That is total Barak Manure. If the Soviet Union had been in a decrepit condition going into Reagan's Presidency in comparison to America maybe, perhaps, possibly you might be .01 % right, but of course that was not the case. Lets us return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, the Reagan Presidency rides again.

Coming out of the 1970s I would argue that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was in a relatively better condition economically and most certainly militarily than the United States of America.

The United States militarily had not fully recovered from the strains of the Vietnam War. Our military had been worn down from those years. Take in also the fact that Jimmy Carter had starved the Military to deal with the budgetary strains and rampant inflation of his later years. Oil production in the US had not kept up with demand and you had the energy crisis. Economically and therefore militarily the US was in decline. Other countries could take advantage of our relative weaknesses, which of course Iran did with the hostage crisis.

So going into the 80s America was not very impressive. Culturally we had the 60s rot from the hippie generation who were just beginning to claw their way into the power structures of America. All of those anti war radicals like Hillary Clinton. Fresh from their intoxicating anti Nixon days these cultural parasites were a d**g on the morale of America. So we have established the pathetic condition of America that Ronald Reagan inherited from Mr. Peanut.

What of the USSR ? They had rot of their own that set in during the late 1960s. Their command and control economy which had worked so well during the great patriotic war with Hitler was sputtering. The military was consuming too much of GDP. Where in the West the spoils of the economy went to evil capitalists, in the Soviet Union it went strictly to party leaders. Unlike in the West there was no middle class, and unlike the Western capitalists who have incentives to invest in economically valuable assets, Soviet party leaders had no incentives and little knowledge of how to allocate resources efficiently. Political loyalty and not economic success was what they were paid for.

These problems in the Soviet economy were worrisome long term but not especially acute through the 1970s. The Soviet Union was able to deal with the strains without cutting military spending or it's foreign adventurism. In the mid 70s Brezhnev attempted to control the increase in military spending with arms treaties with the West. In the late 1970s things began to worsen. The Soviet adventure in Afghanistan started and began to strain the economy, not just because of the military commitment, but by Western trade retaliations for it.

I concede that the Reagan Presidency began during a shift in the fortunes of the Soviet Empire, but I do not agree that it was inevitable that the Empire would begin it's collapse during his term in office. Soviet leadership had the problem of cutting it's military spending in order to reform and incentivize it's economy just as Reagan came in. The problem was two fold. Their military was part of their political control so cutting back there jeopardized the C*******t hold on power. Also the military was entrenched and would resist any spending cutbacks.

I contend that the Soviets would have survived all of these strains on their system if not for the leadership of Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. They stood up to the Soviets. They opposed them in Afghanistan by giving aid to the Mujahedin. They encouraged dissidents in Russia and it's Warsaw Pact s***e states. Reagan's increase in military spending forced even more military spending by the Soviet Union at a time when their only long term hope for survival was to decrease it.

Part of the problem with the USSR was it's aged political leadership which was not up to the new challenges of dealing with the changing world and Reagan. They were old men who could not change and they kept dying. Gorbachev was a new young leader who tried to reform the system and actually he and Reagan trusted one another not to blow up the world. By the time Gorbachev came along it was too late for the half measures he tried to implement. After 70 or so years of oppression the Soviet citizens were not going to give him the time to reform his collapsing economic model and he was too much of a C*******t to totally scrap it.

Good reply, pretty accurate..

I could print volumes on this subject.. but most cite the collapse of oil and gas prices.

As a climax to the decades of sanctions on the USSR.

so, my point, it was far from a short term event that led to the collapse.. but the tightening of sanctions by Reagan did have an impact.


So much is written on this subject, I tried to pull a middle of the road article.. Long one, if you wish follow the link..

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Embargoes-and-Sanctions-Cold-war-sanctions.html


Embargoes and Sanctions - Cold war sanctions
The United States emerged from World War II as the only great power whose economy had escaped the conflict relatively unscathed. Consequently, it was a potential reservoir for rebuilding war-torn nations and was often the sole supplier of critical goods. Such economic power inevitably made economic sanctions an attractive option for the United States in the Cold War, despite the dismal record of embargoes in American history. Economic sanctions were often the only recourse for the United States when fear of nuclear war or other political constraints put limits on the use of military force.

In 1948, the United States began a campaign of economic sanctions against the Soviet Union that would last more than fifty years. In March of that year, the Department of Commerce announced restrictions on exports to the Soviet Union and its European allies. Congress formalized these restrictions in the Export Control Act of 1949. Originally, Congress intended this act as a temporary measure to keep arms and strategic materials out of the hands of potential enemies, but the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 made the Cold War more rigid and the measure became permanent. In 1951, the United States attempted to strengthen these sanctions with the so-called Battle Act. According to this act, the United States would refuse assistance to any nation that did not embargo strategic goods, including oil, to the Soviet Union and nations subject to its influence. Under pressure from its allies, the United States accepted many exemptions from this act and it was not notably effective.

For many years, the embargo on the Soviet Union was quite severe. The embargo on Eastern European countries was less stringent, in hopes of driving a wedge between the Soviet Union and its allies. Two of the most independent East European nations, Poland and Romania, were given particularly mild treatment. With the growing détente of the 1970s, trade restrictions on the Soviet Union and its allies were increasingly lightened, most notably in the permission granted the Soviets to purchase large amounts of American wheat when Soviet crops failed in 1973. But restrictions were tightened again after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. In 1983, Ronald Reagan approved the National Security Decision Directive 75, which set the policy of using economic pressure to limit the foreign policy and military options of the Soviets. This stricter regime of sanctions led to considerable conflict with America's allies on the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM), especially over the export of oil and gas equipment.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a major debate broke out over the contribution that the campaign of economic sanctions had made toward the fall of the Soviet empire. Many former officials in the Reagan administration credited sanctions with a significant role in the disintegration of the Soviet economy and therefore of the Soviet Union itself. On the other hand, the leading work on the effectiveness of economic sanctions—Hufbauer, Schott, and Elliott, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered (vol. 1, p. 137)—concludes that although the United States did succeed in denying some arms and key technologies to the Soviets, the collapse stemmed from internal inefficiencies rather than U.S. economic sanctions.



Read more: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Embargoes-and-Sanctions-Cold-war-sanctions.html#ixzz5CqEFmC00

That is total Barak Manure. If the Soviet Union had been in a decrepit condition going into Reagan's Presidency in comparison to America maybe, perhaps, possibly you might be .01 % right, but of course that was not the case. Lets us return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, the Reagan Presidency rides again.

Coming out of the 1970s I would argue that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was in a relatively better condition economically and most certainly militarily than the United States of America.

The United States militarily had not fully recovered from the strains of the Vietnam War. Our military had been worn down from those years. Take in also the fact that Jimmy Carter had starved the Military to deal with the budgetary strains and rampant inflation of his later years. Oil production in the US had not kept up with demand and you had the energy crisis. Economically and therefore militarily the US was in decline. Other countries could take advantage of our relative weaknesses, which of course Iran did with the hostage crisis.

So going into the 80s America was not very impressive. Culturally we had the 60s rot from the hippie generation who were just beginning to claw their way into the power structures of America. All of those anti war radicals like Hillary Clinton. Fresh from their intoxicating anti Nixon days these cultural parasites were a d**g on the morale of America. So we have established the pathetic condition of America that Ronald Reagan inherited from Mr. Peanut.

What of the USSR ? They had rot of their own that set in during the late 1960s. Their command and control economy which had worked so well during the great patriotic war with Hitler was sputtering. The military was consuming too much of GDP. Where in the West the spoils of the economy went to evil capitalists, in the Soviet Union it went strictly to party leaders. Unlike in the West there was no middle class, and unlike the Western capitalists who have incentives to invest in economically valuable assets, Soviet party leaders had no incentives and little knowledge of how to allocate resources efficiently. Political loyalty and not economic success was what they were paid for.

These problems in the Soviet economy were worrisome long term but not especially acute through the 1970s. The Soviet Union was able to deal with the strains without cutting military spending or it's foreign adventurism. In the mid 70s Brezhnev attempted to control the increase in military spending with arms treaties with the West. In the late 1970s things began to worsen. The Soviet adventure in Afghanistan started and began to strain the economy, not just because of the military commitment, but by Western trade retaliations for it.

I concede that the Reagan Presidency began during a shift in the fortunes of the Soviet Empire, but I do not agree that it was inevitable that the Empire would begin it's collapse during his term in office. Soviet leadership had the problem of cutting it's military spending in order to reform and incentivize it's economy just as Reagan came in. The problem was two fold. Their military was part of their political control so cutting back there jeopardized the C*******t hold on power. Also the military was entrenched and would resist any spending cutbacks.

I contend that the Soviets would have survived all of these strains on their system if not for the leadership of Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. They stood up to the Soviets. They opposed them in Afghanistan by giving aid to the Mujahedin. They encouraged dissidents in Russia and it's Warsaw Pact s***e states. Reagan's increase in military spending forced even more military spending by the Soviet Union at a time when their only long term hope for survival was to decrease it.

Part of the problem with the USSR was it's aged political leadership which was not up to the new challenges of dealing with the changing world and Reagan. They were old men who could not change and they kept dying. Gorbachev was a new young leader who tried to reform the system and actually he and Reagan trusted one another not to blow up the world. By the time Gorbachev came along it was too late for the half measures he tried to implement. After 70 or so years of oppression the Soviet citizens were not going to give him the time to reform his collapsing economic model and he was too much of a C*******t to totally scrap it.

Nah. permafrost is right. Reagan just happened to be there. Afghanistan played a hand, you're right about that, but the cards in that hand came from the long-term effects of economic sanctions. Moscow couldn't continue to support the military machine they needed for Central Asia and they collapsed. It's the same thing we're going to wind up doing if we actually allow Trump to lead. As for Reagan, loosing the excuse for national security claims is the last thing he wanted.

He didn't ask Gorbachev to tear down the wall until Gorbachev was already tearing it down and it took three presidents to get back on track with a "war on terrorism" to replace the "cold war".

The Soviet Empire had been in worse shape during earlier times than during the 1980s. It was not foretold by any means that it had to fall in the early 90s. Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul 11 all encouraged Soviet and other Eastern Block dissidents . You forget without the dissidents nothing was going to happen in the USSR. From Stalin on, the Soviet populace was kept a disarmed flock of sheep. You know, kinda like you guys want us Americans to be.

Soviet leadership was paranoid about their citizens revolting or having the West attack it. They needed to keep that huge military going for their piece of mind. By supporting dissidents and rearming the American military, Reagan kept up the pressure which finally cracked the Soviet Union.

That is a lesson to you l*****ts in dealing with the little fat boy in North Korea. Appeasement like what young Barry did with North Korea and Iran is absolutely what you never do. Reagan laid out the blueprint. Trump is following it.

son,

You misconstrue the facts..

Skipping the condition of the Soviet populace for now, who are these guys who are determined to take guns away?? maybe 2 dozen out of the millions who want some sort of gun REGULATION??

It is a constant, from the gOP and right wingers that our military must be rebuilt.. That was no more true for Ronnie than it was for Bush Jr or the orange man.. We have been by far the worlds most powerful military since the end of WWll..

the little fat boy from NK has been told what to agree to and what to propose if the talks ever do take place.. China took care of that a few weeks ago if you missed seeing that information.

It probable was not reported in the alt-press..

My guess is that an economic agreement via South Korea will be top shelf..

I also think he was told to fold up the nuclear program in order to gain some level of a real economy..

China is not about to let their great leap forward.. to the leadership of the world be shot down by a minor little tyrant making more noise then he has any right to do.

Only fly in this scenario, that dumb orange fluff could mess it all up with out a thought..

We shall see..

son,

You misconstrue the facts..

Skipping the condition of the Soviet populace for now, who are these guys who are determined to take guns away?? maybe 2 dozen out of the millions who want some sort of gun REGULATION??

