Don't y'all love it when libs resort to protest pictures and poll results to support their arguements that "Bush lied"??? Nevermind pertinent facts! :roflol:

Watching the left desperately flail away has been quite entertaining.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:History is very clear on Reagan's role in bringing down the Soviet Union, and it wasn't small by any stretch of the imagination.

What was his role? Please do not give me the "By spending money on the US's defense programs, he caused the Soviet Union to bankrupt themselves to keep up ...."

uhmump95 Wrote:What was his role?  Please do not give me the "By spending money on the US's defense programs, he caused the Soviet Union to bankrupt themselves to keep up ...."

So, you don't want the facts then? That's about like me saying, "What was Abraham Lincoln's role in freeing the slaves, and please don't give me the "emancipation proclimation and fighting to win the civil war."

The policy on the Soviet Union had been one of containment for decades. A policy that failed miserably as communism took over country after country from WWII well into the 70's. Reagan had a policy of defeating them, not containing them. You can read about that in several books on the subject.

Reagan felt the USSR couldn't keep up with us in an arms race and he was right. His military build up was key to their fall regardless if you want to hear it. They had to divert resources and money to try and keep up which in turn meant they couldn't funnel money to their existing client states or create more through support for communists in other countries.

Part of the strategy also entailed slowing the flow of hard currency to the USSR. This was accomplished by delaying the Soviet gas pipeline to western Europe, facilitating a drop in oil prices, and limiting technology to the soviet block. He also supported guerillas in soviet client states.

You also can't under estimate his rhetoric during his 8 years. More than a few specials on Biography, A&E etc. talked about how Reagan's rhetoric was demoralizing to the soviets and as a result helped create unrest among the people.

Reagan does not deserve sole credit to be sure. Margaret Thatcher and the Pope deserve credit as well. But only blind partisanship drives someone to try and say Reagan doesn't deserve credit for the downfall of the Soviet Union. The facts of history fly in the face of that kind of thinking. I know it's the liberal way to hate Reagan and portray him as a dunce who was just lucky. This is crap and anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that.

I'll sum up with this from Margaret Thatcher. I'd say she's far more qualified to speak on it than you or I.

Quote:And surely it is hard to deny that Ronald Reagan's life was providential, when we look at what he achieved in the eight years that followed.

Others prophesied the decline of the West; he inspired America and its allies with renewed faith in their mission of freedom.

Others saw only limits to growth; he transformed a stagnant economy into an engine of opportunity.

Others hoped, at best, for an uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet Union; he won the Cold War - not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends.

Quote:So, you don't want the facts then? That's about like me saying, "What was Abraham Lincoln's role in freeing the slaves, and please don't give me the "emancipation proclimation and fighting to win the civil war."

Actually I do want facts. That is why I asked the questions and stipulated that "Arms Race" explanation be excluded. As for Abraham Lincoln (1) the Emancipationn Proclamation actually extended slavery for slaves in US controlled areas (2) if he could have preserved the union without freeing the slaves he would have.

Quote:Reagan felt the USSR couldn't keep up with us in an arms race and he was right. His military build up was key to their fall regardless if you want to hear it. They had to divert resources and money to try and keep up which in turn meant they couldn't funnel money to their existing client states or create more through support for communists in other countries.

Part of the strategy also entailed slowing the flow of hard currency to the USSR. This was accomplished by delaying the Soviet gas pipeline to western Europe, facilitating a drop in oil prices, and limiting technology to the soviet block. He also supported guerillas in soviet client states.

I believe the second pargraph had a much greater impact on the Soviet Union than the first. I know that Reagan took the most hard line public approach to the Soviet Union, but I am pretty sure that the measures listed in the second paragraph was already in effect.

Quote:Actually I do want facts.  That is why I asked the questions and stipulated that "Arms Race" explanation be excluded.

I'm curious how you reconcile these two statements. What are you saying isn't a fact. The Reagan initiated an arms buildup, that the soviets didn't spend money to try and keep up, or that they couldn't keep up? If the only thing you say isn't fact is that the previous 3 didn't lead to their downfall then that is your opinion, not a fact. And all the evidence is to the contrary.

Quote: As for Abraham Lincoln (1) the Emancipationn Proclamation actually extended slavery for slaves in US controlled areas

It didn't "extend" slavery, slavery was already there. And he was fighting a war that he couldn't win if he was battling the states that remained loyal to the Union. And without it even a Confederte defeat wouldn't have taken away ownership of of slaves from confederates. Most meaningful change is done gradually, Lincoln understood that.

Quote: (2) if he could have preserved the union without freeing the slaves he would have.

Irrelevant, he did both. Wow, you don't want to give credit to any president for doing anything if they have an "R" next to their name do you?

Quote:I believe the second pargraph had a much greater impact on the Soviet Union than the first.  I know that Reagan took the most hard line public approach to the Soviet Union, but I am pretty sure that the measures listed in the second paragraph was already in effect.

Of course you do. To acknowledge the fact of the first would force you to give some credit to Reagan, which of course your partisanship strictly forbids you to do.

As far as the measures already being in place, you are incorrect.

In 1982 Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in the gas pipeline. (“At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War

Quote:It didn't "extend" slavery, slavery was already there. And he was fighting a war that he couldn't win if he was battling the states that remained loyal to the Union. And without it even a Confederte defeat wouldn't have taken away ownership of of slaves from confederates. Most meaningful change is done gradually, Lincoln understood that.

Well if the purpose of the proclomation was to end slavery, then yes it did. It only ended slavery in the Confederate States which Lincoln could not do since he was not their leader at the time.

Quote:Irrelevant, he did both. Wow, you don't want to give credit to any president for doing anything if they have an "R" next to their name do you?

Here is Lincoln's credit> He gave in to political pressure from his constituents and eventually freed the slaves. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He was quoted many times saying that he preferred the status quo in the relationship between blacks and whites.

[quote]Of course you do. To acknowledge the fact of the first would force you to give some credit to Reagan, which of course your partisanship strictly forbids you to do.

As far as the measures already being in place, you are incorrect.

In 1982 Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in the gas pipeline. (“At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War

Quote:It only ended slavery in the Confederate States which Lincoln could not do since he was not their leader at the time.

Lincoln was their leader. He was president of the United States and cecession was illegal. He may not have had the power to enforce it but he most definently had the authority to do it.

Quote:Here is Lincoln's credit> He gave in to political pressure from his constituents and eventually freed the slaves.  Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.  He was quoted many times saying that he preferred the status quo in the relationship between blacks and whites.

This is actually under dispute by some historians. Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President by Allen Guelzo is a good book on the subject if you're interested. But irregardless, Lincoln ended slavery.

Quote:I just don't see how making the Soviet Union, build more bombs(especially if when you listened to Reagan they already had more bombs than we did in the first place) was the GREATEST contributor to their downfall.

This was not the basis of our original discussion. You questioned that he played any role at all and said the Soviets were more responsible on their own than Reagan. I believe that to be incorrect based on the facts of history.

Second, yes he did argue they had more than we did because they did. Our military was in horrible shape prior to Reagan taking office, hence the need for a build up.

Third, I believe the build up a major part of the plan. If you are forcing them to spend on an arms race they can't spread communism or support existing client states. If you limit the flow of currency and technolgy flowing their way they can't keep up in an arms race. Gorbechav himself said that they viewed SDI as the greatest threat and knew they couldn't win an arms buildup in space.

Quote:Your quote talks about what Reagan did, but it does not say that such operations had not been done prior to Reagan.

Detante was the policy before Reagan. And if such things were in place already I find it interesting that communism spread unchecked throughout the period of time up until Reagan took office.

Reagan didn't enforce the status quo and he didn't just continue what was already in place. He shifted the policy of this country from containment of communism to defeating it and he enacted policies to make that happen. Everything from the arms buildup to covert operations to limiting currency and technology worked to bring down the soviets. All of these represented a clear shift in US policy.

Actually, the Pope probably had just as large a role if not larger than Reagan in bringing down the Soviet Union.

RocketAlum Wrote:Actually, the Pope probably had just as large a role if not larger than Reagan in bringing down the Soviet Union.

Agree, that's why I said it about 4 posts ago.

Quote:Reagan does not deserve sole credit to be sure. Margaret Thatcher and the Pope deserve credit as well.

Oh, thanks for pointing that out.....I have you on my ignore list :wave:

RocketAlum Wrote:Oh, thanks for pointing that out.....I have you on my ignore list :wave:

Um, ok. :snore:

Obviously, you are new to a thing called humor......if I had you on my ignore list I would not have been able to read your comment. :wave:

RocketAlum Wrote:Obviously, you are new to a thing called humor......if I had you on my ignore list I would not have been able to read your comment. :wave:

Not really. I didn't get that you were joking around. I read it as I was on your ignore list as of then, not already.

Pisser about the written word is that the tone doesn't always come through. :D