tempreture change. help!!!!!

[RM]

On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:48:24 -0700, "Ron Criswell" said:

>Reagan's tariff on foreign motorcycles over 700 cc did save Harley's >butt though.

Big whoop. Saving Harley's butt was hardly a worthwhile accomplishment. RM

[Russell Scott]

I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards was a slightly bigger accomplishment. R -----Original Message----- From: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of RM Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:08 PM To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DSN_KLR650] NKLR - tariffs On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:48:24 -0700, "Ron Criswell" said:

>Reagan's tariff on foreign motorcycles over 700 cc did save Harley's >butt though.

Big whoop. Saving Harley's butt was hardly a worthwhile accomplishment. RM Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links

[Eric L. Green]

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Russell Scott wrote:

> I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards was a > slightly bigger accomplishment.

Actually, that had little to do with Reagan. The seeds of the collapse of the Soviet Union were laid back in the early 1970's when little-known companies like Fairchild and Intel came out with little thingies called "micro-processors". A Soviet-style Communist state is ideal for producing large amounts of steel-age industrial goods for a war-time economy -- the Soviets actually produced more tanks during WWII than we did, despite the fact that every single one of their major tank factories had to be dismantled in front of the oncoming German advance and reassembled on the other side of the Causcausus -- but a modern information-age economy needs a flexibility far beyond that available via the creaking reins of centralized state control, and without a modern information-age economy, you cannot build modern weapons except by devoting ever-increasing portions of your economy to that purpose, to the point where the whole house of card collapses. (See "Connections" by James Burke for more info on the basic economic theory that I'm using here). By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was already on its death bed. Andropov took charge as a reformer after Brezhnev's death primarily because the Politburo had already recognized that the Soviet Union had already fallen far behind the Western world technologically, and that further Brezhnev-style centralized planning would make the situation even worse. Soviet military technology relied on brute force to do what the U.S. did with technology -- for example, in order to get a fighter jet to match the F-15, the Soviets had to build a fighter jet so large to carry the fuel needed by its inefficient engines that it (the Su-27) was literally twice the size of the F-15, and correspondingly ineffective if ever it got into a dogfight with the F-15, and the thing spent most of its first ten years in service crashing and didn't make it into service until 1982, over seven years after the F-15 had entered service. Everything else in the Soviet Union was similarly creaky. Their entire economy was in meltdown. 60% of their GDP was being used to support the military because they were trying to do with brute force what the U.S. was doing with technology, and as a result their entire infrastructure was collapsing -- Aroads, railroads, pipelines, steel factories, the works, all were in increasingly desperate shape, held together by little more than bailing wire and prayer. Reagan certainly took advantage of the fact that the Soviets were in no position to match the U.S. technologically, but most of what he used to do this had already been on the drawing board for years (e.g. the M1 tanks, which finally gave the U.S. the clean slate needed to instantly obsolete every Soviet tank in existence, started production in late 1978 and entered service in February 1980 just as Reagan was taking the oath of office). The final collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable no matter who had been elected President in 1980... by 1990, when the Iron Curtain fell, U.S. technology had advanced so fast in the prior ten years and Soviet infrastructure had crumbled so far that no matter who was President, it was all over but the shouting. The actual collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991 was a surprise only to Republicans, who had spent so much time building up the Soviet Union as this enormous bogey-man that they were shocked to find that the threat to the world that they'd built up the Soviet Union as being had all been a hoax for at least ten years. The vaunted Soviet military technology turned out to not work as well in real life as it did at air shows and in parades, the Soviet army proved to be a paper tiger, half of the Soviet Union was hungry on any given night, the other half was shivering in the cold because the gas pipelines had more holes than intact pipe in them. The soldiers were literally starving in their barracks, the vaunted air defenses were useless for lack of jet fighter fuel and spare parts, and the only thing in surplus was vodka. And this had been true since before Reagan had taken office, but nobody wanted to point that out because the Soviets still had images of the German attack upon them in WWII in their minds and thus wanted to present a threat image to put the West onto the defensive even though they were in no position to threaten anybody, and of course it was good politically for Republicans to build the Soviet Union into more of a threat than they actually were, since this in turn allowed them to scare the populance into believing that unless they elected Republicans, the Soviet army would be showing up on the Rio Grande any minute. And of course some Sovietologists and even the noted right-wing science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (who had visited the Soviet Union in the early 70's and discovered that the Soviets were lying even to themselves about the dire straits they were in, e.g., pointed out that the number of rail lines going into Moscow would not in any way support the numer of people that the Soviets claimed lived in Moscow) had pointed out long before that the Soviet Union was approaching collapse, but nobody had believed them because the Soviet Union had been around so long and the Republicans were saying it was a big threat and the Soviets were puffing up their chests and pretending they were a big threat, so... Anyhow, this is one of my pet peeves as a historian of the era -- giving Ronald Reagan the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union when it was actually the Information Age with its concurrent technological advances combined with the inherent idiocy and inflexibility of Communism that caused the collapse. Reagan certainly did the right things to help the Soviets along their road to collapse, but the Soviets had already embarked on that road to collapse long before Reagan took office (indeed, the Soviet failure in the moon race was a sign that the days of Soviet technological equivalence were gone), and at best he gave them a slight kick in the behind to help them down a path they were already going down. -E

[matteeanne@yahoo.com]

As a submarine sailor during the cold war, I can concur 100% on the fact that the Soviet Union pumped out 5 times more subs than us, but they were crap. There earlier Nukes did not even have primary sheilding on the reactor, limiting sailors to 6 months max time aboard, they were noisy as hell, and we spent our time follwing these noisy bastards everywhere, they never knew we were there. But there were so many damn Soviet ships at sea, the damn things were everywhere, and worthless. Were they a threat? Well gosh, they pretty much all carried nukes, just as we did. I find that horrendously scary. Beyond scary, unimaginable. The greatest threat mankind has faced yet. It did not take a republican to teach me, or scare me into this. It took living on board with over a hundred mervs. We practiced every day to deploy them. It was real, trust me. No, Reagan played a great part. We, as in the Military (or many many of us) Were scared to death of Reagan, and his shoot from the hip attitude. Combined with the Soviets, we saw a bad mix. The Soviets were scared of him too, trust me. He simply made it very very easy for them to call it quits. Did he cause the collapse of the Soviet Union? Well about as much as the Pope di I guess, But Reagan did pour more into military spending than anyone, well gosh, ever, so I guess he did play a significant role. ROFL, Ok, it's like 1 am, had too many beers, I'll shut up now, lol. I forget, KLR, motorcycles, yeah, allright, sorry Sean, A-something (hic) or other, It's Red damit! --- "Eric L. Green" wrote:

> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Russell Scott wrote: > > I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like > a house of cards was a > > slightly bigger accomplishment. > > Actually, that had little to do with Reagan. The > seeds of the collapse of > the Soviet Union were laid back in the early 1970's > when little-known > companies like Fairchild and Intel came out with > little thingies called > "micro-processors". A Soviet-style Communist state > is ideal for producing > large amounts of steel-age industrial goods for a > war-time economy -- the > Soviets actually produced more tanks during WWII > than we did, despite the > fact that every single one of their major tank > factories had to be > dismantled in front of the oncoming German advance > and reassembled on the > other side of the Causcausus -- but a modern > information-age economy needs > a flexibility far beyond that available via the > creaking reins of > centralized state control, and without a modern > information-age economy, > you cannot build modern weapons except by devoting > ever-increasing > portions of your economy to that purpose, to the > point where the whole > house of card collapses. (See "Connections" by James > Burke for more info > on the basic economic theory that I'm using here). > > By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was > already on its death > bed. Andropov took charge as a reformer after > Brezhnev's death primarily > because the Politburo had already recognized that > the Soviet Union had > already fallen far behind the Western world > technologically, and that > further Brezhnev-style centralized planning would > make the situation even > worse. Soviet military technology relied on brute > force to do what the > U.S. did with technology -- for example, in order to > get a fighter jet to > match the F-15, the Soviets had to build a fighter > jet so large to carry > the fuel needed by its inefficient engines that it > (the Su-27) was > literally twice the size of the F-15, and > correspondingly ineffective if > ever it got into a dogfight with the F-15, and the > thing spent most of its > first ten years in service crashing and didn't make > it into service until > 1982, over seven years after the F-15 had entered > service. Everything else > in the Soviet Union was similarly creaky. Their > entire economy was in > meltdown. 60% of their GDP was being used to support > the military because > they were trying to do with brute force what the > U.S. was doing with > technology, and as a result their entire > infrastructure was collapsing -- > Aroads, railroads, pipelines, steel factories, the > works, all were in > increasingly desperate shape, held together by > little more than bailing > wire and prayer. > > Reagan certainly took advantage of the fact that the > Soviets were in no > position to match the U.S. technologically, but most > of what he used to do > this had already been on the drawing board for years > (e.g. the M1 tanks, > which finally gave the U.S. the clean slate needed > to instantly obsolete > every Soviet tank in existence, started production > in late 1978 and > entered service in February 1980 just as Reagan was > taking the oath of > office). The final collapse of the Soviet Union was > inevitable no matter > who had been elected President in 1980... by 1990, > when the Iron Curtain > fell, U.S. technology had advanced so fast in the > prior ten years and > Soviet infrastructure had crumbled so far that no > matter who was > President, it was all over but the shouting. > > The actual collapse of the Soviet Union itself in > 1991 was a surprise only > to Republicans, who had spent so much time building > up the Soviet Union as > this enormous bogey-man that they were shocked to > find that the threat to > the world that they'd built up the Soviet Union as > being had all been a > hoax for at least ten years. The vaunted Soviet > military technology turned > out to not work as well in real life as it did at > air shows and in > parades, the Soviet army proved to be a paper tiger, > half of the Soviet > Union was hungry on any given night, the other half > was shivering in the > cold because the gas pipelines had more holes than > intact pipe in them. > The soldiers were literally starving in their > barracks, the vaunted air > defenses were useless for lack of jet fighter fuel > and spare parts, and > the only thing in surplus was vodka. And this had > been true since before > Reagan had taken office, but nobody wanted to point > that out because the > Soviets still had images of the German attack upon > them in WWII in their > minds and thus wanted to present a threat image to > put the West onto the > defensive even though they were in no position to > threaten anybody, and of > course it was good politically for Republicans to > build the Soviet Union > into more of a threat than they actually were, since > this in turn allowed > them to scare the populance into believing that > unless they elected > Republicans, the Soviet army would be showing up on > the Rio Grande any > minute. And of course some Sovietologists and even > the noted right-wing > science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (who had > visited the Soviet Union > in the early 70's and discovered that the Soviets > were lying even to > themselves about the dire straits they were in, > e.g., pointed out that the > number of rail lines going into Moscow would not in > any way support the > numer of people that the Soviets claimed lived in > Moscow) had pointed out > long before that the Soviet Union was approaching > collapse, but nobody had > believed them because the Soviet Union had been > around so long and the > Republicans were saying it was a big threat and the > Soviets were puffing > up their chests and pretending they were a big > threat, so... > > Anyhow, this is one of my pet peeves as a historian > of the era -- giving > Ronald Reagan the credit for the collapse of the > Soviet Union when it was > actually the Information Age with its concurrent > technological advances > combined with the inherent idiocy and inflexibility > of Communism that > caused the collapse. Reagan certainly did the right > things to help the > Soviets along their road to collapse, but the > Soviets had already embarked > on that road to collapse long before Reagan took > office (indeed, the > Soviet failure in the moon race was a sign that the > days of Soviet > technological equivalence were gone), and at best he > gave them a slight > kick in the behind to help them down a path they > were already going down. > > -E > > > Archive Quicksearch at: >

http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html

> List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: > www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: > www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > DSN_KLR650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > >

=== message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Jud Jones]

> > Anyhow, this is one of my pet peeves as a historian of the era -- giving > Ronald Reagan the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union when it was > actually the Information Age with its concurrent technological advances > combined with the inherent idiocy and inflexibility of Communism that > caused the collapse. Reagan certainly did the right things to help the > Soviets along their road to collapse, but the Soviets had already embarked > on that road to collapse long before Reagan took office (indeed, the > Soviet failure in the moon race was a sign that the days of Soviet > technological equivalence were gone), and at best he gave them a slight > kick in the behind to help them down a path they were already going down. >

Yup. A dog with a note in its mouth could have done what Reagan did. Can you say "Fido International Airport"?

