Ronald Wilson Reagan=Scumball

[CFH]

I hate the Republicans even more than I hate the Democrats, so I am by no means a Reagan fan, but even I have to give him credit for his role in bringing down the U.S.S.R.

[the wiz]

I'd vote for a dead Reagan before I'd vote for most of these guys out there

[Trainer Monkey]

I hate the Republicans even more than I hate the Democrats, so I am by no means a Reagan fan, but even I have to give him credit for his role in bringing down the U.S.S.R.

Give more credit to Elton John Records,and smuggled Levi's
It was more the desire for western freedoms,then anything that Reagan did that brought down the USSR
Not to mention the Berlin Wall actually fell during Bush Sr's Precidency,not Reagans
Even then,how much better off are we?
Between the unsecured nukes,a Russian economy that doesnt have the resources to support capatilism,and the now huge Russian Mob.
At least before Reagan,we knew who had their finger on the button over there,now we dont even know who has the button

[CFH]

Give more credit to Elton John Records,and smuggled Levi's
It was more the desire for western freedoms,then anything that Reagan did that brought down the USSR
Not to mention the Berlin Wall actually fell during Bush Sr's Precidency,not Reagans
Even then,how much better off are we?
Between the unsecured nukes,a Russian economy that doesnt have the resources to support capatilism,and the now huge Russian Mob.
At least before Reagan,we knew who had their finger on the button over there,now we dont even know who has the button

It was a calculated program of sustained military expansion that the U.S government knew the U.S.S.R. had no choice but to attempt to keep up with, while knowing that the economic situation of the U.S.S.R. would not allow for it.
The Russian's desire for "western freedoms", while no doubt playing a minor role, could not have toppled the Soviet Union. There was absolutely no history of democracy in Russia, and many would argue that there isn't democracy in Russia now.

[Trainer Monkey]

It was a calculated program of sustained military expansion that the U.S government knew the U.S.S.R. had no choice but to attempt to keep up with, while knowing that the economic situation of the U.S.S.R. would not allow for it.
The Russian's desire for "western freedoms", while no doubt playing a minor role, could not have toppled the Soviet Union. There was absolutely no history of democracy in Russia, and many would argue that there isn't democracy in Russia now.

No it wasnt,but that is the myth
We were actually pulling missiles under SALT
Its a myth,Reagan either couldnt find his ass with both hands and a map,or he blaimed all his failings on everyone else
Sorry,Reagan is a fairytale
If you were actually paying attention in the 80's,Reagan was like Bush but without the Senates rubber stamp,and a better ability to deliver his lines

[CFH]

No it wasnt,but that is the myth
We were actually pulling missiles under SALT
Its a myth,Reagan either couldnt find his ass with both hands and a map,or he blaimed all his failings on everyone else
Sorry,Reagan is a fairytale
If you were actually paying attention in the 80's,Reagan was like Bush but without the Senates rubber stamp,and a better ability to deliver his lines

In interviews I've seen Gorbachev himself say that was the principle cause of the collapse of the USSR. Most historians agree that it was economics which led to the collapse. How is it a myth?
There's also a lot more to a military than just missiles.

[Trainer Monkey]

In interviews I've seen Gorbachev himself say that was the principle cause of the collapse of the USSR. Most historians agree that it was economics which led to the collapse. How is it a myth?
There's also a lot more to a military than just missiles.

You mean like having no real natural resources except for vast Natural Gas resevoirs they couldnt get a pipeline to?
You mean those sort of economics?
You can only eat so many potatoes
Myth
The Soviet Union had very few natural resources,the graft of the higher end politicians was going to take it down eventually anyway,with or without Reagan
But thanks to the lingering resentment his policies caused in South America,Daniel Ortega is back in power,voted in clean and clear.
And all the money we pumped in to the Afghanistan Mujahadeen helped create Al-Queda
Not to mention the collapse of the Soviet economy within about 5 nanoseconds of "converting to capitalism"
Great job all around,resentful South Americans are turning to communism,Russia is run by mobsters and has no economy to speak of,and we're fighting the former terrorists in the middle east that we trained and armed
Kick ass across the board
I mean come on Ronnie gets all the credit for being President when an economic system that was doomed to collapse actually did
Lets give Ronnie some credit for things he actually did
Like selling missile parts to the Iranians
Or giving all those WMDs we blew up in the first Gulf War to the Iraqi's
Or creating so much resentment in South America two major leader recently elected are communist(so much for the big win,huh?)
Or blocking the UN investigations and sanctions over Sabbra and Shattila allowing Hezbolha to have moral legitimacy
Give the man his due

