Ronald Reagan hated democracy

[CrazyModerate]

Ronald Reagan stood behind the racist government of South Africa without question. Reagan supported Indonesian dictator Suharto, who was responsible for ethnic cleansing in East Timor. Reagan supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Reagan supported the Contras, who successfully replaced the democratic Sandanista government of Nicaragua with a corrupt dictatorship. Reagan supported the military dictator Augusto Pinochet, who is currently facing trial for charges of human rights abuses.

If you really oppose Sadam Hussein, then why the fuck do you quote Reagan so much. Reagan loved Hussein.

As far as the Cold War goes, Reagan takes credit from regular citizens; the people who overthrew their opressors; Lech Walensa, leader of a trade union; Gorbachev who was the actual leader of the Eastern Bloc who allowed to the end of the cold war to happen. Hell, even the reactionary Pope did more to end the Cold War than Reagan. The only thing Reagan did was almost destroy the world with a nuclear war.

[amanondeathrow]

It's almost impossible to understand how someone can be so blind as to consider Reagan an even remotely decent human being, let alone a good president.
Even his own 1976 Campaign Brochure (http://www.4president.org/brochures/reagan1976brochure.htm) illustrates his hostility to the working man.

[Guerrilla22]

Don't forget supporting Bin Laden, arming the murderous regime in El Salvador and contributing to the genocide of the maya in Guatemala. Ronald Regan truly a tyrant.

[Comrada J]

Thanks for sharing this guys, I had no idea.

http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/674/pr043os.jpg

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

... the right-wing Reagan administration ... vehemently supported the racist apartheid regime in South Africa and labeled Nelson Mandela's African National Congress a “notorious terrorist organization.” And that's just one of many.

During his 1966 campaign for Governor of California, the New Republic pointed out that “Reagan is anti-labor, anti-Negro, anti-intellectual, anti-planning, anti-20th century.”

Reagan campaigned against things like the civil rights movement, the peace movement, and the student rights movement, and his support for “states rights” served to let the right-wing know he was ready to carry out their racist agenda.

Recently appointed supreme court Chief Justice John Roberts, who held positions in the U.S. Department of Justice and Office of the White House Counsel under Reagan, is also an adamant opponent of Women's rights and affirmative action."
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fp15k.html

[Atlas Swallowed]

On a more personal level but something that tells of Reagans charecter. He was a lousy father.

According to Donald Regan he based his schedule as president on what Nancy Reagans astrologist advised. Several times in speeches he made references to things that happened in movies he was in as though they happened to him in real life. Not only was he an evil prick, he was a muddled brained idiot.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

He was a great actor though...

[JKP]

Tis the season...

http://www.whitehouse.org/kids/images/reagan-chesterfield-2.jpg

[Dark Exodus]

Don't forget supporting Bin Laden

To be fair though, Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan at the time, not commiting acts of international terrorism.

I agree with everything else, Reagan was a bastard.

[Zingu]

http://www.marxists.org/admin/agitprop/ronnie-2.gif

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:29 AM
http://www.marxists.org/admin/agitprop/ronnie-2.gif
This IS the full quote, he didn't implied that. Fuck, i swear this pciture was made by an immature emo-psudeo-leftist...

In an ironic sense, Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis -- a crisis where the demands of the economic order are colliding directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union.... [Communism will be] left on the ash heap of history.

[cccpcommie]

fuckem hes a ****

[Leif]

Oh well, I would rather not fuck the bastard....
He's Dead!

[ComTom]

Oh, I mentioned in another topic this quote:
" If it takes a bloodbath, I say lets get it over with"
That was what he said he response to violence at Berkely university and the Kent State shootings. He was a downright fascist.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 23 2005, 01:01 PM

Don't forget supporting Bin Laden

To be fair though, Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan at the time, not commiting acts of international terrorism.

I agree with everything else, Reagan was a bastard.
al-Qaeda probaly wouldn't have been ever established if it wasn't for financial backing from the Regan administration and backing from the CIA.

[Emperor Sam]

Your jeaplousy, disdain, and hatred for Reagan sseems to be feuled more by his victories over communism and his pro-U.S. policies in Latin America than actual knowledge of who he is.

These anti-Reagan posts are weak and desperate. He was a greater leader than any communist or socialist dictator could ever be. He led the policies that contributed to the defeat of the communists. Contrary to leftist denial, his administration was a HUGE factor in the fall of the iron curtain, especially with regard to assisting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

[JKP]

Communism was defeated?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Emperor [email protected] 26 2005, 09:18 PM
Your jeaplousy, disdain, and hatred for Reagan sseems to be feuled more by his victories over communism and his pro-U.S. policies in Latin America than actual knowledge of who he is.

These anti-Reagan posts are weak and desperate. He was a greater leader than any communist or socialist dictator could ever be. He led the policies that contributed to the defeat of the communists. Contrary to leftist denial, his administration was a HUGE factor in the fall of the iron curtain, especially with regard to assisting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
First of all, why would I be jealous over someone I hate? Your inital claim makes no sense.

Secondly a persons actions define who they are...by knowing his actions and policies, I can thereby know who he is.

The "iron curtain" was already falling in the east, Reagan did little if anything to contribute to it. He rode the high of something that would have occured anyway and made it look like he was actually doing something.

He helped the Talibahn come to power in Afghanistan to fight off the Soviet infasion. How does the right justify this?

Not to mention his support of apartheid, the contras in nicaragua...etc.

You also have a clear lack of understanding when it comes to socialism and communism. Nobody here supports totalitarian dictatorships. Socialism is about worker's democracy, instead of bourgeois dictatorships.

Which white millionaire did you vote for?

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+Dec 27 2005, 12:28 AM--> (clownpenisanarchy @ Dec 27 2005, 12:28 AM)
Emperor [email protected] 26 2005, 09:18 PM
Your jeaplousy, disdain, and hatred for Reagan sseems to be feuled more by his victories over communism and his pro-U.S. policies in Latin America than actual knowledge of who he is.

These anti-Reagan posts are weak and desperate. He was a greater leader than any communist or socialist dictator could ever be. He led the policies that contributed to the defeat of the communists. Contrary to leftist denial, his administration was a HUGE factor in the fall of the iron curtain, especially with regard to assisting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
First of all, why would I be jealous over someone I hate? Your inital claim makes no sense.

Secondly a persons actions define who they are...by knowing his actions and policies, I can thereby know who he is.

The "iron curtain" was already falling in the east, Reagan did little if anything to contribute to it. He rode the high of something that would have occured anyway and made it look like he was actually doing something.

He helped the Talibahn come to power in Afghanistan to fight off the Soviet infasion. How does the right justify this?

Not to mention his support of apartheid, the contras in nicaragua...etc.

You also have a clear lack of understanding when it comes to socialism and communism. Nobody here supports totalitarian dictatorships. Socialism is about worker's democracy, instead of bourgeois dictatorships.

Which white millionaire did you vote for? [/b]
Why is color important too you?

Are you a racist? What is wrong with "white"?

Are you the type who votes (or doesn't vote) for someone because they have a particular skin color? I don't.

Or are you simply your typical guilty white liberal who's agenda is some sort absolute equality at all costs?

[bezdomni]

Good reponse you sack of shit.

Has a non-white person ever been a candidate for the either the Democratic or Republican parties in the US? No.

I'm saying that every person that has run for president is a white millionaire. There is no real difference between them. US "democracy" is not representative of the people, nor is any bourgeois "democracy".

You didn't reply to any other single thing that I said, and you only replied with poorly done ad hominem attacks. Way to go, you have no concept of constructive debate! I therefore feel no guilt in replying in this manner.

Learn something and then come back.

And don't dare calling me a racist. You have never voted for a non-white to US presidency (assuming you are old enough to vote) because a non-white has NEVER BEEN ON THE BALLOT!

