Why do so many insult U.S foreign policy during the cold war?

[protectionist]

This one is simple....I would bet half the people on here criticizing our foreign policy during the Cold War weren't even alive then. They have no idea what kind of threat the Soviets actually represented. They can't conceive the notion of living under the threat of nuclear Armageddon.

They better start conceiving it, because we're living under it right now, and I'd say today's nuclear threat is worse than the cold war one. (and it appears to be getting worse than it is now)

 

[S.J.]

This one is simple....I would bet half the people on here criticizing our foreign policy during the Cold War weren't even alive then. They have no idea what kind of threat the Soviets actually represented. They can't conceive the notion of living under the threat of nuclear Armageddon.

They better start conceiving it, because we're living under it right now, and I'd say today's nuclear threat is worse than the cold war one. (and it appears to be getting worse than it is now)

With China's new ICBM capability (thanks to Bill Clinton) and Iran's soon-to-be nuclear capability (thanks to Obama), you are absolutely right. Throw in the nut jobs in N. Korea, India, and Pakistan, and we're facing a very unstable and dangerous future.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bullshit. Another communist tactic of accusing your opponent of doing what you are doing.

How do they differ?

You made the charge, you tell us how they are identical. And don't give us that vague and general bullshit you just gave. Be specific.

foreign policy- Communists and the American right: exploitation of a sovereign nation's natural resources

environmental policy- Communists and the American right: disregard of environmental protection

human policy or human rights- Communists and the American right: minorities, women and gays persecuted and denied equal rights.

 

[protectionist]

This one is simple....I would bet half the people on here criticizing our foreign policy during the Cold War weren't even alive then. They have no idea what kind of threat the Soviets actually represented. They can't conceive the notion of living under the threat of nuclear Armageddon.

They better start conceiving it, because we're living under it right now, and I'd say today's nuclear threat is worse than the cold war one. (and it appears to be getting worse than it is now)

With China's new ICBM capability (thanks to Bill Clinton) and Iran's soon-to-be nuclear capability (thanks to Obama), you are absolutely right. Throw in the nut jobs in N. Korea, India, and Pakistan, and we're facing a very unstable and dangerous future.

Not to minimize the others, but I consider Pakistan the # 1 nuclear threat to the US today. They have 100+ nuclear warheads, and lots of Islamist loons who have attacked the storage of these repeatedly. Now the Paki govt is transporting these things around in ordinary vans (like UPS), and driving them through ordinary streets, where they could be attacked.

Secondly, the Pakistan govt, is very fragile and if toppled, the warheads could fall into the hands of the same people who enacted 9-11. This is why US troops need to stay there. Bringing them home could be the worst mistake ever made by a US president.

 

[S.J.]

How do they differ?

You made the charge, you tell us how they are identical. And don't give us that vague and general bullshit you just gave. Be specific.

foreign policy- Communists and the American right: exploitation of a sovereign nation's natural resources

environmental policy- Communists and the American right: disregard of environmental protection

human policy or human rights- Communists and the American right: minorities, women and gays persecuted and denied equal rights.

Maybe you don't understand the word "specific". Back up what you said.

 

[S.J.]

They better start conceiving it, because we're living under it right now, and I'd say today's nuclear threat is worse than the cold war one. (and it appears to be getting worse than it is now)

With China's new ICBM capability (thanks to Bill Clinton) and Iran's soon-to-be nuclear capability (thanks to Obama), you are absolutely right. Throw in the nut jobs in N. Korea, India, and Pakistan, and we're facing a very unstable and dangerous future.

Not to minimize the others, but I consider Pakistan the # 1 nuclear threat to the US today. They have 100+ nuclear warheads, and lots of Islamist loons who have attacked the storage of these repeatedly. Now the Paki govt is transporting these things around in ordinary vans (like UPS), and driving them through ordinary streets, where they could be attacked.

