Sure, that's Syria, Russia. Uhh, or is it Siberia, uhh................never mind.
Syria
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
Are you saying George H. W. Bush dismantled the USSR???????
Maybe they knew B.O. was on the horizon and they just knew there was no hope unless they changed!!!!!!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
I'm afraid your handelers have fooled you again. Ronald Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the Soviet Union as any other president since Truman..........a little, but not much.
This was an economic contest from the start. Pure and simple, in the end, the only really meaningful battle we fought with the Ruskies was in standard of living!
Does anyone doubt that if being a Commie gave you a better life, that they would still be around?
The Soviet Union was going to collapse no matter who was president. But you have been told that Reagan "dismanteled" the USSR and you believed it. Even though the Soviet Union was still around almost three years after Reagan left.
This was an economic contest from the start. Pure and simple, in the end, the only really meaningful battle we fought with the Ruskies was in standard of living!
Does anyone doubt that if being a Commie gave you a better life, that they would still be around?
The Soviet Union was going to collapse no matter who was president. But you have been told that Reagan "dismanteled" the USSR and you believed it. Even though the Soviet Union was still around almost three years after Reagan left.
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Come on guys, show some smarts. "Reagan" didn't "win the Cold War." The United States did. In 1945, starting with George Kennan's The Sources of Soviet Conduct, the US engaged in a lengthy geopolitical economic, social, ideological and military struggle with the Soviet Union to convince the rest of the world one system was better than the other.
Unlike a shooting war, there was no clear winner by territory gained or battles won. Like a shooting war, it finally ended when one side was economically and politically exhausted.
The Soviet economy simply couldn't sustain the cost of the military buildup and managing their client states, because it was inefficient and not up to the task. The US certainly helped the collapse along by forcing the Soviets to spend money they didn't have on client states, on a space program, on the military and so on.
Of course, we were doing the same (to a lesser extent) as well, especially after 1980.
The Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless of whether Reagan or Walter Mondale was President.
Now, having said all that, and as a huge critic of his economic policies which began the debt crisis we face today, Reagan did a masterful job of managing the fall of the Soviet Union from the West's perspective. He trusted Gorbachev as a true reformer, and as a person, when almost no one else in the US did, and kept Haig and the hawks at bay when they wanted to take advantage of the disintegrating Soviet Union militarily - which could have been disasterous.
Much credit to Reagan in that regard. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have been extremely dangerous for the rest of the world. Instead, Reagan and Bush I handled it amazingly well. But cause it? No. They did not.
Unlike a shooting war, there was no clear winner by territory gained or battles won. Like a shooting war, it finally ended when one side was economically and politically exhausted.
The Soviet economy simply couldn't sustain the cost of the military buildup and managing their client states, because it was inefficient and not up to the task. The US certainly helped the collapse along by forcing the Soviets to spend money they didn't have on client states, on a space program, on the military and so on.
Of course, we were doing the same (to a lesser extent) as well, especially after 1980.
The Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless of whether Reagan or Walter Mondale was President.
Now, having said all that, and as a huge critic of his economic policies which began the debt crisis we face today, Reagan did a masterful job of managing the fall of the Soviet Union from the West's perspective. He trusted Gorbachev as a true reformer, and as a person, when almost no one else in the US did, and kept Haig and the hawks at bay when they wanted to take advantage of the disintegrating Soviet Union militarily - which could have been disasterous.
Much credit to Reagan in that regard. The collapse of the Soviet Union could have been extremely dangerous for the rest of the world. Instead, Reagan and Bush I handled it amazingly well. But cause it? No. They did not.
Jeff - I won't say that Reagan won anything other than respect and hate from many people. Same for any President of the USA really...
Casting blame or accolades on the POTUS for anything is much akin to getting a good or bad cheesburger can be attributed to Ronald McDonald..
In my opinion, the fall of the USSR was bound to happen. It collapsed on itself as it chewed up resources as you point out.
Now what about Syria? How is all of this relevant to the plight of the middle east?
Why is it that we are so entwined with the middle east? Why can we not turn our backs on them and pay attention to our own issues here at home?
Casting blame or accolades on the POTUS for anything is much akin to getting a good or bad cheesburger can be attributed to Ronald McDonald..
In my opinion, the fall of the USSR was bound to happen. It collapsed on itself as it chewed up resources as you point out.
Now what about Syria? How is all of this relevant to the plight of the middle east?
Why is it that we are so entwined with the middle east? Why can we not turn our backs on them and pay attention to our own issues here at home?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
That's easy. Oil and Isreal.
Oil is becoming less of an issue, and Israel is showing it can handle things on its own. This turn of events with this administration refusing to bow to pressure to intervene in Libya and Syria is refreshing in my mind. It shows we are weaning ourselves from the notion that we can police the Middle East. We cannot.
Oil is becoming less of an issue, and Israel is showing it can handle things on its own. This turn of events with this administration refusing to bow to pressure to intervene in Libya and Syria is refreshing in my mind. It shows we are weaning ourselves from the notion that we can police the Middle East. We cannot.
Jeff... umm... does that mean Team America World Police would go away!?!?!?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPBX47zSktc]"Team America: World Police" - Official Trailer - YouTube[/ame]
Kevin
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Well now we know where the WMD were sent.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
This guy walks into a bar where he's been before, and asks the bartender if he has any new drinks.
"Sure," says the bartender. "We've got a new one called the Weapon Of Mass Destruction"
"Sounds interesting,"says the man. "What's in it?"
"Oh, vodka, rum, gin, Triple Sec, two kinds of liqueurs, a shot of bourbon. few other things"
"Sounds good," says the man, "mix me a Weapon Of Mass Destruction"
"Sorry," says the barkeep. "We don't have any".
(not my original, but I still love it)
"Sure," says the bartender. "We've got a new one called the Weapon Of Mass Destruction"
"Sounds interesting,"says the man. "What's in it?"
"Oh, vodka, rum, gin, Triple Sec, two kinds of liqueurs, a shot of bourbon. few other things"
"Sounds good," says the man, "mix me a Weapon Of Mass Destruction"
"Sorry," says the barkeep. "We don't have any".
(not my original, but I still love it)