Carnacs make me puke.

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kurgan, I could use your arguments to say that you are ignorant or brainwashed. We'll just have to
> agree to disagree. I did enjoy some of your arguments though and will give you credit for being
> well read. We just see the facts from a different point of view. There's nothing wrong with that.
> If everyone believed the same thing life would be boring...

Come on, don't duck the subject. This is one of my favorite Cult of Reagan misconceptions to tear
apart. Reagan does deserve credit for the fall, but for reasons most of the brainwashed Cult of
Reagan never imagine.

You wrote:

> It wasn't containment that worked against the Soviet Bloc... It was the Pershing II missles that
> we placed in Western Europe

Do you stand by that statement or not?

thanks,

K. Gringioni

 

[Glenn Butzlaff]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Kurgan, I could use your arguments to say that you are ignorant or brainwashed. We'll just have
> > to agree to disagree. I did enjoy some of your arguments though and will give you credit for
> > being well read. We just see the facts from a different point of view. There's nothing wrong
> > with that. If everyone believed the same thing life would be boring...
>
>
> Come on, don't duck the subject. This is one of my favorite Cult of Reagan
misconceptions to tear apart. Reagan does deserve credit
> for the fall, but for reasons most of the brainwashed Cult of Reagan never
imagine.

And those reasons would be?

Glenn Butzlaff

 

[Stewart Fleming]

Sparhawk wrote:

> Actually most were invented in other countries.

You can have French toast as a US invention. (Joseph French, Albany NY, 1724). Which just makes me
downright confused about this: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/

> Airplane, New Zealand.

Richard Pearse, Timaru (just up the road), 8-9 months before the Wright brothers. Nobody here
seriously claims it as "controlled powered flight" though, it was more of a short hop of a couple of
hundred metres or so. Oh, hang on.... STF

 

[One Of The Six]

"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I think that from listening to the stories of people who escaped
Husseins
> regime that there will be a groundswell of goodwill towards the US after
the
> war if we can get it done quickly, and moderately cleanly. Again I think
we
> can. We are going to have to avoid the urge to medle too much even if it
seems
> they want us to. I think they will say "Thank You, now go home, and leave
a
> check on the way out". We have to be prepared to do just that. Bill C.

They will really be thanking us for that "Hiroshima effect". They're still glowing about the 300
tons of depleated uranium tipped bombs we left them last time. They loved the 700% rise in cancer
rates, and the radiation that is still there 10 years later (our own GIs really apreaciated that
too). And those 21,000 lb bombs that we're planning on dropping. The ones that are too big to drop
from a B52 and have to be wheeled out of a huge cargo plane. When dropped they fill the area with
vaporized gas that then gets detonated with a second ignition. It kills every living thing for miles
around even creatures underground. It literally ruptures their skin. Now that's clean. They are a
country that we have decimated their infrastructure including most of their medical and
agricultural, then have had sanctions placed on them for the last 10 years. Since we have already
dug them such a deep hole (filled with the bodies of millions of innocent people many of them
children) they are going to be so pleased with us for completely filling it in.

There is a fine line between ignorance and malice, your statements have blurred it completely.

 

[One Of The Six]

"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From: le gopheur [email protected]
>
> >currently that would seem to be low oil prices. certainly an altruistic cause, if ever i've
> >seen one.
> >
> >g.
> >
>
> What part of people pointing out that it would lower prices much more by
> lifting the sanctions and allowing Iraq to dump millions of barrels of
oil on
> the market don't you get? The people protecting their oil interests are the French and Russians
who are
> protecting their sweetheart development deals with Hussein. Bill C

You're right, it is about oil, and the US's selfish interests in controlling it.

 

[One Of The Six]

"ANTHONY GOUCH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Germany may have lost in Europe without the invasion of Normandy on
D-Day,
> but they would not have fallen without the United State involvement.
Britan
> would have fallen some time after the Battle of Britan without the influx
of
> American equipment. Russia would have also fallen without American
equipment
> and the daylight bombing of German industry.
>
> On the current front, look at what three countries are doing the most business with Iraq....
> France, Russia, and Germany. They are not
concerned
> about anything other than Iraqi Oil.

And neither is the US.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, Stewart Fleming
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Sparhawk wrote:
>
> > Actually most were invented in other countries.
>
> You can have French toast as a US invention. (Joseph French, Albany NY,
> 1724). Which just makes me downright confused about this:
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/
>
> > Airplane, New Zealand.
>
> Richard Pearse, Timaru (just up the road), 8-9 months before the Wright brothers. Nobody here
> seriously claims it as "controlled powered flight" though, it was more of a short hop of a couple
> of hundred metres or so. Oh, hang on.... STF

How about this one? This woman is surely in the running for the "Stupidest Person on the Planet"...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030313/ap_wo_en_po/na_gen_us_congress_france_1

--
tanx, Howard

Read. Think. Type. Send.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, k?

For some people, quantity IS quality...

 

[One Of The Six]

"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From: "one of the six billion" [email protected]
>
> >There is a fine line between ignorance and malice, your statements have blurred it completely.
> >
>
> I have yet to see you offer any proposed solutions,

My first proposed solution was inherent in my objection to war. Don't start wars. Very simple. Iraq
is not a threat to us or anyone else right now. Pre-emptive war is not only immoral it is also
illegal. There is no reason for this war, there will only come pain, suffering and death to innocent
people from it. It will (and has already started to) deflect huge resources from this country that
can be used for our own domestic problems. The only reason the UN doesn't sanction us and try us for
breaking international law is because the rest of the world cowers to us.

> any statements other than rants about "Evil America"

You are attributing words to me I never used. Which I don't appreciate because they add a tone that
I would not have.

> and personal attacks.

I didn't make a personal attack. My criticisms were directed towards your statements. Your
statements cruelly and callously justified the slaughter of innocent people. I didn't believe you
were that malicious, I just figured you did not have full knowledge of what is being proposed.

> Why don't you put forward some ideas, and positions for discussion here.

I have many. First and foremost I'd like the people of this country and the rest of the world to
rise up and reclaim democracy, rather than believe that they have one, when in fact their
lifestyles, choices and thoughts themselves are dictated by a combination of multinationals and
individuals that own the majority of the worlds wealth.

Directly related to the topic of war I would say reduce the military budget and transfer resources
from life taking to life giving. At $343 billion, the US leads the rest of the world by almost five
times in military spending. Next up is Russia $60 billion, China $42 billion, Japan, $40 billion, UK
$34 billion, Saudi Arabia $27 billion, France $25 billion, Germany $21 billion, Brazil $17 billion,
India $15 billion, Italy $15 billion and South Korea $11 billion. The US does not need to stand so
far apart. We could halve our spending and still be spending twice as much as anyone else.

> Any mental midget can continually attack others ideas.

You're the one advocating attacking. You wan't to KILL innocent people.

> Being able, and having the courage to create and present ideas for discussion takes a
> different type
of
> person than you have shown youself to be. BTW I agree with you about DU rounds, you want to talk
> to some of my
friends
> with Gulf War Syndrome too? Life in war sucks. Sometimes you have to take a stand and be
> willing to
pay
> the price of it. Hussein went to Kuwait, he paid. We have also paid a
pretty
> good price.

Here you are giving an appropriate analogy. What we are doing is not any different than what Hussein
did to Kuwait. The fact that he did what he did is however no justification for us to do the same.

> While all you protester types

By typecasting you surrender your credibility. The peace rally this Sat. in San Francisco had over
100,000 people in it that could not be categorized in any way other than that they know this war is
wrong and that they were in San Francisco.

> were sitting safely at home *****ing about the fascist pig cops oppressing you because they
> actualy arrested a couple of people for burning cars and smashing Starbucks windows,

Several million people all over the world who directly participated in these events (rather than
relied on media reports) had very different experiences.

