Reagan, that block of wood with hair, ushered in the neocons.

Threedee said:
The situtation had changed dramatically, with the Shah in power, and the Baathists had only recently taken control in Iraq. Our policy changed from being a Cold War policy of keeping the USSR out to that of keeping Saddam and the Shah weak.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Are you old enough to remember what was going on back then? We sided with Iran and the Soviets with Iraq. When the Shah was overthrown and we got kicked out, the Soviets came into Iran in support of the new regime. We in turn flipped over and began supporting Saddam. It was always us on one side and the Soviets on the other.

AS for the Baath party.... they took control of Iraq during the 60's. Back when LBJ was President (maybe as early as Kennedy... I forget the year) They were in place long before Reagan took over and the non-stop back and forth with the Soviets has been in place damn near since the British broke up the Ottoman empire and oil began to be used more and more to sustain our economy.
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah sigh.. the neocon manifest destiny. If you are big enough to take it, it is yours.
Click to expand...

The idiotic left mantra demonstrated quite nicely by US above.

We never TOOK their oil. Not then. Not now. That is simply the morons on the left parroting yet another spoon fed mantra.
 
Superfreak said:
:rolleyes:

Are you old enough to remember what was going on back then? We sided with Iran and the Soviets with Iraq. When the Shah was overthrown and we got kicked out, the Soviets came into Iran in support of the new regime. We in turn flipped over and began supporting Saddam. It was always us on one side and the Soviets on the other.

AS for the Baath party.... they took control of Iraq during the 60's. Back when LBJ was President (maybe as early as Kennedy... I forget the year) They were in place long before Reagan took over and the non-stop back and forth with the Soviets has been in place damn near since the British broke up the Ottoman empire and oil began to be used more and more to sustain our economy.
Click to expand...

Right, the point is, the situation in Iran changed in 79, Reagan entered office in 81. Totally different picture at that point. And no, I was all of 2 1/2 when Reagan left office, so I obviously don't remember it...
 
RStringfield said:
He took a picture with Reagan, that settles it.

He was a delegate that supported Reagan's campaign. Big fucking difference from your claim. He was not right by his side (this clearly implies that he was a trusted adviser of some sort) helping him along. He had nothing to do with the installation of these neocons. Further, he has stated that Reagan was ultimately a disappointment.
Click to expand...

"Ron Paul led the Texas Delegation to nominate Ronald Reagan for president in 1976;"

from the same article. Actually from the caption of the photo I linked to.

Just a delagate huh ?
 
Threedee said:
Yeltsin saved his life, fool. I'm not saying that validates Yeltsin as a man or politician--it could have been anyone--and it would still demonstate how precarious the situation was for Gorbachev, and why he made the decisions that he did.
Click to expand...

You are young so Im sorry for calling you a fool.

You really do need to realise that Gorby was always very progessive throughout his entire carreer.

He did what he believed would help his country be strong. Gorby was world traveled and very well educated. He did not just do what he did for convience. Yeltsen was a fool and an acholic who ran acorrupt government and if they would have allowed Gorby to continue to run the place things would have transitioned in a much better way for USSR. Reagan was just who was our President when Gorby came along. Reagan gets credit for waking up and working with Gorby but Gorby is the one who made all the changes.

The world knows this. Some Americans like to give Reagan all the credit for political reasons only.
 
Superfreak said:
The idiotic left mantra demonstrated quite nicely by US above.

We never TOOK their oil. Not then. Not now. That is simply the morons on the left parroting yet another spoon fed mantra.
Click to expand...


I think the idiocy of the right is pretty goddamn obvious right now, don't you?

It's why you're shrinking.

About that "we never took their oil" bullshit ..

SEE: The Shah and the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran.

History is a wonderful thing.

Then SEE: The Iraq Oil Law.
 
Threedee said:
Right, the point is, the situation in Iran changed in 79, Reagan entered office in 81. Totally different picture at that point. And no, I was all of 2 1/2 when Reagan left office, so I obviously don't remember it...
Click to expand...

yes, it did change. As I mentioned, we flipped sides. Soviets went to Iran and we went to Iraq. But our involvement was still because we didn't want the Soviets gaining control of the region and they didn't want us to.
 
Desh said:
You are young so Im sorry for calling you a fool.

You really do need to realise that Gorby was always very progessive throughout his entire carreer.

He did what he believed would help his country be strong. Gorby was world traveled and very well educated. He did not just do what he did for convience. Yeltsen was a fool and an acholic who ran acorrupt government and if they would have allowed Gorby to continue to run the place things would have transitioned in a much better way for USSR. Reagan was just who was our President when Gorby came along. Reagan gets credit for waking up and working with Gorby but Gorby is the one who made all the changes.

The world knows this. Some Americans like to give Reagan all the credit for political reasons only.
Click to expand...

Im young... and your a Boomber, and therefore with no right to speak of my generation like you did. I never invoked Yeltsin to speak of him as a man or politician, but merely to point out that in having to save Gorby's life, the situation did not give Gorby any alternative to disunion. Gorby was tallented, and could have functioned as easily under Stalinism as the post-Brezhnev world... After all, he was a communist, and therefore without value as a human being.
 
blackascoal said:
I think the idiocy of the right is pretty goddamn obvious right now, don't you?

It's why you're shrinking.

About that "we never took their oil" bullshit ..

SEE: The Shah and the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran.

History is a wonderful thing.

Then SEE: The Iraq Oil Law.
Click to expand...

Yes, the shah was overthrown... how does that equate to our taking their oil? We developed the fields and produced the oil for Iran in exchange for a share of the profits. Having American (not to mention British and French) companies develop the fields is hardly the same as "taking their oil". After about 15 years or so, the Shah then nationalized the oil fields. Which was long before the revolution began against him.
 
Superfreak said:
yes, it did change. As I mentioned, we flipped sides. Soviets went to Iran and we went to Iraq. But our involvement was still because we didn't want the Soviets gaining control of the region and they didn't want us to.
Click to expand...

The Soviet role was basically gone by the time the war broke out. It was dying on the battlefields of Afghanistan.
 
Threedee said:
Im young... and your a Boomber, and therefore with no right to speak of my generation like you did. I never invoked Yeltsin to speak of him as a man or politician, but merely to point out that in having to save Gorby's life, the situation did not give Gorby any alternative to disunion. Gorby was tallented, and could have functioned as easily under Stalinism as the post-Brezhnev world... After all, he was a communist, and therefore without value as a human being.
Click to expand...

Gorby opened up the SU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost

I dont remember saying anything about your gneration?
 
Iran and oil goes much farther back than the Shah being overthrown.
We put the Shah who was the son of a hitler collaborator in charge of Iran after WW2 so we could control their oil.
 
Threedee said:
The Soviet role was basically gone by the time the war broke out. It was dying on the battlefields of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Seriously, go tell your history teacher that he/she is a moron. The two wars were going on at the same time. If you think the Soviets had no control or influence in Iran (which coincidentally neighbors a certain other country.... Afghanistan, thus providing another direction of attack) at that time you are seriously misinformed.
 
Desh said:
Dont you remember how hard you fought the idea that Reagan was not the God who ended the cold war?

I gave him credit for recognising Gorby was an honorable man but it was Gorby who ended the war not Reagan. The world agrees with that but only Reagan whorshipers think it was Ronny.
Click to expand...
Holy re-written history batman. The ONLY reason Gorby came to the table finally was because the USSR was spending itself into oblivion trying to keep up with the US military spending. Star Wars, Sgt York, Modern naval weapons, etc. The Soviet Union was starving to death trying to keep up with us. There was NO WAY they could have continued so Gorby came to the table. To pretend that it was done out of the goodness of Gorby's heart is to completely ignore history. God Desh you are such a partisan you can't even admit when a republican accomplished something.
 
Desh said:
Tell me all you know about Gorbachev?
Click to expand...

He rose to prominence during the rule of Khrushchev...which means he would have been very in line with the traditional Soviet government, because you do not gain power in a totalitarian state by being a revolutionary.

It was after he became Secretary and realised the Soviet Union could not continue with the same policies that he became "progressive".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top