Ronald Reagan

2010-04-20 04:03:59

#126

Benzin: Member; +576|6213

I would argue that it is because of Reagan that we have the problem of Islamic terrorism that we do today. The USA/Saudi-funded and CIA/Pakistani-run jihad in Afghanistan never would have gotten off the ground the way it did had it not been for Reagan. The funding for the war exploded under Reagan, literally hundreds of millions in cash and even more in weapons were pumped into that country for no reason other than for revenge on the Soviets because of Vietnam. There was no real strategic play to be made there at all, but the CIA and Reagan did not care - they wanted to kill Russians.

Think about the money that could have been redirected towards domestic spending and the programs said money could have funded had the US not decided to get mixed up in a pointless war. Not only that, but think of where we would be today if the money had at least gone to American-friendly mujahedin and not the anti-American commanders.

2010-04-20 04:08:19

#127

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6625|'Murka

CapnNismo wrote:
I would argue that it is because of Reagan that we have the problem of Islamic terrorism that we do today. The USA/Saudi-funded and CIA/Pakistani-run jihad in Afghanistan never would have gotten off the ground the way it did had it not been for Reagan. The funding for the war exploded under Reagan, literally hundreds of millions in cash and even more in weapons were pumped into that country for no reason other than for revenge on the Soviets because of Vietnam. There was no real strategic play to be made there at all, but the CIA and Reagan did not care - they wanted to kill Russians.

Think about the money that could have been redirected towards domestic spending and the programs said money could have funded had the US not decided to get mixed up in a pointless war. Not only that, but think of where we would be today if the money had at least gone to American-friendly mujahedin and not the anti-American commanders.

I think this is true, to a degree.

The power vacuum that was created after the Soviets left could certainly have been mitigated if some level of funding had been left in place to support rebuilding efforts. The fact that funding was cut cold-turkey after the Soviets pulled out basically enabled the decades of fighting that brought the Taliban to power.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-04-20 04:08:32

#128

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6320|eXtreme to the maX

Are you saying Dick Cheney had no influence on US policy besides what he was handed by the NSC?

I'd like to see the backgrounds of the NSC people, who writes the reports and what research they're based on, thats where the power is.

Fuck Israel

2010-04-20 04:13:24

#129

Benzin: Member; +576|6213

FEOS wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
I would argue that it is because of Reagan that we have the problem of Islamic terrorism that we do today. The USA/Saudi-funded and CIA/Pakistani-run jihad in Afghanistan never would have gotten off the ground the way it did had it not been for Reagan. The funding for the war exploded under Reagan, literally hundreds of millions in cash and even more in weapons were pumped into that country for no reason other than for revenge on the Soviets because of Vietnam. There was no real strategic play to be made there at all, but the CIA and Reagan did not care - they wanted to kill Russians.

Think about the money that could have been redirected towards domestic spending and the programs said money could have funded had the US not decided to get mixed up in a pointless war. Not only that, but think of where we would be today if the money had at least gone to American-friendly mujahedin and not the anti-American commanders.
I think this is true, to a degree.

The power vacuum that was created after the Soviets left could certainly have been mitigated if some level of funding had been left in place to support rebuilding efforts. The fact that funding was cut cold-turkey after the Soviets pulled out basically enabled the decades of fighting that brought the Taliban to power.

The Soviets only ever went in there because the jihad was doing so well with the covert backing. Remove that from the equation and it would be very likely that Najibullah and the Afghan communists would have been able to win out over the mujahedin at some point, but they might have also still required Soviet help. Either way, Afghanistan should have been left alone in terms of covert assistance.

I don't think Reagan was a good president at all based purely on that, the same way no one will ever call George W. Bush a good president because of Afghanistan/Iraq.

2010-04-20 04:30:00

#130

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6930

Dilbert_X wrote:
Are you saying Dick Cheney had no influence on US policy besides what he was handed by the NSC?

