BUSH MOST ADMIRED MAN IN THE US

by Yerusalyim 183 Replies latest social current

• 

  Aztec

  its not easy being the most admired man in the UK you know.

  Good cause you're not....LOL!

  ~Aztec
• 

  SixofNine

  Well, they better hurry up and vote. There are only about 14 more hours until the end of the year.

  I was speaking, of course, from the perspective of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Li'l Kim and myself are already partying in the new year.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I understand that the BBC reported that the US was given credit for the capture to prevent a civil war between Arabs and Kurds. Possible. The dishonesty plays well for Bush tho. It seems a lot like the staged toppling of the Saddam statue and Jessica Lynch media circuses.
• 

  ThiChi

  Aztec:

  Ahhh, rewriting history I see.......The facts speak for themselves. It really unnerves the Doves and appeasers that sometimes you have to stand up to the bad guys....:

  While the Soviet Union had a faltering economy, it had a highly advanced military. No one doubted that Soviet missiles, if fired at American targets, would cause enormous destruction. But Reagan also knew that the evil empire was spending at least 20 per cent of its gross national product on defense. (The actual proportion turned out to be even higher.) Thus Reagan formulated the notion that the West could use the superior economic resources of a free society to outspend Moscow in the arms race, placing intolerable strains on the Soviet regime. Reagan outlined his ``sick bear'' theory as early as May 1982 in a commencement address at his alma mater, Eureka College. He said, ``The Soviet empire is faltering because rigid centralized control has destroyed incentives for innovation, efficiency, and individual achievement. But in the midst of social and economic problems, the Soviet dictatorship has forged the largest armed force in the world. It has done so by pre-empting the human needs of its people and, in the end, this course will undermine the foundations of the Soviet system.''

  The Soviet bear was in a blustery and ravenous mood when Reagan entered the White House. Between 1974 and 1980, it had, through outright invasion or the triumph of its surrogates, brought ten countries into the Communist orbit: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan. Moreover, it had built the most formidable nuclear arsenal in the world, with thousands of multiple-warhead missiles aimed at the United States. The Warsaw Pact had overwhelming superiority over NATO in its conventional forces. Finally, Moscow had recently deployed a new generation of intermediate-range missiles, the giant SS-20s, targeted on European cities. Reagan did not merely react to these alarming events; he developed a broad counteroffensive strategy.

  He initiated a $1.5-trillion military buildup, the largest in American peacetime history, which was aimed at drawing the Soviets into an arms race he was convinced they could not win. He was also determined to lead the Western alliance in deploying 108 Pershing II and 464 Tomahawk cruise missiles in Europe to counter the SS-20s. At the same time, he did not eschew arms-control negotiations. Indeed he suggested that for the first time ever the two superpowers should drastically reduce their nuclear stockpiles. If the Soviets would withdraw their SS-20s, he said, the U.S. would not proceed with the Pershing and cruise deployments. This was called the ``zero option.'' Then there was the Reagan Doctrine, which involved military and material support for indigenous movements struggling to overthrow Soviet-sponsored tyrannies. The Administration supported such guerrillas in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola, and Nicaragua. In addition, it worked with the Vatican and the international wing of the AFL-CIO to keep the Polish trade union Solidarity going, despite a ruthless crackdown by General Jaruzelski's regime. In 1983, U.S. troops invaded and liberated Grenada, ousting the Marxist government and sponsoring free elections.

  Finally, in March 1983, Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a new program to research and eventually deploy missile defenses which offered the promise, in Reagan's words, of ``making nuclear weapons obsolete.'' At every stage, Reagan's counteroffensive strategy was denounced by the doves, who exploited public fears that Reagan's military buildup was leading the world closer to nuclear war. Reagan's zero option was dismissed by Strobe Talbott as ``highly unrealistic'' and as having been offered ``more to score propaganda points than to win concessions from the Soviets.'' With the exception of support for the Afghan mujahedin, every effort to aid anti-Communist rebels was resisted by doves in Congress and the media. SDI was denounced as, in the New York Times's words, ``a projection of fantasy into policy.''

  Even some who were previously skeptical of Reagan were forced to admit that his policies had been thoroughly vindicated. Reagan's old nemesis Henry Kissinger observed that while it was Bush who presided over the final disintegration of the Soviet empire, ``it was Ronald Reagan's Presidency which marked the turning point.'' Cardinal Casaroli, the Vatican secretary of state, remarked publicly that the Reagan military buildup, which he had opposed at the time, had led to the collapse of Communism.
• 

  ThiChi

  Quick question: What the hell is a diaper doper baby crowd? And why are they red? Are they embarrassed?
  

  The Red Diaper Doper Baby crowd are the truly mentally ill of society. Despite what history has taught us, these people are demented, Socialists- Fascists that try to under mind Western Civilization, using misinformation and twisted facts.. These are the appeasers of Evil on earth. If Hitler would have won, these people would have been turned into a bar of soap or a lamp shade. If they had their way, Saddam would still be in power.
• 

  amac

  Thichi - Why do people link Socialist and Fascists together when they are not necessarily related?
• 

  czarofmischief

  Because when something (Fascism, Socialism) relies on brutality and oppression to hold itself together - then it's just another mask for the same thing.

  And don't even go down the road of "The US does it too" because that argument is a straw man and a red herring and I'm sick of it.

  Fascism and Socialism and communism are all the same foolish arrogant naivete wrapped up in different flags.

  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and takes your guns away, imposes wage and price controls, puts dissenters in prison, relies on slave labor, and tries to replace your concept of God with itself, then it is a fascist duck.

  CZAR
• 

  SixofNine

  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and takes your guns away, imposes wage and price controls, puts dissenters in prison, relies on slave labor, and tries to replace your concept of God with itself, then it is a fascist duck.

  Unless it's the USA. Then it's not a duck at all, it's a fish, a red fish called "herring".
• 

  amac

  Socialism does not rely on brutality and oppression to hold it together anymore than capitalism does. I'm not saying that socialism is the answer, I just find it odd that people still lump fascists, commies and socialists as one big evil group. I thought that died when Russia fell and it was obvious to everyone that it was a US brainwashing so they could fight the Russians and use the cover of "fighting communism" to install dictators where they had money interests involved. Guess not...
• 

  ThiChi

  "Socialism does not rely on brutality and oppression to hold it together"

  What Nations do you cite as an example? (Good debate, by the way!)