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:50 AM









Good reponse you sack of shit.

Thanks


Has a non-white person ever been a candidate for the either the Democratic or Republican parties in the US? No.

Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, and Al Sharpton all come to mind as running in each party's primary.


I'm saying that every person that has run for president is a white millionaire. There is no real difference between them. US "democracy" is not representative of the people, nor is any bourgeois "democracy".

Don't let yourself be fooled by lazy left-wing myths such as "there is no difference between the parties". This is quite lazy, let alone absolutely incorrect to anyone who is familiar with the U.S. political process.


You didn't reply to any other single thing that I said, and you only replied with poorly done ad hominem attacks. Way to go, you have no concept of constructive debate! I therefore feel no guilt in replying in this manner.

Everything else you said was rhetorical. Am I supposed to reply to blanket statements that are simply rhetorical? You lack reading comprehension skills.


And don't dare calling me a racist. You have never voted for a non-white to US presidency (assuming you are old enough to vote) because a non-white has NEVER BEEN ON THE BALLOT!

This statement has a racist tone. Your focus on whites is disturbing. I surmise that you are some sort of bigot.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Emperor [email protected] 26 2005, 09:18 PM
Your jeaplousy, disdain, and hatred for Reagan sseems to be feuled more by his victories over communism and his pro-U.S. policies in Latin America than actual knowledge of who he is.

These anti-Reagan posts are weak and desperate. He was a greater leader than any communist or socialist dictator could ever be. He led the policies that contributed to the defeat of the communists. Contrary to leftist denial, his administration was a HUGE factor in the fall of the iron curtain, especially with regard to assisting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
Pro US strategies in Latin America? :lol: How did the US benefit from the genocide in Guatemala and the slaughters in Nicaragua and El Salvador? How did the US benefit from supporting Manuel Norriega, or aren't you really sure?

What about the financial and military support to Saddam Hussein while he was gassing his own people? What about his role in helping to create al-Qaeda? What about his support for the apartheid government in South Africa along various dictators. Also, the Soviet Union was on its way down long before Regan ever became president.

[bcbm]

How did the US benefit from the genocide in Guatemala and the slaughters in Nicaragua and El Salvador?

Cheap bananas and other tropical fruits.

[ComTom]

I like to remind all your capitalist ( Emporer Sam ) that Reagan didn't defeat communism. He gave finacial help to terrorist groups in Nicuargua and invaded a small shit island in the Carribean named Grenada. Europe was well on its way to defeating the soviets, it wasn't Reagan that did it. When Reagan said, " TEAR DOWN THIS WALL." Americans came to the conclusion that it was Reagan who did it.

But the real thing that Reagan did was increase our millitary budget and cut social programs that Jimmy Carter had fully funded. He fully funded the millitary budget when it was not needed to be fully funded. He was a pig, that had no concern for people.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:58 PM
I like to remind all your capitalist ( Emporer Sam ) that Reagan didn't defeat communism. He gave finacial help to terrorist groups in Nicuargua and invaded a small shit island in the Carribean named Grenada. Europe was well on its way to defeating the soviets, it wasn't Reagan that did it. When Reagan said, " TEAR DOWN THIS WALL." Americans came to the conclusion that it was Reagan who did it.

But the real thing that Reagan did was increase our millitary budget and cut social programs that Jimmy Carter had fully funded. He fully funded the millitary budget when it was not needed to be fully funded. He was a pig, that had no concern for people.

I like to remind all your capitalist ( Emporer Sam ) that Reagan didn't defeat communism.

Is this really the level of denial and ignorance demonstrated by the left?

Most economists and historians will tell you that the US basically outspent the soviets and bankrupted them. This wasn't the only reason for the collapse, but it was a huge contributor. Additionally, our support of the mujahadeen in afghanistan helped lead to the defeat of the soviets, which most historians agree was the "beginning of the end" for the U.S.S.R. Thus, the US in fact was probalby the #1 factor in the defeat of the soviets. Had they not been competing with the US in the 1st place, their economic crisis would likely not have been as severe.


