A) These are both ridiculous assertions. Reagan and his bunch PERPETUATED the Soviet Union by justifying its only profitable enterprise. Armaments. That is how totalitarian governnents keep their facade going. Had he not interefered w Carter embargoes the Soviet Union would have fallen years before. Real behind the scenes Reaganites and the military industrial complex about shit their pants when the Soviet Union fell. That is when they teamed up with the oil companies and escalated a new Cold War. B) Reagan put us on a desperate course for the VERY needed tax increases Bush Sr. signed into law and for the stagnant late 80's and early 90's. Fairly good Fed policy is the one thing most responsible for fairly solid growth over past decade or so and that was enabled greatly by an actual complimentary Fiscal Policy pursued by the Clinton Administration. Wake up man. Deficits matter and although neccesary, Defense Spending is the least dollar for dollar return in all of our government spending. The real Repubs like it because they feel it will stifle US government power. It almost did except Bush Sr. just couldn't face presiding over the grand demise.
Yes! Nixon was toast till '68. As for zzz's note on Bush, the DUI thing came out 4 days before the vote, which he lost by the way. IT MATTERS. Yanks want a strong, consistent guy in office. Kerry would be there now if he didn't flip each week depending on polls. Jay
Prime example of flip flop Bush thinks about Osam every day ummm, no make that some days ummmm no, make that he does'nt care about Osama Ummm, then again he says he cares http://youtube.com/watch?v=n7fS2p2ZmCA
http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm The Collapse of the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several WAISers disagreed with Christopher Jones, who denied Reagan's role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Harry Papasotiriou writes: "The Soviet Union certainly collapsed of its own weight, but Reagan helped speed up the process. The following paragraphs are from a forthcoming book that I am co-authoring. Reaganâs conviction that the Soviet Union was both a dangerous military power and a collapsing economic system derived not from any deep knowledge of the Soviet Union. Yet he proved to be the proverbial right man in the right place at the right time. By whatever means he arrived at his views regarding the Soviet Union, he drew from them policy directions that were devastatingly effective in undermining the rotten Soviet edifice. Because of the high oil prices of the 1970s the Soviet leadership avoided serious economic reforms, such as those that saved Deng Xiaopingâs China. Instead, it relied on oil revenues as a means of keeping its decrepit economy going. By the early 1980s the Soviet Union was becoming a hollow shell, with an unreformed and increasingly backward industrial base producing outmoded pre-computer armaments. Thus it was highly vulnerable to the pressures that the Reagan administration was planning.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /> From the outset, Reagan moved against détente and beyond containment, substituting the objective of encouraging âlong-term political and military changes within the Soviet empire that will facilitate a more secure and peaceful world orderâ, according to an early 1981 Pentagon defense guide. Harvardâs Richard Pipes, who joined the National Security Council, advocated a new aggressive policy by which âthe United States takes the long-term strategic offensive. This approach therefore contrasts with the essentially reactive and defensive strategy of containmentâ. Pipesâs report was endorsed in a 1982 National Security Decision Directive that formulated the policy objective of promoting âthe process of change in the Soviet Union towards a more pluralistic political and economic systemâ. [The quotes from Peter Schweizer, Reagan's War.] A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reaganâs massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels. Reaganâs most controversial defense initiative was SDI, the visionary project to create an anti-missile defense system that would remove the nuclear sword of Damocles from Americaâs homeland. Experts still disagree about the long-term feasibility of missile defense, some comparing it in substance to the Hollywood sci-fi blockbuster Star Wars. But the SDIâs main effect was to demonstrate U. S. technological superiority over the Soviet Union and its ability to expand the arms race into space. This helped convince the Soviet leadership under Gorbachev to throw in the towel and bid for a de-escalation of the arms race. Particularly effective, though with unintended long-term side effects, was the Reagan administrationâs support for the mujahideen (holy warriors) that