Originally posted by Robtard
the amount of money spent.
This is a big reason they lost the cold war and collapsed. I don't think it was Reagan's build up, but a communist country can't keep up with the amounts of money produced by a capitalist society. And that's what they'd been trying to do for 30 years.
Originally posted by Devil King
This is a big reason they lost the cold war and collapsed. I don't think it was Reagan's build up, but a communist country can't keep up with the amounts of money produced by a capitalist society. And that's what they'd been trying to do for 30 years.
Agreed, but Reagan did spend a nearly unprecedented amount in the 80's, almost like a drunken sailor in a Bangkok brothel and the U.S.S.R. had no choice but try and keep up. Do you think you think if Mondale had won he'd have enacted the same policies and spent as much on the military?
Originally posted by lord xyz
His usage of the word Genocide to describe Europe is ironic, USA practically invented Genocide.
the term genocide was coined post ww2 by a European Jew (afaik).
American's have never partook directly in genocide, though they have had overtly racist policies. genocide is not equal to racism.
Those who destroyed the South and Central American tribes were Spanish and European.
Most tribes had slaves and were very territorial/xenophobic
The act of killing and abusing people not of your own race is thousands of years old and likely predates any form of human civilization.
Originally posted by inimalist
the term genocide was coined post ww2 by a European Jew (afaik).American's have never partook directly in genocide, though they have had overtly racist policies. genocide is not equal to racism.
Those who destroyed the South and Central American tribes were Spanish and European.
Most tribes had slaves and were very territorial/xenophobic
The act of killing and abusing people not of your own race is thousands of years old and likely predates any form of human civilization.
FYI, you're wasting your time... He says shit like that constantly and when confronted he either just ignores it or says "I was being sarcastic" as an excuse.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Out of curiosity, how would an article of a reversed sentiment, but identical tone, written by someone of relative prominence, be received by a U.S. audience.
Depends on the audience and how factual the points being made.
Look at this thread, some Americans agree with it, some don't and some have mixed feelings on certain points.