It is a constant, from the gOP and right wingers that our military must be rebuilt.. That was no more true for Ronnie than it was for Bush Jr or the orange man.. We have been by far the worlds most powerful military since the end of WWll..

the little fat boy from NK has been told what to agree to and what to propose if the talks ever do take place.. China took care of that a few weeks ago if you missed seeing that information.

It probable was not reported in the alt-press..

My guess is that an economic agreement via South Korea will be top shelf..

I also think he was told to fold up the nuclear program in order to gain some level of a real economy..

China is not about to let their great leap forward.. to the leadership of the world be shot down by a minor little tyrant making more noise then he has any right to do.

Only fly in this scenario, that dumb orange fluff could mess it all up with out a thought..

We shall see..

I should thank you to pieces. ( Meeses to pieces, Jinx the cat. ) You constantly lay out false arguments like h*****g fastballs, which gives me so many opportunities to knock them out of the park. Unfortunately it get tiresome to constantly go over old ground. However, I asked for it, so I cannot complain.

" who are these guys who are determined to take guns away?? maybe 2 dozen out of the millions who want some sort of gun REGULATION?? "

I recently politely discussed this with I believe it was your buddy Peter S. He obsessed over the AR-15. So I said okay, if we ban THAT GUN, do you guys promise to never bring up another anti gun law for the rest of this century. To which he said as long as you promise that no one will bring another gun into and shoot up a school. So I said, that proves it is not about any particular gun. There is no way to guarantee a jolterhead will not be allowed to wander around free, making threats to people and acquiring weapons so he can enter a school and become a " professional school shooter ".

" It is a constant, from the gOP and right wingers that our military must be rebuilt.. That was no more true for Ronnie than it was for Bush Jr or the orange man.. We have been by far the worlds most powerful military since the end of WWll.."

You like all l*****ts have absolutely no freakin clue what our military does. It is frightening. To make that statement shows a total lack of knowledge. You can have the greatest military in the world without it being close to being sufficient. At times the Roman Empire, the British Empire, The Soviet Union, and the N**i Empire could all legitimately make the claim of having " by far the worlds most powerful military ".

That is great if you know that you will always go one on one against the " second most powerful or less military ". Our military has global commitments. It is stretched thin. Not every unit has the best equipment or has it's full strength. Under Mr. Peanut in the 70s many of our military units in places like South Korea were under strength and so underpaid that personnel with families barely made ends meet. One of my close relatives was stationed in Korea at the time and still royally h**es Carter.


" the little fat boy from NK has been told what to agree to and what to propose if the talks ever do take place.. China took care of that a few weeks ago if you missed seeing that information.

It probable was not reported in the alt-press.. "

Are you serious? That is the most fantastic statement I have heard in the last 2 minutes. Trump all by himself has made him into the little fat boy. In case you do not recall, up until Donald J. Trump confronted the North Korean Dear Leader, he was the All Mighty Ferocious Feared Kim Jong-un, who stood up to the Yankee Imperialists and despite constant difficulties pushed forward in building missiles and nuclear warheads that could strike the Capitalist-Pig-Dogs in the soft lairs where they hatched their Imperialist schemes against the freedom loving worker peoples of the world.

" I also think he was told to fold up the nuclear program in order to gain some level of a real economy..

China is not about to let their great leap forward.. to the leadership of the world be shot down by a minor little tyrant making more noise then he has any right to do. "

No Sheet Sherlock. How comes this only happened NOW ????????? For decades China and to a lesser extent Russia have propped up the Kims because they were a thorn in America's side. Why suddenly has Kim shut up ????? Well why NOW ??

Go ahead and tell me that just like the Soviet collapse was inevitable and would have happened anyway without Reagan, that the little fat boy being reigned in by China was inevitable and had nothing to do with Trump. Just a very few months ago L*****ts were urinating in their pants in fear of a nuclear war between Trump and Kim. Now you say Kim is nothing. Not that I accuse you of hypocrisy or lack of knowledge, because I deeply respect your point of view.