were fighting against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Reagan was determined to make Afghanistan the Soviet Vietnam. Therefore in 1986 he decided to provide the mujahideen with portable surface-to-air Stinger missiles, which proved devastatingly effective in increasing Soviet air losses (particularly helicopters). The war in Afghanistan cost the United States about $1 billion per annum in aid to the mujahideen; it cost the Soviet Union eight times as much, helping bankrupt its economy. Apart from his defense policies, Reagan also weakened the Soviet Union through economic moves. His supportersâ claims that he brought about the fall of the Soviet Union are somewhat weakened by the fact that he ended Carterâs grain embargo, which had produced alarming food shortages in the Soviet Union. On the other hand Reagan was able to reduce the flow of Western technology to the Soviet Union, as well to limit Soviet natural gas exports to Western Europe. One of the most effective ways in which his economic policies weakened the Soviet Union was by helping bring about a drastic fall in the price of oil in the 1980s, thereby denying the Soviet Union large inflows of hard currency". Here are two more rebuttals of Christopher Jones' assertion that Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Miles Seeley writes: "I cannot agree with Mr. Jones that Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes, it collapsed mostly from its own weight, but his unrelenting pressure certainly had an effect, as many former Soviet officials have said. I was no fan of Reagan, but you can't just write him off, either. Mr. Jones somehow seems to overlook the obvious. Ronald Reagan was at the helm when the USSR collapsed. I have not heard people say âHe won the Cold War,â nor that âhe defeated the Soviet Union.â Randy Black writes: "On Reaganâs watch, the USSR collapsed, and the huge military build up under Reagan after years of decay under Carter, coupled with the failed attempts to keep up with the USA on those issues, contributed to the collapse of the USSR, A decade ago in Siberia, when my Russian associates asked me about the Cold War from my viewpoint I always told them that the US economy simply had more resiliency than the Soviet economy. I dared not expose my complete thoughts on the matter as a guest in Russia. They didnât need to be reminded that, while equality was the goal of communism/socialism, in practice, there were still rich guys and poor guys, haves and have nots with no concept or hope for anything better, âunless they were connected.â Certainly, the Soviet system, in its attempt to equalize the workers, must have also had to eliminate various elements of the human spirit. Take away a manâs hope for a better existence and you take away his reason for being, I think a big contributor to the demise of the USSR was the lack of spirit among the proletariat that an individual could make a difference. As such, Mr. Jones is correct that the communist leaders lost touch with the workers. But contrary to Mr. Jonesâ statement, Reagan had much to do with it. One major thought that Mr. Jones and many others overlook is the thought that the USSR truly began to collapse with Nikita Kâs famous âsecret speechâ which denounced Stalin back in the 50s". Ronald Hilton - Webmaster
Reagan was a factor, so was Thatcher, So was Gorby, so was the price of oil, etc. Many factors. However, if oil had been 70 bucks a barrel, the Soviet Empire would not have collapsed. The bottom line was not what the US did, but what the Soviets could no longer afford to do.
A lot of you may be too young to remember....But I actually remember Gore's attempt at the Presidency in the 80's when he was actually a moderate dem and many considered him a really threat because he also appealed to Moderate Republicans as well...Ed Koch in NYC backed him in the primaries....Not sure what changed, but he went a little hay wire in the 90's.....I think sitting there as VP for 8 years being basically irrelevant like all VPs are, gave him too much time to 'find himself"....and basically invent a new persona....unfortunately for him, most of the South didn't like the New AL....Im not sure the new bearded liberal from an ivy league school in the North east is going to play too well in dixie either....the guy came from tobacco road..literally!
I clearly remember watching a Presidential debate back in '88 and thinking the same thing about Gore. I also blame part of his ideological metamorphosis on his being freed from the conservative voters of Tennessee. As Senator Gore he had to be to the right of the VP Gore who could then be an unfettered lib on the national stage.
Are you actually disputing that fox is conserv and the rest of the media is lib? Are you passionate about that view?