Europe was well on its way to defeating the soviets, it wasn't Reagan that did it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: OK Tiger.

Reality: Europe hid under the US' coat tails for 50 years, as the soft Europeans are prone to doing.

I sincerely feel pity for you, I really do. Remember what Freud said: Denial is the first stage.

Is your refusal to accept the truth so vehement because you still can't admit defeat, especially to capitalism and demmocracy? That is understandable, but you really have to move on at some point.

[bcbm]

The US did bankrupt the USSR and played a pivotal role in its fall, I will agree, but I'd hardly consider that to be causing the fall of communism, since the USSR hadn't been communist for quite some time, if it ever really could've been considered that.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 27 2005, 08:58 PM
The US did bankrupt the USSR and played a pivotal role in its fall, I will agree, but I'd hardly consider that to be causing the fall of communism, since the USSR hadn't been communist for quite some time, if it ever really could've been considered that.
True, but the fall of communism was pretty much concurrent with the fall of the USSR (and there are still some holdouts). I don't think that you can fully separate the two.

[bezdomni]

The US did not bankrupt the USSR. The US traded grain with them for the last 35 years of their existence.

The USSR "bankrupted" itself.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:20 PM
The US did not bankrupt the USSR. The US traded grain with them for the last 35 years of their existence.

The USSR "bankrupted" itself.

Denial is the 1st stage. I recommend that you take a class on 20th century world economics and educate yourself as to the realities of the US economic and technological defeat of the USSR.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:20 PM
The US did not bankrupt the USSR. The US traded grain with them for the last 35 years of their existence.

The USSR "bankrupted" itself.
Thats is what most sports teams say when they are defeated.

"We beat ourselves".

[bezdomni]

To understand what happened in 1992, you'd have to understand what happened in 1917.

For the survival of the soviet union, workers democracy would have to have been further established and ingrained in society and there would have to have been revolutions in the industrial world.

[DaCuBaN]

When Reagan said, " TEAR DOWN THIS WALL." Americans came to the conclusion that it was Reagan who did it.

REAGAN SMASH!
REAGAN SMASH!

Nothing new there and Emperor Sam reinforces it:


Europe hid under the US' coat tails for 50 years, as the soft Europeans are prone to doing.

The soft europeans who are the "genetic stock" for the original settlers of the US. Self hatred? No....
Reality: America was left out of the world arena, and their dominance in the latter half of the 20th century and beyond was the fault of we europeans - had we not squabbled amongst ourselves and been required to run to the yankees for aid during two wars the two superpower blocks would most likely have never existed. Your preconceptions of europeans are frightening - it is in fact our warmongering that created these problems to begin with.

[Emperor Sam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:34 AM
To understand what happened in 1992, you'd have to understand what happened in 1917.

For the survival of the soviet union, workers democracy would have to have been further established and ingrained in society and there would have to have been revolutions in the industrial world.
Yes, but the people of the world wanted capitalism more.

[poetofrageX]

Originally posted by Emperor [email protected] 28 2005, 12:49 AM

Yes, but the people of the world wanted capitalism more.
Really? Do u know what Russia's like now? It's totally fucked up, with a tiny fraction of a percent of the nation living in obscene Paris Hilton-style luxury, and everyone else in terrible poverty. Most of the people in Russia want socialism back. Although admittedly, the ussr was far from a proper socialist state it was a lot better than what russia's like now. You're talking about the rich people of the world, believe it or not, poor people dont like starving.

btw, i dont have a url for my source, but i read it in the la times, which i'm sure you'll criticize for being a commie nesting ground, but believe me, the la times is far from communist.

[Delirium]

I agree i think that people want food, shelter, dignity, and security before anything else. But i guess capitalism is important to.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 27 2005, 11:02 AM

How did the US benefit from the genocide in Guatemala and the slaughters in Nicaragua and El Salvador?

