Can we sell them back Alaska? I am sure that place is costing the taxpayer more than it's worth. Heck, let's let the Ruskies have back for free for all I care.

Well it looks like the Canadians are going to have to butch up.

Expect the phone to ring any minute...

Ring ring: Hello, this is the US.
Canada: Yeah, it looks like we have some trouble eh.
US: Did Gord get caught fucking another lumberjack?
Canada: No, heavens no, well...I don't know but it's not that anyway. It looks like the Russians are going to take some of our land eh.
US: What the fuck do you want us to do about it?
Canada: Can you pick us up, give us a ride to the arctic, give us some planes, pilots, tanks, tank drivers, guns, bullets, subs (ours start on fire ya know), submariners, ships, and captains? Also, can you give us back those 8 soldiers in Afghnaistan, we're going to need them eh.
US: Fuck off.

Russia also gave Iran a solid gold Koran. I wonder if that it what Bush-ling saw when looking into the soul of that man. Gorb and Jorje were slamming back vodka margaritas at Camp David a few weeks back. .. I'm sure they were peacefully negotiating this.

Gotta love it! Not only has Bush-ling undone all that his daddy did when he was president but all his daddy did when Reagun was president.

Come'on righty tightys... tell us again how how the big bad daddy Bush's Bonzo sockpuppet Reagun kicked the ruskies ass.

Quite possibly the dumbest post here today. Your frustration has gotten the best of you. What a tool.

BUSHKANK they get testy if you don't buy the St. Ronnie myths.

Them Ruskies caved cuz they feared....ta dah....Star Wars.....that still doesn't work.

Russia: All Your Arctic Are Belong to Us

"...Are belong to us?
Was this title translated from Russian?

Can we sell them back Alaska? I am sure that place is costing the taxpayer more than it's worth. Heck, let's let the Ruskies have back for free for all I care.

Posted by member2586 at 2007-09-21 01:43 PM

Keep the Alaskan Klondite -- I love gold panning.

OK, let's sell them Ted Stevens then, he is the one causing the problem.

"Was this title translated from Russian?"
--CALIFCHRIS

Not Russian. Nintendo-an.

Great headline, great post from 101.

Great headline, great post from 101.

Posted by rightisright

Why don't you two get a room, or better yet, adjoining stalls?

Why don't you two get a room, or better yet, adjoining stalls?

Posted by RastaCyborg at 2007-09-21 02:52 PM | Reply |


Come on, you know you wanted to tell us to meet at a truck stop...

CONVOY!

Them Ruskies caved cuz they feared....ta dah....Star Wars.....that still doesn't work.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-21 02:29 PM

No, actually, most historians attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to the collapse of their economy, for a large variety of reasons, not the least of which was declining productivity and the pressures of the arms race.

But don't let that interfere with your blind adherence to leftist dogma.

Hi DC!! Sleep better??

Sort of, got to bed around 1 ish, up at 6. Been dragging a bit as usual lately.

Awwww...sorry!

It's OK...they can't see if I'm asleep or just thinking hard...

LOL....too funny!

I hope you get some tonight. At least you can sleep in tomorrow morning!

The fall had a lot to do with oil markets as well and the need for hard currency to pay for imports...

Posted by DCinMA at 2007-09-21 03:38 PM | R

The fact they spent twenty five percent of their GDP for defense was the number one reason for their collapse. Reagon knew they kept both eyes on our defense spending and the fact is they couldn't keep up.

I thought that 12 miles off a country's coast was the International Boundry. How can they claim an underwater ridge/shelf that far out? Screw that!

Hi Crisp!!!

Hi Crisp!!!

Posted by Lisa at 2007-09-21 03:53 PM

The lovely Lisa from the Ozarks... How are you today Bella?

"The fact they spent twenty five percent of their GDP for defense was the number one reason for their collapse. Reagon knew they kept both eyes on our defense spending and the fact is they couldn't keep up."

There's an underlying fallacy in your thinking, however...as a rule conservatives promote the idea that high defense spending is good for the economy...

Sure, excessive military spending is a problem for any society --- including our own -- and can lead to economic collapse due to massive amounts of resources being spent on items which ultimately have little to no true economic value. There is also a tendency, which did occur in the Soviet Union, of some parts of the country becoming completely dependent upon ongoing military spending.

