TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- President Barack Hussein Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Reagan's influence is marginal at best.

Krypt, I have a feeling if you didn't know what party Reagan belonged to and looked back on history objectively, you would see things differently. There is no doubt that Reagan was a badass cold warrior and did lots of damage to the USSR. He literally did the opposite of what every soviet sympathizer in America wanted on literally EVERY issue. Not only did he fund groups that physically fighting the Russian army, but the CIA in the 80's was active in inciting rebellion in other soviet-controlled areas. We stirred up a hornet's nest of popular resentment and made life very difficult for Moscow using psy-ops, radio broadcasts, and cia plants in those countries. Big military losses + lots of small rebellions across their satellite states drained the blood of communism very quickly. Previous administrations stood by and allowed Russia to expand their territory decade after decade. This was stopped dead in the 80s.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Your use of the word "socialism" is far and above a blanket use of the term and fails to recognize the many types of socialism, many of which have failed, but some of which are successfully practiced today.

Most countries practicing "socialism" today are actually closer to capitalism than socialism in my opinion. Mixed economies are certainly possible (at least temporarily), but socialist economies are not. Socialism is not really "successful" anywhere. The extent to which these countries have survived is the extent that they have allowed free markets (capitalism) to function. The Marxist dream of worker ownership of everything and abolition of the price system may be dead..but until someone invents a different word for economic oppression, I'll keep using "socialism", since those who advocate controls and redistribution all consider themselves socialists to one degree or another.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Krypt, I have a feeling if you didn't know what party Reagan belonged to and looked back on history objectively, you would see things differently. There is no doubt that Reagan was a badass cold warrior and did lots of damage to the USSR. He literally did the opposite of what every soviet sympathizer in America wanted on literally EVERY issue. Not only did he fund groups that physically fighting the Russian army, but the CIA in the 80's was active in inciting rebellion in other soviet-controlled areas. We stirred up a hornet's nest of popular resentment and made life very difficult for Moscow using psy-ops, radio broadcasts, and cia plants in those countries. Big military losses + lots of small rebellions across their satellite states drained the blood of communism very quickly. Previous administrations stood by and allowed Russia to expand their territory decade after decade. This was stopped dead in the 80s.

We had been doing all that for decades before 1989. But all of a sudden, they brought down the USSR right?

quote:

Most countries practicing "socialism" today are actually closer to capitalism than socialism in my opinion. Mixed economies are certainly possible (at least temporarily), but socialist economies are not. Socialism is not really "successful" anywhere. The extent to which these countries have survived is the extent that they have allowed free markets (capitalism) to function. The Marxist dream of worker ownership of everything and abolition of the price system may be dead..but until someone invents a different word for economic oppression, I'll keep using "socialism", since those who advocate controls and redistribution all consider themselves socialists to one degree or another.

I'v said this before, and I'll say it again. Radical socialism does not work. Radical capitalism does not work. Some services should be government controlled in the interest of the public welfare.

The revisionist history taught by Republican hating, liberal professors in today's colleges makes me want to puke; they impune Reagan like he was stupid and just a passive bystander to all that was Cold War (except for the mistakes of course), and celebrate Gorbachev as the leader of a movement that liberated people from the Iron Curtain. It's so ass backwards it's almost lughable, except it isn't because the current youth generation believes this drivel; but that's what happens when you have a shit public education system putting less and less emphasis on history and the lessons we can learn from it and replace that with "cultural awareness studies" type courses. Sure, Gorby wanted to be remembered as the guy who presided over a collapsing empire... lol. It was a slow process that lasted through both Reagan terms, but it wasn't till his 2nd term when he got enough Congressional support from Democrats to turn up the heat as much as was required to accomplish his goals.

It wasn't that long ago, and a simple conversation with people from that region who lived through it will tell you all you need to know.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The revisionist history taught by Republican hating, liberal professors in today's colleges makes me want to puke; they impune Reagan like he was stupid and just a passive bystander to all that was Cold War (except for the mistakes of course), and celebrate Gorbachev as the leader of a movement that liberated people from the Iron Curtain. It's so ass backwards it's almost lughable, except it isn't because the current youth generation believes this drivel; but that's what happens when you have a shit public education system putting less and less emphasis on history and the lessons we can learn from it and replace that with "cultural awareness studies" type courses. Sure, Gorby wanted to be remembered as the guy who presided over a collapsing empire... lol. It was a slow process that lasted through both Reagan terms, but it wasn't till his 2nd term when he got enough Congressional support from Democrats to turn up the heat as much as was required to accomplish his goals.

The revisionist history espoused by Reagan worshiping, conservative Republicans in the media makes me want to puke. They pretend Reagan single-handedly defeated the USSR as if the USSR collapsed because of this one man, without even realizing the USSR would have collapsed because of the fundamental error of a command economy combined with no civil or political freedom.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The revisionist history taught by Republican hating, liberal professors in today's colleges makes me want to puke; they impune Reagan like he was stupid and just a passive bystander to all that was Cold War (except for the mistakes of course), and celebrate Gorbachev as the leader of a movement that liberated people from the Iron Curtain. It's so ass backwards it's almost lughable, except it isn't because the current youth generation believes this drivel; but that's what happens when you have a shit public education system putting less and less emphasis on history and the lessons we can learn from it and replace that with "cultural awareness studies" type courses. Sure, Gorby wanted to be remembered as the guy who presided over a collapsing empire... lol. It was a slow process that lasted through both Reagan terms, but it wasn't till his 2nd term when he got enough Congressional support from Democrats to turn up the heat as much as was required to accomplish his goals. It wasn't that long ago, and a simple conversation with people from that region who lived through it will tell you all you need to know.

blah blah blah.....who gives a shit about reagan and the cold war? The cold war was a major contributing factor to our technological superiority and the main reason we are (or at least we were) the most influential country on the planet. If you subscribe to the theory that competition makes you stronger then the failing of the USSR probably has had a deleterious effect in one way or another. Competing with Russia was a main factor in so many technological advances (e.g., NASA, military technology that likely was converted for civilian uses, etc...).

For me, Reagan's lasting impact is how he obliterated decades of fiscal responsibility.

And pro-poor policy to boot.

But yeah, if you're of the belief that historians are just "anti-Reagan professors" then we're at a real impasse here.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And pro-poor policy to boot. But yeah, if you're of the belief that historians are just "anti-Reagan professors" then we're at a real impasse here.

On the same tone and attitude of 17, I guess we can also assume that's why there's an extreme aversion to higher education for so many Conservatives...........

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 On the same tone and attitude of 17, I guess we can also assume that's why there's an extreme aversion to higher education for so many Conservatives...........

The Times did a full writeup on this phenomenon this week:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...cs-under-siege/

Really fascinating topic, actually. Would love to see more research (yes, from academics!) on the issue.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.