Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 27 of 27

Thread: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

  1. #26
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004

    Default Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

    Any article that places much blame for today's situation on Jimmy Carter and paints him as one of the worst presidents ever... is A-OK in my book.

    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  2. #27
    Sure is. lenin_fresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartim

    Quote Originally Posted by Bat Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Good points, able. To be sure, there were many things going on in the mid to late 80's including in eastern European countries themselves. Still, it would seem that if that is all that it took, if all that occurred was those countries throwing off the yoke of Soviet oppression, why didn't it happen long before then? What was it about that moment in time that led to all of the dominos collapsing at once? I don't dispute that those countries (especially Poland, from what I recall of news reports at the time -- because Lech Walesa and the Solidarity labor movement planted the impression that the Soviets, after all, were not all powerful and could not indefinitely suppress the desire for freedom. Also, the Pope and influence of Catholic Church in Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe was huge.) impacted the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I don't think it is accurate to say that the Americans (and Reagan's policies) had nothing at all to do with it either.
    You also have to take a look at the Soviet Union itself. It was pumping out money left and right to keep these satellite regimes propped up. They weren't getting much of a return from these countries either economically (for example with Cuba, all they really got in return was sugar). At the same time the economy was still trying to recuperate from the Brezhnhev years which were stagnant (thanks to following economic cues from Khrushchev, but that's a different story), and overall, corrupt. Keep in mind to they had more than one Cold War going at the time even since the Sino-Soviet Split, though to be fair the tensions had cooled down since Mao's death.

    But Ronald Reagan's policies were a cause, but they weren't THE cause. It was a part in a downfall that involved a rotten economy, a wave of mass movements, a broken up camp, religious pressure, and finally a leader who pushed them over the economic edge and there's probably a lot more to.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts