Truth, Justice, and the American Way

by D8TA 85 Replies latest social current

• 

  Aztec

  ...Reagan (Tho I hate him) did finish off the cold war.

  That is HIGHLY debateable. Many feel the USSR would have collapsed on their own without the US spending a gazillion dollars on nuclear bombs. And now, of course, we (and they) have a ton of WMD. How pleasant!

  Bradley is correct, partially. One of the main reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was our escalation in spending on our own WMD which forced them to try and keep up. I believe (and I'm sometimes wrong ) that Gorbachev had more to do with the end of the cold war than Reagan did.

  Phantom, you're cute!

  ~Aztec
• 

  stillajwexelder

  ...Reagan (Tho I hate him) did finish off the cold war.

  That is HIGHLY debateable. Many feel the USSR would have collapsed on their own without the US spending a gazillion dollars on nuclear bombs. And now, of course, we (and they) have a ton of WMD. How pleasant!

  I also think Margaret Thatcher should get some of the credit
• 

  logansrun

  Again, who is to say that the USSR would not have collapsed or been transformed into a more benign nation without the escalation in nukes and the very real threat of total annihilation?

  Bradley
• 

  Aztec

  Again, who is to say that the USSR would not have collapsed or been transformed into a more benign nation without the escalation in nukes and the very real threat of total annihilation?

  Me?

  ~Aztec
• 

  logansrun

  Oh wait, perhaps it was the astrologers who told Reagan to build all those bombs for peace.

  Right.

  Bradley
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Giving Reagan credit for winning the Cold War is like giving a lottery winner credit for winning - they were in the right place at the right time.
  

  Democracy has worked out soooooo well in Russia. Russia has been dysfunctional in its culture for centuries - it has no tradition of rule of law, so any system is going to break due to corruption, and has. Russia is a terrible example of both democracy and socialism, because they have screwed them both up. Poland has been less empire-minded than Russia, but has been pretty stable and successful at creating a culture of rule of law - more so than Russia. (While the influence of the Church as a sometime opponent of the Soviet Union is to be given due credit, that was political activity, not religious activity).

  Iraq is more like Russia in its history than like the Soviet Union United States - often invaded, corrupt, lots of tradition but no rules - hence many people's fears about dropping dempocracy in there and bailing - there is no culture to support democracy. A republic that actually plays by its own rules would be a better interim step for a few years before trying out democracy - this would more closely follow the US model. Without the Magna Carta and the culture surrounding it, there would be no US today.

  (Corrected an error - see strikethrough above in last para)
• 

  expatbrit

  One of the characteristics of Totalitarian regimes is their thirst for more territory. This is because their regimes destroy the economy and resources of the territory they currently control. They therefore need a constant supply of new economic wealth and resources to burn in order to stave off collapse.

  For this reason, if the West had not operated a containment strategy of MAD, the tanks of the USSR would have rolled Westwards over Germany and France and Britain just as they formerly did over Czecheslovakia and Hungary.

  Gambling that the USSR might somehow spontaneously change into a benign regime would have been recklessly foolhardy.

  Expatbrit
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Agreed, ex... just not giving Reagan credit for the toast popping out while he was standing next to the toaster.
• 

  Aztec

  *Ahem* Expat, don't you have some links to Libertarian economics that you're supposed to send me?

  there is no culture to support democracy

  Phantom, I've been saying that for months! *beats head against wall*

  ~Aztec
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Again, who is to say that the USSR would not have collapsed or been transformed into a more benign nation without the escalation in nukes and the very real threat of total annihilation? Bradley Who is to say that Hitler would not have invaded Britain - and just been content with what he had Who is to say that the Japanese would have surrendered without the use of nuclear weapons Who is to say that Stalin wasn't a good little boy really Who is to say that Saddam Hussein might have started treating his people nicely Who is to say that the Taliban might have started acting sensibly Who is to say if the US had not declared independence that the Brits might have been better for them in the long run Who is to say that you are talking sensibly - get real I have had enough of this crappy thread