Why did Reagan sell weapons to Iran?

Lol yeah all this imminent threat and planned invasions unsubstantiated and CONTRADICTED by your own sources and seemingly impossible for you to reference or prove outside of boring anecdotes. But you keep at it.

 

It is very possible that the reason you're not speaking Russian right now is because of Ronald Reagan. AboveAlpha and I both know vastly more about this subject that you could possibly have the ability to absorb.

 

You know....when a persons ideology clouds the reality of what is going on around them....that is when problems happen.

You are not interested in facts....you are simply doing and posting anything you can to secure your warped ideology.

You have beliefs...fine....but try to see the facts for what they are instead of simply changing the facts to suit your own needs....which a very sad thing to do indeed.

I mean....are you so afraid that certain realities might conflict with your ideology that you will say or do anything to prevent yourself from acknowledging....that there are some things that just will not fit into this tiny BOX of a world you have created for yourself?

AboveAlpha

 

Since he ate the lunch of every liberal he ever debated, it would seem your low opinion of him puts him - nonetheless - at the head of the class.

Gosh. I wonder if you have ever commented on Hillary's "I cannot recall" moments.

Nope.

Another waste of space liberal from another country I choose to never hear from again. Poof.

 

Don't expect any Liberal to say anything good about Reagan. His record speaks for it's self. He was one of the most respected Presidents around the world. Poland and England both erected statues of Reagan. There are millions of people free today thanks to him and his efforts of bankrupting the Soviet Union and bringing it down.

 

Conversely, don't ever expect any right winger to say anything good about Obama, and it was the same when Clinton was in office. I guess the feeling each side has toward the other isn't likely to change anytime soon, huh?

 

If you call a probability of 5% 'very possible' then yeah, sure

Sure sure. if that were, why are you both incapable of substantiating your claims with evidence and sources and without logical fallacies?

 

Indeed, criminal record, a heap of dead, huge debt, less free market economy, larger state system, more taxes and American opinion polls that ranked him as average.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim ie opinion polls? Clinton, Kennedy and Lincoln tend to be the top 3.

Lol utter nonsense

 

Typical Americans Nothing in here yet about an admission of Soviet intentions to capture the world's oil, though. That remains an American objective exclusively.

 

Thank Christ everyone here isn't blind

 

Only reason Clinton is popular abroad is because he was caught having sex in the White House. How many American Presidents have statues and a park named after him in foreign countries.

Even the Russians give Reagan credit for bringing the Soviets down.

"Ronald Reagan’s determination to destroy communism and the Soviet Union was a hallmark of his eight-year presidency, carried out through a harsh nuclear policy toward Moscow that softened only slightly when Gorbachev came to office.

He is vividly remembered in Russia today as the force that precipitated the Soviet collapse.

“Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal,” said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s."

 

Read jobs created, inflation, unemployment etc. when he left office.

http://www.reaganfoundation.org/ECONOMIC-POLICY.aspx

http://www.reaganfoundation.org/ECONOMIC-POLICY.aspx

 

People like Clinton and Kennedy way more than Reagan. Fact. Deal with it. Also most Russians REGRET the fall of the USSR.

That's one guy and an unsubstantiated claim. Provide a poll of Russian views. Actually most people credit the end of the Cold War to Gorbachev and his perestroika and glasnost reforms amongst others - especially the end of the Brezhnev Doctrine.

'The stunning collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been heralded in the West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this event were obviously a direct result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This self-congratulatory analysis has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political dynamics that were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the Soviet state itself. Fiery political speeches and tough diplomatic postures make good theater, but they are ineffective at forcing political transformation in totalitarian nations, as is proven by the persistence of far less powerful Communist regimes in Cuba and east Asia in the face of punishing trade embargos. The key to understanding the reasons for the demise of the Soviet Union is to be found not in the speeches or policies of Western politicians, but in internal Soviet history.'
http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/soviet.htm

In sum, although the West provided invaluable assistance at important junctures, this assistance did not cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the democratic breakthrough of 1993. Ultimately, Russians brought the Soviet Union down, and provided a democratic breakthrough, although perhaps short lived.
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/224...ernational_influences_on_collapse_of_USSR.pdf

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/constellations/article/download/16289/13076

Also see:
Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992, and Knight, R. Stalinism in Crisis, New York: Pluto Press 1991.

The idea Reagan was responsible is part of a very modern myth-making, propaganda machine established in the US.

 

These links don't refute anything I've said. He was criminal, an idiot, anti-capitalist and a hypocrite.

