KomissarSteve
Basileus
oldbetang said:Oh I see! As foreign Ministers, they were not privy to inner politburo workings or to the impact on their nation economy due to external pressures?
Don't strawman; I never said that they weren't privy to either. I said that they were less privy than, say, Gorbachev, who has already commented on the issue.
I didn't say Gorby was speculating; I said that whoever originally said he was playing point guard for his own legacy was speculating.Gorby wasn’t speculating. He was playing point guard for his own legacy.
Already did it. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
I refuse to acknowledge trumped-up op-ed pieces that claim it. I would gladly acknowledge primary sources, or secondary sources that clearly cite primary sources, that made the assertion that Reagan's policy had a significantly positive impact.
So far, the only sources that fit either of these criteria state that Reagan's policy did NOT have a significantly positive impact on ending the Cold War.
Right, so where is your evidence that their primary objective was to cause harm to American citizens or American-owned holdings in Afghanistan? That would be an example of direct policy towards the U.S.; what you're describing now is an example of indirect policy.Yes really. The Marxists took over in 1978 via a murderous coup. The Soviet invasion was meant to prop them up. It was a flagrant provocation toward the US . Hence the strong reaction of Carter.
Upvote
0