09-06-2004 20:54									#421
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ahh, Ge-papping. The last refuge of a beaten man...

	09-06-2004 20:59									#422
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Reagan's Legacy - How will he be remembered?

I don't remember

	09-06-2004 21:01									#423
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: What about intermediate-range ballistic missiles? Or the navy? Or some other parts of the $1.3 trillion defense spending increase under Reagan that I'm forgetting about?

Not at all important compared to the SDI. Those wouldn't fundamentally change the balance of power.

Point is, the bank wasn't broken. They could've gone on indefinitely as long as the state continued or escalated its severe repression. Look at North Korea. Gorby's perestroika opened the way for the desolution of the Soviet Union, and Reagan ended his beligerance before it was too late opened the way for perestroika.

quote: Ahh, Ge-papping. The last refuge of a beaten man...

Better Ge-papping than BAMing.

	09-06-2004 21:02									#424
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Or pressure from Reagan that led the hard-liners to believe that reform (and therefore Gorbachev) was the necessary course of action.

Maybe you forget that Reagan was already in power when Andropov and Chernenko both came to power-how come Reagan's belligerance did not convince people of the need to reform when Brezhnev certainly belliegerent, dropped dead?

The reason for bringing in a reformer had to do with the fact the soviet system was suffering from serious and endemic corruption from the inside. Whay would Reagan's buildup "bankrupt" the soviets? The problems with the Soviets, as I said before many times was endemic corruption that came into force in the 1970's under Brezhnev. The Soviets wanted reformers to fix the rot they could see happening from the inside. Reagan's pressure in his frist term at most showed the soviets just how serious their endemic corruption was and what the consequences might be of failing to reform. Had the Soviet reformers succeeded then the SU would probalby still be in power. They failed, becuase the corruption had gone too deep and Gorbachev failed to bring in economic reform even as he brought political reform. The thing is Reagan's actions to work with Gorbachev gave him a partner and weakened the hardliners much more than Reagan's "toughness". Gorbachev had a partner in the US to end the nuclear standoff. That is the best part of Reagan's CW legacy [and a interesting comparison with Dubya]

	09-06-2004 21:03									#425
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Reagan was an actor.......who doesn't idolize actors?

	09-06-2004 21:04									#426
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Point is, the bank wasn't broken. They could've gone on indefinitely as long as the state continued or escalated its severe repression. Look at North Korea.

Comparing anything to North Korea is a horrible idea. That shithole is a one of a kind situation...

quote: Better Ge-papping than BAMing.

1) I'm not BAMing. I'm restating the points made by Dinesh D'Souza in the article Ted linked to.

2) What do you call this, other than a BAM?

quote: Point is, the bank wasn't broken. They could've gone on indefinitely as long as the state continued or escalated its severe repression. Look at North Korea.

	09-06-2004 21:04									#427
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The Soviets saw reagan as very belligerant- and as Ramo correctly states, nothing makes a regime hand harder than an belligerant enemy, specially if you do have the means to fight back.

	09-06-2004 21:05									#428
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Whay would Reagan's buildup "bankrupt" the soviets?

Arms races aren't cheap...

quote: That is the best part of Reagan's CW legacy [and a interesting comparison with Dubya]

How? Who's Bush's Gorbachev?

	09-06-2004 21:11									#429
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Shame he did live another 50 years with that Alzheimers.




I wonder if his mental illness was by choice

	09-06-2004 21:21									#430
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Arms races aren't cheap...

At the time the soviets had an economy of almost if not more than $2 Trillion (look that up if you are ignorant) -matching Reagans funding would have meant 20% GNP into the Military. 20% GNP into the MIlitary is not going to bankrupt an authocratic state.

	09-06-2004 21:25									#431
	Remove this text

quote: At the time the soviets had an economy of almost if not more than $2 Trillion (look that up if you are ignorant)

Yes, because not knowing the GDP of the Soviet Union in the early 1980's off the top of one's head makes one "ignorant"...

quote: 20% GNP into the MIlitary is not going to bankrupt an authocratic state.

That's a BAM. Not to mention that it doesn't have to bankrupt the state, but merely place enough pressure on an already overburdened system to make reform a necessary choice...

	09-06-2004 21:29									#432
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

At least Spitting Image for something right.

