302. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:16 PM PT
Cal & Pseudo:
As Cal has already pointed out, Gorbachev and important Soviet figures such as Oleg Kalugin give Reagan a lot of credit for convincing them that their system wasn't working and they they couldn't "win" the Cold War.
So take it from them, Pseudo.
Jonesatlaw pointed out something important though: Carter modernized our nuclear forces with the Trident and cruise missiles. Even though Reagan did much to modernize our conventional forces (especially the Navy) as well as our nukes, it really is, I guess, kind of silly to claim Reagan was some kind of revolutionary, when US policy had been pretty hawkish throughout the Cold War.
Let's put it in term of intangibles: Reagan got us out of our Vietnam funk.
303. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:17 PM PT
"And then there's Truman's shortcomings which helped bring on the Korean War, and caused us to do a poor job of strategy in it."
Which was that? You mean the failure to clearly include Korea in the U.S. defence perimeter?
That's what *I* assumed he had meant.
304. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:17 PM PT
thomasd (Message #300)
So North Korea would not have invaded South Korea had it not been for the failure to clearly include the latter in the U.S. defence perimeter? I think this is basically at odds with Korean War scholarship.
"...the resulting overreaction by Truman, especially prosecuting the war north of the 38th parallel."
What happened to MacArthur in all of this?
305. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:17 PM PT
And put the Soviet Union in their own, terminal, version of a Vietnam funk:)
306. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:20 PM PT
... on the other hand, Pseudo seems to be perpetually arguing historical inevitability, which is obviously ridiculouls.
307. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:20 PM PT
"No, it's only to say that Carter would have continued to aid the Afghan resistance had he been reelected."
Yes, but weakly, and as soon as some foreign or domestic pressure had been applied to Carter, he would likely have reduced it to a cipher.
308. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:20 PM PT
The problem with RR's military build up is that it was spent on things that largely did not work, or were useful only a short time. Some examples-
1. B-1 "Lancer" bomber- response to soviet Blinder bomber. Both should have been named "Blunder" Lancer was only USAF aircraft type not available for use in Desert Storm. Built for a mission that was unlikely at time Carter killed it. Bad electronics, poor reliability
Still grounded frequently.
2. Recommissioning Iowa class battleships. Great nostalgia, almost romantic return of great ships. Great platform for Tomahawks and offshore bombardment. Too expensive, and huge target for anti-ship missles. (Might have been interesting to see what effect heavy armor would have had on warheads made with assumption of modern light ship construction) Now all scrapped.
3. MX- see "dunce pack" might have been great boon to railroading.
4. Star Wars- pablum for public consumption-a space shield, real use satelite wars.
nuclear weapons build up we're now scraping at huge cost. ( Not that scrapping them is a bad thing.)
309. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:21 PM PT
Fett: I can cite Soviet sources saying the opposite.
310. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:24 PM PT
Ms,
Message #271
The "form" the breakdown took was a peaceful transformation to a different political system and the breakup of a political state. This was, as has been noted and I've never disputed, the result of Soviet leaders realizing (well before Reagan came into office) that the country wouldn't survive on its current course.
But as the other major super-power, the US had a role to play in whether or not the peaceful transformation was possible, and whether or not the people who effected that transformation could get support. Reagan played that role well. (ha.)
Boba,
Actually, I've said that Soviet leaders have given Reagan credit for allowing them to succeed in their reforms. Not that he helped them see the light.
311. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:25 PM PT
Truman tried to restrain MacArthur who was pushing to eliminate North Korea. He even advocated building a nuclear "hadrian's wall" by contaminating the area with plutonium to prevent Chinese intervention. Brilliant plan from guy who had just used the "end around" attack at Inchon. "Iron Tit" Ridgeway rebuilt the 8th Army after MacArthur overplayed his hand wrt to the Chinese.
312. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:26 PM PT
Fett (Message #306)
Why is "historical inevitability" ridiculous? Command economies are doomed; market economies are triumphant.
I'm saying that if the United States had something to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, it was through the accumulated pressures of four decades of containment.
But I would even entertain the notion that US policy ultimately had little effect the Soviet Union. After all, despite the strenuous containment in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, the Soviet Union nonetheless was able to achieve nuclear parity with the United States in the late 1960s and become more aggressive in its international posture by the early 1970s.
thomasD (Message #307)
"Yes, but weakly, and as soon as some foreign or domestic pressure had been applied to Carter, he would likely have reduced it to a cipher."
I don't know why. Aid to the Afghan resistance was popular both abroad and at home. Why would there have been some undefined pressure?
313. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:27 PM PT
It wouldn't surprise me, though, if Soviet leaders in favor of reform used Reagan's rhetoric to convince fence-sitters to fall off on their side. I don't know if it's true; but it certainly is a tactic I'd use. But that may be where the whole "Cold War is unwinnable because of Reagan" approach might be useful.
314. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:27 PM PT
Re. 311 -
Well, frankly speaking, as the CiC, Truman was surprisingly ineffective in restraining MacArthur.
315. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:29 PM PT
Re 314 true, until he canned his ass.
316. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:32 PM PT
Why is "historical inevitability" ridiculous? Command economies are doomed; market economies are triumphant.
I'm saying that if the United States had something to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, it was through the accumulated pressures of four decades of containment.
Everyone's saying that "four decades" of containment -- as well as four more decades of the Soviet Union destroying its own economy -- wiped out the Soviet Union. Cal, Thomas, and I are just saying that Reagan accelerated the fall by five or eight or ten years.
Your version "historical inevitability" is absurd because you are arguing that not only is the "Big Picture" of history pre-determined, but the "Little Picture" -- whether the Soviet Union falls in 89 or 90 or 91 or 92 or 93 or even 2000 -- is *also* completely pre-determined, and no act of man or men can alter this schedule in any way.
317. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:32 PM PT
"I don't know why. Aid to the Afghan resistance was popular both abroad and at home. Why would there have been some undefined pressure?"
Well, perhaps the Soviet Union might have threatened Carter with creating instability in Mexico (why not?) if Carter didn't back off in Afghanistan. That's the kind of pressure that Democrats such as Carter seem particularly vulnerable to.
318. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:33 PM PT
Pseudo:
If everything is as rigidly "historically inevtible" as you're arguing, why bother arguing policy, history, or economics at all? Que sera, sera; whatever will be, will be.
319. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:35 PM PT
"Cal, Thomas, and I are just saying that Reagan accelerated the fall by five or eight or ten years."
Well, I don't know what your saying, but this isn't what either Thomas D or Calgal are saying, although they are not arguing the same thing. ThomasD seems to be saying that the collapse wouldn't have happened without RR. Calgal seems to be saying that the collapse wouldn't have taken the form it did (supposedly peaceful) had it not been for RR.
Neither are either historically accurate or necessarily true.
320. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:36 PM PT
"Your version historical inevitability' is absurd because you are arguing that not only is the 'Big Picture' of history pre-determined, but the 'Little Picture' -- whether the Soviet Union falls in 89 or 90 or 91 or 92 or 93 or even 2000 -- is *also* completely pre-determined, and no act of man or men can alter this schedule in any way."
Nonsense. I've said no such thing. In fact I had earlier owned that Reagan might have accelerated the fall. But it is very much a diminished claim from the usual right-wing fireside mythology to suppose that Reagan merely hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I think the best Reagan could claim was 2-5 years' hastening. Gorbachev would have come to power regardless of Reagan.
321. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:38 PM PT
MSIT -
Although I didn't post today that about the Soviet fall likely being accelerated by a certain number of years by Reagan era policies, I have done so in the past in the Fray (I believe I mentioned a 'decade', more or less).
322. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:39 PM PT
Well, Pseudo, I haven't seen anybody arguing that Reagan was a but-for cause of the Fall of the Soviet Union; I only here that he accelerated his decline. So you're setting your sights upon an easy target.
323. Msivorytower - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:40 PM PT
ThomasD
I don't much care what you've said in the past. What you've said here today seems to be an argument that the collapse wouldn't have even happened without Reagan. That is NOT the same thing as saying it would have happened, but not as quickly.
324. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:41 PM PT
I think that PE is correct in that certain important events necessarily lead to certain outcomes. The political and economic structure necessarily lead to inefficiencies, and political turmoil because Leninist Marxism is fundamentally flawed.
As to the little picture of exactly how and when it fails, there are too many variables to predict accurately.
325. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:41 PM PT
Message #318
Because not everything is "rigidly historically inevitable".
It is, however, plausible that the collapse of the Soviet Union was preordained. That hardly means that the United States should have done nothing starting in 1945.
326. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:43 PM PT
Re. 323 -
MSIT -
I said that the collapse *mightn't* have happened without Reagan. Perhaps a Gorbachev like leader would have ultimately succeeded in keeping the existing regime relatively intact by merely making some cosmetic electoral and economic concessions to the populace.
327. lemwalker - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:43 PM PT
It has not been mentioned that during the Reagan years we had far better credit with the Japanese than the Soviets. We still owe the mortgage on the victory.
328. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:43 PM PT
Well, what are a few years' of hastening worth? A few trillion wasted defence dollars?
329. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:45 PM PT
Re. 328 -
Didn't the US military budget consume at least as much as a proportion of GDP during Kennedy's tenure as during Reagan's?
330. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:46 PM PT
You're right, PE. Since a "few years of hastening" wasted "trillions" of defense dollars, perhaps we should have saved ourselves a whole big shitload of money and spent zero dollars on defense from 1945.
After all, it was just a matter of waiting for history's schedule to come to pass.
331. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:48 PM PT
Message #317
Well, "destabilisation of Mexico" has always been a right-wing canard. Mexico and the Soviet Bloc always maintained excellent relations, and it is well known that Cuba refrained from ever supplying aid to Mexican Marxists because of its friendly relations with the Mexican government. Hell, Mexico in the 1980s was already pretty anti-American. Why any need for destabilisation? And the United States has always known this. So why would Carter have gotten spooked?
By the way, it was under Carter that the U.S. began support of the regime in El Salvador, and it was under Carter that relations with the Sandinistas deteriorated. That does seem like becoming jelly-footed in the face of (alleged) Soviet penetration in Central America?
332. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:53 PM PT
Re <MSG=330> Perhaps we should have spent the trillions on stuff that worked.
333. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:54 PM PT
Oops- rookie mistake in 332.
334. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:54 PM PT
"Calgal seems to be saying that the collapse wouldn't have taken the form it did (supposedly peaceful) had it not been for RR."
I'm saying that Reagan's hardline attitude probably contributed to the form it took, yes.
"Neither are either historically accurate or necessarily true."
If it's historically inaccurate it means it is *not* true. However, I don't believe I cited anything that isn't true. Interpretations only. Backed only by the fact that many former Soviet political leaders say so as well. Whether or not it's *true* is, of course, debatable. I'm not saying it's unquestionably true. Only that of the three interpretations--1) Reagan didn't matter at all, 2) Reagan was a God who drove the SU into ruins, 3) Reagan was an aid to the Soviet Union's efforts to reform by providing an implacable front and assisting Gorbachev by lightening up later--I pick #3.
335. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:56 PM PT
Re. 331 -
PE, then pick a likely country from South America, Africa or the Mideast. Any strategic target would probably have sufficed to make Mr. Helicopter Rescue and Mighty Rabbit Warrior fold his cards in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
336. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 4:59 PM PT
BobaFett (Message #330)
"You're right, PE. Since a 'few years of hastening' wasted 'trillions' of defense dollars, perhaps we should have saved ourselves a whole big shitload of money and spent zero dollars on defense from 1945. After all, it was just a matter of waiting for history's schedule to come to pass."
Your sarcasm is not as fetching as it is in the movies thread. It's a little obtuse, in fact.
As I said earlier, just because the Soviet collapse may have been inevitable does not mean that the United States should have done nothing in 1945. The Soviet Union was vigorous enough for 35-40 years to cause a lot of trouble. (Plus, in 1945 or 1960 or even 1970, no one knew it would collapse. On the contrary, a lot of people though the Soviet system was superior economically to the West. In the late 1970s, however, the evidence for stagnation and collapse was there.) If the United States hadn't rebuilt Japan and Western Europe, or had somehow allowed the Soviet Union to have influence over these areas, that would have been disastrous for U.S. interests and would very likely have expanded Soviet power and prolonged its life. I mean, Kennan spelt this very point out in 1947: the point of containment was to keep the Soviet Union away from the major military-industrial centres of the world, Western Europe and Japan.
337. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:00 PM PT
PE imagines that a Soviet 'collapse' was inevitable.
Hahahahahahah!
Heeeeheheheheh!
Ohohhohohoho!
Ouch!
338. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:03 PM PT
Rayguns fell victim to the historical truth that generals fight the last war. We built up massive weapons systems aimed at a European conflict with the USSR that never happened. We shortchanged the meat and potatoes items we need for the next war. We were very fortunate that some of the weapons could be used in scenarios other than what they were intended for. Iraq is a perfect example. We kicked the stuffing out of Saddam Hussein in a conventional scenario, but he's still poking his thumb in our eye whenever he wants. We need more material and training aimed at local and regional conflict. We need more effective peacekeeping forces and international co-operation in using them. Nobody makes their star purchasing combat boots, but how important are they. The USMC finally gave up and bought better boots "off the shelf" from the consumer market.
339. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:05 PM PT
The point of my Message #328 was we got very little bang for the buck -- the collapse of the Soviet Union at most a few years earlier than it might have taken place, at the cost of trillions of dollars in a military buildup which was arguably not the key element in Reagan's contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union.
The four-decade long policy of containment, however, had a much much much bigger payoff. Just think of the vast prosperity of the countries that fell under U.S. protection -- Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. -- and how the U.S. benfits from that prosperity.
340. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:06 PM PT
Re. 338 -
Puhleeze. We never even installed most of the intermediate range missiles in Europe that were planned.
341. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:06 PM PT
ThosD, so Marx was right, and only the mighty efforts of our Aphasic Leader pushed the USSR from the scene? Castro would likely agree, does anyone else?
342. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:07 PM PT
Re. 341 -
Is it such a crime not to veer to either extreme wrt Reagan? If so, I proudly cry 'guilty'!
343. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:10 PM PT
Message #337
Yes, I do. Kennan's script was basically to enclose the Soviet Union within its 1945-7 borders and spheres of influence, or at least to keep Soviet power out of the truly important parts of the world, and let the implosion happen all on its own.
I think that's more or less what happened.
Why do YOU suppose that the demise of the Soviet Union was not inevitable? How does a multiethnic state keep going with negative economic growth and without foreign expansion?
344. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:12 PM PT
This lack of 'foreign expansion' that you refer to only began during the Reagan years. Maybe that's part of the answer.
345. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:13 PM PT
"The point of my Message #328 was we got very little bang for the buck -- the collapse of the Soviet Union at most a few years earlier than it might have taken place, at the cost of trillions of dollars in a military buildup which was arguably not the key element in Reagan's contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union."
Yes. I think he could have done much the same without the buildup. Certainly not at the *level* of spending.
But then, Reagan wasn't a very bright guy. His reaction to the Soviet Union wasn't some carefully thought-out masterplan. He really believed his rhetoric.
It's just a happy coincidence that it was effective, too.
346. ChristinO - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:15 PM PT
S'cuse me, CG, are you still at the office or should I mail to home?
347. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:15 PM PT
Jones and Pseudo:
Your hindsight is absolutely crystal-clear 20/20. Yes, the Soviet war in Europe never came. I suppose this means the US was foolish to plan for the contingency. And I suppose we cannot hypothesize thant the war didn't happen precisely because we were prepared to it.
Further, while the SU may have been largely predestined to fail (but keep in mind, the difference between success and failure can sometimes be razor thin, and I agree with ThomasD that it is not *ridiculous* to suppose a different US policy towards the SU could have lost the Cold War for us), it does not follow that the SU was predestined to collapse *peacefully.*
A collapsing SU could have been inspired to some desperate adventurism were the US not such a formidable foe, and could, for example, have invaded Iran.
348. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:16 PM PT
It's a disappointing trait of liberals that they often refuse to credit aptitude unless it comes with prestigious degrees but they'll usually uncritically accept the obverse combination.
349. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:19 PM PT
By the way, Pseudo:
We still own all of the weapons Reagan purchased in his build-up. Many of the Tomahawk missiles he procured were used in the Gulf War, and *were not* replaced on a 1:1 basis, so we ended up using some of those wasted trillions on Saddam.
Before anyone cries about this military boondoggle or that, yes, some military systems just never work out. The Stealth Fighter is an unqualified success, however. Precision-guided munitions are also a smash hit, though there's been some liberal carping about them of late.
350. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:21 PM PT
thomasd (Message #344)
"This lack of 'foreign expansion' that you refer to only began during the Reagan years. Maybe that's part of the answer."
No, I think diminished capacity to finance expansion is the more likely answer. As I've said before, the United States has ALWAYS opposed Soviet expansionism, whether it was direct or by proxy. (What the hell was Vietnam War but an exaggerated and misguided policy of containment?) There was no sudden change in the 1980s under Reagan. Moreover, it's easily seen that the Reagan Doctrine hardly incurred huge costs for the Soviet Union, unless you think the "loss of Grenada" was a major coup in the anti-Soviet effort.
Message #335
You're pretty much grasping at straws here. The Soviet Union could not have simply threatened, short of major action, to magically destabilise countries in order to frighten the United States, even Carter.
351. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:22 PM PT
Thomas,
Was that aimed at me? You're saying Reagan *was* bright? I don't think so. I don't think he was criminally stupid, either. And I don't care what degree people have, or from where.
The reason I doubt he did it as part of a master play is *because* he spent so much money on defense when it wasn't necessary.
You appear to be irredeemably incapable of distinguishing between opposing points of view. I can't remember if you were always this obtuse or not. Hmm.
352. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:23 PM PT
Soviet expansion was rolled back in Turkey, Greece, Austria and Iran in the immediate post war era. It stalemated in sub-saharan Africa- winning in Mozambique, and temporarily in Sudan and Ethiopia, and Angola (with US oil co's help), it lost Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Congo fka Zaire, etc. It won Vietnam, and Laos. No clear wins in central or south America, save for Castro. No correlation to Raygun's term of office.
353. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:27 PM PT
Re. 352 -
As I've said, 10 countries between 1974 and 1981 were added to the Communist sphere.
None between 1981 and 1989.
That's correlation, baby.
354. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:30 PM PT
BobaFett- NO no no! I'm not saying that we should not have prepared for the contingency, or that all military spending is wasteful. I am saying, now repeating to the point of annoying everyone else, is that most of the Rayguns program DID NOT WORK! B-1's parked on the tarmac don't mean sqaut to the folk in the bunker in Bellevue when they just sit there when the call comes. I'll give you the F-117 as a sucess. Can you find another, or show me where I'm wrong with the rest?
355. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:32 PM PT
Fett (Message #347)
"Your hindsight is absolutely crystal-clear 20/20."
No, not at all. By the late 1970s, only criminal stupidity (of the kind that could convince the CIA that East German per capita income was higher than West German) or outright lies about Soviet capability could convince people that the Soviet Union would not collapse eventually.
"Yes, the Soviet war in Europe never came. I suppose this means the US was foolish to plan for the contingency. And I suppose we cannot hypothesize thant the war didn't happen precisely because we were prepared to it."
Sigh. This is a strawman. I never said the U.S. should not have planed for a contingency of war with the Soviet Union, nor would I deny that war didn't happen precisely because of the deterrence the U.S. provided.
U.S. defence spending went up from 5.9% of GDP in 1980 to 6.5% in 1986. I highly doubt that this buildup was necessary to maintain a credible ability to go to war with the Soviet Union; nor would a more modest increase in the military budget necessarily have been interpreted as a lack of contingency planning for war. Your remarks are preposterous.
"Further, while the SU may have been largely predestined to fail...it does not follow that the SU was predestined to collapse *peacefully.*"
No, I agree. So what did Reagan do to prevent this? It seems to me the pacific element in the collapse of the Soviet Union was Gorbachev, not Reagan.
"A collapsing SU could have been inspired to some desperate adventurism were the US not such a formidable foe, and could, for example, have invaded Iran."
Invaded Iran when? It would have been mauled.
356. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:33 PM PT
Remember Afganistan?
357. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:33 PM PT
Re. 351 -
CalGal -
I wasn't thinking of you specifically, but feel free to include yourself in. Maybe Reagan couldn't multiply 8 digit numbers with his eyes closed, but he had more effective wisdom than the large majority of presidents.
You can always nitpick about the extent of defense expenditures, but that's be just as true of most administrations since WWII as Reagans. Again, look at the percentage of GDP.
358. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:33 PM PT
Well, the B-1 is really part of our nuclear force, Jones, so if it's a "waste," it's just as much of a waste as your precious Trident submarine.
I don't know. What else was a waste? The Iowa-class ships, well, I don't know about them so I can't comment.
359. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:34 PM PT
Message #348
I'm not a liberal.
Message #349
The increase in U.S. defence spending in the 1980s went to build volume (i.e., 700 ship navy). There is no reason to suppose that new weapons and technologies could not have been achieved without Reagan's level of buildup.
360. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:34 PM PT
Post 356 is for ThosD.'s benefit.
361. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:35 PM PT
PE sounds as if he favors the idea of a Reagan era defense buildup of a slightly smaller magnitude than the one that occurred.
362. CalGal - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:36 PM PT
Tommy,
Since your post was right after mine--the only one recently mentioning Reagan's rather limited intelligence.
I ranked Reagan 8th, I believe. Since I have also said I think he's dim, it's clear that great Presidents don't *have* to be brilliant.
But they also don't *have* to know what they are doing in order to be effective.
363. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:37 PM PT
Well, Pseudo, we don't really seem to disagree then, accept you don't like the idea of spending a lot for a big military. Personally, I like it.
364. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:38 PM PT
thomasd (Message #353)
I agree there is such a correlation, but most of those countries that went Marxist in the 1970s were pretty unimportant. I mean, who gives a fuck about Cape Verde or Mozambique? They made no difference to the U.S. national interest -- except for Afghanistan.
365. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:38 PM PT
Re. 356 -
1978.
366. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:38 PM PT
Boba- fine, let's have a war game. I'll take the Tridents and you take the Lancers. I'll let you go first. After you lose a few planes to vicious migratory fowl, I'll launch the Tridents. The EMPs will knock out your avionics, so you'll have to guess which way to go, if you can still fly, and you can't target anything since you lost that computer as well. Enjoy the show!
367. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:40 PM PT
OK, no more Reagan for tonight. I'm going out. Good night.
368. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:40 PM PT
Posted like a congenital gambler:
"But they (presidents) also don't *have* to know what they are doing in order to be effective."
369. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:41 PM PT
Boba: It's even better than that. Many of the weapons that we manufactured in the 1980s were used in the Persian Gulf War. But other countries paid us to use them.
Japan is the best example of a country that couldn't send their own troops to "fight" in the desert but they paid $30 billion to participate in the war.
370. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:45 PM PT
The only 80's weapons of significance were the stealth fighters. Ford and Carter's weapons won the war- the A-10, the M1-A1, the AWACs, RC's and the tomahawk. Rayguns B1 sat home.
371. jonesatlaw - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:47 PM PT
ThosD- won and lost again. Besides the Taliban and predecessors are a good? Oh well, must go home to wife and atlaw2B
372. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:47 PM PT
Jones at law:
Wrong. The tanks which won the Gulf War were M1-A2's, which was a Reagan upgrade program ridiculed by liberals as being wasteful.
373. BobaFett - Dec. 4, 1998 - 5:48 PM PT
And once again, Jones:
The B-1 is a STRATEGIC bomber. It's really designed to haul nukes. So if it's a waste that the B-1 sat out the Gulf War, it's also a waste that the Trident Submarine wasn't used more too.
374. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 4, 1998 - 6:03 PM PT
In Message #355, I gave out the wrong figures. Reagan's defence buildup was much larger than suggested there.
Defence expenditures as % of GDP
1970 8.1
1971 7.3
1972 6.7
1973 5.9
1974 5.5
1975 5.6
1976 5.2
1977 4.9
1978 4.7
1979 4.7
1980 4.9
1981 5.2
1982 5.8
1983 6.1
1984 6.0
1985 6.2
1986 6.2
1987 6.1
1988 5.9
1989 5.7
Table B-79, Economic Report of the President, 1998
375. Greystoke - Dec. 4, 1998 - 7:28 PM PT
Here is my list of the top five presidents of the 21st Century
1. Jessie Ventura (2009-2016) Former Minnesota governor. Instituted the "stiff arm veto" and "feather boa diplomacy". Developed the tag team format for Presidential debates. Had the top rated DC radio talk show for eight straight years. The body of law passed during his administration is considered by scholars to be the equal of the Bill of Rights.
2. Starr Chamber Tripp (2049-2052) Overcame humble beginnings (illegitimate child of Ken and Linda) to reach the highest office in the land. Considered to be an opportunist and back-stabber in Congress, she used her Machiavellian gifts to win the election. Instrumental in passing the "Recorder in Every Bedroom Act", which effectively eliminated perjury in divorce proceedings.
3. H. Ross Perot (2001-2008) Foiled an attempt by George W. Bush to ruin his daughter's wedding. Won the trade war with Canada and Mexico. The occupation ended late in his second term. Used the bully pulpit to change public attitudes about paraniod-schizophrenia and ear deformities.
4. Geraldo Donaldson (2089-2096) Brought the ethics of the Fourth Estate to the White House. Dug up Al Capone's tax records on national TV. Turns out Capone was innocent of tax evasion. An out-of-control prosecutor railroaded him. Donaldson was impeached and removed from office for repeatedly violating the "Bad Toupee Act of 2006." Coincindentally, his grandfather was the poster boy when that act was passed.
5. Bill Gates (2009-2012) Elected in a landslide in the first election decided by an MSNBC poll. Became unpopular when he gutted the White House and built a new one in Redmond. Gates claimed it was just a beta test and would be fixed in the next release. Removed the faces of Teddy Roosevelt and Bill Clinton from Mount Rushmore. His only commment at the time was "@#$*ing trust busters."
376. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 7:32 PM PT
Eh. That warn't 'alf bad.
377. CoralReef - Dec. 4, 1998 - 7:44 PM PT
Er, Mr Stoke.
Bill and Jesse are serving concurrently on your list.
378. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 7:45 PM PT
Greystoke: Funny, very funny. Post again. We need fresh air in this place.
379. envision - Dec. 4, 1998 - 7:48 PM PT
CoralReef: Glad to see you read the fineprint.
BTW, have you been under any desks recently?
380. Greystoke - Dec. 4, 1998 - 7:48 PM PT
CoralReef
Ooops! Good catch. My almanac is defective.
381. CoralReef - Dec. 4, 1998 - 7:50 PM PT
It was funny though, Stoke. Very clever.
382. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 7:52 PM PT
No conflict. Jesse and Bill were briefly married and served as co-presidents.
383. 109109 - Dec. 4, 1998 - 8:04 PM PT
Grey
Funny stuff.
384. ScottLoar - Dec. 4, 1998 - 8:09 PM PT
Greystoke, very good. That I would compliment you shows just how feeble this thread has become.
385. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 8:15 PM PT
Can anyone verify this?
A story goes that a reporter once asked President Theodore Roosevelt what the President would do if shot at by a would-be assassin. Theodore pulled out a revolver, waved it about, and said, “Return fire.”
386. Wombat - Dec. 4, 1998 - 8:45 PM PT
TD:
Verify this: TR was shot by an assassin when running in 1912. He did not return fire. He was lucky to be alive.
Boba:
Precision-guided weapons were around since World War Two (Germans used 'em). Smart bombs were used in Vietnam. In the Gulf War, the percentage of smart bombs used compared to regular bombs was miniscule. Media hype, encouraged by the Pentagon.
The B-52 was designed to haul nukes. It was very effective in the Gulf War. Had the B-1 been usable, it would have been used as well. Note that the B-52 was designed in the 1950s.
Most recent accounts of the beginning of the Korean War describe it as an initiative of Kim-Il-Sung's. The Soviets and China approved when he consulted them. That would seem to exclude it from the "creeping web" of Soviet expansionism, and placing it in more of a local context. Ironically, the United States was more concerned that the President of South Korea would order the invasion of the North. That was why the ROK military was only supplied with infantry weapons.
387. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 8:49 PM PT
Re. 386 -
Wombat -
And your point is...?
388. Wombat - Dec. 4, 1998 - 8:52 PM PT
TD:
Were you trying to make a point as well, or actually just requesting information?
389. thomasd - Dec. 4, 1998 - 9:11 PM PT
I was wondering if anybody else had heard that one and if it was true. It sounds a little 'bigger than life', perhaps.
390. wlockhart - Dec. 5, 1998 - 12:07 AM PT
1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Washington (mainly for what he did not do)
4. Lyndon Johnson (mainly for Civil Rights)
5. Harry Truman (Civil Rights and firing MacArthur)
6. TR
7. Wilson
8. Jackson (big negative on what he did to the Amerindians
391. thomasd - Dec. 5, 1998 - 1:38 AM PT
Although I think FDR qualifies as perhaps the 'best' president of the 20th century, I believe part of his overall influence depended on the fact that he was just there for so damn long, sort of like Queen Victoria who wound up with a Western historical era named after her, although she was less active in setting British policy less than any other monarch that preceded her.
392. thomasd - Dec. 5, 1998 - 1:46 AM PT
Ooops. Delete second 'less' in my last.
393. FreeToChoose - Dec. 5, 1998 - 4:34 AM PT
Wombat
"In the Gulf War, the percentage of smart
bombs used compared to regular bombs was miniscule.
Media hype, encouraged by the Pentagon."
I think this is misleading, although I will defer to the armament experts if they can give credible responses. My recollection is that the B-52s were used for carpet-bombing the Republican guard. This operation requires many thousands of bombs, most of which simply pound sand into glass. This is not a criticism of the operation, just observing the way the operation works.
If we sent in 200 missions with smart bombs, with a 50% hit rate, then those 200 bombs took out 100 targets. OTOH, we may have actually used thousands of individual bombs in the dozens or hundreds of B-52 runs. Thus, the ratio of "conventional" to "smart" bombs could have been 100-1, yet it would be very misleading to state that the percentage of smart bombs was minuscule.
(Caveat, I don't know the precise or even approximate number of smart bombs or conventional bombs. Nevertheless, it is plausible that the ratio of conventional to smart was mathematically high, without detracting from the conclusion that smart bombs were a critical element to the success of the mission.)
394. jonesatlaw - Dec. 5, 1998 - 9:26 AM PT
RE
Message #373
1. True that the upgrade to M1A1 occurred during Reagan. However, the program was merely modifying an existing system. It also drew money away from completing the changeover to M1 throughout the service. The USMC was still using a significant number of M-60 variants because of this in Desert Storm.
2. The B-1 was sold with having the ability to carry out conventional strikes as well as nuclear ones. The B-52 was and is a strategic bomber as well. It did serve in the war, out of Diego Garcia. Strikes on Bagdad and over Iraq targets were "strategic" and not tactical. Strategic does not equal nuclear.
3. The Tridents, to my knowlege, did not strike in Desert Storm, but the Los Angeles Class attach subs did. They were also a Carter project. If anyone with their dolphins cares to clear this up, I'd be greatful.
395. envision - Dec. 5, 1998 - 1:18 PM PT
Jones: You seem to know your stuff but I think it's a hoot that you claim that Jimmy Carter won the Cold War.
I love the man, but Carter couldn't even get our hostages out of Iran.
396. jkuzmak - Dec. 5, 1998 - 2:05 PM PT
The story of Carter is very interesting. That is for another time. Hey, Door, wanna perform an intellectual exercise? Watch The Killing Fields again and consider that a good argument can be made that we were largely responsible for this horrible abberation......via the Nation and picked up by Harper's.........who was President at this time?
397. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 5, 1998 - 2:37 PM PT
Message #396
That's silly. How can the United States be responsible for what the Khmer Rouge did to Cambodia? And if the United States is even minimally responsible, why would it be Carter's doing? After all, the Nation's alleged U.S. responsibility because Nixon's escalation of the war in Indochina involved the invasion and carpet-bombing of Cambodia.
398. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 5, 1998 - 2:40 PM PT
errata to Message #397
_The Nation_ alleged....
399. jkuzmak - Dec. 5, 1998 - 4:11 PM PT
Good, Erasmus, Good. By God we are a virtuous nation. No naked political ambition here. Everything is in response to the evil boogeys from outside. Just had to say that, Erasmus. I shall dig up the Cambodia article.
400. jkuzmak - Dec. 5, 1998 - 4:16 PM PT
By the way, as I said, Carter is another story.