Ronald Reagan's Birthday and the Myth of Reagan

[ChrisL]

Let me elaborate on one very controversial issue that I completely disagree with conservatives on, and that is abortion. Although I am personally opposed to abortion and find it rather disgusting act, you cannot force people to be parents who do not want to be parents. I know you would like to punish women who get pregnant out of wedlock, but that is too effing bad. The only person you would be "punishing" is the child. Kudos to those people who realize they would make crappy parents and don't bring children into the world that would probably turn out to be what you conservatives like to refer to as "thugs." Not to mention, the social services supports you would have to give these people unless you want their babies to die a horrible death.

There are other alternatives to abortion, adoption being one.

It's simple. Don't want a baby? Don't get pregnant. No innocent life would then have to be terminated.

That is ignorant as hell, one of the reasons why I don't agree with conservatives.

Yes, adoption is an option for some people who wish to go through an unwanted pregnancy that carries with it many, many health risks. It's not just like, Oh, I'm pregnant, let me pop out a kid. Duh. It is a MEDICAL condition that comes with a lot of potential complications including loss of mom's life in some instances.

Oh, is that easy? Just don't get pregnant? Good grief. For one thing, did it ever occur to you that SOME people who get pregnant may not be very mentally stable to begin with? Or maybe they are very young and naive? Shit happens.

Not getting a pregnant to avoid an abortion is ignorant?

Not knowing how pregnancies occur is what's ignorant and you just give those morons a pass because "shit happens". Good grief is right.

It's people like you who have turned me off completely to the republican party. People are not robots. People are going to have sex, married or not. It is a need for intimacy that people desire. Do you expect men to not have sex? Probably not.

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can think however you like, but you are just ignoring reality. In reality, there are people who are horrible rotten people, drug abusers, murderers, people who abuse their pets and their children. There are people who just don't give a shit about themselves or anything else, and certainly not some little baby in their womb that they are FORCED to carry against their will. Your expectations from people who are inherently flawed are silly.

 

[ChrisL]

Let me elaborate on one very controversial issue that I completely disagree with conservatives on, and that is abortion. Although I am personally opposed to abortion and find it rather disgusting act, you cannot force people to be parents who do not want to be parents. I know you would like to punish women who get pregnant out of wedlock, but that is too effing bad. The only person you would be "punishing" is the child. Kudos to those people who realize they would make crappy parents and don't bring children into the world that would probably turn out to be what you conservatives like to refer to as "thugs." Not to mention, the social services supports you would have to give these people unless you want their babies to die a horrible death.

There are other alternatives to abortion, adoption being one.

It's simple. Don't want a baby? Don't get pregnant. No innocent life would then have to be terminated.

That is ignorant as hell, one of the reasons why I don't agree with conservatives.

Yes, adoption is an option for some people who wish to go through an unwanted pregnancy that carries with it many, many health risks. It's not just like, Oh, I'm pregnant, let me pop out a kid. Duh. It is a MEDICAL condition that comes with a lot of potential complications including loss of mom's life in some instances.

Oh, is that easy? Just don't get pregnant? Good grief. For one thing, did it ever occur to you that SOME people who get pregnant may not be very mentally stable to begin with? Or maybe they are very young and naive? Shit happens.

Not getting a pregnant to avoid an abortion is ignorant?

Not knowing how pregnancies occur is what's ignorant and you just give those morons a pass because "shit happens". Good grief is right.

It's people like you who have turned me off completely to the republican party. People are not robots. People are going to have sex, married or not. It is a need for intimacy that people desire. Do you expect men to not have sex? Probably not.

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can't TEACH people to be good people. That is a choice.

 

[BULLDOG]

In a country with millions of people, I'm sure you could find some with all kinds of odd ideas, so I don't question that you met some as you say. Do you really want to say he is right about liberals, in general, having a vested interest in the USSR and having posters of Stalin on their walls? A sane person couldn't possibly say "he's right" about that and still be taken seriously. Are you really going to agree with such a stupid statement?

No, certainly not all, but there are some who do hold socialistic ideals. I've met plenty of them and they are not all that odd. Go to some other message boards, and you will see that there are quite a few of them.

Socialistic ideals are still a long shot from the description you agreed with. Hyperbolic statements are part of the reason that the GOP is known by people in it's own party as the "STUPID PARTY"

Does it hurt your feelings that everyone in your party isn't wonderful?

Of course not, but to portray the entire party that way is lie. When the GOP is linked to the crazies in their party, there are actual bills presented by their representatives to make that link unquestionable.

And OBVIOUSLY, I agree if you've been reading my posts. I don't follow either one of your stupid ridiculous parties. I think they both suck balls.

Except in that particular case when you were willing to accept and support a ridiculously stupid accusation about an entire party. How very even handed you are.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There are other alternatives to abortion, adoption being one.

It's simple. Don't want a baby? Don't get pregnant. No innocent life would then have to be terminated.

That is ignorant as hell, one of the reasons why I don't agree with conservatives.

Yes, adoption is an option for some people who wish to go through an unwanted pregnancy that carries with it many, many health risks. It's not just like, Oh, I'm pregnant, let me pop out a kid. Duh. It is a MEDICAL condition that comes with a lot of potential complications including loss of mom's life in some instances.

Oh, is that easy? Just don't get pregnant? Good grief. For one thing, did it ever occur to you that SOME people who get pregnant may not be very mentally stable to begin with? Or maybe they are very young and naive? Shit happens.

Not getting a pregnant to avoid an abortion is ignorant?

Not knowing how pregnancies occur is what's ignorant and you just give those morons a pass because "shit happens". Good grief is right.

It's people like you who have turned me off completely to the republican party. People are not robots. People are going to have sex, married or not. It is a need for intimacy that people desire. Do you expect men to not have sex? Probably not.

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can think however you like, but you are just ignoring reality. In reality, there are people who are horrible rotten people, drug abusers, murderers, people who abuse their pets and their children. There are people who just don't give a shit about themselves or anything else, and certainly not some little baby in their womb that they are FORCED to carry against their will. Your expectations from people who are inherently flawed are silly.

They were forced to get pregnant, meaning every woman that has had an abortion was raped?

I'm pretty sure that not all were forced to get pregnant.

I'm glad to see you put women that have abortions in the same category as drug abusers, murderers and those who abuse pets and children, but it's odd that you defend them.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There are other alternatives to abortion, adoption being one.

It's simple. Don't want a baby? Don't get pregnant. No innocent life would then have to be terminated.

That is ignorant as hell, one of the reasons why I don't agree with conservatives.

Yes, adoption is an option for some people who wish to go through an unwanted pregnancy that carries with it many, many health risks. It's not just like, Oh, I'm pregnant, let me pop out a kid. Duh. It is a MEDICAL condition that comes with a lot of potential complications including loss of mom's life in some instances.

Oh, is that easy? Just don't get pregnant? Good grief. For one thing, did it ever occur to you that SOME people who get pregnant may not be very mentally stable to begin with? Or maybe they are very young and naive? Shit happens.

Not getting a pregnant to avoid an abortion is ignorant?

Not knowing how pregnancies occur is what's ignorant and you just give those morons a pass because "shit happens". Good grief is right.

It's people like you who have turned me off completely to the republican party. People are not robots. People are going to have sex, married or not. It is a need for intimacy that people desire. Do you expect men to not have sex? Probably not.

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can't TEACH people to be good people. That is a choice.

You teach by example and you can also teach people to make better choices in life.

Teaching Teens How to Make Good Decisions
Operations Research Management Science Today - August 2004

 

[ChrisL]

That is ignorant as hell, one of the reasons why I don't agree with conservatives.

Yes, adoption is an option for some people who wish to go through an unwanted pregnancy that carries with it many, many health risks. It's not just like, Oh, I'm pregnant, let me pop out a kid. Duh. It is a MEDICAL condition that comes with a lot of potential complications including loss of mom's life in some instances.

Oh, is that easy? Just don't get pregnant? Good grief. For one thing, did it ever occur to you that SOME people who get pregnant may not be very mentally stable to begin with? Or maybe they are very young and naive? Shit happens.

Not getting a pregnant to avoid an abortion is ignorant?

Not knowing how pregnancies occur is what's ignorant and you just give those morons a pass because "shit happens". Good grief is right.

It's people like you who have turned me off completely to the republican party. People are not robots. People are going to have sex, married or not. It is a need for intimacy that people desire. Do you expect men to not have sex? Probably not.

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can think however you like, but you are just ignoring reality. In reality, there are people who are horrible rotten people, drug abusers, murderers, people who abuse their pets and their children. There are people who just don't give a shit about themselves or anything else, and certainly not some little baby in their womb that they are FORCED to carry against their will. Your expectations from people who are inherently flawed are silly.

They were forced to get pregnant, meaning every woman that has had an abortion was raped?

I'm pretty sure that not all were forced to get pregnant.

I'm glad to see you put women that have abortions in the same category as drug abusers, murderers and those who abuse pets and children, but it's odd that you defend them.

I said forced to carry out a pregnancy against their will, which would be the case if people like you had their way. I am a realist.

 

[ChrisL]

That is ignorant as hell, one of the reasons why I don't agree with conservatives.

Yes, adoption is an option for some people who wish to go through an unwanted pregnancy that carries with it many, many health risks. It's not just like, Oh, I'm pregnant, let me pop out a kid. Duh. It is a MEDICAL condition that comes with a lot of potential complications including loss of mom's life in some instances.

Oh, is that easy? Just don't get pregnant? Good grief. For one thing, did it ever occur to you that SOME people who get pregnant may not be very mentally stable to begin with? Or maybe they are very young and naive? Shit happens.

Not getting a pregnant to avoid an abortion is ignorant?

Not knowing how pregnancies occur is what's ignorant and you just give those morons a pass because "shit happens". Good grief is right.

It's people like you who have turned me off completely to the republican party. People are not robots. People are going to have sex, married or not. It is a need for intimacy that people desire. Do you expect men to not have sex? Probably not.

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can't TEACH people to be good people. That is a choice.

You teach by example and you can also teach people to make better choices in life.

Teaching Teens How to Make Good Decisions
Operations Research Management Science Today - August 2004

No you cannot. If a person decides he or she is not going to be a good person. That is all there is to it.

 

[ChrisL]

No, certainly not all, but there are some who do hold socialistic ideals. I've met plenty of them and they are not all that odd. Go to some other message boards, and you will see that there are quite a few of them.

Socialistic ideals are still a long shot from the description you agreed with. Hyperbolic statements are part of the reason that the GOP is known by people in it's own party as the "STUPID PARTY"

Does it hurt your feelings that everyone in your party isn't wonderful?

Of course not, but to portray the entire party that way is lie. When the GOP is linked to the crazies in their party, there are actual bills presented by their representatives to make that link unquestionable.

And OBVIOUSLY, I agree if you've been reading my posts. I don't follow either one of your stupid ridiculous parties. I think they both suck balls.

Except in that particular case when you were willing to accept and support a ridiculously stupid accusation about an entire party. How very even handed you are.

Yes, well I don't really like liberals too much, based upon much experience with them. It has less to do with their overall ideology than their attitudes and dishonesty in many cases generally.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not getting a pregnant to avoid an abortion is ignorant?

Not knowing how pregnancies occur is what's ignorant and you just give those morons a pass because "shit happens". Good grief is right.

It's people like you who have turned me off completely to the republican party. People are not robots. People are going to have sex, married or not. It is a need for intimacy that people desire. Do you expect men to not have sex? Probably not.

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can think however you like, but you are just ignoring reality. In reality, there are people who are horrible rotten people, drug abusers, murderers, people who abuse their pets and their children. There are people who just don't give a shit about themselves or anything else, and certainly not some little baby in their womb that they are FORCED to carry against their will. Your expectations from people who are inherently flawed are silly.

They were forced to get pregnant, meaning every woman that has had an abortion was raped?

I'm pretty sure that not all were forced to get pregnant.

I'm glad to see you put women that have abortions in the same category as drug abusers, murderers and those who abuse pets and children, but it's odd that you defend them.

I said forced to carry out a pregnancy against their will, which would be the case if people like you had their way. I am a realist.

In other words, you can be as irresponsible with your body as you wish because terminating an innocent life is perfectly ok.

You sure got life fucked up.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not getting a pregnant to avoid an abortion is ignorant?

Not knowing how pregnancies occur is what's ignorant and you just give those morons a pass because "shit happens". Good grief is right.

It's people like you who have turned me off completely to the republican party. People are not robots. People are going to have sex, married or not. It is a need for intimacy that people desire. Do you expect men to not have sex? Probably not.

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can't TEACH people to be good people. That is a choice.

You teach by example and you can also teach people to make better choices in life.

Teaching Teens How to Make Good Decisions
Operations Research Management Science Today - August 2004

No you cannot. If a person decides he or she is not going to be a good person. That is all there is to it.

Yes you can. That doesn't mean bad decisions will never be made. But you can make them understand the consequences.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Yea, the Russians got tired because they practically had no food to eat. They were lucky when we gave them grain shipments. Again, no food because it all went to the military to try and keep up in the arms race that Reagan won and broke their back at the same time.

Yup, so all we had to do to "win" the Cold War was triple the national debt and destroy the middle class.

Brilliant.

The debt was still manageable back then, not like the staggering National Debt now.

Obama is on course to triple the National Debt now .

National debt of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Reagan dragged us out of the worst economy since the Great Depression. The Misery Index was at an all-time high under Jimmy Carter, and Reagan cut it in half.

Misery index economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Inflation rose to an intolerable 13.3% under Carter, and Reagan cut that down quickly, ending up at only 4.1%

Historical Inflation Rates 1914-2015 US Inflation Calculator

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Progs hate Reagan because he called their home team an Evil Empire, vowed to defeat them and dealt them a crushing defeat that liberated hundreds of millions from the oppression of Soviet Communism.

There are statues of Reagan all throughout Eastern Europe where he is loved and reveared as their Liberator

No, there really aren't.

I'm more worried about the crushing defeat Reagan inflicted on the American Middle class.

You're a stooge and would be in the first wave of people rounded up and the executed if your communist masters ever got total control.

The middle class and the poor did far far far better under Reagan than Obama.

Lie to yourself all you want, lie to me and I'll vaporize you

I've still got my W2s from before and during Reagans presidency. I can dig them out to show you how wrong you are.

Is your last name Middle Class?

Without Reagan, we would still be fighting the Soviets. If you could go back in time, would you take a chance on ANY other president who may or may not have taken the hard steps to weaken the Soviet Union to the point of collapse? That is all that matters.

Reagan didn't do anything to weaken Russia. All he did was make a speech beside the Berlin Wall after the collapse of Russia was a foregone conclusion.

We should believe someone who thinks he represents the entire middle class.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Reagan forced the Soviets to commit too many resources to their military and nukes which was what bankrupted them and caused the internal transformation.

That had happened long before Reagan took office


Might as well thank Ike

Of course, collapse doesn't happen in only 8 years, but the critical part is at the end.

Which was well after St Reagan was out of office.

Less than 2 years.

Collapse of the Soviet Union - 1989-1991

The USSR officially ceased to exist on 31 December 1991.

So...let's be clear here...our actions to end the Soviet Union started well before Reagan and ended AFTER Reagan...but it's all Reagan's doing?

Nothing new was done in the two years it took for the Soviet Union to fall after Reagan left office. When a relief pitcher comes in with a lead, saves the game and closes it out, he gets special recognition. Reagan hardly had a lead.

 

[bendog]

An American Dog, a Polish Dog and a Russian Dog are talking. The American Dog, "in my country if you bark long enough someone will give you meat."
Polish Dog, "what's meat?"

Russian Dog, "what's bark."

 

[BULLDOG]

An American Dog, a Polish Dog and a Russian Dog are talking. The American Dog, "in my country if you bark long enough someone will give you meat."
Polish Dog, "what's meat?"

Russian Dog, "what's bark."

 

[ChrisL]

It's people like you who have turned me off completely to the republican party. People are not robots. People are going to have sex, married or not. It is a need for intimacy that people desire. Do you expect men to not have sex? Probably not.

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can think however you like, but you are just ignoring reality. In reality, there are people who are horrible rotten people, drug abusers, murderers, people who abuse their pets and their children. There are people who just don't give a shit about themselves or anything else, and certainly not some little baby in their womb that they are FORCED to carry against their will. Your expectations from people who are inherently flawed are silly.

They were forced to get pregnant, meaning every woman that has had an abortion was raped?

I'm pretty sure that not all were forced to get pregnant.

I'm glad to see you put women that have abortions in the same category as drug abusers, murderers and those who abuse pets and children, but it's odd that you defend them.

I said forced to carry out a pregnancy against their will, which would be the case if people like you had their way. I am a realist.

In other words, you can be as irresponsible with your body as you wish because terminating an innocent life is perfectly ok.

You sure got life fucked up.

Look, if you're going to be dickhead, don't address my posts anymore. Fuck you.

 

[bendog]

I suspect Reagan got a chuckle out of this. He never ceased to laugh at college kids making fools of themselves.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Nobody even dreamed it was possible to defeat the Soviets until Reagan came along.

Essay How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War - Conservapedia

From Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter, the policy when dealing with the Soviet Union was containment. Containment failed. The ultimate goal of the Soviet empire was a global communist revolution, therefore the Soviets could never have been contained. When Ronald Reagan came into office, he initiated a policy of confronting the Soviet Union, marking a sharp departure from the "détente" policy of the 1970s.

Reagan advocated a radical agenda: challenge the Soviets everywhere. Economically, politically, militarily, and especially psychologically. Not just coexist with the Soviets, but defeat them. His strategy for an endgame to the Cold War was that there would be no coexistence with the Soviets. From beginning to end, the goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union.

The combined effects on the Soviet economy was costing the Soviet empire billions. The Soviets had increased defense spending by 45 percent, billions were lost in hard currency, billions more was spent on bolstering nervous third world communist dictators and all they had to show for it was dead young Russian and other Soviet citizens shipped home from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Reagan's leverage had worked and the Kremlin was now backed into a corner. After less than five years of Ronald Reagan, the hardliners of the Soviet leadership could no longer hide the economic damage of their rule. This gave the reformers an opening. Mikhail Gorbachev was elected by a one vote majority in the politburo and that vote was by Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had met with Reagan six months earlier and told him that he knew that Reagan's goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union. The politburo went with a reformer such as Gorbachev because they knew the only way they could compete with the United States and meet the Reagan challenge is by changing. So Gorbachev was brought into power in response to Ronald Reagan. So Reagan was really responsible for bringing Gorbachev into power.

Take the fact that communism drives any country broke, add a Reagan-supported arms build up as well as a Reagan-supported second arms race in space, add a Reagan-supported Vietnam-like quagmire, and mix in Reagan-supported socio-political upheaval in Soviet satellite states. It was more than the Soviet system could take. Especially with a Reagan-supported reformer in charge of the Soviet Union.

If any of those things had not happened, the Soviet Union could have survived their crises.

 

[bendog]

Nobody even dreamed it was possible to defeat the Soviets until Reagan came along.

Essay How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War - Conservapedia

From Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter, the policy when dealing with the Soviet Union was containment. Containment failed. The ultimate goal of the Soviet empire was a global communist revolution, therefore the Soviets could never have been contained. When Ronald Reagan came into office, he initiated a policy of confronting the Soviet Union, marking a sharp departure from the "détente" policy of the 1970s.

Reagan advocated a radical agenda: challenge the Soviets everywhere. Economically, politically, militarily, and especially psychologically. Not just coexist with the Soviets, but defeat them. His strategy for an endgame to the Cold War was that there would be no coexistence with the Soviets. From beginning to end, the goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union.

The combined effects on the Soviet economy was costing the Soviet empire billions. The Soviets had increased defense spending by 45 percent, billions were lost in hard currency, billions more was spent on bolstering nervous third world communist dictators and all they had to show for it was dead young Russian and other Soviet citizens shipped home from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Reagan's leverage had worked and the Kremlin was now backed into a corner. After less than five years of Ronald Reagan, the hardliners of the Soviet leadership could no longer hide the economic damage of their rule. This gave the reformers an opening. Mikhail Gorbachev was elected by a one vote majority in the politburo and that vote was by Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had met with Reagan six months earlier and told him that he knew that Reagan's goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union. The politburo went with a reformer such as Gorbachev because they knew the only way they could compete with the United States and meet the Reagan challenge is by changing. So Gorbachev was brought into power in response to Ronald Reagan. So Reagan was really responsible for bringing Gorbachev into power.

Take the fact that communism drives any country broke, add a Reagan-supported arms build up as well as a Reagan-supported second arms race in space, add a Reagan-supported Vietnam-like quagmire, and mix in Reagan-supported socio-political upheaval in Soviet satellite states. It was more than the Soviet system could take. Especially with a Reagan-supported reformer in charge of the Soviet Union.

If any of those things had not happened, the Soviet Union could have survived their crises.

Well, I disagree. but he was a great leader.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Whether it got deployed or not, Reagan was very good at selling Star Wars (SDI) and who better than a Hollywood star to do it. Nonetheless, SDI could have worked well if we had committed to it.

How Reagan won the Cold War.

The precise effect of Reagan's "Star Wars" speech—his high-profile and insanely impractical plan to build an antimissile "shield"—is hard to gauge. On the one hand, documents reveal that Gorbachev asked Yevgeny Velikhov, his chief science adviser, to evaluate whether Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, as it was formally called, would pose a threat. Velikhov replied that the project was fanciful and that the Soviets could build countermeasures—or deploy additional offensive missiles to saturate the Star Wars system—much more cheaply than the United States could construct additional defenses. However, at the same time, perhaps succumbing to pressure from his own military-industrial complex, Velikhov advised that it might be a good idea to build more missiles, just in case.

If somebody says, "Maybe we should stop being afraid of the bogeyman," it usually means he is afraid of the bogeyman. It's pretty clear that in the spring of 1986 Gorbachev and all those around with him were at least a little afraid of the SDI bogeyman.