So before you utter your brain dead comments..go see the Canadian Cemeteries
You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by making the other guy die for his.
Is the USA Government Imperialistic? Is this what leads the invasion of Ira
by frankiespeakin 113 Replies latest social current
-
Justice-One
-
Justice-One
One day, and I am losing hope, you might actually understand what the poster meant by this contextually accurate statement. Read his post again, this time think about it, then return.
In my opinion his entire post was composed of horseshit. I just picked out the smelliest part.
-
5go
Ronald Reagan had a massive military build up after Carter. He accomplished far more than Bush #43 without firing one shot (Grenada and secret CIA operations not included). It depends on the quality of the president that you vote for. Maybe picking the right candidate for president is important. Anybody can armchair quarterback. While you and Jourles and Skyking and all of the other "free thinkers" slept in, Justice-One was up at the crack off dawn to vote for #43. If all the free thinkers had voted, then #43 wouldn't be the president right now. What's more satisfying to you, being able to armchair quarterback, or being able to make a real difference by voting. If all of you voted, we'd be sitting here talking about Gore.
What did Reagan do other than get lucky the russian brought themselves down by invading afganistan and putting up some crappy policies. kind of like what we are doing right now. Yet he get's the credit for gorbachov's idiotiotic policies. Not only that but have you seen polling out of russia and eastern germany and some of the othe eastern bloc state ( mainly the ones that are in trouble ) they want to go back to the pre-gorbachov days. I mean if reagan produced that product the end of the soviet union I want a refund. Hell if a nuke goes off in the US where do you think it will come from. Probaly an old forgotten soviet one. Because he didn't care what happen to the nukes just the communist.
Backlash against reform
Structural reform lowered the standard of living for most groups of the population. Thus, reform created powerful political opposition. Democratization opened the political channels for venting these frustrations, thus translating into votes for anti-reform candidates, especially those of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and its allies in the parliament. Russian voters, able to vote for opposition parties in the 1990s, often rejected economic reforms and yearned for the stability and personal security of the Soviet era. These were the groups that had enjoyed the benefits of Soviet-era state-controlled wages and prices, high state spending to subsidize priority sectors of the economy, protection from competition with foreign industries, and welfare entitlement programs.
During the Yeltsin years in the 1990s, these groups were well organized, voicing their opposition to reform through strong trade unions, associations of directors of state-owned firms, and political parties in the popularly elected parliament whose primary constituencies were among those vulnerable to reform. A constant theme of Russian history in the 1990s was the conflict between economic reformers and those hostile to the new capitalism.
Some researchers assert that most Russians today have come to regret the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. [21][22] On repeated occasions, even Vladimir Putin—Boris Yeltsin's handpicked successor — stated that the fall of Soviet rule had led to few gains and many problems for most Russian citizens. In a campaign speech in February 2004, for example, Putin called the dismantlement of the Soviet Union a "national tragedy on an enormous scale," from which "only the elites and nationalists of the republics gained." He added, "I think that ordinary citizens of the former Soviet Union and the post-Soviet space gained nothing from this. On the contrary, people have faced a huge number of problems." [23]
Putin's international prestige suffered a major blow in the West during the disputed 2004 Ukrainian presidential election. Putin had twice visited Ukraine before the election to show his support for the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych against opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, a pro-Western liberal economist. He also congratulated Yanukovych on his victory before election results were even made official and made statements opposing the rerun of the disputed second round of elections, won by Yanukovych, amid allegations of large-scale voting fraud. In the West, the reaction to Russia's handling of, or perhaps interference in, the Ukrainian election evoked echoes of the Cold War, but relations with the U.S. have remained stable.
In 2005, the Russian government replaced the broad in-kind Soviet-era benefits, such as free transportation and subsidies for heating and other utilities for socially vulnerable groups by cash payments. The reform, known as the monetization, has been unpopular and caused a wave of demonstrations in various Russian cities, with thousands of retirees protesting against the loss of their benefits. This was the first time such wave of protests took place during the Putin administration. The reform has hurt the popularity of the Russian government, but Putin personally is still popular, with a 77% approval rating.
-
Justice-One
Let us start with basic intelligence tests. Spot the odd one out in the above emoticon line-up. Take your time.
Isn't that the ratio of brain dead liberals, to thinking conservatives/libertarians on this board?
-
restrangled
What did Reagan do other than get lucky the russian brought themselves down by invading afganistan and putting up some crappy policies. kind of like what we are doing right now. Yet he get's the credit for gorbachov's idiotiotic policies. Not only that but have you seen polling out of russia and eastern germany and some of the othe eastern bloc state ( mainly the ones that are in trouble ) they want to go back to the pre-gorbachov days. I mean if reagan produced that product the end of the soviet union I want a refund. Hell if a nuke goes off in the US where do you think it will come from. Probaly an old forgotten soviet one. Because he didn't care what happen to the nukes just the communist.
If you read exactly what I wrote which was that Reagan acomplished far more than #43 without firing a shot, then you would understand the context that I meant. He worked through diplomtic means. Diplomacy. In those days the most esteemed quality a President could have was a deep understanding of foreign policy. I wish Reagan was president in 2001. He would have handled things differently.
r's hubby
-
5go
If you read exactly what I wrote which was that Reagan acomplished far more than #43 without firing a shot, then you would understand the context that I meant. He worked through diplomtic means. Diplomacy. In those days the most esteemed quality a President could have was a deep understanding of foreign policy. I wish Reagan was president in 2001. He would have handled things differently
Oh you mean like Iran contra ( Where he got his teflon president nickname from I mean half his staff went to jail from it but he didn't know what was going on ) and handing military aid and poison gas to IRAQ !
Here is what wiki has to say.
After the arms sales were revealed in November1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. [4] However, a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages. [5]
The plan went ahead, and proceeds from the arms sales went to the Contras, a guerilla organization engaged in an insurgency against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The diversion was coordinated by Oliver North of the National Security Council. Supporting the Contras financially was an effort to assist them in their fight against the Nicaraguan government.
Both the sale of weapons to Iran and the funding of the Contras attempted to circumvent stated Administration policy and legislation passed by Congress, known as the "Boland Amendment". Administration officials argued that regardless of the Congress restricting the funds for the Contras, or any affair, the President (the administration) could carry on by seeking alternative means of funding such as private entities and foreign governments. [17]
The Contras were also involved in drug trafficking, as detailed in the Drug Money section.
-
restrangled
Oh you mean like Iran contra ( Where he got his teflon president nickname from I mean half his staff went to jail from it but he didn't know what was going on ) and handing military aid and poison gas to IRAQ !
Yes, thats exactly what I mean. You don't over react to a situation by taking your miliary half way around the world, sacrifice a lot of lives and spend a trillion dollars, to deal with a situation that could be better dealt with in a different way.
The situation you describe above was, as you know, Iran being a bigger enemy to us than Iraq at that time.
r's hubby
-
Justice-One
What did Reagan do other than get lucky the russian brought themselves down by invading afganistan and putting up some crappy policies.
Supply the Afghans with Stingers?
-
restrangled
5go
I was totally for going to Afghanistan, but against going into Iran because I felt it was a violation of our constitution (invasion of a sovergn nation) and set a new precedent that was bad for the US.
During the cold war the super powers would back other countries without getting actively involved. They supplied countries of similar interest with weapons and money. The US should have stayed that way.
Bush has set a bad precedent that can never be changed.
r's hubby
-
5go
5go
I was totally for going to Afghanistan, but against going into Iran because I felt it was a violation of our constitution (invasion of a sovergn nation) and set a new precedent that was bad for the US.
During the cold war the super powers would back other countries without getting actively involved. They supplied countries of similar interest with weapons and money. The US should have stayed that way.
Bush has set a bad precedent that can never be changed.
r's hubby
Not only was I in favor on Afghanistan But I would be for invading Pakistan. But now we can't now.
Back on Reagan the more time is put on between his administration the more that comes out how he screwed up royaly on his foriegn policies. Iraq the greatest he handed them aid while he was gassing the kurds. Then sold their enemy and our enemy missles to keep the war going. And to fund a group the sandinista's that put up a dictadorship that was against what the people wanted. In fact we seem to do that a lot look at the sha which is why Iran hates us so much. Read up on economic hitman intresting stuff, it explains a lot of recent history and not so recent.