Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Upon taking power Reagan faced this....

1. In 1980 the Soviet Union was winning. The MOST evil, most oppressive, most omnipotent force ever conceived was WINNING. They invaded Afghanistan because they could. Like who would stop them?

That sounds awfully familiar actually. The USSR had many thinly veiled excuses to invade Afghanistan, but for the most part, it was to expand their influence and power. No different than the US invasion of Iraq really.

BTW: the Soviets invented today's terrorism.

It was the Americans who built up the Taliban and helped Saddam Hussein get into power. You can argue that the blowback was a result of reacting to the USSR aggression, but that is about it. Maybe Reagan made the correct foreign policy decisions, I am not going to double guess that, but they did come with many unwanted side effects.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Upon taking power Reagan faced this....

1. In 1980 the Soviet Union was winning. The MOST evil, most oppressive, most omnipotent force ever conceived was WINNING. They invaded Afghanistan because they could. Like who would stop them? They had a death grip on Central America and South America. They were winning in Asia (NK was doing better than SK!!!) they were winning in Europe. They held their triumphant Olympic games and the only thing WE (west) could do is boycott it. Honestly, dude....people were waiting for the day they would try to invade North America!!!!! BTW: the Soviets invented today's terrorism.

So no....it was not predictable unless you like bad news.

2. ME being worse now? Umm...No. The Iran- Iraq war broke out and it was the worst war since WWII involving casualties and it was the first war since WWI that openly used chemical weapons. So the ME was not stable at all. Reagan had to deal with all sort of failures in the ME in his administration.

The Soviet Union under Breshnev saw years of economic stagnation which led to its GNP dropping by 2/3rds from the early 60's to the late 70's, it was a spent force by the time Reagan came to power, granted it was usefull for the US military industrial complex and its supporters to use the USSR as a bogeyman, as they do with Al Quada, but by '75 other than the unlikely outbreak of nuclear war the USSR wasn't going to win anything, in fact they were so broke they approached the west to start disarmament talks in the 70's in order to reduce their outlay on a military they couldn't afford.

I'm not sure how dealing with the final days of a spent force can be compared to trying to negotiate with China, as powerfull as the USSR and an economic powerhouse that owns most of the US's foriegn debt.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The Soviet Union under Breshnev saw years of economic stagnation which led to its GNP dropping by 2/3rds from the early 60's to the late 70's, it was a spent force by the time Reagan came to power, granted it was usefull for the US military industrial complex and its supporters to use the USSR as a bogeyman, as they do with Al Quada, but by '75 other than the unlikely outbreak of nuclear war the USSR wasn't going to win anything, in fact they were so broke they approached the west to start disarmament talks in the 70's in order to reduce their outlay on a military they couldn't afford.

I'm not sure how dealing with the final days of a spent force can be compared to trying to negotiate with China, as powerfull as the USSR and an economic powerhouse that owns most of the US's foriegn debt.

Are you basing that information on what we know now, or the data that was available when Reagan took office.

Because frankly when Reagan took office nobody knew that the Soviet Union was having economic problems, all that was known at the time was that the Soviet Union was spending massive amounts of money on their Military System, and on expanding their influence within Central America. The CIA wasn't even getting firm economic indicators on the Soviets until well into Reagan's term which allowed him to gamble on the strategy of forcing the Soviets to realize that they couldn't keep up with the U.S.

Its easy to make points knowing what we know long after the wall came down and we learned all of these new things about the Communist system, but its basically Tuesday Morning Quarterbacking.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That sounds awfully familiar actually. The USSR had many thinly veiled excuses to invade Afghanistan, but for the most part, it was to expand their influence and power. No different than the US invasion of Iraq really.



It was the Americans who built up the Taliban and helped Saddam Hussein get into power. You can argue that the blowback was a result of reacting to the USSR aggression, but that is about it. Maybe Reagan made the correct foreign policy decisions, I am not going to double guess that, but they did come with many unwanted side effects.

Ok...debatable....

But my post was an argument over which administration received the worse situtation upon inauguration.

Reagan by a mile and a half. Or more. Heading into term 2....hmmm... Obama economically by a mile and a half or more.