Ron Paul Deceived. BucEyedPea Believed. (The Fabricated Reagan Quote)

[patteeu]

I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but I wanted to create a separate thread where BucEyedPea can feel free to admit that Ron Paul was wrong or argue endlessly with me about it if she's still in denial without hijacking another thread.

In July of 2006, Ron Paul got up in front of the House of Representatives to speak in opposition to a resolution condemning Hezbollah's attack against Israel. In his statement, he quoted Ronald Reagan to bolster his case. I should say he "mis-quoted" Reagan though, because as it turns out the quote was FABRICATED.

Since then, BucEyedPea has repeatedly referenced that quote here on the pages of ChiefsPlanet. At last count, I've seen her reference it no less than 16 times. What's with these appeasement conservatives and their need to pretend that Ronald Reagan would have approved of their misguided, neo-isolationist message?

See my next two posts for the details.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by KC native

Still trying to peddle this nonsense? The soviets were doomed by their own policies and Reagan was just fortunate enough to be there when they finally collapsed under their own weight.

Yes, Reagan's arms buildup and his support of anti-Soviet bloc forces from Afghanistan to Nicaragua had nothing to do with it. LOL

Soviet socialism was a self-inflicted wound. Of that there is no doubt. Reagan added weight to the already burdened system until it's collapse became inevitable.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by KC native

Still trying to peddle this nonsense? The soviets were doomed by their own policies and Reagan was just fortunate enough to be there when they finally collapsed under their own weight.

This. Not that Reagan didn't help, but Reagan's policies were mostly a continuation of those that had been in place for 40 years. Did Reagan stand off against the Russian's proxy in Korea? Did Reagan order the Berlin Airlift? Did Reagan stare down Kruschnev over Cuba? Did Reagan implement the containment policy? Did Reagan overcome centuries of animosity to form NATO? Did Reagan ensure nuclear supremacy? Did Reagan create the triad defense system, or implement NORAD?

The Reagan-worship seriously underrates the efforts of 40 years of effort. Of course, it's not hard to see the logic there by Republicans since alot of THAT effort was by Democrats.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Reagan did NOT defeat a superpower. The entire concept is comical. That Reagan, by spending money on the military and "standing firm" or whatever (not that we hadn't been stnading firm for nearly 40 years already) somehow caused the USSR to collapse. Seriously, just think about how nonsensical that is.

It's not nonsensical at all. What's nonsensical is the idea that US policy had no role in the Soviet collapse.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

This. Not that Reagan didn't help, but Reagan's policies were mostly a continuation of those that had been in place for 40 years. Did Reagan stand off against the Russian's proxy in Korea? Did Reagan order the Berlin Airlift? Did Reagan stare down Kruschnev over Cuba? Did Reagan implement the containment policy? Did Reagan overcome centuries of animosity to form NATO? Did Reagan ensure nuclear supremacy? Did Reagan create the triad defense system, or implement NORAD?

The Reagan-worship seriously underrates the efforts of 40 years of effort. Of course, it's not hard to see the logic there by Republicans since alot of THAT effort was by Democrats.

I'm not taking anything away from the cold warriors that preceded Reagan. I'm just saying that if we had elected Barack Obama instead of Reagan, the Soviets would probably still be chugging along.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yes, Reagan's arms buildup and his support of anti-Soviet bloc forces from Afghanistan to Nicaragua had nothing to do with it. LOL

who said nothing? Nobody, that's who.

But his "support of anti-Soviet bloc forces" was nothing more than the continuation of the containment strategy outlined by Kennan back in the late 40s for chrissakes. One long, 40 year effort that went from the formation of NATO to the Berlin airlift to the nuclear arms race to the development of the hydrogen bomb to the Korean War to the Cuban missile crisis to the Vietnamese War (an unnecessary war whose strategic implications and importance was badly misunderstood in Washington) to Chinese rapproachment all the way to the action of Reagan in the 1980s.

Reagan did NOT mount his white freaking horse and go crush the Soviets with nary a shot fired in 8 years. The entire notion is patently absurd.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's not nonsensical at all. What's nonsensical is the idea that US policy had no role in the Soviet collapse.

That is nonsensical, which is why I didn't say it. Nor anything remotely like it.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yes, Reagan's arms buildup and his support of anti-Soviet bloc forces from Afghanistan to Nicaragua had nothing to do with it. LOL

Soviet socialism was a self-inflicted wound. Of that there is no doubt. Reagan added weight to the already burdened system until it's collapse became inevitable.

The USSR's collapse was inevitable from it's inception.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm not taking anything away from the cold warriors that preceded Reagan. I'm just saying that if we had elected Barack Obama instead of Reagan, the Soviets would probably still be chugging along.