The President's brain was, indeed, not working quite as it should be.

	09-06-2004 21:31									#433
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: 20% GNP into the MIlitary is not going to bankrupt an authocratic state. That's a BAM. Not to mention that it doesn't have to bankrupt the state, but merely place enough pressure on an already overburdened system to make reform a necessary choice...

Look at what some autocratic states spend in terms fo GNP and military. The regime of the NK remains in power even as its people starve and it spends at least 50% GNP on the military and has been doing it for a decade. Would not reform of the system seem a necessary choice? One never made, the state continues along, as does the tension.

You say "overburdened", well, that burden came from the inside, as did the choice to chose reform and not repression. Reagan added factors to the choice, BUT the choices were always with the Soviets when i came to their internal policies. And the failure of reform was also not Reagan's doing but a result of the internal situation of the USSR.

	09-06-2004 21:33									#434
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Look at what some autocratic states spend in terms fo GNP and military. The regime of the NK remains in power even as its people starve and it spends at least 50% GNP on the military and has been doing it for a decade. Would not reform of the system seem a necessary choice? One never made, the state continues along, as does the tension.

Why do I even bother talking to people who can't spot the massive differences between the Soviet Union and North Korea? I must enjoy wasting my time...

	09-06-2004 21:38									#435
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Why do I even bother talking to people who can't spot the massive differences between the Soviet Union and North Korea? I must enjoy wasting my time...

Becuase for this point, there is no difference. You are claiming Reagan forced due to spending pressures an autocratic state to refrom itself and thus won the cold war.... (that is your claim, is it not?)

1. Reform itself for what purpose? To become an even stronger enemy? To end the competition?

2. You have never explained why the Soviets would not go with just repression and sitting Reagan out? After all, they knew he would be gone in 8 years max. What was the sense of urgency?

	09-06-2004 21:43									#436
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

http://tradealert.us/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1134

This is part of how hes going to be remembered.

	09-06-2004 21:43									#437
	Inflate your Upload Space

Nothing to see here.

	09-06-2004 21:44									#438
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You have never explained why the Soviets would not go with just repression and sitting Reagan out

Good point

	09-06-2004 21:44									#439
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Ah yes. I still remember the reputable piece you quoted in another thread.

Which one?

	09-06-2004 21:46									#440
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Why would I need to reform if my opponent was willing to bargain with me? The system will continue to limp along like it has for decades if my opponent doesn't pressure me at all. A "trigger happy madman", OTOH, is a huge challenge that strains my overburdened system and makes reform a necessity.

There is some illogic here.

A person who bargains is likely to move the hardliners away from power and moderates in, who are a lot more likely to reform. Besides, bargains can always include reforms. IMF and WB have reform clauses attached to loans all the time.

	09-06-2004 21:48									#441
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 1. Reform itself for what purpose? To become an even stronger enemy? To end the competition?

To keep up with your highly visible competitor for global hegemony.

quote: 2. You have never explained why the Soviets would not go with just repression and sitting Reagan out? After all, they knew he would be gone in 8 years max. What was the sense of urgency?

They were in a fight with the United States to determine which ideology would be the one to gain dominance in the world. You can't just sit out such a struggle for eight years and hope that the next U.S. President will be some limp dicked liberal who won't notice how you threw in the towel in response to Reagan's pressure. You have to save face in a struggle like this, as perception is everything.

	09-06-2004 21:49									#442
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: A person who bargains is likely to move the hardliners away from power and moderates in, who are a lot more likely to reform.

Yes, just like Neville Chamberlain did...

	09-06-2004 22:06									#443
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten To keep up with your highly visible competitor for global hegemony.

In terms of military power, the only way they could fee this was a serious threat was if they saw Reagan as being very belligerant (which you claim was not the case).
In terms of econmic power, then the issue is more their own internal decrepidness, NOT the outside pressure.

quote: 2. You have never explained why the Soviets would not go with just repression and sitting Reagan out? After all, they knew he would be gone in 8 years max. What was the sense of urgency?

quote: They were in a fight with the United States to determine which ideology would be the one to gain dominance in the world. You can't just sit out such a struggle for eight years and hope that the next U.S. President will be some limp dicked liberal who won't notice how you threw in the towel in response to Reagan's pressure. You have to save face in a struggle like this, as perception is everything.

The soviets in their foreign policy since Stalin never really gived a damn about spreading communism as much as spreading their influence-which they could do with client states around the world, much as how the US cared more about client states than actually spreading democracy in the same time (as Reagan's FP shows). You still fail to say why 8 years of "standing up to Capitalist aggression" was not a viable option to the Soviets.

I would further posit that the Soviets were not ignorant of the growing economic power of others , like Japan, and the consequences Deng's reforms were having in China. Maybe the US likes to keep its conflicts black and white, good vs Evil, but Europeans are more attuned a a board with many players and it would strike me as very odd if the fact that the USSR was falling behind not only the uS, but Japan, and that China was carrying out reforms that were staring to have success did not also weight on the Soviets as they saw internal corruption eating them away.

	09-06-2004 22:07									#444
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Yes, just like Neville Chamberlain did...

Do you know any other triick to oppose bargaining rounds, or will you try to apply appeasement to whichever attempt at non-violent diplomacy till the end of your life?

	09-06-2004 22:12									#445
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: the only way they could fee this was a serious threat was if they saw Reagan as being very belligerant (which you claim was not the case).

How did I claim that "was not the case"? I was the one who called Reagan's behavior belligerant in the first place, Einstein! Can't you read?

quote: The soviets in their foreign policy since Stalin never really gived a damn about spreading communism as much as spreading their influence-which they could do with client states around the world, much as how the US cared more about client states than actually spreading democracy in the same time (as Reagan's FP shows). You still fail to say why 8 years of "standing up to Capitalist aggression" was not a viable option to the Soviets.

You think far-flung Soviet client states in Latin America and Africa were just going to sit back and wait 8 years until the Reagan left and the Soviets got back in the game?



Hell, Reagan was already putting on the pressure right next door in Afghanistan. The Soviets would've been rolled back to nothing if they had done what you suggest...

quote: I would further posit that the Soviets were not ignorant of the growing economic power of others , like Japan, and the consequences Deng's reforms were having in China.

Japan had no military power, China had no economic power. America was the USSR's only real competitor.

	09-06-2004 22:15									#446
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Do you know any other triick to oppose bargaining rounds, or will you try to apply appeasement to whichever attempt at non-violent diplomacy till the end of your life

I'll continue to use it until the day I die. It's such a perfect example of how bargaining with hard-liners only emboldens them and does nothing to encourage reform. It has to be used, lest we all forget history's lessons in a flood of ***** Eurocom bullshit...

	09-06-2004 22:21									#447
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Soviet Union was ruled by an inhumane, repressive regime -- beats me why some people are trying to fluff the Soviet Union's history into something else.

	09-06-2004 22:28									#448
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: The Soviet Union was ruled by an inhumane, repressive regime -- beats me why some people are trying to fluff the Soviet Union's history into something else.

They hate Reagan so much that they'll defend one of the most evil regimes in history just to deny him the glory of ridding the world of that kind of evil...

Not that hating Reagan is bad. They just need to hate Reagan for the right reasons, like his unconscionable treatment of homosexuals during the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic.

	09-06-2004 22:32									#449
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Well, I despised Reagan too, but that doesn't stop me from seeing the history of the Soviet Union for what it was.

	09-06-2004 22:33									#450
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten You think far-flung Soviet client states in Latin America and Africa were just going to sit back and wait 8 years until the Reagan left and the Soviets got back in the game? Hell, Reagan was already putting on the pressure right next door in Afghanistan. The Soviets would've been rolled back to nothing if they had done what you suggest...

Reagan's military buildup had very little to do with giving aid and support to states fighting leftist insurgents, or in funding rightwing insurgents against Soviet supporters. During Reagan's term the only active step he took against soviet influence in LA was invading Grenada . Even his aid to Afghanistan was small compared to the buildup. 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.

As for Afghanistan, as with the US in Vietnam, that was a war the Soviets were militarilly in charge, but had no real political solution possible. IT was a waste of their time which they did solely for the notion of "not looking weak"-the same stupid notion that kept us the same amount of time in Vietnam.

quote: Japan had no military power, China had no economic power. America was the USSR's only real competitor.

You would make a lousy leader, as you need to think ahead in time. That Japan in 1985 may not have military power. Why should Japan in 1990 not?