From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Summary: Making progress 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:33:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.204601.25660@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick writes...
>garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>john@anasazi.com                 writes...
>>>In article <1992Sep2.012357.10369@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>> credit
>>>Ronald Reagan with winning the fight?

>> How about the fact that Gorbachev
>>>credit's Reagan's policies with forcing him to introduce the reforms that
>>>ultimately lead to the collapse of the USSR?
>>
>>Long before Gorbachev instituted those reforms, there were stories in 
>>the newspapers of how potatoes were rotting in the fields in the Ukraine
>>because there wasn't enough boxes and crates to put them in.
> 
>Uh huh. And if you read the reports of "experts" and "academics"
>like Galbraith or Cohen, their society was as economically efficient,
>their Government as well-respected as our own. They were wrong of
>course, but we only found that out when the veil of Communist
>orthodoxy was lifted.
> 
I'm confused by this. Are you saying the reports I cited are faulty?
If you are then your last sentence is contradictory of your point.
You'll have to clarify.

>> Reagan had three policies that
>>>had a strong effect:
>>>  -support of insurgent movements against communist regimes (the Reagan 
>>>   doctrine)
>>
>>This goes all the way back to 1919, and it was done dozens, if not hundreds
>>of times before Reagan ever came to office. If you'll recall, we even
>>invaded Russia itself, along with the U.K. and several other countries,
>>in 1919-21 to try to overthrow the Bolsheviks. This doctrine was 
>>instituted and carried out many times long before Reagan was anything 
>>more than a B actor. This is not to say that I support the doctrine,
>>just that I acknowledge it. 
> 
>>>  -support of an arms buildup - especially SDI
>>
>>Reagan's arms buildup began under Carter. The arms race itself began
>>under Truman.
>>
>>>  -public condemnation of the Soviet system as evil.
>>
>>You'll recall that this was done many times in the 50's. It was
>>also done many times before and after that, by everyone from 
>>politicians down (or up).

>>Go ask an Afghani who kicked the Russians out their country. Go ask a 
>>Lithuanian who kicked the Russains out of their country. Ask any Finlander
>>how many American's died while fighting Russian's while Helsinki was
>>bombed. It is arrogant to think that we were responsible for the 
>>collapse of the USSR.
> 
>And it is insulting to find that those who opposed certain beneficial
>policies, now crow about how the results of those policies were
>actually "inevitable".
>Nothing is inevitable.
>Ideas are important.
>Actions have consequences.
>
This is very vague. Who are you applying this to? Me? If it is to me
then you are wrong. Most (not all, but most) of those communist scare 
policies I disagreed with, I still disagree with. I haven't changed a
bit there. Also I'm not crowing. I just saw somebody trying to take
credit for something that he did very little to make happen, and decided
to make my opinion known. Actions do have consequences, the question is
whos actions? 

>No, America wasn't solely responsible for "winning" the cold war.

Stop right there. We are making progress. I will concede that America
did have something to do with the fall of the USSR (albeit a small part).
But I stick by my guns when someone starts to assert that building 
bombs and supplying them to militaries of questionable moral character
is more important than actually picking up a gun and fighting trained
men in tanks and jets. It's not the same. Not even close. 

>Pat
> 
-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43828 ca.politics:7465 ba.politics:5054 soc.motss:38248 ba.motss:1543