Reagan's Legacy - How will he be remembered?

[Drake Tungsten]

Ahh, Ge-papping. The last refuge of a beaten man...

[Docfeelgood]

Reagan's Legacy - How will he be remembered?

I don't remember

[Ramo]

What about intermediate-range ballistic missiles?

Or the navy?

Or some other parts of the $1.3 trillion defense spending increase under Reagan that I'm forgetting about?

Not at all important compared to the SDI. Those wouldn't fundamentally change the balance of power.

Point is, the bank wasn't broken. They could've gone on indefinitely as long as the state continued or escalated its severe repression. Look at North Korea. Gorby's perestroika opened the way for the desolution of the Soviet Union, and Reagan ended his beligerance before it was too late opened the way for perestroika.

Ahh, Ge-papping. The last refuge of a beaten man...

Better Ge-papping than BAMing.

[GePap]

Or pressure from Reagan that led the hard-liners to believe that reform (and therefore Gorbachev) was the necessary course of action.

Maybe you forget that Reagan was already in power when Andropov and Chernenko both came to power-how come Reagan's belligerance did not convince people of the need to reform when Brezhnev certainly belliegerent, dropped dead?

The reason for bringing in a reformer had to do with the fact the soviet system was suffering from serious and endemic corruption from the inside. Whay would Reagan's buildup "bankrupt" the soviets? The problems with the Soviets, as I said before many times was endemic corruption that came into force in the 1970's under Brezhnev. The Soviets wanted reformers to fix the rot they could see happening from the inside. Reagan's pressure in his frist term at most showed the soviets just how serious their endemic corruption was and what the consequences might be of failing to reform. Had the Soviet reformers succeeded then the SU would probalby still be in power. They failed, becuase the corruption had gone too deep and Gorbachev failed to bring in economic reform even as he brought political reform. The thing is Reagan's actions to work with Gorbachev gave him a partner and weakened the hardliners much more than Reagan's "toughness". Gorbachev had a partner in the US to end the nuclear standoff. That is the best part of Reagan's CW legacy [and a interesting comparison with Dubya]

[Docfeelgood]

Reagan was an actor.......who doesn't idolize actors?

[Drake Tungsten]

Point is, the bank wasn't broken. They could've gone on indefinitely as long as the state continued or escalated its severe repression. Look at North Korea.

Comparing anything to North Korea is a horrible idea. That ****hole is a one of a kind situation...

Better Ge-papping than BAMing.

1) I'm not BAMing. I'm restating the points made by Dinesh D'Souza in the article Ted linked to.

2) What do you call this, other than a BAM?

Point is, the bank wasn't broken. They could've gone on indefinitely as long as the state continued or escalated its severe repression. Look at North Korea.

[GePap]

The Soviets saw reagan as very belligerant- and as Ramo correctly states, nothing makes a regime hand harder than an belligerant enemy, specially if you do have the means to fight back.

[Drake Tungsten]

Whay would Reagan's buildup "bankrupt" the soviets?

Arms races aren't cheap...

That is the best part of Reagan's CW legacy [and a interesting comparison with Dubya]

How? Who's Bush's Gorbachev?

[Docfeelgood]

Shame he did live another 50 years with that Alzheimers.




I wonder if his mental illness was by choice

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Arms races aren't cheap...

At the time the soviets had an economy of almost if not more than $2 Trillion (look that up if you are ignorant) -matching Reagans funding would have meant 20% GNP into the Military. 20% GNP into the MIlitary is not going to bankrupt an authocratic state.

[Drake Tungsten]

At the time the soviets had an economy of almost if not more than $2 Trillion (look that up if you are ignorant)

Yes, because not knowing the GDP of the Soviet Union in the early 1980's off the top of one's head makes one "ignorant"...

20% GNP into the MIlitary is not going to bankrupt an authocratic state.

That's a BAM. Not to mention that it doesn't have to bankrupt the state, but merely place enough pressure on an already overburdened system to make reform a necessary choice...

[Cruddy]

At least Spitting Image for something right.

The President's brain was, indeed, not working quite as it should be.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

20% GNP into the MIlitary is not going to bankrupt an authocratic state.

That's a BAM. Not to mention that it doesn't have to bankrupt the state, but merely place enough pressure on an already overburdened system to make reform a necessary choice...

Look at what some autocratic states spend in terms fo GNP and military. The regime of the NK remains in power even as its people starve and it spends at least 50% GNP on the military and has been doing it for a decade. Would not reform of the system seem a necessary choice? One never made, the state continues along, as does the tension.

You say "overburdened", well, that burden came from the inside, as did the choice to chose reform and not repression. Reagan added factors to the choice, BUT the choices were always with the Soviets when i came to their internal policies. And the failure of reform was also not Reagan's doing but a result of the internal situation of the USSR.

[Drake Tungsten]

Look at what some autocratic states spend in terms fo GNP and military. The regime of the NK remains in power even as its people starve and it spends at least 50% GNP on the military and has been doing it for a decade. Would not reform of the system seem a necessary choice? One never made, the state continues along, as does the tension.

Why do I even bother talking to people who can't spot the massive differences between the Soviet Union and North Korea? I must enjoy wasting my time...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Why do I even bother talking to people who can't spot the massive differences between the Soviet Union and North Korea? I must enjoy wasting my time...

Becuase for this point, there is no difference. You are claiming Reagan forced due to spending pressures an autocratic state to refrom itself and thus won the cold war.... (that is your claim, is it not?)

1. Reform itself for what purpose? To become an even stronger enemy? To end the competition?

2. You have never explained why the Soviets would not go with just repression and sitting Reagan out? After all, they knew he would be gone in 8 years max. What was the sense of urgency?