XShipRider said:Accuracy and reliability were the keywords during the Cold War. The
Soviets mistakenly thought their missiles could be taken out by a first
strike. In return they wanted to increase the accuracy and reliability
of their doomsday weapons. This meant $pending hard money they
didn't possess and could not generate with a closed market. Their only
true cash business was in the arms business and modestly in the shipping
business (largest fleet in the world at one time).
True both sides could have easily depopulated the world. But the US had
one feather the Russians couldn't claim... that is, we showed the world we
were dumb enough to drop a nuclear weapon on a civilian population.
Proof in the pudding we were not afraid to drop these heinous WMDs.
Russia, on the other hand, was scared stiff during Reagan's build up of
the 600-ship Navy, the development of the space-based missile defense
system (coined Star Wars by the media), massive influx of cash
to all things military and a huge standing army.
Read The Mitrokhin Archive by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin to
get some insight as to the wariness of the Politburo and the KGB during
the Cold War. It is quite telling how the US thought the Soviets were
so far ahead in so many areas of intelligence and technology when in
actuality they were drowning in red [sic] tape. What they couldn't
steal from the West they had to expend bank-loads of cash, cash they
didn't readily have, to try and keep up. They also thought Reagan was
unstable enough to launch a first strike.
There is also the very telling Cuban Missile Crisis scenario. It too shows
their lack of fortitude with relation to launching nuclear missiles (not that
that's a bad thing!).
I'll give the Russians this much ~ they were smart enough NOT to launch
any nuclear weapons.
Sorry, Reagan gets the credit but only because he spent us into multiple
trillions of very long term debt.
I'm sure there are those who will want to debate the necessity
of dropping nukes on Japan to end WWII. It doesn't matter now, it's
done.
XShipRider said:Sorry, Reagan gets the credit but only because he spent us into multiple
trillions of very long term debt.
Please.....
teacher said:
teacher said:Please.....
Nice pic, is that a self portrait?
I too lived it. You're misreading the post. I didn't say it was a bad thing
that Ronnie spent the bucks to rid the world of the so-called mighty "Red
Menace." All I said was he spent the bucks which did indeed put us into
the red [sic] ourselves. Good or bad? I think he knew they would crumble
under the weight of their own debt with absolutely no way to dig themselves
out. We didn't need to waste ammo when we could outspend them. Our
saving grace was, and is, our robust economy.
I agree with TimmyBoy's assessment too. SDI had them trembling in their
proverbial boots.
I applaud you for your service in Germany.
Their only
true cash business was in the arms business and modestly in the shipping
business (largest fleet in the world at one time).
XShipRider said:teacher said:Nice pic, is that a self portrait?
I too lived it. You're misreading the post. I didn't say it was a bad thing
that Ronnie spent the bucks to rid the world of the so-called mighty "Red
Menace." All I said was he spent the bucks which did indeed put us into
the red [sic] ourselves. Good or bad? I think he knew they would crumble
under the weight of their own debt with absolutely no way to dig themselves
out. We didn't need to waste ammo when we could outspend them. Our
saving grace was, and is, our robust economy.
I agree with TimmyBoy's assessment too. SDI had them trembling in their
proverbial boots.
I applaud you for your service in Germany.
Ah well....
All I said was he spent the bucks which did indeed put us into
the red [sic] ourselves.
M14 Shooter said:This is a common 'myth', propogated by the left.
It wasnt defense spending that ran up all those "trillions" in debt.
Defense spending FY1982-1989: $2028B
Entitlemen spending FY82-1989: $3626B
Total of deficits FY1982-1989: $1668B*
*this includes SocSec surplus spent as general revenueadded to actual deficit figures
How did defense spending run up 'trillions' in deficits when entitlement spending exceeded defense spending by 78%?
XShipRider said:Okay, entitlement (should be a misnomer) spending outpaced defense. I didn't
say defense spending was the ONLY spending which put us in the red. It was
the whole ball o'wax which put us in debt. Don't get me wrong, I'm under
no illusion that Ron initiated the deficit or the debt. I just wish he would
have kept his #1 budget advisor David Stockman around. That man had
real ideas for cutting spending (entitlements). If memory serves he more
or less quit because he wasn't able to accomplish his balanced budget
initiatives.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/040419/19eewhere.htm
SKILMATIC said:Budget or no budget. If it took double to beat the russians so be it. I will be damed if we fought both WW's to end up in a loss to communism. Democracy and liberty will prevail as long as good men stand in the pursuit of all who threaten it. In this case it was reagan and the need to spend the money where it was needed. He did exactly that and he put us on the right track to win a decisive victory. Now look at what his spending got us. It got us to become a superpower over anyones wildest dreams.
Again the moral of the story is you have to sacrifice some to gain alot. Well we sacrificed some money to gain even more money.
XShipRider said:I could not agree more. Reagan did what was necessary to bring the USSR
to it's knees. He did it with our economic might through a military buildup
unlike any other save WWII.
Most poeple dont realize that the Cold War just wasnt about who can attain the most nukes. But it was a war to find out what way of life was better and could prevail longer. It was a fight between communism and democracy. Once the world saw that democracy could prevail over any other form of a strong government it started to spread like an epidemic throughout the world. If it means having a deficit of several quadrillion dollars to keep me from being enslaved from communism then so be it.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:This is an excellent example of Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc logic.
1. You honestly want to think that SuperRegan took down teh Soviet Union instead of the vast coruption, inept politicians, starving, unhappy populatin, and inefficient, crumbling economy intrinsic to Communism is not waht did it? I would hate to rain on your Regan Parade, but Regan didn't "end" the soviet union. It ended itself. He merely catalysed it some.
2. Secondly, it was not a war between Communism and Democracy to determine which was better, since both aren't even the same concept. The former is an economic system whilst the second is a political system. It's not a war between Democracy and Communism, rather Capitalism and Communism. Capitalism is not synonomous with democracy. Most of the Communist states fall apart easily enough on ther own, because it's a crappy system.
Ronald Regan "supastar" didn't do it. That's a pipe dream people tell their children so they can sleep at night to fight those eeeeeeeevil godless commies who gobble up children who don't listen to their mommies.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:This is an excellent example of Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc logic.
1. You honestly want to think that SuperRegan took down teh Soviet Union instead of the vast coruption, inept politicians, starving, unhappy populatin, and inefficient, crumbling economy intrinsic to Communism is not waht did it? I would hate to rain on your Regan Parade, but Regan didn't "end" the soviet union. It ended itself. He merely catalysed it some.
2. Secondly, it was not a war between Communism and Democracy to determine which was better, since both aren't even the same concept. The former is an economic system whilst the second is a political system. It's not a war between Democracy and Communism, rather Capitalism and Communism. Capitalism is not synonomous with democracy. Most of the Communist states fall apart easily enough on ther own, because it's a crappy system.
Ronald Regan "supastar" didn't do it. That's a pipe dream people tell their children so they can sleep at night to fight those eeeeeeeevil godless commies who gobble up children who don't listen to their mommies.
Ronald Regan "supastar" didn't do it. That's a pipe dream people tell their children so they can sleep at night to fight those eeeeeeeevil godless commies who gobble up children who don't listen to their mommies.
You only prove my point when you eluded your first point. Thank you for proving my argument. Again, commmunism ended itself which is what I said earlier if you learned to read. Also that only proves my argument in that it was a fight to see which form of gov could prevail. And democracy won did it not? "Whether you win by an inch or a mile winnings winning." So again you only proved my point.
Now to your second point, again economical or governmental it doesnt matter. Democracy won. Simple as that. Communism is a form of government as well as democracy. Each has their own ways of economical beleifs and once again democracy has proven itself to be prevalent. So again you only prove my points. Thank you
Whether you beleive reagan was good or not doesnt matter because communism isnt the superpower. We(the democratic republic) is. So go and whine to me becasue you are going to cry over spilled milk.
Australianlibertarian said:Communism is always doomed to fail, because collective/statist economies cannot quickly match market forces the way capitalism can.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:Pat yourself on the back for making an idiotic claim: you're good at it. Now actually grow a brain and read what I wrote.
I didn't set out to prove that your statement that Communism lost was wrong. You, however, make two critical errors in your analysis. However, why would I argue against the notion that Capitalism won over Communism? Communism sucks and Capitalism is better. Since I never argued against that notion, this "rebuttle" paragraph is pointless, since it bypasses the reason for posting.
You are wrong in 2 major areas in which your brick Wall of Ignorance will not allow reason and logic to penetrate. Democracy didn't win. Capitalism did, and Capitalism doesn't equal Democracy nor does it require it. Communism is not the antithesis to Democracy. You can just as easily have a non-capitalist democracy, since the heart of democracy is "majoritarianism" unless you are not talking about real democracy and what Americans pretend is democracy.
Next time, actually address the point by not fabricating a nice, cushy strawman to beat up. You look smarter than that.
False. This statement shows you are uneducated in the topic of which you speak. Your point is that Democracy defeated Communism and that Regan defeated the Soviet Union. These are two, major false assertions I proved wrong.
1. Democracy didn't defeat Communism. Capitalism did. Democracy is a polticial system of majoritarianism or voting to elect leaders. Since Democracy does not presuppose any economic system, and Communism does not intrinsically pressuppse an political system (unless you are going by the colloquial, inaccurate descriptive use, not the normative one) the Cold War was a battle of the economic systems: Capitalism vs Communism. It is absurd to claim that Democracy instead of Capitalism defeated Communism. You are wrong, and simply cannot own up to your failures.
Explication for Clarification:
Communism has an official defintion and a colloquial definition, much like Atheism. The first, and dominate definition describes it as an economic system. On the other hand, the primary definition (normative) of Democracy is described as a political system.
Observe:
Communism:
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Democracy:
# Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Capitalism:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Going by your bizarro world logic, Capitalism = a government form. Capitalism is in the same ballpark of ecomomic doctrines. They are not governments. You can have a government that uses capitalism, and is thus called a capitalist system government or you can have a government that uses communism and is claled a communism "government" system.
However, neither are governments, thus your statement is false.
There is no specified economic system in Democracy, but Communism is always a specific economic paradigm.
Shifting Goalposts Fallacy:
The second original claim I addressed was the notion that Grand Daddy Regan ended the soviet union. That is a false statement. If you do not wish to be corrected on blatantly false information, you insufferable fool, stop crying over spilled milk and poney up. It is considerably relevant whether or not Regan ended it, since the idiot claim that was made and I addressed. Now kindly go out back and kick yourself in the arse.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:You're damn right it's simplistic. People who think that he "ended it" are not thinking logically, nor are they thinking realistically. They are breaking history down into chunks that are easier to understand, but horrically inaccurate.
There is actually significant academic research that shows that Regan had little or nothing to do with the collapose; in fact, he actually increased the problem via his militarism. Observe:
In his book Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? (1998), Robert Strayer suggests many factors for the Russians' surrender of Marxism. The invasion of Afghanistan proved to be a tactical and political mistake, leading to international isolation of the Soviet Union and contributing to pessimism inside the country because people no longer viewed their government as being peace-loving. By the mid-1980s Afghanistan had become, in Gorbachev’s words, a “bleeding wound.” At the same time, Soviets who traveled outside of their country noted how well people on the other side of the Iron Curtain lived. Not only did the economic success on the outside undermine the teachings of Marxist-Leninism, the West (especially Sweden and Austria) served as an alternative model. Moreover, successful economic reforms were taking place in China, predating Gorbachev’s rise to power by about six years and providing a case study of a Communist country undergoing market-style experimentation. As for Reagan’s aggressive stance and high-tech military buildup, some have argued that it actually prolonged the life of the Soviet Union because it strengthened the conservative faction inside the Kremlin while at the same time it undermined Gorbachev.
Further:
It seems far too simplistic for Reagan to be given most of the credit for the Soviet Union’s demise, considering the many external and internal factors. Of the external, the United States under Reagan was one of MANY variables. In conclusion, Strayer writes, “Thus, the international environment in which the Soviet Union operated in the 1980s, while not itself decisive in causing the country’s collapse, contributed to three internal processes that fundamentally undermined the Soviet system: the declining legitimacy of the communist regime in the eyes of its own citizens and leaders; the increasingly apparent need for serious reform; and the sharpening divisions within Soviet society as the reform process unfolded.”
AFTER THE END of Soviet rule, for a number of years I lived in Russia. In the former city of Leningrad, I became acquainted with a professor of history. One afternoon, while we were having tea in his apartment, he looked me in the eye and with full force said, “One thing I am very proud of is it was MY country that had the COURAGE to end the Cold War. Someone needed to bring this to a stop before we destroyed the earth. I don’t think this could have ever happened from the other side.” He went on to brag about the numerous demonstrations in Leningrad and Moscow against the Soviet hardliners. This period of history, it became clear to me, was bigger than Reagan.
When Reagan was stooped over on the pavement of T Street in Washington with John W. Hinckley’s bullet embedded in his lung, in Poland Lech Walesa was at that very moment leading Solidarity in a defiant stance against the Warsaw Pact forces that were undergoing military exercises in an intimidating show of force. Reagan had been in office only seventy days, but the direct challenge to Soviet authority was well in progress, being carried out by others outside of the hospital room. Indeed, months before President Carter used the hotline to strongly warn Moscow that the United States would be intolerant of any Soviet military crackdown against the Solidarity movement. Carter’s December 1980 message to the Kremlin was a diplomatic shot over the bow, forcing Leonid Brezhnev to deal with the uprising in a less than direct manner. This challenge from the United States, which was prior to Reagan’s inauguration, gave Solidarity some breathing room to further agitate for freedom.
For many years to come, the same pope whom Reagan fell asleep on will be remembered for having played a great role in undermining the moral authority of Communism. The first non-Italian head of the Catholic Church since 1523, Pope John Paul II was himself a Pole. Beginning in 1978 when he took over as the head of the Vatican, he gave moral support to Solidarity and all people across the Eastern Bloc who wished for greater freedom.
By Roger Chapman
Mr. Chapman is an instructor of history and social science at Lincoln Trail College in Robinson, Illinois.
Most historians don't view the history with the simplistic idiocy of: REGAN DID IT! Only partisans do. There are many variables of why the Soviet Union fell, and Regan is not the primary one. Major reform and resistance movements were already underway in communist nations before Regan started anything. Regan largely inhereted his battleplan.
Due to the massive suck of the Communist system and totalitarian government that used it, the Soviet Union would probably have collaposed soon anyway.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:Of course. I never argued against that. One ideology defeated the other.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?