Reagan's Legacy - How will he be remembered?

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

Client states are a fickle bunch. You aren't likely to keep them in your orbit if you lose all your international prestige by giving up at the first sign of a challenge from your main strategic enemy. How can you be counted on to support a regime halfway around the world when you won't even match a U.S. arms buildup in your own backyard?

Why should Japan in 1990 not?

Do you really want me to give you the laundry list of reasons that any halfway competent observer of Japan (which I'm sure the Soviet Union had) would know?

You probably do, but it's 2:38 AM here in Japan, so I'm going to bed. Your ignorance will have to be addressed at a later time. Good night...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Client states are a fickle bunch. You aren't likely to keep them in your orbit if you lose all your international prestige by giving up at the first sign of a challenge from your main strategic enemy. How can you be counted on to support a regime halfway around the world when you won't even match a U.S. arms buildup in your own backyard?

And so was the Canard sold as to why the US could not bail from Vietnam. Plus you continue under a delusion that waiting Reagan out = giving up. HOw? They could certainly have spent 20% GNP on the military while increasing repression at home and forcing their clients in Eastern Europe to keep a tight lid. Did that have its own dangers? Yes, but would the US intervene? Even under Reagan no, cause 30,000 soviet nukes is a damned good deterrent. The problem with this approach was not in the short term, but the long term, as they would only keep faling behind in tech and wealth, so that even if reagan left and a Carter type returned, with time the US would simply develop something so new the Soviet would not have a chance. Reagan was a taste of how far the soviets had fallen, and they decided they either picked themlseves up, or if in 20 years another belligerant US leader came into power, well, they would be cooked then.

What is Reagan's contribution then> That when Gorbachev came into power, Reagan extended his hand, and allowed Gorby to show reform could have benefits in the now, and thus undermined the hardliners. Had Reagan not reached out, then the hardliners would have simply said that reform in the face of a belligerant enemy was giving in, and thus should be forestalled.

Do you really want me to give you the laundry list of reasons that any halfway competent observer of Japan (which I'm sure the Soviet Union had) would know?

Wait, like the world wide experts on the USSR that in 1987 saw how in 1992 the USSR would no longer exist? You mean those type of competent observers?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by JohnT
Whoda thunk the rememberances of Reagan would cleave along ideological lines? Color me shocked!

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT

Wow, let me Mr Fun what was obvious even before I made the original post!

[JohnT]

[GePap]

[JohnT]

Has anybody ever told you that your avatar looks bored?

[GePap]

No, but I am sure he has his reasons to be.

[JohnT]

Too busy repeating himself?

[GePap]

Too much listening to Drake, for one

[JohnT]

Drake ----> <---- GePap

[JohnT]

Eh, it'd work better if the smilies could be mirrored. Oh well.

[GePap]

Are you the wall?

[JohnT]

Naw, if the smilies were mirrored it show you two banging your head against the same wall, the wall representing your ideological differences.

[GePap]