What is it going to take?

[Turtle]

The "Cold War" label may very well be an incorrect label in your mind, but it was not World War III just the same. The Cold War doesn't mean it must preclude hot wars, battles and other conflicts taking place within the Cold War. The Cold War is a proper noun, not a description of the type of battles and wars that were fought within it. Yeah, sure, the Cold War was fought all over the world, and there were real battles and real deaths involved, but that's where the similarity ends. It's not the same as the majority of the world involved in an all-out hot war all at the same time. You can call the Cold War whatever you like, but it won't change one wit what it actually was. Whether it was a joke to many in this country is irrelevant to the fact that it was The Cold War.

Now, with history books being what they are, it could be that all of the non-communist countries invaded the Soviet Union in an all-out armed attack and they didn't tell anyone about it except you. But I would think a rogue memo would have leaked out somewhere along the line alerting everyone in the world that they had fought another World War. But that didn't happen. So you, and many others apparently, can look at the Cold War as WWIII, but when you do that you're doing nothing more than applying your own definition to things, definitions that don't accurately define what happened. The Cold War was most definitely world wide, but that's not the same as the proper noun World War.

I think I'm gonna call the invasion of Grenada "WW II 1/2" because it was the first major US military operation since Viet Nam and everyone in the world had an opinion about it.

 

[Turtle]

Cold War - Origins of the Term

 

[MentalGiant]

The invasion of Grenada I don't think can even be considered as even a 1/2 a World War. For one, majority of the world's great powers was not involved. Two, the United States was the only one that sent the majority of the troops. And the other troops that were from Jamaica and other resources were very few. It was basically a internal power war.

And there is my opinion.

 

[layoutshooter]

I think, Turtle, that you will find that if you dig around you will find many "real historians" that agree with how I feel, but I did not write what I did to argue with you. It really is NOT important. What IS important is the following: Hundreds of thousands died. The United States did NOT start the conflict and did try to stop it in other than violent ways many times over those years. It was a REAL war with REAL deaths. It was very MIS-REPORTED. Our involvement was vilified by many. Those who died have NOT EVER recieved the recognition that they deserved, they died so you could be free. Those who fought, on what ever level, should have NEVER been riduculed and thier efforts down played like they have been. I lost MANY friends, some to gun fire, some to back ally murders, some to stress related pre-mature deaths. The bottom line, dead to protect YOU!! I know you know this, most do not, the time HAS come to make sure that what REALLY happened comes out.

I will tell you and everyone else one thing, this garden slug of a president is ONE of MANY who LIED and hung with LIERS on this subject. I ABHOR HIM and his kind!! May they all rot in H*LL!!!!

Layoutshooter

 

[Turtle]

You're arguing two different issues with the same breath. Ridiculed, misreported, recognition, that's all a separate issue and is completely irrelevant to there being a difference between a World War and a Cold War. Other than you redefining the term, we agree on everything else.

"The invasion of Grenada I don't think can even be considered as even a 1/2 a World War."

Me neither. It was a joke, sarcasm, for the very reasons you stated. I would have thought the "1/2" would have given it away as being a joke.

 

[layoutshooter]

I am sorry Turtle, I am VERY touchy on this subject. It is TOO real for me, not history, real friends, really dead. I get kinda riled.

William Ayrs revealed in the deaths of my friends and encourged others to kill my friends and supported my enemies that did. I need not say more.

You are not the object of my anger. I should get over it but I doubt that I ever will.

Layoutshooter

 

[MentalGiant]

Me neither. It was a joke, sarcasm, for the very reasons you stated. I would have thought the "1/2" would have given it away as being a joke.

I was kind of thinking it was a joke, but sometimes its hard to say what is serious and what isn't when its being written down and you have a Turtle doing the writing.

 

[greg334]

What cold war?

 

[MentalGiant]

That looks to be a sniper rifle?

 

[greg334]

That looks to be a sniper rifle?

Sure is, Mosin Nagant M1891/30 with a early version of the PE scope. Most likely not a sniper but some political agent who was ordered to stand there and take the picture.

 

[MentalGiant]

I was doing some reading on those rifles. Soviet Union must been hording them, because before the fall of the Berlin Wall, they were rare collectibles and now they are compared inexpensive to regular surplus arms. I bet that upset the collectors when that happened. Especially if they paid big bucks for one.

 

[greg334]

Not really, they have been available from different sources for a long long time. I got my first one, a plain jane version in 1978 but the last one, like the one in the picture cost me about 900. It was one with a tracible history and I sold it for about double of what I paid for it to pay the bills and last I heard the prices dbuoled again.

What really took a hit was the semi-autos (Aks and SKSs) and the pistols. I had a nice Tokarev TT-33 which I got from a Soviet in 1984 but when they country fell, the prices went with them - now you can get the chinese version for about $130.

 

[Pilgrim]

"I had a nice Tokarev TT-33 which I got from a Soviet in 1984 but when they country fell, the prices went with them - now you can get the chinese version for about $130. "

My dad brought back a TT-33 from Europe when he returned from WW II. It was manufactured in 1940, I've still got it, it still shoots great and I've always been impressed at the functionality, if not the eye appeal - easy to field strip and clean, it was an excellent military sidearm.

 

[greg334]

Most of the Soviet weapons had to be easy and tough. I remember someone describing the PSH when he was in Berlin, the thing would be run over by a truck and still shoot.