President Ronald Reagan dies
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:05 pm
Rosco Rosco:
There's a difference between strategic nukes {which can't really be used against a mechanized army of the move} and NATO's tactical nukes that until the mobile missles went into service basically all of these sat in well known bases or stockpiles which would have been destroyed very or overrun very quickly by the Soviets.
The Soviet Union had something like 50% of the GDP of the U.S. for most of the Cold War, though their economy wasn't competitive as we would understand it.
Reagan deserves credit for leading the U.S. out of a long period of seemingly irreversable decline and whatever his flaws should be remembered for that.
The Soviet Union had something like 50% of the GDP of the U.S. for most of the Cold War, though their economy wasn't competitive as we would understand it.
Reagan deserves credit for leading the U.S. out of a long period of seemingly irreversable decline and whatever his flaws should be remembered for that.
Didn't the soviet union try to do the same thing with Cuba? Doesn't seem to cause peace and end to war, just raise tensions when you start to move nukes nere a country that you aren't exactly friendly with. I think the Soviet Union fell by itself, I mean they were in stagnation for a while and finally fell. I don't see how placing nukes in strategic places makes a country fall, cause look at north korea who has weapons aimed at Seoul yet South Korea is doing just fine. Main thing I hate is that because of Reagan we have the modern conservative movement which showcases figures like Bush who are too stubburn in their beliefs to even allow stem cell research proper funding.
Donny_Brasco @ Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:40 pm
OK, OK, I don't dislike the man that much...but close!
AbeLincoln @ Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:06 pm
The only former president that I will mourn is Jimmy Carter. Not the best president in US history, but a great humanitarian nonetheless.
Rosco @ Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:13 pm
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
Didn't the soviet union try to do the same thing with Cuba? Doesn't seem to cause peace and end to war, just raise tensions when you start to move nukes nere a country that you aren't exactly friendly with. I think the Soviet Union fell by itself, I mean they were in stagnation for a while and finally fell. I don't see how placing nukes in strategic places makes a country fall, cause look at north korea who has weapons aimed at Seoul yet South Korea is doing just fine. Main thing I hate is that because of Reagan we have the modern conservative movement which showcases figures like Bush who are too stubburn in their beliefs to even allow stem cell research proper funding.
The nukes in Cuba were intermediate ranged strategic weapons aimed at American cities, not tactical weapons. They were put there the Soviets were trying to quickly counter the vast advantage in long range strategic weapons that the U.S. had before 1970 or so.
The Soviet Union fell mainly because it spent well upwards of 30% of GDP on it's massive military and on foreign aid at a time when it badly needed to modernize, building a military machine that could face down NATO, the Central Asian countries and China at the same time wasn't cheap, nor was supporting Communist militaries, economies and freedom fighter {read terrorist} activities worldwide.
Their trying to match the Reagan era military buildup {which ensured NATO at last became powerful enough to at least have a favorable chance against the Soviets} was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the CCCP was concerned.
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:05 pm
Rosco Rosco:
Johnnybgoodaaaaa Johnnybgoodaaaaa:
Didn't the soviet union try to do the same thing with Cuba? Doesn't seem to cause peace and end to war, just raise tensions when you start to move nukes nere a country that you aren't exactly friendly with. I think the Soviet Union fell by itself, I mean they were in stagnation for a while and finally fell. I don't see how placing nukes in strategic places makes a country fall, cause look at north korea who has weapons aimed at Seoul yet South Korea is doing just fine. Main thing I hate is that because of Reagan we have the modern conservative movement which showcases figures like Bush who are too stubburn in their beliefs to even allow stem cell research proper funding.
The nukes in Cuba were intermediate ranged strategic weapons aimed at American cities, not tactical weapons. They were put there the Soviets were trying to quickly counter the vast advantage in long range strategic weapons that the U.S. had before 1970 or so.
The Soviet Union fell mainly because it spent well upwards of 30% of GDP on it's massive military and on foreign aid at a time when it badly needed to modernize, building a military machine that could face down NATO, the Central Asian countries and China at the same time wasn't cheap, nor was supporting Communist militaries, economies and freedom fighter {read terrorist} activities worldwide.
Their trying to match the Reagan era military buildup {which ensured NATO at last became powerful enough to at least have a favorable chance against the Soviets} was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the CCCP was concerned.
Well I don't see how that is much different from what I am saying, except more credit being given to Reagan. I never meant to say that Reagan did nothing, just that giving him all the credit for winning the cold war is false.
Donny_Brasco @ Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:13 pm
But with these new anti-terrorism laws, I wonder who really won the cold war?
polemarch1 @ Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:38 pm
QBC @ Sat Jun 19, 2004 5:29 pm
Reagan is dead?..huh...........well there is 2 seconds of my life I won't get back. who cares.
Pathos @ Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:50 pm
[quoteAnd dont send me any more surly, half-assed-intimidating notes, Rev - I keep the latest story quiet, only out of respect for our former friendship.
Don't press me, okay? /quote]
meh, who else has been threatened by him!...i know i have!....is this guy an owner or something!..why is he uncheked!
[/quote]
QBCguy Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:29 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagan is dead?..huh...........well there is 2 seconds of my life I won't get back. who cares. [/quote]
meh, thats all!...only 2!....wunderful you were awake that long!..disrespect for the dearly departed is not pretty irregardless of who they are!
Rev_Blair @ Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:02 am
I haven't threatened anybody, Pathos. Cut the shit.