The fallacy is that the Soviets didn't fall due to trying to "keep up" with the massive Reagan buildup. That is baloney and is the only way that the conservatives can continue to justify the massive amounts of money we wasted in this country during the Reagan years. The Soviets wasted tons of money as well on their military, not so much as to keep up with us but to fight a useless war in Afghanistan and to try to keep down independence movements in Eastern Europe.

When the price of oil collapsed in the mid 1980s, suddenly the Soviets had little source of hard currency and therefore couldn't buy the imported food and other things that they needed to maintain societal stability. The west provided some supports but on the condition that they not intervene in Poland and other countries heading towards independence. The citizens realized that they really are the ones in charge of the country -- the emperor was found to have no clothes, so to speak -- and then the whole system spiraled down and broke up.

Reagan had very little to do with it and did more harm than good, creating a situation especially in his first term that could well have led to a nuclear confrontation. Thank God he didn't.

The fact they spent twenty five percent of their GDP for defense was the number one reason for their collapse. Reagon knew they kept both eyes on our defense spending and the fact is they couldn't keep up."


I posted it again for you DC. Not that I don't disagree with your other points. But to claim it is a fallacy of the Conservatives doesn't take away from the facts. The reason they had no currency is because they chose to spend their money on defense and ignored the domestic implications.

" How are you today Bella?"

I'm great! How are you? Hey, I emailed you the other day!

I'm great! How are you? Hey, I emailed you the other day!

Posted by Lisa at 2007-09-21 04:14 PM

Just another perfect day in So Cal. Of course everyone is doing their rain dance out here. Sorry I am behind on checking my emails.

RIR ... "No, actually, most historians attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to the collapse of their economy, for a large variety of reasons, not the least of which was declining productivity and the pressures of the arms race."

You must be talking about the "Arms Race" that economically bankrupted the USSR due to competition with the USA in a military buildup. This "competition" forced the USSR to oppress and starve its people in a desperate attempt to keep up with the west in military might and technology. However, since the USSR barely achieved a 1970's technological level, and their military was mostly an over inflated cardboard cut out of a "deterrence" designed to intimidate the West (with it's relatively all powerful military), and since our government (including Ronnie Raygun) had long-since known this and used it to galvanize and catalyze the American people with fear; his "victory" in "bringing down the wall" was (as most "historians" well know) an inevitability that had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan (or the Right) ...

Moreover, the collapse of the USSR was due to an inevitable social, economic breakdown, along with a deteriorating infrastructure caused by a half a century of Cold War funneling of nearly all of its economic assets into its military apparatus. And, this was the cause of most of the social ills and oppressive doctrine of the Soviet Union...

There was never ANY real threat posed by the USSR to America, it was just another "Be Afraid" political tool to herd the American masses. The use of said "tool" was responsible for the destabilization of a sovereign nation's economy and political system as-well-as the subsequent social oppression and atrocities that are integral to the product of this familiar American Foreign Policy process ...

Furthermore, Reagan (and the Right) just happened to be sitting in the easy chair when the wall fell down around them ...

Crisp -

What I meant by the fallacy in the conservatives' logic regarding military spending. I've often heard them claim that defense spending is great for the economy (and there's no doubt that it, like other government spending, can provide a Keynesian priming of the economic pump). Then they also claim that it destroyed the soviet economy. There's a bit of a disconnect here.

Yes, the soviets were spending too much on the military. As were (and are) we. Yes it contributed. But to claim that Reagan caused the Soviet Union to fail because of the massive military expenditures in the US - not to mention the implied claim that this was part of his great and wise plan for the world - is simply not consistent with the entire set of facts. The situation was MUCH more complex than that.

And, if you are someone who believes that massive military spending was the primary cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union, you might want to consider your own support for such a policy by the US.

"I hope you get some tonight. At least you can sleep in tomorrow morning!"

So do I...but seeing as I don't have a date tonight it's rather unlikely....

Canada: Can you pick us up, give us a ride to the arctic, give us some planes, pilots, tanks, tank drivers, guns, bullets, subs (ours start on fire ya know), submariners, ships, and captains? Also, can you give us back those 8 soldiers in Afghnaistan, we're going to need them eh.
US: Fuck off.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-09-21 02:01 PM

More like
US: OK, but you have to let out Oil companies run the operation for the oil up there and they get a massive cut of everything. And we'll have our taxpayers pay for your military op.

