Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Thank you President Reagan. May you rest in peace in the memories of the millions you freed from the tyranny of communism.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:03am
And my German friends thank Reagan also.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/09/2009 @ 11:09am
ah, the myth that reagan, and reagan alone, "freed" the germans from communism.
didn't you guys read the gorbachev interview?
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 11:37am
gorbachev, in his very first answer to katrina's question of "american power" being the cause of the fall of the berlin wall:
"Those developments were the result of perestroika in the Soviet Union, where democratic changes had reached the point by March 1989 that for the first time in Russia's history democratic, competitive elections took place"
pretty much deflates the "reagan saved the world" argument....
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 11:40am
These guys still think Reagan "never raised taxes" and "cut the size of Government", Darla.
It's a religious thing now.....much as they gripe about US supposedly thinking Obama is a "Messiah".
Subtext to all their talk of Reagan is that he means EXACTLY that to them.
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 11:40am
Darla, I never claimed that Reagan "saved" the world, did I? He politically freed millions from the tyranny of communism though. (Granted, it needed to be okayed by Wall Street first, since Wall Street funded the Cold War.)
Have you ever spent any time in a communist country Darla? I studied in the DDR and Czechoslovakia in 1978. I assure you, liberation is the right word for the fall of soviet domination of eastern europe.
But I always appreciate your opinion. You're not ALWAYS wrong. Just most of the time you appear blind to the cause of our division.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:50am
reagan?
what a bunch of crap.
the u.s. was is now in very similar circumstances as the soviets were 25 years ago.
ah, the joys of fiat.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 12:01pm
"Darla, I never claimed that Reagan "saved" the world, did I? He politically freed millions from the tyranny of communism though"
as gorbachev points out, no he didn't. far from it. and i never claimed that you made the claim that reagan saved the world. you claimed, though, that "he politically freed millions from the tyranny of communism," whish is totally absurd.
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 12:11pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/09/2009 @ 11:50am
Frei, are you saying by signing a Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and offering TOTAL nuclear disarmament under a joint SDI umbrella...
Ronald Reagan caused the Warsaw Pact to collapse?
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 12:24pm
Darla, what is your source for trusting anything Gorbechev says? I'd love to know why you believe he is credible? What in his political history makes him so believable to you? Was it his brutal invasion of Afghanistan? His movement up through the ranks of the KGB?
I can only surmise it is your ignorance, certainly not stupidity.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:24pm
"Darla, what is your source for trusting anything Gorbechev says?"
frei, read the interview and get back to me. it's hard to dispute the claims made by gorbachev.
do you dispute that there were free, democratic elections in russia, in may of '89?
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 12:26pm
As always there are two sides of the story and our Republicans friends only choose to see one side. Reagan was instrumental in helping set up the conditions of the wall coming down, as was Gorbachev and perestroika. Neither one of them "freed the masses." The masses decided on their own to be free, which is the way all great movements the world over are realized.
I was in East and West Germany within a few months of the wall coming down (wow...so long ago) and in speaking to the West Germans (and the French, Dutch and Italians who I also visited), I had one question for all of them, "What does the wall coming down mean for you?" Most of the Western Europeans were incredibly happy that the wall was coming down, but were also afraid of the influx of poor people into the Western economy of Germany (the West Germans were especially afraid of this). They were afraid it would wreck their economy (which it basically did).
The French and Dutch of course (and understandably), were concerned about having Germany be re-united again and having all that history of world conquest, wanted to make sure a reunited Germany would not again become a military force against their neighbors. Same with Italy.
All in all, I would credit the forces of liberalism (even Reagan was a liberal compared to the totalitarians of the Eastern Germany and the Soviets) and democracy. It was not one man's doing; it was not even the doing of two men. It was the doing of a mass of people yearning to breathe free. It was, simply, time for the Wall to come down.
I celebrate with the Germans and all free people of the world today and hope that we never slide back into totalitarianism (communist, fascist, or religious).
I even managed to get a few pieces of the wall myself.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:39pm
Hey, WHERE'S my damned "peace dividend"?!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:44pm
Thank you DARLA. I think she's less ignorant than you are FRI re the history under debate here. Gorbachev has been buried by the Russian establishment. He has no reason to bullshit. Read the interview at least before you try to undermine it: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091116/kvh_cohen
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/09/2009 @ 12:48pm
Darla, what is your source for trusting anything Gorbechev says? I'd love to know why you believe he is credible? What in his political history makes him so believable to you? Was it his brutal invasion of Afghanistan? His movement up through the ranks of the KGB?
I can only surmise it is your ignorance, certainly not stupidity.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:24pm
"his brutal invasion of Afghanistan"? Dude it was under Gorbachev who ended their involvement in Afghanistan. Who is the one slinging accusations of ignorance? KGB agent? huh? Seems like Frei is even more ignorant than those he accuses.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/09/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by Extraneous at 11/09/2009 @ 12:57pm
Poor Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, and Konstantin Chernenko.....FREI has relegated them to the "memory hole" at Mini-True.
LOL
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 1:09pm
reagan also looked the other way when he let pakistan build the bomb (in exchange for helping the afghan rebels against the soviets).
and let's not forget saddam!
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 2:15pm
Gorbachev remains a devoted atheist and collectivist. (Any argument?) No wonder you love him here!
The most revealing part of his interview was his statement, "When people came to the conclusion that they [Americans] had won the cold war, they concluded that they didn't need to change. Let others change. That point of view is mistaken, and it undermined what we had envisaged for Europe--mutual collective security for everyone and a new world order."
Golly, who's the "WE" in the above quote? And just what do you think that "new world order" is based on? The US Constitution? LOL!
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:59pm
Most sickening was KvH's "hopful" question, "And do you think President Obama will be the leader of such an American perestroika?"
Perestroika. Gosh, literally, doesn't that mean a restructuring of an economy?
I certainly hope Obama runs on that in 2012.
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/09/2009 @ 3:09pm
Thanks again President Reagon R.I.P.! Now the whining defeatist history revisionism may procede as usual. I'll keep my chuncks of the berlin wall picked up by my Brother in Law as reminders of just how great a President you really were.
Thankfully the Russian people are free to worship God again in relative freedom as opposed to 72 yrs. of oppression of religious freedom. That is the greatest tribute to your efforts and eternal reward.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 3:17pm
As no fan of Reagan, it's clear he played a constructive role in winning the cold war. Gorbachev certainly played his role as well. Every US President from Truman forward played a role. Reagan must be given credit for his presence at the right time in the right place.
Inasmuch, lionizing Reagan as some "savior," as the right does, is thoroughly misguided. Unfortunately, Mr. Reagan's biggest legacy is a brand of foreign policy hubris and economic irresponsibility that makes it more difficult for the US to maintain a vibrant middle class.
Posted by erazma at 11/09/2009 @ 4:19pm
Reagan, of course, deserves a great deal of credit for the wall coming down. Lets remember, it was he who said "Mr gorbachev, tear down this wall." Its a shame this country is gifted with a truly great president like reagan but once in a lifetime. Agree with freiheit1 that some posters (plus the author) look at gorbachev and mourns what used to be, and might have been, had communism not been completely crushed. To them i say its a shame this new world order never came about, you would have made fine little drones.
Posted by JJ142 at 11/09/2009 @ 4:55pm
'BERLIN -- Chancellor Angela Merkel and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev crossed a former fortified border on Monday to cheers of "Gorby! Gorby!" as a throng of grateful Germans recalled the night 20 years ago that the Berlin Wall gave way to their desire for freedom and unity.
Within moments of a confused announcement on Nov. 9, 1989 that East Germany was lifting travel restrictions, hundreds of people streamed into the enclave that was West Berlin, marking a pivotal moment in the collapse of communism in Europe.
Merkel, who grew up in East Germany and was one of thousands to cross that night, recalled that "before the joy of freedom came, many people suffered."
She lauded Gorbachev, with whom she shared an umbrella amid a crush of hundreds, eager for a glimpse of the man many still consider a hero for his role in pushing reform in the Soviet Union.
"We always knew that something had to happen there so that more could change here," she said.
"You made this possible -- you courageously let things happen, and that was much more than we could expect," she told Gorbachev in front of several hundred people gathered in light drizzle on the bridge over railway lines.'
Germans thank Gorbachev for wall coming down Associated Press
Published: Monday, Nov. 9, 2009 10:17 a.m. MST
Ouuuccchhhh. NO tribute to Raygun.
Oh well, plenty of fond rembrance and tribute in the US press for Ronnie (and our MIC) - and it is our version that counts - right?
Posted by OneVote at 11/09/2009 @ 5:09pm
I'll keep my chuncks of the berlin wall picked up by my Brother in Law as reminders of just how great a President you really were.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Maybe you can use those chunks to fill the potholes in our roads BP. Reagan's trickle down left them unfilled.
Posted by OneVote at 11/09/2009 @ 5:15pm
People who give Gorbachev a lot of credit for the fall of the Soviet Union forget how and why he came to power to begin with.
The old Soviet leaders began dying off, first Brezhnev, then Andropov, then Chernenko.
The powers that be that decided who led the U.S.S.R., (apparently the Politburo) chose Gorbachev but it was not by any means a unanimous choice, in fact it was close between him and a more hard line traditional communist.
Many over there probably realized what choosing Gorbachev might mean, but they apparently felt they had no choice given the state of their economy at that time.
But it is easy to see that had the economic pressure on the Soviet Union NOT existed, pressure created by Ronald Reagan, through our defense buildup (causing the Soviets to try and keep up) and other measures President Reagan took, the Soviets would likely have gone with a hardliner instead, probably a younger one that could stay alive for a while, and we might still have a Soviet Union today.
Gorbachev is given more credit than he deserves because he would probably not been in power to begin with if it had not been for the efforts of Ronald Reagan to do the things which led to the defeat of communism.
It was fortunate that also at the time that Ronald Reagan was president the Pope, John Paul II, was from Poland and thus able to pressure the communists, and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK.
Sometimes things happen for a reason and fortunately these three leaders were in place together when history needed them to be there.
This is similar to recent times when the world was fortunate that George W. Bush and Tony Blair were in office when action needed to be taken in Iraq.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/09/2009 @ 7:11pm
Two people knocked down the Berlin Wall:
John F. Kennedy told the communists their way would not be tolerated and it would not stand. He told them it was over, it was only a matter of time.
Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter apparently did not hear what JFK said. They may have listened, but they did not hear.
Ronald Reagan heard, and he went ahead and did what JFK said would happen......and defeated the communists.
I would think that when Ronald Reagan passed and went to Heaven, JFK was the first one to greet him and say "Well done!".
Posted by sjchermak at 11/09/2009 @ 7:29pm
"Ronald Reagan heard, and he went ahead and did what JFK said would happen......and defeated the communists"
sjchermak, please, i beg you to get an education.
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 7:32pm
Just heard Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive on NPR discuss the notes & diaries from 1989 around the fall of the wall. Seems that the West was quite alarmed that things were proceeding too quickly & might spin out of control & lead to "instability." Bush1 felt a slowdown was in order.
Maggie Thatcher thought that a unified Germany might lead to resumption of the V-2 onslaught (my interpretation)
More credence to Gorbachev's take on events surrounding the Wall & the end of the Cold War. In fact, in light of the info from this archive, his take on events seems quite modest.
Posted by Sorelish at 11/09/2009 @ 7:32pm
Of course,in later visits to his native Poland, JPII then expressed his concern with Poles on the overly-materialistic society they had become.
He was no overall fan of Western policies, and had plenty of criticism for the West.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/09/2009 @ 7:33pm
Vatican criticism of war plans chills relations with U.S. By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. Rome
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/012403/012403g.htm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/09/2009 @ 7:37pm
Darladoon,
I have an education.
