CONSPIRACY!!! WHY HAD I NOT SEEN THIS BEFORE??? The scales have fallen from my eyes. Thank you, Ferous Oxide, thank you.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 10:40
He'll take his revenge through his taxation of all the rich whites, he will steal their property and give it to his people. ZOMG!!! BLACK CONSPIRACY!!! WHY HAD I NOT SEEN THIS BEFORE??? The scales have fallen from my eyes. Thank you, Ferous Oxide, thank you.

Actually, I'd just bomb the south into oblivion. Or wherever whites live. Like Europe.
Dumb Ideologies
12-10-2008, 10:40
Actually, I'd just bomb the south into oblivion. Or wherever whites live. Like Europe.

Yup, that could only turn out well.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 10:44
Yup, that could only turn out well.

If the US wanted to attack Europe, that war wouldn't last very long. Europe is helpless.
Dumb Ideologies
12-10-2008, 10:50
If the US wanted to attack Europe, that war wouldn't last very long. Europe is helpless.

It would be nowhere near as easy as you suggest. Especially as rival countries like Russia and China would hardly sit by and let America increase its power. Horror at the US's actions would mean it would quite quickly turn into America vs. almost the entire rest of the world. Then there's the small fact that most of the US population would refuse to participate in the war.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 11:00
It would be nowhere near as easy as you suggest. Especially as rival countries like Russia and China would hardly sit by and let America increase its power. Horror at the US's actions would mean it would quite quickly turn into America vs. almost the entire rest of the world. Then there's the small fact that most of the US population would refuse to participate in the war.

I dunno, the people of the US would listen to Obama. Everybody listens to Obama.
Dumb Ideologies
12-10-2008, 11:02
I dunno, the people of the US would listen to Obama. Everybody listens to Obama.

You've framed this as a war of blacks against whites. So before Obama destroys the whites of America he first destroys Europe on a racial basis, with the full support and participation of the whites? That would be a hard sell.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 11:09
Ever heard of mamluks? He doesn't need American whites to support him, he'll just use them.
Dumb Ideologies
12-10-2008, 11:17
Ever heard of mamluks? He doesn't need American whites to support him, he'll just use them.

Hmm...he might get overthrown by the white majority if he tried this.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 11:18
Hmm...he might get overthrown by the white majority if he tried this.

Why do you think he has Biden? He's like Dr.Breen or something. He'll convince the whites to just take it.
Dumb Ideologies
12-10-2008, 11:21
Why do you think he has Biden? He's like Dr.Breen or something. He's convince the whites to just take it.

Really? The only thing he can convince me to do is fall asleep whenever he starts talking:p
Newer Burmecia
12-10-2008, 11:39
This thread makes my brain hurt.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 11:41
This thread makes my brain hurt.

Sorry, I'm usually better at hiding my paranoia with a web of lies.
Jocabia
12-10-2008, 14:59
Revenge? They did have that whole slavery and civil rights thing.

Uh, you realize that the black side of Obama's family wasn't here for that. No one in his ancestery was a slave or here pre-civil rights. The side of his family that is from America is white.
Nova Magna Germania
12-10-2008, 15:05
i've been thinking about it lately, and i think i'd be a lot happier if the soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

lol
Exilia and Colonies
12-10-2008, 15:12
Europe is helpless.

You forget it has nukes
Copiosa Scotia
12-10-2008, 15:32
FO, I wish you'd stop. No one likes a sore loser.
Ghroutesk
12-10-2008, 15:44
About the whole Russia winning the Cold War thing, Russia collapsed because Socialism is an unworkable system because choice will eventually win out.

And about the whole financial crisis, I can't speak for the rest of the world, but the US's crisis was started by the whole "equality in lending" legislation passed in the 90's and it's caught up to us now. Basically, it said that banks couldn't deny a loan based on income, which is ridiculous because how are the banks going to get their money back?
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 15:58
Uh, you realize that the black side of Obama's family wasn't here for that. No one in his ancestery was a slave or here pre-civil rights. The side of his family that is from America is white.

Yeah, I'm sure that makes a difference.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 15:59
You forget it has nukes

Oh yeah, they're going to use them. :rolleyes:
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 16:00
FO, I wish you'd stop. No one likes a sore loser.

Said the Nazi to the Jew.
Exilia and Colonies
12-10-2008, 16:06
Oh yeah, they're going to use them. :rolleyes:

If countries with nukes are so helpless why haven't we trashed North Korea yet?
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 16:08
If countries with nukes are so helpless why haven't we trashed North Korea yet?

North Korea isn't European. They have balls.
Soleichunn
12-10-2008, 16:09
Oh yeah, they're going to use them. :rolleyes:
That's the reason why they have them... You know, MAD doctrine?

If countries with nukes are so helpless why haven't we trashed North Korea yet?

Well NK already had one of the largest concentrations of artillery aimed in the world at Seoul, ready to fire.
Ferrous Oxide
12-10-2008, 16:17
That's the reason why they have them... You know, MAD doctrine?

The Europeans wouldn't fight back if the enemy was already in Berlin and Paris.
Psychotic Mongooses
12-10-2008, 16:22
This thread makes my brain hurt.

Pass me the aspirin when you're done.

*massages temples*
[NS]Ermarian
12-10-2008, 16:27
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

I'm sorry for having to contradict you there, because I myself am, if not a communist, then an outspoken socialist at least (though I think both the former Soviet and the Chinese governments are pretty nasty).

Your concept of the Soviets "losing" the cold war is flawed in the sense that their "defeat" was neither militaristic nor by chance. It was economic and predictable many years in advance. Their economy was militarized to unsustainable levels. The USSR didn't lose because of proxy-war games in Cuba or Afghanistan, they mostly lost because they went bankrupt.

The "financial crisis crap" happened to them decades ago.
Soleichunn
12-10-2008, 17:06
I wonder how much of their military spending was devoted to nuke, airforce, ground based AA systems, research and general policing groups. It seems like all they needed was a decent airforce (+ground AA), nuclear missile system and a civil suppression army.
Yootopia
12-10-2008, 17:21
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won.
Nah.
They had a good leadership system in place
What, all the time and at every level? They had good and bad premiers, local leaders and council leaders, just as the rest of the world had good and bad presidents/prime ministers and lower officials.
and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.
Quite, we'd just be broke all the time.
Exilia and Colonies
12-10-2008, 17:32
The Europeans wouldn't fight back if the enemy was already in Berlin and Paris.

Of course not... You nuke the invasion fleet...
Copiosa Scotia
12-10-2008, 17:44
Said the Nazi to the Jew.

Frankly, the fact that you think so lightly of mass genocide that you'd compare your plight to that of a Jew in Nazi Germany is appalling.

Then again, you're trolling, so that's probably just what you were going for.
Jocabia
12-10-2008, 17:49
Generally good to read your own source.

Iron(II) oxide should not be confused with rust, which usually consists of hydrated iron(III) oxide (ferric oxide).

Iron oxide is ferrous oxide. Rust is ferric oxide. According to YOUR source.
Tuxu
12-10-2008, 18:02
I've been thinking about it lately, and I think I'd be a lot happier if the Soviets won. They had a good leadership system in place, and this financial crisis crap wouldn't be happening.

XD, good one. It WAS a joke, right?

Now, young man tell me this, why would "a good leadership" need a gulag?
Why would "a good leadership" deliver minorities into nazi hands?
And why would "a good leadership" which can avoid "this financial crisis crap" would not survive the test of time?

why?

Because soviet communism *IZ MAID oV FAIL*!

That's why.

Uvidimsia!
The_pantless_hero
12-10-2008, 19:16
Now, young man tell me this, why would "a good leadership" need a gulag?
*cough* camp x-ray *cough*

Why would "a good leadership" deliver minorities into nazi hands?
Indeed, why did the US refuse to save more Jews?

