Evil Empire First the prattle (I'll try to keep it short), then something better. First off, while Hurricane Dennis raged outside, I watched the first Harry Potter movie on ABC Family, a bad choice. The movie is long enough without commercial breaks, and I think the story is a lot better without all the corny movie attempts to create drama or emotional involvement. Also, I think characters made to be strictly excessive work well in the style of the book, but don't translate well into acted parts. Visually, the movie does an ok job- but I think it comes up a bit short, namely in the quidditch match and the final chess board fight. Also, there were parts where things didn't match what I had imagined (some of it probably related to my ethnocentricity, and some due to the impossible standard set by The Lord of the Rings movies). I'll probably eventually watch the rest as they come out, but without any of the anticipation of other perennial movie series.
I also watched the Princes of Malibu while waiting for Family Guy after the Simpsons- fairly funny, and so obviously staged I let it slip through my self-imposed ban on reality tv. I also read Nickel and Dimed and Till We Have Faces while sitting at work this weekend... and since both have potential for their own post I'll slide by them to something political.
During the course of discussion with a few of my more liberal brethren, I've become aware that they disagree with the strategies employed by the United States to combat Communism, both militarily (Vietnam, Operation Urgent Fury,Arms to Afghani Rebels, etc..) and economically (Ronald Reagan's Arms Race, support of the Contras, etc...).
While some of these were as well thought out as my attempt to put in my contacts after eating powdered sugar donuts this morning (Ok, I ended up washing my hands first... but I almost tried it) and others (Invasion of Grenada) more akin to military masturbation than serious attempts to combat Communism, I want to know if there was anything that the United States could have done in an attempt to bring down the Evil Empire that would have been acceptable (especially in retrospect) to those more dovish than I.
I also watched the Princes of Malibu while waiting for Family Guy after the Simpsons- fairly funny, and so obviously staged I let it slip through my self-imposed ban on reality tv. I also read Nickel and Dimed and Till We Have Faces while sitting at work this weekend... and since both have potential for their own post I'll slide by them to something political.
During the course of discussion with a few of my more liberal brethren, I've become aware that they disagree with the strategies employed by the United States to combat Communism, both militarily (Vietnam, Operation Urgent Fury,Arms to Afghani Rebels, etc..) and economically (Ronald Reagan's Arms Race, support of the Contras, etc...).
While some of these were as well thought out as my attempt to put in my contacts after eating powdered sugar donuts this morning (Ok, I ended up washing my hands first... but I almost tried it) and others (Invasion of Grenada) more akin to military masturbation than serious attempts to combat Communism, I want to know if there was anything that the United States could have done in an attempt to bring down the Evil Empire that would have been acceptable (especially in retrospect) to those more dovish than I.
posted by Justin at 9:20 AM 
9 Comments:
Harry Potter, you not only wasted a part of your life by watching the movie, but also on reading the book. I expect more out of you Justin, such disapointment. Also if Princes of Malibu stays in that time slot, I am going to pissed of at Fox, becasue that would ruin a otherwise good Sunday night line up.
I don't know if I will be able to comment on this to your satisfaction. I accept your premise--that the USSR needed to be "brought down"--but probably for different reasons than you think. We didn't really "fight communism"--that was a fun rallying cry that the leaders of our country used to get us to agree to useless conflicts like Vietnam. The USSR needed to go because it had Eastern Europe, as well as itself, in a fascist/military/socialist/stagnating death grip. Key to our success would have been free trade and open support of Soviet satellites that didn't want to be such (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.), and military aid to active participants in wars, such as the Kazakhs, the Afghans, etc. What was unnecessary was the arms race--in the event of a nuclear war, it wasn't going to matter who had the most bombs, because we'd all be dead.
Actually, in regards to the arms race, I always thought we did it with the intent of bankrupting the Soviet Union (which it did). Since both sides had "second strike" capibilities since the 50's, it had to be obvious that mutual destruction was guaranteed. That said, it seems like there would have to be some other reason for the arms race...
I'd say that reason was the pressure from defense contractors who liked the massive military contracts they were getting.
"The arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union."
False.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union
I think that the arms race was generally a mental/political thing. If one of the superpowers far out-armed the other, forget that they both could wipe life off the earth, it gave them an edge in the eyes of the world at large. So, if the Soviets came out with something bigger and better we had to too, or look like we were inferior. And vice versa. It wasn't about being able to damage the enemy more, it was about proving that we could each do everything that the other could do -- just like the space race and all other technological races we were in at the time. It was more about image than destructive power.
prattle: Harry Potter, the books, are amazing. The movies are decent, but it's hard to cram so much amazingness into a few hours. Til we have Faces is really good, but not as good as The Great Divorce.
Arms race: I disagree with Chuck. I know you weren't really adressing me, since I"m not a Dove, but I'm still writing, and it'll increase your comment number, so it's all good.
While the claim "fighting communism" is about as substantial as "fighting terror", the call to fight the USSR was a lot more than a rallying cry to get us into "useless conflicts like vietnam". Vietnam was terrible - the entire Cold War was not. Whether or not it needed to go, the USSR needed to be fought against for the multi-faceted reason that they would fight us. Economically, in intelligence, in military, in diplomacy, they were openly in the business of subverting our government regardless of our involvement in theirs, and so we had to be involved.
I also think it's rather misleading to dismiss the idea that the arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union with a simple "False" and a wikipedia article. The Soviet Union fell apart economically for a number of reasons. The most dramatic contributor was probably the disgusting failure of their economic system. Long before engaging in the arms race, people were starving to death while trains of food rotted in Moscow due to the horrible mis-management of resources by the Soviet government. Yet at the same time, the disintegration of the Soviet Empire was certainly sped along and forced by their increased military spending in efforts to maintain imperialist wars in outlying regions like Afghanistan, maintain a strong presence in all conquered countries, and compete with the US in both military and space programs. The arms race didn't bankrupt them into collapsing, but they probably would've lasted a lot longer without it.
And while Wikipedia is good for background information or disputing absolute facts ("Poland was conquered in WWII"), it's not as useful for "proving" more subjective statements like "the arms race bankrupted the USSR."
redhurt, check out:
http://www.thearmsracedidnotbankruptthesovietunion.com
And then we'll talk.
Ok... but how about a link that works?
I will, but only after you've had a gander at http://www.thearmsracerocks.com
Post a Comment
<< Home