you're much weaker on assessing the internal dynamics of the USSR's economy in the last days of the Russian Empire.
Interesting comment, I take it you fancy yourself as something of an expert. That being the case, perhaps you can answer some questions.
You attribute to our bullying stance what in fact was actually more of a confluence of internal contradictions within the structures created by the nomenclatura. You completely negate the huge impact that mis-directed expenditures within the Soviet system had on its capacity to continue "in business".
This is interesting. Please provide an example or 2 of what these "misdirected expenditures" were and what parrellels you see in our own bloated "business of government"
Just like with our current fetish with over-reaching across the globe with gargantuan requirements for national treasury to fight pissant wars
I take it you'd feel safer if we just left these misunderstood Al Queda dudes alone. It probably was Jews that drove the planes into WTC anyways, like Al Jeezera says? (Now there's a good source, bummer about that staion that got bombed)
But back to the USSR, are you saying that the former Soviet Union spent so much of it's money on violent, military international forays that it actually "consumed it's own flesh"? And I've heard that "THe Big Red Scare" was a bunch of hype. Bullcrap feed to us by Death Loving Republicans. As you and I both know, we can't have it both ways so, was the USSR an aggressive, international, imperialistic menace, which was so crazed in it's efforts it spent itself to death? Or was really a bunch of friendly homies who were just misportrayed. And if they were are you still saying that because of their model of "collectivism" (kinda like what democrats advocate) is a model that eventually will crumble under the weight of it's, uh, Ponzi-like properties? |
