Reagan

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
So if i am so wrong, show me any foreign policy dispute between the Arab League and the European Union. You won't find many.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they>/?

IN 100 years they will quite possibly be IN THE ARAB LEAGUE.

The sad thing is there isnt even a hint of hyperbole in this statement.

[Stan the man]

[ QUOTE ]
You do know the only reason Israel isn't in one of the Oceania groups is because none of the Arab teams are willing to play against us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
When did he give an opinion on Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never? It was a joke (gay joke). Here in Finland we believe that Mats is a gay. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
mainly cause the EU has its lips wrapped firmly around the cock of the oil-producing arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I heard this story from a UN meeting. Bush walks into the toilet surprisingly finding the leader of EU sucking the leader of the Arab League.
Bush screams out: "get off that cock"
EU-leader says: "we need oil"
Bush says: "get off it, i will show you another way" and kicks the Arab leader in the nuts.
Bush screams: "continue to supply us with oil"
EU-leader says: "i don't like your methods but we have the same aim"

By the way, is this a derailment from the original subject? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do know the only reason Israel isn't in one of the Oceania groups is because none of the Arab teams are willing to play against us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
When did he give an opinion on Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never? It was a joke (gay joke). Here in Finland we believe that Mats is a gay. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

im not surprised considering he wouldn't go into the corner even if they sold red bull there.

[DiscGolfer60]

I'm not sure of your age, but to claim Reagan "Brought the US and the Soviet Union closer to war than any other president before him", clearly ignores or underestimates the JKF Cuban Missle Crisis in the early 60's. I grew up during the era of missle drills in school. Serving in the Navy and seeing info on how close Soviet subs and US warships were to firing on each other during the Cuban embargo makes the Reagan "closer to war" comment debateable.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
To claim Reagan "brought the US and the Soviet Union closer to war than any other president before him", clearly ignores or underestimates the JKF Cuban Missle Crisis in the early 60's. I grew up during the era of missle drills in school. Serving in the Navy and seeing info on how close Soviet subs and US warships were to firing on each other during the Cuban embargo makes the Reagan "closer to war" comment debateable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the response and the insight.

Yes, I stand by my claim, to the full. What you witnessed first-hand was a geographically local crisis, albeit one with the most dire and world-wide implications. The Cuban Missile crisis was when we came closest to nuclear war ever but no american President brought it about!

The Soviets and the Americans worked the Cuban crisis out because (and this should be an extremely important aspect for this here poker forum), the strategy of the two parties was NOT risk-prone. (BTW, the Soviets, due to their relatively recent experience of war's horrors at home, were more risk-averse than the Yanks.)

What I'm saying is that the Soviets, at the time, did not want to provoke or threaten nuclear war and neither did the Americans. Both sides tried their best, in a true-life, horrific, imperfect information, prisoner-dilemma situation to come out of the situation they found themselves in.

Here I should recommend to any historical buffs the book with the CIA transcipts of the various messages of that era, which makes for fascinating reading, along with the White House tape transcripts of the various meetings held there by JFK and his ocmmunications. The man had his faults of character but his crisis management should be taught at schools. (Aftermath of Cuba: The US retreated its missiles from Eastern Turkey and the USSR retreated its missiles from Cuba.)

Speaking of crisis management: Reagan's posture during his term as President was intentionally belligerent and provocative. The American military/industrial complex was clearly in need to assert itself after what it perceived as Carter's "strategic retreats" from Angola and Nicaragua and to transform its huge military advantage over the Soviet Union into a Cold War victory. There are thousands of official documents and articles out there which spell out that the intent of Reagan's "virile" America was to get "on the offensive", whatever the hell that meant (and you can imagine how the Soviets were receiving such messages). Articles in Foreign Affairs or The Atlantic were anticipating nuclear attack before the 1980s would be over. The debate in Washington centered on the differences between First Strike and First Use...

So, to summarize, even though the world found itself indeed perilously close to nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Crisis of the JFK administration, the world lived through two Reagan administrations where the nuclear war option was a valid and intentionally constructed option for Washington -- whether "tactical & contained" or simply All-Out (remember Reagan's Star Wars?)

[MMMMMM]

Well Cyrus, I believe the more strength Reagan endued our military with, the less likely war with the Soviets became. Even as Reagan's posture was highly assertive, greater strength on our part meant less chance of the Soviet brinksmanship.

The Soviets liked to push wherever they perceived weakness. Reagan neatly turned this on its head by both shoring up our weaknesses and exposing the Soviet weaknesses. And the stronger we looked and became, and the more weak they looked and became, the less threatening they acted. Far from engendering danger, when Reagan essentially told them THEY WERE BEAT AND COULDN'T COMPETE, they did not lash out but instead broke apart and went down all the faster. The Soviet facade was exposed for all the world to see.

This is why it is important to defeat your greatest adversaries in spirit, not just on the playing field. They came to realize they were beat and ever since have been very docile towards the U.S.A.

I think you just don't like the idea of peace through strength, and prefer instead the notion of peace through diplomacy. Well, the real bottom line is it all starts and ends with strength. Diplomacy is just a varnish over a thin civilized veneer.

So, in my view, Reagan didn't bring about greater dangers with the Soviets, he brought about lesser dangers. The less chance the Soviets thought they had of beating the US or Europe, the less likely they were to try. It's really quite simple and not nuanced at all.

After all, culturally speaking, the Soviets were great chessplayers and well knew the axiom of how foolish it is to attack from the inferior position. So being after all eminently rational players, they were much less likely to attack the stronger the U.S. became. Their economy was crumbling too after long having propped itself up with massive sales of gold and natural resources. Reagan figuratively asked for their resignation, and some moves later, he got it. The "Game Of The Century" was finally and decisively over.

[Dead]

MMMMMM, do you consider yourself a libertarian?

I seem to remember you saying that you were. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I brought this up in the other thread but it really wasn't the correct place.

Are you against a woman's right to choose?

Are you for the war in Iraq?

These don't seem to be libertarian positions. I am just curious.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM, do you consider yourself a libertarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead, to answer your question, I identify more with the Libertarian platform as a whole, than with the platfrom of any other political party, but I definitely do not agree with every single plank of the platform. I am registered as a Libertarian. That does not, however, mean I completely conform to the "party line."

I think Kurn and Natedogg may feel somewhat similarly, in that they generally prefer the LP philosophy to the philosophies of other political parties, yet do not agree with everything espoused on the LP website.

If you want to start another thread on the LP, feel free to do so.

[KellyRae]

"The American military/industrial complex was clearly in need to assert itself after what it perceived as Carter's "strategic retreats" from Angola and Nicaragua and to transform its huge military advantage over the Soviet Union into a Cold War victory."

The usage of the word "perceived" there is truly funny. Of course I suppose you are also of the camp that concludes that Reagan's triumph in the cold war was a product of "luck" and "being in the right place at the right time."