Secondly, the Pakistan govt, is very fragile and if toppled, the warheads could fall into the hands of the same people who enacted 9-11. This is why US troops need to stay there. Bringing them home could be the worst mistake ever made by a US president.

I know what you mean. And the Pakistani government isn't exactly a loyal friend either. I have little doubt as to whose side they would be on if the shit hits the fan.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The U.S. takes its share of blame with the proxy wars in the 70's---especially in Central and South America. But c'mon, we did what we had to do to stop communism. And this wasn't light-weight communism found on college campuses or in labor union protest rallies, this was communism that got people killed and threatened the planet, but is mostly forgotten by the younger generations that didn't live through it. Russian backed armed forces or missile bases directly under the Mexican border would be a detrimental threat to U.S. security, as Cuban Missile Crisis clearly demonstrated, yet that's downplayed. Instead, the motives for the U.S. to "invade" is due to the evil, imperialistic C.I.A. wanting to take land away from peace-loving hippie farmers, and only the brave communist rebels can save them and offer them hope and change under the banner of a red star. The revisionism displayed by the far left is simply staggering.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct response to US positioning of nuclear missiles in Turkey. So why is that fine, and not naked aggression against the Soviets, but their responding in kind is?

As you said, much of the Cold War was a proxy conflict between the US and USSR. I'd add that much of what happened was a result of US foreign policy in Europe directed at the Soviets. That Central America is akin to our local Europe with Soviets trying to position their own forces there for possible use against us is simply tit-for-tat maneuvering. Trying to claim it was unprovoked or the like is simply revealing an ignorance of the whole picture.

As we know now, the Soviets then as now aren't evil monsters thirsting for US blood. And much of the 'evil' we denounced them as being is in fact our own side. The US has pleanty of guilt on its own hands for its actions over the years from slavery, segregation, continuing racism, eugenics until the 21st century, and smaller scale crimes like infecting blacks with syphallis, testing hallucinagenic weapons on US citizens in brothels, and on n on. Neither side was innocent and simply defending themselves.

 

[American4Americ]

You made the charge, you tell us how they are identical. And don't give us that vague and general bullshit you just gave. Be specific.

foreign policy- Communists and the American right: exploitation of a sovereign nation's natural resources

environmental policy- Communists and the American right: disregard of environmental protection

human policy or human rights- Communists and the American right: minorities, women and gays persecuted and denied equal rights.

Maybe you don't understand the word "specific". Back up what you said.

He probably means the backing of dictators like Somoza, Pinochet, Diem, Batista, Papadopoulos, and Franco. Although this was necessary.

 

[protectionist]

With China's new ICBM capability (thanks to Bill Clinton) and Iran's soon-to-be nuclear capability (thanks to Obama), you are absolutely right. Throw in the nut jobs in N. Korea, India, and Pakistan, and we're facing a very unstable and dangerous future.

Not to minimize the others, but I consider Pakistan the # 1 nuclear threat to the US today. They have 100+ nuclear warheads, and lots of Islamist loons who have attacked the storage of these repeatedly. Now the Paki govt is transporting these things around in ordinary vans (like UPS), and driving them through ordinary streets, where they could be attacked.

Secondly, the Pakistan govt, is very fragile and if toppled, the warheads could fall into the hands of the same people who enacted 9-11. This is why US troops need to stay there. Bringing them home could be the worst mistake ever made by a US president.

I know what you mean. And the Pakistani government isn't exactly a loyal friend either. I have little doubt as to whose side they would be on if the shit hits the fan.

That's correct too. I'm often criticized by liberals and conservatives both, for my stance on continuing the deployment of US troops in Afghanistan (they're scheduled to be withdrawn this year). I really think that they are needed there, to mitigate the Pakistan nuclear threat. If I were president, I'd go a step further. I'd send the troops into Pakistan now, to secure those nukes, and remove them, and bring them back to the US, or some other safe place away from the proximity of Islamist lunatics.

 

[S.J.]

The U.S. takes its share of blame with the proxy wars in the 70's---especially in Central and South America. But c'mon, we did what we had to do to stop communism. And this wasn't light-weight communism found on college campuses or in labor union protest rallies, this was communism that got people killed and threatened the planet, but is mostly forgotten by the younger generations that didn't live through it. Russian backed armed forces or missile bases directly under the Mexican border would be a detrimental threat to U.S. security, as Cuban Missile Crisis clearly demonstrated, yet that's downplayed. Instead, the motives for the U.S. to "invade" is due to the evil, imperialistic C.I.A. wanting to take land away from peace-loving hippie farmers, and only the brave communist rebels can save them and offer them hope and change under the banner of a red star. The revisionism displayed by the far left is simply staggering.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct response to US positioning of nuclear missiles in Turkey. So why is that fine, and not naked aggression against the Soviets, but their responding in kind is?

As you said, much of the Cold War was a proxy conflict between the US and USSR. I'd add that much of what happened was a result of US foreign policy in Europe directed at the Soviets. That Central America is akin to our local Europe with Soviets trying to position their own forces there for possible use against us is simply tit-for-tat maneuvering. Trying to claim it was unprovoked or the like is simply revealing an ignorance of the whole picture.

As we know now, the Soviets then as now aren't evil monsters thirsting for US blood. And much of the 'evil' we denounced them as being is in fact our own side. The US has pleanty of guilt on its own hands for its actions over the years from slavery, segregation, continuing racism, eugenics until the 21st century, and smaller scale crimes like infecting blacks with syphallis, testing hallucinagenic weapons on US citizens in brothels, and on n on. Neither side was innocent and simply defending themselves.

There went your credibility.

 

[Bfgrn]

The U.S. takes its share of blame with the proxy wars in the 70's---especially in Central and South America. But c'mon, we did what we had to do to stop communism. And this wasn't light-weight communism found on college campuses or in labor union protest rallies, this was communism that got people killed and threatened the planet, but is mostly forgotten by the younger generations that didn't live through it. Russian backed armed forces or missile bases directly under the Mexican border would be a detrimental threat to U.S. security, as Cuban Missile Crisis clearly demonstrated, yet that's downplayed. Instead, the motives for the U.S. to "invade" is due to the evil, imperialistic C.I.A. wanting to take land away from peace-loving hippie farmers, and only the brave communist rebels can save them and offer them hope and change under the banner of a red star. The revisionism displayed by the far left is simply staggering.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct response to US positioning of nuclear missiles in Turkey. So why is that fine, and not naked aggression against the Soviets, but their responding in kind is?

As you said, much of the Cold War was a proxy conflict between the US and USSR. I'd add that much of what happened was a result of US foreign policy in Europe directed at the Soviets. That Central America is akin to our local Europe with Soviets trying to position their own forces there for possible use against us is simply tit-for-tat maneuvering. Trying to claim it was unprovoked or the like is simply revealing an ignorance of the whole picture.

As we know now, the Soviets then as now aren't evil monsters thirsting for US blood. And much of the 'evil' we denounced them as being is in fact our own side. The US has pleanty of guilt on its own hands for its actions over the years from slavery, segregation, continuing racism, eugenics until the 21st century, and smaller scale crimes like infecting blacks with syphallis, testing hallucinagenic weapons on US citizens in brothels, and on n on. Neither side was innocent and simply defending themselves.

There went your credibility.

Naive is not an excuse.

Here are your names for the day...John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, United Fruit Company, Guatemala, Iran and the CIA...

