2006-12-17 07:01:16 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
There should never be a "super power"......because just like the example this country has shown we have abused it without regard to the human condition.
2006-12-17 07:07:46 · answer #1 · answered by Charlooch 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Communism is basically functional in remodeling a rustic from a feudalistic state to an industrialized one. when you consider that all of Europe and the u . s ./Canada are already industrialized Communism does not have lasted long if imposed as that's no longer mandatory. If the Soviet Union had gained the chilly conflict, and that's puzzling to work out why that could have surpassed off, it could have industralized and could have switched over its financial equipment right into a mix of socialism and capitalism as we've in all present day international locations in the present day. So Communism replaced into never achievable to the international.
2016-10-05 10:30:49 · answer #2 · answered by schugmann 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately Soviet Union does not enjoy much credibility as well and was responsible for disruption of world peace and was guilty of naked aggression against many countries. There was immense tension and possibilities of third world war in the glory of soviet union.
Power comes with responsibilities. US is learning her lessons now.
2006-12-19 06:09:01 · answer #3 · answered by SCULPTURIST 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No There have to be 2 super Powers to have a peaceful World.But the disadvantage of this is that lot of dictators in third world misuse their powers,Saddam Hussein,Fidel Castro ,Suharto,Marcos,Iranian mullahs,Gen Zia UL Haq,House of Saud ,Kim Jong ill are some of the Prime Examples.All these Dictators were supported by super powers during Cold War
2006-12-17 08:46:09 · answer #4 · answered by Dr.O 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, although not perfect it was a controlling influence. There is little doubt that if it was still in existence there would have been no invasion of Yugoslavia, Iraq or Afghanistan but more importantly no wretched global economy which is wrecking our manufacturing base in the U.K and creating slave labour markets all over the world.
There seems little we can do to stop this insane policy which eventually creates nothing more than debt, poverty and misery!
2006-12-18 08:01:15 · answer #5 · answered by Renewable 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look how many Soviets died under Stalin and Lenin. Millions of them.
Communism is misery and the opposite of freedom.
America's not perfect, but the Soviet Union was far worse.
2006-12-17 07:09:47 · answer #6 · answered by Cracker 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The people long ago voted that issue with their feet... did you ever hear of anyone escaping across the Berlin Wall INTO Soviet Controlled East Germany? How about people escaping OUT of Hong Kong.... OUT of the U.S.????
2006-12-17 07:49:50 · answer #7 · answered by Gunny T 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.I would prefer it if there were no super-powers,but if we have to have them,then 2 would be ideal.One super-power would try & force it's political ideals on the rest of the world,just as America is doing now.They would never get away with their bully-boy tactics if there was an opposing super-power.
2006-12-17 07:27:46 · answer #8 · answered by michael k 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This question is stupid of course the world is better with the U.S being the worlds only superpower god choose America and is blessing America thats all you need to know. So shut up you stupid girl
2006-12-17 12:24:31 · answer #9 · answered by Luke K 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes it most certainly would.
If you talk to the people who lived in the time of the USSR their life was much better. Our capitalism once again turned it into a rat race.
Unfortunately we in the West are the biggest victims of our own politicians lies and propaganda.
The USSR was never that bad as it was depicted.
2006-12-17 19:43:52 · answer #10 · answered by ian d 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