 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: We've been doing the minimal. |
I don't think the US could have done anything in the open, without being a nuisance to the reformers. Even that minimal amount probably was too much, but then, damned if you do and damned if you don't...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Fez
Well that is marginally better than having thousand of nukes pointing at every piece of land in the world. You are so messed up Sava. | Actually it's not. The Soviet Union at least had extensive controls of it's military. Instead of nukes pointed at cities, they are more easily accessable to terrorists... who, unlike the Soviets, are willing to commit suicide/murder in attempt to gain martyrdom.
It's a simple question of psychology and security Fez.
Soviets -- paranoid... good security
Modern Russia -- corrupt, poor security
Soviets -- don't want to die
Islamic terrorists -- want to blow themselves up to kill Americans
Reagan was one of the worst presidents of all time... maybe next to Dubya. It's very silly if you think about it.
Reagan wanted to beat the Soviets, so he created a bigger problem by supporting the terrorists we're dealing with today. He supported Saddam in an attempt to beat the other terrorists in Iran... failed... and we end up with more problems. Bush Sr. attempts to clean up the Saddam mess, but creates even more problems by leaving him in power and giving Osama more of a motive to recruit terrorists by keeping troops in Saudi Arabia. Now... Bush Jr. removed Saddam... but now there's a big problem in Iraq. He beat the Taliban, but then the terrorists just scattered. Not only are things just as bad in Afghanistan, but the terrorists are still attacking.
And all the while this crap is going on... arms companies and companies like Halliburton are defrauding the government, making money on this belligerent, immoral foreign policy.
I may be messed up, but not have as messed up as the world is thanks to evil leaders.
Last edited by Sava on 28-05-2003 at 21:54
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oerdin
Via economic warfare. Read about the arms race and the subsequent economic collapse of the Soviet Union. In short Rony and Magy made sure the Soviets spent so much on guns that they didn't have any butter. |
That's a nice myth, but how did that work? What was it with the soviet economy? Or more interestingly, relating to defense spending, the east german economy? And why do we have Cuba and North Korea still around the way they are, if that works so well?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler
That's a nice myth, but how did that work? What was it with the soviet economy? Or more interestingly, relating to defense spending, the east german economy? And why do we have Cuba and North Korea still around the way they are, if that works so well? |
I'm a work so I don't have the book in front of me but as I recall at the height of the Arms race the Soviets were spending 70% of the state budget on weapons remember the state owned everything so that essentially meant a monsterious portion of GNP was tied up in military expenditures in a vain effort to keep up with the US who was spending less then 3% of GNP on defense.
Now realize the Soviet state had to pay for all the new factories, they had to invest in all the new products which those factories would produce, they had to invest in EVERYTHING and yet the vast majority of their resources were spent trying to keep up militarially with the west. That doesn't leave enough to pay for things like health care, social security, education, roads, dams, and everything else which the state must pay for. Now add on the fact that communist collectivized agriculture was an absolute catastrophy for the Soviet Union. The Russian Empire actually produced more grain in 1912 then the Soviets were producing in 1970 even after all the massive irrigation projects and mechinization. The state just couldn't run a collective farm to save its life, but, the people still needed food so what do you do? The anwser was you had to import grain and the US and Europe were happy to sell the Soviets all the food they wanted if the Soviets would be so kind as to pay for it with hard currency. They didn't have hard currency so they had to borrow money from western banks.
Do you see where this is going? The original problem still isn't solved so they would run throw that loan and have to take out an even larger loan to conver year 1's debt plus the original interest plus year 2's debt plus the new interest plus...
Last edited by Oerdin on 28-05-2003 at 23:43
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Anyway, the conservatives using the US as an excuse to crack down on the student demonstrators and reformists is nothing new. They've been doing it for the last two decades, with or without American provocation. We're still "the Great Satan", remember? |
But this is just giving them more arguments. After all, today we can say that at least there is a reform movement. The US posturing will certainly hurt it.
What i'm wondering is : is this done on purpose, are they that dumb that they don't realize the consequences, or do they just not care?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:28
|
|
But this is just giving them more arguments. After all, today we can say that at least there is a reform movement. The US posturing will certainly hurt it.
What evidence do you have to support this? We've been posturing for the last 20 years. Has it hurt the reform movement?
Last edited by DanS on 29-05-2003 at 00:34
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DanS
But this is just giving them more arguments. After all, today we can say that at least there is a reform movement. The US posturing will certainly hurt it.
What evidence do you have to support this? |
Think about it Dan. I'm not going to provide a link for this one.
quote: We've been posturing for the last 20 years. Has it hurt the reform movement? |
Please! Are you trying to say that the American rhetoric has been the same under Clinton or even under Bush Senior as it is under G.W. ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm a work so I don't have the book in front of me but as I recall at the height of the Arms race the Soviets were spending 70% of the state budget on weapons remember the state owned everything so that essentially meant a monsterious portion of GNP was tied up in military expenditures in a vain effort to keep up with the US who was spending less then 3% of GNP on defense. |
The US was spending around 5-7 % of GDP on defense during th 1980s. For the USSR, estimates usually go from 10-20 %. The ones above that seem highly implausible to me.
quote: Originally posted by Oerdin
North Korea has survived by using a policy of "Self-Relience" which essentially means "we are so damn poor we can't afford to import anything so we're going to pretend we don't want to import anything". ... Cuba has survived by cutting state expenditures to the bone (including the military which is unusual for a communist country) and by trying to bump up the tourism sector. |
Now that's odd - why didn't the USSR chose those options to survive?
More interestingly, the soviet satellite states spent very little on defense. Why did they collpase? And collapse first?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV
Anybody remember the invasion of Afghanistan?
I thought not...."
|
Which one? It's been invaded for like centuries. Nobody has ever succeeded in bringing peace and stability there. I doubt anyone will until the Afghanis change themselves.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|