Cheap bananas and other tropical fruits.
The US spent much more money squashing so called communist insurgencies, which Guatemala was not under Arbenz by the way) than they would have by simply paying market price. Great strategy.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:24 PM

The US spent much more money squashing so called communist insurgencies, which Guatemala was not under Arbenz by the way) than they would have by simply paying market price. Great strategy.
Allowing the communists/union activists to win victories would've driven up the price and undermined US fruit company's monopolies and land holdings, however.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial
Additionally, our support of the mujahadeen in afghanistan helped lead to the defeat of the soviets, which most historians agree was the "beginning of the end" for the U.S.S.R.

What historians? .....all decent historians who have studied the collapse of Russia concluded that it rotted from inside out, not the other way round.

Oh and by the way, the next time you come back under an alternative name you should try altering your style of writing. It really does "give you away."

[ComTom]

Originally posted by Emperor Sam+Dec 27 2005, 07:22 PM--> (Emperor Sam @ Dec 27 2005, 07:22 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 03:58 PM
I like to remind all your capitalist ( Emporer Sam ) that Reagan didn't defeat communism. He gave finacial help to terrorist groups in Nicuargua and invaded a small shit island in the Carribean named Grenada. Europe was well on its way to defeating the soviets, it wasn't Reagan that did it. When Reagan said, " TEAR DOWN THIS WALL." Americans came to the conclusion that it was Reagan who did it.

But the real thing that Reagan did was increase our millitary budget and cut social programs that Jimmy Carter had fully funded. He fully funded the millitary budget when it was not needed to be fully funded. He was a pig, that had no concern for people.

I like to remind all your capitalist ( Emporer Sam ) that Reagan didn't defeat communism.

Is this really the level of denial and ignorance demonstrated by the left?

Most economists and historians will tell you that the US basically outspent the soviets and bankrupted them. This wasn't the only reason for the collapse, but it was a huge contributor. Additionally, our support of the mujahadeen in afghanistan helped lead to the defeat of the soviets, which most historians agree was the "beginning of the end" for the U.S.S.R. Thus, the US in fact was probalby the #1 factor in the defeat of the soviets. Had they not been competing with the US in the 1st place, their economic crisis would likely not have been as severe.


Europe was well on its way to defeating the soviets, it wasn't Reagan that did it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: OK Tiger.

Reality: Europe hid under the US' coat tails for 50 years, as the soft Europeans are prone to doing.

I sincerely feel pity for you, I really do. Remember what Freud said: Denial is the first stage.

Is your refusal to accept the truth so vehement because you still can't admit defeat, especially to capitalism and demmocracy? That is understandable, but you really have to move on at some point. [/b]
Well, if you actually read history books in your life, various groups ( Like Solidarity ) were formed without any help of Reagan. Reagan created didn't send CIA agents to stir up some magic potions of dissent, the people did it themselves. Your just another stupid person on this site that doesn't know what the hell hes talking about. Reagan did nothing to overthrow communism. All that he did was fund fascists who slaughtered socialists in terrible unspeakable perverted genocides.

I will also like to say, that Reagan hated free speech:
"If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with!"
Gov. Ronald Reagan (1970)
Source: Reagan's response to student unrest.

Do you support a man like this? why would you support a man who funded fascists and supported the gunning down of innocent, smelly, college students who like to wear flowers in their hair?

[CrazyModerate]

Why don't you explain his support of dictators Pinochet and Suharto.

Alright if Europeans are soft, lets look at some "hard" or "tough" regimes...

Sovet Union
Nazi Germany
Apartheid South Africa
Saddam's Iraq
Peoples Republic of China
Fascist Spain
Fascist Italy
Oh, and the United STates of America.

I guess you're happy you are in the same category as so many dicatorships.

