Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Cold War
Fullmetal Alchemist Discussion Board > General Discussions > Open Talk > Debate District
ἀρχή
<Moving from Open Chat forum to Debate District sub-forum. 03/18/07 ~Tombow>

I don't know, just felt like starting a topic about this. I remember growing up in the 80's with Regan as President here in the US. We were taught where all the fallout shelters were in case of a nuclear war - like they would actually have helped.

For those of you who don't remember it or know much about it, Dr. Strangelove is a great movie to watch to get a feel for how paranoid everyone was during that time.
Guest
Hitokiri will probably know what you're talking about. The rest of us is not that old.
hitokiri
The Cold War is the BEST PR and money scam of all time. Think about it other than the colossal failures of Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba (by both sides, but primarily the US) there was never a real threat. Both governments grew fatter and richer from the 1950's on.

Also for the record Regan was one of most charasmatic presidents ever, but he was a heaping pile of moron.

"Oh I have a great idea.... I'll borrow Thatchernomics, a system that has already shown that it is inherently flawed, and I'll call it Reganomics and use it here..." Dumbass.
Ghost
Word.
and
QUOTE
Dr. Strangelove is a great movie
Word.
Aqua_Alchemist
I'm studying it in my history class at the moment (I love history), it is a good period, and looking back we can see how stupid some of the old leaders were. I would write something more intelligent but I'm too tired smile.gif
ἀρχή
One odd thing about the Cold War was the US's fear of communism's spread. So we were always willing to push out Communisim from any country. Well when the Soviets tried to invade Afghanastan, of course, the US was there to train the military and equip them for action. That's one that bit the US in the ass tongue.gif

There's tons of stuff like that just because of the paranoia and need to one up the Soviet Union.

Hitokiri's got it right in that it was such a way to get money for the military. Reganomics was such a big joke with that trickle down effect tongue.gif

For those of you too young, you should watch Dr. Strangelove then as it's got all the elements of stupidity in the Cold War.
Cbibi_chibi
I was kinda attracted by the topic title, but then understood, that you meant different thing, thatn I thought. Here in Russia for everyone 'The cold war' means these 40 years of USSR-USA murderless battle.
DarkWater Alchemist
I know very well what you're talking about, but I didn't really understand... how old was I when the Wall went down... Must have been frustrating to live in the US those times, with the government pumping you full fear... People here were afraid too, I mean, if anyone dropped a bomb, it was bye-bye Earth.

THe us and the SU were both stupid. dry.gif Creating that amount of (nuclear) weapons... I think the capacity to overkill was something like 12 times the Earth, scary...

All in all, it hasn't done any good. mad.gif

I have dr. Strangelove on DVD, but I still need to watch it. *shame*
hitokiri
QUOTE(arche @ Jan 16 2005, 06:45 PM)
For those of you too young, you should watch Dr. Strangelove then as it's got all the elements of stupidity in the Cold War.

no i think you can get a better grasp at the whole result of the cold war by watching Falling Down. that guy was one those 50's-esque love of country drones; and then it went all wrong cause the world found out how much of a sham the cold war was. that and the film is just plain funny to see how much life craps on this guy... laugh.gif
ἀρχή
Yes, I forgot about that movie smile.gif.

I'd love to hear of other non-US perspectives of the Cold War if possible.
Ghost
QUOTE(Cbibi_chibi @ Jan 17 2005, 02:16 AM)
I was kinda attracted by the topic title, but then understood, that you meant different thing, thatn I thought. Here in Russia for everyone 'The cold war' means these 40 years of USSR-USA murderless battle.
[snapback]88197[/snapback]

Unless I misunderstand you, that is indeed what's being discussed here.
Carnal Malefactor
The saddest part is... in the U.S., the political discourse is still suffering under the weight of the irrational fear of communism. Want proof? Check out the so-called 'Red States'.
Ghost
Damn. Nice quote. ::shudder:: People like that give Christians a bad name (I'm not religious, but I know we have some very well-behaved Christians at this forum).

