What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
105 Comments
- shutaro, on 11/06/2009, -11/+57REAGAN SMASH!
- aguynamedjoe36, on 11/07/2009, -5/+37A few years ago, I attended a speech that Gorbachev put on addressing world politics and globalization. I was very impressed by his candor. He is a smart and surprisingly humble man, and his role in stabilizing US-USSR relations is often underscored. It takes a lot of humility to put aside nationalism for the greater good.
- Ravage172, on 11/07/2009, -4/+31First Off -
I'd like to see a poll of all the posters here to find out how old you are and where you were at when Presiden Reagan made that speech. I want to know how many of you had to do monthly drills at school where they taught you to jump under your desk and kiss your ass goodbye when the Soviet missles were inbound.
I've visited the area in Germany where the iron curtain seperated East from West, and yes, I patrolled that wall when there were East German Border Command Guards walking on the other side of it. I personally saw East Germans die trying to get over that wall. Yet my German friends, just 20 years after the wall came down, act like it was no big deal. They deny people died trying to get across. They tell me, "Why would people die? You could cross freely between East and West?"
They say this because Revisionists are teaching them that. But I personally saw it - and on more than one occasion. And I ask them in return, "If you could cross freely, then why was there a wall at all? Why was it patrolled? Why was there a minefield in front of it, and anti-personnel mines mounted on the expanded metal fence that turned people into hamburger if they touched it?"
Of course, they don't have an answer for that.
And now, I can see from my own Countrymen posting here, that we have our own Revisionists actively at work telling a story that is a bastardization of what really happened.
I guess thats why Eisenhower told his field photographers to take all the pictures they could of the Holocaust camps, the survivors, and the dead bodies. He told his photographers to take those pictures because in 50 years, people will deny this ever happened. - LinuxLiberty, on 11/07/2009, -15/+42The collapse of Communism was possibly the greatest event in my lifetime and yet nobody really seems to care. It was basically a large mass of people saying, we aren't going to live under this ***** anymore.
- ninjaofpatience, on 11/07/2009, -3/+20 As easy as to would be to troll this thread. Instead I'll just say I wish more modern conservatives had Regan's understanding of diplomacy.
- Kahnza, on 11/07/2009, -7/+23reagan sleepy......
- BookaShade, on 11/07/2009, -3/+18They're digging you down because they're idiots.
Just to clarify what you mean.
It was a huge event. The fact that a entire Revolution involving over 14 countries (USSR) could happen with NO blood shed is amazing. The Russians people were not taking the ***** anymore. - CptBuck, on 11/07/2009, -8/+23There's no doubt that there were paleoconservatives who felt that the existence of the soviet union was an immutable fact of history, but to suggest that conservatives at large thought the end of communism was impossible is untrue.
And of course, if tearing down the wall was so boilerplate why did it spark a debate among his foreign policy advisers? The fact is that what Reagan said was truly extraordinary in the cold war and in American foreign policy; an absolute challenge to a foreign leader to do the right thing. - DooM, on 11/07/2009, -3/+17"his role in stabilizing US-USSR relations is often underscored."
The word 'underscored' means the opposite of what you think it means: to stress; emphasize:
Just sayin'. :) - spritom, on 11/07/2009, -3/+16Mikhail Gorbachev disagrees with the author. When Gorbachev was asked about the key catalyst in tipping the Soviet Union toward dissolution, he replied, "Reykjavik."
- swizzcheez, on 11/07/2009, -11/+23As a conservative I never thought of that speech as a "stare down" but more as impassioned diplomacy that followed a consistent firm message regarding MAD. It was a truly uniting statement but (IMHO) would have had no effect without the firm backdrop of the military might of the US.
- CapnSlam, on 11/07/2009, -6/+17it's unreal that ***** would digg your comment down
WTF??
- rocknog, on 11/07/2009, -3/+12Same here - not particularly a fan of Reagan overall, and in many ways he represented the beginning of modern conservatism, but at least he ***** understood that diplomacy is more than simply making threats at everyone you don't like. Bush Sr. did, too, incidentally, and I think he deserves at least some of the credit because the Soviet Union officially fell under his watch, and it was his openness and willingness to communicate that really sealed the deal.
Seems like the only Republican these days who actually gets it is Ron Paul (yeah yeah, I know,digg/Ron Paul obsession, blah blah blah). One of our greatest conflicts at the moment is with Iran, and many Republicans feel we need to be tougher with them, making more threats, etc. Ron Paul seems to be about the only one who understands that one of the biggest reasons for the conflict is that Iran feels threatened by us and by Israel, that they're convinced we're out to destroy them - and all of this rhetoric about following through on their worst fears isn't helping one damn bit. - acceleration, on 11/07/2009, -0/+8What? When the article says Berlin's 750th anniversary, it means precisely that. Unless you think that Berlin just sprung up overnight when the Soviet Union was established.
- Ravage172, on 11/07/2009, -3/+11I honestly don't know, Botcha. And I should clarify I did not patrol the "Berlin Wall".
What is commonly referred to as the "Berlin Wall" was the wall that seperated the Soviet Controlled portion of Berlin (it was split into 4 sectors, 3 of which were controlled by the Western Powers). But Berlin itself is well within what was previously known as East Germany.
Yet there was another wall that ran the entire length of the border between East and West Germany. This is the wall I patrolled, near the area where East Germany, West Germany, and Czechoslovakia met.
And also in the interests of clarity, I want to say that there were legal crossing points between East and West, but they were very tightly controlled. Truck drivers and visitors had a very strict time schedule they had to maintain and report back to the legal crossing point at a specific date and time.
I can only imagine what the consequences would have been for their families if they failed to do so.
Thanks for the question, I'm sorry I couldn't give you a better answer. - angryfirelord, on 11/07/2009, -1/+9Communism in China certainly did collapse, it just didn't go down the hard way like the USSR did. Deng Xiaoping wanted to introduce reforms that would differ from Mao, but as the years progressed, they actually ended up introducing a new market economy into China, which for the most part has buried Mao's ideas in the backyard. Xiaoping never intended to rid China of communism, but it happened anyway. While it's still not a politically free state and very bureaucratic, they're far better off compared to the "Great Leap Backward".
- subliminalurge, on 11/07/2009, -6/+13The Soviet Union collapsed largely because of MAD. If we built a missile, they had to build a missile. If we built a nuclear submarine, they had to build a nuclear submarine. Reagan's policy of building up our military power played a HUGE role in the fall of the USSR.
In the end it boiled down to who could keep up the spending the longest. When you really look at it, the cold war was more about economic power than military power. - waspbr, on 11/07/2009, -1/+7Actually the majority of the population felt betrayed by Gorbachev, even the sympathizers claimed that opening of the soviet union through the perestroika and glasnost was done a little too quickly. Though this benefited mostly those who held high political status (nowadays knows as the Russians (bi)millionaires), the average person struggled.
In summary people were looking forward to political change before economic change. A lot of people even today say that politically nothing really has changed, just that the government has washed its hands from being responsible for the welfare of the population - hatdrop, on 11/07/2009, -2/+8you must have wanted the soviet union to survive so you could pin people you didn't like as soviet spies huh?
- monodelasno, on 11/07/2009, -0/+6Wow.
Stupidity on parade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin#History - niradg, on 11/07/2009, -3/+9It's amazing how many of the conservatives here simply don't get it. Reagan's foreign policy has nothing in common with the Republican Party today. He was a diplomat. You people don't even know what that word means any more.
Imagine if instead he shared GWB's belief in preventative war - Ahmon, on 11/07/2009, -2/+8You'd be wrong. A lot of people really wanted the Soviet Union to fall. It's unfortunate that the people of Russia and other Soviet-bloc nations have to go through even more hardships on the path to eunomia, but it was something that a lot of people wanted to see dismantled.
- hatdrop, on 11/07/2009, -5/+10God Bless America and no where else huh?
frankly I'd rather have a world where were there's no political nonsense to give a crap about and we all can just live our lives out.
you do realize those politicians you worship so much don't give a rats ass about you, me, or this country. they are in it for the money and power just using nationalism and patriotism to string puppets like you along. the only reason they don't piss on the American flag right now is because they know they'd lose control over people like you.
bush (or more so his administration led by darth cheney) wiped the constitution with his/their ass(es) once he/they got to power. while i hope obama would do better, i don't really expect anything out of him and won't be surprised if nothing changes.
do i love this country? i dunno i was born and raised here, it's all i know, not sure why you have to "love" it, pretty damn orwellian to force people to love their country. do i hate it? not really but i sure as hell hate the people and corporations running it to the ground regardless of who is "president." - BotchaMcCoola, on 11/07/2009, -0/+5Thanks. I was left with that impression from a Wikipedia account but have not tried to verify much about it.
- jcavaliere, on 11/07/2009, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin
"The earliest evidence of settlements in today's Berlin central areas is a wooden beam dated from approximately 1192.[21] The first written mention of towns in the area of present-day Berlin dates from the late twelfth century" - aguynamedjoe36, on 11/07/2009, -1/+6I hate when people say stupid stuff on here, and I usually take pride in using the right words per the situation. This was an embarrassing mistake, but I am glad you pointed out my error. I will digg you up.
- dsfjvhbd, on 11/07/2009, -0/+5The USA were not more powerful than the Soviets in terms of military. They were both strong enough to erase each other. It is not possible to be stronger than that.
Attacking the Soviets would have been instant suicide and everyone knew that, including the Soviets themselves.
The Soviet Union went down for primarily economic reasons. - mnocket, on 11/07/2009, -2/+7Wow. You really don't have an appreciation for history. You seem to think that anything that happened before before you were born is not very special. Perhaps you are just saying it's not important to "other" people who are not elitists like you? Which is it?
- AnalogAssassin, on 11/07/2009, -7/+12The usual diggers sucking on the dick of anti-American sentiments. Anything Reagan=BAD, anything Obama or Democrat = GOOD. Don't you understand that?
- rednip, on 11/07/2009, -1/+6Obama is filling the same slot in the liberal heart of America.
The first vote I ever cast was for Reagan's second term, and I'm still happy with that vote, overall. Like every President, his term was a mixed bag. His biggest success was his personal diplomacy with the Soviet leader, which was roundly criticized by many of the conservatives of that day (some still alive and distorting today); That's what this article is about. - autokad, on 11/07/2009, -1/+6It wasnt a secret that Reagan's plan was to jump huge spending in military to bankrupt the soviets while spurring our f lagering economy left to us by Carter. At the same time, both him and Gorby worked hard to ensure it was a bloodless change because anything else would have lead to missiles in the air. Both of them wanted an end to the cold war, yet Obama is the one holding the peace prize, go figure.
- inactive, on 11/07/2009, -1/+5How was Bush not a diplomat, he built a strong personal friendship with Putin and actually improved relations in a time where both countries could have drifted further apart not seen since the end of WW2, was able to negotiate Kadaffi to give up his WMD programs in Libya and open the country back up, his massive foreign aid to Africa to combat AIDS won us alot of support and potential future allies, but people see Iraq war and automatically think Bush "snubbed" the world.
Also people remember him calling Iran an Axis of Evil, big deal, it IS a regime of evil, and they've been calling us "The Great Satan" for 30 years so they are one to talk. The crushing of their people this past summer proved him right. And the difference with the USSR is we HAD to talk to them because they were on our level. Iran, if as we are told they are too small and we should not be scared of their military, then why do we owe them one-on-one dialogue either?
I am personally more ashamed after the Iranian election debacle under the Obama doctrine we practically rewarded them with direct talks while simultaneously making Honduras a pariah state for exercising their constitutional power to oust a dictator in the making. - mnocket, on 11/07/2009, -3/+7How sad. Another example of "Liberal Compassion".
- AnalogAssassin, on 11/07/2009, -5/+8Sure they would, as a knee-jerk reaction to anything associated with Ronald Reagan.
- deathguppie, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3Yes, but the scariest part, is that the Russians saw this as a real threat. There were many within the Soviet establishment who believed that their only chance was to strike first before we gained the technology to defend against their missile threat. The fact that we didn't end up in nuclear holocaust is more a bit of luck than anything.
Don't get me wrong I was a Reagan fan in the 80's but I'm not blind to what happened either. - Crimeodial, on 11/07/2009, -2/+5You didn't read the article, did you?
- cryinlion85, on 11/07/2009, -1/+4i'd always prefer to be in the nation with dominant international power no matter how they used it
- overridemymind, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3What if we were to make it easier for immigrants to become legal, taxpaying citizens, while at the same time stepping up the deportation of illegals?
For example, what if we were to deport illegals, and then charge their home government the cost of deportation? That way, eventually their government becomes equally as concerned with illegal immigration as we are, and thus begins policing their borders (with the intent of doubling our efforts with smaller cost to the taxpayer).
By extending a program to make it easier to immigrate to the US, you also gain taxpaying citizens, turning what would be illegal immigration into an economically stimulating influx of new citizens.
Perhaps it's easier said than done (in fact, I'm pretty sure it would be), but maybe it's a solution worth looking into. - BotchaMcCoola, on 11/07/2009, -2/+5Weren't more East Germans escaping through Hungary and Czechoslovakia than via the Berlin wall?
- ReaganPatriot, on 11/07/2009, -1/+4Our country had toilet paper, and the soviets didn't! Capitalism trumped Socialism through our free market, as it always does.
If only we would continue Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" attitude with current world foes. The current administration's "dithering" in making decisions concerning Afghanistan shows weakness, and lack of resolve in making important choices. Funny how just 10 months ago media types were jumping on board to proclaim that Obama was channeling Reagan! They sure aren't saying that now! - rednip, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2From 1947 (the Truman Doctrine) - 1989 (Fall of the Berlin Wall), Republican Presidents controlled the White House often than a Democratic ones (by roughly six years). It's a easy fact for someone that really knows American history, or even willing to check simple facts.
- wvaughan, on 11/07/2009, -4/+6Regan was bad because he's a Republican. Everything good that happened when he was in office was purely coincidental. Everything bad that happened while he was in office was clearly his fault.
Clinton and Obama are good because they are Democrats. Everything good that happened while they were in office was clearly a result of their policies. Everything bad that happened while they were in office was the fault of Republicans.
Isn't the world easier to understand when you adopt a world view similar to that of a religious fanatic? - DooM, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2It happens to the best of us - by which I mean me. :-)
Also, I dugg your original post - just trying to be helpful! - freedomorfire, on 11/07/2009, -2/+4dugg for Reagan Smash.
- Ravage172, on 11/07/2009, -1/+3Autokad,
I think the difference between them and us was/is -
They were willing to order their soldiers to machine gun innocent, unarmed civilians in order to enforce the integrity of that wall.
And while I consider myself both a fiscal and social Conservative, I don't know that I'm willing to do that on any of our borders. I can't help but feel that in this, the Greatest Nation ever known, we can't come up with a better way of controlling who comes in - and perhaps more importantly, who we keep out. - Crimeodial, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2Ah dammit. I have to stop commenting on articles before I have coffee.
- swizzcheez, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2"The Soviet Union went down for primarily economic reasons."
I would argue those reasons were severely exasperated by the presence of a strong adversary. IMO, without the competition with the US for nuclear dominance, the Soviet economy would have taken much longer to collapse. - AraleNorimaki, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g3GRrg2cIM
- Ravage172, on 11/07/2009, -2/+4No problem, Botcha -
It might sound a little weird or nostalgic, but it makes me feel better knowing there are people out there who are interested in what it was really like. - CapnSlam, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2the comment didn't originate with me -- i saw it dugg down a little way up the page
you people are ***** disgusting -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is