 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Can you have a common military without a common foreign policy?"
You could, but it wouldn't be much use beyond the worst case of common defence.
"The chances of the UK letting France decide our defence and foreign policy are nil"
Exactly. Now we need to explain this to the pompous dickhead. He can learn. After all he learned to his great shock and dismay that he does not appoint the Austrian government. I think the lesson about Britain will be comparatively easy to understand for him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The USSR could have continued to compete and delay its collapse. The USSR could have simply reduced military spending - its collapse ows more to the paranoid nature of its policies than the pressure. |
Its true that soviet policies were the cause of the collapse but without the economic pressure there would be no need to have those policies.
quote:
Gorbachev essentially took a gamble on reform and lost. |
Gorbachev made a brave decision but was caught by the fact that once reform started the soviets had no free market economy.
quote:
The Reagan arms buildup maybe accelerated the process, but its not so much that the US (or the West) won, more that the Commies lost. And key to that was that even the party elites either resignated or opted for reform, given a rotten economy going nowhere. |
If the soviets lost then the US won (as part of the western alliance). That doesnt change the fact that a key factor was that the soviets couldnt increase their military spending without more hardship while the US could.
quote:
If economic pressure from the US collapsed the USSR, why does North Korea not collapse? |
I never said that economic pressure alone caused the collapse. The economic pressure was the catalyst. I said that without that pressure it might not have ever happened (although I believe it would have happened eventually). I think the reason that North Korea hasnt collapsed is because there is no popular dissent. The country is virtually one big Gulag. Cuba will collapse once Fidel dies.
Last edited by SpencerH on 18-02-2003 at 20:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Its true that soviet policies were the cause of the collapse but without the economic pressure there would be no need to have those policies."
The policies were part of the ideology. If the USSR had opted for the chinese way, it might still be around.
"I never said that economic pressure alone caused the collapse. The economic pressure was the catalyst."
If the USSR had not been ripe for collapse, especially incapable of making the necessary reforms, the arms race pressure would have had no effect. Given other options like returning to a more oppressive regime, it is difficult to tell what that catalyst actually effected, but it was just one factor among many.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"In 1980 when Reagan became president there were no indications that the soviets were ready for reform."
The reformers were silent under Breshnev.
"In 1982 when the Lech Walesa was elected in Poland"
Huh?
"the soviets moved forces to invade Poland. That wasnt needed since the Polish military took power."
I think that was in 1981 and related to the Solidarnosc strikes only.
"Gorbachev wasnt a reformer when he took power (after Andropov) in 1983 but became one later."
Andropov was a moderate reformer. The concrete heads managed to elect that walking coffin, Chernyenko I think, after Andropov.
"You may find it to be coincidence that the US arms build-up occurred at the same time as the collapse of the soviets but I do not."
Not _just_ coincidence, but little causal effect. If you can trust the estimates the USSR increased military spending by a real 3 % annually in those years IIRC. Why should that break their back?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Open access to a big market is open access to a big market, and if they're gonna be asked to make a choice, we could certainly provide them with a viable alternative."
You can't. First the EU is way more integrated than NAFTA, and the US is very unlikely to offer more than NAFTA. Second, geography means that the US share of their trade will be 5-10 %, while that of the EU is about 50 % and will likely increase.
That's less realistic than the EU offering Mexico a trade agreement as an alternative to NAFTA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
And I wonder when some Americains here can give up their addiction to France. It's getting pathologic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
I'll count CNN's coverage as an atrocity in its own right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
A propos, Germany's exports are now higher to the eastern European countries (and China) than to the US and this trend will very likely continue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"These new little Eastern European nations could never *hope* to have access to that kind of marketshare."
I said the "US share of their trade will be 5-10 %". That's what it is at the moment. EU 50 %. I have no idea what you mean. That their share of EU trade will be 50 %? That's not what I said.
"Would you suggest that we Faux News instead?"
Not much worse. The good thing about Fox is that it does not pretend to be a serious news channel.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-02-2003 19:31
|