Kinda funny how, in the pic in your sig, Hawkeye's the only one who can really pull off the miniskirt look. But then, a gunbarrel in your face tends to add legitimacy to whatever fashion statement the wielder chooses to sport.
ἀρχή
I was watching a short documentary on Soviet military and it had some US propaganda films in it. It showed people dressed in Russian uniforms walking over a hill (thousands of them) saying that the Soviet man is by nature loyal and will be willing to cast themselves by the thousands at the whim of the commanders of the army.

Anyway, a bit later, I remembered Regan and how he called Russia the "Evil Empire". I think the Regan years were at times pretty bad when it came to communism vs. capitalism thinking.

Anyway, I'm just thinking a bit off the top of my head. Just some thoughts to throw out. There is still a fear of communism in the US.
Aqua_Alchemist
Communism shouldn't be feared, it should be embraced as a great idea, that has gone terribly wrong in the past.
ἀρχή
Communism is economically not a very stable plan. You're much better off with a socialist economic plan. I just hate the fact that people think the US is actually capitalist. It can't be as it has so much governmental control it's a joke. It's more of a managerialist system or potentially a Post-capitalist structure.

Anyway, communism was set up by its opponents to be an evil ideology. In reality, it's just a method of economics, but that doesn't sell weapons to the "American People" now does it?
edsgirl
Interesting topic you got going here Arche! I applaud you on your efforts of schooling the youngings on communism. I'm sure one of them will start a thread about a cult for communist or something stupid like that rolleyes.gif
ἀρχή
It's too bad that people have forgotten the cold war already. It took half of the 20th century, so it's pretty significant. Plus it has effects that are still being felt and define how we do things.
hitokiri
the problem with socialism is that its based on the idea that people are good and willing to accept equality. people will always want to be better than others, thus it will fail.
ἀρχή
I used to really be a huge fan of Smithian capitalism until I realized that many of the advances we have today would not have existed. Medical science would be nowhere near where it is today if it didn't have governmental assistance (Federal grands, etc...).

Anyway, although I can't follow smithian capitalism, I can say that some kind of adversarial system seems to be what is necessary. The key would obviously be in getting an equality, which I would find very hard or impossible, but ideally you would need equality forced into the system somehow.

But, it's controdictory to have government regulate equality and still keep equality - once the government gets into something, it usually begins to turn bad no matter how well meaning it is.
Carnal Malefactor
Socialism doesn't work. Neither does 'the invisible hand'. The difference is, socialism deteriorates much faster.
ἀρχή
There's too much bifurcation with socio-economic theory. It's not just socialist vs. capitalist as there are many other potential systems out there. The Cold War, however, helped capitalize on that conceptual bifurcation.
Ghost
SERIOUSLY. I get really frustrated with how polar people are. It sometimes seems like, in general, people will automatically reduce any issue or situation down to a binary one. Communist/Capitalist, Republican/Democrat, Christian/Not Christian (heh), it's like people only have the capacity to think "Good" or "Bad."
It all lends to form my belief that, as a species, we're evolving irregularly. Rather than as a species, as a whole, we progress lopsided, in chunks. Individuals can be brilliant innovators, coming up with different "systems" (governmental, philosophical, scientific, etc.) but we still, humans on the whole, can't get past "Am it be good or be bad?" Thog confused, and yet if you drive him, if you can get him to really pay attention long enough to engage his critical thinking functions; Thog understand! Most people aren't actually "stupid" in the sense of being unable to grasp new concepts, or embrace new systems and methods. He's just 'ignorant' and considering how much effort it takes to get him to come around, I would say, stubbornly so.

arche, you're absolutely right and I don't think I ever thought of that; the US isn't a capitalist system. Maybe it used to be...maybe, but not anymore. It's funny too, because I've thought before, "Y'know, on paper Capitalism isn't inherently flawed. In theory it seems like a system which would inspire competition (and therefore quality). So why doesn't it work the way it's supposed to?"
Although I do think that the current setup inspires inhumanity. Capitalism, on paper, doesn't account for the corporation. The inclusion of the corporate entity really screws things up, the way we have it now. I'm not even saying we couldn't have big companies and still be an ethical economic model, just corporations the way they are currently treated by law and operated.

