Ronald Reagan

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, this is only my opinion, but I don't think one can separate out the specific period of Reagan's presidency from the arms race as a whole, which began with the close of World War II. Independent of which side one was on, it seems very clear that the United States was the instigator by dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a bi-polar world -- especially one in which that bi-polarity was codified in the way Europe was split up by the terms of surrender of Germany -- it became necessary for the Soviets, from the leadership's point of view, to attempt to keep up with the United States, which it believed posed a legitimate threat.

This continued unabated throughout the period of the Cold War, with almost all advances (with the exception of the Soviets winning round 1 of the "space race" with the Sputnik launch) coming from the United States and then followed by catch-up on the Soviet Union's part. During the Reagan presidency, the new threat was the Strategic Defense Initiative (also known as "Star Wars"), proposed by Reagan in March 1983. This idea of using ground-based and space-based systems to protect against nuclear ballistic missiles sent the Soviet Union into a financial tailspin of catch-up spending.

As with any topic there is more than one view. I think the Soviet Union was more the aggressor in the post WWII world. Stalin's policies of occupying European countries and setting up puppet governments was seen as provocative by the west. The attempt to cut off Berlin was a continuation of Stalin's attempts to dominate Europe.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

As with any topic there is more than one view. I think the Soviet Union was more the aggressor in the post WWII world. Stalin's policies of occupying European countries and setting up puppet governments was seen as provocative by the west. The attempt to cut off Berlin was a continuation of Stalin's attempts to dominate Europe.

Just to be clear, I was speaking only of the arms race and the specific dynamic of this or that new weapon (system), followed by catch-up, ad infinitum. I was not speaking generally of being an "agressor," although one could certainly make an argument for their being a bit more equality of aggression between the two Cold War sides, with one's aggression a bit more blatant (i.e., your references to European countries and Stalin) and another's a bit more subtle (i.e., the U.S. in Latin America and Southeast Asia).

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by ila

As with any topic there is more than one view. I think the Soviet Union was more the aggressor in the post WWII world. Stalin's policies of occupying European countries and setting up puppet governments was seen as provocative by the west. The attempt to cut off Berlin was a continuation of Stalin's attempts to dominate Europe.

You're right, ila there's always more than one view and I for one disagree very strongly with what you're saying here.
There have been more than fifty interventions by the US involving souvereign countries since WWII and Irak and Afganistan are just two of them.
How about all those democratically elected governments in South and Middle America that were replaced through US intervention. Chili, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatamala......need I go on? All these democratically elected governments were replaced by US puppets and more often than not monstrous dictators, like for instance the infamous Pinochet.
Documents have shown that also the preparations for the attempted coup in Venezuela a few years ago were funded and supported by the US.
'Democracy' is just a word US presidents like to use in their speeches. It is not something people in foreign lands are meant to enjoy.

[ila]

Originally Posted by ila

As with any topic there is more than one view. I think the Soviet Union was more the aggressor in the post WWII world. Stalin's policies of occupying European countries and setting up puppet governments was seen as provocative by the west. The attempt to cut off Berlin was a continuation of Stalin's attempts to dominate Europe.

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

You're right, ila there's always more than one view and I for one disagree very strongly with what you're saying here.
There have been more than fifty interventions by the US involving souvereign countries since WWII and Irak and Afganistan are just two of them.
How about all those democratically elected governments in South and Middle America that were replaced through US intervention. Chili, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatamala......need I go on? All these democratically elected governments were replaced by US puppets and more often than not monstrous dictators, like for instance the infamous Pinochet.
Documents have shown that also the preparations for the attempted coup in Venezuela a few years ago were funded and supported by the US.
'Democracy' is just a word US presidents like to use in their speeches. It is not something people in foreign lands are meant to enjoy.

I think the citizens of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany (and yes I know Czechoslovakia and East Germany no longer exist as such) might have a case to show that there was intervention in their affairs. Those are just the countries where there was direct intervention that resulted in either a communist puppet government being installed or the country being absorbed into the Soviet Union. There are other formerly independent countries, such as Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, that had been part of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union until recently. Then there are other countries that have had a great influence exerted on them from the Soviet Union; Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, and many more from South America.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

I think the citizens of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany (and yes I know Czechoslovakia and East Germany no longer exist as such) might have a case to show that there was intervention in their affairs. Those are just the countries where there was direct intervention that resulted in either a communist puppet government being installed or the country being absorbed into the Soviet Union. There are other formerly independent countries, such as Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, that had been part of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union until recently. Then there are other countries that have had a great influence exerted on them from the Soviet Union; Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, and many more from South America.

Of course, you are correct about direct intervention in the countries you list, of the very sort your describe.

Just so we don't lose site of the unfortunate dual history of superpower aggression, the list of countries in which the United States has directly intervened is also long. Here is just a sample of military intervention:

1890, Argentina, troops sent to protect U.S. economic interests in Buenos Aires

1891, Chile, Marines deployed to clash with nationalist rebels

1891, Haiti, U.S. troops put down revolt on Navassa

1893- , Hawaii, U.S. navy and ground troops overthrow and annex an independent kingdom

1898-1910, Philippines, U.S. navy and ground troops seize the country from Spain and kill 600,000 filipinos

1898-1902, Cuba, U.S. navy and ground troops seize Cuba from Spain (and still hold a Naval base on Cuban soil)

1898, Puerto Rico, U.S. Navy and ground troops seize Puerto Rico from Spain (still a U.S. colony)

1898, Guam, same as Puerto Rico above

1903, Honduras, U.S. Marines intervene in popular revolution

1907, Nicaragua, U.S. troops deployed to set up "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate

1916-1924, Dominican Republic, Marines land and begin 8-year occupation to protect U.S. economic interests

1918-1922, Russia, U.S. Navy lands ground troops five times to fight the Bolsheviks

1922-1927, China, U.S. Navy and ground troops deployed during nationalist revolt

1925, Panama, U.S. Marines suppress a general strike

1932, El Salvador, U.S. Navy warships sent during the Mart? revolt

1947-1949, Greece, U.S. command operation to direct the far right in a civil war

1948-1954, Philippines, CIA directs war agains the Huk rebellion

1950, Puerto Rico, U.S. commands curshing of independence rebellion in Ponce

1953, Iran, CIA overthrows democracy and installs the Shah

1954, Guatemala, CIA directs exile invasion after new government nationalizes lands owned by U.S. companies; issues nuclear threat and launches bombers

1958, Lebanon, U.S. Navy and marines occupy country to stop rebels

1960-1975, Vietnam -- need I say more

1963, Iraq, CIA organizes a coup that kills the president and brings the Ba'ath Party to power, which then brings Saddam Hussein back from exile to become head of the Secret Service

1965, Indonesia, CIA assists the army in a coup that results in 1 million Indonesians slaughtered

1965-1966, Dominican Republic, U.S. troops land during the election campaign; bombings by U.S. air force

1966-1967, Guatemala, U.S. Green Berets intervene against rebels

1973, Chile, CIA engineers/backs a coup that ousts a democratically elected president

1981-1990, Nicaragua, "Iran-Contra" affair

1983-1984, Grenada, U.S. troops land and invade four years after a popular revolution

1990-1991, Iraq, First Gulf War

1992-1994, Somalia, U.S. troops, U.S. Navy help lead "UN" occupation during a civil war, backing one faction in Mogadishu

Shall I continue?

My point, of course, is that there's no clear good guy / bad guy in the world when it comes to the Cold War and its aftermath.

[randolph]

Back to Ronald Reagan. Iran/ Contra. I never did get a clear picture of how involved Reagan was in the critical decision making. He was the "teflon" President.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Back to Ronald Reagan. Iran/ Contra. I never did get a clear picture of how involved Reagan was in the critical decision making. He was the "teflon" President.

Using a "teflon" pans doesn't mean that the food you're cooking never touches it, only that the residue doesn't stick.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

...Shall I continue?...

You went back in history but you didn?t include in your list the attempted US invasions/interferences in Canada.

1775 ? US defeated
1812 to 1814 ? US defeated
1866, 1870, 1871 ? Fenian raids, each of which were defeated
1896 ? planned
1920s ? planned

The US couldn?t militarily defeat Canada, but now there is the economic invasion whereby US companies are buying Canadian companies and Canadian companies are buying US companies. This has been going on for a few decades and shows no signs of letting up. Eventually the US will own Canada economically and Canada will own the US economically. If it carries on long enough each country will end up owning assets only in their own respective countries, therefore completing the circle.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

You went back in history but you didn?t include in your list the attempted US invasions/interferences in Canada.

1775 ? US defeated
1812 to 1814 ? US defeated
1866, 1870, 1871 ? Fenian raids, each of which were defeated
1896 ? planned
1920s ? planned

The US couldn?t militarily defeat Canada, but now there is the economic invasion whereby US companies are buying Canadian companies and Canadian companies are buying US companies. This has been going on for a few decades and shows no signs of letting up. Eventually the US will own Canada economically and Canada will own the US economically. If it carries on long enough each country will end up owning assets only in their own respective countries, therefore completing the circle.

I like the term Transcanada, lots of hotties up there.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

I like the term Transcanada, lots of hotties up there.

That's the name of a highway.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

You went back in history but you didn?t include in your list the attempted US invasions/interferences in Canada.

1775 ? US defeated
1812 to 1814 ? US defeated
1866, 1870, 1871 ? Fenian raids, each of which were defeated
1896 ? planned
1920s ? planned

The US couldn?t militarily defeat Canada, but now there is the economic invasion whereby US companies are buying Canadian companies and Canadian companies are buying US companies. This has been going on for a few decades and shows no signs of letting up. Eventually the US will own Canada economically and Canada will own the US economically. If it carries on long enough each country will end up owning assets only in their own respective countries, therefore completing the circle.

I could have listed much more, and specifically left the Canadian references for you, my friend. Note it's the United States and not the Soviet Union your fine country has always had to fear.