Gore says Homosexuality is Abnormal and Wrong

[Magic Merlin]

Well, I am someone who never liked, nor ever voted for Reagan. Yet, I do believe he was a contributing factor in the fall of the Soviet Union. That much is agreed upon by most historians, except for those few whose political ideologies won't allow them to give any credit to a Republican politician.

I also believe the Soviet Union would have fallen eventually, with or without Reagan as president. However, Carter was known or perhaps was just perceived as softer on communism than the previous presidents. Whether that is really true may just be a difference of opinions. However, most people have considered Jimmy Carter as less than forceful during his term as president.

Where Reagan gets credit for 'contributing' to the fall of the Soviet Union is the different attitude he brought with him when he assumed the presidency in January 1981. After several years of decline in the United States military, Reagan made it a point to upgrade and improve our military readiness. This was marked by a large increase in the U.S. military budget during his 8 years in office from 1981-1989, when George Bush took the oath of office. Reagan's push to increase our military budget to very high levels and his very strong stance in dealing with the eastern block is seen by most historians as one of several causes in hurrying the fall of the Soviet Union. Definately not as the only, or even main reason. Just one of many.

Yes, the Soviet Union most likely would have fallen eventually, however, their attempt in trying to keep up with the U.S. military spending during Reagan's term of presidency is definately seen as a 'contributing' factor in their fall. Therefore, I think it is very plausible that in the future when historians review that time of our history that 1980 will be seen as some type of bookmark in the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[Thumper]

One little detail....

..that I think has been grossly overlooked.

Afghanistan.

The Soviet involvement there made our Vietnam tryst look like a Sunday brunch. This taxed the Soviets not only militarily(financially) but much like Vietnam did for the US,it caused the people(and most importantly the whole military apparatus) to lose faith in the system and to question those governing them. We can handle such things because our system is open to question all the time and we have learned to succeed because of or in spite of it. A dictatorship cannot survive under these circumstances...a tyrant's best ally is ignorance. Keep the people in the dark, restrict what they see, hear and know, and they can be controlled easily. However in the technology age they had to allow their people to become educated to keep up with us...knowledge leads to questions, and questions lead to more knowledge...and when the military starts asking questions and all it gets are more body bags...time to call it a day methinks...


To those who love freedom:
Ignorance is a scary thing....Beware those who preach mistrust of the "Intelligentsia" or "Elite"(ala Rush Limbaugh) and appeal to the "average working man"

To those who desire power and control:
Beware the teachers and scientists and scholars and all who seek knowledge...they naturally question things...especially authority.

You need go no further than Pol Pot(Khmer rouge) or Mao Tse Tung (Great leap forward) to see this first hand...

 

[Ramlick]

Re: One little detail....

..that I think has been grossly overlooked.

Afghanistan.

The Soviet involvement there made our Vietnam tryst look like a Sunday brunch. This taxed the Soviets not only militarily(financially) but much like Vietnam did for the US,it caused the people(and most importantly the whole military apparatus) to lose faith in the system and to question those governing them.

Good point. And when was this Soviet involvement in Afghanistan? During the Carter administration. And did Carter let it slide? Absolutely not. Do the words "grain embargo" ring a bell? Carter also held the US olympic team from participating in the Olympics in Moscow. No, Carter was not soft on the Soviets.

I admit there is a "perception" that Carter was weak and that Reagan came in and rebuilt our military. This mistaken perception is the result of a successful propoganda campaign on the part of Republican partisans, mainly waged through talk radio. Serious students of history know the facts, despite what the popular myths and perceptions are.

Yes, Reagan did put more money into the military. But to say that he "rebuilt" the military is a gross exaggeration. This is a typical strategy used by Republicans. They're trying it right now, claiming that the Clinton administration has let the military go to pot. When you hear accusations such as these always do yourself a favor and consider the source, so you don't get duped.

[Edited by Ramlick on 10-18-2000 at 06:55 PM]

 

[Deborah]

Ramlick, latent homosexual tendencies are nothing to be ashamed of you know.

 

[Magic Merlin]

Good God Ramlick!

I'm sold on everything you state. Forget what anyone else tells me, I'm only listening to you from now on. Noone has the grasp on the facts of the 20th century as you do.

 

[Lasher]

Carter also held the US olympic team from participating in the Olympics in Moscow.

Boycotting the Olympics was the move of a eunuch.

The Soviets went into Afganistan on December 4, 1979. If you've read anything Carter has written, even he admits he was blind to the true motives of the Soviet Union until that day.

Active support of the Muhajeddin (supplying weapons thru Pakistan, etc..) didn't begin until summer of 1981, it was one of the first operations activateded by Casey after his appointment as CIA director. Carter was too hamstrung by the Iranian hostage situation in December, 1979 to actively oppose anything.

The Carter administration was so out of touch with the political ramifications of their own weakness that Stansfield Turner actually has written that after the 1980 election he expected to be retained as CIA director under a Reagan administration!

Grain Embargo? The Argentines are still thanking us for that one. The only people hurt by the Grain Embargo were farmers in the United States.

If that's the best you can do I suggest you do more research. Christ, I just spoke with Rosalyn Carter and even she thinks her husband was soft on Communism.

Almost forgot the SALT II treaty that his administration negotiated that was so weak that his own Democratically controlled Senate would not ratify it. That's pretty tough for ya...