Very unlikely given that Obama hasn't shown any weakness in pursuing perceived worthwhile military goals in Afghanistan. Nor is what Reagan did all that different or unusual from the policy that had preceded him and been fundamentally stable for 40 years.

The Soviets were going to fall of their own weight eventually if we stayed the course. Unless Obama or whoever completely screwed up in some fashion, then it was really just a function of time.

I doubt any American President would have pursued a policy in Afghanistan much different than what Reagan did. Supporting a war by proxy directly against your enemy is rather obvious strategy, employed effectively against us in Vietnam.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

who said nothing? Nobody, that's who.

But his "support of anti-Soviet bloc forces" was nothing more than the continuation of the containment strategy outlined by Kennan back in the late 40s for chrissakes. One long, 40 year effort that went from the formation of NATO to the Berlin airlift to the nuclear arms race to the development of the hydrogen bomb to the Korean War to the Cuban missile crisis to the Vietnamese War (an unnecessary war whose strategic implications and importance was badly misunderstood in Washington) to Chinese rapproachment all the way to the action of Reagan in the 1980s.

Reagan did NOT mount his white freaking horse and go crush the Soviets in 8 years. The entire notion is patently absurd.

KC Native did. He attributed the Soviet collapse entirely to Soviet policies. That's clearly not true. Your more balanced assessment is far less objectionable, although you short-change Reagan and his contemporaries IMO. The Soviets' collapse in 1989 was not inevitable. Eight years of Reagan-led Western policies were the proximate cause.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by KC native

The USSR's collapse was inevitable from it's inception.

Well, yes, very likely so, but a failure to contain would have (1) resulted in at least the potential of expanded Soviet hegemony and (2) signficantly delayed the timeframe of teh collapse.

I mean, if America had just gone back to its pre-WWII roots of isolationism, the world would be a VERY different place today, and not likely in a good way (for us or for the rest of the world).

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Very unlikely given that Obama hasn't shown any weakness in pursuing perceived worthwhile military goals in Afghanistan.

What makes you think that he would have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union as being a worthwhile goal?

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Imagine 7 years from now the economy is still being run by Obama, and the war is still going on. Also, we're basically in a cold war with China.

Then, imagine that the next president comes in, ends the war in the ME with a victory, and bankrupts China.

That's why Reagan is so idolized. Let me know if you have any questions about why Abraham Lincoln, another great Republican, is still idolized.

Reagan did wonders for our economy and tackled Afghanistan with brilliant foresight.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by KC native

Still trying to peddle this nonsense? The soviets were doomed by their own policies and Reagan was just fortunate enough to be there when they finally collapsed under their own weight.

I wonder if you're one of those guys who looks back fondly on "Clinton's economy."

I'd argue (correctly) that Pres. Reagan contributed more to the collapse of the Soviet Union than Clinton contributed to the booming economic circumstances that coincided with his administration.

Sometimes praise can be heaped on a bit thick by either side for its own heroes.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

I wonder if you're one of those guys who looks back fondly on "Clinton's economy."

I'd argue (correctly) that Pres. Reagan contributed more to the collapse of the Soviet Union than Clinton contributed to the booming economic circumstances that coincided with his administration.

This comparison immediately came to mind when I read that post as well.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

KC Native did. He attributed the Soviet collapse entirely to Soviet policies. That's clearly not true. Your more balanced assessment is far less objectionable, although you short-change Reagan and his contemporaries IMO. The Soviets' collapse in 1989 was not inevitable. Eight years of Reagan-led Western policies were the proximate cause.

The Soviet collapse was likely inevitable, but if one assumes American disengagement following WWII, then Soviet influence could have been extended over so vast an area that the collapse may have been greatly delayed. The mightier the economic engine, the harder it is to break.

I'm honestly do believe you over-credit what happened in the 1980s. Reagan didn't cause serious instability in the Soviet's political leadership as a result of the selection and quick deaths of octogenerian Premiers (or whatever they were called, it's been so long I've forgotten. General Secretary, maybe). The turn to Gorbachev and his desire to try to fix the highly broken Soviet economic system.

And per the CIA, Reagan's military spending increases (which were a continuation and acceleration of a buildup first started during the last two years of Carter's Presidency) did not really result in any signficant change to Russian military spending, so there isn't much argument about Reagan causing the Russians to spend themselves into bankruptcy or whatever.

Finally, Reagan's actions were pretty much all in line with the well-established American policy of containment. A policy that was 40 years old by the time he took the reins.

I'm not saying he deserves NO credit, but I am saying that giving him vast credit is silly. Iran-contra didn't break the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union broke itself, with a large assist from a steady American policy that was half-a-century old by the time the USSR fell primarily from its own dead weight.