1. People began to colonize the New World.
2. To escape religious persecution in Massachusetts, Roger Williams led people to Providence, and founded what is today the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
3. Dutch explorers colonized New Amsterdam, today known as New York.
4. People of French ancestry from what is today Canada settled in Northern New England, especially New Hampshire. Other French peoples settled in Louisiana. You do know, don't you, that counties in Louisiana are called parishes.
5. Due to dissatisfaction with rule from England colonists drafted the Declaration of Independence. On July 4, 1776, The United States of America was born.
6. The U.S. won the war against England. The original government was based on the "Articles of Confederation"....this was later replaced by the U.S. Constitution. (not to be confused with Algore's Living Breathing Constitution).
7. Another war with England, the War of 1812 was fought.
8. Northern states outlawed slavery, however Northern businessmen continued the slave trade. That is where wealthy people in the South got the slaves from, hypocritical Yankees.
9. In the middle of the century, the War Between the States was fought, ending at Appomattox.
10. Over time and over many years, people who were originally disenfranchised in this country gained rights they had been denied. It was wrong they had been denied these rights but this country is where the greatest and most successful efforts were made to grant people their rights.
11. America was drawn into World War I, and the Allies triumphed over the Germans.
to be continued
Posted by sjchermak at 11/09/2009 @ 7:49pm
gorbachev, in his very first answer to katrina's question of "american power" being the cause of the fall of the berlin wall:
"Those developments were the result of perestroika in the Soviet Union, where democratic changes had reached the point by March 1989 that for the first time in Russia's history democratic, competitive elections took place"
pretty much deflates the "reagan saved the world" argument....
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 11:40am
All it takes is a article like this to bring out all of the commie lovers. Gorbachev was and is bent on a one world govt. He has just learned how to use the free world to advance his goals.
G-d Bless Ronald Reagan the only true heroic president since Lincoln.
let the Gorbie lovers go join him in his plans for a one world govt. That's why they love him.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 7:50pm
11. America was drawn into World War I, and the Allies triumphed over the Germans.
to be continued
Posted by sjchermak at 11/09/2009 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
They defeated a power alliance known as the Central Powers. British chicanery wanted help doing away with Catholic, multicultural Austria-Hungary, and the Anglophile Wilson obliged.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/09/2009 @ 7:57pm
12. The stock market crashed in 1929, beginning the Great Depression. According to Joe Biden, Franklin Roosevelt, though not yet President, went on television, which did not yet exist, and leveled with the American people about the economy.
13. Roosevelt became President in 1933. Debate continues to this day over whether his policies helped relieve the impact of the Depression, or whether those policies prolonged it.
14. December 7, 1941 America was attacked and we went to war and years later the Allies prevailed over tyranny. What was happening prior to the war was ignored by the world, who was warned by Winston Churchill, a lone and futile voice. The same lessons are lost today on those on the political left.
15. More significant progress was made on granting people who were wrongly disenfranchised their Civil Rights.
16. John F. Kennedy told the communists their way would not last.
17. America got mired in Vietnam, but most today forget that the communists had no business being in or trying to take over Vietnam.
18. Ronald Reagan defeated communism, by rejecting the "detente" practiced by the four Presidents in between him and JFK, and put pressure on the communists instead.
19. On September 11, 2001 the entire world changed and will never be the same again. Some people realized we were at war (and had been for some time) against terrorism.
I have an education Darladoon.......
Posted by sjchermak at 11/09/2009 @ 7:59pm
The British HATED this multicultural state (with, I believe, some 17 official languages) standing in the way of their designs in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and beyond.
As was their custom, the British, a notoriously half-assed land power, were the masters at playing one strong state against another in order to benefit from the ensuing chaos.
Of course, Hitler hated that same state...
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/09/2009 @ 8:05pm
reagan was a venal doofus.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 9:07pm
"All it takes is a article like this to bring out all of the commie lovers"
substitute "commie" for "capitalist" and you begin to see the profound vapidity of your statement.
it's about history, facts, ideas, antisocialist....not capitalist vs. communist.
gorbachev was about 100x as intelligent as reagan.
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 9:25pm
act now.bring down the zionist wall of apartheid and racism.
it is so weird and dishonest from some who display joy for the demolition of berlin wall and yet support a shameless nazi like concrete fence around occupied palestine.
shame on you racist punks.
Posted by excalibur999 at 11/09/2009 @ 10:47pm
Partisan views of history and presidents is always amusing.You always get these extreme and one sided views that are not reality based.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/09/2009 @ 11:45pm
The MYTH of Ronald Reagan and 'how he won the Cold War" is nearly as strong on the Right as some of their "creation science" or "ID" explanations for life on Earth.
The Soviet Union did NOT "go bankrupt" trying to "keep up with our defense build-up". They were too busy going bankrupt from the war in Afghanistan and the drop in oil prices (oil and natural gas were cash cows for the old USSR as today)
Additionally, despite Reagan's early rhetoric...by 1984, he had switched (Some credit Nicholas Meyer's "The Day After"...others RR's own examination of how "winnable" a nuclear war would be) to a more concilliatory tone.
He was promising JOINT SDI with the Soviets and a plan for total nuclear disarmament. That failed, due to mistrust by Gorbachev....but the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed.
BTW, "Gorbachev brought freedom to the East with his reforms" is ALSO Myth....the Myth of the vanden Heuvel/Cohen Left.
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 09:27am
The Soviet Union did NOT "go bankrupt" trying to "keep up with our defense build-up". They were too busy going bankrupt from the war in Afghanistan and the drop in oil prices (oil and natural gas were cash cows for the old USSR as today)
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 09:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
That is what alot of folks IN THE SOVIET UNION have stated. Soviet conscription of soldiers from satellites created extreme resentment - and the Soviet military was so corrupt that the US was able to buy Soviet arms to provide to mujahideen.
Strange that the cult of personality Reagan lovers don't give more credit to Jimmy Carter credit - Zbigniew Breschinski - masterminds of the Soviet Vietnam in Afghanistan.
Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap ... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."[20]
'Additionally, on July 3, 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[21] As a part of the Central Intelligence Agency program Operation Cyclone, the massive arming of Afghanistan's mujahideen was started.[22]'
Wiki
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 09:59am
why just talk about the demolished berlin wall when zionist jews have erected a longer one around towns and villages in palestine?where are the so called jewish "liberals" and their partners who rant and bark about liberty?
demolish the zionist wall now.
Posted by excalibur999 at 11/10/2009 @ 10:01am
demolish the zionist wall now.
Posted by excalibur999 at 11/10/2009 @ 10:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
When are we going to hear from Obama -
'Mr. Nutanyahoo - tear down that wall'
As if embracing Gorby is going to forgive their Stalinist past.
First We Take Manhattan - Then We Take Berlin....
Leonard Cohen
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 10:13am
excalibur999,
Do you have any comprehension at all (answer- apparently not) that the purpose of the Berlin Wall was to keep people trapped in the East German gulag - wheras the purpose of the security fence in the Middle East is to keep Palestinian terrorists from murdering innocent Israelis through homicide (suicide) bombing.
Why do you think the Israelis have no right to defend themselves?
Why do you think if someone decides they want to go to lunch at Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem it means they will die during lunch?
Why should the choice of pizza for lunch rather than something else be a death sentence?
People's choice of what they eat or where they work should not be death sentences.
Just because someone likes pizza should not mean they have to die, just because some suicide bomber thinks they should.
Just because someone decides to work at a company located at 1 or 2 World Trade Center should not mean they have to die, just because some terrorist thinks they should.
This crap has to stop. You enable it with your attitude and misunderstanding of what is involved here.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 11:05am
What about the WALL IN PALESTINE?
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/10/2009 @ 11:19am
Palestinians tear down West Bank wall November 10, 2009 | 06:39:27 PM | Source: AFP - World News Australia
'Palestinians have torn down a chunk of Israel's West Bank separation barrier in a protest staged to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the day the Berlin Wall came down.'
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 12:01pm
"BTW, "Gorbachev brought freedom to the East with his reforms" is ALSO Myth....the Myth of the vanden Heuvel/Cohen Left."
myth? and when did KVH describe it as "brought freedom to the East"?
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:03pm
Watch the Iron Wall
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-iron-wall/
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 12:11pm
sjchermak
fine and dandy and let,s believe your comment that the purpose of the berlin wall was to keep the germans in a gulag style country.does that legitimize the jewish wall of terror that has surrounded palestinian towns and villages?you are using one historical event to justify another hell hole dug up by your mentors the zionist jews.the shameless and ILLEGAL wall is built in order to humiliate,denigrate and most of all CONTROL every aspect of palestinians lives.you are trying to justify a crime.the zionists are occupiers.the east german regime was not.has the wall realy made israel safer?absolutely not.the appaling and horrendous acts of suicide bombing are deplorable and criminal but it is the occupation and humiliation of palestine and palestinians who drove those guy to commit such a dreadful act.this is 21st century.the zionist law of the jungle that has erected walls and created bantustans needs to be put in a garbage can and dumped.
it is time to get rid of that ugly,nasty and criminal wall of shame.
show a bit of decency and support peace and coexistence between people and do not use one crime to justify another.
end the occupation,dismantle the wall and stop stealing land from other people and you will achieve peace.
Posted by excalibur999 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:19pm
sjchermak
read desert peace and see the photo of that child(about 2 to 3 yr old)that was blown to pieces.also one of your honorable mentors, a settlement rabbi has issued a new edict or a fatwa legitimizing killing non jews including babies.
bring the ewall down.stop the madness.
Posted by excalibur999 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:35pm
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 09:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
None other than LYNDON LAROUCHE had the ear of Ronald Reagan re SDI early in his Presidency.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 1:16pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:03pm
"With the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall approaching, we believed that the leader most responsible for that historic event should be heard,"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091116/kvh_cohen
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 1:16pm
Possibly...but LaRouche is and was always nuts.
But the main focus, which I'm sure Lyndon didn't cotton to, is that Reagan was going to offer JOINT SDI to the Soviets in exchange for total nuclear disarmament.
BTW, any chance in hell that if a Democrat had said that, the Right would have said "Commie lib trying to sell out OUR nuclear shield for a pie-in-the-sky move to weakening our defenses!"
Gorbachev was suspicious....too much "The bombing starts in five minutes" talk in the first term...and the deal collapsed. Plus he may have seen that the project would be decades, if EVER, in the future and the calls for cuts in the arsenal were needed then.
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 2:02pm
excalibur999,
You are trying to rationalize and justify Palestinian terrorists murdering innocent Israelis.
You say I should support peace and coexistence between people.
What makes you think I don't?
The Arab world, the Islamic world, and the Palestinian terrorists do not support peace and coexistence between people.
They want no Israel. They are seeking to deny the existence of Israel in a place the Jewish people have a right to be.
They (Arabs, Islamic people, Palestinians) are totally to blame for the problems in the Middle East, due to their stubborn refusal to allow a small piece of land in the Middle East to be Israel, the land that is the ancestral home of the Jewish people.
You sound like Jimmy Carter, whining and moaning about the supposed plight of the Palestinians.
Any Palestinian suffering is caused and blameable totally on their own leaders, others in the Arab world, others in the world who are anti-Israel, including elements of the political left here in the U.S.- who enable the actions of those seeking to destroy Israel by condoning/ignoring/or excusing the behavior of the terrorists.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 2:23pm
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 2:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Not trying to Larouchify the idea of SDI; rather, to note that I think a wider range of people, to put it mildly, had a chance to be heard by Ron early on.
In Larouche's cases, that took place as early as New Hampshire!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 2:30pm
One Vote and others like him/her want the partition taken down in Israel because it's making suicide bombings too difficult.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:15pm
sjchermak
the arabs offered israel a peace treaty and it was refused by the zionists.i,m talking about the saudi peace plan that offered coexistence with the arabs for withdrawing to 67 borders.very shrewedly you are trying to blame everything on your victims. national liberation is not terrorism.read the UN chart.
israel is a very strong country and has the support of the west both political and military and the arabs are very weak and fragmented.the arabs can,t destroy israel even though i believe that israel finally will cease to exis because of it,s criminal and rotten behaviour.
that racist wall needs to come down.
Posted by excalibur999 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:19pm
excalibur999,
Other than the efforts of Anwar Sadat, nothing the Arab world has ever offered Israel has ever meant anything.
The pattern is that:
1. "Peace" is offered, if Israel will concede something.
2. Pressure is applied to Israel to concede.
3. Israel concedes.
4. Once "peace" is attained, either the agreements are not lived up to or the next thing is demanded and jihad and intifada begin anew, with Israelis being killed.
Israel withdrew from Gaza. Did the Palestinians even attempt to build a functioning entity for their people and provide for their people? NO!
Gaza was used as a staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Israel needs to defend itself until it's enemies finally decide they want real peace.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/10/2009 @ 5:12pm
The Reagan fetishists never fail to oversimplify what really happened, so that they may lob more phony credit at the foot of the Reagan alter.
Sjchermak, in your "dunce's timeline of historical hogwash" you overlooked one of Ronnie's biggest cronies during the 80's, Margaret Thatcher.
What is her legacy? She couldn't get elected Royal Ratcatcher today.
Why leave out the Soviet War in Afghanistan? After all, we are talking about the Cold War and why Russia gave up.
Posted by koroviev at 11/11/2009 @ 02:56am
koroview,
One of Margaret Thatcher's legacies is that she improved the economy in the UK by allowing the re-privatization of industry that had become "nationalized" (state-owned).
In other words, she reversed some of their socialism and that benefited the people of the U.K., who have had better economic conditions than other European countries, such as France.
Certainly, being involved in Afghanistan did not help the Soviets, but in years before that the Soviets had bankrolled other wars such as Vietnam. Yes, they did not have their own troops in places like Vietnam but they were supplying the means for communists in Vietnam to wage war, which certainly would also impact the Soviet economy.
Thus, Afghanistan by itself does not explain the Soviet collapse.
There is a two word explanation for why the Soviet Union collapsed, and you know what it is.
Ronald Reagan
Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 08:08am
"But it is easy to see that had the economic pressure on the Soviet Union NOT existed, pressure created by Ronald Reagan, through our defense buildup (causing the Soviets to try and keep up) and other measures President Reagan took, the Soviets would likely have gone with a hardliner instead, probably a younger one that could stay alive for a while, and we might still have a Soviet Union today. "
Your profound ignorance remains unabated. The fact is that it was the collapse of oil prices that put the Soviets in crisis as well as the demoralization caused by the Afghanistan quagmire.
Gorbachev's main rival for the CPSU chairmanship was Grigory Romanov, who was also in Gorbachev's "reformist" wing of the CPSU.
"but in years before that the Soviets had bankrolled other wars such as Vietnam. Yes, they did not have their own troops in places like Vietnam but they were supplying the means for communists in Vietnam to wage war, which certainly would also impact the Soviet economy. "
Right, because there is no difference at all between having 120,000 troops in a country and dealing with non-stop casualty reports and providing military aid to Vietnam. Likewise, one certainly ought to ignore the fact that the Soviet economy's decrepitude would've been more advanced in the 80s than in the 60s.
Posted by brunowe at 11/11/2009 @ 09:06am
The Reagan fetishists...
Posted by koroviev at 11/11/2009 @ 02:56am
I love that term.
Ronald Reagan gets way more credit than he ever warranted for bringing down the Wall (which I am still not clear on as to how it benefited US).
A lot of factors came into play having NOTHING to do whatsoever with RR.
Foremost was Jaruzelski of the Polish military having to report back to Moscow that he could not guarantee his troops would put down Solidarity and company if things got out of hand (i.e., no Budapest '56 nor Prague '68 was in the offing this time).
Otherwise, TANKS WOULD HAVE ROLLED, Reagan or no Reagan. It all had much more to do with Solidarity and the Church than RR.
Luckiest man in showbiz. heheh.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/11/2009 @ 5:05pm
AND, he scabbed.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/11/2009 @ 5:06pm
If Carter had won in 1980, and if Mondale had followed him as President in 1984 and maybe even 1988, would there still be a Soviet Union today?
Probably.
Mr. Carter told the American people it was time they get over their "inordinate fear of communism".
The prevailing view of many on the left before the 1980's was that the continued existence of the Soviet Union was inevitable, that peaceful co-existence with them rather than "sabre-rattling" and confrontation made sense.
I read a book by Arthur Schlesinger about Robert F. Kennedy.....and in the book he described, while RFK was on a trip to Germany in the role of an aide or adviser to his brother, that one night over dinner Schlesinger and others in the traveling party expressed the sentiments I mentioned in the paragraph above.
Good thing RFK's brother did not buy into the same thinking much of the left did.
When Ronald Reagan became President, the left was scared out of their wits with the fear that he was going to cause a nuclear war.
Amazing, though, once the Soviet Union fell, the left switched on a dime from the attitude that the continued existence of the Soviet Union was inevitable to the proclamations that it's fall was inevitable and only a matter of time......and was caused by just about anything and everything other than Ronald Reagan.
What is really happening here is that the left just can not bring itself to give Ronald Reagan, a man they mocked and despised, any credit at all much less the credit he deserves.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 5:40pm
If the Soviet system was such a decrepit one, why would it require an externality like Ronnie to "bring it down"?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/11/2009 @ 7:36pm
Bedtime for Bonzo.
Posted by koroviev at 11/11/2009 @ 11:21pm
Don't forget he was a Mcarthyite snitch as well.
