Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (11233)	2/17/2002 11:05:06 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

These things are self evident, except to those who do not want to see them.... JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (11233)	2/17/2002 3:33:56 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

That conflicts with claims that Soviet communism was doomed to failure. To now claim that "they could have easily reallocated resources" is a contrivance, black market or not. (How do you "reallocate" a black market to defense expenditures? Even in a controlled economy? That requires a great imagination.) The best they could have done to maintain their totalitarian state would have been to declare war on the US, and that would have completely destroyed them. Other wars drained their resources and brought closer the day of reckoning. Statements by those who lived there left no doubt it would not last much longer, as much for political as economic reasons, none of which had anything to do with Mr. Reagan, or any other sainted individual: Here's what even the ex-pres of the Ukraine said: english.pravda.ru "Leonid Kravchuk, a former president of the independent Ukraine, insisted on the Soviet Union's collapse having been pre-determined by history. "It had been a wreck as a geopolitical structure as early as ten years before the official breakup," Kissinger said:"- the communists could not turn themselves into democrats without ceasing to be communists, an equation Gorbachev never understood" Some other links wws.princeton.edu I can agree that Reagan didn't make it any easier. I dispute, however, like in Afghanistan, that it would not have fallen hard and fast, anyway, saving the US $4 trillion or so, and lots of rhetoric. It's more accurate to say that the US might have attempted to save the Soviet Union, and declined to do so. Had Gorbachev succeeded in normalizing relations with the US, there might have been some chance their system would have lasted long enough to morph into something more democratic. But not likely. The old Bear couldn't learn new tricks. Your comments about WWII are a disconnect. I dind't "attributing everything to cynical manipulation" I criticized the cynical regime of secrecy, which opens the way for manipulation. If WWII was an honorable war, it was because we had less justification at the highest levels to secretly take advantage of the American people. The OSS was only just being formed, and Wild Bill Donovan started out under semblance of civilian control. His successors are not.

To: Neocon who wrote (11233)	2/18/2002 6:24:31 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

>>"You are deluded about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes, they were suffering in the commercial economy, and were limping along economically, generally. However, they were far from economic collapse. For one thing, they were spending about a quarter of GDP on the military, compared to a little less than 7% at the height of the Reagan build- up. They could easily have reallocated resources. For another, the black market was extensive, and kept things moving, so it is hard to make a valid calculation of GDP. Also, the Chinese example of political repression with economic liberalization was working, and their economy was taking off, and the Soviets never really tried that expedient, although they studied it. No, the crisis was political, with economic elements. Reagan, in a manner of speaking, created Gorbachev, that is, the challenge represented by Reagan helped to favor reform elements in the Kremlin, in order to make a "Peace Offensive" and get the West to relax its competition. Reagan was willing to respond, which kept Gorbachev in power long after glasnost and perestroika were getting out of hand. Reagan continued to challenge the legitimacy of the Soviet Empire ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"), and to promote SDI, which would have put unpredictable pressure on the Soviet budget. Gorbachev went much further than Khruschev in his thaw, before the Kremlin tried to move against him, and by that time it was too late, Yeltsin led a rebellion against the Kremlin in the very heart of Moscow. It was the beginning of the end."<< That is right Neocon...just like Ralph Reed..spread the BS enough and the unenlightened will eat it up. Andropov created and positioned Gorbachov and Andropov knew the system was dying. Gorbachov would have been in power immediately after Andropov if he had not died so quickly. And Afghanistan killed what was left of the Soviet Union. Any of us fortunate to have visited the Soviet Union in the early 80s knew it was a corrupt dying system. Those of you St Reagan worshippers who think SDI had anything to do with it also believe John Edwards speaks to the dead. Btw, Afghanistan started during Carter's presidency so it follows that Carter started the demise of the commies (he screwed up their Olympics, didn't he?) and St Reagan just happened to be the White House occupant during their death throes.