ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics
-
He certainly makes more insightful observations than your delusional ones. At least, I don't get ludicrous drivel like the demise of the USSR and the end of the Cold War being attributed to Reagan's expansive spendings...Originally posted by Mat Toro:I don't see you respecting others as well. Who are you lecturing?
You seem to think you are so smart. Whats the matter with you?
-
making singapore such a great nation to live in.Originally posted by will4:Can u quote some examples of the good things the govt has done? -
it was conducted at your house sir.Originally posted by will4:U in here or US when u conduct the poll? -
Yes, and I suppose Kin Jung-Il should be next in line for the Nobel peace prize?Originally posted by Mat Toro:nope, not related to pap.
I just state things for what they are.
many govt policies are good but not fully understood. The govt isn't out to screw the people but to build the country. what advantage do they have by screwing the people?
I feel that those anti govt people are so biased in their minds that they will never be open to reason. They choose to see only the bad and not the full picture and they try to show others how great they are by claiming to pity the poor.
They have this arrogance about them that they are better than others and they care more than others.
Thats all BS cos they never really cared about the poor at all. The people who cared for the poor is the govt if you think carefully.
I suppose there're no rogue governments on the planet - only those who have tried their best and inadvertently end up churning a self-serving regime by sheer accident. -
Thats obviously your private opinion. you are entitled to your wrong opinions. Its OK I am tolerant of that.Originally posted by walesa:He certainly makes more insightful observations than your delusional ones. At least, I don't get ludicrous drivel like the demise of the USSR and the end of the Cold War being attributed to Reagan's expansive spendings... -
Sycophants like you would certainly fit in nicely in the DPRK. Not only will your enemies dissapear mysteriously - you'd probably get your hands on all forms of public service awards imaginable.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:And what about yourself? You haven't posted any evidence whatsoever or given us any cause to believe what you say.
On other forums, where there is a less tolerance policy of fools such as yourself, you would have been banned immediately for failing to substantiate your remarks.
You're certainly making me realise the parallels this regime has with DPRK. -
Private opinion? It's more an accurate reflection of your stupidity whose merits have been more than adequately addressed by Fingolfin_Noldor.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Thats obviously your private opinion. you are entitled to your wrong opinions. Its OK I am tolerant of that.
Obviously, I'd be worried if a moron feeding off a press ranked 154th in the world for press freedom perceives an opinion echoed by millions in the free world to be "right". -
The wiki article I have shown clearly shows that the soviets knew they couldn't keep up with Reagan's expenditure and they decided to split.
You can play ostrich and deny it all you want, you are still wrong. -
It is indeed no exaggeration to suggest you ought to go back to basic grammar classes in view of your horrendous inability to comprehend simple English. I'm not sure if you'd even be good enough to run the spin machine for this regime if that's on your agenda.Originally posted by Mat Toro:The wiki article I have shown clearly shows that the soviets knew they couldn't keep up with Reagan's expenditure and they decided to split.
You can play ostrich and deny it all you want, you are still wrong.
For someone whose grasp of the Cold War is as pathetic as yours to talk about American politics is as credible as someone giving a masterclass in linear algebra without mastering basic arithmetic. -
Which part of the article dared to make such a claim? The escalation of the Cold War? Please, the problems here are far more fundamental than what your simplistic mind has led you to think.Originally posted by Mat Toro:The wiki article I have shown clearly shows that the soviets knew they couldn't keep up with Reagan's expenditure and they decided to split.
You can play ostrich and deny it all you want, you are still wrong.
You are an idiot. The problem with the Soviets was they did not develop their light industry enough over the course of the last few decades whatsoever. They concentrated on heavy industry and their arms industry employed lots of people. Arms spending was a significant portion of the GDP for decades. Why? Because America threatened to bomb them with Nukes since the 1950s and back then the Soviets had no strategic bombing capabilities whatsoever. If you were threatened in this manner you would naturally move to attempt to counter Western advantage. US policy has always advocated containment of the USSR and to conduct spoiling attacks to wear the enemy down which they did via proxy wars in the Middle East and in Afghanistan. This policy existed way before even Reagan, and the source of the Cuban crisis was in fact because the US went as far as putting Nukes right at the USSR's doorstep in Turkey. Naturally the USSR retaliated and placed nukes in Cuba. Lots of nukes.
Their problems are analogous to Singapore's over dependence on electronics manufacturing the 90s and when there was implosion of the sector in circa 2001 where we suffered badly, coupled with SARS. However, we did not have to deal with criminals who were far smarter and more brazen than anything the PAP is capable of (not to mention, far more richer).
Incidentally, even this conservative think tanks also explains that the Soviets have been increasing arms spending for decades, and that the Soviets had the largest military industry complex in the world: http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/EM27.cfm. The article even goes as far as saying that US spending has fallen during the 1970s and possibly lower than the Russians (I say possible because although the article says it did, there seems to be huge discrepancies on the size of Russian spending due to deliberate misinformation, and also, lack of transparency with regard to the spending, though it is likely that someone in Russia kept track of it)
Gorbachev's reforms were aimed at diversifying the economy, but he was outmaneuvered by Yeltsin who hijacked the state and sold the state to the dogs. Putin's attempt to reclaim state wealth was the first steps taken to remedy that problem, though the west concentrates on their stupid ideals and ignores the reality that Russia is in shambles. Did Yeltsin ever follow through Gorbachev's reforms? No he never did. He gave the economy shock therapy and rewarded scum and together plundered the Russian state. It's no secret that his family and the Oligarch scum are filthy rich.
And however Reagan contributed the boom in the 1990s, his own excessive arms expenditure contributed to the recession during George H W Bush and led to his failed reelection. He also single handedly turned the US into the world's largest debtor which has long term implications, not least the World now is financing US growth and with profound implication should the US economy go under. Whatever benefits that Reagan's tax cuts brought were negated by his excessive arms spending. Strong economy but huge budget deficits are no nos and if the Govt goes bankrupt and the release of thousands of civil servants into the job market because the Govt went bankrupt is going to have a huge impact on the economy regardless. One would have thought a PAP hack would at the minimum understand the virtues of balancing the budget.
You clearly have no inking of what you are talking about, and you are the ostrich who ignores criticism, choosing to "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil." -
If he ever wrote a research paper this way, I think he will get a fail. He will be lucky if he can even carry on the course without being forcibly withdrawn from it by the professor.Originally posted by walesa:It is indeed no exaggeration to suggest you ought to go back to basic grammar classes in view of your horrendous inability to comprehend simple English. I'm not sure if you'd even be good enough to run the spin machine for this regime if that's on your agenda.
For someone whose grasp of the Cold War is as pathetic as yours to talk about American politics is as credible as someone giving a masterclass in linear algebra without mastering basic arithmetic. -
[quote]Originally posted by walesa:
[b]
After all, am I supposed to believe your opinion that it's"still too early" to judge Bill should hold more water than those who have directly experienced his policies first-hand?
[b]
History view past President on their major decision that transformed people. Changed life; change the world. Its not the things/decision he did nor did not make. And it is not because he work tirelessly to bring peace with no result. What is interesting is that when it comes to list of Bill's accomplishment it is never a solid yes. Views are alway split. So it is not time to judge. After all he is still in the limlight.
I didn;t ask you to believe. -
Originally posted by walesa:
Africa. Here is an observation by a well known writer. I think he outline it fairly and politely.
Your 2 reasons are self-contradictory (assuming you know what you're talking about, which obviously doesn't look that way) on many fronts.
Secondly, the Clinton administration did more for Africa and the Middle East than any other administrations since the second world war. How you perceive Hillary to be disadvantaged through her association with the most active President in the aforementioned regions is beyond me. For you to make such shallow sweeping statements clearly indicate how little you know about Clinton's initiatives and efforts in Tanzania or his efforts in concluding a deal in the Middle East when Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat held the helms of Israel and Palestine respectively. [/b]
ClintonÂ’s trip was the longest and most extensive of any president of the United States to Africa. In an era of imagery, ClintonÂ’s eleven-day and six nation jaunt included a huge entourage of businessmen, politicians, and press members. His call for mutual regard and mutual respect was the turning point for America to open its mind and eyes to Africa. He was at ease and comfortable, clapping to the beat of tribal music. He offered a broad expression of contrition for what he called his countryÂ’s shameful legacy in Africa, including AmericaÂ’s role in the slave trade and its support of repressive anti-Communist dictators during the Cold War. And he even acknowledged the AdministrationÂ’s resistance to appeals for intervention in the Rwanda crisis.
In summary, let me say this: beyond the legacy of being the President who initiated the move to making Africa visible, Clinton will be seen as one who raised the profile of Africa, opened the eyes of the bureaucracy, exposed Americans to AfricaÂ’s diversity, and changed peopleÂ’s thinking about the continent. His efforts have raised the level of expectations for the next administration vis a vis Africa.
Still, the news is not all good. Clinton did not fundamentally address real issues. As many a Caribbean and African leader would say, "Trade and investment are critical, but they are not enough in themselves." American foreign policy toward Africa and the Caribbean must be more all-embracing.
[/b] -
[quote]Originally posted by walesa:
[b]
Firstly, I'm not sure if that many Americans think Hillary's shouldering Bill's "liabilities" - if anything, and considering Gore's failed campaign in 2000, I'd think more would regard it as an asset. Although, should she get elected, the inevitably higher expectations (founded on her husband's achievements) placed on her shoulders would be opened to debate. That said, I think it's important for those voting for her to realise she's not going to be like her husband and it certainly wouldn't make sense for her to be judged on benchmarks set by her husband.
Right now Hiliary is in the friendly crowd. Woman and democrats voters. If she wins the primary than we should see washington politics intensified. All dirty tricks will creep up. Bill will be a target by political opponent. Obama is clean, but lack experience. -
Longest trip to Africa to do what good? How did it benefit the Africans?
-
Both FN and walesa chooses to play dumb just ebcause they hate replubicans.
The message and legacy is clear. Reagan did outspend the Soviet union and caused it to collapse because teh Soviets knew they could not keep up.
Here are 2 articles from wikipedia that clearly shows it. I know both FN and walesa will keep on denying it but here it is for all to see.
Lets see who are teh ones with English comprehension problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war#End_of_the_Cold_War
End of the Cold War
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev sign the INF Treaty in 1987.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev sign the INF Treaty in 1987.
Main article: Cold War (1985-1991)
By the early 1980s, the Soviet armed forces were the largest in the world by many measures—in terms of the numbers and types of weapons they possessed, in the number of troops in their ranks, and in the sheer size of their military-industrial base.[44] However, the quantitative advantages held by the Soviet military often concealed areas where the Eastern bloc dramatically lagged behind the West. This led many U.S. observers to vastly overestimate Soviet power. [45]
By the late years of the Cold War, Moscow had built up a military that consumed as much as twenty-five percent of the Soviet Union's gross national product at the expense of consumer goods and investment in civilian sectors. [46] But the size of the Soviet armed forces was not necessarily the result of a simple action-reaction arms race with the United States. (Odom) Instead, Soviet spending on the arms race and other Cold War commitments can be understood as both a cause and effect of the deep-seated structural problems in the Soviet system, which accumulated at least a decade of economic stagnation during the Brezhnev years. (see Economy of the Soviet Union) Soviet investment in the defense sector was not necessarily driven by military necessity, but in large part by the interests of massive party and state bureaucracies dependent on the sector for their own power and privileges. [47]
By the time Mikhail Gorbachev had ascended to power in 1985, the Soviets suffered from an economic growth rate close to zero percent, combined with a sharp fall in hard currency earnings as a result of the downward slide in world oil prices in the 1980s. [48] (Petroleum exports made up around 60 percent of the Soviet Union's total export earnings.) [49] To restructure the Soviet economy before it collapsed, Gorbachev announced an agenda of rapid reform. (see perestroika and glasnost) Reform required Gorbachev to redirect the country's resources from costly Cold War military commitments to more profitable areas in the civilian sector. As a result, Gorbachev offered major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe.
Ronald Reagan recognized the real change in the direction of the Soviet leadership with Gorbachev, and shifted to diplomacy, with a view to encourage the Soviet Leader to go further with his reforms. Gorbachev agreed to meet Reagan in four summit conferences around the world: the first, in Geneva, Switzerland, the second in ReykjavÃk, Iceland, the third, held in Washington, D.C., along with the fourth summit, in Moscow, Russia.[50] Reagan believed that if he could persuade the Soviets to look at the prosperous American economy, they would embrace free markets and a free society. Gorbachev, facing severe economic problems at home, was swayed.[51]
Speaking at the Brandenburg Gate at the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987, Reagan said, "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
When Gorbachev visited Washington, D.C. for the third summit in 1987, he and Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at the White House (they finalized it a year later), which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.[52]
Ronald Reagan gives a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin and challenges Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!"
Ronald Reagan gives a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin and challenges Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!"
The Kremlin made major military and political concessions. The East-West tensions that had reached intense new heights earlier in the decade rapidly subsided through the mid-to-late 1980s. In 1988, the Soviets officially declared that they would no longer intervene in the affairs of allied states in Eastern Europe. In 1989, Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan.
In December 1989, Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush declared the Cold War officially over at a summit meeting in Malta.[53] In 1990, the Berlin Wall was torn down. By then, the Soviet alliance system was on the brink of collapse, and the Communist leaders of the Warsaw Pact states were losing power. In the USSR itself, Gorbachev tried to reform the party to destroy resistance to his reforms, but, in doing so, ultimately weakened the bonds that held the state and union together. By February 1990, the Communist Party was forced to surrender its 73-year old monopoly on state power. By December of the next year, the union-state also dissolved, breaking the USSR up into fifteen separate independent states. (see Dissolution of the USSR)
Legacy
Despite its rapid and relatively bloodless end, the Cold War was fought at a tremendous cost globally over the course of more than four decades. It cost the U.S. up to $8 trillion in military expenditures, and the lives of nearly 100,000 Americans in Korea and Vietnam.[54] It cost the Soviets an even higher share of their gross national product. In Southeast Asia, local civil wars were intensified by superpower rivalry, leaving millions dead.
The end of the Cold War gave Russia the chance to cut military spending dramatically, but the adjustment was wrenching. The military-industrial sector employed at least one of every five Soviet adults.[55] Its dismantling left millions throughout the former Soviet Union unemployed. Russian living standards have worsened overall in the post-Cold War years, although the economy has resumed growth in recent years. In the 1990s, Russia suffered an economic downturn more severe than the U.S. or Germany had undergone six decades earlier in the Great Depression after it had embarked on capitalist economic reforms.[56]
The legacy of the Cold War continues to structure world affairs.[1] The Cold War institutionalized the role of the United States in the postwar global economic and political system. By 1989, the U.S. was responsible for military alliances with 50 countries and 1.5 million U.S. troops were posted in 117 countries.[30] The Cold War also institutionalized the commitment to a huge, permanent wartime military-industrial complex.[30]
Some of the economic and social tensions that underpinned Cold War competition in parts of the Third World remain acute. The breakdown of state control in a number of areas formerly ruled by Communist governments has produced new civil and ethnic conflicts, particularly in the former Yugoslavia.[1] In some countries, the breakdown of state control was accompanied by state failure, such as in Afghanistan. But in other areas, particularly much of Eastern Europe, the end of the Cold War was accompanied by a large growth in the number of liberal democracies. In areas where the two superpowers had been waging proxy wars, and subsidizing local conflicts, many conflicts ended with the Cold War; and the occurrence of interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, or refugee and displaced persons crises declined sharply.[57] -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Cold_War
End of the Cold War
By the early 1980s, Moscow had built up a larger military than that of the United States.[105] In the past, the United States had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but with Soviet technological advances in the 1980s, the gap between the two nations was narrowed.[105] Ronald Reagan started a major military buildup, knowing that the United States could easily outspend the Soviet Union. As the Soviets tried to keep up with the United States in building up their military, they began to have large budget deficits, and as a result, Gorbachev offered major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe.[106]
Ronald Reagan speaks at the Berlin Wall, and challenges Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!"
Ronald Reagan speaks at the Berlin Wall, and challenges Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!"
Ronald Reagan recognized the change in the direction of the Soviet leadership with Gorbachev, and shifted to diplomacy, with a view to encourage the Soviet Leader to go further with his reforms. Gorbachev agreed to meet Reagan in four summit conferences around the world: the first in Geneva, Switzerland, the second in ReykjavÃk, Iceland, the third held in Washington, D.C., along with the fourth summit in Moscow, Russia.[107] Reagan believed that if he could persuade the Soviets to look at the prosperous American economy, they would embrace free markets and a free society. Gorbachev, facing severe economic problems at home, was swayed.[106]
Speaking at the Berlin Wall, on June 12, 1987, Reagan challenged Gorbachev to go further:
“ General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! ”
When Gorbachev visited Washington, D.C. for the third summit in 1987, he and Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at the White House (they finalized it a year later), which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.[108]
Reagan and Gorbachev sign the INF Treaty at the White House in 1987.
Reagan and Gorbachev sign the INF Treaty at the White House in 1987.
When Reagan visited Moscow for the fourth summit in 1988, he was viewed as a celebrity by Russians. A journalist asked the president if he still considered the Soviet Union the evil empire. "No," he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era."[109] At GorbachevÂ’s request, Reagan gave a speech on free markets at Moscow University.[110]
In his autobiography An American Life, Reagan expressed his optimism about the new direction that they charted, his warm feelings for Gorbachev, and his concern for Gorbachev's safety because Gorbachev pushed reforms so hard: "I was concerned for his safety," Reagan wrote. "I've still worried about him. How hard and fast can he push reforms without risking his life?"[111] Events would unravel far beyond what Gorbachev originally intended. In 1990, the Berlin Wall was torn down. A year later, the Soviet Union officially collapsed. -
I am in the process of compiling information on this, but to let you know what is reality and fact to separate from stupidity, read this article which was part of a report for the US Congress to educate yourself what is fact and not propaganda:
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/sect_05.htmAn Attempt To Be More Sophisticated:
Disinformation On Military Spending
In the November 1991 issue of the USSR's Military Historical Journal, then-chief of the Soviet general staff Vladimir Lobov referred to Soviet military spending as one-third of the Soviet gross national product [GNP]. During the same month, in issue no. 44 of Moscow News, Soviet President Gorbachev placed Soviet military spending at the same level, stating, "If this (the Soviet military-industrial complex) is not half of society, then it's at least a third of it." Just two months earlier, the U.S. government had estimated Soviet military spending at half this figure, 15 to 17 percent of GNP, in the publication Military Forces in Transition.
In comparison, the United States spent 13 percent of its GNP on defense at the height of the Korean War, 9 percent at the peak of the Vietnam War, 6 to 7 percent during the military buildup of the 1980s, and 42 percent during the maximum World War II mobilization during 1943 and 1944. The Soviet figure of one-third of GNP spent on defense during peacetime is truly staggering. As Soviet Academician Oleg Bogomolov stated in Moscow News, number 20 of 1990: "For decades we lived ... in conditions of a wartime economy."
Some estimates of Soviet military spending are even higher. In the March 26, 1992 issue of Izvestia, Russian presidential adviser Anatoly Rakitov stated:
Over the last six decades, 80 to 90 percent of our national resources - raw material, technical, financial, and intellectual - have been used to create the military-industrial complex. Essentially, the military-industrial complex has absorbed everything that is good and dynamic that Russia has to offer, including its basic economic capacity and its best technology, materials, and specialists. Consequently, the military-industrial complex is virtually synonymous with our economy.
The May 21, 1992 issue of the Washington Post reported Senator Bill Bradley's comment, after a recent trip to Russia and Ukraine, that, "In St. Petersburg, 70 percent of the people have jobs directly tied to the military. ...Nationwide, it's over 50 percent of the people."
For decades, Soviet leaders sought to deceive the world about the monumental extent of their military spending with a conciliatory disinformation campaign. Prior to Gorbachev, the disinformation was crude and simplistic. Until 1989, the Soviets claimed that they spent only a tiny amount on defense, which hardly varied from year to year. They presented only a single total figure for defense spending, with no further elaboration or breakdown.
Then, in May 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev stated that the Soviet Union would spend 77 billion rubles on defense that year, a dramatic increase from the prior official figure of 20 billion rubles in 1988. The 77 billion figure represented some 9 percent of Soviet GNP, which was more accurate than the earlier absurd claim that the Soviets had been spending only 2 to 3 percent of their GNP on defense, but still not an honest figure.
In an April 1990 speech, Gorbachev revised this figure upward, stating that Soviet military spending was 18 percent of Soviet national income, or approximately 15 percent of gross national product. Awkwardly, the official Soviet figure for military spending remained 77 billion rubles for 1989, with no real effort made to explain the discrepancy between Gorbachev's speech and the official government position. In October 1990, in a triumph of thoroughness over logic, the Soviet government released a detailed breakdown of Soviet military spending, completely ignoring Gorbachev's figure and adamantly sticking to its official position on total military spending. Commenting on this, Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Petrovsky proudly stated: "Glasnost is reaching out into that once closed sphere, the military budget."
Gorbachev's unexplained revelation in his April 1990 speech undercut this attempt to concoct more credible, sophisticated disinformation on this issue. soon, even higher unofficial estimates began to appear in the Soviet press, capped by Lobov's and Gorbachev's statements in November 1991 that the real figure for military spending was one-third of GNP, if not higher.
As mentioned earlier, U.S. estimates of Soviet military spending were off by approximately 100 percent, even as late as 1991. The USSR was able to successfully hide from the world the fact that their "supermilitarized economy," as Gorbachev put in it in Moscow News, was placing unsustainable strains on the Soviet economy and citizens, a situation which eventually led the Soviet leaders to adopt the policy of perestroika.
Inaccurate Western estimates about the burden of military spending on the Soviet economy were not caused by Soviet disinformation efforts but by Soviet secrecy and the inability of most Western analysts to comprehend the emphasis the Soviets placed on military strength. Pre-Gorbachev disinformation was crude and ineffective, and the more detailed and credible deceptions of the era of glasnost were overtaken by the collapse of the Soviet system. But the "post-Cold War" era did witness fabrications that were of a much higher quality than prior deceptive efforts. -
Certainly Reagan can outspend the Soviets, that's easy enough to believe. But did you think he won just by mere outspending? Please, they didn't even know how much the Soviets were spending, nor how deep in shit the Soviets were economic wise by the early 1980s.
To put it simply, the Soviets were operating at near Total War levels. That means, nearly the entire economy was devoted to the war machine. No country can survive too long at near total war levels, and by the 1980s, situation was at a critical point, and the economy wasn't growing. -
+1Originally posted by Mat Toro:it was conducted at your house sir.
U an amusing person seemed to me u can be quite rational but ur method of argument is also funny. -
The Soviets also having trouble managing their economy when Reagan tried to spend on military budget.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Certainly Reagan can outspend the Soviets, that's easy enough to believe. But did you think he won just by mere outspending? Please, they didn't even know how much the Soviets were spending, nor how deep in shit the Soviets were economic wise by the early 1980s. -
As mentioned earlier, U.S. estimates of Soviet military spending were off by approximately 100 percent, even as late as 1991. The USSR was able to successfully hide from the world the fact that their "supermilitarized economy," as Gorbachev put in it in Moscow News, was placing unsustainable strains on the Soviet economy and citizens, a situation which eventually led the Soviet leaders to adopt the policy of perestroika.
Thanks FN for your article above. You are simply reinforcing my point.
Are you really trying to shoot yourself in the feet again? I suggest you start reading your own cut ans pastes.
Anwyay thanks again. -
Oui... the economy was supermilitarized for decades. Please read that too. The situation was reaching a critical point even before Reagan arrived at the scene. To put it simply, the Soviets could not spend any more than they could because of a stagnant economy which had been already devoted entirely to the business of war.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Thanks FN for your article above. You are simply reinforcing my point.
Are you really trying to shoot yourself in the feet again? I suggest you start reading your own cut ans pastes.
Anwyay thanks again.
You contend that Reagan outspent the Soviets and the Soviets tried to match. The reality is that they could not, and could never. Their economy was on decline by the 1980s and that was it. There is only so much money around that could be spent. They faced economic collapse, and part of the reason to negotiate with the US is so that they can get breathing space to reform. -
Indeed. A country that operates at total war level simply cannot sustain itself forever. That was what happened to the Roman Empire which was in a state of decline because of the failing economy and a lack of conquests.Originally posted by will4:The Soviets also having trouble managing their economy when Reagan tried to spend on military budget.
For a long time, emperors funded the military expansion via conquering, which inevitably led to problems under Diocletian. -
Reagan sure tipped it over. Thats why Gorbachev was forced to initiate an arms treaty which Reagan rejected.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Oui... the economy was supermilitarized for decades. Please read that too. The situation was reaching a critical point even before Reagan arrived at the scene.
Why do you hate Reagan? Is it because he happened to be Republican?