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.
Ummm even Dosteyevsky said Europe is built out of stone,and Russia is built of wood
They couldnt get to their own resources in the form of natural gas,which is about all they really had
Even now theyre having a hard time getting to it,most of it sits in Siberia
And oh do please,it wasnt Western "freedoms",it was western"Products",there was a huge underground trade for Western products,and even domestically produced rock bands behind the curtain like Aquarium,and Lady Pank
Ironic that a set of Levi's is probably less easy to come by in Vladivostok now then before the collapse
"Western freedoms" was the term you used, not me. The USSR had over-exploited the easily accessable resources around the more populated areas of the country, however, with a half-decent infrastructure, one which was properly funded, those resources could have been extracted and used. The American would have no problem extracting resources from Alaska. This is a ridiculous argument.
why was nancy so scrawny?
Aside from the obvious labor requirements, what in the fuck does people being payed to live in Alaska have to do with successfully extracting resources from there? Your arguments make no sense, using some facts to back up your assertations might help. Every time I have challenged you on one aspect of your bizarre rants, you switch topics and ignore your previous statements. You obviously have no real knowledge of the subjects which we are debating.
While no doubt corrupt, I seriously doubt the USSR was so corrupt the entire system collapsed, though I will freely admit that is played a role, along with many other factors. And by the way, that corruption would negatively effect the economic situation of the USSR, which was further exasperated by the policies of, guess who, the Reagan administration.
All countries suffer from corruption. Look at China, a nation awash in corruption and graft, I highly doubt they'll collapse any time soon, they're certainlly not showing any signs of it. And if you think the American economy is suffering the way it is in large part because of corruption at the highest levels of US government, which you seemed to imply in your previous post, then I'd be genuinely surprised if you could tie your own shoes or walk down the street without having to wear a helmet.
Does Don Letts have a history degree? What about some experience in economics or international politics? Well, then what makes him a qualified source of information? Because he makes fucking documentaries? I guess Michael Moore should be considered as an unbiased bastion of knowledge then.
Don Letts is just an old, useless punk-rocker with opinions as biased as yours or mine. Does anyone actually give a flying fuck about what he thinks?
Belligerance does not equal knowledge, try reading a book or two.
Just for the record, I don't mean to personally offend you or anything, you're simply way off base with your arguments.
Even Don Letts of all people,hinted that the USSR wasnt going to survive the graft at the top levels in his film Rude Boy
Just like we here in the States arent surviving it right now
Well,OK,I am,but Im seeing alot of other people crashing and burning
But theres only so much to go around,and when people get bent enough they will do something about it,there just isnt as much to go around,and the Soviet hierarchy got seriously corrupt
It was bound to collapse
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks