|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 5, 2011 7:26:59 GMT -5
The theory is that because the Soviets felt compelled to match the NATO OPFOR in terms of military capability, they spent themselves into said stagnation, whish lead to said unrest. If true, then yes, Reagan played a part in the Sov's downfall. Sure he played a part, just a relatively minor one. A large state imploding like that for economic reasons takes years and years cumulative economic fuckups. Just because it all went boom during Reagan's watch doesn't mean he played a large part in it. Not saying he didn't contribute at all, just that he wasn't the main force behind it. Personally, I'd put the most blame on Afghanistan and the space race. Um... not that I want to get into a whole defence of Reagan thing... but Afghanistan cost the Soviets so dearly because the Americans supplied the Mujahadeen with the means to tie them up so, and the space race, particularly the Star Wars program, was something Reagan supported strongly. Just saying is all. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 5, 2011 9:34:36 GMT -5
The Star Wars program, officially called the Strategic Defense Initiative was never a part of the space race. This is incredibly easy to see, as not only was the space race for exploration and the SDI about tactical superiority, the space race was from '57 to '75 and the SDI wasn't formed until '84, a good 9 years afterwards. This also means Reagan wasn't part of the Federal government until 6 years after the space race, so really could do nothing legislatively about it. Don't get me wrong, I know the space race did negatively impact on the USSR's economy, but to claim Reagan had anything to do with that bit is just dishonest. |
|
|
|
Post by terri on Jul 5, 2011 10:31:34 GMT -5
And he got an airport named for him even though he broke the pilots' strike.
|
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Jul 5, 2011 10:38:47 GMT -5
Sure he played a part, just a relatively minor one. A large state imploding like that for economic reasons takes years and years cumulative economic fuckups. Just because it all went boom during Reagan's watch doesn't mean he played a large part in it. Not saying he didn't contribute at all, just that he wasn't the main force behind it. Personally, I'd put the most blame on Afghanistan and the space race. Um... not that I want to get into a whole defence of Reagan thing... but Afghanistan cost the Soviets so dearly because the Americans supplied the Mujahadeen with the means to tie them up so, and the space race, particularly the Star Wars program, was something Reagan supported strongly. Just saying is all. Even though this worked, he still handled it wrong. He armed a group who viewed the United States as the lesser of two evils, and pointed them at the Soviet Union. Then the USSR fell, and the United States made no attempt to help rebuild Afghanistan. They just left. At this point, the Mujaheddin (and bin Laden) was armed, trained to fight against an imperialistic army, and viewed the United States as the greatest evil in the world. Besides, it's not like Reagan or the United States can claim any kind of moral superiority in the 1980s Afghanistan situation. How many countries in Latin America did the United States invade (or support the invasion of) during the Cold War? How many democratically elected leaders did the US overthrow and replace with right-wing dictators, simply because the legitimate governments attempted to provide water and electricity to their people? |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 5, 2011 10:58:40 GMT -5
Did I say it was socially acceptable? My point was that the only reason Britain didn't bullshit about running an empire was because running an empire was not nearly as morally repugnant as it is nowadays. Is it though? If you were to say to some of the poorest countries on earth that you could guarantee that everyone in their country could have the same standard of living as in a first-world country, that you'd use your armed forces to ensure that no wars broke out in return for them living under your flag, would it be morally repugnant? |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 5, 2011 11:00:33 GMT -5
Um... not that I want to get into a whole defence of Reagan thing... but Afghanistan cost the Soviets so dearly because the Americans supplied the Mujahadeen with the means to tie them up so, and the space race, particularly the Star Wars program, was something Reagan supported strongly. Just saying is all. A drunk driver driving home safely does not make drunk driving safe or smart. That the end result of Reagan's plans worked is not particularly indicative of sound logic. Similarly, it's already been pointed out that Star Wars=/=Space Race. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 5, 2011 19:55:54 GMT -5
Personally I think the stagnation and unrest in the USSR coming to a head did far more to end the cold war than Reagan and his shenanigans. The theory is that because the Soviets felt compelled to match the NATO OPFOR in terms of military capability, they spent themselves into said stagnation, whish lead to said unrest. If true, then yes, Reagan played a part in the Sov's downfall. Unfortunately, Soviet misile spending did not increase in the 1980s* You could argue that the war in Afghanistan led to an increase in straight-leg infantry spending and tank spending, but the Afghan War was, of course, a Carter policy. * Some people say that the massive white elephant program called Star Wars led to the Soviets increasing missile production. But the Soviets, masters of wasteful, unnecessary spending, saw through his absurd policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 5, 2011 20:22:27 GMT -5
