$98 per barrel oil

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:


Insight into their own failures and economic exhaustion played a part.

And other than a economic system that can't work what do you think caused
that economic exhaustion?



This documentary is quite a good summary of the cold war era:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/078062386X/

A CNN production, a rather mainstream non-European source.
Unfortunately VHS and rather expensive.

Regards



If you want to read a good history of the Cold War try "We Now Know:
Rethinking Cold War History" by John Lewis Gaddis. He is a Yale professor
that was originally very much in the "two sides of the story" camp. After
getting access to Kremlin documents after the fall of the USSR he pretty
much, "Oh crap it was all Stalins fault."

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
attack by NATO.

Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I can only
conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.

The one constant in the world, is that MX is always wrong. Not even close
to right. Not even.

So, my friend, to go down the path, any path, with MX has put you in one,
and the only position that is possible.

You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had has
evaporated.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
imminent attack by NATO.

Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I
can only conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.


I thought you were ignoring Anthony.

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
imminent attack by NATO.

Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I
can only conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.


I thought you were ignoring Anthony.

I see posts where someone replied to him.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in news:yBa%i.1607$wL7.660
@newsfe07.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
imminent attack by NATO.

Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I
can only conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.


I thought you were ignoring Anthony.

I see posts where someone replied to him.

I see.


Bertie

Morgans writes:

You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had has
evaporated.

An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source that
overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not a strong basis
for credibility.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Morgans writes:

You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever
had has evaporated.

An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source
that overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not a
strong basis for credibility.


You're a proven idiot.
Q.E.D.

Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Morgans writes:

You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had
has
evaporated.

An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source that
overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not a strong
basis
for credibility.

You deserve the same consideration as a magic eight ball. Sometimes you're
correct.

"Yes - I have a name" wrote in
news:Qjj%i.5$r81.0@trndny05:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Morgans writes:

You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever
had
has
evaporated.

An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source
that overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not
a strong
basis
for credibility.

You deserve the same consideration as a magic eight ball. Sometimes
you're correct.


Outlook uncertain, check back later.

Bertie

"Yes - I have a name" wrote in message
news:Qjj%i.5$r81.0@trndny05...
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Morgans writes:

You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had
has
evaporated.

An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source that
overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not a strong
basis
for credibility.

You deserve the same consideration as a magic eight ball. Sometimes you're
correct.

But mostly he's an eight ball (archaically speaking).