Dammit I lost my train of thought, that always happens to me when I can't see who I'm talking to... oh well, someone run with this.
ἀρχή
What bothers me is that the current system - whatever it actually is - in my opinion doesn't have any real ethics. Capitalism and Socialism are actually based on ethics or have at least a strong ethical component. What we have now is an amoral system that just tries to step on anyone who gets in the way.
Carnal Malefactor
QUOTE(arche @ Jan 23 2005, 11:22 PM)
What bothers me is that the current system - whatever it actually is - in my opinion doesn't have any real ethics. Capitalism and Socialism are actually based on ethics or have at least a strong ethical component. What we have now is an amoral system that just tries to step on anyone who gets in the way.
[snapback]95644[/snapback]


Unfortunately, socialism carries with it an immoral stipulation that everyone is forced [key word] to work towards a common good, and involuntarily relinquish all, or a portion of their personal wealth towards it.
Le Monkey
Wow, you lot realy know your polotics.
Me, I just don't like polotics because my familie keeps getting taxed when we have no money and then get penalised for having debt because of the taxation.
I have currently got the oppertunity to get money back from the government, and I'm taking every chance I get to Leagaly get money from the government.
All I belive in is that politicians are in politics to get elected into no.10 and stay there for as long as possible.
I know i am rether cinical about some things but this is what I belive in.
Sory about my little rant.
hitokiri
no. 10? please explain....
Le Monkey
Britan,

Thats where the Pm lives.

(Pm = Prime Minister, AkA, Pratt)

The guy with all the power.
hitokiri
oh yes...10 what ever street/road/whatever, didn't get the reference. but hey at least your government gives you something back for your taxes, we just get cokehead yokels from texas who never actually get elected.
Le Monkey
QUOTE(hitokiri @ Jan 24 2005, 03:06 AM)
oh yes...10 what ever street/road/whatever, didn't get the reference. but hey at least your government gives you something back for your taxes, we just get cokehead yokels from texas who never actually get elected.
[snapback]96249[/snapback]



Wow, I thaught I had it bad, I can now get 30 a week for staying in school.

I think you'l find it's 10 Downing street. tongue.gif
Ghost
QUOTE(What no bacon?)
socialism carries with it an immoral stipulation that everyone is forced...to work towards a common good

Now, I don't agree with this. Isn't it more accurate to say that this is how it's been carried out largely? Rather, that ideally the system would rely on the community's desire to mutually benefit one another? I think the ethic element is there, potentially.

But I definitely agree with what you said, as a description of the reality, rather than the intention. When propaganda goes out to try and convince you to think one way or another, it often demoralizes the 'enemy' by stating (be it true or not) that 'they' are morally corrupt. That their intentions are to do harm.

But I think that we can move past that now, at least in regards to socialism/communism, and say that maybe it wasn't invented to screw everyone over...it's just what happens, invariably, when you allow a few people to govern a whole lot of people (which isn't itself even what socialism/communism's supposed to look like).

Even our current system is rotten, and people are forced to give up or go without things that they should really have a right to.
QUOTE(arche)
What we have now is an amoral system that just tries to step on anyone who gets in the way.
I strongly agree with the above sentence, and the statement that it's an excerpt from. I think that heavy government involvement, in anything, is just waiting to turn sour.
ἀρχή
I used to work in a non-profit that specialized in helping impoverished families. Most of the funding came through government sources. What is interesting is that the contract managers for these grants were clueless to anything but the political agenda.

