That's a great point and I think if we had treated them a friend in hard times rather than as a vanquished foe relations might be different between us. That said though there was only so much we could do to help the Russians in the '90's and poor leadership on their part caused many of their problems.
It is a fact that the Soviet Union was unable to maintain the arms race which precipitated its collapse and its also a fact that Gorbachev saw this and worked to address it. It is also a fact that the people of the Soviet Union stood up when hardliners tried to reassert the dominance of the Communists party. All of those things led to the end of Cold War. For each group involved though how the story is spun is very important and people like Liz Cheney clearly think that an American President needs to present it as an American victory. While you might not think that is that important and wrong that goes to a question of what is the role of the President, to expound an American view of history or to be diplomatic. Historians rightfully debate the the complexities of history but the President isn't always free to take such a view.
and what worked last year when russia marched into georgia? bush's diplomacy? and what does the even mean, you want to retopple the berlin wall
It's a historical fact that the US won the cold war. whether that was due to US action, Soviet Actions, or inaction, would depend on you point of few. and Cheney's point was not that Reagan won it, but the US did, and 9 US presidents had a hand in that victory.
why are you so hung up on declaring victory? you're right its historical fact, everyone knows we won, everyone knows we were the loan superpower. walk softly, big stick
I think you might be going a little far afield. If Obama equated the US with the USSR in a speech somewhere, I'd like to see it. In the part Liz Cheney quoted and complained about (quoted again below for your convenience), all he says is that the US wasn't alone in ending the Cold War. Nor does he compare the two systems in that quote or talk about them at all. [rquoter]The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.[/rquoter]
I'm pretty sure everyone knows that the US came out on top after the C old War.. does the US president need to remind them that?
It's a fact that the USSR was unable to keep up in the arms race, but it is highly debatable that the fact contributed to the collapse. In fact, I would say it's contribution was secondary if not tertiary. Quite early in his tenure, he gave up on that race because wider economic problems were already a bigger burden. Without an escalation in the arms race, I think their economy would still have been in dire need of reform in the '90s. The Yeltsin revolt is a fact, but I'd say the Cold War was already over by then. If the coup had suceeded, it'd be a different story. In fact, I think the question of "who ended the Cold War" is particularly American, because it innately assumes that the Cold War ended with the fall of the Soviet government. Gorbachev ceased hostilities before his government collapsed. Again, there's nothing American about Liz Cheney's view, other than it is somewhat common in the US. There's no reason to think a US President should be obligated to take Cheney's view of the Cold War over, say, mine or his own.
JuanValdez has already asked for evidence supporting your contention of where Obama equated the U.S. and Soviet systems and actions. Please provide evidence to back up your claim... even if it's only this once.
by saying we competed in astrophysics and basketball, obama said the ussr and the us were the moral equivalent. that's literally liz's argument, and basso just picked it up. this is soooooooooooo silly
He has never done this, he is always proven wrong and he just keeps on keepin on. If it's true in his insane fantasy world (where I am a repeat offender SN kids hater - LOL), that's good enough for him. The question is why people who aren't crazy keep humoring him with serious conversation.
And tell them what they won BOB! Bob: Why, it's a brand new shiny nuclear arsenal nightmare. With 60 unaccounted for suitcase bombs! And what else did they win, Bob! Bob: They won a bunch of Islamic fanatics no longer fighting the Soviets and now focused on yours truly! And that's not else! What else, tell us! Bob: You get to deal with all the same cold war issues 20 years later! Missile Defense Shields, opposition in the Security Council, and nukes still aimed at Washington! Boy gee, we sure won a lot. Seriously, Is the world more free? Russia's media is not free. Russians are living under Freedom. They live under poverty and a mafia controlled system now. Are they better off today? Not today....maybe in the future. But they have gone through really hard times. Where was America then? Certainly not their friend. Oh, we won the Cold War. But we have swaped Islamic fanaticism and terrorism for MAD? Screw history. Screw all of that. Who the F cares what Liz Cheney says? Our foreign policy under Bush has been a castastrophic failure. Not just by our enemies accounts, but by our ALLIES. 8 years of failure, and people post up this Liz Cheney Crap? Please. At least put something up by Ronnie Reagan. At least pick a Republican President (Or VP????) who had a decent foreign policy record.
I think it's just that basso keeps making ridiculous claims and refuses to back them up, does not provide evidence, runs away when evidence contrary to his claims are posted, and he simply disappears. basso has a long history here of getting refuted and running away. I don't know if he's ever once actually backed up one of his claims or discussed the evidence to the contrary of his absurd statements which end up having no basis in reality. It's like dogs who keep barking at the postman because they are rewarded when postman leaves after dropping off the mail. The dogs barked he left, and the dogs feel great. On this board basso says something that is not real, or asks for proof of something that goes against a statement he's made. People show him that his post was wrong or totally fictional. basso runs away and never ever addresses the evidence in a form of open or honest debate. So it's easy for everyone else to feel like they've vanquished a political opponent. I guess it's just rewarding to make him run away with his tail between his legs, even though it isn't really that much of a challenge.
I actually got a couple of serious responses from him in this thread on the history of the Cold War, with the bs at a low ebb. You may think humoring him with serious conversation is counterproductive, but it's more entertaining than the ridiculous off-topic personal attacks you and basso exchange, derailing every thread in the D&D.
