Gallup- Americans Less Likely to See U.S. as No. 1 Militarily

[Timmy]

What doesn't our military have ? What needs to be rebuilt ?

 

[Correll]

A reduction in manpower makes sense when the war is over.

But while the US was mired in Vietnam, the soviets were building tanks and planes and nukes.

Our conventional forces needed upgraded and our military needed to have the damage of Vietnam fixed.


Did you ever see the military build up that Carter Planned for after the Soviets sent him a reality check with their invasion of Afghanistan?

It was GLORIOUS.

Even Carter realize, albeit late, that the military needed more funding, not less.

How did that work out for the Soviets?

Russia is still using that ancient equipment

It was working out fine for them until Reagan came along.

How does that relate to my point about the Carter military reduction in spending?

I worked for the DOD while both Carter and Reagan were President

Under Carter, we were drawing down our forces and regrouping. Carter did fund many modernization efforts and aircraft that we still use today

With Reagan, it was like Christmas. Any military project you proposed got approved. It was the days of Star Wars and Cold War on steroids

I also saw what happened with all the equipment and projects that Reagan green lighted. The Cold War doctrine was obsolete. Our Army was too slow to fight modern engagements. Our Air Force was built around dropping nukes and not tactical missions. Our Navy had the wrong mix of ships

By the 90s, we had to start over

Reagan inherited a military that didn't trust sentries to have bullets in war zones.

8 years later GHWBush inherited a military that won the Hundred Hours War.

Reagan used the military buildup to end his recession. Much of the money he spent did not make for a better military because it was for fighting a Cold War

Bush kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 days, Carter could have done the same, there was minimal resistance

1. Military spending was part of the recovery.

2. Building a military to fight (and thus deter hot war) the Cold War during the Cold War is building a better military. It is incredible that you managed to Denial this.

3. It was Reagan's air and fast transports that enabled the rapid deployment and build up.

4. It only SEEMED like minimal resistance because Reagan's military and GHWBush's leadership didn't give Hussein the slightest opening.

 

[kaz]

What doesn't our military have ? What needs to be rebuilt ?

I don't think anyone's going to explain the discussion to you. The toys are over there. Here's a ball to play with. Look, it's bouncy

 

[Correll]

What kind of idiot stick is reeetarded enough to consider the US being #2 militarily at ANYTHING!!!!!

Our military isn't #2 at anything BY FAR!!!!!

Who's the dumb ass?

China has a larger Army.

The primary mission of the Chinese Army is to keep 1.5 billion Chinese under control
They have limited global reach outside their borders[/QUOTE

Either Korea or Taiwan could draw us into a conflict with China. Right now I'm not particular worried about that the US still holds a technological lead over China , but if the US military continues with to cut the forces that lead won't mean crap against a force numbering in the millions.

The Chinese have millions under arms
They need them to control their 1.5 billion people

They have no way of ferrying 1 million Chinese soldiers to Taiwan
Bring them to Korea and they will make nice targets for US forces

The bigger story is China, after years of isolation has no intention of engaging in war with their primary markets

The First Korean War was a bloody stalemate.

Your confidence now, after decades of rapid industrialization and growth on the part of Chine is the bluster of a fool or a madman.

No offense meant.

 

[Correll]

China has a larger Army.

The primary mission of the Chinese Army is to keep 1.5 billion Chinese under control
They have limited global reach outside their borders[/QUOTE

Either Korea or Taiwan could draw us into a conflict with China. Right now I'm not particular worried about that the US still holds a technological lead over China , but if the US military continues with to cut the forces that lead won't mean crap against a force numbering in the millions.

The Chinese have millions under arms
They need them to control their 1.5 billion people

They have no way of ferrying 1 million Chinese soldiers to Taiwan
Bring them to Korea and they will make nice targets for US forces

The bigger story is China, after years of isolation has no intention of engaging in war with their primary markets

We called the US troops stationed near the DMZ speed bumps because they could only slow down an invading North.

The North can not sustain an invasion for over a week ...if that
Their maintenance has not been that good

Says the expert that thinks building a military to fight the Cold War during the Cold War was a mistake.

