Nobody should. Trust but verify isn't just a slogan from the 80's
History has proven time and again that strength and the projection of power work better against despots than pallets of cash and agreements to allow them to build nukes
After 20 r 30 years of the latter we can try the former
We builder developer types know that every problem is just a solution waiting to happen
Chuck Knox in another 80's slogan that I have used ever since
I'm a problem solver for a living
It's cute that you think building problems are somehow equivalent to diplomacy.
The Builder in Chief is wiping up the floor with the career diplomats.
When your living and think tank salary depend on not finding a solution so you can say things like "not every problem has a solution" you won't find a solution.
It's cute that you think your guy isn't being played.
It's cuter that you think he is. There is absolutely no risk in sitting down with the tinpot. The risk is in NK because their dear leader can't even admit SK exists
Being played is giving NK reactors and cash and telling us? that it will be for peaceful use
Bubba got played just like Obama in Iran
It's cute that you think you understand this shit.
It's cute that you don't. Funny how a brash shit talker is solving problems that all of your alleged academis could not. Thats got to hurt.
It's cute that you think that your kindergartner-in-chief is solving anything.
When the bully comes to break your glasses and take your lunch money, guys like you hand it over and then ask if there's anything else you can do to appease them. Trump just kicks the bastards in the balls and breaks their teeth. Winston Churchill had the same attitude toward Hitler.That's the proper way to deal with a bully. Your way and the way of your pussy "new democrats" who were supposed to "drag the rest of the country kicking and screaming into the 21st century" failed. Time to try something else.
This is getting embarrassing. We're not in middle school here. I'm told international affairs are different.
If it were that simple, we'd have settled the middle east a long, long, long time ago.
Let Israel win the 48 or 68 war and its solved
All these fucking brilliant we can't solve anything assholes and their forced ties set this shit storm up
You were told wrong
Look to FDR, the last war time consigliere (sp) we had
Imagine sharing the earth with Nazi Europe and Nissan Far East
Nope, we won. Then the bright lights who can't solve shit gave away half of Europe setting up the Cold War
In case you and the paste eating retard obk forgot, the liberals with brains gave us the Touring machine and the fucking bomb that won the war for the Allies.
It's cool to rip on intellectuals when you're a retard because what the fuck else are you going to do?
Existential panic, epistemic uncertainty and anti-elitism go a long way in explaining the Trump voter mindset.
Now they say the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway
The Left is never wrong. Just aks them
Before you try to fit a round analogy in a square hole, you might read Steve Sestanovich's "Did the West Undo The East" from a 1993 special edition of The National Interest.
Or you can just keep throwing shit because you're a bitter ex-Dem. You're choice
Fucking Cal grads...I'm not sure which one is worse. Morons like HondoFS who at least don't claim intellectual superiority or true idiots that do.
You ought to go read it yourself...as some might say Sestanovich "concluded that Reagan’s policies were crucial factors in the disintegration of Soviet communism"
Keep rewriting history...
It's clear that you didn't read the piece, because even one of the architects of Reagan's second-term policy knew it was much more complicated than that.
Since he was my boss for a year, you can bet that we discussed it in person.
You mean the part in said article where he said such things as:
"As for the detente of the 1970s, its claim to have begun digging totalitarianism's grave is weak" (i.e. the previous point of policies like sending pallets of cash to places like Iran and nuclear reactors to NK is HondoFS...)
Getting to Reagan's policy, Sestanovich said: "Admittedly, the Soviet Union suffered no outright military defeat in the first half of the 1980s. Nevertheless, by the middle of the decade, the outlook on almost every front of the Soviet foreign policy was poor and clearly deteriorating. The list of failures needs very little elaboration: INF deployments in Europe and successive large increases in the US military budget; Afghanistan, Grenada, and the emergence of the "Reagan Doctrine," which put new pressure on Soviet clients in Africa, Asia, and Latin America; Moscow's exclusion from Middle East diplomacy, and the humiliation of Soviet-made weapons in the Lebanon war of 1982; the Solidarity challenge in Poland; robust Chinese economic growth against a background of continuing Sino-Soviet hostility. And all of this bad news before even mentioning the Strategic Defense Initiative, which threatened a new round of military competition and high-lighted Soviet technology inferiority. ... Mearly to recite this list of Soviet setbacks is to underscore the West's (aka Reagan's policies) role in discrediting the policy of Gorbachev's predecessors."
or, as Sestanovich summarized: "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."
He goes on to talk in detail about how Reagan's SDI program was particularly effective in screwing with your comrades, Reagan's calling for the wall to come down in 1987 causing all sorts of problems for the Soviets, etc. etc.
And, especially focusing on apparently you and some of you comrades here, he summarized by saying "it should be said that many who understate it (Western influence...i.e. Reagan's policies) are also moved by partisanship...."
Hey, I'm glad you worked for him. I'm sure that year his garden looked the best it has in, what, an entire year.
And a special shout-out to CreepyCoug for couging in and buying BearsDontWiin's shite.
In other news, things sharper than BearsDontWiin:
Way to cherry pick from the first few pages that establish background but aren't the meat of the article. What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it? I' m curious as to whether you read the whole fucking piece, because from your choice of quotes it sure as hell doesn't look like it.
Its not a novel...its a fucking 9 page article. I quoted directly from pages 2, 3, and 9, and summarized chunks of pages 4 and 5. Considering pages 6 and 7 were on the 1970s (with themes like Carter and Company's coddling of Russia "made it easier for the Soviet elite to preserve the system as it was" and "According to Brezhnev, detente promoted the consolidation of socialism, and he was right"...as if that somehow agrees with anything you are inferring).
