United states ranting, a changing country

@kennethamy,

Well, on Reagan, my view is that he was a genuine conservative when he entered Washington, but then was 'persuaded' to adopt a slightly more 'moderate' position once there...I seem to recall an assasination attempt. :whistling:

He didn't end the Cold War, but he did continue and accelerate the arms race which happened to bankrupt the USSR while he was in office...but this is course not in itself a good thing. The USSR was alwasy a paper tiger, I'm much more worried about the real, much more viscious tiger sitting in our collective living room.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;96982 wrote:

Well, on Reagan, my view is that he was a genuine conservative when he entered Washington, but then was 'persuaded' to adopt a slightly more 'moderate' position once there...I seem to recall an assasination attempt. :whistling:

He didn't end the Cold War, but he did continue and accelerate the arms race which happened to bankrupt the USSR while he was in office...but this is course not in itself a good thing. The USSR was alwasy a paper tiger, I'm much more worried about the real, much more viscious tiger sitting in our collective living room.

He did not "happen" to "continue and accelerate the arms race". It was intentional, and it accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. It was a complete change from the containment policy we had been pursuing for the last 50 years. The USSR was not a paper tiger. It had nearly as many nuclear weapons as we did, and, in the early 60s we nearly had a nuclear war with that "paper tiger". What Reagan did was put an end to that terrible threat of complete destruction. How soon we forget. (Read the new book, "The Hawk and the Dove").

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;97008 wrote:

He did not "happen" to "continue and accelerate the arms race". It was intentional, and it accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. It was a complete change from the containment policy we had been pursuing for the last 50 years.

I didn't say he 'happened' to try to bankrupt the USSR, I said he tried and it happened to work while he was in office. Remember how shocked everyone was when the USSR suddenly collapsed, including the CIA? It could have (was apparently expected to have) taken much longer.

Quote:

The USSR was not a paper tiger. It had nearly as many nuclear weapons as we did, and, in the early 60s we nearly had a nuclear war with that "paper tiger". What Reagan did was put an end to that terrible threat of complete destruction. How soon we forget. (Read the new book, "The Hawk and the Dove").

There was never, IMO (certainly debatable) any chance at all for a nuclear war, except an accidental one of course. I was referring to conventional warfare. Towards the latter part of the cold war, the USSR was pretty clearly deficient in materiel, and would have lost a conventional war.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;97083 wrote:

I didn't say he 'happened' to try to bankrupt the USSR, I said he tried and it happened to work while he was in office. Remember how shocked everyone was when the USSR suddenly collapsed, including the CIA? It could have (was apparently expected to have) taken much longer.

There was never, IMO (certainly debatable) any chance at all for a nuclear war, except an accidental one of course. I was referring to conventional warfare. Towards the latter part of the cold war, the USSR was pretty clearly deficient in materiel, and would have lost a conventional war.

That's like saying that a jockey tried to win a race, and it happened to work while he was sitting on the horse.
I don't see how long it took for the USSR to collapse had anything to do with Reagan's role in causing the collapse which was obviously crucial. Can you even imagine Jimmy Carter conceiving of such a thing?

There sure was a chance of a nuclear war during the missile crisis. What makes you think there was none when Reagan came into office? Even if we had a conventional war with the Soviet Union, and if we won, you don't think that would have been a picnic, do you?

It is hard to see what it is you are arguing.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

That it is historically inaccurate, due to being overly brief and short sighted, to say that Reagan won the Cold War. Because such a claim is inaccurate.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;97146 wrote:

That it is historically inaccurate, due to being overly brief and short sighted, to say that Reagan won the Cold War. Because such a claim is inaccurate.

Well, I admit he had some help. Lincoln had some help in winning the Civil War, and Washington in winning the Revolutionary War. Does that put it more is perspective? I did not mean that Reagan stormed the Kremlin on his own.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

All Reagan did was continue the same Cold War policies of former Presidents (of some 30 years or so). That's how he "won the Cold War". Nothing more. Good for him for recognizing the economic instability of the USSR, but he was late in the game. There is no sense glamorizing the man for such a recognition that was universally understood at the time.

I'm still waiting for a response about the whole Carter issue. But I doubt I'll get much more than I've seen.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;97211 wrote:

All Reagan did was continue the same Cold War policies of former Presidents (of some 30 years or so). That's how he "won the Cold War". Nothing more. Good for him for recognizing the economic instability of the USSR, but he was late in the game. There is no sense glamorizing the man for such a recognition that was universally understood at the time.

I'm still waiting for a response about the whole Carter issue. But I doubt I'll get much more than I've seen.

What Carter issue is that? Reagan did not continue the containment policy. That was what previous presidents had done. He decided on a roll-back, and on victory in the the cold war, and that is what he did. And how was he late in the game. He could have done it only when he became president. He was the one who said, "Tear down the wall....". Jimmy didn't. And without firing a shot. Genius. Carter would still have been growing peanuts and knitting sweaters. When should Reagan have destroyed the Soviet Union? Before Reagan was president?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

The plethora of Carter related issues I mentioned and you failed to respond to.

And Regan did continue the containment policy. Perhaps you forgot that bit. He did nothing more than any previous President to intervene in eastern Europe except continue the existing economic bleeding.

He was late in the game in that he continued previous policy plus more vocal policy speeches. As far as action, he sustained the status quo. Yes, he said "tear down that wall", so what?

The effect was still the same. A USSR that could not keep up with military spending. The result was already obvious by 72'. That was Nixon era, by the way. Go read a history book.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Yes all true, and let me add (if I didn't already) that, while outspending the USSR may have been advantageous in terms of foreign policy, it also had the effect of massively accelerating the accumulation of debt on the backs of the american people. And of enriching and further empowering the war industry. Horray?

0 Replies

United states ranting, a changing country

Quick Links

My Account

able2know