Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a rather bizarre form of debate. You claim that a single event lead to the fall of the wall, but you don't say what it was, you just ask if we know what it was. Then skedaddle.
Reagan was the first president to openly talk about the demise of the USSR. In a March 3, 1983 speech Reagan said, " "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last — last pages even now are being written." I always find it interesting that libs who now claim to have perfect insight into why the wall fell, never saw it coming beforehand. Wikipedia has an interesting entry on 'predictions of Soviet collapse.' Predictions of Soviet collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There was no one single event. There was the union and Catholic activism in Poland. There was the inability to subdue Afghanistan. There was the emergence of Ronald Reagan and SDI. There was the decrepit USSR economy. Gorbachev himself later cited the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident as a turning point which made it clear that "the system as we know it could no longer continue.
I said the motivation came from within, and I asked how. You failed to answer, and insted doubled down on the claim that Reagans speech made it happen. Then I asked which event led to the wall eventually get torn down, and you failed answer. If you think speeches cause things like this happen, thats cool, but it is a very naivie viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, I liked Regagan, and if a candidate like him was running these days, he'd get my vote.
The western world spoke against communism since the 1940s, and many European countries fought against it much before that.
I believe in such things. So you are wrong. And you're pissed about it to boot. And your last sentence is complete rubbish and even you are smart enough to know that.
Long live liberalism. This great country was founded by and created by liberals. And more and more liberal policies are replacing the old, worn out, status quo BS that the ever shrinking conservative types espouse.
No, you don't believe in such things.
You believe in having your way forced on everyone at gunpoint.
You fail at history. If you think Reagan was the first to rattle the cage with the Soviets then you know even less than I thought. The Russians didn't give a rats ass what US presidents did or said, the motivation had to come from within, and it did. Do you know how? Do you know which event led to the Soviet leadership to allow the wall to be torn down? Hint: it was not Reagan's speech.
You still cling to the idea that communists reformed themselves.
There is no level of teaching, explaining, or demonstrating which will overcome that level of self delusion.
I said the motivation came from within, and I asked how. You failed to answer, and insted doubled down on the claim that Reagans speech made it happen. Then I asked which event led to the wall eventually get torn down, and you failed answer. If you think speeches cause things like this happen, thats cool, but it is a very naivie viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, I liked Regagan, and if a candidate like him was running these days, he'd get my vote.
The western world spoke against communism since the 1940s, and many European countries fought against it much before that.
Huh? My post didn't even reference Reagan's 'tear down this wall' speech. I cited about 5 other factors. You still don't say what the single event was that led to the tearing down of the wall. Again, a bizarre form of argument. You say everyone else is wrong, that you know the right answer, but you won't say what it is.
PUI?????? I hope you are at least on the east coast, because here on the west coast it's still only 11:00AM sunday morning.
The wall fell precisely because the party was paralyzed by its inability to decide on a strategy to deal with what had become open, public rebellion against it. There were those who wanted to crush it all with bullets and tanks.. .and those who thought if you let the public blow off steam, it can be papered over later. And, there were some who recognized that this hegemony would never be put back together again the way it was originally, which was conquest by fear.
There's a human behavior that's been studied for a very long time - and that danger arouses fear, but eventually we come to ignore the danger and go on as if it didn't exist. The Soviet Union ruled the people by fear for decades, but eventually, fear became its own inoculation. While the promises of the party about creating the paradise and the living the conditions the west enjoyed never came true, the impotence of the command and control society became ever more apparent. Eventually, death loses its repulsion when life has little to distinguish itself from death, and people just can't be ruled by fear. Eventually, you either have to kill them all or give up.
These things manifested themselves in a million different ways in the former USSR, and since not all of them were entirely stupid, many recognized the reality themselves - though NONE were advocates of individual freedom and rights, many believed it counterproductive to continue as they were.
That's the philosphical argument about the fall of the USSR, and the "reforms" in China, the behaviors in Cuba and various other places like Venezuela mirror these stages of oppression. People often attribute the fall of the Berlin wall to Reagan, or to specific events... Reagan's speech accelerated things, he understood how to inspire people with words in a way that few presidents ever have. What was great about his speech was his recognition of just how to reach that gut inside a person and say it in ways that disarmed the critics. And yes, it would be one of the critical steps on the way to the collapse of eastern Germany.
Many liberals are too young to remember that speech. Ancient history. Maybe conservatives are stuck in the cold war?
Now just a minute here, sonny! There are a number of us "aging hippies" who are still liberals. I sure as heck remember that speech, even though I was 8 1/2 months pregnant at the time and very busy with my own personal life. (Also had a 3 yo.)
I do think some cons are stuck in the cold war, though.
Now just a minute here, sonny! There are a number of us "aging hippies" who are still liberals. I sure as heck remember that speech, even though I was 8 1/2 months pregnant at the time and very busy with my own personal life. (Also had a 3 yo.)
I do think some cons are stuck in the cold war, though.
How? Because we know precisely what kind of evil communism (and it's ideological allies) is?
^^I mean, some cons liked the Cold War atmosphere. I was a kid then, but old enough by 1960 to remember some of that stuff, fears of nuclear annihilation, mostly. The US had obvious "enemies". Have any of you been watching all the Kennedy stuff these past few weeks. The world was a much different place in 1963 than it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011
Many leftists in the US wanted the US to surrender to the Soviet Union during the 1980's.
I remember.
They try to deny it now.
Since you remember it, surely you can cite a few links from credible sources, e.g. not WND and the like.
One of the necessary requisites for being a liberal, is not being able to remember what happened last week, much less 26 years ago.
Actually this liberal can recall every detail of crossing through East Germany, going into Berlin, crossing through Checkpoint Charlie and entering East Berlin at the height of the Cold War.
Very few liberals are actual communists (Obama certainly isn't.) Most liberals, such as myself, consider the Soviet-style communism to be one of the most evil, brutal systems ever devised. I witnessed it. Up close and personal. (Including being detained on the East side because there had been an attempt to escape. Checkpoint Charlie was closed on the Eastern side when that happened. Two men died that day, trying to reach freedom. They were shot before they reached the river. A tragically common event.) Reagan had little to do with bringing the wall down. The rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland and the strength of a man named John Paul II did MUCH more than the speech-reader named Ronald Reagan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are a number of us "aging hippies" who are still liberals. I sure as heck remember that speech, even though I was 8 1/2 months pregnant at the time and very busy with my own personal life. (Also had a 3 yo.) 
