27 years ago today

I lived in Germany during that era. I think, perhaps, if you speak to Germans, you will find that it is not their impression that tearing down the Berlin Wall had much to do with Reagan, Thatcher or the Pope. And if you speak to people from former Soviet satelite states, you will also find it is not their belief that the US, the UK, or the Pope were of that much influence or importance in the break dwon fo the Soviet Union.

Well of course not.
They would never admit it.
Hard line Political Ideology blinds viewpoints.

"Don't listen to them, they don't know what they think! *I* know what they think!"

:rofl:

See also "when I want your opinion I'll give it to you!"


Did you read what Esmeralda posted as to why the Soviet Union Collapsed?
We are headed down the same path with some little differences in the points she made.
Can you even see it Pogo?

Repeat of the very first thing Esmeralda said;
"The Soviet Union had grown to a size large enough to the point where it became cumbersome to continue state planning. The massive and intricate Soviet economy became too large to manage by state planners, who were unwilling to enable more autonomy at mid-managerial level to remain responsive down to a localized level. This resulted in failed economic policies (failure to respond timely to continuous changes), while thwarting innovation. Managers commonly fudged numbers to show that quotas and goals were being met".
 
Last edited:
Did you read what Esmeralda posted as to why the Soviet Union Collapsed?
We are headed down the same path with some little differences in the points she made.
Can you even see it Pogo?

Repeat of the very first thing Esmeralda said;
"The Soviet Union had grown to a size large enough to the point where it became cumbersome to continue state planning. The massive and intricate Soviet economy became too large to manage by state planners, who were unwilling to enable more autonomy at mid-managerial level to remain responsive down to a localized level. This resulted in failed economic policies (failure to respond timely to continuous changes), while thwarting innovation. Managers commonly fudged numbers to show that quotas and goals were being met".

In other words, socialism (and its kissing cousin communism) ran the USSR into the ground.

It's interesting to note that here in America, the larger the programs designed to "help" people get (see Obamacare, IRS, VA etc.), the more closely they follow the track of the USSR that Esmeralda described here.

That's not a coincidence. Its a simple result of human nature, whether here or in the USSR... and socialism's complete failure to take it into account.
 
Last edited:
Obama is doing the same thing only with social government programs and flooding the boarder.
Everything he has done is to try and bankrupt us.
Between Bush and Obama's spending we are going to go Bankrupt.
The same thing Regan did to the U.S.S.R.. He pushed them over the edge of financial bankruptcy.
The U.S.S.R. government became to big, so also has America.

Regan brought them down with their obsession of their military.
What is this Government obsessed with?
The government spends the most money on health and human services which account for programs like welfare and temporary aid for needy families and the like. That cost about $900 billion a year, then its social security and then its defense. So we spend more on social programs then we do on defense.
 
The main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't have anything to do with Reagan or the military build up of the US. :rolleyes:

More dishonest revisionist crock of left wing propagated bullshit. Which college professor brainwashed you into that crocK?
I was there. I saw what happened. You're a dangerous fool!
I play music through tube amplifiers. You know where the most recently manufactured tubes were created? The USSR. They were that far behind due to economic stifling of creative advancement. But the tubes sound great in guitar amps. Until the AGW agenda that you no doubt support like a moron makes them illegal, too, like they did with incandescent light bulbs.
With all due respect, you're a moron.

And all of that has nothing to do with Reagan. Your entire rant only proves what is said in the analysis which I posted. And, btw, someone who arbitrarily calls other posters names loses from the get go. If all you can do is call people names, you are the loser.

Sure it does. The arms race that the USSR was embroiled in and the proxy wars that we fought in were central to many of the points that you outlined. To minimize the US influence in that reality seems silly to me.

If the US did not stand against the USSR it would likely still exist to day and possibly as a larger state. We fought an economic war with them that they simply could not keep pace with.
 
In addition to President Ronald Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II had pivotal roles in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I lived in Germany during that era. I think, perhaps, if you speak to Germans, you will find that it is not their impression that tearing down the Berlin Wall had much to do with Reagan, Thatcher or the Pope. And if you speak to people from former Soviet satelite states, you will also find it is not their belief that the US, the UK, or the Pope were of that much influence or importance in the break dwon fo the Soviet Union.

Well of course not.
They would never admit it.
Hard line Political Ideology blinds viewpoints.

LMAO Thinking that Reagan had a pivotal role in the collapse of the Soviet Union is typical American arrogance, thinking we are the center of the universe. This is one of the reasons many people around the world dislike Americans. Get a grip on reality: other countries have their own reality and history, outside of anything relating to the US. :rolleyes:
 
The main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't have anything to do with Reagan or the military build up of the US. :rolleyes:

Causes of Soviet Collapse

Stagnating Economy: The Soviet Union had grown to a size large enough to the point where it became cumbersome to continue state planning. The massive and intricate Soviet economy became too large to manage by state planners, who were unwilling to enable more autonomy at mid-managerial level to remain responsive down to a localized level. This resulted in failed economic policies (failure to respond timely to continuous changes), while thwarting innovation. Managers commonly fudged numbers to show that quotas and goals were being met.

Afghanistan Quagmire: The Soviet-friendly Afghan government was threatened by anti-communist insurgents, which grew to outnumber the Afghanistan army. The USSR supplied tens of thousands of troops and war machines. However, support transformed into an invasion followed by occupation of various cities and towns, bogging the Soviets down into a guerilla war with an increasingly growing and zealous Afghan resistance movement. By the time of the Soviet withdrawal from 1987-89, nothing concrete had been gained, and the USSR left damaged and humiliated.

Perestroika: Refers to economic reforms enacted by Gorbachev in 1987, in an attempt to reverse the Soviet Union's sliding economy. Some free market elements were added, but not enough to bring about reform. The free-market policies were enough to result in failed businesses, but shortages became common as price controls were kept in place. With price ceilings limiting profits, the incentive to produce sufficient quantities was removed.

Decentralization: When the Soviet Union did allow individual republics more autonomy, tax revenues were withheld.

Glasnost: With the Soviet public becoming more disenchanted with their secretive government, Gorbachev attempted to compensate by committing to openness and transparency with the media. However, this backfired as the public learned of long-standing political cover ups revealing past and recent atrocities, missteps by leadership, social and health failures of the USSR and the true extent of national economic problems. This further eroded support for the regime.

Cherynobyl Disaster: The nuclear power plant accident in the Ukraine town of Cherynobyl. It was initially covered up by the Soviet government, compounding the health crisis, while further sowing the seeds of distrust within the constituency, as the extent of the disaster and the cover-up came to light.

Local Nationalism: With declining public perception of the Soviet government (due to political blunders), nationalism grew within each of the individual republics, creating independence ambitions in republics such as Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Lack of Economic Incentives: The state-planned economic system did not provide sufficient incentives to encourage innovation and ambitious productivity.

Excessive Military Focus: The USSR was overly-focused on military build-up, neglecting domestic troubles that would play a major role in bringing down the USSR. This was largely due to the perceived need to keep pace with the massive U.S. military build up.

Reduced Motivation of Fear: Friendlier relations with the U.S. in the 70s, 80s meant that the general public was no longer completely motivated to strengthen itself against the American threat.

Ethnic Fragmentation: The USSR used “Slav Nation/Pride” propaganda as justification in creating a unified Slav state. However, Russia was clearly the favored and dominant state, while others (including Turkish/Central Asian constituents) were oppressed. Russians clearly viewed themselves as superior, despite asking client states to buy into Slav unity/patriotism/pride, which became a transparent effort to draw other Slav nations in under a false romantic ideal. As a result, non-Russians were quick to separate from the Soviet Union when it entered troubled waters.
Causes of the Collapse of the Soviet Union

TRANSLATION: "If I can't refute what Reagan did, I'll lie about it instead."

She came up with detailed analysis; you came up with two lines from a speech and a post hoc fallacy. Hers had eleven points of interrelated detailed reasoning; you eliminated that from the quote altogether and called her a liar without coming up with a single refutation of a single point.

Guess who just lost by a score of 11 to nothing. :itsok:

Better not call the game over just yet.

The bold, underlined portions of the "detailed analysis" that she gave corroborate the facts that yeah, Reagan's aggressive, hardline approach toward the former Soviet Union manifest in the proliferation of US Defense capabilities did in fact have a great deal to do with the USSR's break-up, as the crutches of both nations at the time was the military-industrial complex — which, for better or worse, has tended through the years to have been a GOP staple in the USA, the only exception being the money that Ladybird Johnson raked in off the bodies of dead American soldiers from Bell Choppers in the Vietnam War.

Speaking of Vietnam, she mentions Afghanistan — the USSR's Vietnam, which may have had a few things to do with Texas Dem. Charlie Wilson, but like it or not, it also had more than a few things to do with the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of the Reagan Administration as well.

