New Mini-series planned on the life of Ronnie Reagan
Bill Nark
a miniseries that will look at the life of Ronald Reagan. They dont
want anything nasty said about the poor diddums, since he is too ill
to defend himself.
The question you have to ask at this point is, would he have defended
himself back in the 1980's anyway.
As far as I am concerned the stupid old bastard deserves to burn in
hell for what he has condemned the world to.
At the end of the Reykavic conference ( I think, sorry if the spelling
is wrong), Gorbachev stood there and challenged Reagan to agree to
TOTALLY DISARM the nuclear arsenals of both the Soviet Union and the
USA. WHAT AN OPPORTUNITY. The only clause Gorbachev was really
seeking was that the Americans abandon the Strategic Defence
Initiative SDI (star wars) program.
Reagan, with this one truly great chance of immortality staring him in
the face, said no. He believed too much in SDI, probably thinking
that it would give him the chance to beat the Soviets in open warfare.
And SDI came to NOTHING.
Considering the fact that Reagan may have condemned go knows how many
people to die in the fire and aftermath of Nuclear conflict, someday,
I think that he should go down in history as the biggest political
failure of all time. Not for what he did, but for what he could have
done.
Check out the link
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7757566%255E401,00.html
Bill Nark
The Insensitive Troll
Bernardz
cha...@excite.com says...
> Reagan, with this one truly great chance of immortality staring him in
> the face, said no. He believed too much in SDI, probably thinking
> that it would give him the chance to beat the Soviets in open warfare.
> And SDI came to NOTHING.
>
>
So did the Soviets. Many believe that SDI caused the Soviets to reform
their society in an attempt to match the US. In the process the Soviet
Union collapsed. Good riddance.
--
It is amazing how complex a simple machine is when you try to fix it.
10th saying of Bernard
Damien McBain
How nice it must be to live in a world as simple and peaceful as yours Bill.
Are Russia and the US the only countries (now) that are neuclear capable?
Would you have a strong democracy as the US as a superpower or maybe China,
North Korea or Pakistan?
Grow up, child.
Dion Williams
news:a71df5a5.03110...@posting.google.com...
Reagan didn't have a talent for much else but an actor's way with fuzzy
rhetoric, but you're talking as if nuclear weapons could be uninvented. To
reduce the superpower's arsenals to the level of an effective deterrent was
always the more sensible goal, to provide defence against each other without
the threat of a global apocalypse and defence against the milieu of "rogue
states" that they knew were itching to get their hands on their own
relatively minor but still potentially devastating nuclear capability. The
collapse of Soviet nuclear security along with the Soviet Union itself a few
years later showed it was right not to eliminate both sides' arsenals
entirely.
The Soviet military had put Gorbachev on the ropes; he knew they were
driving the empire to bankruptcy whether the US went ahead with SDI or not.
It was an admission that they couldn't sustain the status quo, let alone
cope with a new battlefield in space.
Dion
Thomas Jerome Newton
Silly ignorant prick. Before opening your trap you should buy a clue
about history and the public figure you're attacking.
Bill Nark
> In article <a71df5a5.03110...@posting.google.com>,
> cha...@excite.com says...
> > Reagan, with this one truly great chance of immortality staring him in
> > the face, said no. He believed too much in SDI, probably thinking
> > that it would give him the chance to beat the Soviets in open warfare.
> > And SDI came to NOTHING.
> >
> >
>
> So did the Soviets. Many believe that SDI caused the Soviets to reform
> their society in an attempt to match the US. In the process the Soviet
> Union collapsed. Good riddance.
I think the Soviet collapse was more due to the enormous defence
spending in general, rather than just being due to reforms due to fear
of SDI.
If you like living in a world where there is no economic or military
power to balance the United States I guess that you can be happy. I
myself, love diversity and hate having one world power that is capable
of dictating what is going to happen to every other nation.
Bill Nark
Politics can be a lot more simple that you seem to believe. Politics
is about power, politics is about being able to wield that power in
such a way that nobody can oppose you. I know that there is little
nobility in politics, and I also know that Reagan had the chance to
move beyond simple cold war aggressions and move the world in a
direction where there could have been more global peace than there is
now.
