Reagan was the gold standard

Milagro said:
Yes there were pressures most certainly but Reagan acted as a catalyst by forcing the Soviet Union to face the fact that it couldn't afford to continue the Cold War. Of course Gorbachev helped as well no doubting that.

You won't acknowledge that fact because you hate Reagan with a vengeance and allow that to cloud your judgement.

http://www.heritage.org/report/ronald-reagan-and-the-fall-communism

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
Click to expand...
And Reagan did that primarily by adhering to the Truman doctrine. Reagan does get more credit than he deserves. I mean Bush was President when the USSR actually collapsed. That's not to say Reagan does not deserve credit as he made significant contributions but the collapse of the USSR was a process and a consistent application of foreign policy from Truman to Bush. You are both correct though Reagans increase in defense spending at a time when Soviets became aware of the huge difference in their standard of living from the west combined with economic and political instability were the straws that broke the Camels back.
 
Milagro said:
Yes there were pressures most certainly but Reagan acted as a catalyst by forcing the Soviet Union to face the fact that it couldn't afford to continue the Cold War. Of course Gorbachev helped as well no doubting that.

You won't acknowledge that fact because you hate Reagan with a vengeance and allow that to cloud your judgement.

http://www.heritage.org/report/ronald-reagan-and-the-fall-communism

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
Click to expand...
You could have at least picked an objective source Tom.

To be perfectly honest it was the Truman administration that developed and implemented the strategy that played the key role in bringing the USSR down. Reagan certainly played a significant role but the strategy and ergo the credit belongs to Truman and that is why Truman is considered a great President and Reagan an above average one. There is no arguing that liberal internatiolism, as advocated by Truman and what eventually became known as the Truman Doctrine, which contained the Soviet Unions expansionism and provided generous foreign financial aid in modernizing at risk nations and regions to prevent the growth of communist movements in undeveloped countries is what won the Cold War. Reagan was remarkable for a Republican in that he rejected traditional conservative policies of isolationism, realism and noninterventionism and fully embraced liberal internationalism, that is the Truman Doctrine, with its military aid and nation building, despite strong opposition from the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
You could have at least picked an objective source Tom.

To be perfectly honest it was the Truman administration that developed and implemented the strategy that played the key role in bringing the USSR down. Reagan certainly played a significant role but the strategy and ergo the credit belongs to Truman and that is why Truman is considered a great President and Reagan an above average one. There is no arguing that liberal internatiolism, as advocated by Truman and what eventually became known as the Truman Doctrine, which contained the Soviet Unions expansionism and provided generous foreign financial aid in modernizing at risk nations and regions to prevent the growth of communist movements in undeveloped countries is what won the Cold War. Reagan was remarkable for a Republican in that he rejected traditional conservative policies of isolationism, realism and noninterventionism and fully embraced liberal internationalism, that is the Truman Doctrine, with its military aid and nation building, despite strong opposition from the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine
Click to expand...

Reagan's policies most closely resembled Ike's New Look.
 
Look here's the reality in foreign policy. We cannot abdicate America's leadership role in foreign affairs. If we focus internally by walking away from our defense alliances and trade agreements other nations who do not have our interests at heart will fill that leadership vacuum and smaller nations will look to them for mutual defense alliances and trade.

This is obviously not in our best interest from an economic and security standpoint to state the obvious.

You hear conservative isolationist complain about US foreign spending, for example, yet that money represents less than 1% of our annual budget and it's an outstanding investment as it does as much or more to prevent war than the hundreds of billions we spend annually on national defense.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Look here's the reality in foreign policy. We cannot abdicate America's leadership role in foreign affairs. If we focus internally by walking away from our defense alliances and trade agreements other nations who do not have our interests at heart will fill that leadership vacuum and smaller nations will look to them for mutual defense alliances and trade.

This is obviously not in our best interest from an economic and security standpoint to state the obvious.

You hear conservative isolationist complain about US foreign spending, for example, yet that money represents less than 1% of our annual budget and it's an outstanding investment as it does as much or more to prevent war than the hundreds of billions we spend annually on national defense.
Click to expand...

It is ABSOLUTELY in our best interest to let smaller nations look elsewhere for their own defense. Unless you want a Vietnam or a Iraq every generation, we must return to our own soil and let the rest of the world sort itself out. Or Mott, are you comfortable trading 100,000,000 American lives to keep the Spratleys out of Chinese hands?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top