DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
|
Actually, since the claim is that Reagan's stratgey was to economically break the USSR through the arms race, my points are relevant.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Sigh.
Very well.
First of all, you made your own claims only to knock them down… in essence, strawmen. Since I did not make those claims, I am under no obligation to defend or even support them.
I never claimed that the Soviets spent lots of money to counter SDI. I pointed out the actual effects of SDI on the Soviets… namely, the worry that the United States’ technological lead would continue to grow and the expensive proposition a massive nuclear buildup would entail.
How precisely did any of that hasten the collapse of the Soviet economy?
quote:
As for Afghanistan your strawman claim is simply not relevant. What is relevant is that U.S. aid to the Afghans turned that war against the Soviets leaving them with the unpalatable choices of either spend more money and lives or get out. They chose to get out.
Which affected the Soviet economy negatively how?
quote:
As for your third claim, the U.S. military increases under Reagan began immediately. Reagan had no effect on US military spending until well into 1983 which is not the early 1980's which is when the Soviet buildup occcured. When Reagan's buildup began the USSR stopped their expansion of their military strength so the Soviet economy again did not fail because the USSR was trying to compete in an arms race with the US.
quote:
As for your fourth claim, I’m curious as to what the exact definition of the term “peel away” is. Did a nation have to stop all trade with the U.S.S.R. to have been successfully peeled away, or only a majority? Well, since it is your claim and your term, it doesn’t really matter. What is relevant is that Reagan did get the European nations to forestall purchasing natural gas from the Soviets as well as stop selling them materials needed for the pipelines. This, combined with the engineered plummet in oil prices, left the Soviets severely strapped for cash at a time when they sorely needed it.
Oil was a source of free world currency for the USSR not a major element of their economy. Trade with the Warsaw Pact, China, Cuba etc. was the engine that supported what little consumer economy they had. Reagan had no effect on that either.
Simply put Reagan had no discernible impact on the Soviet economy and therefore did not have any significant role in the fall of the USSR which was all about their economy.
|
RE: Jeb Bush: Reagan Too Bipartisan for Today's GOP - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread