3/13    Why do Reagan admirers say that the Soviet Union collapsed because
        of Reagan's policies?  I know he called SU the "evil empire" and
        also started a Star Wars weapons program.  What else did he do, and
        how did these contribute to the SU's collapse?
        \_ Those Reagan supporter think that by escalating the
           arms race, we effectively bankrupted the Soviet much sooner than
           we would of otherwise.  Also, these guys were proud the fact that
           we fought "Communism" on every 3rd world countries we can think of
           by supporting dictatorships / islamic extremist all over, which also
           bankrupted the Soviet (Congo, Afganistan, etc).
           In their simple logic, "Communism" is "absolute evil" and everything
           else is "lesser of the two evils."  Notice the similar mentality
           is in "war on terror" today (Saddam Hussin is evil and every one
           else is a lesser of the two... now, it's Iran's turn :p)
        \_ Everyone likes to take credit for SU's collapse but what really
           brought SU down were Gorbachev's inept policies. He realized what he
           had done after 1990 and tried to change his course of action but it
           was too late by then. All other factors were just catalysts.
        \_ Those Reagan supporter think that by escalating the arms race, we
           effectively bankrupted the Soviet much sooner than we would of
           \_ "would have"
           otherwise.  Also, these guys were proud the fact that we fought
           "Communism" on every 3rd world countries we can think of by
           supporting dictatorships / islamic extremist all over, which also
           bankrupted the Soviet (Congo, Afganistan, etc). In their simple
           logic, "Communism" is "absolute evil" and everything else is
           "lesser of the two evils."  Notice the similar mentality is in
           "war on terror" today (Saddam Hussin is evil and every one else
           is a lesser of the two... now, it's Iran's turn :p)
           \_ Interestingly, a common fallacy of people seeking to debunk the
              "Reagan bankrupted the Soviets" argument is assuming that all
              governments/countries/armies/whatever against which the US
              supported organizations that were thuggish, fascist and evil to
              varying degrees, were actually any less worse than our own
              stooges.  -John
              \_ it is true in Europe.  But in Asia, Communism has much less
                 to do with Maxist Idealogy than Idealogy of self-determination
                 champaigoned by W.Wilsons, and FDR.  Most of these "Communist"
                 were fighting European Imperial Power before WW2 ended.
                 If you are a Vietnamese and being brutally ruled by French
                 for past 100 years and suddently French says they really care
                 about human right and democracy.  Would you believe it?
                 \_ And very often, the communists piggybacked conveniently on
                    the back of a nationalist movement--Viet Minh/CPVN is
                    a fantastic example of this.  Note, I'm not saying the end
                    justifies the means or that any particular one of the
                    scumbags or dubious regimes the US supported during the
                    Cold War was excusable, just that you need to see this in
                    a bit of context; sometimes the alternative really was less
                    worse.  -John
              \_ I think if I lived in a repressive regime and got two choices
                 1) Live life like it is now, where there are large chunks
                    of things I can't say/do without a risk of dissapearing.
                 2) Live through a bloody civil/proxy civil war which
                    devistates the economy and civilian population (which
                    those kinds of wars have a real bad habit of doing) just
                    to live in another version of #1 one above.
                 I'd really prefer that the global super powers butted the
                 fuck out and let me live in relative peace.
                 \_ You said it, "powers".  -John
                  \_ Huhwha?
                    \_ As in "powers" as opposed to "power".  Plural.  -John
                     \_ Ahh, yeah.  That was intentional.  It's just that
                        I care more when it is my country behaving badly.
           \_ Hasn't the US been fighting proxy wars with the SU and its
              stooges since the end of WW2?  Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.?
        \_ He basically forced them into an arms race which bankrupted
           their country (and ours kind of...)
           \_ But I thought the Soviet Union has been in an arms race with
              the US since the end of WWII ?
              \_ This is true. Reagan admirers say that Reagan upped the ante
                 and thereby sped up the economic collapse; detractors say
                 that he was merely the sitting pres. when the fruits of years
                 of arms race ripened. Cf. Bush I and fall of SU; Clinton and
                 economic prosperity in the late 90s; and Bush II and the
                 current economic crisis. The real story, of course, is a lot
                 more complex than who was sitting in the Oval Office. --e_red
              \_ The scale of the arms race w/o a real war was significant
                 For example, Carter canned just about every program, gutted
                 the military - results were operation eagle claw.
        \_ Reagan's support of Poland and his Zero Option undermined Soviet
           power in Europe, which contributed significantly to the collapse
           of the USSR. His personal relationship w/ Gorby is also another
           factor that is also often overlooked. I agree w/ e_red that
           Reagan cannot be given all the credit for the collapse of the
           USSR, but he does deserve some credit.
           WRT the current terrorist situation - I personally think that
           Reagan would have used far better judgment than Bush2 in dealing
           w/ this situation. I also doubt that he would have involved us
           in Iraq, &c.
           \_ Because he did so well at the marine barracks?
              \_ Because he understood that you don't invade countries bigger
                 than a small island, and even then you only do it if you
                 have an exit strategy. -!pp, !reagan-admirer
                 \_ Like how we bailed after putting 500+ marines in a barracks
                    in a war zone and the gate guards didn't even have bullets.
              \_ Because Reagan wasn't a reactionary. He had good advisers
                 who understood the value of a strong US-Europe relations
                 and were willing to negotiate and compromise on many things
                 in order to achieve their long term goals.
        \_ Without getting deeply involved: there is a genral sense after
           the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, US policy shifted from
           Kennan's "containment" to "rollback". You can google/wiki
           for those terms. --psb
           \_ and it worked well has no ill consequences afterwards, no?
              \_ it was a conflict, genius.  if there was a perfect one shot
                 we-win! answer, it would've been done on day 1.
                 \_ you don't get it, don't you? Afganistan was much better
                    off under Communist rule.  Women enjoys equal rights,
                    opium export was under control.  After all these years,
                    don't you get it that "Communism" is not an absolute
                    evil?
                    \_ When exactly was this fantasy era for Afghanistan
                       when women had equal rights to men, there was an
                       economy based on something other than weapons and drugs
                       and the children played in rivers of chocolate?
                       \_ Afganistan is no paradise by any mean.  But at least
                          during the Communist rule, women get education, they
                          can put lipsticks and high-heel on if they can
                          afford it.  almost anyone who has slightest
                          knowledge about that part of the world would tell
                          you women was much much better off during the rules
                          of US-backed Mujahedeems.
                          \_ Still waiting to hear when this fantasy era of
                             goodness and chocolate rivers was.  Are you
                             related to ChiCom troll?  I think you are.
                             \_ from the perspective of economy, human rights,
                                etc.  Communist Afganistan was much better off
                                than the Taliban US supported, not to mentioned
                                that Afgan became a heaven for terrorist after
                                the fall of the Socialist regime.  Just admit
                                the policy and you are myopic and stupid.
                       \_ About 4000 years ago, during the height of
                          the Indus valley civilization.
                          \_ I don't think AfghanComTroll is talking about
                             4000 years ago.
                    \_ What do you call the fallacy of logic where one ignores
                       the faults of a system they prefer and justifies this
                       by pointing out problems with the current system? It
                       happens a lot on the motd