And why would "a good leadership" which can avoid "this financial crisis crap" would not survive the test of time?
Sideline sparring with the other superpower?
Velka Morava
12-10-2008, 19:49
Yeah and that's why they collapsed.
Try to live in a communist country before talking about how good they are pal.
Think about getting in line every morning just to get barely enough food for your family.
The good thing is you don't have to compete with your coworker and you don't even have to criticize your leader when they screw up your tax money.

Damn! Living in a communist country for 20 years surely have made me less of a dreamer.

Just curious... Wich one?
Because my memories are not so grim.
Andaluciae
12-10-2008, 20:02
The Soviets managed to avoid the entire Great Depression, and even made strong growth during the period. What happened to the US, again? The Soviets could have saved us from this disaster.

I'll see your Great Depression, and raise you the first purge.

And there's more where that came from.
Andaluciae
12-10-2008, 20:10
*cough* camp x-ray *cough*

As morally awful as Camp X-Ray is, the differences between it and the Gulag system make the two entirely incomparable.

As misguided as it is, X-Ray is an attempt to confront fringe elements in the developing world whose goal is to use violence as a political tool by confining a small number of them.

The Gulag system was designed to confront commonplace critiques of the Soviet leadership by interning political opponents of various natures on a massive scale.

I'm not defending X-Ray, but your comparison is way off base.

Indeed, why did the US refuse to save more Jews?

Lingering anti-semitism, populist economics and immigration quotas.

Sideline sparring with the other superpower?

Actually, the internal contradictions and the nature of the Soviet system, especially in political and economic spheres and the delivery of consumer goods both at home and amongst its immediate satellites had far more to do with the Soviet collapse than the contest with the US.

Heck, the Soviet government got all pissy when its own citizens sought to claim the rights that the government had "endorsed" in the Helsinki accords.

Fundamentally, though, the Cold War was won and lost in the kitchen, and the weapons were range stoves, dishwashers and microwave ovens.
Newer Burmecia
12-10-2008, 20:24
Sorry, I'm usually better at hiding my paranoia with a web of lies.
Well, quite.

North Korea isn't European. They have balls.
Clearly. Nothing says 'I've Got a Bigger Dick than You' than SCUDs that don't work.

Pass me the aspirin when you're done.

*massages temples*
*Passes asprin*

It'll be morphine next.
Flying weasals
12-10-2008, 20:30
the right side won the cold war simply as to have a true socialist system you need to have a parliamentary democracy and representative government and the soviet states lacked both.
The South Islands
12-10-2008, 20:32
Fashionwise, the wrong side most certainly won the cold war. Soviet uniforms were much more stylish and medally.
Andaluciae
12-10-2008, 20:44
Fashionwise, the wrong side most certainly won the cold war. Soviet uniforms were much more stylish and medally.

Not just uniforms, though, but also just common clothes! People got medals for increasing production, they got medals for being at work on time, they got medals for dressing sharply...just like whoever happened to be premier at the time!
Vetalia
12-10-2008, 20:54
Not just uniforms, though, but also just common clothes! People got medals for increasing production, they got medals for being at work on time, they got medals for dressing sharply...just like whoever happened to be premier at the time!

Apparently a lot of WWII veterans were particularly angry when Brezhnev kept awarding himself medals every year, since that basically took a huge shit on the sacrifices they made that allowed that doddering fool to serve in office.
Andaluciae
12-10-2008, 21:00
Apparently a lot of WWII veterans were particularly angry when Brezhnev kept awarding himself medals every year, since that basically took a huge shit on the sacrifices they made that allowed that doddering fool to serve in office.

How he managed to keep standing with all of this glittering shinyness on his chest, I will never know. (http://www.libarts.ucok.edu/history/faculty/plaks/BREZHNEV_.jpg)
Vetalia
12-10-2008, 21:09
How he managed to keep standing with all of this glittering shinyness on his chest, I will never know. (http://www.libarts.ucok.edu/history/faculty/plaks/BREZHNEV_.jpg)

The competence of an authoritarian leader is inversely related to the number of medals worn.
Knights of Liberty
12-10-2008, 21:11
The competence of an authoritarian leader is inversely related to the number of medals worn.

There is so much truth to that.
Gauthier
12-10-2008, 21:17
The competence of an authoritarian leader is inversely related to the number of medals worn.

There is so much truth to that.

Wearing heavy medals diverts blood flow towards muscles to support their weight. Incidentally, this blood is diverted from the brain which thus explains the forementioned observation.

Whereas a high count is normally a favorable review (five-star restaurants, for example) in the case of authoritarian rule five-star thus indicated unsuitability for leadership.
Laerod
12-10-2008, 21:25
There is so much truth to that.
It's a variation of the Sukhomlinov effect, which states that an Army's effectiveness is inversely proportional to how pretty its uniforms are.
Hurdegaryp
12-10-2008, 21:27
The competence of an authoritarian leader is inversely related to the number of medals worn.

That means Putin and Medvedev are superior leaders compared to Brezhnev.
New Manvir
12-10-2008, 21:33
Is it just me, but FO's whole "Obama will start a Race War" reminds me of the racist midget from "In Bruges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Bruges)"
Articoa
12-10-2008, 22:08
Um, what? Is this Andaras' little cousin?
Vetalia
12-10-2008, 22:11
That means Putin and Medvedev are superior leaders compared to Brezhnev.

And they actually are.
Banananananananaland
12-10-2008, 22:14
How he managed to keep standing with all of this glittering shinyness on his chest, I will never know. (http://www.libarts.ucok.edu/history/faculty/plaks/BREZHNEV_.jpg)
Brezhnev had nothing on Idi Amin! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rib109/2758218072/)
Geniasis
12-10-2008, 22:15
I was lying to myself. The US is in completely control of everything; they can do whatever they want. Why else do you think I don't want Obama to become President? Do you really think he won't retaliate against whites everywhere because of slavery/civil rights?

Yes, I really think that.

Ferrous oxide isn't rust.

Rust is actually ferric oxide.

Iron(II) oxide, also known as ferrous oxide, iron oxide/oxidized iron or more commonly rusted iron, is one of the iron oxides.

Hello, Rusted Iron.

The competence of an authoritarian leader is inversely related to the number of medals worn.

If I was a dictator, my uniform would be a wife beater and bicycle shorts. No medals. Medals would just ruin the effect.

Oh, and I'd always appear in interviews with a Five o'clock shadow.
Laerod
12-10-2008, 22:34
If I was a dictator, my uniform would be a wife beater and bicycle shorts. No medals. Medals would just ruin the effect.

Oh, and I'd always appear in interviews with a Five o'clock shadow.Don't forget the open toed sandals with socks!
Jerusalem Light
12-10-2008, 22:52
Aw, the trolling's over.
Dumb Ideologies
12-10-2008, 23:20
Yes, I really think that.

If I was a dictator, my uniform would be a wife beater and bicycle shorts. No medals. Medals would just ruin the effect.

Oh, and I'd always appear in interviews with a Five o'clock shadow.

I'd always have a platform set up, but instead of speaking there myself I'd hide a transmitter on the stage, blasting out the speech I'm in fact giving from my bedroom in my pyjamas. This would both solve the problem of what to wear and strike fear into my enemies. Let me explain. I would proclaim that the reason they could not see me was because the nations' scientists had made a revolutionary breakthrough and invented a fully-functional invisibility cloak. I would then go on to say that the country's military forces and security services also had access to this device. Who would dare declare war on a nation so advanced that they can deploy invisible soldiers, planes, nukes and stuffs? And who would show dissent, even in their own homes, if they thought there was the possibility of an invisible secret police officer being in the room with them?
Non Aligned States
13-10-2008, 01:30
I'd always have a platform set up, but instead of speaking there myself I'd hide a transmitter on the stage, blasting out the speech I'm in fact giving from my bedroom in my pyjamas. This would both solve the problem of what to wear and strike fear into my enemies. Let me explain. I would proclaim that the reason they could not see me was because the nations' scientists had made a revolutionary breakthrough and invented a fully-functional invisibility cloak. I would then go on to say that the country's military forces and security services also had access to this device. Who would dare declare war on a nation so advanced that they can deploy invisible soldiers, planes, nukes and stuffs? And who would show dissent, even in their own homes, if they thought there was the possibility of an invisible secret police officer being in the room with them?

This approach fails when someone with a bucket of paint happens to be near the platform.
Andaluciae
13-10-2008, 01:32
This approach fails when someone with a bucket of paint happens to be near the platform.

The appropriate response to thrown paint would be "Haha! You missed me!"
Ferrous Oxide
13-10-2008, 11:52
Yes, I really think that.

Well, you're nuts.

The competence of an authoritarian leader is inversely related to the number of medals worn.

Idi Amin was pretty competent. If insane.

It's a variation of the Sukhomlinov effect, which states that an Army's effectiveness is inversely proportional to how pretty its uniforms are.

That why my army won't get even jackboots. They'll wear what they come in.

Incidentally, that would explain why is US is struggling in Iraq. Hard to beat the Sukhomlinov effect when your enemies wear newspaper for shoes.
Hydesland
13-10-2008, 11:56
The Soviets managed to avoid the entire Great Depression, and even made strong growth during the period. What happened to the US, again? The Soviets could have saved us from this disaster.

The soviets didn't avoid the great depression, it just didn't effect them, since they were still recovering from a horrendous economic meltdown that practically reduced most of Russia to the third world, resulting in millions of people dying from starvation. It was like throwing a tomato at someone nailed to the wall. Also, the only thing that got them back on track was the NEP, which incidentally re-introduced a market style economy with profits and big business.
Non Aligned States
13-10-2008, 12:21
The appropriate response to thrown paint would be "Haha! You missed me!"

In sufficient quantities, and a good lock on audio point of origin, it falls kind of flat. That being said, jamming also does wonders to silence the invisible wannabe.
Dumb Ideologies
13-10-2008, 12:24
This approach fails when someone with a bucket of paint happens to be near the platform.

Simple solution. Ban sales of paint.
Vetalia
13-10-2008, 12:59
Idi Amin was pretty competent. If insane.

Except for completely destroying his country's economy, driving out its most educated and talented segments of the population and being completely and utterly defeated and overthrown by Tanzania in a mere seven months, sure.
Ferrous Oxide
13-10-2008, 13:04
Except for completely destroying his country's economy, driving out its most educated and talented segments of the population and being completely and utterly defeated and overthrown by Tanzania in a mere seven months, sure.

The important thing is that he managed to kill a lot of people. And isn't that, after all, what leadership is all about?
The Alma Mater
13-10-2008, 16:36
The important thing is that he managed to kill a lot of people. And isn't that, after all, what leadership is all about?

It does guarantee statues and streets named after you. Possibly even a landmark, like a bridge or a tunnel.
Vetalia
13-10-2008, 16:50
It does guarantee statues and streets named after you. Possibly even a landmark, like a bridge or a tunnel.

Only if you kill lots of the right people to kill.
The Alma Mater
13-10-2008, 16:55
Only if you kill lots of the right people to kill.

Nah. In the words of Lord Vetinari:

'Putting up a statue to someone who tried to stop a war is not very, um, statuesque. Of course, if you had butchered five hundred of your own men out of arrogant carelessness, we'd be melting the bronze already.'

Besides, right person to kill today might be a cause of embarrassment tomorrow.
Augmark
13-10-2008, 21:42
No, could you imagine A Soviet World, in which, you have no freedom of speech, religion, and so on. No small business, Drunken political police breaking into you house at night and doing god knows what to your family. I like that the U.S/Nato have won.
DrunkenDove
13-10-2008, 21:51
6 pages? Really?