Asscaptain-

First of all, RiR wishes he was as goodlooking as me, although we are often mistaken for each other.

Secondly, the Russian military was far from the paper tiger that you believe that it was...the T-72 tanks back in the 70's and 80's were far superior than anything that NATO possessed, and in fact the M1A1 Abrams was developed to counter that threat.

Thirdly, the Soviet Air Force had the Su-27 and the MIG-29, both of which are acknowledged as equals to the F-15, F-16 and F-18 that we flew.

Fourth, their ballistic subs, the Typhoon Class, while not as quiet as ours, actually carried more ballistic missiles and the Alfa attack subs were every bit the match for any NATO submarine.

Fifth, their nuclear arsenal was anything but imaginary, and could strike anywhere.

Finally, a two million man standing army was the only thing, in the later years, keeping things together as the USSR's economy slid into what we now see in Cuba and North Korea.

But if it makes you feel better that none of this was a threat, more power to you.

DC-

Only the misinformed claim that the arms race was the only reason that the wall came down, but the similarly misinformed also claim that it had nothing to do with it. Even the Russians acknowledge that the pressures that the Kremlin felt to keep up with not only US but all of NATO diverted essential resources away from other areas of the centrally planned Soviet Economy, resulting in its collapse. Certainly low oil prices didn't help, but that is one of many reasons that oil is considered to be a "strategic" resource.

Viewing North Korea as an example of central planning that continued past its prime, it is clear that even without the Reagan era build-up that the Soviet economy would have collapsed eventually.

BigJohn-

Too late, ExxonMobil owns Imperial Oil and part of Syncrude with ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell owns Shell Canada, Occidental Petroleum owns Nexen and the Chinese own Synenco. Between them, they produce and sell 80% of Canada's oil. I guess you could throw in Suncor, but they are already rumored to be a takeover target of Chevron USA.

What else does Canada got, other then being our hat?

"...it is clear that even without the Reagan era build-up that the Soviet economy would have collapsed eventually."

That's my point exactly..

DC-

As was mine, but the pressure from the arms race hastened their demise. Who knows, without that extra push the USSR could still be hanging on, after all, they have a lot more resources then Kim Jung Il.

I didn't know we could still claim stuff!

I claim the Mid Atlantic Ridge!

I claim some deserted Island somewhere far away. Oh and I am claiming Les Stroud cause hunny I don't think I could make it on My cityboy wits alone.

Larry

"I claim some deserted Island somewhere far away."

-Larry

OK

"Captain Jack ... "

The reason they had no currency is because they chose to spend their money on defense and ignored the domestic implications.

Bull shit!!!

You neofight rightie tighties love to try and boast in glory for Russia's fall, but we had nothing to do with it.

Russia failed to take care of the middle class and the entrepreneur small business which increased the size of the black market failing to bring in government revenues depleating government cash flow.

Take a look at Bush bot, he is heading down the same course and the only thing keeping him afloat is Americans only like blackmarkets in their drugs.

Thats nouthin cause all your attics are belong to me

"Expect the phone to ring any minute...

Ring ring: Hello, this is the US.
Canada: Yeah, it looks like we have some trouble eh.
US: Did Gord get caught fucking another lumberjack?
Canada: No, heavens no, well...I don't know but it's not that anyway. It looks like the Russians are going to take some of our land eh.
US: What the fuck do you want us to do about it?
Canada: Can you pick us up, give us a ride to the arctic, give us some planes, pilots, tanks, tank drivers, guns, bullets, subs (ours start on fire ya know), submariners, ships, and captains? Also, can you give us back those 8 soldiers in Afghnaistan, we're going to need them eh.
US: Fuck off.

Posted by 101Chairborne"

LOL! That was a good one, Chair. I like how you take the concept of Canada having a small armed services and make it sound like we'd have call the US military for help. And here I thought Americans didn't get the concept of satire, but your post makes it clear that you're a master at it.

I mean if you'd used an effective military force instead of the Americans then it wouldn't be funny at all. But by picking the American military, a force that can't even defeat the Iraqi's (something the that even the Iranians did - and they were fighting an organized and well equipped Iraqi army) then your post leaves the land of funny and becomes downright hysterical. Keep up the good work!

GENERICO:

FF...