Page 8 is more general themes with such damning indictments of Reagan's policies such as "The policy shifts of the 1980s - deep hostility followed by another detente - were equally hard on the Soviet System" and citations like "Paul Kennedy makes this point: "Russia has always enjoyed its greatest military advantage vis-a-vis the West when the pace of weapons technolgy has slowed down enough to allow a standardization of equipment and thus of fighting units and tactics...Whenever an upward spiral in weapons technology has placed an emphasis upon quality rather than quantity, however, the Russian advantage has diminished"
Yeah...you keep riding this horse into the ground...
Fucking moronic Cal grads...I'm starting to think Sestanovich's garden looked like shite that year you "worked for him" as well. You can't make this idiocy up...
.... 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?
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).
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
.... 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?
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).
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.
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.
Kasich was a loser bitch. He was no different than Hillary or any other jackass representing the one party in power. The R or a D behind the name is just a guise. It's the same party. Trump didn't belong to it. It's why he won. It's why they hate him. It's why I'm voting him in for a second term.
So, what have you gotten thus far OBK different from orthodox GOP positions? Are the 11 million illegals gone? Is the wall built? There were some tax cuts in the standard GOP fare. The jurdges are the same that any GOP President would have nominated. Style over substance if you axe me.
LIPO
Sure, LIPO, but it's becoming more and more of a realistic possibility the GOP loses the house. That's not left wing propaganda, and something you might want to be concerned over. Doesn't mean he gets convicted in the Senate or something but you won't be getting much done legislatively.
It’s clear that the left local candidates are gaining ground. Trump needs a win. Because we all know that Mueller will string this thing out 3 weeks before the election, if there’s nothing to Indict Trump, He sure as hell won’t reveal it anytime soon.
.... 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?
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).
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody should. Trust but verify isn't just a slogan from the 80's
History has proven time and again that strength and the projection of power work better against despots than pallets of cash and agreements to allow them to build nukes
After 20 r 30 years of the latter we can try the former
We builder developer types know that every problem is just a solution waiting to happen
Chuck Knox in another 80's slogan that I have used ever since
I'm a problem solver for a living
It's cute that you think building problems are somehow equivalent to diplomacy.
The Builder in Chief is wiping up the floor with the career diplomats.
When your living and think tank salary depend on not finding a solution so you can say things like "not every problem has a solution" you won't find a solution.
It's cute that you think your guy isn't being played.
It's cuter that you think he is. There is absolutely no risk in sitting down with the tinpot. The risk is in NK because their dear leader can't even admit SK exists
Being played is giving NK reactors and cash and telling us? that it will be for peaceful use
Bubba got played just like Obama in Iran
It's cute that you think you understand this shit.
It's cute that you don't. Funny how a brash shit talker is solving problems that all of your alleged academis could not. Thats got to hurt.
Talking about solving a problem and solving a problem aren't the same woman.
Kasich was a loser bitch. He was no different than Hillary or any other jackass representing the one party in power. The R or a D behind the name is just a guise. It's the same party. Trump didn't belong to it. It's why he won. It's why they hate him. It's why I'm voting him in for a second term.
Steve Bannon is why Trump won. When he got there, he had no more use for an idealogue who attracts the wrong kind of attention. But everyone knows why Trump got elected.
The Bannon obsession is not your finest hour here
The architect of the campaign that was shrewd enuff to purposefully appeal to a previously marginalized and ignored voting base and predict and exploit the giant fuck-up that was the DNC strategy? The guy who created that perfect storm?
Yeah, color me obsessed. Sure, he's back in a dark corner where people like that (fringe) tend to belong, but make no mistake, Trump is where he is in large measure (if not entirely) because of Steve Bannon.
We all have our heroes. You have yours; I have mine. If I ever abandon my politics and want to turn into OBK - a national socialist with a protectionist economic platform and a slight hint of xenophobia - then, Bannon will be mine. You are free to choose as you wish.
.... 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?
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).
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.
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.
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.
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.
I'm still coughing. I vaguely remember reading this article years ago and it popped up on my Googly search.
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 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?
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).
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.
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.
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.
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 sound insecure.
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.
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”
Comments
Page 8 is more general themes with such damning indictments of Reagan's policies such as "The policy shifts of the 1980s - deep hostility followed by another detente - were equally hard on the Soviet System" and citations like "Paul Kennedy makes this point: "Russia has always enjoyed its greatest military advantage vis-a-vis the West when the pace of weapons technolgy has slowed down enough to allow a standardization of equipment and thus of fighting units and tactics...Whenever an upward spiral in weapons technology has placed an emphasis upon quality rather than quantity, however, the Russian advantage has diminished"
Yeah...you keep riding this horse into the ground...
Fucking moronic Cal grads...I'm starting to think Sestanovich's garden looked like shite that year you "worked for him" as well. You can't make this idiocy up...
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.
isnt that megan foxs character in new girl?
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.
Yeah, color me obsessed. Sure, he's back in a dark corner where people like that (fringe) tend to belong, but make no mistake, Trump is where he is in large measure (if not entirely) because of Steve Bannon.
We all have our heroes. You have yours; I have mine. If I ever abandon my politics and want to turn into OBK - a national socialist with a protectionist economic platform and a slight hint of xenophobia - then, Bannon will be mine. You are free to choose as you wish.
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.
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.
I zoned out at the tits