Memorial day musings

[Coito ergo sum]

I myself have little or no historical readings, nor do I participate in forums where such is discussed by people where actually there, so I'm not qualified to make a statement here.

Huh....I coulda sworn I saw you bopping around some history-related threads, and doing history related projects as part of your daily activities/hobby/job?

[mistermack]

Just to make it clear, my condescending posts were deliberate irony, and meant in the same vein as Zilla's sarky posts.
I'm wasted here. Nobody gets my jokes. I'm going to give up comedy and ask for my day-job back.

As far as the ending of the cold war goes, I think that history is being re-written with this view that US spending forced it to an end. It's not true, and it's incredibly unfair to the two leaders, Gorbachev and Reagan. They just aren't getting anywhere near the credit they deserve.

Gorbachev could perfectly easily have carried on with the cold war. It's completely false to claim that US spending forced him to change. You only have to look at North Korea to see that. They haven't got a bean, but there's no change.

What Gorbachev did took incredible foresight and courage, and political ability. He had to persuade his own side, and convince Reagan. And Reagan also, doesn't get enough credit for seeing that Gorbachev was sincere, for trusting him, and ignoring all his advisors.

As far as I'm concerned, even though I disagree with the politics on both sides, they are still the two top men of the last century, and it was incredibly weasly for Reagan to claim credit for what they achieved, as a direct result of spending more and more on arms. That was just Reagan trying to take all the credit for himself.

It wasn't the spending, it was the political courage to STOP, that changed the world for the better.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I myself have little or no historical readings, nor do I participate in forums where such is discussed by people where actually there, so I'm not qualified to make a statement here.

Huh....I coulda sworn I saw you bopping around some history-related threads, and doing history related projects as part of your daily activities/hobby/job?

Well, I have a MA in history, but that's just because I have ~45 years studying history hardcore. I don't think that really counts, does it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Was that another "joke", MM?

[Coito ergo sum]

Just to make it clear, my condescending posts were deliberate irony, and meant in the same vein as Zilla's sarky posts.
I'm wasted here. Nobody gets my jokes. I'm going to give up comedy and ask for my day-job back.

It seems to me that your condescending post preceded Gawdzilla's retorts, not vice versa.

As far as the ending of the cold war goes, I think that history is being re-written with this view that US spending forced it to an end. It's not true, and it's incredibly unfair to the two leaders, Gorbachev and Reagan. They just aren't getting anywhere near the credit they deserve.

Gorbachev could perfectly easily have carried on with the cold war. It's completely false to claim that US spending forced him to change. You only have to look at North Korea to see that. They haven't got a bean, but there's no change.

You called Gawdzilla's post simplistic, but then you try to draw a meaningful comparison between the DPRK and the USSR?

What Gorbachev did took incredible foresight and courage, and political ability. He had to persuade his own side, and convince Reagan. And Reagan also, doesn't get enough credit for seeing that Gorbachev was sincere, for trusting him, and ignoring all his advisors.

As far as I'm concerned, even though I disagree with the politics on both sides, they are still the two top men of the last century, and it was incredibly weasly for Reagan to claim credit for what they achieved, as a direct result of spending more and more on arms. That was just Reagan trying to take all the credit for himself.

It wasn't the spending, it was the political courage to STOP, that changed the world for the better.

When did Reagan, himself, make that claim, exactly?

[mistermack]

Was that another "joke", MM?

Do you really want to know, or are you just being sarky?
Anyway, no, I've given up comedy, and I'm back doing erotic dancing.
That's not going too well, either.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Was that another "joke", MM?

Do you really want to know, or are you just being sarky?

My caring meter is broken and I don't want to guessimate.

[mistermack]

Was that another "joke", MM?

Do you really want to know, or are you just being sarky?

My caring meter is broken and I don't want to guessimate.

That's what comes from caring too much. You wear out your equipment.
I've still got the original vernier caring slide rule I used at Uni. It still looks brand new.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My caring meter was deep into negative numbers, so I can't say with certainty that it's working correctly.

[mistermack]

My caring meter was deep into negative numbers, so I can't say with certainty that it's working correctly.

Ha, got ya, it's definitely fucked, because caring can't go below zero.
Hence the expression, "couldn't care less".

[tattuchu]

What's this about erotic dancing? Suddenly my interest is piqued

[Warren Dew]

I find in my day-to-day life, that peace through law, and respect for others, and good communication, and friendship, is better, safer, and longer-lasting than peace through threats.
THAT'S was what Reagan and Gorbachev REALLY showed the world. Against the judgement of their "expert" advisors.

I'd agree that the "speak softly" part was important too. That said, I doubt that Gorbachev could have sustained his foreign policy for as long as he did if he hadn't been able to paint the alternatives to the rest of the politburo as dire due to Reagan's military buildup.

People don't give you as much shit when you're strong. You can quibble about the meaning of that, but it remains a fact. Reagan's handlers devised the plan that drove the USSR broke, and ended the Cold War without nukes. Full props to those guys.

I thought Charlie Wilson did that with the way he manipulated the US government into raising its aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan from $10m to $1b.

As usual, the USA administration more than squandered the victory by not following it up in peace time. They dropped their involvement in Afghanistan as soon as the Soviet forces retreated, leaving that country in its usual medieval squalor, economically, socially and politically. Subsequently, Afghanistan bit the US in the bum. Big-time.

Interesting about Charlie Wilson. That said, I'm far from convinced that bringing Afghanistan out of its "medieval squalor", as you put it, was at all an achievable objective.

Gorbachev could perfectly easily have carried on with the cold war.

After being removed in a coup? I doubt that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Peace through strength" strikes me as a necessary but not sufficient condition for the maintenance of our national security.

My posthumous thanks to all those who didn't come home. RiP Grandpa.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not comfortable with calling the fallen of America's wars "heroes." That term is just too troubling. It is rhetorically proximate to a justification for more war. -- paraphrasing MSNBC host Chris Hayes (a/k/a Rachel, Jr.).

And, next he'll be pointing out that American football is "rhetorically proximate" to a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war....

What a douche.

[laklak]

Kurt Schlichter at Breitbart on Chris Hayes:

"So, like so many other useless progressive fops who glide from cocktail party to panel discussion, Chris Hayes continues to push his progressive vision of collectivist serfdom from behind the unbreachable wall of American warriors. He has not stood with them and, in fact, is unworthy of doing so. He is a parasite taking sustenance from the exertions of better men and women."

Well said, Kurt.