Come back when you grow up...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The U.S. takes its share of blame with the proxy wars in the 70's---especially in Central and South America. But c'mon, we did what we had to do to stop communism. And this wasn't light-weight communism found on college campuses or in labor union protest rallies, this was communism that got people killed and threatened the planet, but is mostly forgotten by the younger generations that didn't live through it. Russian backed armed forces or missile bases directly under the Mexican border would be a detrimental threat to U.S. security, as Cuban Missile Crisis clearly demonstrated, yet that's downplayed. Instead, the motives for the U.S. to "invade" is due to the evil, imperialistic C.I.A. wanting to take land away from peace-loving hippie farmers, and only the brave communist rebels can save them and offer them hope and change under the banner of a red star. The revisionism displayed by the far left is simply staggering.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct response to US positioning of nuclear missiles in Turkey. So why is that fine, and not naked aggression against the Soviets, but their responding in kind is?

As you said, much of the Cold War was a proxy conflict between the US and USSR. I'd add that much of what happened was a result of US foreign policy in Europe directed at the Soviets. That Central America is akin to our local Europe with Soviets trying to position their own forces there for possible use against us is simply tit-for-tat maneuvering. Trying to claim it was unprovoked or the like is simply revealing an ignorance of the whole picture.

As we know now, the Soviets then as now aren't evil monsters thirsting for US blood. And much of the 'evil' we denounced them as being is in fact our own side. The US has pleanty of guilt on its own hands for its actions over the years from slavery, segregation, continuing racism, eugenics until the 21st century, and smaller scale crimes like infecting blacks with syphallis, testing hallucinagenic weapons on US citizens in brothels, and on n on. Neither side was innocent and simply defending themselves.

There went your credibility.

Google it. My credibility is intact to those more about the truth than maintaining party lies.

 

[S.J.]

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct response to US positioning of nuclear missiles in Turkey. So why is that fine, and not naked aggression against the Soviets, but their responding in kind is?

As you said, much of the Cold War was a proxy conflict between the US and USSR. I'd add that much of what happened was a result of US foreign policy in Europe directed at the Soviets. That Central America is akin to our local Europe with Soviets trying to position their own forces there for possible use against us is simply tit-for-tat maneuvering. Trying to claim it was unprovoked or the like is simply revealing an ignorance of the whole picture.

As we know now, the Soviets then as now aren't evil monsters thirsting for US blood. And much of the 'evil' we denounced them as being is in fact our own side. The US has pleanty of guilt on its own hands for its actions over the years from slavery, segregation, continuing racism, eugenics until the 21st century, and smaller scale crimes like infecting blacks with syphallis, testing hallucinagenic weapons on US citizens in brothels, and on n on. Neither side was innocent and simply defending themselves.

There went your credibility.

Naive is not an excuse.

Here are your names for the day...John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, United Fruit Company, Guatemala, Iran and the CIA...

Come back when you grow up...

Got your tin foil hat, Jesse?

 

[Bfgrn]

There went your credibility.

Naive is not an excuse.

Here are your names for the day...John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, United Fruit Company, Guatemala, Iran and the CIA...

Come back when you grow up...

Got your tin foil hat, Jesse?

Here is your word for the day...'blowback'

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
George Orwell

 

[S.J.]

Naive is not an excuse.

Here are your names for the day...John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, United Fruit Company, Guatemala, Iran and the CIA...

Come back when you grow up...

Got your tin foil hat, Jesse?

Here is your word for the day...'blowback'

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
George Orwell

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do so many insult U.S foreign policy during the cold war?

Because the ‘domino theory’ was proven to be a fallacy; there was no ‘international communist conspiracy,’ and containment policy doctrine failed accordingly. In fact, the various communist factions were more likely to go to war with each other than a given Western state, as we saw with China and Vietnam during the late 70s for example.

In Vietnam during the 30s through the 50s, in Cuba during the 50s and 60s, and in Central and South America, Africa, and the Middle East during the 70s and 80s, ‘communism’ was anything but ‘international,’ as the philosophy was used by many nationalists to as a device to overthrow either a colonial power as in Vietnam with regard to France, or neo-fascist rightwing dictatorships such as Batista in Cuba – and the United States made the mistake of opposing these insurgencies to back up imperialism and fascism.