My point was that the only reason Britain didn't bullshit about running an empire was because running an empire was not nearly as morally repugnant as it is nowadays. Is it though? If you were to say to some of the poorest countries on earth that you could guarantee that everyone in their country could have the same standard of living as in a first-world country, that you'd use your armed forces to ensure that no wars broke out in return for them living under your flag, would it be morally repugnant? The point of empire building is to take other country's wealth and add it to your own, not the other way 'round. What you describe is doing it wrong. BTW, by "morally repugnant", I was referring to the generally accepted view of what's moral and what's not, not my own views on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 6, 2011 4:36:55 GMT -5
Is it though? If you were to say to some of the poorest countries on earth that you could guarantee that everyone in their country could have the same standard of living as in a first-world country, that you'd use your armed forces to ensure that no wars broke out in return for them living under your flag, would it be morally repugnant? The point of empire building is to take other country's wealth and add it to your own, not the other way 'round. What you describe is doing it wrong. Yes I know that, but what I'm saying is if someone did it the way I suggested, would we still find it morally repugnant? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 6, 2011 6:01:45 GMT -5
The point of empire building is to take other country's wealth and add it to your own, not the other way 'round. What you describe is doing it wrong. Yes I know that, but what I'm saying is if someone did it the way I suggested, would we still find it morally repugnant? Assuming there's no objections on anyone's part, I wouldn't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 6, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
The theory is that because the Soviets felt compelled to match the NATO OPFOR in terms of military capability, they spent themselves into said stagnation, whish lead to said unrest. If true, then yes, Reagan played a part in the Sov's downfall. Unfortunately, Soviet misile spending did not increase in the 1980s* You could argue that the war in Afghanistan led to an increase in straight-leg infantry spending and tank spending, but the Afghan War was, of course, a Carter policy. You've made this claim before, and I asked you about it... Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened in November '79, Carter was only President until January '81, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan lasted until February '89... how is the US support of the insurgency leading to eventual Soviet defeat/withdrawal Carter's baby, rather than Reagan's? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 6, 2011 7:24:16 GMT -5
Unfortunately, Soviet misile spending did not increase in the 1980s* You could argue that the war in Afghanistan led to an increase in straight-leg infantry spending and tank spending, but the Afghan War was, of course, a Carter policy. You've made this claim before, and I asked you about it... Sorry. I should have responded. Not sure why not. Maybe I just missed your question. A baby is a good way to put it. Carter invented the policy. All the rep for innovation and political leadership goes to Carter. He started the arming of the Mujahideen. Apparently, he armed them even before the Soviets invaded (in order to provoke them) though this is controversial. It was Carter's policy. All Reagen did was not end it. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 6, 2011 7:31:50 GMT -5
The point of empire building is to take other country's wealth and add it to your own, not the other way 'round. What you describe is doing it wrong. Yes I know that, but what I'm saying is if someone did it the way I suggested, would we still find it morally repugnant? The normal concern with paternalistic policy is that it treats adults as children, which is insulting, creates a needy welfare-dependence and so on. Then there's the Laurence of Arabia contention- anything locals think up will work better than a foreign governor's fiat. My concern is that humans don't work like that. You can't give humans huge power over large numbers of other humans and have good results. In the short-run 'good for them' and 'good for us' will be suspiciously similar. In the long-run, the first will be forgotten. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 6, 2011 7:50:07 GMT -5
the United States made no attempt to help rebuild Afghanistan. They just left. This isn't quite true. The US continued to arm an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group that was effectively the Taliban (even though they formed in 1994, Halmaktyr was of similar belief and also allied millitarily). They turned down Soviet offers of a coalition government (with moderates, US-backed Islamists and independent socialists represented) on the basis that the insurgency would quickly- within a few months- overturn the government (it took 10 years) and replace it with moderates (the Taliban) who would be good friends with the US (not so much). The US tried to get the Taliban to agree to a multi-billion dollar natural gas/oil pipeline through it's territory, after the lobbying of a heavily invested medium-size US oil company. The US allowed it's allies like Pakistan* and Saudi Arabia to set up and then openly arm the Taliban for a decade and a half. Pakistan and saudi Arabia have also armed Al Qaeda, a group famously set up by the CIA. Meanwhile, real US allies like the regional warlord Massoud were given almost no money. Eventually, Massoud's group- called the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, or the Northern Alliance for short, were placed in power by the US- but only after their leader was blown up. It was pretty dumb policy. Not exactly evil, but braindead. *Pakistan likes the Taliban/Mujahideen and other fundamentalist Islamists for one simple reason- they kill lots of Indians. Pakistan has a vested interest in a fundamentalist insurgency in Kashmir, both to fend the Indians off and to weaken them in case of invasion. And the best insurgents in the world are the Taliban. |
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Jul 6, 2011 11:15:02 GMT -5
This Spitting Image skit seems timely: This reminds me of the Genesis video with the creepy puppets... |
|