I know that other nations have nuclear weapons, but very none have the
arsenals the size of what the US and soviets had.
> Grow up, child.
I am grown, I am no longer a child and I do remember the times in the
1980's, the last fears of the cold war, the fear of nuclear
destruction, the fear that if these arsenals were put to use that
there was a good chance that most of the worlds population would have
been wiped out. Is it childish to have the imagination to hope for a
world where no such fears existed. Reagan ignored the possibility and
let it remain a dream of all those who want to live in peace.
Bill Nark
I know that they could not be uninvented, but there could be greater
restrictions placed on their creation and use.
> To
> reduce the superpower's arsenals to the level of an effective deterrent was
> always the more sensible goal, to provide defence against each other without
> the threat of a global apocalypse and defence against the milieu of "rogue
> states" that they knew were itching to get their hands on their own
> relatively minor but still potentially devastating nuclear capability.
The still could have wiped out such "rogue states" with conventional
weapons, and despite recent events, intelligence on such matters is
usually pretty good.
> The
> collapse of Soviet nuclear security along with the Soviet Union itself a few
> years later showed it was right not to eliminate both sides' arsenals
> entirely.
>
Why is this so?
> The Soviet military had put Gorbachev on the ropes; he knew they were
> driving the empire to bankruptcy whether the US went ahead with SDI or not.
> It was an admission that they couldn't sustain the status quo, let alone
> cope with a new battlefield in space.
>
> Dion
True, but I think that complete disarmament might have given the
Soviet Union a better chance of survival.
Bill Nark
> On 3 Nov 2003 21:33:52 -0800, cha...@excite.com (Bill Nark) wrote:
>
> Silly ignorant prick. Before opening your trap you should buy a clue
> about history and the public figure you're attacking.
>
Oh really, well if you are going to make such a statement, how about
some facts to back up any arguments you may have. Otherwise it will
seem that you have reverted to simple and immature name calling to
win an argument. Come on, argue, don't abuse.
Damien McBain
> Is it childish to have the imagination to hope for a
> world where no such fears existed.
Yes, the world has *never* been in peace. If religion (not politics) became
a thing of the past, we'd have a chance. Not in our generation though.
Bernardz
cha...@excite.com says...
> Bernardz <Bern...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<5c15dcf6abd580d3...@news.teranews.com>...
> > In article <a71df5a5.03110...@posting.google.com>,
> > cha...@excite.com says...
> > > Reagan, with this one truly great chance of immortality staring him in
> > > the face, said no. He believed too much in SDI, probably thinking
> > > that it would give him the chance to beat the Soviets in open warfare.
> > > And SDI came to NOTHING.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So did the Soviets. Many believe that SDI caused the Soviets to reform
> > their society in an attempt to match the US. In the process the Soviet
> > Union collapsed. Good riddance.
>
> I think the Soviet collapse was more due to the enormous defence
> spending in general, rather than just being due to reforms due to fear
> of SDI.
Disagree.
At the time the Russians were winning as they could spend more then the
US. It was when SDI came along that the Russians discovered that they
lacked the scientific ability to match the US, as a result they
discovered that they had to come up with a lot more money and change
their society to keep in the race.
That is when the problems started for them.
>
> If you like living in a world where there is no economic or military
> power to balance the United States I guess that you can be happy. I
> myself, love diversity and hate having one world power that is capable
> of dictating what is going to happen to every other nation.
In an nuclear age we cannot afford this diversity. And I certainly do
not want a competitor like the Soviet Union.
ann bishop
> Seems that all of the conservatives in the US are getting upset about
> a miniseries that will look at the life of Ronald Reagan. They dont
> want anything nasty said about the poor diddums, since he is too ill
> to defend himself.
>
I heard it's been cancelled.Can't offend the Gipper.
--
annieb
slatconsulting
news:1g3ys90.1lytdukc877b7N%anni...@optusnet.com.au:
More like defame, slander, and smear. Streisand strikes again.