She pretty much just shot her thesis in the foot with a high-caliber rifle when she said those things. And I'm not the least bit surprised that she didn't notice that. :badgrin:
 
That post doesn't make a lot of sense but the fact remains, an 11-point analysis was met with nothing more than "you're lying".
 
That post doesn't make a lot of sense but the fact remains, an 11-point analysis was met with nothing more than "you're lying".

Not sure to whom that post was directed, but here:

Kirkpatrick Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knowing it by memory is part of any 2000-level undergraduate foreign policy class. And I'm not the least bit surprised that Esmeralda didn't mention it.
 
More dishonest revisionist crock of left wing propagated bullshit. Which college professor brainwashed you into that crocK?
I was there. I saw what happened. You're a dangerous fool!
I play music through tube amplifiers. You know where the most recently manufactured tubes were created? The USSR. They were that far behind due to economic stifling of creative advancement. But the tubes sound great in guitar amps. Until the AGW agenda that you no doubt support like a moron makes them illegal, too, like they did with incandescent light bulbs.
With all due respect, you're a moron.

And all of that has nothing to do with Reagan. Your entire rant only proves what is said in the analysis which I posted. And, btw, someone who arbitrarily calls other posters names loses from the get go. If all you can do is call people names, you are the loser.

Sure it does. The arms race that the USSR was embroiled in and the proxy wars that we fought in were central to many of the points that you outlined. To minimize the US influence in that reality seems silly to me.

If the US did not stand against the USSR it would likely still exist to day and possibly as a larger state. We fought an economic war with them that they simply could not keep pace with.

Bullshit. Again: Thinking that Reagan had a pivotal role in the collapse of the Soviet Union is typical American arrogance, thinking we are the center of the universe. This is one of the reasons many people around the world dislike Americans. Get a grip on reality: other countries have their own reality and history, outside of anything relating to the US.
 
And all of that has nothing to do with Reagan. Your entire rant only proves what is said in the analysis which I posted. And, btw, someone who arbitrarily calls other posters names loses from the get go. If all you can do is call people names, you are the loser.

Sure it does. The arms race that the USSR was embroiled in and the proxy wars that we fought in were central to many of the points that you outlined. To minimize the US influence in that reality seems silly to me.

If the US did not stand against the USSR it would likely still exist to day and possibly as a larger state. We fought an economic war with them that they simply could not keep pace with.

Bullshit. Again: Thinking that Reagan had a pivotal role in the collapse of the Soviet Union is typical American arrogance, thinking we are the center of the universe. This is one of the reasons many people around the world dislike Americans. Get a grip on reality: other countries have their own reality and history, outside of anything relating to the US.

Then you don't even understand the 11 points that you posted earlier considering that much of those points were intricately related with the relationship between the US and the USSR. Next time you do a cut and paste, try understanding it first...

There is no 'thinking that Regan had a pivotal role' in anything. It is simple acknowledgement in the FACT that nations don't simply exist but have MASSIVE influence on each other. It takes a supreme idiot to think that the world we live in is somehow isolated between the various superpowers. These days (and then) the world was VERY interconnected. Do you think that China's current economic growth is not VERY closely related with the US? Do you think that the latest economic bubble in the US did not reverberate around the entire globe? Do you think that defense policy here does not have MAJOR impacts on many of our allies and enemies alike?

The USSR did not push a massive buildup in arms simply because they like the look of big guns. They did so AS A DIRECT RESPONSE to the US build up. To ignore that is asinine. The major economic impact of that drive has a LOT to do with the breakup of the USSR not to mention the other things that were indirectly affected by that. the proxy wars (like Afghanistan) also plays a major role in that. Or do you somehow think that the US had nothing to do with Afghanistan either.


I cant fathom how you can look at the events in recent history and not realize the central role that the US (and the implicit impacts that has) played on the world stage for many decades.
 
Last edited:
Sure it does. The arms race that the USSR was embroiled in and the proxy wars that we fought in were central to many of the points that you outlined. To minimize the US influence in that reality seems silly to me.

If the US did not stand against the USSR it would likely still exist to day and possibly as a larger state. We fought an economic war with them that they simply could not keep pace with.

Bullshit. Again: Thinking that Reagan had a pivotal role in the collapse of the Soviet Union is typical American arrogance, thinking we are the center of the universe. This is one of the reasons many people around the world dislike Americans. Get a grip on reality: other countries have their own reality and history, outside of anything relating to the US.

Then you don't even understand the 11 points that you posted earlier considering that much of those points were intricately related with the relationship between the US and the USSR. Next time you do a cut and paste, try understanding it first...

There is no 'thinking that Regan had a pivotal role' in anything. It is simple acknowledgement in the FACT that nations don't simply exist but have MASSIVE influence on each other. It takes a supreme idiot to think that the world we live in is somehow isolated between the various superpowers. These days (and then) the world was VERY interconnected. Do you think that China's current economic growth is not VERY closely related with the US? Do you think that the latest economic bubble in the US did not reverberate around the entire globe? Do you think that defense policy here does not have MAJOR impacts on many of our allies and enemies alike?

The USSR did not push a massive buildup in arms simply because they like the look of big guns. They did so AS A DIRECT RESPONSE to the US build up. To ignore that is asinine. The major economic impact of that drive has a LOT to do with the breakup of the USSR not to mention the other things that were indirectly affected by that. the proxy wars (like Afghanistan) also plays a major role in that. Or do you somehow think that the US had nothing to do with Afghanistan either.


I cant fathom how you can look at the events in recent history and not realize the central role that the US (and the implicit impacts that has) played on the world stage for many decades.

Oh, buster, you are such a jackass. You are reading things into that which don't even exist. Don't question my comprehension: question your own and your bias. You are so hooked on the idea that it was Reagan and the US that was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union that you can't even read and understand what is in front of your eyes. Poor pitiful you.

I understood the material quite clearly, from an unbiased viewpoint instead of the crude desire to believe the USA is the center of all that happens in the universe. You are pathetic, and extremely transparent.
 
On June 12, 1987, President Ronald Reagan, after building up the U.S. armed forces enough to get Russia to pay attention, stood before the Berlin Wall and said:

"There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

"Secretary General Gorbachev, if you seek peace--if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe--if you seek liberalization: come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."


A few years later, the government of the Soviet Union collapsed, freeing more people than any single event in world history since the Battle of Leyte Gulf in WWII. And the Berlin Wall was torn down. It was the most earth-shaking transformation in many people's living memory.

The collapse of the Soviet Union didn't have anything to do with Reagan or the military build up of the US. :rolleyes:

TRANSLATION: "If I can't refute what Reagan did, I'll lie about it instead."


TRANSLATION: "Just got my ass handed to me, so I'll desperately save face with a snarky remark."
 
Bullshit. Again: Thinking that Reagan had a pivotal role in the collapse of the Soviet Union is typical American arrogance, thinking we are the center of the universe. This is one of the reasons many people around the world dislike Americans. Get a grip on reality: other countries have their own reality and history, outside of anything relating to the US.

Then you don't even understand the 11 points that you posted earlier considering that much of those points were intricately related with the relationship between the US and the USSR. Next time you do a cut and paste, try understanding it first...

There is no 'thinking that Regan had a pivotal role' in anything. It is simple acknowledgement in the FACT that nations don't simply exist but have MASSIVE influence on each other. It takes a supreme idiot to think that the world we live in is somehow isolated between the various superpowers. These days (and then) the world was VERY interconnected. Do you think that China's current economic growth is not VERY closely related with the US? Do you think that the latest economic bubble in the US did not reverberate around the entire globe? Do you think that defense policy here does not have MAJOR impacts on many of our allies and enemies alike?

The USSR did not push a massive buildup in arms simply because they like the look of big guns. They did so AS A DIRECT RESPONSE to the US build up. To ignore that is asinine. The major economic impact of that drive has a LOT to do with the breakup of the USSR not to mention the other things that were indirectly affected by that. the proxy wars (like Afghanistan) also plays a major role in that. Or do you somehow think that the US had nothing to do with Afghanistan either.


I cant fathom how you can look at the events in recent history and not realize the central role that the US (and the implicit impacts that has) played on the world stage for many decades.

Oh, buster, you are such a jackass. You are reading things into that which don't even exist. Don't question my comprehension: question your own and your bias. You are so hooked on the idea that it was Reagan and the US that was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union that you can't even read and understand what is in front of your eyes. Poor pitiful you.

I understood the material quite clearly, from an unbiased viewpoint instead of the crude desire to believe the USA is the center of all that happens in the universe. You are pathetic, and extremely transparent.

uh huh. Because you said so and backed it up with insults and idiocy. Oh well, at least I know you are an idiot now and can be outright ignored.

Why don't you whine more and ignore reality. Maybe that will help your case. Or not....
 
Back
Top Bottom