[CFH]

You mean like having no real natural resources except for vast Natural Gas resevoirs they couldnt get a pipeline to?
You mean those sort of economics?
You can only eat so many potatoes
Myth
The Soviet Union had very few natural resources,the graft of the higher end politicians was going to take it down eventually anyway,with or without Reagan
But thanks to the lingering resentment his policies caused in South America,Daniel Ortega is back in power,voted in clean and clear.
And all the money we pumped in to the Afghanistan Mujahadeen helped create Al-Queda
Not to mention the collapse of the Soviet economy within about 5 nanoseconds of "converting to capitalism"
Great job all around,resentful South Americans are turning to communism,Russia is run by mobsters and has no economy to speak of,and we're fighting the former terrorists in the middle east that we trained and armed
Kick ass across the board
I mean come on Ronnie gets all the credit for being President when an economic system that was doomed to collapse actually did
Lets give Ronnie some credit for things he actually did
Like selling missile parts to the Iranians
Or giving all those WMDs we blew up in the first Gulf War to the Iraqi's
Or creating so much resentment in South America two major leader recently elected are communist(so much for the big win,huh?)
Or blocking the UN investigations and sanctions over Sabbra and Shattila allowing Hezbolha to have moral legitimacy
Give the man his due

Are you saying the Soviet Union had few natural resources? Am I somehow misunderstand what you are trying to say? Because if you're trying to claim that the USSR was poor in natural resources then that might be one of the fucking dumbest things I have ever heard. They were rich in resources, but that doesn't mean that the infrastructure surrounding the extraction and exploitation of those resources was not crumbling because of a lack of funds. Also, because of their antagonistic relationship with the west, specifically the NATO countries, they were limited in regards to who they could conduct trade with. The pursuit of those resources, among other things, also led to a swift environmental degradation, which further hampered their ablility to produce.
As for the rest of your rant, it has little or nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR, or how the desire for "western freedoms" led to its demise -how did that work again?.
Reagan's policies on South America were in many cases ridiculous, I'll agree with you there.

[Kirkland Laing]

It was a calculated program of sustained military expansion that the U.S government knew the U.S.S.R. had no choice but to attempt to keep up with, while knowing that the economic situation of the U.S.S.R. would not allow for it.
The Russian's desire for "western freedoms", while no doubt playing a minor role, could not have toppled the Soviet Union. There was absolutely no history of democracy in Russia, and many would argue that there isn't democracy in Russia now.

When Reagan started to build up military spending the USSR carried on its merry way. By the time Gorbachov came to power the US was running huge deficits partly as a result of military spending and was actually in a worse position than it had been in 1980. Gorbachov could easily have kept on with the cold war but was the head of a new breed of Soviet leaders who wanted to spend their economic resources contructively. What really got the Soviets to change their mind was the Saudis flooding the world market with oil, bankrupting the Soviets. Capitalism won the cold war, not Reagan. Here's the very capitalist AEI to explain it :

The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.
As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive.
[The Soviet leadership was then faced with three options: start charging hard currency for oil exports, reduce food imports, or cut back military spending. None of them were seriously considered.]
Unable to realize any of the above solutions, the Soviet leadership...started to borrow money from abroad while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely....The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits.
....When the situation in the Soviet Union is examined from financial and hard currency perspectives, Gorbachev's policies at the time are much easier to comprehend (see figure 6). Government-to-government loans were bound to come with a number of rigid conditions. For instance, if the Soviet military crushed Solidarity Party demonstrations in Warsaw, the Soviet Union would not have received the desperately needed $100 billion from the West.
The only option left for the Soviet elites was to begin immediate negotiations about the conditions of surrender. Gorbachev did not have to inform President George H. W. Bush at the Malta Summit in 1989 that the threat of force to support the communist regimes in Eastern Europe would not be employed. This was already evident at the time. Six weeks after the talks, no communist regime in Eastern Europe remained.

AEI - Short Publications

[El Kabong]

When Reagan started to build up military spending the USSR carried on its merry way. By the time Gorbachov came to power the US was running huge deficits partly as a result of military spending and was actually in a worse position than it had been in 1980. Gorbachov could easily have kept on with the cold war but was the head of a new breed of Soviet leaders who wanted to spend their economic resources contructively. What really got the Soviets to change their mind was the Saudis flooding the world market with oil, bankrupting the Soviets. Capitalism won the cold war, not Reagan. Here's the very capitalist AEI to explain it :

The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.

As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive.

[The Soviet leadership was then faced with three options: start charging hard currency for oil exports, reduce food imports, or cut back military spending. None of them were seriously considered.]

Unable to realize any of the above solutions, the Soviet leadership...started to borrow money from abroad while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely....The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits.

....When the situation in the Soviet Union is examined from financial and hard currency perspectives, Gorbachev's policies at the time are much easier to comprehend (see figure 6). Government-to-government loans were bound to come with a number of rigid conditions. For instance, if the Soviet military crushed Solidarity Party demonstrations in Warsaw, the Soviet Union would not have received the desperately needed $100 billion from the West.

The only option left for the Soviet elites was to begin immediate negotiations about the conditions of surrender. Gorbachev did not have to inform President George H. W. Bush at the Malta Summit in 1989 that the threat of force to support the communist regimes in Eastern Europe would not be employed. This was already evident at the time. Six weeks after the talks, no communist regime in Eastern Europe remained.

AEI - Short Publications

...the histories as told by Krikland...."America has never done any good for anybody.....oh but I would love to go back there and spread my ideas of a European style socialism and maybe then we could live in peace"

The Ukraine supplied the majority of the gain to the USSR and socialism/communism failed because it's theoretically flawed to begin with. If you get the people dependent on government then the government has control of the people and not the other way around and the Kremlin controlled the masses by man made famines and bread lines and a basic control of the lives of the people....the people got tired of the games and they became an unproductive nation while they were still trying to keep up with the US and they went belly up....Gorbi wasn't a great democratic leader he was forced to make the decisions he made, so that he didn't #1 Start WW3 and #2 Get sacked by the masses.

Russia has plenty of resources as well it's one of the reasons Japan attacked Manchuria in WWII. As Japan is a nation which lacks natural resources and Manchuria produces a lot of steel

[Kirkland Laing]

...the histories as told by Krikland...."America has never done any good for anybody.....oh but I would love to go back there and spread my ideas of a European style socialism and maybe then we could live in peace"

The Ukraine supplied the majority of the gain to the USSR and socialism/communism failed because it's theoretically flawed to begin with. If you get the people dependent on government then the government has control of the people and not the other way around and the Kremlin controlled the masses by man made famines and bread lines and a basic control of the lives of the people....the people got tired of the games and they became an unproductive nation while they were still trying to keep up with the US and they went belly up....Gorbi wasn't a great democratic leader he was forced to make the decisions he made, so that he didn't #1 Start WW3 and #2 Get sacked by the masses.

Russia has plenty of resources as well it's one of the reasons Japan attacked Manchuria in WWII. As Japan is a nation which lacks natural resources and Manchuria produces a lot of steel

No, history told by Yeltsin's prime minister and internationally respected Russian economist Yegor Gaidar.

[El Kabong]

No, history told by Yeltsin's prime minister and internationally respected Russian economist Yegor Gaidar.

The free market whipped their asses is what happened and it's bound to change China as well