AspenValley wrote: Yeah, me, too. I just loved living in constant fear of nuclear war.
It's a good thing....we won the cold war then. Thank you Mr. Reagan for tearing down that wall. rofllol rofllol .... too bad Obama is tearing up America.
Oh yeah, another one of those historical revisionists who actually think Reagan single-handedly destroyed the Soviet Union. We could had had Bozo the Clown in office at the time and the Soviet Union still would have crumbled. But with a lot less concern over the judgement of the guy with his finger on the button.
That is your take. I think another leader might have misplayed this.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
AspenValley wrote: Yeah, me, too. I just loved living in constant fear of nuclear war.
It's a good thing....we won the cold war then. Thank you Mr. Reagan for tearing down that wall. rofllol rofllol .... too bad Obama is tearing up America.
Oh yeah, another one of those historical revisionists who actually think Reagan single-handedly destroyed the Soviet Union. We could had had Bozo the Clown in office at the time and the Soviet Union still would have crumbled. But with a lot less concern over the judgement of the guy with his finger on the button.
That is your take. I think another leader might have misplayed this. Although I think a lot of the credit has to go to Gorbachev too, suppose a man like Putin had been in office. He might have crushed Poland's Solidarity by destroying Gdansk. And I even give credit to Yeltsin. If the coup had worked, we could have been looking at 20 more years of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
Or if the Soviet Union had chose the Chinese hybrid model of captialism/communism, they might be stronger today than they are under Putin.
Back on topic, I miss the 80's music, but don't miss the 80's cars.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
SS109 wrote: I think another leader might have misplayed this.
Perhaps. But I don't think this is only a case of attributing too much to Reagan, it's also a case of attributing too much to U.S. policy in general. The Taliban arguably had more to do with the final crash and burn of the USSR than did Reagan.
That might be hard for our pride to swallow, but it's also arguable that swallowing a little pride might be better for us than living in a fantasy world populated with a magical belief in American exceptionalism and revising history to elevate mediocre and controversial Presidents to the status of near-sainthood.
SS109 wrote: I think another leader might have misplayed this.
Perhaps. But I don't think this is only a case of attributing too much to Reagan, it's also a case of attributing too much to U.S. policy in general. The Taliban arguably had more to do with the final crash and burn of the USSR than did Reagan.
That might be hard for our pride to swallow, but it's also arguable that swallowing a little pride might be better for us than living in a fantasy world populated with a magical belief in American exceptionalism and revising history to elevate mediocre and controversial Presidents to the status of near-sainthood.
It wasn't the Taliban who forced the Soviets to retreat, they came later. The Islamic holy warriors who fought against the Soviets were supplied by Reagan and Saudi Arabia. But perhaps it might have been better to let the Soviets keep Afghanistan. I think it was more the threat of Star Wars and the trillion dollar defense spending increase than the sideshow of Central Asia.
And I don't think Reagan is near as revered as you believe, the Left hates him almost as bad as Palin! I do think the Right does look at him with rose colored glasses, especially ignoring his immigration amnesty.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
AspenValley wrote: I think it was more the threat of Star Wars and the trillion dollar defense spending increase than the sideshow of Central Asia.
The threat of Star Wars? You do know that it was openly ridiculed as something that would never work by the vast majority of scientists and engineers in the field? How, exactly, do you think the Soviet economy could have collapsed from the "threat" of an insanely expensive, non-working system on our part? It more likely would have collapsed OURS.
AspenValley wrote: I think it was more the threat of Star Wars and the trillion dollar defense spending increase than the sideshow of Central Asia.
The threat of Star Wars? You do know that it was openly ridiculed as something that would never work by the vast majority of scientists and engineers in the field? How, exactly, do you think the Soviet economy could have collapsed from the "threat" of an insanely expensive, non-working system on our part? It more likely would have collapsed OURS.
The Soviets were less skeptical than our scientists. It may have been all a big bluff, but it was enough to get the Soviets to fold.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
AspenValley wrote: I think it was more the threat of Star Wars and the trillion dollar defense spending increase than the sideshow of Central Asia.
The threat of Star Wars? You do know that it was openly ridiculed as something that would never work by the vast majority of scientists and engineers in the field? How, exactly, do you think the Soviet economy could have collapsed from the "threat" of an insanely expensive, non-working system on our part? It more likely would have collapsed OURS.
The Soviets were less skeptical than our scientists. It may have been all a big bluff, but it was enough to get the Soviets to fold.
Where do you get this "folded" idea? They didn't "fold" to us. It wasn't like a military surrender. Their economy collapsed along with their corrupt government. Trying to make that about Star Wars is beyond a distortion of history, it's just flat wrong.
Arguably their economic woes weren't helped by over-spending on military expenses, part of which were related to the Cold War, but both the USSR and the U.S. had actually been scaling back and negotiating arms treaties for years before the Soviet collapse. At most, Cold War spending was a contributing factor.
And I really doubt their scientists were less skeptical than our scientists of the "Star Wars" premise. Their politicians might have been as gullible as ours, though. Still, no way did any kind of a "threat" from Star Wars bring down their government.
Hmmm, you might want to do a little more research into the ecoomics of the time to understand that those high interest rates were allowed on purpose during the Carter administration to bring inflation under control. I think that's called "fiscal responsibility". Those employment figures wouldn't have been looking too good without that policy, either.
Is that the way your NEW history books are reflecting the worst President and his economic policies? Inflation was in double digits as well. It doesn't seem that his approach worked. I wasn't just a teenager in the 60s and I remember it and the economics quite clearly. But if you rewrite the History Books, maybe it looks different to someone like you. It sure doesn't to me.
Hmmm, you might want to do a little more research into the ecoomics of the time to understand that those high interest rates were allowed on purpose during the Carter administration to bring inflation under control. I think that's called "fiscal responsibility". Those employment figures wouldn't have been looking too good without that policy, either.
Is that the way your NEW history books are reflecting the worst President and his economic policies? Inflation was in double digits as well. It doesn't seem that his approach worked. I wasn't just a teenager in the 60s and I remember it and the economics quite clearly. But if you rewrite the History Books, maybe it looks different to someone like you. It sure doesn't to me.
Did you read what I wrote or did you just pop this off without bothering?
Inflation was in double digits starting under Nixon. Or maybe "your" history book didn't mention that? Try googling "Nixon wage and price controls" if somehow the history of the 1970s inflation eluded you. Carter's policies to bring inflation under control included allowing interest rates to rise very high to damp down the velocity and growth of the money supply. In other words, to stop the inflation.
Yes, it was painful. And yes, it was absolutely necessary or inflation would still have been raging into the 80s. Amazing (or maybe not) how some of you actually blame Carter for a problem that had been passed through two Republican Presidents without a solution.
It's a good thing....we won the cold war then. Thank you Mr. Reagan for tearing down that wall. rofllol rofllol
