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.
TnH: Reagan was "okay" but you are right that Reagan worship really is somewhat laughable; he wasn't all that the GOP fans make him out to be. What galls me is that Gorbachev gets little credit for pulling the plug on both Afghanistan and the Iron Curtain. Rather than go out in a nuclear blaze of glory, he salvaged the Russian homeland and walked away from the empire. Gorby deserves a lot more credit than he got.
Your post makes me wonder if Russia orchestrated the 9-11 attacks to suck the USA into Afghan Trap-II. Hmmmmm.
There were many reasons why the Soviet Union collapse and fell apart, several listed already, but I am of the belief that it was doomed to inevitable failure from its inception.
As to Russia having a hand in 9-11, I doubt it but I do not doubt that Russia and potentially other adversaries would take advantage and try to promulgate of an "Afghan Trap" type situation. Look at it this way, radical Muslim's invested roughly two years, approximately 3-5 million dollars, and 17 people to carry out 9-11. On the contrary, the US has spent trillions of dollars, expended more lives, altered its societal views and government positions as well as long term commitments. One could certainly make a plausible argument in favor of an "Afghan Trap" type situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Actually, Reagan, Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin all deserve a lot of credit for changing the USSR. The American flaw after Glasnost and Perestroika was all of the "crowing" about winning the cold war, instead of more aggressively working towards a long term constructive relationship with Russia.
However, that doesn't excuse Putin, who clearly has been attempting to draw Russia partially back into the old USSR intimidation mindset.
We totally botched what Reagan referred to as the "peace dividend" that would take place after the fall of the Soviet Union. Unless of course you are a weapons manufacture or have interests in the tools of war.
In any event, so what if Putin wants to take Russia back to its "old ways". That direction has already failed once, let them do it again if they wish. All things considered, I would think people would love to see Putin take Russia back to what it once was because what it once was was a hollowed out, failed system covered over with shiny paint.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,758,986 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
There were many reasons why the Soviet Union collapse and fell apart, several listed already, but I am of the belief that it was doomed to inevitable failure from its inception.
As to Russia having a hand in 9-11, I doubt it but I do not doubt that Russia and potentially other adversaries would take advantage and try to promulgate of an "Afghan Trap" type situation. Look at it this way, radical Muslim's invested roughly two years, approximately 3-5 million dollars, and 17 people to carry out 9-11. On the contrary, the US has spent trillions of dollars, expended more lives, altered its societal views and government positions as well as long term commitments. One could certainly make a plausible argument in favor of an "Afghan Trap" type situation.
We totally botched what Reagan referred to as the "peace dividend" that would take place after the fall of the Soviet Union. Unless of course you are a weapons manufacture or have interests in the tools of war.
In any event, so what if Putin wants to take Russia back to its "old ways". That direction has already failed once, let them do it again if they wish. All things considered, I would think people would love to see Putin take Russia back to what it once was because what it once was was a hollowed out, failed system covered over with shiny paint.
Actually if you want to give credit where credit is due, most of the fall of Communism began in Poland and not the USA. Yes, Regan helped but it was Leach Walensa and the Solidaity trade union movement in Poland that was the beginning of the end for Communism. Reagan worshioppers seem to forget that.
Actually if you want to give credit where credit is due, most of the fall of Communism began in Poland and not the USA. Yes, Regan helped but it was Leach Walensa and the Solidaity trade union movement in Poland that was the beginning of the end for Communism. Reagan worshioppers seem to forget that.
Though you are generally correct here, the credit for really getting the ball rolling belongs more to Alexander Dubcek, and the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia.
We totally botched what Reagan referred to as the "peace dividend" that would take place after the fall of the Soviet Union. Unless of course you are a weapons manufacture or have interests in the tools of war.
In any event, so what if Putin wants to take Russia back to its "old ways". That direction has already failed once, let them do it again if they wish. All things considered, I would think people would love to see Putin take Russia back to what it once was because what it once was was a hollowed out, failed system covered over with shiny paint.
Actually, weapon manufacturers profit more from a destabilized world, more potential conflicts and buyers. Also, the black market is more plentiful.
If Putin were internal, I could somewhat agree. However, folks in Georgia and Azerbaijan can tell you he has international interest that extend beyond "trade".
Actually, weapon manufacturers profit more from a destabilized world, more potential conflicts and buyers. Also, the black market is more plentiful.
If Putin were internal, I could somewhat agree. However, folks in Georgia and Azerbaijan can tell you he has international interest that extend beyond "trade".
All things considered, during the cold war the world in general was far far more stable than it is currently. Yet during that relatively stable if not uneasy time, weapons manufactures flourished. It seems to me that if we have a single great enemy, even if stable, then we are supposed to produce mass amounts of weapons to counter the great enemy. If the world is destabilized, then we need to produce mass amounts of weaponry because instead of a single great enemy, we have smaller enemies everywhere. In the end it doesn't really matter to the United States, we produce mass amounts of weapons no matter what state the world is in, as it is one of our greatest exports.
I have no doubt that Russia has interest outside its borders that are other than trade. Does not the United States have interest outside its borders that are not related to just trade?
The question of the OP is asserting that Russia is becoming more Communist, so what is Obama going to do about it. My response is, hopefully nothing.
All things considered, during the cold war the world in general was far far more stable than it is currently. Yet during that relatively stable if not uneasy time, weapons manufactures flourished. It seems to me that if we have a single great enemy, even if stable, then we are supposed to produce mass amounts of weapons to counter the great enemy. If the world is destabilized, then we need to produce mass amounts of weaponry because instead of a single great enemy, we have smaller enemies everywhere. In the end it doesn't really matter to the United States, we produce mass amounts of weapons no matter what state the world is in, as it is one of our greatest exports.
I have no doubt that Russia has interest outside its borders that are other than trade. Does not the United States have interest outside its borders that are not related to just trade?
The question of the OP is asserting that Russia is becoming more Communist, so what is Obama going to do about it. My response is, hopefully nothing.
As discussed in the linked story, intimidation of neighbors is the primary Russian tactic under Putin. No, I don't view us as having the same processes as Putin.
Regarding the OP, it mentioned Communism, but the link is about intimidation, not economic practices. Regarding Putin and economics though, I hope Obama does do something, and soon. The quicker we can get towards independence from oil, the faster we break Putin's main leverage.
Russia is clearly trying to bring back Soviet style totalitarianism, led by Vlad Putin. The US managed to hold off Communism under Roland Reagan, but can we keep Russia from falling back to Communism under Barack Obama. Does he even care to do anything substantial?
Apples and oranges. It's far from "clear" that Putin, however authoritarian he is, has the messianic ideological devotion that motivated Communism--or any devotion to anything but his own power. A decline in freedom in Russia is sad news for the Russians, but there's no reason whatsoever we can't coexist with Putin and Medvedev, unless we make a point of going and poking them in the eye as Bush and Condi did in the whole Georgia fiasco.
If Putin were internal, I could somewhat agree. However, folks in Georgia and Azerbaijan can tell you he has international interest that extend beyond "trade".
Would you sacrifice your son or daughter to keep Putin out of Georgia and Azerbaijan?
Would you sacrifice your son or daughter to keep Putin out of Georgia and Azerbaijan?
I don't like speaking for others, that really wouldn't be fair.
I'd be willing to participate myself, with Georgia as part of NATO.
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.
