Thank you John Pilger for making this and not screaming for it to be pulled. Thank you Pandemian for putting this up. Despite the sound issues in parts 1 and 2 this is an extremely informative and eye opening documentary.
Weird thing is, that the threat of bankruptcy is exactly what halted the arms race; the USSR couldnt keep up with the huge spending which the USA could afford to continue. The cost was what ended the Cold War; the Soviets simply couldnt afford to sustain the cost of nuclear armaments. Between them the superpowers were spending $50 million a day on nuclear arms. Neither could have kept this up indefinitely, its just that the Soviets had to stop or face economic meltdown.
My thoughts exactly. Its not surprising the Russians are pissed off about the missile defense shield. Given the US has used WMD in Japan and Vietnam, if I were Russian I would be worried about the US too. And the media is still painting Russia as the bad guy. I think Pilger is one of the only real journalists left. And if there are any other journalists reading this I think you should be ashamed of yourself for the ongoing capitulation with corporate media and government propaganda.
You are right about the Russians being afraid. During the Cold War, nowhere was it written that the USSR wanted to invade anyone: they had been victims themselves of an horrific war, so the last thing they wanted was to invade anywhere else. They were still rebuilding their country after the war, so invading or attacking another country was simply a ridiculous notion. The USA needed another enemy to aim its bombs at after Japan surrendered and WW2 was over.
@ralucagymnast Stalin had plans to take over all of Europe, your comment is simply wrong. Do not confuse the Russian people with the Soviet leadership.
So? The US have made plans to conquer Canada, so that doesn't mean squat. Also, just look into the history of invasions and military interventions in the last century to see who has the best/worst record. (Spoiler: USA has a far worse record than any other country, including USSR. It's barely comparable). Do not confuse the US leadership with the American people! :P
@theknasp I'm trying to stick to the post-1917 world here, and no US interventions were not worse. US proxy dictators tended to kill less people than their Communist opponents. NKVD recomended killing 1/4 of Latvia's population, US never did anything like that. But of course, I'm just "blinded by nationalism" aren't I?
Sure, we can ignore US imperialist atrocities pre-1917. Even if that were true, the fact remains that while USSR has intervened and fought wars to a very very limited extent post-ww2, US has done exact the opposite.
Of course, if I had been raped by a red-army soldier I would be on your side. (ad-hominems rule! :P)
@theknasp OK, so the US tried to take over Canada in 1812, therefore it shouldn't stop the USSR from killing 1/4 of the Latvian population in 1945. We shouldn't try to stop try to prevent an imminent tragedy because something bad happened 100 years ago. Makes sense.
But they weren't preventing tragedy, they aren't "stopping terror" today. On the contrary, they are engaging in acts of terror by starting wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...), by supporting harsh and brutal dictatorships and so on.
When I say "they" I refer to the elites, the businessmen, bankers, (ruling class) who wants to keep the "annoying" public from interfering. This was true for the USSR and its ruling class through the party, and it's true for the US today.
@theknasp You are right, they did not, but I think they should have, they should have used America's nuclear monopoly to stop Soviet and Chinese communist expanion in the 40's and 50's. This could have saved millions of lives. One reason they did not is that whenever someone pointed to the dangers of Communism, some smug lefty would shout "US imperialism!" and MILLIONS more were enslaved. So, it's not all the elites faults, people like Pilger deserve much blame as well.
I think America, instead of starting wars and expanding their business, should have focused on ending poverty, starvation and supplied basic medicines to all the world. By respecting international law and spreading the wealth around, granting independence to colonies and so on, then the threat of "communism" wouldn't even exist.
Why? Because communism is just an answer to a problem. The problem of denying people freedom, democracy and basic human rights.
@theknasp Oh the US did not start the Vietnam War. Ho Chi Minh did when he decided that all of Southeast Asia needed to be under the rule of a single Stalinist clique. As long as you see all complaints and warnings about Communism or Radical Islam as a conspiracy cooked up by the rich you will never be able to think clearly. Learn some history son.
Actually, the vietnamese fought to free themselves from French colonialism, then America invaded and established a harsh dictatorship. This is admitted by the United States government in declassified papers, as elaborated by Ellsberg and Chomsky.
As to your second complaint: The rich only protest against that which threatens their power. Communism/socialism threatens the richs power obviously, but I don't see in what way "radical Islam" is threatening Muslim businessmen...
I love that last scene during the credits....
underage4page 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love that last scene during the credits,,,,
underage4page 1 year ago
Comment removed
underage4page 1 year ago
Thank you John Pilger for making this and not screaming for it to be pulled. Thank you Pandemian for putting this up. Despite the sound issues in parts 1 and 2 this is an extremely informative and eye opening documentary.
freakunique 1 year ago
Weird thing is, that the threat of bankruptcy is exactly what halted the arms race; the USSR couldnt keep up with the huge spending which the USA could afford to continue. The cost was what ended the Cold War; the Soviets simply couldnt afford to sustain the cost of nuclear armaments. Between them the superpowers were spending $50 million a day on nuclear arms. Neither could have kept this up indefinitely, its just that the Soviets had to stop or face economic meltdown.
ralucagymnast 2 years ago
and 25 years pass and nothing has changed at all!
grahamkeithtodd 3 years ago 6
My thoughts exactly. Its not surprising the Russians are pissed off about the missile defense shield. Given the US has used WMD in Japan and Vietnam, if I were Russian I would be worried about the US too. And the media is still painting Russia as the bad guy. I think Pilger is one of the only real journalists left. And if there are any other journalists reading this I think you should be ashamed of yourself for the ongoing capitulation with corporate media and government propaganda.
badmofker 2 years ago 2
You are right about the Russians being afraid. During the Cold War, nowhere was it written that the USSR wanted to invade anyone: they had been victims themselves of an horrific war, so the last thing they wanted was to invade anywhere else. They were still rebuilding their country after the war, so invading or attacking another country was simply a ridiculous notion. The USA needed another enemy to aim its bombs at after Japan surrendered and WW2 was over.
ralucagymnast 2 years ago
@ralucagymnast Stalin had plans to take over all of Europe, your comment is simply wrong. Do not confuse the Russian people with the Soviet leadership.
RadioFreeWisconsin 9 months ago
@RadioFreeWisconsin
So? The US have made plans to conquer Canada, so that doesn't mean squat. Also, just look into the history of invasions and military interventions in the last century to see who has the best/worst record. (Spoiler: USA has a far worse record than any other country, including USSR. It's barely comparable). Do not confuse the US leadership with the American people! :P
theknasp 9 months ago
@theknasp I'm trying to stick to the post-1917 world here, and no US interventions were not worse. US proxy dictators tended to kill less people than their Communist opponents. NKVD recomended killing 1/4 of Latvia's population, US never did anything like that. But of course, I'm just "blinded by nationalism" aren't I?
RadioFreeWisconsin 9 months ago
@RadioFreeWisconsin
Sure, we can ignore US imperialist atrocities pre-1917. Even if that were true, the fact remains that while USSR has intervened and fought wars to a very very limited extent post-ww2, US has done exact the opposite.
Of course, if I had been raped by a red-army soldier I would be on your side. (ad-hominems rule! :P)
theknasp 9 months ago
@theknasp OK, so the US tried to take over Canada in 1812, therefore it shouldn't stop the USSR from killing 1/4 of the Latvian population in 1945. We shouldn't try to stop try to prevent an imminent tragedy because something bad happened 100 years ago. Makes sense.
RadioFreeWisconsin 9 months ago
@RadioFreeWisconsin
But they weren't preventing tragedy, they aren't "stopping terror" today. On the contrary, they are engaging in acts of terror by starting wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...), by supporting harsh and brutal dictatorships and so on.
When I say "they" I refer to the elites, the businessmen, bankers, (ruling class) who wants to keep the "annoying" public from interfering. This was true for the USSR and its ruling class through the party, and it's true for the US today.
theknasp 9 months ago
@theknasp You are right, they did not, but I think they should have, they should have used America's nuclear monopoly to stop Soviet and Chinese communist expanion in the 40's and 50's. This could have saved millions of lives. One reason they did not is that whenever someone pointed to the dangers of Communism, some smug lefty would shout "US imperialism!" and MILLIONS more were enslaved. So, it's not all the elites faults, people like Pilger deserve much blame as well.
RadioFreeWisconsin 9 months ago
@RadioFreeWisconsin
I think America, instead of starting wars and expanding their business, should have focused on ending poverty, starvation and supplied basic medicines to all the world. By respecting international law and spreading the wealth around, granting independence to colonies and so on, then the threat of "communism" wouldn't even exist.
Why? Because communism is just an answer to a problem. The problem of denying people freedom, democracy and basic human rights.
theknasp 9 months ago
@theknasp Oh the US did not start the Vietnam War. Ho Chi Minh did when he decided that all of Southeast Asia needed to be under the rule of a single Stalinist clique. As long as you see all complaints and warnings about Communism or Radical Islam as a conspiracy cooked up by the rich you will never be able to think clearly. Learn some history son.
RadioFreeWisconsin 9 months ago
@RadioFreeWisconsin
Actually, the vietnamese fought to free themselves from French colonialism, then America invaded and established a harsh dictatorship. This is admitted by the United States government in declassified papers, as elaborated by Ellsberg and Chomsky.
As to your second complaint: The rich only protest against that which threatens their power. Communism/socialism threatens the richs power obviously, but I don't see in what way "radical Islam" is threatening Muslim businessmen...
theknasp 9 months ago
A new video! Love it as usual!
TheRantingRocker 3 years ago 2