 

[Cheyenne]

Do the words "grain embargo" ring a bell? Carter also held the US olympic team from participating in the Olympics in Moscow. No, Carter was not soft on the Soviets.

I admit there is a "perception" that Carter was weak and that Reagan came in and rebuilt our military. This mistaken perception is the result of a successful propoganda campaign on the part of Republican partisans, mainly waged through talk radio. Serious students of history know the facts, despite what the popular myths and perceptions are.

[/B]

ROTFLMAO!!! Yup, that Carter was really really tough on those Soviets. Why, he held the US Olympic Team back from participating in the Olympics in Moscow! Just think how that must have hurt the poor Soviets' feelings. And it is all the fault of those nasty Republicans' propaganda that you don't realize just how tough this made Carter.

 

[Lasher]

It's nice to see we've got a good grasp of the issues of the 1980 presidential election now. LOL. Maybe now we can move on to the more compelling issues of 1984.

Hey, Ramlick, "Where's the Beef?"

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Re: One little detail....

Originally posted by Ramlick
Good point. And when was this Soviet involvement in Afghanistan? During the Carter administration. And did Carter let it slide? Absolutely not. Do the words "grain embargo" ring a bell?

Yes, indeed. Carter wanting to appear tough and efficacious and with a bumper crop of grain took away a large market from the American farmers and drove their grain prices down even farther. Yup, a real thinker there, and tough where it counted, on his own citizens, the American farmer! Hip! Hip! Hooray!

Originally posted by Ramlick
Carter also held the US olympic team from participating in the Olympics in Moscow.

Yeah, boy! Keep our athletes from competing and waste their efforts of a year or more of practice and preparation for the Olympics. He really screwed the Soviets with that far thinking move! Yes, indeed, my hero!

Originally posted by Ramlick
No, Carter was not soft on the Soviets.

No, he was just soft in the head. He lacked vision, strength, courage, and direction. And he handled the Iranian taking and holding of Americans hostage so admirably. They were only in captivity for how many days? Psst. A little over 400 (BTW, that's a year and then some)! But he did get them released, didn't he. Ah, yes. By being defeated in the election and being replaced by a President who made it clear that he would NOT tolerate the holding of American hostages! Good job, Jimmy!

Originally posted by Ramlick
I admit there is a "perception" that Carter was weak and that Reagan came in and rebuilt our military. This mistaken perception is the result of a successful propoganda campaign on the part of Republican partisans, mainly waged through talk radio. Serious students of history know the facts, despite what the popular myths and perceptions are.

I agree regarding that perception except I'm more inclined to call it incompetence rather than weakness. I was in the Navy for both of those administrations and there was a marked difference in morale, attitude and performance. I remember getting 5% CPI pay raise caps when inflation was 20% and interest rates were 21% As an E-7, I was eligible for Food Stamps (there were only two enlisted paygrades above me). I lived that history so your bullshit doesn't wash here!

Originally posted by Ramlick
Yes, Reagan did put more money into the military. But to say that he "rebuilt" the military is a gross exaggeration. This is a typical strategy used by Republicans. They're trying it right now, claiming that the Clinton administration has let the military go to pot. When you hear accusations such as these always do yourself a favor and consider the source, so you don't get duped.

The truth is that Reagan did rebuild the military. He did it with pay raises and with respect from the Oval office which raised morale by an order of magnitude. His attitude toward the military personnel contributed markedly to their willingness to work hard to prepare for whatever was required because there was a Commander-in-Chief who respected the purpose and institute of the military. As a result, we were far better prepared to meet whatever need arose.

I still work around military people and today under the traitor infesting the Oval Office, readiness is the worst I've ever seen, morale is the same and people are leaving in droves because they can't get the support needed to keep equipment working. They also are despised by the so-called Commander-in-Chief who deploys the military to cover his sorry ass when a new scandal is in the wings. There is no respect for the man (and I use the term pejoratively) at the top because they know he will sell them down the river at the drop of a hat (or a Chinese bribe)! And that is extremely demoralizing.

 

[Ramlick]

I never said Carter was an effective president. And yes, the American farmer pays when a grain embargo is inplemented (let's hear it for patriotism!), but you can't say that Carter had a "soft" attitude toward the Soviets and communism. That is my only point. Whether the boycotting of the Olympics was the right thing to do wasn't relevant to the point I was making.

No, I don't consider Carter a good president. I'd put him one notch under Reagan, who's one notch under Clinton.

 

[Cheyenne]

...but you can't say that Carter had a "soft" attitude toward the Soviets and communism. That is my only point. Whether the boycotting of the Olympics was the right thing to do wasn't relevant to the point I was making.

And MY point was that not going to the Olympics in no way shape or form showed that Carter was tough towards the Soviets. How could skipping the Olympics be viewed as an act of "toughness"? Did it hurt anything besides maybe the Soviets' feelings? You're correct on one point- whether the boycot was the right thing to do or not isn't relevant to whether the act can be considered "tough" treatment.

 

[Samuari]

No, I don't consider Carter a good president. I'd put him one notch under Reagan, who's one notch under Clinton.

At last some quantification. What is your criteria? Does Carter get extra points for proving a generation of ecnomists wrong by having double digit inflation and unemployment simultaneously? Do you penalize Regan for snoring through cabinet meetings? Does Bill get extra credit on morality?

What is the point system, and how do you apply it?