Discussion in 'Politics' started by Truthmatters, Aug 7, 2011.
What We Don't Know About History Can Hurt Us - FoxNews.com
More lies from Fox?
Did you read it all the way through?
Actually, it was an interesting article...I'll send a rep in a moment.
1. But if you know anything about Thaddeus Russell, you must know his infatuation with jazz as an explanation of many things...in this case, the fall of the Soviet Union.
2. It is not an accident that Russell has had his work appear in many Left-Wing journals...I understand that Fox doesn't fall into that category... but, as I said, it was an interesting article.
3. I further understand they article of faith of Left-Wing doctrine, that President Reagan could do no right, pun intended, and that he certainly deserves no credit for the fall of the Societ Union....but rock 'n' roll as the reason???
4. Here, an article with a bit more grit, substance:
Many forces contributed to the fall of the "Evil Empire", but foremost among them was the deployment of those 464 cruise and 108 Pershing II missiles slated to offset triple-warhead Soviet SS-20s and Backfire bombers that could reach all of Western Europe (but not the American homeland). Needless to say, it was not the "theo-logic" of deterrence that drove the counter-deployment. The drama was not really about "circular-errors probable" or "hard-target kill capabilities." The name of the game was as old as Thucydides' disquisitions on Peloponnesian power politics. It was a pure test of will and strength, and on its outcome hung, as it turned out, history. Yet what a slender thread it was.
Enter Ronald Reagan, a president who, whatever else he was and did, was an extraordinary exemplar of "Only in America." He was an ingenue even by American standards, but as tough and hard-bitten as any Soviet general-secretary (post-Stalin, that is). He hated communism, but embraced Mikhail Gorbachev. He presided over the greatest peace-time military buildup in American history, but loathed nuclear weapons, confiding in An American Life that his "dream became a world free of nuclear weapons." He elevated supply-side economics from Arthur Laffer's back-of-the-envelope doodles to the reigning dogma of the White House and radically cut taxes--only to pragmatically raise them again in 1982 and 1983 when a "decent respect" for the opinions of Congress so demanded.
THE EUROMISSILES played a staring role in the final act of the Cold War. Militarily, they were but pawns in a nuclear world defined by 10,000 strategic warheads on either side. But on the Cold War's central chessboard, they looked like kings and queens that would complete the irresistible thrust of Soviet power lanched in the 1970s. One Soviet surrogate, North Vietnam, had beaten the United States in Southeast Asia. Another, Cuba, had anchored Soviet-bloc power in the darkest heart of Africa, in Angola. America had just lost Iran to the Islamists led by Ayatollah Khomeini, and with it, one of Washington's key allies in the Middle East. Finally, as Carter's America was being humiliated by Iranian hostage-takers and held up to ridicule by botched rescue gambits, the Soviets were forging into Afghanistan--as Alexander the Great had done on his imperial march to India. To complete the degradation of America, only two key allies--Turkey and West Germany--heeded Washington's call to boycott the Moscow Olympics of 1980. And the economy was wallowing in stagflation.
Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."
. Euromissiles, massive aid to the Afghan rebels, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the arms build-up, the INF deployment, the demonstrated willingness to use force (Libya), support for Poland's Solidarity moment and Soviet dissidents--these all added up to what Kennan termed an "unalterable counter-force at every point" while Reagan's even-keeled leadership minimized "indecision, disunity and internal disintegration within this country" (notwithstanding the less grandiose moments of Reagan's watch, like the withdrawal from Lebanon after the massacre of 241 Marines in 1983 and the unforgivably reckless Iran-Contra affair).
Ronald Reagan, though dismissed by Europeans as a second-rate actor and fondler of cue cards, possessed that magic faculty that separates run-of-the mill politicos from history-molding leaders. "I didn't understand", recalls Time's Joe Klein, "how truly monumental, and morally important, Reagan's anti-communism was until I visited the Soviet Union in 1987." He continues with a seemingly trivial vignette. Attending the Bolshoi Ballet, he was nudged by his minder: "'Ronald Reagan. Evil empire', he whispered with dramatic intensity and shot a glance toward his lap where he had hidden two enthusiastic thumbs up. 'Yes!'"
When an American president manages to pluck the soul strings of those who have been raised to fear and despise what he represents, he surely deserves the honorific 'great.'
The "amazing and mysterious" life of Ronald Reagan - National Interest, The Articles | Find Articles at CBS MoneyWatch.com
Didn't read it. But you keep insisting that everything from Fox is lies.... so this must be too, right?
I tend to read books and properly researched and sourced academic articles rather than crap from the media.... even Fox. My bad... I don't fit in your 'hysterical right wing Fox News viewer'.
Its got to be a lie..... Faux news = lies
Its kind of like the selective hearing syndrome many "children" seem to have.
So is TM gonna' leave her Failed Liberal ideas behind? From the article:
I would say that this guy has it wrong.
Or maybe Truthmatters agrees with him when he says (in the same book):
Read more: Book Review: A Renegade History of the United States by Thaddeus Russell - seattlepi.com
Sure people in Iran love American culture, but not their leaders and those with the guns that protect the regime.
Sure people in the former USSR loved "Elvis," coca-cola, blue jeans, etc but their leaders at the time liked being in charge of them more.
The same can be said of North Korea, China and even Iraq under Saddam. People like our western culture, hell even Al Qai'da deep down likes our culture of porn, music, booze, etc despite it being counter to their so-called utopia.
The 9/11 hijackers got hookers, drugs and gambled months up to their "jihad" because deep down they are full of shit....but does that make them any less dangerous? No, but liberals ignore these facts out of stupidity or they intend on letting outsiders bring down our culture via force.
Libs going back to the Soviet revolution have tried to undermine our society, but they would have you believe McCarthy was full of shit. He reached with some of his claims but he wasn't wrong on many others.
So when you see or hear a liberal telling you to not worry about Al Qai'da or their fellow communists....they're full of shit.
Separate names with a comma.