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 ...
You won't find anyone who would like to see us buying from anyone but the ME more...but I fear it would have no real effect on their spread of terrorism...
What you are proposing is a lack of dependence on OPEC and to be dependent on other countries more in fact....We won't find a replacememt that is the same costwise anytime soon. I'm not thrilled with being utterly dependent on any country.
How? What is the scientific and economically-viable replacement for crude oil?
If you can't answer that, the chances are, it's way down the road.
"A national effort" isn't necessary. There are guys in garages who are, as we speak, looking for alternatives.
They know they would be very rich men if they found it.
I am afraid you are correct.
Thanks for the ping!
I note there was a CPUSA during the 80s...Remember Gus Hall?
I've done a lot of reading and thinking about this...it's one of the great question marks about Reagan's presidency. How could such a man cut and run from an act of war like that? Or, give the Iranians a free pass after the hostage crisis? All the evidence points to one thing...
Reagan knew that, in the 70's and 80's, the Soviet Union was gleefully supporting Muslim Terrorists (and any others they could find). His belief, IMHO, was that by defeating them, he would remove the prime source of terrorist funding and support, thus defeating the terrs. He probably saw no point in getting bogged down in a war with only one head of the Hydra. Also, there was the Soviet's stated intent to intervene directly in a war between the US and the Iranians, who at the time were the biggest supporters, outside the Soviets, of terrorists.
Of course, the terrs found new benefactors after the Soviets imploded, but that is something Reagan could not have foreseen. Actually, not many people could have foreseeen the terrs managing to organize and continue without such support.
Hindsight is always 20/20, and it is certainly fun to imagine a Reagan Reaction to 9-11. However, he acted with what he knew to be true at the time. Also, there is the fact that his State Department was almost totally composed of Carter appointees, who actively resisted ANY reprisals for terrorist activities during the 80's. They still do, but there are mercifully less of them now.
Viewed in the proper historical context, his descisions re: Beruit make sense. However, it was STILL an Act Of War. I'm sure that he knew this, and it probably grated on his soul to refrain from a massive response.
PING to # 67.
PING to # 67
I have been puzzled by that, just said in a private reply that I imagine he had all he could handle at the time...
Your point that the Soviets were backing the terrorism is another thing to consider ... bring down the Soviets and weaken the ME terrorists....
He responded also to the sentiment of the time...Our soldiers should not be put in harms way. Vietnam is always lurking in the minds of all liberals and a lot of conservatives...
.The libs only want intervention if it is not in our national self interest. many conservatives want us to stay out of foreign entanglements.
bump
Personally, I will go to my grave always believing Ronnie did exactly the right thing to end the terrorism.
Was it a coincidence that the 50+ hostages in Tehran flew out of Iranian airspace towards Germany FIVE MINUTES before Ronnie took the oath of office?
I don't think so.
Methinks Tehran would be a glass parking lot by now if they had done anything else.
good point
Yes, Thanks redrock! It's been quite a week, has it not??
Thats why we need Major "who cares about the Arab street, Screw the Arab street" Bob Bevalaqua for president!!!
I could show you hundreds of them. One family, down the street, are no different in their day-to-day activities from you and me. They worship at a mosque, their kids are well-behaved (and damned smart) and mom shops where we shop.
They came down to our annual block party last Saturday night. Dad had a couple of beers, too.
Bush,by defining himself as "compassionate" has separated himself from the old Goldwater/Reagan style of conservatism.
You better be glad he defined himself this way; your style of conservatism would keep conservatives out of the White House for the next generation.
Sorry, sink, your response is also sophomoric and simplistic. It also presupposes there are no entities working either against the best interests or at cross purposes to the best interests of our nation. Multinational corporations, do not consider themselves as US citizens or even beholden to US interests. Their bottom line is profit. Period. Same is true for the private banking entities present on US soil. Then there are the globalist factions which have world government as their primary objectives. To accomplish this goal, and it is frighteningly close, these groups of elitists must "bring down" this great nation to her very knees. Energy dependence is one of these primary means.
And before you protest my "tinfoil hat" there are some things that are glaringly obvious to even those with obtuse vision of world events. Say that we drilled ANWAR like a ... ahem....$10 hooker. Say it proved to be a find far beyond our wildest dreams of production. I think that most of that oil would be sold overseas at a considerable profit rather than being used to bring down the price of fuel here at home. The reason it's not being heavily lobbied by the oil companies is that they fear a President like GW might use his powers of national security to "nationalize" their industry!
Your entire post sounds like something taken from the Birchite "NEW AMERICAN."
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.