 

[Correll]

With Rubio I'm calling you out as a liar. He clearly does not believe that. You flat out made it up.

Show me the quotes that Trump and Cruz believe we are not the strongest military in the world. I seriously doubt they said that either.. You just want them to have said that

Easiest thing I've done all day is to make you look dumber than normal:

READ: Marco Rubio Has a Detailed Plan to Rebuild Our Military to Face Any Threat

OK, so I read that entire article and nowhere did I find any support for your contention that Rubio thinks there's a military out there stronger than ours.

I have to ask if you understand the discussion at this point. Read the thread title. If we are not the "number 1" military, that means that they think there is a military out there stronger than ours. Yet despite all the fur flying, you aren't addressing the question. So let me rephrase it for you.

Who ... thinks there is a military stronger than ours. Name the candidate, and name the military they think is stronger than ours. Or at least provide a quote that says ours isn't the strongest.

For sure Rubio thinks the US military strength has declined. But focus on that THAT ISN'T THE DISCUSSION. If we are not #1, that means they are saying there is a military STRONGER THAN OURS.

That is the challenge. Take your hand out of your pants and actually address the question

So he wants to "rebuild" a military that is the best in the world while we're $17T in debt. He's either not confident in the military or a lunatic....

your choice.

Deflection. You said he says our military is not the strongest in the world. You can't back it up. You also said that Trump and Cruz say that and you can't back that up either.

This is typical schoolyard liberalism. Your views are illogical and not supported by empirical data. So you create caricature positions for Republicans then debate your own unsupported assertions of their views as if they actually said that, they didn't.

All you proved is that again you made up their positions. You said they say America is not the #1 military in the world. Post after post? You can't back it up. And you can't back it up because you made up their views

You don't re-build something that is the strongest in the world unless you don't believe it's the strongest in the world. Pretty easy concept; even you should be able to understand it.

Just because you are the "strongest" doesn't mean you can do everything or even what you want.

Thus of course you can want to "rebuild" or improve something that IS the strongest in the world.

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies.

 

[rightwinger]

How did that work out for the Soviets?

Russia is still using that ancient equipment

It was working out fine for them until Reagan came along.

How does that relate to my point about the Carter military reduction in spending?

I worked for the DOD while both Carter and Reagan were President

Under Carter, we were drawing down our forces and regrouping. Carter did fund many modernization efforts and aircraft that we still use today

With Reagan, it was like Christmas. Any military project you proposed got approved. It was the days of Star Wars and Cold War on steroids

I also saw what happened with all the equipment and projects that Reagan green lighted. The Cold War doctrine was obsolete. Our Army was too slow to fight modern engagements. Our Air Force was built around dropping nukes and not tactical missions. Our Navy had the wrong mix of ships

By the 90s, we had to start over

Reagan inherited a military that didn't trust sentries to have bullets in war zones.

8 years later GHWBush inherited a military that won the Hundred Hours War.

Reagan used the military buildup to end his recession. Much of the money he spent did not make for a better military because it was for fighting a Cold War

Bush kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 days, Carter could have done the same, there was minimal resistance

1. Military spending was part of the recovery.

2. Building a military to fight (and thus deter hot war) the Cold War during the Cold War is building a better military. It is incredible that you managed to Denial this.

3. It was Reagan's air and fast transports that enabled the rapid deployment and build up.

4. It only SEEMED like minimal resistance because Reagan's military and GHWBush's leadership didn't give Hussein the slightest opening.

I saw what happened to Reagan's military build up. A large number of the projects got cancelled under Bush. Cold War ended, mission changed, equipment was obsolete

Reagan escallated a buildup against a threat that turned out to be empty.
The Soviets were not what we were told. They were nowhere close to the military power that we were. Their equipment was poorly designed and poorly maintained. Troops were poorly trained and had low morale. Their Navy could hardly leave port

But fear mongerers convinced us that they were a major threat and we needed a major buildup

 

[kaz]

Easiest thing I've done all day is to make you look dumber than normal:

READ: Marco Rubio Has a Detailed Plan to Rebuild Our Military to Face Any Threat

OK, so I read that entire article and nowhere did I find any support for your contention that Rubio thinks there's a military out there stronger than ours.

I have to ask if you understand the discussion at this point. Read the thread title. If we are not the "number 1" military, that means that they think there is a military out there stronger than ours. Yet despite all the fur flying, you aren't addressing the question. So let me rephrase it for you.

Who ... thinks there is a military stronger than ours. Name the candidate, and name the military they think is stronger than ours. Or at least provide a quote that says ours isn't the strongest.

For sure Rubio thinks the US military strength has declined. But focus on that THAT ISN'T THE DISCUSSION. If we are not #1, that means they are saying there is a military STRONGER THAN OURS.

That is the challenge. Take your hand out of your pants and actually address the question

So he wants to "rebuild" a military that is the best in the world while we're $17T in debt. He's either not confident in the military or a lunatic....

your choice.

Deflection. You said he says our military is not the strongest in the world. You can't back it up. You also said that Trump and Cruz say that and you can't back that up either.

This is typical schoolyard liberalism. Your views are illogical and not supported by empirical data. So you create caricature positions for Republicans then debate your own unsupported assertions of their views as if they actually said that, they didn't.

All you proved is that again you made up their positions. You said they say America is not the #1 military in the world. Post after post? You can't back it up. And you can't back it up because you made up their views

You don't re-build something that is the strongest in the world unless you don't believe it's the strongest in the world. Pretty easy concept; even you should be able to understand it.

Just because you are the "strongest" doesn't mean you can do everything or even what you want.

Thus of course you can want to "rebuild" or improve something that IS the strongest in the world.

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies.

that last sentence is devastating to her stupid argument, nicely stated correll

 

[Muhammed]

Holy crap... That poll sure shows how misinformed the US public is...

Not really. It merely shows that the poll was flawed. The question was a false dilemma.

 

[rightwinger]

OK, so I read that entire article and nowhere did I find any support for your contention that Rubio thinks there's a military out there stronger than ours.

I have to ask if you understand the discussion at this point. Read the thread title. If we are not the "number 1" military, that means that they think there is a military out there stronger than ours. Yet despite all the fur flying, you aren't addressing the question. So let me rephrase it for you.

Who ... thinks there is a military stronger than ours. Name the candidate, and name the military they think is stronger than ours. Or at least provide a quote that says ours isn't the strongest.

For sure Rubio thinks the US military strength has declined. But focus on that THAT ISN'T THE DISCUSSION. If we are not #1, that means they are saying there is a military STRONGER THAN OURS.

That is the challenge. Take your hand out of your pants and actually address the question

So he wants to "rebuild" a military that is the best in the world while we're $17T in debt. He's either not confident in the military or a lunatic....

your choice.

Deflection. You said he says our military is not the strongest in the world. You can't back it up. You also said that Trump and Cruz say that and you can't back that up either.

This is typical schoolyard liberalism. Your views are illogical and not supported by empirical data. So you create caricature positions for Republicans then debate your own unsupported assertions of their views as if they actually said that, they didn't.

All you proved is that again you made up their positions. You said they say America is not the #1 military in the world. Post after post? You can't back it up. And you can't back it up because you made up their views

You don't re-build something that is the strongest in the world unless you don't believe it's the strongest in the world. Pretty easy concept; even you should be able to understand it.

Just because you are the "strongest" doesn't mean you can do everything or even what you want.

Thus of course you can want to "rebuild" or improve something that IS the strongest in the world.

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies.

that last sentence is devastating to her stupid argument, nicely stated correll

Too, too funny

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies

Cons love it to justify building up the military....but use it to justify doing more for the people and they scream.......Socialism

 

[kaz]

So he wants to "rebuild" a military that is the best in the world while we're $17T in debt. He's either not confident in the military or a lunatic....

your choice.

Deflection. You said he says our military is not the strongest in the world. You can't back it up. You also said that Trump and Cruz say that and you can't back that up either.

This is typical schoolyard liberalism. Your views are illogical and not supported by empirical data. So you create caricature positions for Republicans then debate your own unsupported assertions of their views as if they actually said that, they didn't.

All you proved is that again you made up their positions. You said they say America is not the #1 military in the world. Post after post? You can't back it up. And you can't back it up because you made up their views

You don't re-build something that is the strongest in the world unless you don't believe it's the strongest in the world. Pretty easy concept; even you should be able to understand it.

Just because you are the "strongest" doesn't mean you can do everything or even what you want.

Thus of course you can want to "rebuild" or improve something that IS the strongest in the world.

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies.

that last sentence is devastating to her stupid argument, nicely stated correll

Too, too funny

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies

Cons love it to justify building up the military....but use it to justify doing more for the people and they scream.......Socialism

Actually, doing more for "the people" is great. What you want to do is take money from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't. That doesn't benefit "the people" it only benefits the ones who get other people's money.

Government should not treat one citizen differently from another. Robbing one and giving it to others is clearly treating its citizens differently

 

[SmokeALib]

No shit?

 

[rightwinger]

Deflection. You said he says our military is not the strongest in the world. You can't back it up. You also said that Trump and Cruz say that and you can't back that up either.

This is typical schoolyard liberalism. Your views are illogical and not supported by empirical data. So you create caricature positions for Republicans then debate your own unsupported assertions of their views as if they actually said that, they didn't.

All you proved is that again you made up their positions. You said they say America is not the #1 military in the world. Post after post? You can't back it up. And you can't back it up because you made up their views

You don't re-build something that is the strongest in the world unless you don't believe it's the strongest in the world. Pretty easy concept; even you should be able to understand it.

Just because you are the "strongest" doesn't mean you can do everything or even what you want.

Thus of course you can want to "rebuild" or improve something that IS the strongest in the world.

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies.

that last sentence is devastating to her stupid argument, nicely stated correll

Too, too funny

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies

Cons love it to justify building up the military....but use it to justify doing more for the people and they scream.......Socialism

Actually, doing more for "the people" is great. What you want to do is take money from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't. That doesn't benefit "the people" it only benefits the ones who get other people's money.

Government should not treat one citizen differently from another. Robbing one and giving it to others is clearly treating its citizens differently

It's called helping those who need help

Something foreign to Libertarians

 

[kaz]

You don't re-build something that is the strongest in the world unless you don't believe it's the strongest in the world. Pretty easy concept; even you should be able to understand it.

Just because you are the "strongest" doesn't mean you can do everything or even what you want.

Thus of course you can want to "rebuild" or improve something that IS the strongest in the world.

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies.

that last sentence is devastating to her stupid argument, nicely stated correll

Too, too funny

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies

Cons love it to justify building up the military....but use it to justify doing more for the people and they scream.......Socialism

Actually, doing more for "the people" is great. What you want to do is take money from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't. That doesn't benefit "the people" it only benefits the ones who get other people's money.

Government should not treat one citizen differently from another. Robbing one and giving it to others is clearly treating its citizens differently

It's called helping those who need help

Something foreign to Libertarians

Wrong, we just recognize that when government does it with other people's money, it never works out as intended.

It's also called taking responsibility to support your own causes, something foreign to liberals

 

[rightwinger]

Just because you are the "strongest" doesn't mean you can do everything or even what you want.

Thus of course you can want to "rebuild" or improve something that IS the strongest in the world.

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies.

that last sentence is devastating to her stupid argument, nicely stated correll

Too, too funny

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies

Cons love it to justify building up the military....but use it to justify doing more for the people and they scream.......Socialism

Actually, doing more for "the people" is great. What you want to do is take money from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't. That doesn't benefit "the people" it only benefits the ones who get other people's money.

Government should not treat one citizen differently from another. Robbing one and giving it to others is clearly treating its citizens differently

It's called helping those who need help

Something foreign to Libertarians

Wrong, we just recognize that when government does it with other people's money, it never works out as intended.

It's also called taking responsibility to support your own causes, something foreign to liberals

Why the obsession with other people's money?
Don't you realize We the People contribute to one pot of money and then We the People decide how it will be spent?

 

[kaz]

that last sentence is devastating to her stupid argument, nicely stated correll

Too, too funny

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies

Cons love it to justify building up the military....but use it to justify doing more for the people and they scream.......Socialism

Actually, doing more for "the people" is great. What you want to do is take money from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't. That doesn't benefit "the people" it only benefits the ones who get other people's money.

Government should not treat one citizen differently from another. Robbing one and giving it to others is clearly treating its citizens differently

It's called helping those who need help

Something foreign to Libertarians

Wrong, we just recognize that when government does it with other people's money, it never works out as intended.

It's also called taking responsibility to support your own causes, something foreign to liberals

Why the obsession with other people's money?
Don't you realize We the People contribute to one pot of money and then We the People decide how it will be spent?

right, the money I earn is a pot that everyone owns and the leaches like you get to decide how it's spent, not me.

Liberalism is 4 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner

 

[rightwinger]

Too, too funny

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies

Cons love it to justify building up the military....but use it to justify doing more for the people and they scream.......Socialism

Actually, doing more for "the people" is great. What you want to do is take money from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't. That doesn't benefit "the people" it only benefits the ones who get other people's money.

Government should not treat one citizen differently from another. Robbing one and giving it to others is clearly treating its citizens differently

It's called helping those who need help

Something foreign to Libertarians

Wrong, we just recognize that when government does it with other people's money, it never works out as intended.

It's also called taking responsibility to support your own causes, something foreign to liberals

Why the obsession with other people's money?
Don't you realize We the People contribute to one pot of money and then We the People decide how it will be spent?

right, the money I earn is a pot that everyone owns and the leaches like you get to decide how it's spent, not me.

Liberalism is 4 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner

I think Karl Marx said it best....

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs

Even a Libertarian would agree

 

[Correll]

It was working out fine for them until Reagan came along.

How does that relate to my point about the Carter military reduction in spending?

I worked for the DOD while both Carter and Reagan were President

Under Carter, we were drawing down our forces and regrouping. Carter did fund many modernization efforts and aircraft that we still use today

With Reagan, it was like Christmas. Any military project you proposed got approved. It was the days of Star Wars and Cold War on steroids

I also saw what happened with all the equipment and projects that Reagan green lighted. The Cold War doctrine was obsolete. Our Army was too slow to fight modern engagements. Our Air Force was built around dropping nukes and not tactical missions. Our Navy had the wrong mix of ships

By the 90s, we had to start over

Reagan inherited a military that didn't trust sentries to have bullets in war zones.

8 years later GHWBush inherited a military that won the Hundred Hours War.

Reagan used the military buildup to end his recession. Much of the money he spent did not make for a better military because it was for fighting a Cold War

Bush kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 days, Carter could have done the same, there was minimal resistance

1. Military spending was part of the recovery.

2. Building a military to fight (and thus deter hot war) the Cold War during the Cold War is building a better military. It is incredible that you managed to Denial this.

3. It was Reagan's air and fast transports that enabled the rapid deployment and build up.

4. It only SEEMED like minimal resistance because Reagan's military and GHWBush's leadership didn't give Hussein the slightest opening.

I saw what happened to Reagan's military build up. A large number of the projects got cancelled under Bush. Cold War ended, mission changed, equipment was obsolete

Reagan escallated a buildup against a threat that turned out to be empty.
The Soviets were not what we were told. They were nowhere close to the military power that we were. Their equipment was poorly designed and poorly maintained. Troops were poorly trained and had low morale. Their Navy could hardly leave port

But fear mongerers convinced us that they were a major threat and we needed a major buildup

2. Building a military to fight (and thus deter hot war) the Cold War during the Cold War is building a better military. It is incredible that you managed to Denial this.

3. It was Reagan's air and fast transports that enabled the rapid deployment and build up.

4. It only SEEMED like minimal resistance because Reagan's military and GHWBush's leadership didn't give Hussein the slightest opening.

5. Cold War projects being cancelled due to victory is not a problem.

6. The "Empty Threat" is the lefty response to the Reagan Victory. Before his victory he was ridiculed for raising tensions and predicting victory. After wards it was imperative that leftists think of ways to explain away this massive accomplishment. Many lies and irrelevancies were put forth and swallowed by the Willful Dupes.

7. Fear was the rational response to thousands of nukes, planes and tanked being aimed at US. Only a madman or a fool was not afraid of that during the Cold War.

 

[Correll]

So he wants to "rebuild" a military that is the best in the world while we're $17T in debt. He's either not confident in the military or a lunatic....

your choice.

Deflection. You said he says our military is not the strongest in the world. You can't back it up. You also said that Trump and Cruz say that and you can't back that up either.

This is typical schoolyard liberalism. Your views are illogical and not supported by empirical data. So you create caricature positions for Republicans then debate your own unsupported assertions of their views as if they actually said that, they didn't.

All you proved is that again you made up their positions. You said they say America is not the #1 military in the world. Post after post? You can't back it up. And you can't back it up because you made up their views

You don't re-build something that is the strongest in the world unless you don't believe it's the strongest in the world. Pretty easy concept; even you should be able to understand it.

Just because you are the "strongest" doesn't mean you can do everything or even what you want.

Thus of course you can want to "rebuild" or improve something that IS the strongest in the world.

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies.

that last sentence is devastating to her stupid argument, nicely stated correll

Too, too funny

For example we have the largest economy in the world. I still support strong pro-growth policies

Cons love it to justify building up the military....but use it to justify doing more for the people and they scream.......Socialism

Err, you want to use the military to justify doing more for the people?

DId you leave out a word?

 

[rightwinger]

I worked for the DOD while both Carter and Reagan were President

Under Carter, we were drawing down our forces and regrouping. Carter did fund many modernization efforts and aircraft that we still use today

With Reagan, it was like Christmas. Any military project you proposed got approved. It was the days of Star Wars and Cold War on steroids

I also saw what happened with all the equipment and projects that Reagan green lighted. The Cold War doctrine was obsolete. Our Army was too slow to fight modern engagements. Our Air Force was built around dropping nukes and not tactical missions. Our Navy had the wrong mix of ships

By the 90s, we had to start over

Reagan inherited a military that didn't trust sentries to have bullets in war zones.

8 years later GHWBush inherited a military that won the Hundred Hours War.

Reagan used the military buildup to end his recession. Much of the money he spent did not make for a better military because it was for fighting a Cold War

Bush kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 days, Carter could have done the same, there was minimal resistance

1. Military spending was part of the recovery.

2. Building a military to fight (and thus deter hot war) the Cold War during the Cold War is building a better military. It is incredible that you managed to Denial this.

3. It was Reagan's air and fast transports that enabled the rapid deployment and build up.

4. It only SEEMED like minimal resistance because Reagan's military and GHWBush's leadership didn't give Hussein the slightest opening.

I saw what happened to Reagan's military build up. A large number of the projects got cancelled under Bush. Cold War ended, mission changed, equipment was obsolete

Reagan escallated a buildup against a threat that turned out to be empty.
The Soviets were not what we were told. They were nowhere close to the military power that we were. Their equipment was poorly designed and poorly maintained. Troops were poorly trained and had low morale. Their Navy could hardly leave port

But fear mongerers convinced us that they were a major threat and we needed a major buildup

2. Building a military to fight (and thus deter hot war) the Cold War during the Cold War is building a better military. It is incredible that you managed to Denial this.

3. It was Reagan's air and fast transports that enabled the rapid deployment and build up.

4. It only SEEMED like minimal resistance because Reagan's military and GHWBush's leadership didn't give Hussein the slightest opening.

5. Cold War projects being cancelled due to victory is not a problem.

6. The "Empty Threat" is the lefty response to the Reagan Victory. Before his victory he was ridiculed for raising tensions and predicting victory. After wards it was imperative that leftists think of ways to explain away this massive accomplishment. Many lies and irrelevancies were put forth and swallowed by the Willful Dupes.

7. Fear was the rational response to thousands of nukes, planes and tanked being aimed at US. Only a madman or a fool was not afraid of that during the Cold War.

OK ...let's go there

Reagan lied like Bush lied
Without the consequences....we just wasted money

Reagan told us the Soviets were a big boogeyman and we needed to build up our military. History has shown they were a paper tiger
Russian military was poorly designed, poorly maintained, poor logistics, horrible morale

Conservatives give him credit for destroying the Soviets....he just exploited it