[scott quillen]

Here we go again...do I detect another round of Harley bashin' right around the corner??? Scott RM wrote: On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:48:24 -0700, "Ron Criswell" said:

>Reagan's tariff on foreign motorcycles over 700 cc did save Harley's >butt though.

Big whoop. Saving Harley's butt was hardly a worthwhile accomplishment. RM Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott quillen]

Eric, That was quite a history lesson...THANKS! Giving Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is akin to giving Clinton credit for the economic prosperity we enjoyed during his time in the oval office . Yet a ton of Democrats have no problem with that! Respectfully, Scott "Eric L. Green" wrote:

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Russell Scott wrote: > I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards was a > slightly bigger accomplishment. Actually, that had little to do with Reagan. The seeds of the collapse of the Soviet Union were laid back in the early 1970's when little-known companies like Fairchild and Intel came out with little thingies called "micro-processors". A Soviet-style Communist state is ideal for producing large amounts of steel-age industrial goods for a war-time economy -- the Soviets actually produced more tanks during WWII than we did, despite the fact that every single one of their major tank factories had to be dismantled in front of the oncoming German advance and reassembled on the other side of the Causcausus -- but a modern information-age economy needs a flexibility far beyond that available via the creaking reins of centralized state control, and without a modern information-age economy, you cannot build modern weapons except by devoting ever-increasing portions of your economy to that purpose, to the point where the whole house of card collapses. (See "Connections" by James Burke for more info on the basic economic theory that I'm using here). By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was already on its death bed. Andropov took charge as a reformer after Brezhnev's death primarily because the Politburo had already recognized that the Soviet Union had already fallen far behind the Western world technologically, and that further Brezhnev-style centralized planning would make the situation even worse. Soviet military technology relied on brute force to do what the U.S. did with technology -- for example, in order to get a fighter jet to match the F-15, the Soviets had to build a fighter jet so large to carry the fuel needed by its inefficient engines that it (the Su-27) was literally twice the size of the F-15, and correspondingly ineffective if ever it got into a dogfight with the F-15, and the thing spent most of its first ten years in service crashing and didn't make it into service until 1982, over seven years after the F-15 had entered service. Everything else in the Soviet Union was similarly creaky. Their entire economy was in meltdown. 60% of their GDP was being used to support the military because they were trying to do with brute force what the U.S. was doing with technology, and as a result their entire infrastructure was collapsing -- Aroads, railroads, pipelines, steel factories, the works, all were in increasingly desperate shape, held together by little more than bailing wire and prayer. Reagan certainly took advantage of the fact that the Soviets were in no position to match the U.S. technologically, but most of what he used to do this had already been on the drawing board for years (e.g. the M1 tanks, which finally gave the U.S. the clean slate needed to instantly obsolete every Soviet tank in existence, started production in late 1978 and entered service in February 1980 just as Reagan was taking the oath of office). The final collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable no matter who had been elected President in 1980... by 1990, when the Iron Curtain fell, U.S. technology had advanced so fast in the prior ten years and Soviet infrastructure had crumbled so far that no matter who was President, it was all over but the shouting. The actual collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991 was a surprise only to Republicans, who had spent so much time building up the Soviet Union as this enormous bogey-man that they were shocked to find that the threat to the world that they'd built up the Soviet Union as being had all been a hoax for at least ten years. The vaunted Soviet military technology turned out to not work as well in real life as it did at air shows and in parades, the Soviet army proved to be a paper tiger, half of the Soviet Union was hungry on any given night, the other half was shivering in the cold because the gas pipelines had more holes than intact pipe in them. The soldiers were literally starving in their barracks, the vaunted air defenses were useless for lack of jet fighter fuel and spare parts, and the only thing in surplus was vodka. And this had been true since before Reagan had taken office, but nobody wanted to point that out because the Soviets still had images of the German attack upon them in WWII in their minds and thus wanted to present a threat image to put the West onto the defensive even though they were in no position to threaten anybody, and of course it was good politically for Republicans to build the Soviet Union into more of a threat than they actually were, since this in turn allowed them to scare the populance into believing that unless they elected Republicans, the Soviet army would be showing up on the Rio Grande any minute. And of course some Sovietologists and even the noted right-wing science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (who had visited the Soviet Union in the early 70's and discovered that the Soviets were lying even to themselves about the dire straits they were in, e.g., pointed out that the number of rail lines going into Moscow would not in any way support the numer of people that the Soviets claimed lived in Moscow) had pointed out long before that the Soviet Union was approaching collapse, but nobody had believed them because the Soviet Union had been around so long and the Republicans were saying it was a big threat and the Soviets were puffing up their chests and pretending they were a big threat, so... Anyhow, this is one of my pet peeves as a historian of the era -- giving Ronald Reagan the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union when it was actually the Information Age with its concurrent technological advances combined with the inherent idiocy and inflexibility of Communism that caused the collapse. Reagan certainly did the right things to help the Soviets along their road to collapse, but the Soviets had already embarked on that road to collapse long before Reagan took office (indeed, the Soviet failure in the moon race was a sign that the days of Soviet technological equivalence were gone), and at best he gave them a slight kick in the behind to help them down a path they were already going down. -E Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott quillen]

Actually I do believe Reagan is due more credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union than Clinton is due for the economic prosperity during his tenure. Scott scott quillen wrote: Eric, That was quite a history lesson...THANKS! Giving Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is akin to giving Clinton credit for the economic prosperity we enjoyed during his time in the oval office . Yet a ton of Democrats have no problem with that! Respectfully, Scott "Eric L. Green" wrote:

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Russell Scott wrote: > I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards was a > slightly bigger accomplishment. Actually, that had little to do with Reagan. The seeds of the collapse of the Soviet Union were laid back in the early 1970's when little-known companies like Fairchild and Intel came out with little thingies called "micro-processors". A Soviet-style Communist state is ideal for producing large amounts of steel-age industrial goods for a war-time economy -- the Soviets actually produced more tanks during WWII than we did, despite the fact that every single one of their major tank factories had to be dismantled in front of the oncoming German advance and reassembled on the other side of the Causcausus -- but a modern information-age economy needs a flexibility far beyond that available via the creaking reins of centralized state control, and without a modern information-age economy, you cannot build modern weapons except by devoting ever-increasing portions of your economy to that purpose, to the point where the whole house of card collapses. (See "Connections" by James Burke for more info on the basic economic theory that I'm using here). By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was already on its death bed. Andropov took charge as a reformer after Brezhnev's death primarily because the Politburo had already recognized that the Soviet Union had already fallen far behind the Western world technologically, and that further Brezhnev-style centralized planning would make the situation even worse. Soviet military technology relied on brute force to do what the U.S. did with technology -- for example, in order to get a fighter jet to match the F-15, the Soviets had to build a fighter jet so large to carry the fuel needed by its inefficient engines that it (the Su-27) was literally twice the size of the F-15, and correspondingly ineffective if ever it got into a dogfight with the F-15, and the thing spent most of its first ten years in service crashing and didn't make it into service until 1982, over seven years after the F-15 had entered service. Everything else in the Soviet Union was similarly creaky. Their entire economy was in meltdown. 60% of their GDP was being used to support the military because they were trying to do with brute force what the U.S. was doing with technology, and as a result their entire infrastructure was collapsing -- Aroads, railroads, pipelines, steel factories, the works, all were in increasingly desperate shape, held together by little more than bailing wire and prayer. Reagan certainly took advantage of the fact that the Soviets were in no position to match the U.S. technologically, but most of what he used to do this had already been on the drawing board for years (e.g. the M1 tanks, which finally gave the U.S. the clean slate needed to instantly obsolete every Soviet tank in existence, started production in late 1978 and entered service in February 1980 just as Reagan was taking the oath of office). The final collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable no matter who had been elected President in 1980... by 1990, when the Iron Curtain fell, U.S. technology had advanced so fast in the prior ten years and Soviet infrastructure had crumbled so far that no matter who was President, it was all over but the shouting. The actual collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991 was a surprise only to Republicans, who had spent so much time building up the Soviet Union as this enormous bogey-man that they were shocked to find that the threat to the world that they'd built up the Soviet Union as being had all been a hoax for at least ten years. The vaunted Soviet military technology turned out to not work as well in real life as it did at air shows and in parades, the Soviet army proved to be a paper tiger, half of the Soviet Union was hungry on any given night, the other half was shivering in the cold because the gas pipelines had more holes than intact pipe in them. The soldiers were literally starving in their barracks, the vaunted air defenses were useless for lack of jet fighter fuel and spare parts, and the only thing in surplus was vodka. And this had been true since before Reagan had taken office, but nobody wanted to point that out because the Soviets still had images of the German attack upon them in WWII in their minds and thus wanted to present a threat image to put the West onto the defensive even though they were in no position to threaten anybody, and of course it was good politically for Republicans to build the Soviet Union into more of a threat than they actually were, since this in turn allowed them to scare the populance into believing that unless they elected Republicans, the Soviet army would be showing up on the Rio Grande any minute. And of course some Sovietologists and even the noted right-wing science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (who had visited the Soviet Union in the early 70's and discovered that the Soviets were lying even to themselves about the dire straits they were in, e.g., pointed out that the number of rail lines going into Moscow would not in any way support the numer of people that the Soviets claimed lived in Moscow) had pointed out long before that the Soviet Union was approaching collapse, but nobody had believed them because the Soviet Union had been around so long and the Republicans were saying it was a big threat and the Soviets were puffing up their chests and pretending they were a big threat, so... Anyhow, this is one of my pet peeves as a historian of the era -- giving Ronald Reagan the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union when it was actually the Information Age with its concurrent technological advances combined with the inherent idiocy and inflexibility of Communism that caused the collapse. Reagan certainly did the right things to help the Soviets along their road to collapse, but the Soviets had already embarked on that road to collapse long before Reagan took office (indeed, the Soviet failure in the moon race was a sign that the days of Soviet technological equivalence were gone), and at best he gave them a slight kick in the behind to help them down a path they were already going down. -E Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[ron criswell]

I don't agree. Just think of what it did for the leather / leather fringe / chrome / and doo rag business. Our techno gift to the world. Criswell

On Saturday, May 7, 2005, at 10:07 PM, RM wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:48:24 -0700, "Ron Criswell" said: > >> Reagan's tariff on foreign motorcycles over 700 cc did save Harley's >> butt though. > > Big whoop. Saving Harley's butt was hardly a worthwhile > accomplishment. > > RM > > > Archive Quicksearch at: > http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

[ron criswell]

Yep to a lot of that. I just finished a biography on Kruschev by William Taubman which shows Soviet massive failures long before the collapse and the disaster of centralized planning. The Russians were successful against the Nazis in WWll at a terrible price for it's people. It is amazing Stalin remained in power by his blunders. Kruschev actually became disillusioned with socialism toward the end of his career / life and planted the seeds for reform (plus almost starting a nuclear war). I think it all came home for me when reading somewhere right after China began opening up to the world that tiny Taiwan had a higher GNP than mainland China. The Commies were great at winning revolutions but terrible at running their countries. It is amazing that some people still believe in communism (mostly professors in American Universities). Want to talk about fish oil? Criswell

On Sunday, May 8, 2005, at 01:09 AM, Eric L. Green wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Russell Scott wrote: >> I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards >> was a >> slightly bigger accomplishment. > > Actually, that had little to do with Reagan. The seeds of the collapse > of > the Soviet Union were laid back in the early 1970's when little-known > companies like Fairchild and Intel came out with little thingies called > "micro-processors". A Soviet-style Communist state is ideal for > producing > large amounts of steel-age industrial goods for a war-time economy -- > the > Soviets actually produced more tanks during WWII than we did, despite > the > fact that every single one of their major tank factories had to be > dismantled in front of the oncoming German advance and reassembled on > the > other side of the Causcausus -- but a modern information-age economy > needs > a flexibility far beyond that available via the creaking reins of > centralized state control, and without a modern information-age > economy, > you cannot build modern weapons except by devoting ever-increasing > portions of your economy to that purpose, to the point where the whole > house of card collapses. (See "Connections" by James Burke for more > info > on the basic economic theory that I'm using here). > > By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was already on its > death > bed. Andropov took charge as a reformer after Brezhnev's death > primarily > because the Politburo had already recognized that the Soviet Union had > already fallen far behind the Western world technologically, and that > further Brezhnev-style centralized planning would make the situation > even > worse. Soviet military technology relied on brute force to do what the > U.S. did with technology -- for example, in order to get a fighter jet > to > match the F-15, the Soviets had to build a fighter jet so large to > carry > the fuel needed by its inefficient engines that it (the Su-27) was > literally twice the size of the F-15, and correspondingly ineffective > if > ever it got into a dogfight with the F-15, and the thing spent most of > its > first ten years in service crashing and didn't make it into service > until > 1982, over seven years after the F-15 had entered service. Everything > else > in the Soviet Union was similarly creaky. Their entire economy was in > meltdown. 60% of their GDP was being used to support the military > because > they were trying to do with brute force what the U.S. was doing with > technology, and as a result their entire infrastructure was collapsing > -- > Aroads, railroads, pipelines, steel factories, the works, all were in > increasingly desperate shape, held together by little more than bailing > wire and prayer. > > Reagan certainly took advantage of the fact that the Soviets were in no > position to match the U.S. technologically, but most of what he used > to do > this had already been on the drawing board for years (e.g. the M1 > tanks, > which finally gave the U.S. the clean slate needed to instantly > obsolete > every Soviet tank in existence, started production in late 1978 and > entered service in February 1980 just as Reagan was taking the oath of > office). The final collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable no > matter > who had been elected President in 1980... by 1990, when the Iron > Curtain > fell, U.S. technology had advanced so fast in the prior ten years and > Soviet infrastructure had crumbled so far that no matter who was > President, it was all over but the shouting. > > The actual collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991 was a surprise > only > to Republicans, who had spent so much time building up the Soviet > Union as > this enormous bogey-man that they were shocked to find that the threat > to > the world that they'd built up the Soviet Union as being had all been a > hoax for at least ten years. The vaunted Soviet military technology > turned > out to not work as well in real life as it did at air shows and in > parades, the Soviet army proved to be a paper tiger, half of the Soviet > Union was hungry on any given night, the other half was shivering in > the > cold because the gas pipelines had more holes than intact pipe in them. > The soldiers were literally starving in their barracks, the vaunted air > defenses were useless for lack of jet fighter fuel and spare parts, and > the only thing in surplus was vodka. And this had been true since > before > Reagan had taken office, but nobody wanted to point that out because > the > Soviets still had images of the German attack upon them in WWII in > their > minds and thus wanted to present a threat image to put the West onto > the > defensive even though they were in no position to threaten anybody, > and of > course it was good politically for Republicans to build the Soviet > Union > into more of a threat than they actually were, since this in turn > allowed > them to scare the populance into believing that unless they elected > Republicans, the Soviet army would be showing up on the Rio Grande any > minute. And of course some Sovietologists and even the noted right-wing > science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (who had visited the Soviet > Union > in the early 70's and discovered that the Soviets were lying even to > themselves about the dire straits they were in, e.g., pointed out that > the > number of rail lines going into Moscow would not in any way support the > numer of people that the Soviets claimed lived in Moscow) had pointed > out > long before that the Soviet Union was approaching collapse, but nobody > had > believed them because the Soviet Union had been around so long and the > Republicans were saying it was a big threat and the Soviets were > puffing > up their chests and pretending they were a big threat, so... > > Anyhow, this is one of my pet peeves as a historian of the era -- > giving > Ronald Reagan the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union when it > was > actually the Information Age with its concurrent technological advances > combined with the inherent idiocy and inflexibility of Communism that > caused the collapse. Reagan certainly did the right things to help the > Soviets along their road to collapse, but the Soviets had already > embarked > on that road to collapse long before Reagan took office (indeed, the > Soviet failure in the moon race was a sign that the days of Soviet > technological equivalence were gone), and at best he gave them a slight > kick in the behind to help them down a path they were already going > down. > > -E > > > Archive Quicksearch at: > http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]