Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

jb2000 · 07-26-2004, 08:18 AM

Funerals are not for the dead, they are for the living. Reagan's funeral was a chance for America to look back at a very momentous time in our history. While certainly not all of the events were either his fault or work, the period was none-the-less marked by his Presidency.

I do think that we need to look back honestly, and not succumb to attributing things to him that shouldn't be in a search to find ways to honor him.

For example, the ill-formed concept that he ended the Cold War is one of these things. Sure, he did good work in opposing Communism, as did many Presidents before him. Each in turn kept the pressure on the Soviets. It is pretty clear, historically looking back, that the Soviet Union was broken going into the 1980s. They had already been plotting a military strategy of overwhelming quantity, some could say from the time of the Tsars. In a world where technology was gaining the ability to overcome quantity to a greater degree, they had no choice but try and modernize their forces, and modernization of such huge forces was very expensive. This wasn't caused by any 1980s US budgets, but instead the steady focus on heavy R&D advancement in the US from the 1950s on.

Soviet military spending did increase in the 1980s, but it is easy to forget today why it did. We may see it as a natural counter to increased US spending, but this self-centric approach is ignorant of the actual Soviet planning process. It is certainly true that the Soviets, especially conservatives, were anxious about Western military improvements and eager to counter them. However, the USSR had a much bigger and immediate military spending drainhole it had to throw money to: Afghanistan. Reagan does deserve credit for supporting Afghans against the Soviets, and thus helping exacerbate the Soviet situation there. It cannot, however, be ignored that this helped create men such as Osama, the founders of the Taliban and other war lords of Afghanistan.

Reagan deserves due credit for the role he played in a long line of Presidents who kept up the fight against Communism, and the Soviet Union in particular. But to say that because he was there when the crumbling became apparant to the outside world he was the one who beat the Soviets would be like declaring that Zhukov was the one who defeated Germany because he captured Berlin; a little dismaying to those who had fought so hard on all fronts through the war towards the victory.

07-26-2004, 08:18 AM	#29 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	Funerals are not for the dead, they are for the living. Reagan's funeral was a chance for America to look back at a very momentous time in our history. While certainly not all of the events were either his fault or work, the period was none-the-less marked by his Presidency. I do think that we need to look back honestly, and not succumb to attributing things to him that shouldn't be in a search to find ways to honor him. For example, the ill-formed concept that he ended the Cold War is one of these things. Sure, he did good work in opposing Communism, as did many Presidents before him. Each in turn kept the pressure on the Soviets. It is pretty clear, historically looking back, that the Soviet Union was broken going into the 1980s. They had already been plotting a military strategy of overwhelming quantity, some could say from the time of the Tsars. In a world where technology was gaining the ability to overcome quantity to a greater degree, they had no choice but try and modernize their forces, and modernization of such huge forces was very expensive. This wasn't caused by any 1980s US budgets, but instead the steady focus on heavy R&D advancement in the US from the 1950s on. Soviet military spending did increase in the 1980s, but it is easy to forget today why it did. We may see it as a natural counter to increased US spending, but this self-centric approach is ignorant of the actual Soviet planning process. It is certainly true that the Soviets, especially conservatives, were anxious about Western military improvements and eager to counter them. However, the USSR had a much bigger and immediate military spending drainhole it had to throw money to: Afghanistan. Reagan does deserve credit for supporting Afghans against the Soviets, and thus helping exacerbate the Soviet situation there. It cannot, however, be ignored that this helped create men such as Osama, the founders of the Taliban and other war lords of Afghanistan. Reagan deserves due credit for the role he played in a long line of Presidents who kept up the fight against Communism, and the Soviet Union in particular. But to say that because he was there when the crumbling became apparant to the outside world he was the one who beat the Soviets would be like declaring that Zhukov was the one who defeated Germany because he captured Berlin; a little dismaying to those who had fought so hard on all fronts through the war towards the victory. __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH