[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 18, 7:15 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 18 Noi, 18:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail
eventually all on its own. Iraq would have had political change all on
its own. They did not "need" us for regime change. And the Chinese
will eventually take care of themselves.

Intervention may speed things up a little, like perhaps reagan's
influence may have influenced, but not caused, the collapse of the
former USSR.

I think Reagan himself would say that the Soviet Union
fell because of the inherent flaws in the Communist economic
system, and the dictatorship necessary to perpetuate it.
Communism flies in the face of human nature, and deprives
hmanity of the freedom to make economic choices.
of course, the totalitarianism necessary to keep Communism
in place deprives humanity of personal and political freedoms, too.

having said that, Reagan was always one to remind us of the above,
and to keep us focused on applying pressure to
beat it down, as opposed to libs like Carter, Mondale, etc.,
who would go soft on it, and actually contribute to
extending the life of Communism. We do owe Reagan a great debt,
but yes, he did not 'cause' the fall of the USSR, though
he, Walesa and the Pope strongly hastened it.

Clyde, you've been making some reasonable posts recently. What do they
put in the water in Romania? Slivovitz?