 

Afghanistan has long been a major crossroads of Asia astride 6 v J major north-south and east-west land routes; its control g f the Khyber and Bola passes has historically made it the gateway which links Rts,sia with the Indian sub-continent and the Middle East with the Orient. Because of its pivotal geostrategic posi tion, this landlocked nation repeatedly has become the focus o f conflict between rival empires, a tendency which has earned its the sobriquet of the Itcockpit of' Asia Afghanistan has performed the function in central Asia which Korea and Laos-Cambodia have I performed in East and Southeast Asia: a regional flashpoi n t of colliding Great Power interests. In the 19th and early 20th centuries Afghanistan! s very survival as an independent state was linked to its role as a buffer state between Czarist Russia in central Asia and Great Britain in India. As a buffer state w h ich was itself a manifestation of the general equilibrium of regional power, it has served as a barometer of the balance of power in the central Asian area. For this reason, more than a few observers were disturbed when it became a Soviet satellite in 197 8 The Soviet Union has exhibited a long-standing interest in its southern neighbors, as evidenced by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Protocol to the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, which asserted that Soviet territorial aspirations lay in the direction of the Persian Gulf and 1ndian.Ocean. In recent years, the Kremlin's incentives for expanding its influence to the south have been significantly enhanced by the growing importance of Middle Eastern, especially Persian Gulf, oil in the Western economic system. Seen from the v a ntage point of the Persian ~ulf, the single most important energy-surplus region in the world, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan constitutes one part of a giant pincer movement designed to encircle Gulf oil reserves. The Kremlin already has establish e d a military presence in Ethiopia and South Yemen; now that the Iranians are no longer willing or able to underwrite Oman's security, Sultan Qabus faces the growing danger that the Dhofar insurgency will flare up once more, this' time with greater materia l support from the Soviets' stalking horse on the Arabian Peninsula South Yemen At the other end of the pincer, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan constitutes a flanking movement which opens up the flat, pemeable eastern border of Iran to potential Soviet m ilitary pressures. More importantly, it extends Soviet influence to within 350 miles of the Arabian Sea, blocked only by a disputed territory Baluchistan which itself faces the potential threat of a separatist insurgency important Afghan air bases, fortif i ed them with surface-to-air missile batteries and are equipping them with modern command and control facilities The Soviet intervention has in effect moved Soviet aircraft 500 miles closer to the vital sea lanes of communi cation (SLOCs) which function as the oil lifeline of the industrial West. In fact, Soviet planes based in southwest Afghanistan are now situated closer to the strategic Straits of Hormuz (through which pass 40 percent of western oil imports) than if they were based in Tehran. Using these bases Soviet aircraft could reach the chokepoint at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and remain on The Soviets have occupied most 7 n s station there for at least 30 minutes Clearly, Soviet access to Afghan airbases significantly upgrades the Kremlin's abili t y to block, or even sever, the petroleum jugular vein of the West and greatly enhances the Soviet ability to neutralize American naval power in the Arabian Sea a SECURITY TBREATS TO IRAN AND PAKISTAN In addition to providing a platform from which Soviet a ir power could be brought to bear on the crucial Persian Gulf SLOCs a pro-Soviet Afghanistan provides an excellent fulcrum which amplifies Russian diplomatic leverage over both Iran and Pakistan.

LINK....http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1980/01/the-soviet-invasion-of-afghanistan

AboveAlpha

 

Rofl. This once again is an AMERICAN organization making a THEORY of Russian foreign policy. This is NOT evidence of the supposed Soviet plan you keep referring to which was apparently released. It is an educated AMERICAN GUESS as to what Russian strategy might have been. In fact it was written in 1980 - so how could it possibly know of, let alone be evidence for, the existence of a secret Russian plan and the information of secret Russian documents released only after 1992?!?! Your point remains unsubstantiated and your point looks even more ridiculous. Try again.

 

No you are not, in any war where we win we become the security force until a new government can be installed and a new local security force can be established and that was the same in Germany and Italy and Japan and all other areas we won. It was even true after the Civil War. Had Clinton succeeded in removing Saddam, he failed but that is another story, he would have faced the same as Bush did in establishing a new government and a new security force and in all likelihood as did happen al Qaeda shifting it's primary effort from Afghanistan to Iraq and a new "war" being fought there.

Yes because we have the capability to do so now, had we had such capability in WW2 we would have done the same except perhaps in Japan where their industry was so intermingled with the civilian population it would have been almost impossible to avoid civilian deaths.

Yes like the Soviets in WW2.

All war has political motivations.

Head by US/Brit/USSR authorities. And it took months of negotiations between the three powers before a full police force was put in place and it was STILL overseen by allied forces. You might enjoy Leon Uris's novel based on the times which is based on such affairs that occurred between the forces and the Berlin people. The US constabulary forces were there and in authority into the 50's it was several years after the war ended before local police actions were turned over to the local police.

 

I am not really disagreeing with you....it is just that although you are correct our Military does have to Police any area it conquers or liberates....in the past the people of such countries had a vested interest to help our military Police an area as to help us ensued the quickest transition to regaining their society....changed perhaps but still regaining a level of normalcy.

Iraqi Insurgents did not care about the people....they cared about regaining their POWER.

AboveAlpha

 

Yes some of the Jihadist wanted to install their religious government and not have free elections. In Berlin it was the Soviets we had to deal with. Different circumstances present different challenges.

You do realize that had Clinton succeeded in removing Saddam he would have face a similar situation with the local religious groups and outside terrorist groups trying to influence events.