Political Discussions
Obama skipping Berlin
Posted by NewBlogger2008 • 10 days ago • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: berlin, obama
So Obama decided to skip Berlin as most of us probably know. What do you all think about this? Is it a telling sign of the future of Obama's foreign policy?
User Comments
-
Well, the Berlin wall falling is theorized to be linked to the Comintern being weakened by a costly war in Afghanistan...-
Agit- So you are completely disregarding America's role in the Cold War and in the collapse of the USSR?
-
certainly not! We did sell Stinger missles to Bin Laden and his Mujahideen buddies, after all...
-
Well at least it worked the first time around! ...heh heh :S -
Not to mention the drop of natural gas prices from the early 80s to late 80s - early 90s. USSR was a big exporter. -
So you are saying then Agit8r that the ONLY role the United States played in the downfall of Communism and also the tearing down of the Berlin Wall is that we sold arms to Bin Laden?
We had no positive impact at all?
Can you lay down your sarcasm long enough to give an honest answer? -
well Reagan gave some nice speaches...
s332.photobucket.com/albums/m335/dmhlt48/Teleprompter - Reagan/?action=view¤t=2102fb6a.pbw
as far as the "fall," are you talking about the fall of the government, or the beginning of privatization?
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Law_on_Cooperatives -
The photobucket link didn't work.
I am purporting that our tough stance on foreign policy as pertaining to the Soviet Union had a great dealt to do with the eventual fall, or dissolution of the USSR.
The beginning of privatization soviet style, IMHO had not nearly as much to do with the downfall of the government. It did contribute, which really backs up my stance on capitalism being the vehicle for personal liberties and freedoms.
And yes, Reagan DID give some nice speeches. But he really did a lot more than that and you know it, even if you don't like Reagan. He had a vision and he was something Obama will never, ever be - PROUD of America. -
my point was not that the beginnings of privitization LED to the fall, but rather that it showed a failure and a turning away from the old planned economy. We can quibble all day about whether we can credit Reagan's and Saudi Arabia's trade warring, or Carter's and Pakistan's (and later Charlie Wilson's of course) intervention in Afghanistan, but the fact is that totalitarian planned economy is unsustainable because it assumes the collusion of the whole people, who are in no way incentivized but through extreme coercion, and big brother can't be everyplace at once.
It is perhaps worth wondering if rather than the 1991 upheaval, Russia had transitioned to a more privatized economy--and a greater degree of Glastnost -- over time if the could have avoided a government run by strongmen as they now have... -
That would be a good debate, about the Glastnost turning USSR's economy around. But then again, it would have had to incorporate enough capitalism to get the job done.
As far as Reagan, I think his biggest contribution was the military build up that led the Soviets to spend themselves bankrupt just to keep up. -
Liberals will credit intervention in afghanistan for overtaxing the Soviet military. Conservatives will credit reagan's little arms race. There was another factor too. Outrageous corruption and wasting of resources (selling on the massive black-market) on the part of Soviet officials. Turns out that even a planned economy falls prey to the perils of self-interest.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
