So who are the forces of evil that control the world and promote this diversion to keep us from looking at what is really going on? The Masons?
Obama’s Speech in Egypt: A Seminal moment?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Do you think the controllers would be out in the open? Masons, Illuminati, International Bankers, the Skulls, are all just layers of control that hide the real power. They are not going to expose themselves to the great unwashed.
Hmmmm....so then you must be someone special, someone with incredibly good connections to the right people because, somehow, YOU know all about it. Please tell me how you know. After all, if you know the "truth", you must know who's really in charge. Please tell us all who it is, and how you managed to find out. Inquiring minds want to know.
The world as well as the U.S.gave Reagan credit for helping to dismantle the Soviet Union.
ironsides, you mean USA (and especially the conservatives inside USA) give Reagan credit for dismantling the Soviet Union. As to others besides conservatives, there are a variety of opinions as to what caused the fall of USSR. I think Gorbachev receives lion’s share of the credit for that.
We broke them financially.
Broke them financially? And why would that lead to the fall of USSR? Has that led to the fall of North Korea? They are even more broke than USSR ever was. Has that led to fall of Mugabe? Zimbabwe is even more broke that USSR ever was, with its annual inflation rates thousands of percent.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that financial hardships cause a regime to collapse. Financial hardships may rally people up and perhaps they may be able to overthrow a dictatorship (though even here usually the dictatorship can survive by using brutal and repressive measures. However, to say that Gorbachev decided to dismantle USSR because of financial hardship is nonsense. There is no historical evidence of that happening. North Korea and Zimbabwe are the living examples.
ironsides, you mean USA (and especially the conservatives inside USA) give Reagan credit for dismantling the Soviet Union. As to others besides conservatives, there are a variety of opinions as to what caused the fall of USSR. I think Gorbachev receives lion’s share of the credit for that.
We broke them financially.
Broke them financially? And why would that lead to the fall of USSR? Has that led to the fall of North Korea? They are even more broke than USSR ever was. Has that led to fall of Mugabe? Zimbabwe is even more broke that USSR ever was, with its annual inflation rates thousands of percent.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that financial hardships cause a regime to collapse. Financial hardships may rally people up and perhaps they may be able to overthrow a dictatorship (though even here usually the dictatorship can survive by using brutal and repressive measures. However, to say that Gorbachev decided to dismantle USSR because of financial hardship is nonsense. There is no historical evidence of that happening. North Korea and Zimbabwe are the living examples.
That is the official Republican party line, EagleSmack. There is no historical evidence for it. Brutal regimes survive in the face of incredible economic hardships, there have been several examples.
I already mentioned North Korea and Zimbabwe. Another one is Uganda, under Idi Amin The country was broke, yet Amin survived. Or even Taliban. Afghanistan was broke under Taliban; they did not have enough to eat. Yet Taliban managed to survive quite well, it took an invasion to get them out.
To claim that USSR disappeared because of financial hardships imposed upon them by Reagan is total nonsense. There is no historical evidence for it. Financial hardship do not sink dictatorships, but a desire on the part of the dictator to give up the dictatorship and bring democracy is usually the deciding factor (hence a large part of the credit goes to Gorbachev).
We broke them financially.
The Soviet Union just could not give their people both want we had and maintain a weapons race. Look at them now, still having problems.
The Soviet Union just could not give their people both want we had and maintain a weapons race. Look at them now, still having problems.
But that is the whole point, ironsides. In a dictatorship, the government does not have to give people what they want. That maters in a democracy, but not dictatorship. People are starving in North Korea, but the government is not in any danger of collapse. They have a one million man army (and nuclear weapons), the army thrives while people starve.
Soviet Union didn’t have to give people what they want, they could have let the people starve and kept the army strong, as most dictatorships do. It was Gorbachev who decided to dismantle the dictatorship.
I can understand conservatives taking credit for the collapse of USSR (and disclaiming all the responsibility of the recent economic meltdown), but the facts do not support it (nor do they support the conservative claim of having nothing to do with the economic meltdown). The fact is, financial hardship has nothing whatever to do with the collapse of a dictatorship, most of the times a dictatorship can survive just fine with incredible amount of financial hardship.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The more I read from you, the more convinced I am that you've done entirely too much drugs in your youth.
As usual, another over simplification from Joey. The USSR was more than just a dictatorship. It was a military and economic super power....in its heyday. North Korea was and is neither. Trying to compare the two just goes to show how little Joey knows about the subject.
Here is another so called lie explained. The lie: WMD's in Iraq.
Seems Saddam was the author of the myth about WMD's, and had eneryone convinced.
FBI notes: Saddam Hussein sought familiar refuge.
FBI notes: Saddam Hussein sought familiar refuge - Yahoo! News
Saddam brought down his own destruction.
Seems Saddam was the author of the myth about WMD's, and had eneryone convinced.
FBI notes: Saddam Hussein sought familiar refuge.
FBI notes: Saddam Hussein sought familiar refuge - Yahoo! News
Saddam brought down his own destruction.
In Solidarity
The Polish people, hungry for justice, preferred "cowboys" over Communists.
by LECH WALESA
Friday, June 11, 2004 12:01 A.M. EDT
GDANSK, Poland--When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.
Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.
I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.
I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.
The 1980s were a curious time--a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.
In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.
Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didn't fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.
I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, "High Noon." Under the headline "At High Noon" runs the red Solidarity banner and the date--June 4, 1989--of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the "Wild" West, especially the U.S.
But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.
As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didn't express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world. And I hope he felt gratified. He should have. Mr. Walesa, winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, was president of Poland from 1990 to 1995.
Most of us in Canada and the United States have no idea what Poland went thru under the Communist yoke, only those who were there do. President Ronald Reagan did save the Western Democratic World, even though the lefties won't admit it. We need another take charge morally strong President like Ronald Reagan again, not a Democratic or Republican congress out for their own personal agendas.