I'll never forget fighting with a contract manager over whether to add another unit to the Scattered Site program. She kept saying that we have to add the unit and the money was there, but she was referring to the wrong line item. In the end, we had to get the extra unit regardless of whether the contract could support it because it was the political issue at the time - to get more families sheltered.

The sacrifice we had to make was the services provided to the families. This meant that we had to warehouse the family rather than work with them on becoming self-sustaining.

In all, it's easy for me to say that the government is not thinking about long-term solutions to social problems, but rather what will get people elected. In a sense, poverty is necessary for politicians to help them look good. If poverty were eliminated, then who do you give hand outs to easily to look good tongue.gif
Le Monkey
That works!
Ghost
Insightful, arche. My father formerly worked with seniors as a social worker. It was constantly a battle between the "Let's treat them like people" camp, and the "What people, they're statistics" camp. The program supervisoers are usually the ones with the less humane conerns, as oppposed to the individual caseworkers.

Not really sure what my point is.
ἀρχή
It shows how stupid government is with real issues in the world. We're off topic from the Cold War, but I think a discussion about government involvement is also appropriate here considering it gets into some of the issues between different styles of government.

The closer to the politicians you are, the more of a statistic people are. Also, the average person could care less about people and what they go through. Usually it's a matter of just throwing money at a problem and then assume the government is doing all they can with the money.
Ghost
Mm. Yeah.

Myself, I was just a wee one when the Iron Curtain was still an obscure menace from beyond the ocean. I'm 21 now, and I really only remember the tail end of the fear-grip. For me it wasn't so much fear, as much as it was growing up with a full and realistic grasp of the idea that everything I knew might be destroyed without warning.

It wasn't scary, it was just life. It's a lot of uncertainty to come to terms with at a young age. And yet there's a whole generation (or most of one at least) of people becoming adults now who are prepared, on some level, to lose everything they've ever known.

Simply being ready for something like that requires such detatchment from the present that I think it can be difficult for us to plan anything seriously. Or to follow through with anything that takes more than a few years at most.

...how's THAT for on-topic? Pow!
ἀρχή
I was just waxing nostalgic again about the good old "us versus them" days of the Cold War. It's hard now that we are so much more diverse with our political thinking and public relations. We don't just have one nice and easy group to hate anymore. It was comforting in the past to think of everything as a false bifurcation of Capitalist/Communist. During the Cold War, there were of course all these other groups around as well, but for some reason they never seemed to be a real threat.

Although I still blame the communists for all the rain in New England tongue.gif
Carnal Malefactor
But in the U.S. there is a very clear bifurcation of Democrat v. Republican. Any dissenting/independent voices are generally drowned out.

I hate to say it, but I think we've quietly entered a period of a sort of cold civil war, and it's entirely the result of a largely ignorant voting public that takes for granted the idea that their representatives in Washington are actually representing them.
ἀρχή
QUOTE(Void @ Jul 7 2006, 11:30 PM) [snapback]419689[/snapback]

But in the U.S. there is a very clear bifurcation of Democrat v. Republican. Any dissenting/independent voices are generally drowned out.

I hate to say it, but I think we've quietly entered a period of a sort of cold civil war, and it's entirely the result of a largely ignorant voting public that takes for granted the idea that their representatives in Washington are actually representing them.

In a sense we've got a problem of whether the right to vote means that one should vote. Democracy is not really an ideal, but rather a process. As a process, it is pretty value neutral and depends on those who apply the process to fully understand what they are actually doing.

Democrat & Republican is really a sophistry and is part of a false bifurcation. There are more opinions than Democrat & Republican, but we are afraid to label them differently. The two are more of a continuum of beliefs that have many variants, which technically could be independant. The main reason they are not independant is more because of power leveraging than political ideals. It's easier to leverage power if you broker your values to one of two parties rather than stand out independantly.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.