3 edits
Originally posted by Tirau DanThis 'teddy'as you put it killed millions of its own people in purges and sent many more to the Siberian gulags. In the end its economy wasn't good enough to let it sustain the cold war arms race against the US, and it admitted defeat. But the threat was real enough. If the USSR had chosen to initiate a nuclear war against the US, it would have been the end. A pretty deadly teddy i would say.
Just remember that when they stopped treating the Soviet Union as an enemy the iron curtain came down and we all started getting on. The big scarey bear was a teddy after all.
EDIT: in response to jimslyps post below, i should also mention two other possibilities: a conventional invasion of Europe by the USSR, and accidental triggering of a thermonuclear war. The Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO forces on the ground in Europe by a large enough margin to consider the first possibility, and both sides apparently came close to the second on a number of occasions. So yes, even though both sides knew the consequences of a full-on nuclear war (MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction), the threat was real.
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65Was it ever the intention of The USA or the USSR to instigate a nuclear war though? I don't think so. The entire point of overkill was, in theory, to prevent the enemy of ever daring to trigger such a dreadful consequence upon itself.
This 'teddy'as you put it killed millions of its own people in purges and sent many more to the Siberian gulags. In the end its economy wasn't good enough to let it sustain the cold war arms race against the US, and it admitted defeat. But ...[text shortened]... US, it would have been the end. A pretty deadly teddy i would say.
EDIT: Although at one point it did seem a frighteningly real possibility.
Originally posted by howardgeeCNN says not:
Yes, but never forget who armed and trained Osama; The CIA!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden
"
The State Department quotes CNN analyst Peter Bergen as saying:
"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.
"
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe State Department denies the CIA trained a terrorist? Who would have thought?
CNN says not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden
"
The State Department quotes CNN analyst Peter Bergen as saying:
"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wa ...[text shortened]... longside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.
"
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagesuch is the organic nature of the general forum.
Please take it to the debates forum....
anyway, back on the proverbial track...
At least 50 dead
Around 700 wounded
3 men are currently being held in custody under "anti terrorism laws"
An apparently anti-Muslim vibe is being noticed in London.
George Bush says "America will not retreat in the face of terrorists."
And life seems to go on as usual while investigators brave heat up to 60 degrees Celcius to recover evidence / body parts in the London underground.
Originally posted by hopscotchExcept apparently, for her armed forces!
[b]such is the organic nature of the general forum.
George Bush says "America will not retreat in the face of terrorists."
US military personnel stationed in the UK have been told not to go into London but to stay outside the M25.
😕
I heard about the bombings in the afternoon, while at work. I was not angry, just saddened and upset. Sad that people had died and been injured of course, but also sad that there are people out there who hate so much that they would do such a thing.
Seeing some of the posts in this thread, I am only saddened further. I'm with Rag on this, let's not get our backs up - anger only breeds more anger.
And I'm not saying forgive and forget either, just don't let anger control you. If we react to this atrocity with violence and anger, it will only confirm - to the terrorists' minds - what they think of us.
Originally posted by jimmyb270Lets just put the kettle on and have a nice cup of tea!
I heard about the bombings in the afternoon, while at work. I was not angry, just saddened and upset. Sad that people had died and been injured of course, but also sad that there are people out there who hate so much that they would do such a thing.
Seeing some of the posts in this thread, I am only saddened further. I'm with Rag on this, let's not get ...[text shortened]... th violence and anger, it will only confirm - to the terrorists' minds - what they think of us.
I'm saddened too Jim..sad that I think twice about going into the city, sad that people that hate westerners so much continue to live in western society and breed their hatred to young british muslims who can't wait to receive their suicide mission and take with them as many innocent people as possible. I'm sad that the muslim hardliners continue to have the privilege of free speech to stand in hyde park spreading fear and threats to passers by. I'm sad that my muslim colleagues and friends become victims of racial abuse.
... I'm sad that my muslim colleagues and friends become victims of racial abuse.Racial abuse? So my refusal to board a bus or an airplane with muslims is abusive to them? Should I have to sacrifice my life on the altar of Political Correctness!? I think not. If indeed we are dealing with just a few thousand bitter enders and criminals here, then how do you explain that there is no outcry in the muslim communities to weed out the bad seed and allow the rest of the fair minded and gentle people to carry on with their lives? It is exactly this kind of refusal of these communities to purge themselves of criminals will result in "abuse" you are talking about. I take it one further - deep down they all justify all the bombings and all the carnage and that is why we are dealing with a true heart of darkness here. We are talking pure islam. To be mildly saddened about it is not enough.
[/b]
Originally posted by Peremeeswhat the eff are you talking about?? You've just twisted everything i said. So I should point my finger the the friends I went to school and college with and call them murderers.?? If you read my post again without picking out the last line you'll see I was actually stating that we shouldn't be giving them (the nappers) a platform for free speech. You'll see the first line of my post was actually sarcasm that infact nothing is being done and you'll also see it was a reply to jimslys post. So instead of accusing me of being PC why don't you shift your arse from the computer and go and do something constructive instead of bitching me you tosspot!
Racial abuse? So my refusal to board a bus or an airplane with muslims is abusive to them? Should I have to sacrifice my life on the altar of Political Correctness!? I think not. If indeed we are dealing with just a few thousand bitter enders and criminals here, then how do you explain that there is no outcry in the muslim communities to weed out the ba ...[text shortened]... eart of darkness here. We are talking pure islam. To be mildly saddened about it is not enough.