This joke is…
- hilarious
- an absolute disgrace
0 voters
“My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”
According to his counterpart, Gorbachev, Reagan was under the impression that ICBMs could be launched ‘as a bluff’ and then recalled to their silos. Kind of a scary thing to learn about the leader of the free world, especially if you’re the leader of the evil empire.
Under the circumstances, I would say that Reagan’s “joke” is not very funny.
Reagan was also under the impression that his Star Wars fantasy missile defense system could work, despite overwhelming evidence that it was not feasible technologically or economically. Unfortunately, Shrub harbors the same fantasies.
Fortunately, the Soviets were under the same impression. Knowing that they could not keep up, they decided to throw in the towel, so to speak.
Yeah, it’s a grin for sure. 
But hilarious?
When Reagan was asked to test the mic he didn’t realize his little joke would go out on air.
His intended audience for the joke was the handful of people in the studio (or whichever room he was broadcasting from).
I vote ‘funny’.
Fortunately, the Soviets were under the same impression. Knowing that they could not keep up, they decided to throw in the towel, so to speak.[/quote]
I find it amazing how leadership on both sides could distance themselves from the possible results of their decisions. I mean what if this ‘game’ they were playing turned against them, whereby instead of winning, they lose. The results of losing could mean the death of millions or worse. How do these people play this game knowing the possible results?
It’s a funny joke for someone impersonating the president , a bit frightening when its the person who is supposed to be one.
Or was the cold war just a big bluff by both sides?
Well, you make one wrong assumption which destroys your argument: it wasn’t a game to anyone.
Do you think that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan as a game? Was the Berlin Wall a massive prank? Oh, that Nickie Kruschev, “We will bury you,” what a kidder!
I thought Kruschev was saying that long after the failure of the decadent capitalist policies of the West, the USSR will still be around to pick up the pieces, because their economic system was so much more viable and long lasting.
I thought Kruschev was saying that long after the failure of the decadent capitalist policies of the West, the USSR will still be around to pick up the pieces, because their economic system was so much more viable and long lasting.[/quote]
Yes, that is correct. Kruschev also put nuclear bombs and missiles in Cuba. His version of a hotfoot, I suppose.
“An absolute disgrace” does not even touch it, but that was my vote. 
I seem to recall that when Reagan made that joke he was visiting some place in Texas . . . . . anyway, within about seven minutes of making that statement, the alert level for Soviet troops in the Far East was raised to the “impending attack” level (highest level) . . . . . . hence I don’t think the Soviets were laughing about it . . . . . .
Well, you make one wrong assumption which destroys your argument: it wasn’t a game to anyone.
Do you think that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan as a game? Was the Berlin Wall a massive prank? Oh, that Nickie Kruschev, “We will bury you,” what a kidder![/quote]
It’s not a wrong assumption at all. It’s one of the contexts in which both sides framed the language describing their actions.
"It has long been noted that we understand war as a competitive game like chess, or as a sport, like football or boxing. It is a metaphor in which there is a clear winner and loser, and a clear end to the game. The metaphor highlights strategic thinking, team work, preparedness, the spectators in the world arena, the glory of winning and the shame of defeat.
This metaphor is taken very seriously. There is a long tradition in the West of training military officers in team sports and chess. The military is trained to win. This can lead to a metaphor conflict, as it did in Vietnam, since Clausewitz’s metaphor seeks to maximize geopolitical gains, which may or may not be consistent with absolute military victory. Indeed, the right wing myth that the Vietnam War was fought “with one hand tied behind our back” uses the boxing version of the sports metaphor. What is being referred to was the application of Clausewitzian principles in Vietnam to limit our involvement in that war." - George Lakoff
Hadn’t really intended to get into a linguistics discussion on how we frame the language of debate in order to justify our actions. But it’s very interesting to see how all this works - those who use it best tend to ‘win’ public opinion.
I still don’t understand how these leaders can make these ‘calculated risks’ when so many lives hang in the balance. I guess that’s one of the million of reasons why I would never be one of them - I wouldn’t be able to handle the deaths of innocents and I wouldn’t be able to crack jokes at making war.