Posted by koroviev at 11/11/2009 @ 11:24pm
":What is really happening here is that the left just can not bring itself to give Ronald Reagan, a man they mocked and despised, any credit at all much less the credit he deserves.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/11/2009 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
What is really happening is your usual factless drivel. Still pissing yourself every time someone says "9/11"?
Posted by brunowe at 11/11/2009 @ 11:51pm
Hey brunowe,
You demonstrate with your post that you have no effective rebuttal to what I say - so you fall back on your same old stuff.
It must be difficult for you - you go through life with your head either buried in the sand or stuck up your rear end - leaving you incapable of understanding history and unable to see the current world as it actually is.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 04:03am
"You demonstrate with your post that you have no effective rebuttal to what I say - so you fall back on your same old stuff. "
I rebutted it with my earlier post. Since you seem to lack the basic literacy skills to have read it--I'll repeat it here: "But it is easy to see that had the economic pressure on the Soviet Union NOT existed, pressure created by Ronald Reagan, through our defense buildup (causing the Soviets to try and keep up) and other measures President Reagan took, the Soviets would likely have gone with a hardliner instead, probably a younger one that could stay alive for a while, and we might still have a Soviet Union today. "
Your profound ignorance remains unabated. The fact is that it was the collapse of oil prices that put the Soviets in crisis as well as the demoralization caused by the Afghanistan quagmire.
Gorbachev's main rival for the CPSU chairmanship was Grigory Romanov, who was also in Gorbachev's "reformist" wing of the CPSU.
"but in years before that the Soviets had bankrolled other wars such as Vietnam. Yes, they did not have their own troops in places like Vietnam but they were supplying the means for communists in Vietnam to wage war, which certainly would also impact the Soviet economy. "
Right, because there is no difference at all between having 120,000 troops in a country and dealing with non-stop casualty reports and providing military aid to Vietnam. Likewise, one certainly ought to ignore the fact that the Soviet economy's decrepitude would've been more advanced in the 80s than in the 60s.
Posted by brunowe at 11/12/2009 @ 06:48am
brunowe,
You forget, your argument is not convincing, I did not buy into your logic. It is as I said, you have not offered a credible defense for your argument. You offered your theory, and it doesn't hold up.
Do you deny that leftists believed (before the 80's) that the existence of the Soviet Union was inevitible and that "peaceful coexistence" was the way to go?
It would be hard for you to do that since Jimmy Carter, as one example, is on the public record saying that the American people must "get over their inordinate fear of communism".
I also cited the comments from the Schlesinger book, a biography about RFK and not an analysis of the cold war, written well before the 80's.
Do you somehow believe that had Carter continued as president, followed by Mondale, perhaps, that the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway?
Remember, our (America's) involvement in Vietnam certainly created a lot of domestic turmoil here, but that turmoil did not even begin to threaten the existence of America altogether. America has certainly been affected by the ups and downs in oil prices over the years, but that did not bring our country to collapse either.
You are just looking for hypothetical reasons to credit anything and anyone other than Ronald Reagan.
I get a kick out of your tone and demeanor, also.
Some of you on the left love to hurl insults in your posts from time to time, indicating how stupid a given Conservative is because we do not buy into your B.S......
But if the Conservative hands the same tone and demeanor back at you, then inevitibly you will see the leftists posting in complaining or throwing discourse penalty flags for engaging in insults!
I have seen this often on blogs where a lot of leftists reside.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 08:02am
"Remember, our (America's) involvement in Vietnam certainly created a lot of domestic turmoil here, but that turmoil did not even begin to threaten the existence of America altogether. America has certainly been affected by the ups and downs in oil prices over the years, but that did not bring our country to collapse either. "
The American system is intrinsically stronger than the Soviet system. Also, the Soviet economy only subsisted through the 80s because of a spike in oil prices.
The fact that you would casually equate the two situations is proof of your characteristically simplistic "analysis".
Further, despite Carter's earlier statements, a defence build-up had already begun towards the end of his administration; as had the supporting of the mujahadeen.
"Some of you on the left love to hurl insults in your posts from time to time, indicating how stupid a given Conservative"
Actually, I only throw them at you because you are that contemptible. Some of us can actually go down into the area of Ground Zero without having an anxiety attack.
Finally, the book by Schlesinger in no way addresses the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Your citing it as proof of same is typical of the fatuity of your discourse.
Posted by brunowe at 11/12/2009 @ 11:13am
brunowe,
You prove my point with your remark "....Actually, I only throw them at you because you are that contemptible...."
No two people are the same. I do not care where you can go or not go and how you react when you get there, compared to how I react.
You are a standard stereotype leftist with contempt for anyone not as enlightened (i.e., leftist) as you are.
You totally misunderstood my comment about the Schlesinger book. I did not present it as anything that offered commentary about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since it was a biography of RFK written after 1968 but well before the 80's, how could it?
I cited that as proof of the leftist attitude that existed before the Soviet Union collapsed that it's continued existence was "inevitable"...that no effort should be made to try and bring about it's collapse, that we should peacefully coexist with the Soviets.
And the reason I bring that up is that many of those same leftists now proclaim that the Soviet collapse was inevitable....180 degrees the opposite of what they used to say and believe.....all done in order to divert credit from Ronald Reagan.
I will be like Mask now and trap you in your own arguments......if you contend that many other factors besides Ronald Reagan were the reason for the Soviet collapse and he had little or nothing to do with it, then you would also have to agree that the leftists were wrong prior to the 80's to promote that we needed to peacefully coexist with the Soviet Union....if it was going to collapse anyway, why did we need to do that?
Certainly Mr. Peanut, Jimmy Carter, was wrong to say we needed to get over the fear of communism if there was going to be no more communism (or at least Soviet communism).
You agree, then, Carter was wrong?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 12:07pm
":that we needed to peacefully coexist with the Soviet Union....if it was going to collapse anyway, why did we need to do that? "
Because peaceful coexistence would allow the Soviet Union to continue to rot from within. That was the point of Kennan's containment argument.
"You are a standard stereotype leftist with contempt for anyone not as enlightened (i.e., leftist) as you are. "
No, just contempt for you.
"that no effort should be made to try and bring about it's collapse, "
And what effort did Reagan make that Carter hadn't already started? You honestly think that the Soviets quaked in their boots when Reagan said "tear down this wall."?
The only difference between Carter and Reagan re the MX missile was the deployment of the silos. Carter signed off on the B-2. Carter initiated the Rapid Deployment Force.
I defy you to find initiative that the Reagan administration explicitly aimed at the collapse of the USSR rather than its continued containment.
Posted by brunowe at 11/12/2009 @ 4:35pm
brunowe,
Here you go:
"...confrontation through the employment of insurgents--formerly a communist monopoly. Reagan's arming of insurgents actually resulted in freeing two communist conquests--Nicaragua and Afghanistan. These reversals, along with the American invasion of Grenada, caused major concerns among the USSR's client states, including Cuba which demanded massive supplies of weapons. To settle Cuban nerves, Moscow delivered an additional seven billion dollars worth of weapons to them. This was an expense the Soviets could ill afford..."
to be continued, because of the word limit
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 5:16pm
brunowe,
Here's more:
"...Reagan, of course, understood this weakness of the communist system and continued to take advantage of the Soviets' Achilles heel--their economy. His financing of insurgents cost the United States less than a billion dollars each year while the Soviet Union paid eight billion dollars to finance counter insurgency operations. Reagan also delayed construction of a pipeline which would have sold over seven billion dollars worth of Soviet Union natural gas to Europe. His other measures, driving down the cost of oil (the Soviet Union's largest export), swelling the size of the United States military, and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), cost the USSR dearly. The American military buildup and SDI induced the communists to attempt to compete with increased military expenditures. Against approximately 32 billion dollars in exports, Reagan's initiatives were estimated to cost the Soviet Union between 36 and 46 billion dollars each year. The Soviet Union was operating a deficit and international financing was also being cut off: One quote of Gorbachev is telling: "They look at us in the West and wait for us to drown." Schweizer also explains how the reduction in international oil prices helped the American economy while hurting the Soviet economy...."
When you mentioned up above, Brunowe, that the "collapse of oil prices" harmed the Soviet economy, you left out it was Ronald Reagan's policies that helped that along!!!
Reagan's War: the Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_m0IAV/is_1_93/ai_n6123812 /?tag=content;col1
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 5:22pm
More, brunowe:
"....If there were few leaders during the Cold War willing to consistently speak out openly about the evils of the communist system, there were fewer still who were willing to battle it directly. No American president throughout the history of the Cold War up until Reagan had been willing to make rolling back and defeating communism a primary goal. Even anti-Communists like Richard Nixon subscribed to the seductive idea that stability was most important and that a healthy Soviet Union was important for long-term peace. But Reagan understood that communism by its nature was a danger to peace because it relied on fear and external enemies to maintain its legitimacy. Only by its defeat would the Cold War end, so he chose to force tensions to a decisive conclusion rather than hiding them.
Many of Reagan's most critical initiatives were launched alone. He approved massive defense increases in 1981, even though a majority of his cabinet was opposed and former presidents Nixon and Ford were advising him to cut spending. He launched the Strategic Defense Initiative almost entirely by himself, informing his secretary of state and most other advisers only hours before he announced his plans to the public. When he took a hard line over the declaration of martial law in Poland in an effort to keep Solidarity alive, he did so with scant support from any major ally save Great Britain's Margaret Thatcher. All the while, he was ridiculed for failing to grasp the intricacies of the global situation.
Even when the opportunity arose to secure his place in history by striking a diplomatic bargain with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Reagan resisted the temptation, much to the consternation of many who were watching. He would not change course, even in pursuit of political glory."
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 5:25pm
brunowe,
Some more:
"...How did Reagan contribute to the demise of the Soviet empire? You can draw up a scorecard and count the economic costs that Reagan's policies placed on a struggling Soviet economy, using Moscow's numbers:
*
The second strand of the European natural gas pipeline Reagan stopped: lost revenue, $7–8 billion a year *
The cost of counterinsurgency operations against Reagan-backed guerrillas: $8 billion a year *
Extra arms shipped to Cuba to soothe anxieties following the U.S. invasion of Grenada: $3 billion *
Military spending increases announced to match Reagan's: $15–20 billion a year *
Lost revenue due to restrictions on technology imports: $1–2 billion a year *
Lost revenue from a sudden drop in oil prices: $5–6 billion a year *
Extra aid delivered to Poland after Reagan's sanctions: $1 billion
This amounts to a hefty price tag for a superpower that had total hard-currency earnings of approximately $32 billion at the time...."
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 5:32pm
brunowe,
To summarize:
".......Since the end of the Cold War, a debate has raged about how it ended. It is fashionable now to denigrate Reagan's role in winning the Cold War. His achievements and strategic vision are minimized in many quarters. We are often offered the image of Reagan as an amiable bumpkin who just happened to be there when it all happened around him. But not only was Reagan passionate and courageous in battle, he had a well-developed plan seeking the demise of the Soviet Union. Developed over the course of 30 years and spelled out in detail through several top-secret national security directives while he was president, the ideas and concepts behind it were largely his own. Make no mistake: This "bumpkin" won the Cold War......."
History and Culture: Ronald Reagan's One Big Thing By Peter Schweizer How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. http://www.hoover.org/ publications/digest/4496431.html
Links may contain extra spaces after you paste them into your browser.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 5:33pm
brunowe,
Another perspective:
The Crusader Details Reagan's Mission to Defeat Communism by Loredana Vuoto 03/09/2007 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19738
".......In The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Kengor outlines how Reagan's life was devoted to bringing down communism.
Many have forgotten that, during his years in office, Reagan's anti-Communist policies were deeply unpopular with Democrats, the liberal media establishment and much of Western Europe. Reagan was reviled and constantly mocked as a war-mongering, reckless cowboy--just as George W. Bush is today. Reagan's famous speech describing the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire" was widely ridiculed for being "simplistic," "unsophisticated" and bellicose. Reagan's hawkish policies--the massive build-up of the U.S. military, the invasion of Grenada, supporting the Solidarity Movement in Poland, assisting Nicaragua's anti-Marxist Contras, the creation of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and providing arms to Afghan rebels fighting the Russian occupation--pushed the Soviets to military and economic bankruptcy.
Kengor does a fine job of chronicling Reagan's role in bringing communism to its knees. Kengor also delves into newly declassified presidential papers, untapped Soviet media archives and exclusive interviews with key political players to document Reagan's life-long crusade against communism.
Among information uncovered is how Ted Kennedy attempted to sabotage Reagan's policies with the U.S.S.R. and his 1984 re-election bid. A highly sensitive 1983 KGB document reveals that Kennedy contacted Soviet leaders in order to undermine Reagan's foreign policy, hoping to propel a Democratic victory in 1984. Kennedy failed in his attempt...."
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 5:41pm
brunowe,
From American Experience on PBS......
This article slams Ronald Reagan on Iran-Contra...so you can't claim I am not providing you objective information.....
It still validates what I say about Reagan and the Soviets....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/40_reagan/reagan_foreign.html
"........Early on, Reagan made no overtures to thaw Cold War tensions between the two superpowers. His strategy was to wait and see how the Soviets would react to a drastic increase in U.S. defense spending. He was confident that the Soviet economic system would not allow them to keep pace with the U.S. in an arms race........"
".......Gorbachev was eager to salvage the Soviet economy by ending the arms race, but was fearful of U.S. development of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). SDI was Reagan's pet project. As he envisioned it, SDI would allow the construction of a "peace shield" that would protect the U.S. from incoming nuclear missiles. Though derided by some in the U.S. as a "star wars" fantasy, SDI was taken seriously by the Soviets. Reagan held tough in insisting that its development continue. Eventually, Gorbachev relented. By the time Reagan visited Moscow -- the capital of what he once called "an evil empire" -- late in 1988, the Cold War was coming to an end......."
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2009 @ 5:50pm
"actually resulted in freeing two communist conquests--Nicaragua and Afghanistan. These reversals, along with the American invasion of Grenada, caused major concerns among the USSR's client states, including Cuba"
First, the support of insurgents in Afghanistan started during the Carter administration. Further, your source doesn't mention the fact that Cuba was already backing several Communist insurgencies/governments already. It hardly figures from that that a sporadically funded and relatively ineffective contra insurgency would've done a thing. Likewise, it doesn't say anything about the relative cost of any post-Grenada arms shipments relative to the subsidies that the USSR had already been providing Cuba.
The point is that the Soviets had already been undertaking most of those expenses when it pushed for influence in Africa and Central America.
Of course, seeing that would actually require that you think through in argument instead of being an unthinking parrot.
The delay argument is ridiculous as well. European funding was forthcoming in 1981 and construction ran from 1982-84. Reagan complained about it but had no effect as the UK, France, etc. went ahead and honored their contracts.
You've also provided no basis for the argument that it was Reagan who drove down oil prices. Any dip was tied to the breaking of the inflation of the 70s which owed much to Fed monetarist policies and to the lack of any oil shocks comparable to the Iranian revolution.
"Reagan was reviled and constantly mocked as a war-mongering, reckless cowboy--just as George W. Bush is today. "
Considering that his invasion of Grenada did nothing to advance US security and his intervention in Lebanon was an utter failure, there's some basis for that. Incidentally, the Soviet arms buil
Posted by brunowe at 11/12/2009 @ 6:40pm
Incidentally, the Soviet arms buildup was already underway when Reagan got elected.
Ultimately, you'd be less unconvincing if you hadn't mindlessly parroted the puff pieces of right-wing think-tanks.
Posted by brunowe at 11/12/2009 @ 6:49pm
brunowe,
Predictible reaction from you.
I did not mindless parrot anything. The actions that I had identified above are in the public domain. You can only try to re-write history, you can not succeed at it.
Reagan confronted the Soviets in a manner they had not been confronted before. It was those of you on the left that were running around screaming that he was going to start a nuclear war.
Actions such as Grenada scared the Soviets. When President Reagan refused to cave in on SDI that impacted them as well. They knew that he was a leader that was not going to roll over and make agreements that weaken the U.S. and give the Soviets an advantage.
You just ignore all that, but it is predictable that you would do so.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2009 @ 05:49am
Rubbish. The invasion of Grenada was an opera bouffe affair that had more to do with getting the debacle in Lebanon off the headlines than anything else.
"You can only try to re-write history, you can not succeed at it. "
YOU can, and do, succeed at ignoring it. You've successfully ignored the fact that the Soviets had overextended themselves with an arms build-up and Third World adventurism that had been underway before Reagan took office.
Posted by brunowe at 11/13/2009 @ 07:00am
Brunowe,
You have not backed up any of your contentions with facts.
President Reagan confronted the Soviets in a manner that previous Presidents had not done before.
Do you remember the left having contortions and fits with the fear that Ronald Reagan was going to cause a nuclear war (in their minds)?
Conveniently, you either forget that or would deny it now and claim it didn't happen.
It did have a big effect on the Soviets. It impacted their policy and set things in motion that led to their demise.
You, the enlightened lib, can pretend all you want these things did not happen, it doesn't change history.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2009 @ 10:13am
Actually I have. Are you denying that the Soviets had already made a big push in the Third World by backing Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique? Are you saying that almost two decades of Brezhnevite arteriosclerosis didn't stick the Soviets with a crippled economy? Are you saying that their Afghan misadventure didn't sap Soviet morale?
Rhetorical flourishes like "evil empire" do not bring countries crashing down. The belief that it does it what passes for a fact in your calculation.
Posted by brunowe at 11/14/2009 @ 2:38pm