This wasn’t true, of course, at least not intentionally, but perception is often more powerful than reality.

 

[Bfgrn]

Got your tin foil hat, Jesse?

Here is your word for the day...'blowback'

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
George Orwell

Blowback history lesson A. Iraq...

Abd al-Karim Qasim

Qasim was Prime Minister from July 1958 - February 1963.

Qasim soon withdrew Iraq from the pro-Western Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union. Iraq also abolished its Treaty of mutual security and bilateral relations with the UK. Also, Iraq withdrew from the agreement with the United States that was signed by the monarchy from 1954 to 1955 regarding military, arms, and equipment. On May 30, 1959, the last of the British soldiers and military officers departed the al-Habbāniyya base in Iraq.

On July 26, 1958, the Interim Constitution was adopted, proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting them freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. The government freed political prisoners and granted amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the 1943 to 1945 Kurdish uprisings. The exiled Kurds returned home and were welcomed by the republican regime.

Qasim passed law No. 80 which seized 98% of Iraqi land from the British-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, and distributed farms to more of the population. This increased the size of the middle class. Qasim also oversaw the building of 35,000 residential units to house the poor and lower middle classes. The most notable example, and indeed symbol, of this was the new suburb of Baghdad named Madinat al-Thawra (revolution city), renamed Saddam City under the Baath regime and now widely referred to as Sadr City. Qasim rewrote the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society.

An assassination attempt in 1959 by dedicated pan-Arabists including Saddam Hussein and reportedly supported by the United States, led to a harsh crackdown on domestic opposition and the development of a personality cult. Qasim was a strong opponent of British military intervention in the Middle East, and repeatedly called for the removal of foreign troops.

Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup of February 8, 1963, motivated by fear of communist influence and state control over the petroleum sector. This coup has been reported to have been carried out with the backing of the British government and the American CIA.

 

[S.J.]

 

[Two Thumbs]

The U.S. takes its share of blame with the proxy wars in the 70's---especially in Central and South America. But c'mon, we did what we had to do to stop communism. And this wasn't light-weight communism found on college campuses or in labor union protest rallies, this was communism that got people killed and threatened the planet, but is mostly forgotten by the younger generations that didn't live through it. Russian backed armed forces or missile bases directly under the Mexican border would be a detrimental threat to U.S. security, as Cuban Missile Crisis clearly demonstrated, yet that's downplayed. Instead, the motives for the U.S. to "invade" is due to the evil, imperialistic C.I.A. wanting to take land away from peace-loving hippie farmers, and only the brave communist rebels can save them and offer them hope and change under the banner of a red star. The revisionism displayed by the far left is simply staggering.

The only revisionism is that they blame the wars on reps, when it was their idea to get us involved.

WW1 (D)
WW2(D)
Korea (D)
VN (D)

If liberals didn't send the poor to die in WW1 the others might not have happened.

 

[Publius1787]

You have an extremely naive and uninformed understanding of who and what the United States is.

In the 50's and 60's we had Joint Chiefs of Staff who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority.

South America and the Middle East are the manifestation of America imperialism. America wasn't stopping communism, they were stopping sovereign nations from self determination and especially preventing them from control of their own natural resources.

Were not the Soviets doing the same?

You lost this debate when you made the Soviet Union our measuring stick. But it is really not surprising, because the beliefs, methods, policies and outcomes from the American right and the Soviet Union are identical. Be it foreign policy, environmental policy, human policy or human rights...

Very well. If you ever find yourself in a position where someone or some group is trying to do harm to your person and others via ill means just remember that you shouldn't use their actions as your measuring stick. Simply sit back an take it. That is the argument you are making. The question was not whether we should keep company with unsavory characters and impede on the governance of others, thats going to happen whether we do it or not. The only question is where their allegiances lay. That was the rule of the cold war. Jimmy Carter tried to ignore it and the Soviets made him look like a fool.