Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 79K
  • Politics 
gtyellowjacket said:
So we spent a bunch of money and they spent a bunch of money and everything is pretty much in the same place today as it was before the Soviet Union fell.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Always wrong, never in doubt. Living standards in Russia are considerably better than in the Soviet Union. They have much more freedom than they did -- it's not Western style freedom, but it's not Soviet repression either.

We can afford free college education, Medicare for All, and better infrastructure. We choose not to. It's true that we spend way too much money on defense, but Clinton tried to invest the peace dividend in universal health care and the health care industry said, nope. It wasn't about affordability. It was about ideology and also the number of people who hated Hillary because she wasn't baking cookies.

It's a choice to let billionaires pay so little in taxes. It was a choice to distribute money to wasteful states instead of planning actual programs. It was a choice to attack Iraq. It was a choice never to upgrade our electric grid because Texas and tax cuts. It has been a choice to spend so much effort keeping people out and kicking them out instead of welcoming them as contributors. We could have long ago eliminated the "border" issue simply by raising our racist immigration caps (and yes, they were explicitly racist when passed). We've chosen bad policies.

And we continue to do that, because of the peculiarly fucked up American political system. We've never tried to undo the mistake of the Senate and the EC. That has been catastrophic, especially in the Midwest -- as young people fled states like Iowa in favor of cities, it merely made those left behind (generally an uneducated lot, which is why they couldn't leave) more politically powerful.
 
BlueSmoke said:
"and everything is pretty much in the same place today as it was before the Soviet Union fell". GT

Ask yourself what would have happened if the Soviet Union had not fallen because we gave up fighting the cold war ten to fifteen years before 1989? And I'm focused on the outcome for the United States. Not concerned about anyone else but us.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the same thing. We can't rerun history so it's impossible to know but when Boris Yeltsin came to visit the United States in 1990, he said we've lost the Cold war. He didn't say that because he was touring a military base. He was touring a grocery store. And the fall of the Soviet Union didn't happen because all that money we spent on tanks and fighter jets. It was because the Soviet people decided they didn't want to live like that anymore.

So if you're just concerned about us, if we hadn't been fighting the Cold war, we save save a bunch of money, we don't reduce our University spending, there is a push for universal healthcare right around the time of Clinton, and we get lower taxes.
 
Calheel said:
It was all part and parcel of the same process. The Wall fell in '89, but Russia let that happen. And the USSR fell in 1991. To me, it is all part of the same thing and it is to Putin, as well. He is trying to recreate a USSR-lite.
Click to expand...
So far he's been trying to annex provinces that are majority ethnic Russian. I'm sure he would also like to put some friendly leaders in some of these former Soviet states, but I don't think he really wants to actually recreate the Soviet Union where it's all governed from Moscow. If he did, he would have taken a lot more than two provinces from Georgia when the world wasn't spending $100 billion a year to keep him from advancing.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Pretty much the same thing. We can't rerun history so it's impossible to know but when Boris Yeltsin came to visit the United States in 1990, he said we've lost the Cold war. He didn't say that because he was touring a military base. He was touring a grocery store. And the fall of the Soviet Union didn't happen because all that money we spent on tanks and fighter jets. It was because the Soviet people decided they didn't want to live like that anymore.

So if you're just concerned about us, if we hadn't been fighting the Cold war, we save save a bunch of money, we don't reduce our University spending, there is a push for universal healthcare right around the time of Clinton, and we get lower taxes.
Click to expand...
Could have done the same thing with better international security and less hassle by never electing Republicans. Made for a better world as well as country.
 
Healing said:
This has an inking of truth, in a vacuum, within the bounds of basic arithmetic. However, this completely misses the calculus of geopolitical stability, trade relationships, domestic military spending, etc. that the US military AND democracy have facilitated, worldwide. Yes, we’ve likely significantly overspent on military planning, armaments, infrastructure, etc. but you can’t reasonably claim “if x wouldn’t have existed, y would’ve been possible.”
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody knows for sure. But looking back, now we have a much better idea than we did looking forward and say 1960 or 1970.

So you have to ask yourself, why are we going to make the same choices when we know that we overspent in the past? What's different? If anything Russia is weaker, significantly weaker. They aren't even zealots hoping to spread communism and crush those capitalist dogs.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
So far he's been trying to annex provinces that are majority ethnic Russian. I'm sure he would also like to put some friendly leaders in some of these former Soviet states, but I don't think he really wants to actually recreate the Soviet Union where it's all governed from Moscow. If he did, he would have taken a lot more than two provinces from Georgia when the world wasn't spending $100 billion a year to keep him from advancing.
Click to expand...
That is why I said USSR-lite.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
And the fall of the Soviet Union didn't happen because all that money we spent on tanks and fighter jets. It was because the Soviet people decided they didn't want to live like that anymore.
Click to expand...
Right. The people just suddenly decided they didn't like it. I guess North Koreans and Cubans and Nicaraguans are just stupid or have really low standards.

I don't know if our tanks or fighter jet spending caused the downfall. The Soviets spent way too much money on the military; was that because of the US military spending, or because the US military spending made it easier to justify what the Soviets wanted to do anyway? Military production is much easier in a non-market economy than anything else, and especially when so much resource allocation is political in nature.

But more generally, the biggest factor for the Soviet economy was the lack of international trade. So think about that. Also relevant was the fact that the economy was set up to be "communist" but the Soviet Union was an empire (hence the need for military production).
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Pretty much the same thing. We can't rerun history so it's impossible to know but when Boris Yeltsin came to visit the United States in 1990, he said we've lost the Cold war. He didn't say that because he was touring a military base. He was touring a grocery store. And the fall of the Soviet Union didn't happen because all that money we spent on tanks and fighter jets. It was because the Soviet people decided they didn't want to live like that anymore.

So if you're just concerned about us, if we hadn't been fighting the Cold war, we save save a bunch of money, we don't reduce our University spending, there is a push for universal healthcare right around the time of Clinton, and we get lower taxes.
Click to expand...

My concern about us (and will add our economy) has to do about the ole an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We needed a robust military to at least discourage Russian, China, NK and other communist aggressors. Did we screw it up at times? Yep.

And I think you are overlooking that part of the communist "business model" was aggression taking over others and resources. They depended on that to fund their corrupt economy. When we reasonably contained them for an extended period, their economy couldn't take it and collapsed. If we had not contained, then their economy wouldn't have collapsed. If we hadn't contained then what kind of mischief would they have caused in the Middle East, Suez canal and other major choke points? For sure they would have.

We had good intelligence on what they would have done in the vacuum. So saying we will never know won't cut it.
 
BlueSmoke said:
My concern about us (and will add our economy) has to do about the ole an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We needed a robust military to at least discourage Russian, China, NK and other communist aggressors. Did we screw it up at times? Yep.

And I think you are overlooking that part of the communist "business model" was aggression taking over others and resources. They depended on that to fund their corrupt economy. When we reasonably contained them for an extended period, their economy couldn't take it and collapsed. If we had not contained, then their economy wouldn't have collapsed. If we hadn't contained then what kind of mischief would they have caused in the Middle East, Suez canal and other major choke points? For sure they would have.

We had good intelligence on what they would have done in the vacuum. So saying we will never know won't cut it.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of unknowns. They were wrong on stuff and we were wrong on stuff. Domino theory was widely believed but it's since been discredited. No need to go back to it.

And if their business plan was to take over a lot of countries and seize their resources, they should have been better businessmen. At least after world war II. They were paying millions which would be billions today to prop up Cuba and North Korean economies. Vietnam played Russia against China.

If they were really hoping to take over countries and seize their resources, they should have been using Britain and the US as a model. We knew how to keep those communists out and keep countries free. Free to sell us oil and bananas.
 
I just looked at Fitzpatrick's official House site. Nowhere does it specify whether he is R or D. I had to get that from wikipedia. Maybe I just didn't see it, but it sure seems as though he's trying to hide his affiliation. Probably for good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top