I'd like to see the backgrounds of the NSC people, who writes the reports and what research they're based on, thats where the power is.

Foreign policy for the US hardly ever changes...

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-04-20 04:35:10

#131

Benzin: Member; +576|6213

Cybargs wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Are you saying Dick Cheney had no influence on US policy besides what he was handed by the NSC?

I'd like to see the backgrounds of the NSC people, who writes the reports and what research they're based on, thats where the power is.
Foreign policy for the US hardly ever changes...

Though it really needs to in many cases.

2010-04-20 04:38:40

#132

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6625|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Are you saying Dick Cheney had no influence on US policy besides what he was handed by the NSC?

I'd like to see the backgrounds of the NSC people, who writes the reports and what research they're based on, thats where the power is.

The VP chairs the NSC, Dilbert.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-04-20 04:38:44

#133

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6930

CapnNismo wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Are you saying Dick Cheney had no influence on US policy besides what he was handed by the NSC?

I'd like to see the backgrounds of the NSC people, who writes the reports and what research they're based on, thats where the power is.
Foreign policy for the US hardly ever changes...
Though it really needs to in many cases.

I'd promote more interventionist policies to places that actually need to get their shit straight (Africa lulz).

2010-04-20 04:39:59

#134

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6625|'Murka

CapnNismo wrote:
FEOS wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
I would argue that it is because of Reagan that we have the problem of Islamic terrorism that we do today. The USA/Saudi-funded and CIA/Pakistani-run jihad in Afghanistan never would have gotten off the ground the way it did had it not been for Reagan. The funding for the war exploded under Reagan, literally hundreds of millions in cash and even more in weapons were pumped into that country for no reason other than for revenge on the Soviets because of Vietnam. There was no real strategic play to be made there at all, but the CIA and Reagan did not care - they wanted to kill Russians.

Think about the money that could have been redirected towards domestic spending and the programs said money could have funded had the US not decided to get mixed up in a pointless war. Not only that, but think of where we would be today if the money had at least gone to American-friendly mujahedin and not the anti-American commanders.
I think this is true, to a degree.

The power vacuum that was created after the Soviets left could certainly have been mitigated if some level of funding had been left in place to support rebuilding efforts. The fact that funding was cut cold-turkey after the Soviets pulled out basically enabled the decades of fighting that brought the Taliban to power.
The Soviets only ever went in there because the jihad was doing so well with the covert backing. Remove that from the equation and it would be very likely that Najibullah and the Afghan communists would have been able to win out over the mujahedin at some point, but they might have also still required Soviet help. Either way, Afghanistan should have been left alone in terms of covert assistance.

I don't think Reagan was a good president at all based purely on that, the same way no one will ever call George W. Bush a good president because of Afghanistan/Iraq.

The covert backing didn't start until the Soviets went in there...at least from the US side. And it is generally agreed that it is the US assistance that turned the tide for the muj.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-04-20 04:53:13

#135

Benzin: Member; +576|6213

Umm, as I recall the backing from the CIA began before the Soviets actually set foot in Afghanistan. If I am mistaken, though, then so be it. Either way, the CIA and the USA never should have gotten involved. The royalist mujahedin even warned the US multiple times that the CIA was paying our own assassins.

Back to topic, though. Reagan a good president?

2010-04-20 05:01:30

#136

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6930

CapnNismo wrote:
Umm, as I recall the backing from the CIA began before the Soviets actually set foot in Afghanistan. If I am mistaken, though, then so be it. Either way, the CIA and the USA never should have gotten involved. The royalist mujahedin even warned the US multiple times that the CIA was paying our own assassins.

Back to topic, though. Reagan a good president?

Charlie Wilson pretty much ran the whole sha bang in Afghanistan. In the long run, kicking the soviets out of afghanistan? Hell yeah. It pretty much bankrupt their military.

2010-04-20 06:13:28

#137

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6320|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Are you saying Dick Cheney had no influence on US policy besides what he was handed by the NSC?

I'd like to see the backgrounds of the NSC people, who writes the reports and what research they're based on, thats where the power is.
The VP chairs the NSC, Dilbert.

Well there's your cabal then, Cheney and his chums in the case of Bush, doubtless Reagan had a similar team of evil pixies.

Fuck Israel

2010-04-20 06:16:57

#138

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6711

Reagan's VP was a man named Bush. have fun with that . . .

2010-04-20 06:19:58

#139

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6320|eXtreme to the maX

So each time a Bush is in the White House the ME gets screwed over and more terrorists are created?
Jeb-Palin Bringing you to the afterlife.

Fuck Israel

2010-04-20 06:20:40

#140

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6711

i said 'have fun' not 'go wild' . . .

2010-04-20 06:25:44

#141

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5572|London, England

Shahter wrote:
Spark wrote:
yes, despite.

In terms of scientific and academic freedom and hence quality the soviet union comes right down near the bottom.
scientific and academic what?

Spark wrote:
education is more than just producing nuclear physicists, you know.
absolutely. it's also planning and management.

How'd that Chernobyl plant work out?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-04-20 08:16:20

#142

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6989|Moscow, Russia

JohnG@lt wrote:
Shahter wrote:
Spark wrote:
yes, despite.

In terms of scientific and academic freedom and hence quality the soviet union comes right down near the bottom.
scientific and academic what?

Spark wrote:
education is more than just producing nuclear physicists, you know.
absolutely. it's also planning and management.
How'd that Chernobyl plant work out?

flashy.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2010-04-20 12:53:59

#143

Benzin: Member; +576|6213

Cybargs wrote:
Charlie Wilson pretty much ran the whole sha bang in Afghanistan. In the long run, kicking the soviets out of afghanistan? Hell yeah. It pretty much bankrupt their military.

Charlie Wilson just drummed up more funding from Congress for it. He didn't run jack squat. Steven Coll's book never mentions him running anything. He got showed a few mock-up training camps and got a Disney Land-esque tour of Pakistan and "Afghanistan" (he never went there according to Coll's research). I would invite you to pick up Steven Coll's Pulitzer-prize winning book "Ghost Wars". Make sure it's the second edition that has a lot of new information based on the 9/11 Commission Report, though - apparently enough changed to make it worth picking up over the original.

EDIT:
Just looked at the "Who's Who" part of the book at the very front and Charlie Wilson doesn't even get a mentioning as being an important player in the whole jihad or the aftermath. I also just reread much of the stuff in the book that talks about Wilson and that's all he did was drum up weapons and funding for the CIA, even when the CIA didn't want many of the weapons. Wilson had no idea what Afghanistan was about, he was just a fervent anti-communist, no more, no less.

Last edited by CapnNismo (2010-04-20 13:06:41)

2010-04-20 13:00:21

#144

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5473|foggy bottom

a lot of people in reagans administration wer in bush's as well

Tu Stultus Es

2010-04-20 20:38:13

#145

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6619|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Perhaps we need to have less expectation of/pressure for interventionism from the rest of the world?
I would argue most of the pressure is coming from the military industrial complex, not so much the rest of the world.
I think your argument is flawed. When we don't want to intervene, we get pressure from the UN or the media to do so. When we do want to intervene, we get pressure from the media for doing so.

I have to snicker at the "military industrial complex" stuff. Unless you have some kind of proof of a cabal whispering in the POTUS's ear, all foreign policy comes from the Chief Executive, based on the National Security Strategy documents. Those guide the DoD, State Department...all agencies in the Executive Branch in acting in concert (theoretically) on foreign policy.

Turq wrote:
Granted, I would agree that the rest of the world needs to make up its mind about when it actually wants our help. It does sometimes feel like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing sometimes.
See above.

I'm just going by what a former president warned about...

http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-20 20:40:24)

2010-04-21 04:08:44

#146

BLdw: ..; +27|5385|M104 "Sombrero"

FEOS wrote:
The closed nature of Soviet society makes it difficult to prove one way or the other, doesn't it?

To a degree, yes.

FEOS wrote:
As to the "gag order" bit. I'd like to see if you can provide some examples of US press being suppressed by the government in the way that you're describing...at least in the post-WW2 period, as I'm not aware of any.

One very notorious post-WW 2 incident is known as New York Times Co. v. United States where the government directly prevented press from publishing classified material (wiki-link is not about the incident itself but more about the court ruling). Of course that was an isolated case (in USA) and it's probably safe to say that nothing like that is going to happen in the near future. Consequences to the government and the press (publisher) for something similar happening again would (probably) be tremendous.

As Turquoise said, your (and our) media is gagged but just not in the way it used to be. Having a lot of news coverage about things surrounding us is not the same thing as having valuable and informative news. We are not necessarily supported with news of the important things that should be reported but about things that our "sources" tell us. Sources in politics are (usually) politicians, and those politicians are often lobbied by news media, and that media is here to make profit just like any other company. So, are reporters asking questions that might damage the image of their supported candidate and possibly lower the influence of their news media in order to voice the truth?

Government gagging press does not work as it used to and doesn't directly work like gagging in court. But is it same as gagging the press when government is gagging individuals (such as witnesses or terror suspects) from speaking to press on the grounds of national security?

I would recommend you a documentary about gagging order in Western world if I just could remember the name of it.

Edit: Orwell Rolls in his Grave
Editedit: Nah, no it wasn't that. Though that document is relatively good too, it touches this subject too. (Edit: link for that document)

Naturally, that's just a document so as a wise man you are, you should probably understand that there's a viewpoint presented.

Last edited by BLdw (2010-04-21 04:18:38)

2010-04-21 04:52:11

#147

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6625|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Are you saying Dick Cheney had no influence on US policy besides what he was handed by the NSC?

I'd like to see the backgrounds of the NSC people, who writes the reports and what research they're based on, thats where the power is.
The VP chairs the NSC, Dilbert.
Well there's your cabal then, Cheney and his chums in the case of Bush, doubtless Reagan had a similar team of evil pixies.

The NSC is hardly a "cabal", Dilbert. It's part of the governmental structure, headed by the VP. It exists in every administration.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-04-21 05:25:47

#148

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6930

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:

The VP chairs the NSC, Dilbert.
Well there's your cabal then, Cheney and his chums in the case of Bush, doubtless Reagan had a similar team of evil pixies.
The NSC is hardly a "cabal", Dilbert. It's part of the governmental structure, headed by the VP. It exists in every administration.

Being a Chair of a commitee doesn't really mean you make the decision... Just means you recognize which speakers no?

2010-04-21 06:48:26

#149

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6320|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:

The VP chairs the NSC, Dilbert.
Well there's your cabal then, Cheney and his chums in the case of Bush, doubtless Reagan had a similar team of evil pixies.
The NSC is hardly a "cabal", Dilbert. It's part of the governmental structure, headed by the VP. It exists in every administration.

Cheney has his cabal outside the NSC, you know, his former colleagues in the military-industrial complex at Halliburton and other companies?

Fuck Israel

2010-04-23 04:11:30

#150

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6625|'Murka

Cybargs wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

Well there's your cabal then, Cheney and his chums in the case of Bush, doubtless Reagan had a similar team of evil pixies.
The NSC is hardly a "cabal", Dilbert. It's part of the governmental structure, headed by the VP. It exists in every administration.
Being a Chair of a commitee doesn't really mean you make the decision... Just means you recognize which speakers no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … ty_Council

The National Security Council is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (or National Security Advisor). The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are also invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.

So I misspoke. The NSC is chaired by the POTUS by statute. Normally, the VP chairs the meetings, however.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums Ronald Reagan

CapnNismo wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer