why did the USSR collapse?

[Ringel05]

[

I
You missed the point,.

Nah, you did. It merely obsoleted the old, and brought in the new, which was Rooselvelt's vision for an end to European colonialism and build a 'new world' of independent states; we didn't quite get there, either, but we got more than close enough to call his plans a success. Whether or not the assorted ideological purists on the left or right like it or accept it or not isn't important, they're going to snivel no matter what about some imaginary point or other. Nobody need take them seriously, as they have no real influence, and exist mostly on innernetz message boards. They can lick Rand Paul's and Uncle Bernies' ankles for solace.

The cultural influences remain, just as a lot of the old Roman and Greek influence does in the West.

Sounds to me like you're off on some tangent that has little to do with what I was discussing. Or is it simply semantics at this point?

Sounds to me like you don't know the difference between 'collapse' and evolving relationships. There was no 'Big Giant Collapse', many of those countries are now part of the Commonwealth, and they are bound together under mutual defense treaties as well, but it does sounds a lot more dramatic to claim a 'Collapse' than the reality, right? It's more than 'just 'semantics' for those of us who understand the relationships, it's a political reality. Libertarians love the dramatic version, but then they don't have much a grasp on reality to begin with.

Yeah, just as I thought, semantics and (unfortunately) ideology. What the fuck do Libertarians have to do with this.
Actually collapse and evolving relationships are often one in the same, the Empire ended (collapsed over time), that doesn't mean Great Briton and it's former empirical colonies didn't form new relationships. We were talking about the end of empire, Great Briton's empire ended but Great Briton did not. Rome ended but Italy did not...... Think you can wrap your myopic brain around that?

 

[Picaro]

[

I
You missed the point,.

Nah, you did. It merely obsoleted the old, and brought in the new, which was Rooselvelt's vision for an end to European colonialism and build a 'new world' of independent states; we didn't quite get there, either, but we got more than close enough to call his plans a success. Whether or not the assorted ideological purists on the left or right like it or accept it or not isn't important, they're going to snivel no matter what about some imaginary point or other. Nobody need take them seriously, as they have no real influence, and exist mostly on innernetz message boards. They can lick Rand Paul's and Uncle Bernies' ankles for solace.

The cultural influences remain, just as a lot of the old Roman and Greek influence does in the West.

Sounds to me like you're off on some tangent that has little to do with what I was discussing. Or is it simply semantics at this point?

Sounds to me like you don't know the difference between 'collapse' and evolving relationships. There was no 'Big Giant Collapse', many of those countries are now part of the Commonwealth, and they are bound together under mutual defense treaties as well, but it does sounds a lot more dramatic to claim a 'Collapse' than the reality, right? It's more than 'just 'semantics' for those of us who understand the relationships, it's a political reality. Libertarians love the dramatic version, but then they don't have much a grasp on reality to begin with.

Yeah, just as I thought, semantics and (unfortunately) ideology. What the fuck do Libertarians have to do with this.
Actually collapse and evolving relationships are often one in the same, the Empire ended (collapsed over time), that doesn't mean Great Briton and it's former empirical colonies didn't form new relationships. We were talking about the end of empire, Great Briton's empire ended but Great Briton did not. Rome ended but Italy did not...... Think you can wrap your myopic brain around that?

Ah, so you just all mad n shit when others don't kiss your ass and bring up other issues in a discussion, and you have to have tantrums over that. lol Never mind, it's obvious you're an idiot anyway.

 

[Picaro]

Didn't help as you think Sir John Glubb's book is trash......... Are you a Revisionist?

No, I'm a pragmatist... of course some wuss with "Sir" in front of his name isn't going to grasp why he doesn't have an empire anymore.

In a large part it's the ultimate blending of cultures that bring values, ideas and changes in cultural attitude that are alien to the original that precipitates then hastens the downward spiral as expansion stops.
That's a very generic explanation that doesn't cover all the aspects that lead to downfall but it's much more accurate than your "they get tired of being governed" explanation..........

Not really. actually, it's a lot of sputtering horseshit.

The Indians didn't throw the British the fuck out because they "blended cultures", they got tired of being governed by people who treated them like second class citizens in their own country. And when Churchill had to do hat in hand to Ghandi (someone he once said was worst than Hitler) to support the UK in WWII, the cost was independence for India... WHich Churchill still tried to do backsies on.

Not all Indians wanted to get rid of them, so your point isn't correct either. And it was actually the British concept of a free press than even made a Ghandi possible, and the old racist took advantage of that. It was the Indians who relied on Great Britain to defend them while they wrangled with 'self-government', too, and they adopted many British traditions and laws left over from DA Evul Colonialists. They got along great with the British, and still do.

Too bad you don't know even basic history, and have to rely on stupid false propaganda rubbish. you might actually be able to make some real points once in while if you had any intellectual capabilities in real life.

 

[Ringel05]

[

I
You missed the point,.

Nah, you did. It merely obsoleted the old, and brought in the new, which was Rooselvelt's vision for an end to European colonialism and build a 'new world' of independent states; we didn't quite get there, either, but we got more than close enough to call his plans a success. Whether or not the assorted ideological purists on the left or right like it or accept it or not isn't important, they're going to snivel no matter what about some imaginary point or other. Nobody need take them seriously, as they have no real influence, and exist mostly on innernetz message boards. They can lick Rand Paul's and Uncle Bernies' ankles for solace.

The cultural influences remain, just as a lot of the old Roman and Greek influence does in the West.

Sounds to me like you're off on some tangent that has little to do with what I was discussing. Or is it simply semantics at this point?

Sounds to me like you don't know the difference between 'collapse' and evolving relationships. There was no 'Big Giant Collapse', many of those countries are now part of the Commonwealth, and they are bound together under mutual defense treaties as well, but it does sounds a lot more dramatic to claim a 'Collapse' than the reality, right? It's more than 'just 'semantics' for those of us who understand the relationships, it's a political reality. Libertarians love the dramatic version, but then they don't have much a grasp on reality to begin with.

Yeah, just as I thought, semantics and (unfortunately) ideology. What the fuck do Libertarians have to do with this.
Actually collapse and evolving relationships are often one in the same, the Empire ended (collapsed over time), that doesn't mean Great Briton and it's former empirical colonies didn't form new relationships. We were talking about the end of empire, Great Briton's empire ended but Great Briton did not. Rome ended but Italy did not...... Think you can wrap your myopic brain around that?

Ah, so you just all mad n shit when others don't kiss your ass and bring up other issues in a discussion, and you have to have tantrums over that. lol Never mind, it's obvious you're an idiot anyway.

You got pissy with me, I just returned the favor and now you want to make it look like it's just me....... That's pathetic and obviously so are you, end of conversation.