Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Jun 4, 2006.
Editorial from the Persian Times:
That's a complete piece of trash.
There was no mainstream argument that Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union would fail, except in the early days before Gorbachev rose to power, in Reagan's third year of office.
Once Gorbachev began reaching out, the conservatives were quiet and the liberals breathed a sigh of relief when Reagan changed his "evil empire" approach to encourage Gorbachev. For conservatives, Reagan's legacy is conquering the Soviet Union; but for most of the world, Reagan's legacy in this regard is supporting change in the Soviet Union that was initiated by progressives inside the Soviet Union.
Not only does that the letter fail to present anything historically accurate, it ignores a key point. Bush doesn't have partners like Reagan had in Gorbachev and the Pope, two extremely powerful and influential people at the time.
No mainstream argument about Reagan's approach to the Solviet Union & the Cold War??????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!
How old are you??
The left was apopletic about Reagan the warmonger. Hint, Gorby tried to reform because the Communist knew they couldn't win and that Reagan had helped America refain the resolve it had lost after Viet NAm, Watergate & Carter. It didn't just happen you know. During Reagan's administration he was branded a simple minded dunce by the media and the left for his simplistic, unsophisticated view that communism was evil.
Let's not try to rewrite history here.
What struck me about this article by a Persian opposed to the Mullahs and radical Islam, is the hope that people from the Middle East who yearn for freedom see in Bush's policies.
I'm sure those in Europe suffering under Fascism looked to Churchill rahter than Chamberlin.
The left was strongly opposed to Reagan's handling of Nicaragua and his early handling of the Soviet Union. But, when Reagan began working with Gorbachev, the left was not opposed. Sure, they were critical along the way, but in general were about as supportive of Reagan's handling of the Soviets as the right was of Clinton's handling of Bosnia. If it wasn't for Gorbachev, the Soviet Union certainly could have gone on, in the same way North Korea continues, but Gorbachev wanted to do something for his people, and he had good allies in Reagan and the Pope.
Reagan was a simple minded dunce, but he had good advisors and only in the light of Dubya does he suddenly seem intelligent.
BS and revisionism pure and simple. THe left wanted Bush to give the farm away to Gorby and when he didn't he was villified.
The website WWW.IRANIAN.WS is US propaganda website located in TEXAS, USA.
Don't be fooled by this phony Republican RIGHT-WING article.
Dupes of the evil USA eh. Do you think all Iranians support the mullahs?
Are Iranians not allowe to have their own views?
I was just clarifying the the insinuation of your posting that article was from the Persian Times reflecting indigenous Iranian's perspective of America.
Post a link. I'm sure the left wanted Reagan to do more and felt frustrated that the old, senile warmonger would get credit for being a peacemaker, but the things we hated about Reagan were Nicaragua, hiis mixing of church and state, his cuts to social programs, and his tax policies.
Look at all the things we have to dislike about Reagan. The Soviet Union was one of the few things he did that we felt somewhat positive about.
Yeah you're right Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy were responsible for applying the pressure that won the cold war.....Thanks for pointing that out
Oh, come on, Patsfan, we're talking about your original post, where I said the letter was trash. Just as Bush supporters try to blame Clinton for 9/11, those who opposed Reagan tried to credit his successes to others. But, we never said the things in that ridiculous letter.
This isn't a letter it is an editorial that expresses a point of view, that the left in this country doesn't want to acknowledge. It is written by a persian who opposed the current Iranian regieme that supports terrorism. There is a great deal of unrest in Iran, which is to be encouraged. You seem to be uncomfortable that the writer is on our side in the war on terror. Why?
The person is lying to make his case. That's all I'm objecting to. Don't read things into what I wrote.
Beyond the fact that you don't agree with his opinion where is there a lie?
Here are the lies:
-They argued then that Communism would never fall -- I don't think anyone has argued that since the 1930s
-They argued then that the Soviet Union is too strong -- I don't think anyone has argued that since the 1960s
- They argued that Reagans vision of democracy in East Europe would never work -- That's a lie; no one argued that
- They argued then that Reagans evil empire speech was a failure - it wasn't -- his speech came about before Gorbachev, so had nothing to do with what happened after that point.
- They argued then that former soviet bloc countries wouldn't embrace democracy -- That's a lie; no one argued that
- They argued then that Eastern Europeans nations would never be our allies - they are -- That's a lie; no one argued that
- They argued then that people without God could never embrace democracy - they did -- That's a lie; no one argued that
- They argued then that President Reagan was unrealistic - he wasn't -- Not even sure what that one means. Unrealistic about supporting Gorbachev?
-They argued then democracy isn't universal to former Communists - it was -- Huh? No one ever argued that point, except maybe right-wingers.
-They argued then that funding of pro-democracy groups in Eastern European countries won't work - it did -- That's a lie; no one argued that
There might be a couple articles to support a couple of his points, but by and large the left was reluctantly pleased with the Soviet reform movement, and pleased that Reagan dropped his evil empire and cold war talk to work with Gorbachev.
I am speechless. You make it sound as if the left agreed that the Solviet Union was the veil empire and could fall. Theat was not the conventional wisdon throughout the 80's. I can't believe you listened to the political discourse during the 80's.
Perhaps you are too young to be aware of what transpired during the 80's. Fraqnkly the left was absolutly convinced that Reagan would start WW3. Don't you remember the protest against deployment of the pershing missle's to Europe? Leftist world wide were outraged, many protest by the left in the US about Reagan the warmonger. His comments that the US could win an arms race and force the USSR to the table was derided by the left. The assertation that the goal was to free Eastern Europe was seen as insane by the left.
Yes, the left opposed Reagan at every turn, but during the Gorbachev era of the Soviet Union, the left did not oppose the breakup of the Soviet Union or believe that the breakup would do more harm than good. The left had many issues with Reagan's military policies, but with his foreign policy during the Gorbachev era, the left was fairly quiet. Perhaps you see the breakup of the Soviet Union as a direct result of Reagan's military policy. I see the breakup as a direct result of Soviet internal politics, with Soviet progressives backed by the powerful support of the Pope and Reagan. Perhaps by left, you're referring to hard-line Communists, but I'm talking in general about liberals, Democrats, and progressives.
Certainly by the time the Solviet Union was disintegrating wiith the help of 20/20 hindsight everyone was on board. but Reagan was fought tooth and nail for his entire term. It wasn't till Bush I was people actually believed that Eastern Europe would escape the USSR. So the Editorial is in essence correct about the rabid oposition to Reagans policies by the left.
patsfan13, the editorial is wrong. It says things that are simply untrue and it seems to credit Reagan's policies with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Reagan played a role, but obviously, Gorbachev and the people of Eastern Europe were far more important, and I think even the Pope was more important than Reagan in that the Pope was able to directly influence people inside the various nations of the Soviet Union. Also, the editorial is ludicrous for comparing the Soviet situation with the Middle East situation. We do not have a strong progressive leader, a powerful Pope, and a native democracy movement in the Middle East.
Like I said, the editorial is trash and lies about the left. Surely, you would at least agree that some of the comments are absurd? "They argued then that people without God could never embrace democracy." Who in the world would make that comment? The anti-religious left? Of course not. So, I don't know who the editorial writer is referring to.
Gorby wouldn't have done what he did without the pressure aplied by Reagan's policies. Solviet documents made public in the 90's make this clear. I understand why this is hard for those on the left to accept. Admitting how absolutly wrong the left was on foreign policy is impossible for most of the Kumbaya crowd.
Separate names with a comma.