Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
Of particular note:

Reagan didn't end the cold war. Gorbachev did. The USSR collapsed mostly from internal economic and social pressure from decades of Cold-war militarization and posturing against the Europeans and Americans. Even the CIA, which was dedicated to bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union, admitted surprise that the Soviets disbanded and democratized all by themselves.

An ultra-rightist here, with too much time on his hands? Perhaps. He has some good points, but some mis-informed ones, too. Bush's push in Afghanistan severely weakened the power-base of Al-Quaeda, yes, but the invasion of Iraq just gave them a new place to set up shop, and a new breeding ground for future terrorists.
I think you may have put it a bit too black and white. When you give Gorbachev full credit for ending the cold war, you fail to give credit to the efforts of the US in pressuring him to do so. You said it yourself when you stated it was partly due to "posturing against the Europeans and Americans." Reagan was the first american president since Kennedy to toe the line against communism, and didn't give up an inch when pushed. I'm also going to have to disagree that the CIA's main goal was bringing about the downfall of the USSR (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/ciahist.htm).

The fall of the USSR was brought upon by several key factors, and one very important fact that you fail to bring up was that it was set in motion after Reagan made his impassioned speech on the Berlin wall. That wall eventually went down, along with the rest of communist Europe. You fail to note that a huge part of of the destabilization of communism had to do with connecting with the people of that country, and showing them that there is hope beyond what their govt can do for them. Why do you think the Marcoses were so afraid of Ninoy? What do you think fueled the Edsa Revolution?

The USSR's collapse showed the innefectiveness of a communist regime and the corruption that it fosters.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, sadly only time will tell whether Bush will go down in History books in infamy or as an honored statesman. There is no doubt that Saddam's open aggression towards his neighbors and refusal to abide by U.N. sanctions and rules constituted some grounds for harsher action, but whether a full invasion was called for remains a question I can't answer. I do believe that when left unchecked, that whole area was going to be a hell hole at some point. The only countries that are stable are U.S. backed (somewhat), and that must get on the nerves of the other theocratic governments who languish in the 3rd world. Invading Iraq might be the first push in the introduction of democracy to the middle east.