DH> Mike, I tend to disagree with you on this, but I must admit, you make 
DH> compelling argument. On the subject of having our forces deployed
DH> around the world, this strategy has been listed as one of the causes o
DH> the Soviet implosion.
 
    
        Again I am in a minority position, but I beleive the Soviet
Union collapsed because it's ecconimic system was flawed, not because
it fell so far behind the United States in how many times it could
obliterate humanity.  It was in the realm of ecconomics that the
Soviets were destroyed and they destroyed themselves. Their
agricultural system, based on non-productive collectives and inferior
grains simply couldn't feed their populations.  
        When the Soviet Union flew apart it flew apart for the same
reasons any revolution occurs, food, housing, work, and the personal
security of the individual citizens.  Ideological revolutions are for
the elite and ideologies rarly motivate a people to implement even
moderate change, much less radical change.  Change occurs when people
are affected directly not philosophically.
         If only military spending were the issue, the USSR could have
dramatically reduced overall military forces and still retained a
massive strike capability that even with minimal maintenance would have
held the west at bay for decades, but Soviet security, contrary to
popular beliefs, wasn't the cause for the dismemberment of the USSR.
Failures in crops, failures in production of basic goods, and a dismal
prospect of hope for the individual is what destroyed the Soviet Union
and what caused the satellite nations to reject communism. 
 
                                             Mike Angwin
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------