[Guerrilla22]

Because he can't, any time you bring up this point when some cappie tries to defend Reagan on this site, they side step it and keep repeating "you don't like Reagan because he defeated communism." :lol:

[KickMcCann]

Originally posted by Emperor [email protected] 27 2005, 07:22 PM

Most economists and historians will tell you that the US basically outspent the soviets and bankrupted them. This wasn't the only reason for the collapse, but it was a huge contributor. Additionally, our support of the mujahadeen in afghanistan helped lead to the defeat of the soviets, which most historians agree was the "beginning of the end" for the U.S.S.R.
You have to love this logic-- since the capitalist world was able to outspend the "communist" world in military expenditures, causing it to collapse, it thus proves the capitalism is the most noble good and the most functional system. Not only that, but by supporting an extremist terrorist insurgency against a westernized, secular, semi-democratic ally of the USSR (Afghanistan), the USA was able to force the Soviets to protect their ally, causing a military quagmire that proved again, that capitalism is the fairest, most humanistic economic system.

Its the same wonderful logic used by the American government in support of the embargo on Cuba--Socialism is a failed system, it simply doesn't work and will collapse on its own. To prove it, we are going to prohibit a socialist island from trading with its biggest neighbor, finance and direct armed insurgencies against it, sabatoge its crops and posion its livestock, attempt assassinations againsts its leadership, bombard its airwaves with fallacious propaganda, and lead a concerted international effort to label it a terroristic pariah state.

Thats like trying to prove your favorite football team is the best by chopping off the legs of its opponents, murdering the opposing coaches, and poisoning their water coolers.

Frankly, its just goes to show that capitalists are still terrified of the working class taking over, and even with their spirit of "competition" will go to any length to prevent the socialists from competing against the capitalists on an equal playing field. (Because they know we will win) :D

[RedCeltic]

"We're not building missiles to fight a war.
We're building missiles to preserve the peace." Ronald Reagan

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Reagan '81

"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?"
Reagan '66, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park

"I have flown twice over Mt St Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." Reagan '80. Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.

Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." '76

"The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees." Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, in 1979.

[L Mises]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:13 AM
Ronald Reagan stood behind the racist government of South Africa without question. Reagan supported Indonesian dictator Suharto, who was responsible for ethnic cleansing in East Timor. Reagan supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Reagan supported the Contras, who successfully replaced the democratic Sandanista government of Nicaragua with a corrupt dictatorship. Reagan supported the military dictator Augusto Pinochet, who is currently facing trial for charges of human rights abuses.

If you really oppose Sadam Hussein, then why the fuck do you quote Reagan so much. Reagan loved Hussein.

As far as the Cold War goes, Reagan takes credit from regular citizens; the people who overthrew their opressors; Lech Walensa, leader of a trade union; Gorbachev who was the actual leader of the Eastern Bloc who allowed to the end of the cold war to happen. Hell, even the reactionary Pope did more to end the Cold War than Reagan. The only thing Reagan did was almost destroy the world with a nuclear war.
How about him tricking the Soviet Unions into dumping their entire treasury into trying to counter the "Star War Defense System?"

According to Sun Tzu, the pinnacle of military excellece is not winning 100 victories with zero defeat but rather completely destroying your enemies without lifting a finger.

Pretty good example of military excellence sice any military action aganist the Soviet would result in the end of the world. Regan was able to defeat an enemy that many consider impossible without lifting a finger or suffering any losses on his side.

That is pure ownage.

[L Mises]

Originally posted by KickMcCann+Dec 30 2005, 01:02 AM--> (KickMcCann @ Dec 30 2005, 01:02 AM)
Emperor [email protected] 27 2005, 07:22 PM

Most economists and historians will tell you that the US basically outspent the soviets and bankrupted them. This wasn't the only reason for the collapse, but it was a huge contributor. Additionally, our support of the mujahadeen in afghanistan helped lead to the defeat of the soviets, which most historians agree was the "beginning of the end" for the U.S.S.R.
You have to love this logic-- since the capitalist world was able to outspend the "communist" world in military expenditures, causing it to collapse, it thus proves the capitalism is the most noble good and the most functional system. Not only that, but by supporting an extremist terrorist insurgency against a westernized, secular, semi-democratic ally of the USSR (Afghanistan), the USA was able to force the Soviets to protect their ally, causing a military quagmire that proved again, that capitalism is the fairest, most humanistic economic system.

Its the same wonderful logic used by the American government in support of the embargo on Cuba--Socialism is a failed system, it simply doesn't work and will collapse on its own. To prove it, we are going to prohibit a socialist island from trading with its biggest neighbor, finance and direct armed insurgencies against it, sabatoge its crops and posion its livestock, attempt assassinations againsts its leadership, bombard its airwaves with fallacious propaganda, and lead a concerted international effort to label it a terroristic pariah state.

Thats like trying to prove your favorite football team is the best by chopping off the legs of its opponents, murdering the opposing coaches, and poisoning their water coolers.

Frankly, its just goes to show that capitalists are still terrified of the working class taking over, and even with their spirit of "competition" will go to any length to prevent the socialists from competing against the capitalists on an equal playing field. (Because they know we will win) :D [/b]
Btw a question just for you. Would you consider the Native Americans to be communist?

What you just mentioned about Cuba was the policy of the United State government and not free market capitalism.

Or it goes to show that reality, the universe, or GOD is indifferent to the moral codes created by human beings.

I remember someone eariler asked me a question of which person deserves to live Bill Gates versus homeless person. I take back my answer. The person that deserve to lives is the one with the will to do and has the ability to make it happen.

Capitalism simply provides the means not the end.

[Re-visionist 05]

It's almost impossible to understand how someone can be so blind as to consider Reagan an even remotely decent human being, let alone a good president

he had a good face, he loved jesus, the evangelicals were pissed with jimmy carter, the Iran hostage cirsis, and the shortage of gas. Theres the reason in a nutshell.

[kingbee]

According to Sun Tzu, the pinnacle of military excellece is not winning 100 victories with zero defeat but rather completely destroying your enemies without lifting a finger.

So can I claim that I destroyed the Soviet Union? I didn't lift a finger.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:31 PM
The US did not bankrupt the USSR. The US traded grain with them for the last 35 years of their existence.

The USSR "bankrupted" itself.
Exactly. Reformist policies of privatization dug the grave of the USSR and the People's Democracies of Eastern Europe. Of course Gorbachev turned out the be the main culprit in this betrayal just because he wanted to be Reagan's friend.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by poetofrageX+Dec 28 2005, 03:03 AM--> (poetofrageX @ Dec 28 2005, 03:03 AM)
Emperor [email protected] 28 2005, 12:49 AM

Yes, but the people of the world wanted capitalism more.
Really? Do u know what Russia's like now? It's totally fucked up, with a tiny fraction of a percent of the nation living in obscene Paris Hilton-style luxury, and everyone else in terrible poverty. Most of the people in Russia want socialism back. Although admittedly, the ussr was far from a proper socialist state it was a lot better than what russia's like now. You're talking about the rich people of the world, believe it or not, poor people dont like starving.

btw, i dont have a url for my source, but i read it in the la times, which i'm sure you'll criticize for being a commie nesting ground, but believe me, the la times is far from communist. [/b]
You know what's funny? Poland, which was the mascot for degenerated Socialism was the first one to have a successful capitalist counter-revolution with Lech Walesa as president. Solidarnosc was apprently the popular choice. But in the next elections Lech Walesa was ousted, and today has only less the 1% popularity in Poland. Guess who they elected? A Social-Democrat, and ex-Communist Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Although just as much of a Western lackey, he was a memeber of the Polish United Workers Party until the very end.

[CrazyModerate]

I think I should point out, as the creator of the thread and as an individual that believes Reagan was an oppoentent of human rights, liberty, and democracy, that I do not support the former communist nations in eastern europe and the soviet union. These nations had a tendency to suppress human rights and liberty, and they definately were not democracies. Those countries did not represent the voice of the people.