You may be right! Russia is a multiparty capitalist state - unlike the States!
Old cold warriors never die, they just forget where they put their teeth!
Russian Planes Approach Canadian Airspace
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
You may be right! Russia is a multiparty capitalist state - unlike the States!
Old cold warriors never die, they just forget where they put their teeth!
Well
1./ The USSR was far from being "Communist". That would be like calling Nazi Germany "Socialist". It was a "tag, a "banner" and nothing more than a dictatorship
So we can rule out the "ideological" differences as they weren't that vast between the USA and the USSR. The political agenda's were in direct competition and that was the true "tete-a-tete" relationship between the two
As for bankrupting the USSR. Again, part of the reason for the collapse. One could credit Lech Walsea, Gorbechev or Pope Paul with having the same impact, but it would be an opinion and could be argued infinatum
They basically self destructed due to poor (and in some cases non-existant) economic management. It was a "coup" that was spread out over a few yrs vs. the convential instantaneous chage in direction
Russia did not have the same value systems when the Cold War started,
Care to compare the "value systems" between FDR and Dubya? The similie in Russia to The USA over time is "eerie"
Agreed that history can be viewed from different opinions..
Gorbachev was instrumental in the change in Russia. Russia going Bankrupt is a matter of opinion as it was well on the same track as the US. Reagan knew they could not continue on the same path as well.
Looking back at the time and date it’s easy to say, it was the cost of Oil decrease and pressure on Russia, that were the cause on it’s economy, but the US had just come out of the 1982 second worse recession ( next to this one ) and was still wondering if it could pull thru. Japan’s economy was falling apart and people were afraid it would domino back to North America.
To say economical factors were the only incentive is false. Reagan and Gorbachev both knew they could not launch a Nuclear war and had to downgrade the weapons that had built up before someone else made a mistake no one else could ever resolve. Hence they agreed to meet and hence was the start of the end of the cold war.
Russia’s economical situation if far more reaching then Oil.
Wasn't the 'reduction' more like a cap, something like no more than 3,500 atomic weapons each? or was it 35,000?
"You may be right! Russia is a multiparty capitalist state - unlike the States!"
Say it right Socialist capitalist States.
Only missing 1 tooth.
Say it right Socialist capitalist States.
Only missing 1 tooth.
Start counting
All are not listed on the opposing side.
For example, if you count the Cold War, as you say you do, that's 23 to begin with. And, don't forget Canada.
A List of American Wars - Quantum Future Group
All are not listed on the opposing side.
For example, if you count the Cold War, as you say you do, that's 23 to begin with. And, don't forget Canada.
A List of American Wars - Quantum Future Group
Fair enough.
Tell me you are kidding. Please. The USSR was a top-down planned economy focused on two things: the suppression of dissent and the maintenance of a war machine of uncontestable power to maintain its and expand its empire and defend the empire's borders. There were only three entities in the Soviet Union that exercised any power, the Party, the KGB, and the Army: and Soviet politics consisted entirely of these three entities manouvering for power.......in the 72 years between the establishment of the Soviet Union and it's fall in 1989, the government managed to murder at least 20 million of its own citizens: double the number the Nazis murdered, second only to that other "communist" monolith China, that managed to murder at least 50 million.......it really was the Evil Empire.
The USA was a free market, democratic nation: the first modern democracy, and one of the freest nations on earth..........you can hardly rule out the "ideological differences" as they were a) the reason for the conflict in the first place, and b) the reason the west emerged victorius: so far.
For thev reasons listed above.
Gorbachev was, and remained a dedicated communist.......although a much more humane individual than any of the previous leaders of the USSR. Yet the fact remains the same: collectivist agriculture was a failure, Soviet industry was a failure, the economy was in the toilet, and a nation based completely on the upkeep of a massive military machine simply could no longer keep up to the west's free market economy........... (the old joke in the USSR? We pretend to work; they pretend to pay us")
well, economic management was never non-existent.....it was simply dumb-ass, a economy wrecked by ideology and top-down control, that Gorbachev tried to fix by tinkering......and it got away from him.
Ronnie Reagan forced the fall of the USSR by not backing down in Iceland.......unbelievably, he will go down in history as one of the best Presidents of the 20th Century......he believed in the power and superiority and ultimate victory of the American way......and he dragged everyone else along with him.....and proved to be right.........
Amazing.
It doesn't require brains, I guess.
Amazing.
It doesn't require brains, I guess
I managed to read most of your post without laughing too hard, so I guess not
The USSR was a top-down planned economy
Somewhat ~1954 when it became less restictive and an internal compettitive market
the suppression of dissent and the maintenance of a war machine of uncontestable power to maintain its and expand its empire and defend the empire's borders.
Sounds like the Monroe Doctorine and Manifest Destiny
The USA was a free market, democratic nation:
So glad you said "was". It "was" until 2000.
the first modern democracy, and one of the freest nations on earth
Actually it was Britain with the introduction of the Magna Carta and De Montforts Parliment in 1265, but I digress
The USA did not become a "free" nation until 1964 when the Civil Rights Act enforced the 15th Amendment, and the 24th Amendment ended poll taxing, thus removing all restrictions to the African American vote
....that's less the 40 yrs ago. So in democratic terms, it's still a "babe"
you can hardly rule out the "ideological differences" as they were a) the reason for the conflict in the first place, and b) the reason the west emerged victorius: so far.
The reason's were purely economic, hardly ideological. That is the background for the conflicts
As for the "Reagan" factor. It was a non-factor. The guy was barely lucid and ranks in the bottom quadrille of presidents. Even mentioning him is laughable
A- for word count, A for intense passwion and D for facts
Is English your second language or do you just have keywords that set you off? How do you see "Bush bashing" in noting that his style of leadership wasn't the same as FDR's? Geez ... the Coke versus Pepsi thing must have you near to straight-jacket ire
Canada is not on the list. Those were mostly police actions, no declared war.
Those were mostly police actions
Like Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.. Couple of guys getting together to keep the peace:roll:
Hmmmm, we could argue books over this: let me try and make the point with a simple comparison:
In the USSR there was a constant struggle for authority between three entities; the Communist Party, The KGB, and the military
In the United States, there was a constant struggle for authority between three entities: the elected Congress, the elected Executive (the President), and the Judiciary (appointed by the elected executive, approved by the elected congress, to defend the rights of the people as set out in the Constitution)
Now, if you can't tell the difference.....you abandon western liberal democracy for a society more to your liking......
Oh, BTW, I LOVE how you trace British democracy from the Magna Carta, which granted rights to less than the top 1% of the social order, but discount American democracy (from the same roots) until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which only extended the franchise to the last 10%......90% of Americans already were enjoying full civil rights.
You are blinded by unthinking anti-Americanism......
The leaders of both countries enjoyed the very same high (expensive)lifestyle while poverty was anything but minimal (in large part to a fake threat of imminent war), that is how it was and now you know the rest of the story.
RIP Paul Harvey
RIP Paul Harvey
In the USSR there was a constant struggle for authority between three entities; the Communist Party, The KGB, and the military
There was a struggle between dissidents, The party and the military. The KGB was "the party"
In the United States, there was a constant struggle...
between the left and right.
you abandon western liberal democracy for a society more to your liking......
The ideals of Liberal democracy have long been forgotten or abdicated (see Rieign of BUSH II)
LOVE how you trace British democracy from the Magna Carta, which granted rights to less than the top 1% of the social order, but discount American democracy (from the same roots) until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which only extended the franchise to the last 10%......90% of Americans already were enjoying full civil rights.
Point taken
I'll go back to 1920 and Women's sufferage. So now we are talking 90+ yrs ago, less than 40% had the right to vote. "Free and Democratic" indeed...8O
You are blinded by unthinking anti-Americanism
Not anti -American, but rather pro democracy which is considerably better suited to today's world than blind American apoogism and fealty
let me try and make the point with a simple comparison:
I'll make an even simpler collary. What was the ultimate goal for each country (or "empire" to use your terminology)?
World domination.
I'll make an even simpler collary. What was the ultimate goal for each country (or "empire" to use your terminology)?
World domination.
I wouldn't be surprised if Reagan's personality itself might have contributed to the end of the Cold War. He was a hawk by any standard, on a par with Thatcher. In fact, their terms co-incided. The idea of a nuclear USA and a nuclear UK, both allied to one another and led by two hawks of such aggrissiveness may have given the USSR the idea that it was time to deflate tensions before the balloon burst. After all, it almost had once before already with JFK in power dring the Cuban missile crisis, and then too the USSR backed down. This woudl seem to have suggested a trend. Whenever nuclear was was at the brink, the USSR was smart enough to know that nuclear war was possible with such presidents at the helm.