[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Noi, 01:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Nov 19, 11:56 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



On 19 Noi, 23:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:33 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
Did you, or did you not, just list several contributing reasons that
the former USSR would have fallen all on its own,

No, I said they're all contributing factor and it is impossible to
determine which if any or even all of them could be removed
without altering the outcome.

A simple question: if reagan had not been President, but Carter or
Mondale or Dukakis had, do you believe the USSR would still be in
existance?

at least through the end of their terms, and little bit longer,

Which was the case with reagan...

longer than that, i was assuming
two terms for Mondale to 92 and Dukakis to 96


if you mean in 2006, the answer is so speculative because
of so many other events that happened, did not happen,
would have happened but didn't, did happen but would not have.

And this counters the point that we've already agreed on, how?

All I said to kick off 2pid's ****storm is that the fall of the former
USSR cannot be attributed directly to reagan, but that he may have
influenced it, which implies that there were other factors involved.

he was one of about major factors, and he also had
some lesser influences on some of those other factors