> and even used some tear gas on you a whole lot of men and women were seperated from their
families,
> living in tents, being poisoned by our government, and the Iraqis. Then
we get
> the old "Agent Orange" runaround about how everything that was done was
safe
> and any symptoms are caused by stress or psychosomatic. You know what? A lot of us, including a
> lot of those with health
problems
> would do it again.

And an awful lot of veterans were marching in San Francisco saying let's not do it now.

> This country is not perfect by a long shot but it's a hell of a lot better than people like you
> are willing to admit. Is there
anything
> you think we've done right in the last 50 years?

With this statement you're applying rhetoric in an effort to dilute the validity of a point of view
you don't share.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Glenn Butzlaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > Kurgan, I could use your arguments to say that you are ignorant or brainwashed. We'll just
> > > have to agree to disagree. I did enjoy some of your arguments though and will give you credit
> > > for being well read. We just see the facts from a different point of view. There's nothing
> > > wrong with that. If everyone believed the same thing life would be boring...
> >
> >
> > Come on, don't duck the subject. This is one of my favorite Cult of Reagan
> misconceptions to tear apart. Reagan does deserve credit
> > for the fall, but for reasons most of the brainwashed Cult of Reagan never
> imagine.
>
> And those reasons would be?
>
> Glenn Butzlaff

Well, Tegeder is too cowardly to stand behind his words (or admit fallacy) so:

The Cult of Reagan maintains that his increased defense spending forced the Soviets to spend their
economy into bankruptcy. That is a fallacy of the highest order for 2 reasons:

1) the Soviet economy was doomed to failure with or without Reagan because Central Planned Economies
deteriorate over the long run as bureaucratic inertia kills whatever efficiency was gained during
the economy's infancy

2) Soviet defense spending, did not increase in the 1980's. That can be gleaned from CIA analysis.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm

The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military
expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures
on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under
Jimmy Carter and Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR.

<snip><end>

The CIA report can be purchased on this site:

http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/1998/firth.htm

So what does Reagan deserve credit for? Exactly the opposite of what most of the Cult of
Reagan believes.

Reagan and Gorbachev both will go down in history for their diplomacy. They recognized that despite
being leaders of 2 nations at the constant brink of mutual nuclear annihilation, they could trust
one another on a personal level. Along with that they both took risks in negotiating down their
nuclear arsenals and going against entrenched Defense Establishment interests in both nations.
Gorbachev in particular took a huge gamble since without the threat of the immediate use of its
nuclear arsenal, The Soviet Union would no longer be an equal superpower due to its economic
inferiority. Although Reagan took less of a risk, he must be commended for not letting his "Evil
Empire" ideology blind him to the character and humanity of Gorbachev.

All that happened long before the Iron Curtain fell in 1989.

Kudos to both Reagan and Gorbachev for their diplomacy, of which nothing has come but good.

Remember that Pershings and other military doodads had nothing to do with it.

 

[Jay Tegeder]

The point is Kurgan,that those Pershing II missles were nuclear tipped and the SDI was something if
accomplished ( a big if...), would render the Soviet missle arsenal usless against the U.S. Those
two things were "parts" of the "whole" that brought Gorbachev to the table. Their is no "Cult of
Reagan". That's just a fallacy nutured by "cowardly" ideolouges (sp) who think they know
everything...

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<...
> > >
>>
> Well, Tegeder is too cowardly to stand behind his words (or admit fallacy) so:
>
> The Cult of Reagan maintains that his increased defense spending forced the Soviets to spend their
> economy into bankruptcy. That is a fallacy of the highest order for 2 reasons:
>
> 1) the Soviet economy was doomed to failure with or without Reagan because Central Planned
> Economies deteriorate over the long run as bureaucratic inertia kills whatever efficiency was
> gained during the economy's infancy
>
> 2) Soviet defense spending, did not increase in the 1980's. That can be gleaned from CIA analysis.
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm
>
> The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military
> expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet
> expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the
> military buildup under Jimmy Carter and Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending
> levels in the USSR.
>
> <snip><end>
>
> The CIA report can be purchased on this site:
>
> http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/1998/firth.htm
>
>
>
> So what does Reagan deserve credit for? Exactly the opposite of what most of the Cult of Reagan
> believes.
>
> Reagan and Gorbachev both will go down in history for their diplomacy. They recognized that
> despite being leaders of 2 nations at the constant brink of mutual nuclear annihilation, they
> could trust one another on a personal level. Along with that they both took risks in negotiating
> down their nuclear arsenals and going against entrenched Defense Establishment interests in both
> nations. Gorbachev in particular took a huge gamble since without the threat of the immediate use
> of its nuclear arsenal, The Soviet Union would no longer be an equal superpower due to its
> economic inferiority. Although Reagan took less of a risk, he must be commended for not letting
> his "Evil Empire" ideology blind him to the character and humanity of Gorbachev.
>
> All that happened long before the Iron Curtain fell in 1989.
>
> Kudos to both Reagan and Gorbachev for their diplomacy, of which nothing has come but good.
>
> Remember that Pershings and other military doodads had nothing to do with it.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The point is Kurgan,that those Pershing II missles were nuclear tipped and the SDI was something
> if accomplished ( a big if...), would render the Soviet missle arsenal usless against the U.S.
> Those two things were "parts" of the "whole" that brought Gorbachev to the table. Their is no
> "Cult of Reagan". That's just a fallacy nutured by "cowardly" ideolouges (sp) who think they know
> everything...

We still don't have a system that can reliably shoot down one missile broadcasting its GPS position,
let alone the 6000 that each side possessed at the peak of the Cold War.

Pershings did not bring down the Soviet Union.

 

[Jay Tegeder]

Yeah, but you proved my point. The Pershing Missles and SDI brought Gorbachev to the table where
Reagan said; "Trust, but verify."

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The point is Kurgan,that those Pershing II missles were nuclear tipped and the SDI was something
> > if accomplished ( a big if...), would render the Soviet missle arsenal usless against the U.S.
> > Those two things were "parts" of the "whole" that brought Gorbachev to the table. Their is no
> > "Cult of Reagan". That's just a fallacy nutured by "cowardly" ideolouges (sp) who think they
> > know everything...
>
>
>
> We still don't have a system that can reliably shoot down one missile broadcasting its GPS
> position, let alone the 6000 that each side possessed at the peak of the Cold War.
>
> Pershings did not bring down the Soviet Union.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yeah, but you proved my point. The Pershing Missles and SDI brought Gorbachev to the table where
> Reagan said; "Trust, but verify."

I take back what I said before. You really are stupid.

Our country and The Soviet Union had been routinely negotiating on the nuclear arms race for
decades. SALT I and SALT II were around well before they came into power.

Your position is an insult to Gorbachev and Reagan and their achievement. They did not threaten each
other with nuclear missiles. The Pershings were withdrawn from Europe before the Soviet Union
collapsed. That collapse was the symptom of communism not being a viable economic system over the
long-term.

The free market system 'won' because it is more viable. It is a conclusion we should all be happy
for, otherwise every country in the world should be racing to build Pershings instead of developing
their economy.

 

[Glen Goins]

[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >From: [email protected] (Ilan Vardi)
>
> >The French are all a bunch of fags, like you. No wonder you like them.
> >
> >-ilan
> >
>
> Yep, make sure you bring in your sheep and other small friendly animals too.
> MMMM---SHEEEEPP Bill C

Maybe you idiots need to study history a little before shooting your mouths off about France,
without thier help the independance America has now would not have been possible. Here are some
excerpts from (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/feb06.html). Don't be fooled by the media's
misinformation that has fueld America's arrogance and imperialism attitude. I am not French, I am an
American born and raised. But, to be an AMERICAN, means you must question authority and rebell
against tyranny. Those are the principles this country was founded on, being UN-American is to deny
those rights to individuals whether they are American or Iraqi. To do so is to be a hypcrite to the
highest order.

Deion D.

"........Secretly aiding the American colonies since 1775, France's helpfulness was spurred by
resentment over the loss of American territory to Britain in the French and Indian War. In 1776, the
Continental Congress sent diplomats Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, and Arthur Lee to secure a
formal alliance with France. American victory over the British in the Battle of Saratoga convinced
the French that the Americans were committed to independence and worthy partners to a formal
alliance. Over the course of the war, France contributed an estimated 12,000 soldiers and 32,000
sailors to the American war effort.

The Marquis de Lafayette, a French aristocrat, arrived in Philadelphia in July 1777 and offered his
services to the Continental Army. Serving as a major general in the Continental forces, he quickly
forged a life-long friendship with American commander in chief George Washington. After
distinguishing himself on the battlefield, he returned to France early in 1779 and successfully
urged the government to send a 6,000-man expeditionary army to the United States. Back in America by
April 1780, Lafayette returned to the business of war, playing a key role in securing victory over
British commander Lord Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown in late July ......."

 

[Jay Tegeder]

Kurnag...

You've proven the point that people who don't know the facts resort to name calling. If you were
right, you wouldn't need to use "name calling" as a defense of your weak position. I find it amazing
how you think you know everything when your facts are based on liberally slanted news that you've
been fed for decades. I'm surprised you have time to respond to this newsgroup because with all of
your knowledge, you must be working for the State Department right? It is also amazing that the
Soviet Union lasted around 70 years without ecomnomic collapse and even defeated Nazi Germay at
their doorstep with out collapsing from the economic hardships of fighting a World War which by all
standards measured, would be far more costly economically than any problem they faced when their
union finally collapsed. You must be right, their economy must have had a built-in 70 year time
span. I'm sure facing an upward spiraling defense budget had nothing to do with the collapse. Reagan
placing the Pershing IIs in Europe couldn't have been the reason because you seem to be right on
everything you say. Okay, so we agree by your calculations that all communist regimes have a 70 year
time span to work with. So China will collapse in 2019 and Cuba will fall in 2029. Okay, I'm writing
that down on the calendar. Thanks so much for your immense knowledge.

And you call me "stupid?" Better to be "stupid" than arrogant and "stupid" like you Kurnag. I only
resorted to your level because that is what you seem to understand...

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Yeah, but you proved my point. The Pershing Missles and SDI brought Gorbachev to the table where
> > Reagan said; "Trust, but verify."
>
>
>
> I take back what I said before. You really are stupid.
>
> Our country and The Soviet Union had been routinely negotiating on the nuclear arms race for
> decades. SALT I and SALT II were around well before they came into power.
>
> Your position is an insult to Gorbachev and Reagan and their achievement. They did not threaten
> each other with nuclear missiles. The Pershings were withdrawn from Europe before the Soviet Union
> collapsed. That collapse was the symptom of communism not being a viable economic system over the
> long-term.
>
> The free market system 'won' because it is more viable. It is a conclusion we should all be happy
> for, otherwise every country in the world should be racing to build Pershings instead of
> developing their economy.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kurnag...
>
> You've proven the point that people who don't know the facts resort to name calling. If you were
> right, you wouldn't need to use "name calling" as a defense of your weak position. I find it
> amazing how you think you know everything when your facts are based on liberally slanted news that
> you've been fed for decades. I'm surprised you have time to respond to this newsgroup because with
> all of your knowledge, you must be working for the State Department right? It is also amazing that
> the Soviet Union lasted around 70 years without ecomnomic collapse and even defeated Nazi Germay
> at their doorstep with out collapsing from the economic hardships of fighting a World War which by
> all standards measured, would be far more costly economically than any problem they faced when
> their union finally collapsed. You must be right, their economy must have had a built-in 70 year
> time span

Tegeder, I call you a dumbass because you are exhibiting the characteristics of a dumbass.

The Centrally Planned Economy works initially because it is set up for the initial conditions. What
it lacks is an ability to adapt.

In the free market system, when conditions change, the market forces the producers to adapt (either
that or they go out of business). In a planned economy, inefficient producers are not elminated.
Eventually, as conditions change more and more (creating more and more inefficient producers), the
system collapses. The analogy of cancer is apt here, the inefficient producers being the cancer that
over time overwhelms its host.

Japan is facing the same problem (not as extreme as the Centrally Planned Economy). There is too
much bureaucratic inertia there. There, the bureaucracy is more powerful than the elected officials.
Note that Japan was fabulously successful for 40 years, post WW2, but since then has been in a
depression. Their economy does not adapt well to change.

The Soviet Union and the United States both had 6,000 nuclear missiles and 10,000 warheads (some of
the missiles were Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles, MIRVs). The Soviet Union did not lose the
nuclear arms race. We both had and still have the ability to destroy each other hundreds of times
over. Communism failed because it is an inferior economic system. 40 years ago it was seen as a
global threat, threatening to overwhelm the West. What is it now? It is nothing and that is due to
its economic unviability.

 

[Jay Tegeder]

Kurfuc, the name calling aspect to your posts is getting tiring. I'll just get it over with by
calling you a f*cking idiot who thinks he knows f*cking everything. Japan's econmoy was the envy of
the World in the 1980s. Their family style business operation worked fine until the Stock market
collapse hit them as it did the rest of the World. Once the markets turn around, they'll be fine and
their system will work again. What you don't realize Kurfuc, is that when recessions hit, all forms
of economic systems suffer. As for the Soviets/Russia, everyone knows they have plenty of missles.
It was the threat of rendering those missles harmless with SDI that would have forced them into
massively increasing their defense spending. The collapse of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with
their centrally planned economy. It took a combination of things including the Pershings, SDI and a
realization that western capitalism provided a better way to grow economies. That's why China is
moving toward the west and Cuba will when El Presidente takes his final bow.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Kurnag...
> >
> > You've proven the point that people who don't know the facts resort to name calling. If you were
> > right, you wouldn't need to use "name calling" as a defense of your weak position. I find it
> > amazing how you think you know everything when your facts are based on liberally slanted news
> > that you've been fed for decades. I'm surprised you have time to respond to this newsgroup
> > because with all of your knowledge, you must be working for the State Department right? It is
> > also amazing that the Soviet Union lasted around 70 years without ecomnomic collapse and even
> > defeated Nazi Germay at their doorstep with out collapsing from the economic hardships of
> > fighting a World War which by all standards measured, would be far more costly economically than
> > any problem they faced when their union finally collapsed. You must be right, their economy must
> > have had a built-in 70 year time span
>
>
>
>
> Tegeder, I call you a dumbass because you are exhibiting the characteristics of a dumbass.
>
>
> The Centrally Planned Economy works initially because it is set up for the initial conditions.
> What it lacks is an ability to adapt.
>
> In the free market system, when conditions change, the market forces the producers to adapt
> (either that or they go out of business). In a planned economy, inefficient producers are not
> elminated. Eventually, as conditions change more and more (creating more and more inefficient
> producers), the system collapses. The analogy of cancer is apt here, the inefficient producers
> being the cancer that over time overwhelms its host.
>
> Japan is facing the same problem (not as extreme as the Centrally Planned Economy). There is too
> much bureaucratic inertia there. There, the bureaucracy is more powerful than the elected
> officials. Note that Japan was fabulously successful for 40 years, post WW2, but since then has
> been in a depression. Their economy does not adapt well to change.
>
> The Soviet Union and the United States both had 6,000 nuclear missiles and 10,000 warheads (some
> of the missiles were Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles, MIRVs). The Soviet Union did not lose
> the nuclear arms race. We both had and still have the ability to destroy each other hundreds of
> times over. Communism failed because it is an inferior economic system. 40 years ago it was seen
> as a global threat, threatening to overwhelm the West. What is it now? It is nothing and that is
> due to its economic unviability.

 

[Kyle Legate]

Jay Tegeder wrote:
> Kurfuc, the name calling aspect to your posts is getting tiring. I'll just get it over with by
> calling you a f*cking idiot who thinks he knows f*cking everything.
>
Your complaint that Kurgan has engaged in name calling has no impact. It's well established that
name calling is your modus operandi.

> The collapse of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with their centrally planned economy. It took a
> combination of things including the Pershings, SDI and a realization that western capitalism
> provided a better way to grow economies.
>
Here you show that Kurgan's namecalling was accurate, further invalidating your whining. From what I
have included of your post above, read the first sentence and then your last reason and tell me that
they aren't intertwined. If a centrally planned economy had nothing to do with the collapse, why
does it matter that western capitalism was better?

 

[Jay Tegeder]

Kyle, stick to the stuff you know like bike racing. You've already shown how you disagree with me on
this topic and how you seem to have an it's okay for me but not for you attitude when it comes to
name calling. If you recall, you seem to like "just yanking your chain." Kurfuc started the name
calling with me because his arguments don't hold up. He thinks he's superior to everyone on the
topic but his arrogance has shown through. I would reccomend keeping your limited knowledge on the
subject to yourself...

"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Jay Tegeder wrote:
> > Kurfuc, the name calling aspect to your posts is getting tiring. I'll just get it over with by
> > calling you a f*cking idiot who thinks he knows f*cking everything.
> >
> Your complaint that Kurgan has engaged in name calling has no impact. It's well established that
> name calling is your modus operandi.
>
> > The collapse of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with their centrally planned economy. It took
> > a combination of things including the Pershings, SDI and a realization that western capitalism
> > provided a better way to grow economies.
> >
> Here you show that Kurgan's namecalling was accurate, further invalidating your whining. From what
> I have included of your post above, read the first sentence and then your last reason and tell me
> that they aren't intertwined. If a centrally planned economy had nothing to do with the collapse,
> why does it matter that western capitalism was better?

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Jay Tegeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kyle, stick to the stuff you know like bike racing. You've already shown how you disagree with me
> on this topic and how you seem to have an it's okay for me but not for you attitude when it comes
> to name calling. If you recall, you seem to like "just yanking your chain." Kurfuc started the
> name calling with me because his arguments don't hold up. He thinks he's superior to everyone on
> the topic but his arrogance has shown through. I would reccomend keeping your limited knowledge on
> the subject to yourself...

Let's stick to the topic then.

You wrote:

> The collapse of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with their centrally planned economy. It took a
> combination of things including the Pershings, SDI and a realization that western capitalism
> provided a better way to grow economies.

Those 2 sentences contradict each other, as Kyle pointed out.

If the Centrally Planned Economy had nothing to do with the Eastern Bloc's collapse, then why has
every single one of them abandoned it?

The collapse of the Iron Curtain was a political/economic revolution, not a nuclear one because:
Russia is still on an equal footing with us in nukes. Both us and they have decreased respective
nuclear stockpiles by an equivalent, negotiated amount.

We can both destroy each other hundreds of times over. Our missiles are far more accurate, they make
up for that deficiency with bigger warheads. Theirs are up to 60 megatons. It has been estimated
that a single 20 megaton ground burst on Manhattan would kill 20% of the population of our country
(the entire Northeast). The fireball alone would engulf the entire island and the remaining deaths
would be incineration, crush injuries from the shockwave, or radiation poisoning. Keep in mind that
the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. The megaton weapons release one thousand times more energy.