Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

  1. #11
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    I think everyone will concede that the Soviet Union was falling before Reagan came into office, and it was just a matter of time before they collapsed.

    Reagan, and Wilson both did a lot to hurt the Soviets even more. In regards to what Wilson did, the Soviets were winning in Afghanistan until we sent our Stinger Missiles and other equipment over. After that, they were flat out being slaughtered. While that couldn't have caused the collapse of the Soviet Union in and of itself, it was a big kick in the pants, and IMO made them collapse up to half a decade then they might have otherwise.
    The USSR was not only collapsing from it's own false economic system it was on the verge of ethnic and inter national group warfare. The Soviet Union had within it's borders most of teh 'Stans' which were predominately Muslim and historically not only not Russian but not even Slavic. The prison of nations was run by the warden in the Kremlin and the prison guards were the Russians. Afghanstan being a Muslim "country" also had/has ethnic group in it who were the same a in the USSR. UZBEKS, Tkajyks, etc. The Soviet troops from the Stans were killing their brothers. They knew this.

    Most of the troops who served in the Soviet forces in Afghanistan were not Russians. This really bothered the Chechens. Most Ukrainians even though they were SLAVIC and Christian did not relish killing a minority peoples for the warden.

    Yes Afghanistan was not the main reason for the collapse of the evil empire but it was very very important indeed.
    I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us f107HyperSabr

  2. #12
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    my mistake - thought it was an RIP thread.
    Last edited by jackalope; 02-11-10 at 12:37 AM.
    Tiki Bar! Woot!
    Drinks are plenty, music is fine, and the company is first-rate

  3. #13
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,019

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    I will take that challenge. The Soviet Union did have within it the seeds of it's own destruction. Those seeds where the corrupt economic systems, corrupt society, and the fact that only 52% of the population was one ethnic group - Muscovite Barbarians aka Russians. What RR did was bring attaention to the evil that the USSR was.
    Bring attention? To whom? Because McCarthy did that LONG before Reagan did. The Germans knew about the Soviets better than most Americans ever did. So did Georgians, Lithuanians, Angolans etc. Who did Reagan bring the Soviets to? No. You're simply wrong. What Reagan did do was create a larger than God enemy in America to provide him with re-election while he began the tradition of spending the country into oblivion and social conservatism. Nothing more, nothing less.

    What Charlie Wilson did was to place a knife in the side of the Soviet Savages. What the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan did was to show not only thw worls but the captives peoples inside the prison aka as the USSR that the filty scumbags in the Kremlin could be defeated. The Afghanistan experience set the stage for the Soviet Union to go to where it belonged - the cesspool of history.


    What do you want? An applause for that emotional post? You got it. However. What knife are you talking about? The Soviet collapse was economic and infrastructural in nature. The amount of money they spent on warfare was pocket change when compared to the amount of subsidizing they did in Africa, Asia and Latin America. When this overspending of money and resources is done by a incredibly inflexible bureaucracy, it lead to the downfall of the soviets.

    If you'd like to talk about the effects Afghanistan, let's talk about the effects of Afghanistan instead of engaging in your emotional rhetorical shall we? Aside from the fact that today the USSR - excuse me "Russia" - is led by the same people who led it 20-30 years ago, what exactly did the U.S. do to accomplish the "downfall" of the Soviet Union? Did it diminish the ability of the Kremlin to be a problem for the White House? In what respect? Does Russia no longer have veto power in the UNSC? Is the USSR - damn, did it again 'Russia' - no longer able to provide opposition to the U.S. on issues like Iran and North Korea? If anything the USSR - sorry, 'Russia' - has downsized. It has rescaled and reorganized. Like a company. Saying it has disappeared is quite ignorant of what has actually happened.

    If anything their 'loss' in Afghanistan, was part of this downsizing. The soviets destroyed Afghanistan and the scale of such an operation could not be maintained while they provided education for Cubans and Germans in Moscow, gave mostly free oil to Georgians and fed Lithuanians & Ukrainians. No. If anything their retreat from Afghanistan came as a result of the reorganization they were about to go through. Stating anything to the contrary is simply dishonest and typical American mythology.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 02-11-10 at 12:37 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #14
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Bring attention? To whom? Because McCarthy did that LONG before Reagan did. The Germans knew about the Soviets better than most Americans ever did. So did Georgians, Lithuanians, Angolans etc. Who did Reagan bring the Soviets to? No. You're simply wrong. What Reagan did do was create a larger than God enemy in America to provide him with re-election while he began the tradition of spending the country into oblivion and social conservatism. Nothing more, nothing less.
    I think you're not giving Reagan enuogh credit. Just in terms of the USSR, he did a lot to refocus attention at them, on the world stage. Calling them evil, demanding the destruction of the Berlin Wall, and then of course the enormous spending spree he went on. While the spending above all is hurting us now, what he did really did hurt the Soviets, perhaps forcing them to "reorganize" a few years earlier then they would otherwise have had to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    What do you want? An applause for that emotional post? You got it. However. What knife are you talking about? The Soviet collapse was economic and infrastructural in nature. The amount of money they spent on warfare was pocket change when compared to the amount of subsidizing they did in Africa, Asia and Latin America. When this overspending of money and resources is done by a incredibly inflexible bureaucracy, it lead to the downfall of the soviets.
    There is no doubt in anyone's mind (except perhaps deluded Communists) that the Soviet Union fell because it was corrupted in countless ways. But the fact of the matter is, Reagan and Wilson did a lot to force this realization a few years then it might have occured otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    If you'd like to talk about the effects Afghanistan, let's talk about the effects of Afghanistan instead of engaging in your emotional rhetorical shall we? Aside from the fact that today the USSR - excuse me "Russia" - is led by the same people who led it 20-30 years ago, what exactly did the U.S. do to accomplish the "downfall" of the Soviet Union? Did it diminish the ability of the Kremlin to be a problem for the White House? In what respect? Does Russia no longer have veto power in the UNSC? Is the USSR - damn, did it again 'Russia' - no longer able to provide opposition to the U.S. on issues like Iran and North Korea? If anything the USSR - sorry, 'Russia' - has downsized. It has rescaled and reorganized. Like a company. Saying it has disappeared is quite ignorant of what has actually happened.
    The thing that Reagan and Wilson accomplished was to force that downsizing a few years earlier then it might have otherwise have happened. I'm sure the Russians would love to have some of the resources in former Warsaw Pact nations, like oil, metals, etc.

    And the bigger idea behind the fall (or restructuring, whicever you prefer) of the Soviet Union is that Communism "lost." Idealogically, this was a critical victory for NATO.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  5. #15
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    my mistake - thought it was an RIP thread.

    woops, meant to add link I moved my message to: RIP thread
    Tiki Bar! Woot!
    Drinks are plenty, music is fine, and the company is first-rate

  6. #16
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,725

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Bring attention? To whom? Because McCarthy did that LONG before Reagan did. The Germans knew about the Soviets better than most Americans ever did. So did Georgians, Lithuanians, Angolans etc. Who did Reagan bring the Soviets to? No. You're simply wrong. What Reagan did do was create a larger than God enemy in America to provide him with re-election while he began the tradition of spending the country into oblivion and social conservatism. Nothing more, nothing less.





    What do you want? An applause for that emotional post? You got it. However. What knife are you talking about? The Soviet collapse was economic and infrastructural in nature. The amount of money they spent on warfare was pocket change when compared to the amount of subsidizing they did in Africa, Asia and Latin America. When this overspending of money and resources is done by a incredibly inflexible bureaucracy, it lead to the downfall of the soviets.

    If you'd like to talk about the effects Afghanistan, let's talk about the effects of Afghanistan instead of engaging in your emotional rhetorical shall we? Aside from the fact that today the USSR - excuse me "Russia" - is led by the same people who led it 20-30 years ago, what exactly did the U.S. do to accomplish the "downfall" of the Soviet Union? Did it diminish the ability of the Kremlin to be a problem for the White House? In what respect? Does Russia no longer have veto power in the UNSC? Is the USSR - damn, did it again 'Russia' - no longer able to provide opposition to the U.S. on issues like Iran and North Korea? If anything the USSR - sorry, 'Russia' - has downsized. It has rescaled and reorganized. Like a company. Saying it has disappeared is quite ignorant of what has actually happened.

    If anything their 'loss' in Afghanistan, was part of this downsizing. The soviets destroyed Afghanistan and the scale of such an operation could not be maintained while they provided education for Cubans and Germans in Moscow, gave mostly free oil to Georgians and fed Lithuanians & Ukrainians. No. If anything their retreat from Afghanistan came as a result of the reorganization they were about to go through. Stating anything to the contrary is simply dishonest and typical American mythology.
    I call BS on that. I remember watching Nikita Kruschev bang his shoe and declare to the US "We will bury you". I remember the nuclear drills at my elementary school during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and during that whole time, each day, my parents, brothers, and I were not sure that we were going to live to see the next. I remember the Berlin embargo, when the US was dropping supplies into West Berlin, and Russia was threatening war for it. I remember many things as a child, about our relationship with the Russians, and what I saw shaped very much what I believe today. Reagan did not create a larger than life enemy. The Soviets did it themselves. I know for a fact because I remember it.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #17
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,649

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    RIP

    Hail public servicemen.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  8. #18
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,019

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    I think you're not giving Reagan enuogh credit.
    I think you give Reagan way too much.

    Just in terms of the USSR, he did a lot to refocus attention at them, on the world stage. Calling them evil, demanding the destruction of the Berlin Wall, and then of course the enormous spending spree he went on. While the spending above all is hurting us now, what he did really did hurt the Soviets, perhaps forcing them to "reorganize" a few years earlier then they would otherwise have had to.
    How did the U.S. spending hurt the Soviets? I want to see how our overspending of financial affected a the overuse of resources practice they were already well immersed in 20-30 years before their 'downfall'?

    There is no doubt in anyone's mind (except perhaps deluded Communists) that the Soviet Union fell because it was corrupted in countless ways. But the fact of the matter is, Reagan and Wilson did a lot to force this realization a few years then it might have occured otherwise.
    Please explain how. Just saying that Reagan & Wilson 'forced' what was an inevitable collapse doesn't make it so. What Reagan and Wilson did was engage in an interventionist policy which had the result of filling the minds of Americans with the belief that it was Reagan who actually brought down the Soviets all by himself. It is the origins of 'AMERICA **** YEAH!' culture. Thanks.

    The thing that Reagan and Wilson accomplished was to force that downsizing a few years earlier then it might have otherwise have happened. I'm sure the Russians would love to have some of the resources in former Warsaw Pact nations, like oil, metals, etc.

    And the bigger idea behind the fall (or restructuring, whicever you prefer) of the Soviet Union is that Communism "lost." Idealogically, this was a critical victory for NATO.
    PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW! The Russians already had massive deficits before the 80s. They already had bureaucratic issues before the 80s. They already had massive shortages of food supplies before the 80s. If anything Reagan - as always - just happened to be at the right place, at the right time to take credit for something which any historian will tell you, he had little work in.

    As proof of this take the reforms of Gorbachev which if anything were more 'harmful' to the USSR. Gorbachev in an effort to continue, the then, 20 year old de-Stalinization of the USSR advocated the political liberalization of Soviet society while retaining the same economic organization. What happened as a result? The country continued to spiral down in all aspects.

    Now take a look at China, which has done exactly the opposite. While China has liberalized its market, it has maintained the same political structure and one party rule. The result? A country which is now becoming a rival the U.S. 's claim to being the world's only superpower. All this while remaining just as oppressive, evil and threatening as it was in the 90s, 80s, 70s and 60s. If anything it's liberalization of it's market has made it more dangerous.

    Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Reagan's role in Soviet downfall is minimal when you compare it to the economic damage their structure was doing to them. The claim Americans make to victory is quite dishonest.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 02-11-10 at 01:34 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #19
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,019

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I call BS on that. I remember watching Nikita Kruschev bang his shoe and declare to the US "We will bury you". I remember the nuclear drills at my elementary school during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and during that whole time, each day, my parents, brothers, and I were not sure that we were going to live to see the next. I remember the Berlin embargo, when the US was dropping supplies into West Berlin, and Russia was threatening war for it. I remember many things as a child, about our relationship with the Russians, and what I saw shaped very much what I believe today. Reagan did not create a larger than life enemy. The Soviets did it themselves. I know for a fact because I remember it.
    And yet during the 80s the USSR was a shell of what it had been in the 60s. If Reagan had started talking about the food shortages the USSR had or the fact that the sales of a bottle of vodka in Russia skyrocketed during the 80s or the fact that they had massive debts, it wouldn't have made for much of an enemy now would it? How can you possibly paint a picture of an evil enemy when he's broke, drunk AND incompetent? You can't. So what does Reagan do? Call them evil, make public appearances, create a tiger out of a house cat because anything else would not provide him with votes. Just look at Bush in 2004. The exact SAME tactic. I wonder where he got it from?

    So yes. My comment stands. Reagan created an enemy larger than God. The fact that you bring up the 60s when Reagan lived in the 80s and had a great deal of knowledge of the actual situation with the soviets reinforces that.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #20
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson Dies at 76

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I think you give Reagan way too much.
    Touche


    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    How did the U.S. spending hurt the Soviets? I want to see how our overspending of financial affected a the overuse of resources practice they were already well immersed in 20-30 years before their 'downfall'?
    When the USA spent money on defense the Soviets were compelled to match expenditures, or at least try to match them. The Soviets, as you know, were led by incompetent power-mongerers, who wanted to at the very least appear threatening. So, they tried to keep their armed forces at a point that they could compete with our armed forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Please explain how. Just saying that Reagan & Wilson 'forced' what was an inevitable collapse doesn't make it so. What Reagan and Wilson did was engage in an interventionist policy which had the result of filling the minds of Americans with the belief that it was Reagan who actually brought down the Soviets all by himself. It is the origins of 'AMERICA **** YEAH!' culture. Thanks.
    Let me make a clear distintion right now before this goes any farther. I am only arguing that Reagan, and Wilson helped bring down the Soviets, but they would have fallen on their own eventually. All Reagan and Wilson did was force them to spend, and make them lose a war, causing them to collapse a tiny bit earlier then they might have otherwise. And I hate the ideas that Reagan gave to Americans, so I'm not even going to argue that he didn't. You are mostly right about Reagan, except he did do some things to hurt the Soviets.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW! The Russians already had massive deficits before the 80s. They already had bureaucratic issues before the 80s. They already had massive shortages of food supplies before the 80s. If anything Reagan - as always - just happened to be at the right place, at the right time to take credit for something which any historian will tell you, he had little work in.

    Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Reagan's role in Soviet downfall is minimal when you compare it to the economic damage their structure was doing to them. The claim Americans make to victory is quite dishonest.
    We spent in defense, and they spent in defense. While you are right in saying it is relatively minimal, it did enough to bring them down a few years earlier then they might have on their own.

    I agree with you that we cannot honestly claim we brought the Soviets down, and that we "beat" them. But we did do our part in giving them competition in spending, which they, stupidly, tried to match. They felt the pains of it then, because they had other problems that compounded. We are feeling it now, and we very well might be watching our own restructuring take place soon.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •