From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Who Eradicated Communism from the Globe? (Also, Gangism from LA)
Date: 31 Aug 1992 15:02:26 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

>	Gang Violence was one of the serious problems in LA.  President Bush,
>as promised, eradicated  gangs from LA area.  Members  of various gangs take
>part in picnics and baseball games together. They no longer kill people, but 
>are in community service.  This is a great victory for President Bush in the
>decades long war against gangs.  Street War has been won by Republican White
>House.  People can walk in the streets without any fear of a cross fire.  Mr
>George Bush, the great President of USA after Ronald Reagan  made LA a safer
>place to live.  Of course, there are few (gang looking) groups around.  They
>have "favorite group" status anyway.....

>Vicky:

	The above was posted by me.  I expected  the netters to read between 
the lines. When the Republicans claim their victory against Communism nobody
challenge that. When few gangs decided to disband themselves I was wondering
whether Republicans would come out to claim as if it is their victory.  

	There were  many replies in the net and  through mail for my posting.
Pl read my posting again. My analogy (Prez Bush won the Cold War, people can
go to bed with no fear of a nuclear war, most favorite  nation status to Red
China etc...) is not that bad I hope.  Remember, Bush administration was not
aware of a possible coup in the USSR.

Vicky:
UMass, Aug 31
=====

There was another posting in the net.... (not posted by me)

1)  The actions of the peoples of countries like Poland, Lithuania, Estonia,
    Czechoslovakia, etc, may have had just a little to do with the changes.

2)  The US did almost nothing to support the movements in those countries until
    everything was settled.  Maybe it wouldn't have been prudent to move sooner.

3)  Gorby himself has to be given a little credit.  In spite of some mistakes,
    he certainly did a lot less of the "rolling out the tanks bit" than 
    Brezhnev or Stalin would have gone in for in similar cases.

4)  The policy of containment (embraced by every President since the 40's,
    including Bush and Reagen) says that Communism will/would fall under its 
    own weight.

5)  Georgi Asparov (sp?), adviser on foreign policy to several Premiers, claims
    that RR's build-up may have actually delayed the fall by giving hardliners a
    reason to work harder.  (By the way, if "constructive engagement" is right
    w/China, was was the Soviet Union not dealt with that way?  Or, 
    conversely, why isn't China an "evil empire"?)

6)  Even if the bankrupting strategy should be given partial credit in leading
    to the Fall, its aftermath of ruined economies has increased the problems
    in that area of the world.  Remember, some of those former republics still
    have nukes.  

7)  If you argue "their economies would have been bad anyway", I agree. 
    Communism bit/bites.  But then you also have to agree that the arms race 
    helped make it worse, and you should see that the "anyway" position also
    applies to the Fall.

8)  The truth is, neither party can claim full credit.  In fact, neither party
    should even try to claim a majority of the credit, because most of the work
    wasn't done by us.  
 
    Bush can rightfully be thankful for things like the fall of the Berlin Wall
    (although right when it happened he didn't much seem to care).  But this
    co-opting of credit shouldn't really go on.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3795 talk.politics.misc:43231 alt.politics.clinton:3770 alt.politics.elections:12175