On Jun 26, 12:02=A0pm, Brendal <agamemnon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 11:45=A0am, Terrorist Fist Jab <bobvogel2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 3:08=A0pm, "Mike Laight" <mklaight2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > "Taylor" <Tay...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > >news:F8idnT7g5r9qj_zVnZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > "Proteus" <prot...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > > >news:Ig68k.249425$ng7.149069@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > >> And the reason for the falling sup****t of Muslim terrorism is
that=
it is
> > > >> now seen as losing. It has been said that nothing succeeds like
su=
ccess,
> > > >> but the reverse is also
> > > >> true--nothing abets failure like failure.
>
> > >
>>http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=3DOTNlNTVjNGEzY2E3NDM1Zj=
I0ZT...
>
> > > >> --
> > > >> The sin of nearly all left wingers from 1933
> > > >> onwards is that they have wanted to be anti-Fascist without being
> > > >> anti-totalitarian.--George Orwell
>
> > > > History has shown that Reagan won the cold war.
>
> > > Only US republican history makes this claim. The rest of the world
do=
es not
> > > credit the fall of the Soviet Union to America, let alone President
R=
eagan.
>
> > Actually, there's nothing wrong with admitting Reagan's role. At the
> > time the Soviets were buckling under economic stagnation, Reagan
> > persuaded the Saudis to pump more oil, reducing the Soviet oil
> > revenues that may have otherwise propped up a failing system. Also,
> > his preference for low-cost counterinsurgency tactics in foreign
> > conflicts, I think, saved a lot of resources for us while the soviets
> > were getting mired in Afghanistan.
>
> Yours is total fabrication.
>
> Yours is far from the truth.
>
> Under the assumption that the Soviet Union could not then outspend the
> US
> government in a renewed arms race, Reagan strove to make the Cold War
> economically and rhetorically hot.
>
> Many analysts argue that the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union was
> due more
> to the re-emergence of separatist movements under glasnost, an
> inherent
> weakness in communist economic theory, and the depressed global price
> of crude
> oil, on which the Soviet economy during those years depended heavily.
> Furthermore, Reagan's much heralded military buildup that increased
> American
> military spending by 8% per annum in fact did not appear to have the
> planned
> effect of forcing the Soviets to mirror American growth: according to
> CIA
> estimates, Soviet military spending leveled off at a growth rate of
> 1.3% per
> annum in 1975 and remained at that level for a decade, although it
> more than
> tripled to approximately 4.3% in 1985 through 1987 (though spending
> on
> offensive strategic weapons continued to grow at 1.3% during that
> period),
> before returning to 1.3% in 1988.
>
> Perhaps more startling, Reagan's military build up, coupled with his
> fierce
> anti-soviet rhetoric, contributed to Soviet near-panic reaction to a
> routine
> NATO exercises in November 1983, ABLE ARCHER 83. Though the threat of
> nuclear
> war ended abruptly with the end of the exercise, this historically
> obscure
> incident illustrates the possible negative repercussions of Reagan's
> "standing
> tall" to a nuclear power. Some historians, among them Beth B. Fischer
> in her
> book The Reagan Reversal, pin ABLE ARCHER 83 as an incident which had
> a
> profound effect on President Reagan and his turn from a policy of
> Confrontation
> towards the Soviet Union to a policy of rapprochement.
What's your point?
|
