Reagan Statue To Replace Soviet Monument In Poland

[oldbetang]

A notebook logging daily activities IS a diary, either way, North's words. He says, the Honduras drug traffic is responsible for the Contras existance.

Actually, it was Richard Secord who supposedly told North that. If true, Honduras drug trafficking hardly equates with the Contras themselves peddling drugs, let alone the CIA or others of the US government.

 

[KomissarSteve]

What exactly do you want me to back up?

The statement that it was Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" policy that forced the Soviets to reform.

or the fact that reform in the USSR was an attempt to confront serious economic problems created by the accelerated arms race?

That was part of the problem, but it was far from the only problem. Rampant corruption caused by Brezhnev's government, as well as embarrassments like the Afghan War, were also enormously important.

From Federation of American Scientists:

The FAS did not write that; Christopher Cox, a Republican Congressman from Minnesota, did. Nice try.

Where is the blatant mischaracterization? That he claimed that Peace Movement contributed to the end of the Cold War?

Here's what you said: "However, one contention of his kind of jumped out at me. He claims that the Peace Movement contributed to the end of the Cold War. That is absolutely laughable! Reagan never paid heed at all to the Peace Movement , which called for the US to unilaterally disarm."

You blatantly mischaracterized the type of contribution that Knopf claims the Peace Movement made to the end of the Cold War. He claims that their contribution was not to influence Reagan directly, but to moderate U.S. foreign policy.

I disagree! An increased average would be more likely seen by having more missiles dispersed at more launch sites, be they land or sea based. It only makes sense. If you come at me with 5 vehicles loaded with explosives , you have a greater chance of success than if you tried an attack with the explosives loaded into only one vehicle.

Except when the amount of delivery vehicles you can deploy (or, more-precisely, the amount of delivery vehicles you can construct) is limited. Say, through a treaty like SALT.

I'm amazed you don't know this; didn't you live through this?

I respectfully disagree.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but until you can provide evidence to back it up, that's all it's going to be.

Invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Suppression of the Solidarity movement in Poland. Expansion of Soviet influence in Africa and Central America. Continued suppression of any dissent within the USSR and her Satellites. Oh yeah, Brezhnev was quite the moderate!

Are any of those directly related to Soviet policy towards the U.S.? I didn't think so.

You are confusing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act with the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Mmmmm, not really. I was the one who originally cited Clinton balancing the budget as an example of his eschewing of Supply Side dogma. My evidence of this was his initiative to balance the budget, which he did through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which the GOP virulently opposed. If there has been any confusion, I'm afraid it's been on your part, not mine.

 

[oldbetang]

The statement that it was Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" policy that forced the Soviets to reform.

[/size]


You and I both know that that is not something that I can prove outright. I could do like you did and offer a dissertation like Knopf’s that would back me up, but that wouldn’t be something that you would accept. The fact is that the Soviet economy was suffering as a result of military buildup by the soviet to try and keep up with the US. It does seem obvious that Gorbachev reforms were intended to counter the severe economic stress that they were under.

The FAS did not write that; Christopher Cox, a Republican Congressman from Minnesota, did. Nice try

I didn’t say that FAS wrote it. BTW, Christopher Cox may have been born in Minnesota, but he was a Congressman from California.

Here's what you said: "However, one contention of his kind of jumped out at me. He claims that the Peace Movement contributed to the end of the Cold War. That is absolutely laughable! Reagan never paid heed at all to the Peace Movement , which called for the US to unilaterally disarm."

You blatantly mischaracterized the type of contribution that Knopf claims the Peace Movement made to the end of the Cold War. He claims that their contribution was not to influence Reagan directly, but to moderate U.S. foreign policy.

You are blatantly mischaracterizing “my blatant mischaracterization” of Mr Knopf’s claim.

Except when the amount of delivery vehicles you can deploy (or, more-precisely, the amount of delivery vehicles you can construct) is limited. Say, through a treaty like SALT.

I'm amazed you don't know this; didn't you live through this?

Um, SALT expired in 1977 and ,if I’m not mistaken ,was limited to land based launchers . Perhaps you were referring to SALT II? Never mind that it was never ratified, because it is irrelevant since we were discussing hypotheticals.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but until you can provide evidence to back it up, that's all it's going to be

.

Right back at ya!

Are any of those directly related to Soviet policy towards the U.S.? I didn't think so.

Excuse me, but when your enemy is expanding its territory and its control worldwide, that definitely becomes a cause of concern. So yes, I’d have to say that those Soviet aggressions and provocations were directly related to the US.

Mmmmm, not really. I was the one who originally cited Clinton balancing the budget as an example of his eschewing of Supply Side dogma. My evidence of this was his initiative to balance the budget, which he did through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which the GOP virulently opposed. If there has been any confusion, I'm afraid it's been on your part, not mine.

What part of Balanced Budget Amendment do you not understand? That is how I specifically referred to it as. I’m afraid that you are the one who is confused.

 

[JustOneWay]

Well Gee, thanks for clearing that up!

I noticed you ignored the rest of my post. I suppose it is because you realize that Iran did attack America and you have no counter except to ignore.

Iran was an enemy at the time Reagan supplied them with weapons. Surprising that he got away with it. A mediocre President indeed.

 

[Rosco]

In Soviet Russia monument replaces you...

 

[KomissarSteve]

You and I both know that that is not something that I can prove outright. I could do like you did and offer a dissertation like Knopf’s that would back me up, but that wouldn’t be something that you would accept.

This is a complete cop-out. If you had any compelling evidence, you would post it, whether or not you expected me to accept it. Which I would, by the way, if it was from a reliable source.

The fact is that the Soviet economy was suffering as a result of military buildup by the soviet to try and keep up with the US. It does seem obvious that Gorbachev reforms were intended to counter the severe economic stress that they were under.

Except for the fact that neither perestroika nor glasnost had anything to do with military spending.

I didn’t say that FAS wrote it.

It was misleading, either way. I'm not saying you intended for it to be, but to say that it's "from the FAS," and not add that it was written by a GOP congressman, is misleading.

Um, SALT expired in 1977 and ,if I’m not mistaken ,was limited to land based launchers . Perhaps you were referring to SALT II? Never mind that it was never ratified,

Both sides honored its provisions, in spite of Congress' failure to ratify it.

because it is irrelevant since we were discussing hypotheticals.

Sure it's relevent. If the U.S. wouldn't have increased its number of deployed delivery vehicles, because it was in their interest to follow the provisions of SALT II, then logically the best way to increase the chances of a nuclear payload reaching the target is to MIRV the missiles that one can deploy.

Right back at ya!

Right, but so far, I'm the one posting evidence.

Excuse me, but when your enemy is expanding its territory and its control worldwide, that definitely becomes a cause of concern. So yes, I’d have to say that those Soviet aggressions and provocations were directly related to the US.

No, that's "indirectly" related to its policy towards the U.S. A policy directly related to the U.S. would be the Soviet Union saying, "If the U.S. invades another third-world country, we're going to launch nukes."

What part of Balanced Budget Amendment do you not understand? That is how I specifically referred to it as. I’m afraid that you are the one who is confused.

I said that Clinton balanced the budget. You said that Clinton only did so under pressure from Congress. I pointed out that no, he
actually was the prime mover behind the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, and it was Republicans in Congress who virulently opposed it. You thought that I was referring to legislation that was proposed later and that Clinton opposed - even though, logically, I can't have meant that piece of legislation, since I said from the beginning that it was an initiative that Clinton backed, so it can't have been the piece of legislation that he didn't back. Again, the mistake is on your part.

 

[KomissarSteve]

In Soviet Russia monument replaces you...

I'm amazed it took this long for someone to say this.

 

[KomissarSteve]

EDIT: Oh nos, double post! DO NOT WANT!!!

 

[oldbetang]

This is a complete cop-out. If you had any compelling evidence, you would post it, whether or not you expected me to accept it. Which I would, by the way, if it was from a reliable source.

Ok, this certainly is as reliable as anything that you have offered;


SDI quickly became an obsession of the Soviet leadership. Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko, and Mikhail Gorbachev all tried to derail SDI through propaganda and arms control. Reagan refused to put SDI on the table, however, leading four well-known national security analysts to argue that he had to choose between SDI and arms control.(25) Having failed to win elimination of the program, the Soviets were prodded by SDI into seeking greater modernization of their own society--which could only be achieved by liberalization. The threat of having to compete with SDI led to greater toleration of reform by the military.(26) Indeed, former Soviet officials have indicated that in many respects, perestroika was a military initiative, aimed at redressing the military implications of Soviet technological weakness. Gorbachev's two foreign ministers, Eduard Shevardnadze and Aleksandr Bessmertnykh, have both attested to the catalytic impact of SDI on Soviet internal reform.(27)

SDI changed the strategic environment, threatening the Soviets with the choice of an unacceptable strategic defeat or an unacceptable technological and economic burden. In the end, the pressures produced by SDI contributed as much as any single factor to the successful termination of the Cold War.

Except for the fact that neither perestroika nor glasnost had anything to do with military spending.

Perestroika did, in the sense that it was an attempt to counter the severe economic conditions that the military spending had contributed to there.

I don't see any evidence of that. I see evidence of them being severely annoyed that the U.S. seemed uninterested in continuing to maintain effective nuclear parity and scrap their hard-earned strategic relationship for a hair-brained scheme like SDI.​

I respectfully disagree. ​

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but until you can provide evidence to back it up, that's all it's going to be

.​

Right back at ya! ​

Right, but so far, I'm the one posting evidence.

What gall! We have a difference in interpretation of quotes in an article you posted and you claim oneupmanship. Where is the evidence that your interpretation is any more valid than mine?

No, that's "indirectly" related to its policy towards the U.S. A policy directly related to the U.S. would be the Soviet Union saying, "If the U.S. invades another third-world country, we're going to launch nukes."

Come on! Now you're just being silly. Soviet aggression and expansionism were directly related to the US , in the context of the Cold War. Stop going through contortions to deny the obvious.

I said that Clinton balanced the budget. You said that Clinton only did so under pressure from Congress. I pointed out that no, he
actually was the prime mover behind the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, and it was Republicans in Congress who virulently opposed it. You thought that I was referring to legislation that was proposed later and that Clinton opposed - even though, logically, I can't have meant that piece of legislation, since I said from the beginning that it was an initiative that Clinton backed, so it can't have been the piece of legislation that he didn't back. Again, the mistake is on your part.

Ok, Here it is in chronological order:

Balancing the budget and recognizing the utility of a budget surplus isn't specific enough for you? And I'm sorry if you don't like my definition of supply-side economics, but allowing deficit spending is an inherent part of that school of thought.

You are talking about outcomes , not policy itself. What are the differences in policy between the two Presidents, other than the fact that Clinton finally succumbed to Congressional pressure to sign off on balanced budget amendment?​

Balancing the budget WAS a policy. Don't you remember the slogan "It's the economy, stupid!"?

"It’s the economy, stupid" was a slogan, not a policy.​

Or the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act?

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus...on_Act_of_1993

Succumbed to pressure? Clinton had to fight very, very hard to get it passed. Literally every single Republican in Congress voted against it.

You are confusing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act with the Balanced Budget Amendment. Like I said, it was the Republicans who fought very, very hard to get Clinton to sign it. He actually vetoed it twice before finally capitulating.​

Adminstration Steps Up Fight Against Budget Amendment​

The Clinton administration stepped up its campaign against the balanced budget amendment yesterday, claiming that mandating a balanced budget in 2000 would require sharp tax increases and deep cuts in defense spending, Social Security, and other critical programs.​

Mmmmm, not really. I was the one who originally cited Clinton balancing the budget as an example of his eschewing of Supply Side dogma. My evidence of this was his initiative to balance the budget, which he did through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which the GOP virulently opposed. If there has been any confusion, I'm afraid it's been on your part, not mine.

What part of Balanced Budget Amendment do you not understand? That is how I specifically referred to it as. I’m afraid that you are the one who is confused.​

Somebody is confused here, and it isn't me!

 

[KomissarSteve]

Ok, this certainly is as reliable as anything that you have offered

Are you sure you linked me to the right book? This one is "Leaders Talk Leadership: Top Executives Speak Their Mind", and it doesn't seem to have much to do with the Cold War.

Not that I can place much faith in what that article says, anyway; SDI was still in very, very conceptual stages by the time Andropov died. Who wrote this book you're citing?

They did in the sense that they were attempts to counter the severe economic conditions that the military spending had contributed to there. Perestroika in particular, as that was an economic reform.

Yet, as I've pointed out, the bloated military budget was not nearly the only economic difficulty that the USSR faced. Corruption was also a huge problem, and that's the one thing that both perestroika and glasnost both directly addressed. And then, of course, there were bankrupcy laws, small business financing, etc.

What gall! We have a difference in interpretation of quotes in an article you posted and you claim oneupmanship. Where is the evidence that your interpretation is any more valid than mine?

The fact that you can't point out a single line in that whole passage that indicates that the Politburo wasn't just taking exception to the U.S.' abandonment of their hard-fought strategic relationship, but rather that they "were soiling their pants due to the fear it generated in them and the realization that they could never counter SDI with technology of their own."

Which is a load of nonsense, by the way. The Soviets had had a missile defense system defending Moscow since the 70's; it's still operational today.

Come on! Now you're just being silly. Soviet aggression and expansionism were directed related to the US , in the context of the Cold War.

So I was right; you don't understand the distinction between direct and indirect policy.

"Direct policy" would be the Soviets attacking Afghanistan or Algeria because A, they were territories of the U.S., or B, the Soviets wanted to kill American troops or citizens, or destroy U.S. missile sites in those individual countries.

"Indirect policy" would be setting up a friendly regime in those two countries before the U.S. could do the same. This is what the Soviets did in Algeria and Afghanistan. Cracking down on dissident movements is also an example of indirect policy, because the most you can say it relates to U.S. interests is to consolidate the Soviet position in their satellite states before the West could add them to their sphere of influence instead.

Ok, Here it is in chronological order:
...
Somebody is confused here, and it isn't me!

How can you possibly claim this? I said Clinton differed from the Supply Side dogma by balancing the budget; why would I be referring to the piece of legislation that Clinton opposed, instead of A, the piece of legislation that he helped create and push; B, the piece of legislation that the party of supply siders opposed; and C, the piece of legislation that came first, and is the definitive piece of legislation that balanced the budget in the 90's?

 

[JoyJuice]

While I wait for you to highlight some of the incriminating quotes in the material you linked to, I'll just post the conclusions of the CIA Inspector General's report:

1. Did CIA have any relationship or dealings with Ross, Blandon or Meneses? No information has been found to indicate that any past or present employee of CIA, or anyone acting on behalf of CIA, had any direct or indirect dealing with Ricky Ross, Oscar Danilo Blandon or Juan Norwin Meneses. Additionally, no information has been found to indicate that CIA had any relationship or contact with Ronald J. Lister or David Scott Weekly. No information has been found to indicate that any of these individuals was ever employed by CIA, or met by CIA employees or anyone acting on CIA's behalf.
2. Was the drug trafficking of Ross, Blandon or Meneses linked to CIA or Contra activities? No information has been found to indicate that Ross provided any money to any Contra group at any time, or that he had any contact or connection to the Contras or CIA.
3. No information has been found to indicate that the drug trafficking activities of Blandon and Meneses were motivated by any commitment to support the Contra cause or Contra activities undertaken by CIA.
4. Blandon and Meneses claim that they each donated between $3,000 and $40,000 to Contra sympathizers in Los Angeles. No information has been found to substantiate these claims. Moreover, no information has been found to indicate that Meneses or Blandon received any CIA or Contra support for their drug trafficking activities.
5. Blandon did have a personal relationship with Eden Pastora and provided him with financial assistance in the form of rent-free housing and two vehicles. Much of this assistance was provided to Pastora after he left the Contra movement.
6. Did CIA intervene or otherwise play a role in any investigative and judicial processes involving the drug trafficking activities of Ross, Blandon or Meneses? No information has been found to indicate that CIA hindered, or otherwise intervened in, the investigation, arrest, prosecution, or conviction of Ross, Blandon, or Meneses. CIA shared what information it had--specifically on Meneses' 1979 drug trafficking in Nicaragua--with U.S. law enforcement entities when it was received and again when subsequently requested by the FBI.
7. Did any of the individuals who were arrested in "The Frogman Case" have any relationship with CIA? Were the drug trafficking activities of any of those individuals linked to the Contras? No information has been found to indicate that CIA or individuals acting on behalf of CIA had any relationship with Julio Zavala, Carlos Cabezas or others who were arrested or charged in connection with the 1983 Frogman Case, though a relative of one of them did have a relationship with CIA until mid-1982.
8. No information has been found to indicate that Julio Zavala, Carlos Cabezas or other Frogman Case defendants were connected to the Contras or that the Contras benefited from their drug trafficking activities. No information has been found to support Cabezas' claim that he provided financial assistance to the Contras from his drug trafficking activities. While two individuals who were active in the Contra movement wrote letters indicating that the money seized from Zavala belonged to the Contras, it appears this was done though Zavala's wife's connections with old family friends and not because Zavala was active in the Contra movement.
9. Was CIA involved in the investigation of The Frogman Case? No information has been found to indicate that CIA or anyone acting on behalf of CIA was involved in the criminal investigation of Julio Zavala and his associates, though a relative of one of those who were arrested or charged did have a relationship with CIA until mid-1982.
10. To what extent and why did CIA become involved in the prosecution of The Frogman Case? CIA did make contact with prosecutors in the Zavala prosecution in order to protect what CIA believed was an operational equity, i.e., a Contra support group in which it had an operational interest. A CIA cable indicates that approximately $36,000 seized from Zavala at the time of his arrest was returned to Zavala--based on the claim they were Contra funds--by the prosecutors at CIA's request. However, the prosecutors state that the decision to return Zavala's money was based on other considerations, not CIA's representations, and that there was no evidentiary value to retaining the money. In any event, the actions taken by CIA to have the cash returned did not appear to be intended to influence the outcome of Zavala's trial, which resulted in his conviction.

Not neccessarilly the CIA, but the NSC where the honorable Ollie North worked. I linked that to show that the CIA was well aware of drugs being funneled into the US was used for the same purposes as Reagans illegal actions. HERE:

This electronic briefing book is compiled from declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive, including the notebooks kept by NSC aide and Iran-contra figure Oliver North, electronic mail messages written by high-ranking Reagan administration officials, memos detailing the contra war effort, and FBI and DEA reports. The documents demonstrate official knowledge of drug operations, and collaboration with and protection of known drug traffickers. Court and hearing transcripts are also included.

 

[JoyJuice]

Methinks you exaggerate!

Dude, their type of inefficency Government and outside factors caused many to Predictions of Soviet collapse since the 50s. Gorby realized this and tried to make changes.

 

[oldbetang]

Are you sure you linked me to the right book? This one is "Leaders Talk Leadership: Top Executives Speak Their Mind", and it doesn't seem to have much to do with the Cold War.

If you’re interested , go to this google page then click on the first site. Enter your country of origin. When the next page loads up enter a valid e-mail address. That will give you the full article. It was written by Andrew Busch , a Professor of political science. The Busch claims on Shevardnadze and Bessmertnykh are sourced.

This article also offers confirmation the Soviet reforms were a reaction to the effects of the Reagan Doctrine:

Reagan made the Soviet predicament far worse by forbidding high tech exports to the Soviets from the U.S. or its allies. For a while the decline was masked by high prices for Soviet oil exports, but that advantage collapsed in the early 1980s. In November 1985, the oil price was $30/barrel for crude, in March 1986 it had fallen to $12, as the Soviet economy lost billions in revenues.​

The economic race with the West required radical reforms, which Gorbachev imposed. He hoped his new policies of glasnost and perestoika would revitalize the Soviet economy, but instead of new solutions he heard new complaints.​

Here’s some some additional information from the same article regarding the greater role the Reagan played in the end of the Cold War:

Some of European leaders of the time give credit to Reagan for the application of these ideals. For example LechWalesa, leader of the Solidarity movement in Poland said in 2004, "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989." Helmut Kohl, chancellor of West Germany, said, "He was a stroke of luck for the world. Two years after Reagan called on Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the wall, he noted, it fell and 11 months later Germany was reunified. We Germans have much to thank Ronald Reagan for." Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said, "President Reagan was a determined opponent of Communism and he played an important role in bringing an end to Communism and to the artificial division of Europe imposed after the Second World War." Vaclav Havel , who became Czechoslovakian president in 1989 after the Velvet Revolution, said, "He was a man of firm principles who was indisputably instrumental in the fall of Communism." ​

Not that I can place much faith in what that article says, anyway; SDI was still in very, very conceptual stages by the time Andropov died.

It doesn’t matter that SDI was only in its development stage. The Soviets,who marvelled at US technology, didn’t know how far along it was and the idea of it had them worried.

Yet, as I've pointed out, the bloated military budget was not nearly the only economic difficulty that the USSR faced.

True! But it was a big one.

The fact that you can't point out a single line in that whole passage that indicates that the Politburo wasn't just taking exception to the U.S.' abandonment of their hard-fought strategic relationship, but rather that they "were soiling their pants due to the fear it generated in them and the realization that they could never counter SDI with technology of their own."

From the article:

And for the first time since 1953, the top Soviet leader was telling his nation that the world was on the verge of a nuclear holocaust. If candor is a sign of sincerity, then Moscow was worried. ​

The SDI announcement came out of the blue for the Kremlin--and for most of the Reagan Cabinet.69 Andropov's advisers urged him not to overreact, but he ignored their advice, accusing President Reagan of "deliberately lying" about Soviet military power to justify SDI. He denounced the missile shield as a "bid to disarm the Soviet Union in the face of the US nuclear threat." Space-based defense, he added: ​

would open the floodgates of a runaway race of all types of strategic arms, both offensive and defensive. Such is the real significance, the seamy side, so to say, of Washington's "defensive conception." ...The Soviet Union will never be caught defenseless by any threat.... Engaging in this is not just irresponsible, it is insane.... Washington's actions are putting the entire world in jeopardy.'​

SDI had touched a sensitive nerve. The Soviets treated it as an extremely serious development for two reasons. First, despite their boasting in the 1970s, Soviet leaders--and perhaps Andropov most of all--had great respect for US technological capabilities. Second, SDI had a profound psychological impact that reinforced the trend already anticipated in the new Soviet assessment of the "correlation of forces."​

Like I said, we have a different interpretation. You can think that you’re right and I’m wrong, but that is different than you thumping your chest claiming that you are the only one providing evidence.

So I was right; you don't understand the distinction between direct and indirect policy.

"Direct policy" would be the Soviets attacking Afghanistan or Algeria because A, they were territories of the U.S., or B, the Soviets wanted to kill American troops or citizens, or destroy U.S. missile sites in those individual countries.

"Indirect policy" would be setting up a friendly regime in those two countries before the U.S. could do the same. This is what the Soviets did in Algeria and Afghanistan. Cracking down on dissident movements is also an example of indirect policy, because the most you can say it relates to U.S. interests is to consolidate the Soviet position in their satellite states before the West could add them to their sphere of influence instead.

The invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan were direct challenges to the US policy of Containment. Their actions were indicative of the fact that neither Breznev nor Andropov were moderate.

How can you possibly claim this?

The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. You clearly confused the balanced Budget Amendment with the Omnibus Bill. It's not a big deal. I don't see why you can't just admit it and move on.

I said Clinton differed from the Supply Side dogma by balancing the budget;

Again, "outcome" does not equate with "policy", which is what I asked you to describe. You then linked to the Omnibus Legislation, but even that doesn’t qualify as an adequate description of how Clinton’s policy differed from Reagan’s. My argument, that there was no significant reversal of Reagan’s tax cut policy, still stands.

why would I be referring to the piece of legislation that Clinton opposed, instead of A, the piece of legislation that he helped create and push; B, the piece of legislation that the party of supply siders opposed; and C, the piece of legislation that came first, and is the definitive piece of legislation that balanced the budget in the 90's?

If anyone can claim credit for the balanced budgets of the late 90’s it would have to be the Congressional Republicans. When the Republicans took Congress, the baseline Clinton-budget forecast was $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The Republicans were persistent that Clinton send them budgets with fiscal restraint. So much so, that for 1996 Clinton had to submit five different budgets, until on his last one he grudgingly matched the GOP's balanced budget plan. Having said that, I would say that there are two major factors, in addition to budget restraint, that resulted in the so-called balanced budgets. Reagan’s Peace Dividend is one (Military spending as a share of GDP was at its lowest level since the late 1930s) and the second would be the use of Social Security surplus.

 

[oldbetang]

Not neccessarilly the CIA, but the NSC where the honorable Ollie North worked. I linked that to show that the CIA was well aware of drugs being funneled into the US was used for the same purposes as Reagans illegal actions. HERE:

Again, I ask you to highlight the incriminating quotes.

 

[oldbetang]

Dude, their type of inefficency Government and outside factors caused many to Predictions of Soviet collapse since the 50s. Gorby realized this and tried to make changes.

Since the 50's? Try, since the 40's. From your link:

American diplomatGeorge F. Kennan proposed his famous containment theory in 1946-47, arguing that, if the USSR were not allowed to expand, it would soon collapse
​

 

[Voegelin]

Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope and half a century of American effort defeated socialist totalitarianism in the Soviet Empire. The left needs to accept that and "move on".

The dream is dead.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope and half a century of American effort defeated socialist totalitarianism in the Soviet Empire. The left needs to accept that and "move on".

The dream is dead.

Reagan and Thatcher's roles in the collapse of the USSR were minimal. The Right needs to accept this.

The dream is dead.

See, I can do it too! The difference is, the Left doesn't have a strange aversion from providing actual evidence when arguing this point.

 

[KomissarSteve]

If you’re interested , go to this google page then click on the first site. Enter your country of origin. When the next page loads up enter a valid e-mail address. That will give you the full article. It was written by Andrew Busch , a Professor of political science. The Busch claims on Shevardnadze and Bessmertnykh are sourced.

I'd rather not send my credit card number to a site that I don't have to; would you just do me a favor and quote his citations? Shouldn't be TOO much of a chore to simply copy and paste them.

This article also offers confirmation the Soviet reforms were a reaction to the effects of the Reagan Doctrine:

Pardon me, but I find myself having a difficult time considering "Answers.com" as a particularly credible source on the issue.

Reagan made the Soviet predicament far worse by forbidding high tech exports to the Soviets from the U.S. or its allies.

What's their source for this claim? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I do doubt that it had as much of an impact as they assume.

The economic race with the West required radical reforms, which Gorbachev imposed..

At this point, it wasn't even an economic race; perestroika and glasnost were desperate attempts to provide temporary alleviation from the economic stagnation that Brezhnev had set in motion many years before Reagan came to power.

Here’s some some additional information from the same article regarding the greater role the Reagan played in the end of the Cold War:

Some of European leaders of the time give credit to Reagan for the application of these ideals. For example LechWalesa, leader of the Solidarity movement in Poland said in 2004, "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989." Helmut Kohl, chancellor of West Germany, said, "He was a stroke of luck for the world. Two years after Reagan called on Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the wall, he noted, it fell and 11 months later Germany was reunified. We Germans have much to thank Ronald Reagan for." Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said, "President Reagan was a determined opponent of Communism and he played an important role in bringing an end to Communism and to the artificial division of Europe imposed after the Second World War." Vaclav Havel , who became Czechoslovakian president in 1989 after the Velvet Revolution, said, "He was a man of firm principles who was indisputably instrumental in the fall of Communism."​

Right, but this argument isn't about whether or not he supported the dissident movements in Soviet satellite states and thus won their affection and loyalty. This is about whether or not Reagan had a significant effect in weakening the old order that kept those dissident movements from declaring independence. None of the leaders you cited had an inside look on how the Politburo operated, anyway, so I'm not too sure why you think I should put very much faith in their opinions.

From the article:

And for the first time since 1953, the top Soviet leader was telling his nation that the world was on the verge of a nuclear holocaust. If candor is a sign of sincerity, then Moscow was worried.​

​

Of course they were; Reagan was violating their ten-year old strategic relationship for a foolhardy venture intended to undermine the nuclear parity that both sides had worked so hard to achieve. They weren't worried because Reagan had discovered some sort of genius way that would somehow preempt a nuclear strike on U.S. soil; they were worried because Reagan was more interested in playing a dangerous game than he was in maintaining international stability.

The SDI announcement came out of the blue for the Kremlin--and for most of the Reagan Cabinet.

69 Andropov's advisers urged him not to overreact, but he ignored their advice, accusing President Reagan of "deliberately lying" about Soviet military power to justify SDI. He denounced the missile shield as a "bid to disarm the

Soviet Union in the face of the US nuclear threat." Space-based defense, he added:

would open the floodgates of a runaway race of all types of strategic arms, both offensive and defensive. Such is the real significance, the seamy side, so to say, of Washington's "defensive conception." ...The Soviet Union will never be caught defenseless by any threat.... Engaging in this is not just irresponsible, it is insane.... Washington's actions are putting the entire world in jeopardy.'​

​

This only pretty much proves my point: the Politburo, and Andropov in particular, were far more concerned with the worldwide danger that would be posed by another arms race, than they were with the immediate threat SDI posed to them, which, they knew, was minimal.

SDI had touched a sensitive nerve. The Soviets treated it as an extremely serious development for two reasons. First, despite their boasting in the 1970s, Soviet leaders--and perhaps Andropov most of all--had great respect for US technological capabilities. Second, SDI had a profound psychological impact that reinforced the trend already anticipated in the new Soviet assessment of the "correlation of forces."

​

Give me one reason why I should believe this assessment, when the evidence we have does not indicate that this was the Politburo's mentality by any stretch of the imagination.

Like I said, we have a different interpretation. You can think that you’re right and I’m wrong, but that is different than you thumping your chest claiming that you are the only one providing evidence.

All I've seen out of you are trumped-up opinion pieces on the issue. Pardon me if I don't exactly count that as "evidence."

The invasions of

Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan were direct challenges to the US policy of Containment. Their actions were indicative of the fact that neither Breznev nor Andropov were moderate.

I didn't say they were moderate on the whole; I said that their policy towards the U.S. was moderate.

Directly challenging containment (which had been abandoned by the 70's, so saying that Afghanistan was a challenge to it doesn't exactly "work") is still an indirect policy towards the U.S.

Look, just admit that you don't understand the difference between direct and indirect policy so we can move on with this argument, all right?

The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. You clearly confused the balanced Budget Amendment with the Omnibus Bill.

Then show me the evidence! You keep saying it, and I'm waiting to see it. Look back at my posts and your posts, it's clear to me that when I said Clinton balanced the budget, I was talking about the time that he did, in fact, balance the budget on his own volition, which is when he did it in 1993. Then you said that Clinton only did so under GOP pressure, referring to the later balancing of the budget.

Again, "outcome" does not equate with "policy", which is what I asked you to describe. You then linked to the Omnibus Legislation, but even that doesn’t qualify as an adequate description of how

Clinton’s policy differed from Reagan’s.

Yes it does, and I've explained it to you multiple times now. Balancing the budget is not something that people who follow Supply Side economic dogma do. Reagan showed no interest in doing it. Clinton did. That is a significant difference in economic policy.

My argument, that there was no significant reversal of Reagan’s tax cut policy, still stands.

We were never arguing about the tax cut policy.

If anyone can claim credit for the balanced budgets of the late 90’s it would have to be the Congressional Republicans.

Right, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about when Clinton did it in the early 90's, and have been from the beginning, as I've already explained to you multiple times by now.

 

[oldbetang]

I'd rather not send my credit card number to a site that I don't have to; would you just do me a favor and quote his citations? Shouldn't be TOO much of a chore to simply copy and paste them.

Ok, I managed to get access again to the full article. I believe that your cookies are stopping you from opening it. However, here is Busch’s citation:

(27.) See Eduard Shevardnadze, The Future Belongs to Freedom (New York: The Free Press, 1991), pp. 80-1; Bessmertnykh made this point at a conference at Princeton University in February 1993, cited in National Review, March 29, 1993, p. 12. Gorbachev claimed in 1994 that SDI had no positive impact on Soviet reform; Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Gross Stein, "Reagan and the Russians," Atlantic Monthly, February 1994, pp. 35-7. However, Bessmertnyk not only disputes this interpretation but argues that Gorbachev privately admitted that SDI was important. One can hardly expect Gorbachev, after all, to admit that his "Man of the Decade" performance was driven by American pressure.

Pardon me, but I find myself having a difficult time considering "Answers.com" as a particularly credible source on the issue.

How convenient for you!

What's their source for this claim? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I do doubt that it had as much of an impact as they assume.

1. ^ Glenn E. Schweitzer, 1989 Techno-Diplomacy: U.S.-Soviet Confrontations in Science and Technology (1989) 63ff, 81.

At this point, it wasn't even an economic race; perestroika and glasnost were desperate attempts to provide temporary alleviation from the economic stagnation that Brezhnev had set in motion many years before Reagan came to power.

I agree that it wasn’t much of a race(the US was far superior economically) but the need for reforms were in large part due to the increased military spending.

Right, but this argument isn't about whether or not he supported the dissident movements in Soviet satellite states and thus won their affection and loyalty. This is about whether or not Reagan had a significant effect in weakening the old order that kept those dissident movements from declaring independence. None of the leaders you cited had an inside look on how the Politburo operated, anyway, so I'm not too sure why you think I should put very much faith in their opinions.

If you want to limit sources to those with inside politburo experience, then that certainly narrows the available options. Also, it diminishes the value of the opinion pieces that you’ve linked to. Eduard Shevardnadze and Aleksandr Bessmertnykh remain legitimate.

Of course they were; Reagan was violating their ten-year old strategic relationship for a foolhardy venture intended to undermine the nuclear parity that both sides had worked so hard to achieve.

Oh, Boo diddly Hoo! The policy of containment was not working (Soviet violations : Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan) so Reagan dumped it, and détente, and introduced his own.

The SDI announcement came out of the blue for the Kremlin--and for most of the Reagan Cabinet.​

Quote:​

69 Andropov's advisers urged him not to overreact, but he ignored their advice, accusing President Reagan of "deliberately lying" about Soviet military power to justify SDI. He denounced the missile shield as a "bid to disarm the ​

Quote:​

Soviet Union in the face of the US nuclear threat." Space-based defense, he added: ​

Quote:​

would open the floodgates of a runaway race of all types of strategic arms, both offensive and defensive. Such is the real significance, the Soviet Union will never be caught defenseless by any threat.... Engaging in this is not just irresponsible, it is insane.... ​

This only pretty much proves my point: the Politburo, and Andropov in particular, were far more concerned with the worldwide danger that would be posed by another arms race, than they were with the immediate threat SDI posed to them, which, they knew, was minimal.

So said Andropov!

Quote:​

SDI had touched a sensitive nerve. The Soviets treated it as an extremely serious development for two reasons. First, despite their boasting in the 1970s, Soviet leaders--and perhaps Andropov most of all--had great respect for US technological capabilities. Second, SDI had a profound psychological impact that reinforced the trend already anticipated in the new Soviet assessment of the "correlation of forces."​

Give me one reason why I should believe this assessment, when the evidence we have does not indicate that this was the Politburo's mentality by any stretch of the imagination.

Hey, it’s your source! Your evidence! You linked to it originally, not me. So, not only do you scoff at my sources , you discount your own as well.

Quote oldbetang:

Like I said, we have a different interpretation. You can think that you’re right and I’m wrong, but that is different than you thumping your chest claiming that you are the only one providing evidence.
​

All I've seen out of you are trumped-up opinion pieces on the issue. Pardon me if I don't exactly count that as "evidence."

Again ,the “trumped-up opinion piece” that we are talking about here was provided by you. You provided the link to it.

I didn't say they were moderate on the whole; I said that their policy towards the U.S. was moderate.

Either way, it’s a ridiculous thing to say. Neither Breznev nor Andropov were moderate. They were both dedicated hardline Communists and expansionists.

Directly challenging containment (which had been abandoned by the 70's, so saying that Afghanistan was a challenge to it doesn't exactly "work") is still an indirect policy towards the U.S.

Abandoned by who? Certainly not the US. Containment may have been modified from time to time but it was never outright abandoned until Reagan.

Look, just admit that you don't understand the difference between direct and indirect policy so we can move on with this argument, all right?

Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan were direct challenges to the US policies of Containment and detente. That’s an undeniable fact. No amount of mental gymnastics on your part is going to change that.

 

[oldbetang]

KomissarSteve,

The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. You clearly confused the balanced Budget Amendment with the Omnibus Bill.

​

Then show me the evidence! You keep saying it, and I'm waiting to see it. Look back at my posts and your posts, it's clear to me that when I said Clinton balanced the budget, I was talking about the time that he did, in fact, balance the budget on his own volition, which is when he did it in 1993. Then you said that Clinton only did so under GOP pressure, referring to the later balancing of the budget.

Again, here it is in chronological order:

Balancing the budget and recognizing the utility of a budget surplus isn't specific enough for you? And I'm sorry if you don't like my definition of supply-side economics, but allowing deficit spending is an inherent part of that school of thought.

You are talking about outcomes , not policy itself. What are the differences in policy between the two Presidents, other than the fact that Clinton finally succumbed to Congressional pressure to sign off on balanced budget amendment?

Balancing the budget WAS a policy. Don't you remember the slogan "It's the economy, stupid!"?

"It’s the economy, stupid" was a slogan, not a policy.
Quote:

Or the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act?

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus...on_Act_of_1993

Succumbed to pressure? Clinton had to fight very, very hard to get it passed. Literally every single Republican in Congress voted against it.

You are confusing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act with the Balanced Budget Amendment. Like I said, it was the Republicans who fought very, very hard to get Clinton to sign it. He actually vetoed it twice before finally capitulating.

Adminstration Steps Up Fight Against Budget Amendment
The Clinton administration stepped up its campaign against the balanced budget amendment yesterday, claiming that mandating a balanced budget in 2000 would require sharp tax increases and deep cuts in defense spending, Social Security, and other critical programs.

Mmmmm, not really. I was the one who originally cited Clinton balancing the budget as an example of his eschewing of Supply Side dogma. My evidence of this was his initiative to balance the budget, which he did through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which the GOP virulently opposed. If there has been any confusion, I'm afraid it's been on your part, not mine.

What part of Balanced Budget Amendment do you not understand? That is how I specifically referred to it as. I’m afraid that you are the one who is confused.

Other than using crayons or puppets I don't know how anyone could make it any more obvious.

Again, "outcome" does not equate with "policy", which is what I asked you to describe. You then linked to the Omnibus Legislation, but even that doesn’t qualify as an adequate description of how Clinton’s policy differed from Reagan’s.

​

Yes it does, and I've explained it to you multiple times now. Balancing the budget is not something that people who follow Supply Side economic dogma do. Reagan showed no interest in doing it. Clinton did. That is a significant difference in economic policy.

Outcome does not equate with policy! How many times do I have to point that out to you? You haven’t described any policy differences. Balancing the budget or not balancing the budget has nothing to do with supply side economics. So, claiming that “Clinton balanced the budget” says nothing about whether his policies were supply-side or not. And BTW, Reagan did try to prod the Democratic congress to cut domestic spending. But he wasn’t willing to pursue the issue to the point where it put his Military Buildup at risk. Thank God!

We were never arguing about the tax cut policy.

My goodness!!! I’m flabbergasted! Ok, If we remove tax policy from the equation where does that leave us?

If anyone can claim credit for the balanced budgets of the late 90’s it would have to be the Congressional Republicans.
​

Right, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about when Clinton did it in the early 90's, and have been from the beginning, as I've already explained to you multiple times by now.

There’s one small problem with that argument. The budgets were not balanced in the early 90’s.