From: e91petmo@odalix.ida.liu.se (Peter /\/\odin)
Subject: Re: The collapse of communism and the role of the U.S.
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:10:27 GMT

mpp@sdf.lonestar.org (Michael Persons) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.144755.26931@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Nov10.033656.8548@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>>
>>>>The interesting question is this: will Ronald Reagan get the credit for the
>>>>collapse of communism in America or with the credit go to whomever is on
>>
>>>why not give the credit to Gorbechev (spelling?)?
>>
>>Because without Reagan's Defense policies there would have been no
>>'crisis' for the Soviet Union, insofar as spending a huge amount of
>>wealth and still being faced by the United States, which looked like
>>it was able and willing to outrun them indefinitely?  Bush tried to
>>claim credit for this one, but he just happened to be the one in
>>office when things came to fruition.  The credit belongs (on this side
>>of the Big Water) to President Ronald Wilson Reagan.
>>
>>-- 
>>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

>This has always bugged the shit out of me.  I hear right-wing commentators of
>all stripes stating that OF COURSE, Reagan's massive military buildup DIRECTLY
>caused the downfall of the Soviet Empire.  The problem is, I haven't heard any
>proof, period.  I haven't heard a single Republican official who is in a
>position to know state this.  You'd think that we would hear from at least one
>Soviet official:  "Yup, we tried to spend as much as you did on weapons and it
>drove our empire into the ground."  But we hear nothing of the sort.

>In fact, what we have heard, in the Robert Gates CIA hearings, is that CIA
>analysts were encouraged to overinflate the threat of the Soviet empire, and
>to ignore the obvious signs of it crumbling under its own corrupt, inefficient
>weight.

>Perhaps right-wingers cling to this belief with such tenacity because, if they
>let go of it, they would have to admit that Reagan's multi-billion (trillion?)
>dollar military buildup was in fact, billion (trillions?) of dollars wasted.

To me, the obvious reason is that the Soviet Union was totally corrupt, non-
productive, and with a non-enthusiastic population. Sure, Ronnie's Arms Race
probably contributed to the collapse, but did he also create the corruption?
--
=================================================================
| Peter Modin - Responses to: e91petmo@und.ida.liu.se           |
| Dept. of of Computer Science, Linkoping University, Sweden    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Q:  How many Macintosh users does it take to change a light bulb?
A:  None.  You have to replace the whole motherboard.
         /// /\                ___         
        /// /  \  |\    /| |  /   \  /\   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton