Aid came from many sources and most groups fighting the Soviets got it from spread out sources. Indeed, Hekmatyar got much CIA funded weaponry via Pakistan's secret service and, sure enough, he's been a strong anti-US pro-AQ and Taliban agitator since the invasion of Afghanistan. The law of unintended consequences certainly applies to the 1980s anti-Soviet aid activities, something I never denied deserves examination. It's the common overstatements and certainty of conclusions on the overall subject of the US aid during that period being so commonly cited as why 9.11 occurred as earlier discussed where I think pause, reflection and better examination ought also be done if the most accurate reasons and lessons are to be drawn from it.

According to a former Soviet Field Marshall, if it were not for Reagan, the Soviet Union would have lasted another two weeks.

Reagan was bankrupting the US spending god awful amounts on all kinds of weaponry, while the Soviet Army was towing tanks into formation, because they didn't have the spare parts to fix them, and equipping entire divisions with wooden rifles.

According to the Soviets, who should know, they were defeated by Harry Truman, who set out the policy of containment that every US president, including Reagan, followed.

All the hype about the Soviet Union embarking on the biggest arms buildup in history, was as accurate as the descriptions of Saddam Husseins WMD programs.


Great Empires in their decline fight silly little wars, like the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Iraq

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

He probably would know. I doubt he’d be honest when relating the pertinent facts and events, but he would know.

If you’re trying to say that it was as accurate as Saddam’s WMD program in the 80’s, I’d have to agree. Also as accurate as those 2000+ T-72 tanks they got in the 80’s, and their Mig-29’s and SCUDs. Soviet arms were exporting all over the world in the 80’s.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

I think you raise some good points here but so does CYD.

I agree that claims (and CYD didn't really say it) that Reagan won the Cold War are absurd and more based on partisan hype. It wasn't all for naught, though. He did, as did the other POTUSes, need to keep the Soviet sphere in check. Reagan did his part as did other POTUSes, a point you did acknowledge.

Afghanistan was but one theatre in the whole long story. Carter moving away from detente by funding the Afghans followed by Reagan did its part to help drain the Soviet struggling revenue base. Afghanistan is often called its 'Vietnam' by them. But, Afghanistan was but one time and place of a longtime global arms race and global contest over spheres of influence, all of which helped drain the Soviet coin box.

The Soviets were their own undoing, though. Their anti-competitive and inefficient system simply could not compete against the West when seeking global dominance. The only thing that could have helped it remain was its iron grip. Once it decided to relax it, it was done.

The Soviets did build plenty of crap and ran into shortages. However, it also did build plenty of decent weapons and military armaments in its army, navy, air force and aerospace programmes. It also flooded many areas around the globe with them, including the Middle East and other Muslim areas. Despite its flaws, it was a superpower and massive armament supplier on the military level.

The rise of Gorbachev and liberalised technocrats with their perestroika and glastnost policies can't be underestimated in the Soviet collapse. It was an unintended consequence but great lessons can be learnt from it.

Those policies relaxed the iron grip and control of the Soviet government over its people and satellite states. It 'liberalised' its people and opened their minds to the Soviet system with all its crimes, lies and faults. It also 'capitalised' them economically where the people grew inspired by it. Once these balls were set in motion the balls took off fast and furious. These events led to the people rising up and kicking the rotten door down.

Nations like North Korea survive in decrepit circumstances today because they keep an iron grip on the people, restricting their knowledge inside and outside the country, disallowing dissent and punishing it severely, bombarding the people with propaganda, etc. If Kim Jong Il dared to relax that as Gorby and the rest of his comtemporaries did, his web of lies, gross failings and gross abuses would come home to roost.

Open and productive governments, on the other hand, should draw the same lessons as to what things collapse such regimes and schemes--try to find ways to get past, through and/or around the government obstacles to go right to the people and liberalise them, educate them, trade with them, talk and communicate with them--basically do all what one can to show them the butter side from the dry.

Sometimes the full court press on that will do the trick eventually. In others, bait and tarry can sometimes play a role if the tarry will allow the people to blame their own regime. It all depend on the regime and all the factors at play with them.

It's things like that which make brutish failing regimes sweat. It's no secret why regimes like those in Iran and Cuba even restrict the Internet and why their youth pose their regimes the greatest worry. As they educate themselves in ideas, technology, world events, etc, they quickly learn what is the butter side from the dry in how societies ought to operate for personal, societal and economic happiness and advancement.

Somewhat selective in what way? Because I talked about reagan in a thread about reagan? Did I say anything that's not true? The fact that I can see the irony in this situation doesn't make me a partisan one way or the other. I'm not sure why you thought there was a "veil" involved. I have never hidden my dislike for reagan or for w.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Reagan winning the cold war is one of those being in the right place and pushing in the right direction things…he helped push, he was their…. And-

I am sure whomever that field marshal was that goober alluded to was more than half way right……BUT where the rubber meets the road is- at Reykjavik Reagan would not budge…no new arms deal etc….and Pershings in Europe…..yup and I always had a feeling that when Reagan and Gorby were flying around in their rhetorical helicopter and Reagan discussing comparative wealth amongst comparatively, an average American family in comparison to the ussr, he also told him; that the Stealth aircraft technology was viable and would by 83-84 be operational……which it did, was revealed in late 88, but the project was, well known to the soviets as early as 83 anyway, we know that from the Venona tapes archive. Why do I even bother mentioning this? Because in late 87 Mathias Rust landed his Cessna in Red Square…anyway…it all comes together…



So you’re Gorby..things are bad already…you have an intransigent American pres. Very popular, building a 600 ship navy, up arming Nato with Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and the M-1 Abrams main battle tanks ( that’s was just string when Reagan got in) 2 vastly superior platforms over their soviet counter parts, your basing of mrbm’s has now been challenged and against the best propaganda your rubles can buy , the west is going to go ahead against huge popular protest, and base Pershing mrbm’s in west Germany, and to top it all off, you look out your window, and theres a light plane landing below your window.. Yeba Vos!!!!…its has just been flown by a young lad, all the way from the Helsinki to land in Moscow, penetrating the very heart of soviet air space to the capital…you know that stealth is operational and what its capable of, you have ZERO technology ( and NO money either) to match the amerkanski as you’re PVO ( USSR Air Force Defense Command) has just been snookered by a Cessna…so the next session with the politburo won’t be pretty…..Americans et al were fighting the usual guerrilla campaigns between the 2 world powers actively..

Whatever other reasons there are or have been noted, it all added up….there was a great confluence of events…no doubt…technological, monetary, nato was probably as strong during its life, at that time, than ay other, militarily and philosophically…






Did Reagan do it all? Heck no, of course not, it was a team effort…. he didn’t believe in appeasement…he pushed the pershing base issue and spent on news arms he was an excellent communicator and was committed to genuine but mutually respectful dialogue…etc…....sorta like striking the final knife into the vampire….would others in his place have done same? Maybe…Reykjavik etc. rolling the dice politically re: public opinion etc… bush 1 no…don’t think so, Clinton, pleazzzzzeee, Kennedy, yes, LBJ, don’t think so, Truman, yes Carter,hell no, ….Nixon, yes…anyway- he was there, he gave it its final shove, he gets a lion share of the credit…….to say he “won” the cold war is one of those answers you have to qualify I think…you can say yes but you really should add the blurb team effort etc…or simply say freedon won..etc…that’s even better, freedom won....

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

It's astounding that so many people are unwilling to asign the blame for 9/11 to the poor, disenfranchised terrorists, and will instead try to blame it on a long dead President.

That's a stretch, and a poor one, if I've ever seen one...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Be realistic, Imperator. You think the US could prevent a Cessna from penetrating their airspace? The USSR's air defense network was way more sophisticated than that of the US.

You may be right about that, only I would call the USSR's air defense network more restricted than sophisticated. At least, during the Cold War, I could fly almost anywhere I wanted to fly.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

How many degrees to link 9/11 with Kevin Bacon?

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

That is the number one requirement of these threads:

The terrorists are always abused victims. Always. That is the very essence of left-wing self-hatred. It is nauseating but true. Americans must be at fault because the terrorists are beyond criticism.

Absurd?

That's a bit much, don't you think?

I spoke with a group of Germans in Berlin who are no friends of the US, but even they admitted that Reagan played a major role.

Ah, the blindness of the true left-wing believer....

Hilarious. Actually, Americans are at fault for LETTING 9/11 happen. Meaning, some neocons who thought they were hot shit actually were worse than useless. It's the very essence of right-wing blind partisanship to fail to recognize, after 8 years of constant fuck ups, that their leaders are utterly incompetent.

So Americans are to blame for 9/11? I thought it was the terrorists. That seems to take anti-Americanism too far. I have no interest in neocons one way or the other.

As for "hilarious" - I am not sure why you think it is funny.

It's funny because you think American "leftists" don't blame terrorists for 9/11 - which is pure paranoia.