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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (707080)	4/2/2013 3:00:40 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1583389

Ted, I am sure that Carter would have given a lot of clout and legitimacy to the Soviet powers and philosophies that formed the foundation of the USSR. That would have kept the regime alive even as everything else started collapsing around them. Besides, take a look at two of Carter's diplomatic "accomplishments" in his post-presidency, North Korea and Haiti. You know the deal with North Korea. Haiti was a mess even before the earthquake, and its human rights record today continues to be abysmal. Is that a man that you think could have caused the Soviet Union to collapse in the same way and time frame that Ronald Reagan did? Not a chance. The US helped with the demise of the Soviet Union by being an opposing force, an opposing force that had been in place since WW II. As much as Reagan maintained the policies of his predecessors so that the US remained that opposing force, that was his contribution...nothing more, nothing less. However, the primary cause of the Soviet's decline was its living beyond its means while supporting a very corrupt, oligarchic system of gov't. Its fall was inevitable and just happened to occur during Reagan's tenure. Reagan's greatness has been exaggerated on so many levels including this one.