Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Kim Jong-un has committed to denuclearisation
Comments
-
There's a piece in the article about that too. I don't take Reagan to task for not being the smartest guy in the room. The President, like any leader, is a manager. He managed well. No, I'm confident he didn't understand everything, but he understood enuff.HardlyClothed said:I’m not sure how you can watch any 30 second clip of our senile oaf president speaking incoherently about the simplest things and conclude that “yeah this guy gets international diplomacy”
-
It is an opinion and debatable (I somewhat don't agree, but I'll let BearsDontWiin attempt an articulation of that argument if he can...he's batting 0 for 8 now...before I say why), but at least you are accurately representing the opinion of the author and adding your opinions instead of snidely referencing the article and ignorantly claiming it says something it doesn't to say to "prove" someone else wrong.creepycoug said:
I'm still coughing. I vaguely remember reading this article years ago and it popped up on my Googly search.HoustonHusky said:
The cry of mentally unstable women and moronic wannabe intellectuals around the world...'but its more complicated than that...YOU just don't understand'. I quoted the article extensively...you just keep backpedaling once you got caught either lying or highlighting your ignorance.BearsWiin said:
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.HoustonHusky said:
I've quoted from about every page of the article showing it says absolutely nothing of what you originally claimed (bashing the idea of Reagan's role in bringing down the Soviets).BearsWiin said:.... and you still didn't get it. Not surprising that context and nuance are totally lost on you.
What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it?
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
If you can't answer my question, there's no chance that you understood the article.
Thanks you for bashing Cal. It shows that you know your betters.
And I know where you are going with this latest line of thought and I'll wipe the floor with you on it as well. Keep flailing.
And sorry...I went to a school ranked well above Cal if that's how you want to compare yourself to me (not that it should matter). Keep hope alive.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/29/weekinreview/two-journeys-reagan-s-evolution-a-change-of-heart-as-well-as-tatics.html
It doesn't make anyone here look stupid, but it does make the point that the entire matter was a little more complicated than the idea of Reagan's charismatic leadership and vilification of the USSR bringing it to its knees. That's the much more fun way to look at things, sure, but it's way too simplistic.
This piece makes both points. The main take-away, other than several experts and WH staffers having somewhat competing views of the thing, is that Reagan himself had competing views of the thing ... that it wasn't that simple. One guy calls into question the idea that an uptick in US military prowess was a big reason for the collapse, arguing that nothing really had changed in terms of fundamental US military capability. Others say that the uptick in the US economy and other factors favorable to US interests gave the administration "renewed confidence" in the US position to "negotiate" with the USSR (not punch it in the mouth).
Whatever the case, I firmly believe that the USSR was fated to its collapse, and I will always take categorical assertions that its demise was greatly hastened by Reagan's rhetoric with a grain of salt. We don't know , because there's only one version of history, and that's the one that played out.
My only bit of inside baseball on this was from a former Russian law partner who came here to go to school and practiced here for a while - he's back there now. That guy could regale you with anecdotes of how fucked up life was in the Soviet Union all day long w/o ever repeating a story. So I take it as patently obvious that the USSR wasn't built for the long-haul and would have, at some point - who knows when - collapsed on itself. Reagan himself is said to have held the same view.
And, in the final analysis, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it a better take that the system of communism, so hostile to ours, was inherently flawed? I'd prefer that version over Reagan heroics.
And claiming you were his lawn boy in the process so you really should know over everyone else.
Fucking dumbass Cal grads. -
Says the dumb@ss who tried to pull "intellectual superiority" by bragging about going to a shittier school than I went to? You keep on with that...BearsWiin said:
You sound insecure.HoustonHusky said:
The cry of mentally unstable women and moronic wannabe intellectuals around the world...'but its more complicated than that...YOU just don't understand'. I quoted the article extensively...you just keep backpedaling once you got caught either lying or highlighting your ignorance.BearsWiin said:
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.HoustonHusky said:
I've quoted from about every page of the article showing it says absolutely nothing of what you originally claimed (bashing the idea of Reagan's role in bringing down the Soviets).BearsWiin said:.... and you still didn't get it. Not surprising that context and nuance are totally lost on you.
What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it?
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
If you can't answer my question, there's no chance that you understood the article.
Thanks you for bashing Cal. It shows that you know your betters.
And I know where you are going with this latest line of thought and I'll wipe the floor with you on it as well. Keep flailing.
And sorry...I went to a school ranked well above Cal if that's how you want to compare yourself to me (not that it should matter). Keep hope alive.
You refuse to answer my question because you would then have to acknowledge the part of the article that undercuts whatever the fuck argument you think you're trying to make.
So you are batting at least 0-8 now in this thread with your incredibly shrinking argument...starting from:
'this article says this' to:
'yeah but that's just the intro and the main part of the article says this' to:
'yeah well every page says what you said but I have this one question that somehow if you answer it the way I think you should it somehow negates the other 95% of the article' (it doesn't, but we'll get to that if you want to keep going)
Feel free to specifically point out where I got any of my quotes or summaries from basically every page of that article wrong, or bring something new to the table...I don't care.
It is always amusing to watch a pseudointellectual flail around when called out on their ignorance and try to rationalize themselves and others to keep their own view of themselves intact.
-
In the off topic section of a college football forum you’re ranting about going to a better ranked school and pseudo intellectualism and you want us to take you seriously?HoustonHusky said:
Says the dumb@ss who tried to pull "intellectual superiority" by bragging about going to a shittier school than I went to? You keep on with that...BearsWiin said:
You sound insecure.HoustonHusky said:
The cry of mentally unstable women and moronic wannabe intellectuals around the world...'but its more complicated than that...YOU just don't understand'. I quoted the article extensively...you just keep backpedaling once you got caught either lying or highlighting your ignorance.BearsWiin said:
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.HoustonHusky said:
I've quoted from about every page of the article showing it says absolutely nothing of what you originally claimed (bashing the idea of Reagan's role in bringing down the Soviets).BearsWiin said:.... and you still didn't get it. Not surprising that context and nuance are totally lost on you.
What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it?
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
If you can't answer my question, there's no chance that you understood the article.
Thanks you for bashing Cal. It shows that you know your betters.
And I know where you are going with this latest line of thought and I'll wipe the floor with you on it as well. Keep flailing.
And sorry...I went to a school ranked well above Cal if that's how you want to compare yourself to me (not that it should matter). Keep hope alive.
You refuse to answer my question because you would then have to acknowledge the part of the article that undercuts whatever the fuck argument you think you're trying to make.
So you are batting at least 0-8 now in this thread with your incredibly shrinking argument...starting from:
'this article says this' to:
'yeah but that's just the intro and the main part of the article says this' to:
'yeah well every page says what you said but I have this one question that somehow if you answer it the way I think you should it somehow negates the other 95% of the article' (it doesn't, but we'll get to that if you want to keep going)
Feel free to specifically point out where I got any of my quotes or summaries from basically every page of that article wrong, or bring something new to the table...I don't care.
It is always amusing to watch a pseudointellectual flail around when called out on their ignorance and try to rationalize themselves and others to keep their own view of themselves intact. -
Reagan was just as mentally checked out as Trump but he had people around him who were better at hiding it. I’m old enough to remember Reagan’s defense on Iran-Contra being that he didn’t remember doing any of the things he did.creepycoug said:
There's a piece in the article about that too. I don't take Reagan to task for not being the smartest guy in the room. The President, like any leader, is a manager. He managed well. No, I'm confident he didn't understand everything, but he understood enuff.HardlyClothed said:I’m not sure how you can watch any 30 second clip of our senile oaf president speaking incoherently about the simplest things and conclude that “yeah this guy gets international diplomacy”
-
Cynically evasive more likely.HardlyClothed said:
Reagan was just as mentally checked out as Trump but he had people around him who were better at hiding it. I’m old enough to remember Reagan’s defense on Iran-Contra being that he didn’t remember doing any of the things he did.creepycoug said:
There's a piece in the article about that too. I don't take Reagan to task for not being the smartest guy in the room. The President, like any leader, is a manager. He managed well. No, I'm confident he didn't understand everything, but he understood enuff.HardlyClothed said:I’m not sure how you can watch any 30 second clip of our senile oaf president speaking incoherently about the simplest things and conclude that “yeah this guy gets international diplomacy”
-
That’s how I’m going to refer to my alzheimer’s when the time comesGrundleStiltzkin said:
Cynically evasive more likely.HardlyClothed said:
Reagan was just as mentally checked out as Trump but he had people around him who were better at hiding it. I’m old enough to remember Reagan’s defense on Iran-Contra being that he didn’t remember doing any of the things he did.creepycoug said:
There's a piece in the article about that too. I don't take Reagan to task for not being the smartest guy in the room. The President, like any leader, is a manager. He managed well. No, I'm confident he didn't understand everything, but he understood enuff.HardlyClothed said:I’m not sure how you can watch any 30 second clip of our senile oaf president speaking incoherently about the simplest things and conclude that “yeah this guy gets international diplomacy”
-
Read the Times article I poasted. It's actually got some meat on the bones of this discussion. Any charge that Reagan, or anybody else for that matter, was not sane because they believed that the USSR was doomed to its own fate, is hyperbolic and stupid. I doubt they questioned his sanity over his conflicted views on this point. I would expect, or hope, that they would have questioned his sanity over his love for the evangelical right and for not marrying someone hotter than Nancy. Reagan, in his day, could have done better than that bag o' bones.DerekJohnson said:
Reagan's own advisors questioned his sanity when he insisted the Soviet Union would collapse within a decade.RaceBannon said:They said the same thing about Reagan
Now they say the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway
The Left is never wrong. Just aks them -
I am by no means well read on this guy. But this one piece you quoted strikes me as amenable more than one view. "Soviet policy made a mess everywhere" also implies that the Soviet's had a lot of problems, mostly of their own doing and perhaps reflective of their fundamental systemic shortcomings. I'm not going to get on a soap box and declare a President I liked was irrelevant in the whole affair. But this idea that he rode in on a white horse and George Washington'd the whole thing with the USSR is a bit romantic and exaggerated for my tastes. That's why the Times article is, in my view, a good take. Life and foreign affairs are complex, and seldom lend themselves to singular explanations. But, sure, if things were a mess, then Reagan's pressure sure as shit wasn't helping them. I have no issue with that take. I only take issue with the romantics who like to say "Reagan busted up the Soviet Union," which is a simpleton's story line.HoustonHusky said:
Says the dumb@ss who tried to pull "intellectual superiority" by bragging about going to a shittier school than I went to? You keep on with that...BearsWiin said:
You sound insecure.HoustonHusky said:
The cry of mentally unstable women and moronic wannabe intellectuals around the world...'but its more complicated than that...YOU just don't understand'. I quoted the article extensively...you just keep backpedaling once you got caught either lying or highlighting your ignorance.BearsWiin said:
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.HoustonHusky said:
I've quoted from about every page of the article showing it says absolutely nothing of what you originally claimed (bashing the idea of Reagan's role in bringing down the Soviets).BearsWiin said:.... and you still didn't get it. Not surprising that context and nuance are totally lost on you.
What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it?
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
If you can't answer my question, there's no chance that you understood the article.
Thanks you for bashing Cal. It shows that you know your betters.
And I know where you are going with this latest line of thought and I'll wipe the floor with you on it as well. Keep flailing.
And sorry...I went to a school ranked well above Cal if that's how you want to compare yourself to me (not that it should matter). Keep hope alive.
You refuse to answer my question because you would then have to acknowledge the part of the article that undercuts whatever the fuck argument you think you're trying to make.
So you are batting at least 0-8 now in this thread with your incredibly shrinking argument...starting from:
'this article says this' to:
'yeah but that's just the intro and the main part of the article says this' to:
'yeah well every page says what you said but I have this one question that somehow if you answer it the way I think you should it somehow negates the other 95% of the article' (it doesn't, but we'll get to that if you want to keep going)
Feel free to specifically point out where I got any of my quotes or summaries from basically every page of that article wrong, or bring something new to the table...I don't care.
It is always amusing to watch a pseudointellectual flail around when called out on their ignorance and try to rationalize themselves and others to keep their own view of themselves intact.
"Soviet policy was particulary vulnerable because it had made a mess everywhere. This argument, if correct, implies that the unrelenting approach of the Reagan administration was probably more effective than a better balanced Western policy - beat up the Soviets here, conciliate them there-would have been."
-
creepycoug said:
Good place to start and stop.Pitchfork51 said:What exactly is this whole thread about again
I zoned out at the tits
