Reagan's Legacy - How will he be remembered?

[Whoha]

http://tradealert.us/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1134

This is part of how hes going to be remembered.

[Urban Ranger]

Nothing to see here.

[Docfeelgood]

You have never explained why the Soviets would not go with just repression and sitting Reagan out

Good point

[Drake Tungsten]

Ah yes. I still remember the reputable piece you quoted in another thread.

Which one?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why would I need to reform if my opponent was willing to bargain with me? The system will continue to limp along like it has for decades if my opponent doesn't pressure me at all.

A "trigger happy madman", OTOH, is a huge challenge that strains my overburdened system and makes reform a necessity.

There is some illogic here.

A person who bargains is likely to move the hardliners away from power and moderates in, who are a lot more likely to reform. Besides, bargains can always include reforms. IMF and WB have reform clauses attached to loans all the time.

[Drake Tungsten]

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

To keep up with your highly visible competitor for global hegemony.

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?

They were in a fight with the United States to determine which ideology would be the one to gain dominance in the world. You can't just sit out such a struggle for eight years and hope that the next U.S. President will be some limp dicked liberal who won't notice how you threw in the towel in response to Reagan's pressure. You have to save face in a struggle like this, as perception is everything.

[Drake Tungsten]

A person who bargains is likely to move the hardliners away from power and moderates in, who are a lot more likely to reform.

Yes, just like Neville Chamberlain did...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
To keep up with your highly visible competitor for global hegemony.

In terms of military power, the only way they could fee this was a serious threat was if they saw Reagan as being very belligerant (which you claim was not the case).
In terms of econmic power, then the issue is more their own internal decrepidness, NOT the outside pressure.

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?

They were in a fight with the United States to determine which ideology would be the one to gain dominance in the world. You can't just sit out such a struggle for eight years and hope that the next U.S. President will be some limp dicked liberal who won't notice how you threw in the towel in response to Reagan's pressure. You have to save face in a struggle like this, as perception is everything.

The soviets in their foreign policy since Stalin never really gived a damn about spreading communism as much as spreading their influence-which they could do with client states around the world, much as how the US cared more about client states than actually spreading democracy in the same time (as Reagan's FP shows). You still fail to say why 8 years of "standing up to Capitalist aggression" was not a viable option to the Soviets.

I would further posit that the Soviets were not ignorant of the growing economic power of others , like Japan, and the consequences Deng's reforms were having in China. Maybe the US likes to keep its conflicts black and white, good vs Evil, but Europeans are more attuned a a board with many players and it would strike me as very odd if the fact that the USSR was falling behind not only the uS, but Japan, and that China was carrying out reforms that were staring to have success did not also weight on the Soviets as they saw internal corruption eating them away.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yes, just like Neville Chamberlain did...

Do you know any other triick to oppose bargaining rounds, or will you try to apply appeasement to whichever attempt at non-violent diplomacy till the end of your life?

[Drake Tungsten]

the only way they could fee this was a serious threat was if they saw Reagan as being very belligerant (which you claim was not the case).

How did I claim that "was not the case"? I was the one who called Reagan's behavior belligerant in the first place, Einstein! Can't you read?

The soviets in their foreign policy since Stalin never really gived a damn about spreading communism as much as spreading their influence-which they could do with client states around the world, much as how the US cared more about client states than actually spreading democracy in the same time (as Reagan's FP shows). You still fail to say why 8 years of "standing up to Capitalist aggression" was not a viable option to the Soviets.

You think far-flung Soviet client states in Latin America and Africa were just going to sit back and wait 8 years until the Reagan left and the Soviets got back in the game?



Hell, Reagan was already putting on the pressure right next door in Afghanistan. The Soviets would've been rolled back to nothing if they had done what you suggest...

I would further posit that the Soviets were not ignorant of the growing economic power of others , like Japan, and the consequences Deng's reforms were having in China.

Japan had no military power, China had no economic power. America was the USSR's only real competitor.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you know any other triick to oppose bargaining rounds, or will you try to apply appeasement to whichever attempt at non-violent diplomacy till the end of your life

I'll continue to use it until the day I die. It's such a perfect example of how bargaining with hard-liners only emboldens them and does nothing to encourage reform. It has to be used, lest we all forget history's lessons in a flood of ***** Eurocom bull****...

[MrFun]

The Soviet Union was ruled by an inhumane, repressive regime -- beats me why some people are trying to fluff the Soviet Union's history into something else.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Soviet Union was ruled by an inhumane, repressive regime -- beats me why some people are trying to fluff the Soviet Union's history into something else.

They hate Reagan so much that they'll defend one of the most evil regimes in history just to deny him the glory of ridding the world of that kind of evil...

Not that hating Reagan is bad. They just need to hate Reagan for the right reasons, like his unconscionable treatment of homosexuals during the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic.

[MrFun]

Well, I despised Reagan too, but that doesn't stop me from seeing the history of the Soviet Union for what it was.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You think far-flung Soviet client states in Latin America and Africa were just going to sit back and wait 8 years until the Reagan left and the Soviets got back in the game?



Hell, Reagan was already putting on the pressure right next door in Afghanistan. The Soviets would've been rolled back to nothing if they had done what you suggest...

Reagan's military buildup had very little to do with giving aid and support to states fighting leftist insurgents, or in funding rightwing insurgents against Soviet supporters. During Reagan's term the only active step he took against soviet influence in LA was invading Grenada . Even his aid to Afghanistan was small compared to the buildup. So it is a BAM to think not giving in to the arms race and waiting Reagan out = not continuing to send out support to clients worldwide.

As for Afghanistan, as with the US in Vietnam, that was a war the Soviets were militarilly in charge, but had no real political solution possible. IT was a waste of their time which they did solely for the notion of "not looking weak"-the same stupid notion that kept us the same amount of time in Vietnam.

Japan had no military power, China had no economic power. America was the USSR's only real competitor.

You would make a lousy leader, as you need to think ahead in time. That Japan in 1985 may not have military power. Why should Japan in 1990 not?