So where was Reagan in all this, playing hop scotch?

[Aramike]

You mean, by not being at the actual event but by listening to the Fox news, one would get a better idea on what's going on

Oh wait, that's right - if one disagrees with a mindless drone liberal they must have gotten their information from Fox News.

Except I'm not conservative, and my sources are historical in nature, and based upon many first-hand perspectives.

Economic pressures on population as being the main reason for the revolution in the USSR is to large extent a myth cultivated by US and western media. In seventies despite high oil prices, those economic pressures on the population were much worse compared to eighties (again speaking from experience of being there, not from listening to the media).

Wow, you're really off in La-La Land, aren't you?

Do you KNOW what GDP is? Do you KNOW how the USSR's percentage of GDP increased to FACTUALLY impossible levels in response to US increases?

These are facts, and obviously discussing what really happened with you is pointless due to the fact that you clearly choose to ignore them because they don't support the rosey picture of "All-Hail Eastern Europeans" that you've manufactured for yourself.

Certain things certainly happened, and while I have stated repeatedly that I do NOT believe that Reagan CAUSED the downfall of the USSR, he certainly hastened it.

But let's not let reality get in the way...

[Aramike]

Being far away doesn't mean that person knows what they are talking about either. Actually less so. And that's the whole point.

Wow, is there an echo in the room?

StealthHunter said something just as silly.

And my response was that where one is distance-wise in relation to an event in no ways qualifies them as any sort of authority on that event itself. No moreso, not less so.

That's akin to saying that because there was a rock concert in your town, you know more about it than anyone else, despite not attending it, not reading reviews, despite not knowing anyone truly involved.

Being near or far from an event means absolutely nothing.

How about giving some actual links to facts that "the USSR had spent itself to oblivion". Are you saying they owed money to someone? Who? How much?

I've already given plenty of links to that effect.

Plus, this is common knowledge. Just Google, say, "USSR economics circa 1985". Or better, "USSR economy collapse".

Obviously you're dodging accountability for your statement that the USSR did not respond to US defense spending under Reagan, which is patently false. Either you're out-and-out lying, or don't know what you're talking about. There's no middle ground.

And one would have to be a total dolt to think that economic collapse has to do solely with debt, or that debt really even matters terribly. How about the exhaustion of the resources which would allow one to secure such debt?

Owing money never killed any nation. Being unable to SECURE LOANS is what destroys economies.

Again, I find myself curious as to why you're attempting to debate something you CLEARLY understand so little about ... you're attempt at ruining the economic feasibility argument is, well, extraordinarily laughable. Any first year economics student could illustrate that argument's flaws.

In fact, I've already had one take an attempt. She still hasn't stopped laughing.

Or in fact the Russians won because there was no third world war against them, just like there was two in the earlier half of the 20th century. Of which both were won by the Russian people. And they actually had to do some fighting on their own soil, for the survival of their people. Not just bombing Japanese and German civilians from high in the air.

:ha ha:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Wow, is there an echo in the room?

StealthHunter said something just as silly.

And my response was that where one is distance-wise in relation to an event in no ways qualifies them as any sort of authority on that event itself. No moreso, not less so.

Meaning I know as much as you know about things in Wisconsin and you know as much as I know about things in Finland.

Plus, this is common knowledge. Just Google, say, "USSR economics circa 1985". Or better, "USSR economy collapse".

So you can't show any links. Figures.

:ha ha:

That's the attitude US has to killing civilians. That's why you're the no. 1 hated country in the world.

[sergbuto]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It was not JUST Ronald Reagan. It was not JUST Mikhail Gorbochev. It was NOT just the economic and political pressures from outside the USSR. It was not JUST the rotten core of the Soviet Union.

It was the convergence of these leaders, at that time, with those factors, that created the outcome of the wall falling, and the later breakup of the Soviet "republic".

The foundations for the wall coming down were laid in the early 1980's, by not one single leader or one single factor.

Talking about the importance of a single factor, you know there was somewhat similar situation when Khrushchev came in power. USSR was doing much worse than US in terms of economic and military powers and Stalin's supporters were at key posts in the state. Khrushchev started the reforms but quickly stopped them just in responce to hostile economic and political pressures from outside the USSR.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by sergbuto

Economic pressures on population as being the main reason for the revolution in the USSR is to large extent a myth cultivated by US and western media. In seventies despite high oil prices, those economic pressures on the population were much worse compared to eighties (again speaking from experience of being there, not from listening to the media).


The starting and important point here is Gorbachev. He was a politician of new generation and formation. Naturally, he was and actually is a strong communism supporter but long before getting into power he thought that the actual system is wrong. He wanted to revise the system but underestimated the fact that Russia as whole its history says is a country of extremes. Instead, people started to push hard for having all the changes immediately which broke the whole thing.

I disagree. I don't watch Fox News at all, for one. I did read two of Gorbachev's books, and yes, he was a strong communism supporter, and no one was more surprised than he when the reforms (injections of capitalism and liberty) he injected into the Soviet system brought the whole thing down. It may sound like an oversimplification, but in the long run, the only way a govt can keep a communistic system in place is by force. People eventually will reject it. I visited Russia 4 times, including the period when Yeltsin sent in the tanks in Oct 1993, The people there I met were sick to death of being told how to live and having a communist paradise that consisted of repression and chronic economic disaster. That was no myth.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

What are you talking about? The Cold War didn't just end willy-nilly when Communist Russia died. You forget that it was about Communism as a whole, containing it and eradicating it from the face of the Earth. And that was an appalling failure on the part of the United States (and West in general). Cuba's still Communist, China is now a major superpower (bigger than us in terms of population, military strength, and production to name a few things off a long list), Vietnam didn't change any after the United States pulled out of the war (other than becoming a key player in the list of Communist states), and North Korea isn't getting along too well right now with South Korea.

I wonder if the Chinese were reading this how they'd be reacting right now. Probably laughing their asses off. Can't blame them.

The Chinese have been moving farther and farther from Mao and their Communist princicples for 30 years. what are you talking about? They may still be a one-party state, but it is Communist in name only.

[Oberon]

I think also the Sino-Soviet split helped as well, forcing the USSR to thaw relations with the US to prevent an anti-Soviet US/China alliance.
I mean, the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union began with Khrushchev's reforms in my opinion, but it was a combination of factors, not just one single person or event, which led to the end of communism in Europe. Like the dominos falling in Berlin the other day

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

That's the attitude US has to killing civilians. That's why you're the no. 1 hated country in the world.

You've got a lot of balls to say something like that, and on this day of all days! You had better have one damn good explanation of that comment.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

You've got a lot of balls to say something like that, and on this day of all days! You had better have one damn good explanation of that comment.

Ha, I think that statement says a lot more about him than it does the US

[AVGWarhawk]

That's the attitude US has to killing civilians. That's why you're the no. 1 hated country in the world.

At least until someone needs something.....then we are all buddy buddy

[Aramike]

So you can't show any links. Figures.

Considering that, as I've stated, I've ALREADY posted some links, why should I have to?

But, alas, considering that you can't do even the most rudimentary research:

http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-economic-growth
http://www.indopedia.org/Collapse_of...iet_Union.html


There's plenty more where that came from, but I'm not going to sit here and post the same things over and over while you plug your ears and scream "LALALALALALALALA".

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Ha, I think that statement says a lot more about him than it does the US

Indeed.

I wonder if being that ignorant of reality comes naturally or takes practice...

[August]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Indeed.

I wonder if being that ignorant of reality comes naturally or takes practice...

You guys don't recognize your classic internet troll? My advice:




Yeah I know, I should follow my own advice more often!

[nikimcbee]

The Chinese have been moving farther and farther from Mao and their Communist princicples for 30 years. what are you talking about? They may still be a one-party state, but it is Communist in name only.

Good observation There was a great Frontline show a couple of years ago about China, and that was something that I totally noticed. The modernized half of China (the eastern half with modernized industry) is laissez faire with gov't intervention. As long as business doesn't make the gov't look bad, they leave them alone.
Then there's the Western half of China, they are still following communism pretty closely, and they are back ass backwards. They have horrible healthcare (the gov't controlled healthcare btw) a horrible standard of living, etc. This, btw, is a major challenge for the Chinese gov't to keep the peasants on the their half of the country producing food for the rest of the country. The show was pretty interesting.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

You guys don't recognize your classic internet troll? My advice:




Yeah I know, I should follow my own advice more often!

Very true. I just can't help myself sometimes, its WAY too easy!

Originally Posted by Aramike

Considering that, as I've stated, I've ALREADY posted some links, why should I have to?

But, alas, considering that you can't do even the most rudimentary research:

http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-economic-growth
http://www.indopedia.org/Collapse_of...iet_Union.html


There's plenty more where that came from, but I'm not going to sit here and post the same things over and over while you plug your ears and scream "LALALALALALALALA".

Your links are contradicting each other. The second link doesn't even mention economy but talks at lenght about the Glasnost and Perestroika which were part of Gorby's politics. The first one talks about a lot of reasons but doesn't pin it on any specific one reason. So...which link should I believe in?

Looking at the statistics from the Answers.com link it's also interesting that the population of USSR grew throughout it's existence, despite the purges etc. with the only dip being during WW 2. Not the case for present day capitalist Russia where population and average lifespan especially for men has taken a steep dive.