Posted on 06/12/2004 7:28:55 PM PDT by redrock
President Reagan's death brought to the fore his outstanding accomplishment of ending the Cold War. Like American presidents before him he led the U.S. in the charge against the "evil empire" by forging alliances and sending troops to remote theaters at high cost in blood and treasury. What makes Reagan's vision for victory particularly remarkable is that it stemmed from the belief in the power of technology as both a force multiplier and a game changer.
For the three and a half decades that preceded Reagan's presidency, Americans lived in the ominous shadow of a thermonuclear war that threatened to bring destruction to the planet. Two years into his first term, Reagan invited some of America's leading scientists to "give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." The result was a radical decision to develop a new system, which became known as "Star Wars," to reduce the threat of nuclear missiles by destroying them from space. The decision was met with a mixture skepticism and ridicule. Critics pointed to the technological barriers and the huge costs involved. But Reagan did not falter and insisted on pursuing the project. His gambit worked. The Soviets, already burdened by poor economy, proposed to eliminate all nuclear weapons over 15 years, contingent on the U.S backing off the project. Reagan declined and within a year the two superpowers began negotiations toward nuclear disarmament and permanent peace.
Thus ended the Cold War.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
"Sorry, I don't believe in genocide and it's not necessary anyways."
Well, I do believe in genocide - at least to the extent as do my enemies.
What "leadership"??
And quite frankly, the evidence suggests the Arab gene pool appears to be permanantly defective.
Have faith in the plan, I do.
It's an excellent question to raise, but I don't think the answer is as stated.
I think Reagan would have done something very simlar to what we did: Invade Afghanistan and try to establish democracy there, and then do the same to Iraq. The reason is that he would believe that the example of a free society would bleed over to other middle eastern states. This is the same strategy W is doing, and I see it as likely to succeed long-term. It's entirely consistent with Reagan's idealism, whereas focusing on foreign oil and national borders is not.
D
The Gaza plan worked, give it time to sinkin, no one walks into a fire pit knowingly.
The problem is Islam itself. They want us dead, regardless of our oil consumption. It's akin to saying that worldwide muslim violence is all because of Israel.
I couldn't agree more.
If it does...can that change come about thru private financial enterprise or does the United States Government need to be the one to invest in bringing about that change???
redrock
You've got to be kidding!
This economy would sink like a stone without oil, and there's nothing on the horizon to replace it.
The answer to your question is, "it can't."
But..it wouldn't hurt for us to stop paying for the bullets the terrorists use. And buying oil from the Arab Nations IS putting at least some money in the terrorists hands...
redrock
...and trying to figure out ways to keep it.
redrock
China has a growing dependence on oil...and it would be cheaper if we went to a much higher priced energy alternative..Our economy suffers as China's prospers..and other nations are not about to use the higher priced source to appease the US.
At one time....the smart people of the world said that putting men on the moon...was an impossible idea..fit only for dreamers.
At one time....the smart ones decided that a former "B" movie actor could NEVER make it in politics.
At one time...all the smart money was on the Soviet Empire lasting forever.
And now sinkspur....comes along and says that oil is the ONLY way.
Thanks...but I'll put my money on this Nation (but only if it really wants to) somehow figuring it out.
Thanks,
redrock
What say you about my posts? I didn't say developing another energy source would be impossible....only that it would not deprive the ME of money, as other nations use oil and the dependence grows as their economy grows.
Thanks...but I'll put my money on this Nation (but only if it really wants to) somehow figuring it out.
Oh, I'm sure somebody will eventually "figure it out," but not while oil is relatively cheap, and there's no alternative to it for the majority of energy applications.
It's about the economics, redrock. All the red-white-and-blue invocations don't mean a damned thing if whatever replaces oil isn't viable, economically.
But....I WOULD like it if WE didn't send them money.
redrock
bttt
But it IS a hard fact...this Nation figures things out.
A national effort to change our dependence on oil would have it turned around fairly fast.
Part of the problem tho is that conservatives have this nasty reaction when mentioning ending our dependence on oil since so many from the left have wanted us to do so.
redrock
You imagine that Reagan would buy into your idea that Islam is inherently evil, versus Bush's approach, that Islam is not evil, but radical offshoots of it are.
Islam is actually a very moderate religion that can be morphed (by some adherents) into a violent ideology.
Given that Reagan shrank from confronting radical Muslims when 240 Marines were killed in Lebanon, I'd lay my chips on the man leading us in the current fight.
Heroes are men of their time, and GWB (even though you dislike him) is the only leader with the guts to confront terrorism.
We would have to hope with the same tenacity of George W. Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.