New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Reagan ended the cold war

And Biden has restarted it. And yet, even with only 40% approval rating, lefty here backs him up 100%. Why? ( this post has nothing to do with any other candidate ).
40% approval when 57% of MAGA Republicans think J6 was a patriotic act is above average.

https://surveys.newrepublic.com/democracy.pdf?_ga=2.84408857.1074534765.1650128341-1575002794.1649522214

If America can stop MAGA from hating freedom then Biden's poll numbers will go up.

Either way, RayGun did little to end the cold war relative to rock bottom oil prices (which USSR depended on) and Gorbachev thinking people in the Soviet Union liked it there (they didn't) did.

Those two factors ended the cold war faster than anything RayGun thought of doing
 
Last edited:

EatTheRich

President
And Biden has restarted it. And yet, even with only 40% approval rating, lefty here backs him up 100%. Why? ( this post has nothing to do with any other candidate ).
If anyone, Lech Walesa ended the Cold War. Yeltsin and Gorbachev both get a lot more credit than Reagan. And both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama all get more credit for restarting it than Biden.

I'm a leftist and I do not back Biden up at all.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
1) during the dispute with Libya over chemical weapons
2) various states that had been part of the former Yugoslavia, Haiti
1. Bullshit. Do you have a link to support that claim?

2. We did not invade Yugoslavia. Our troops were part of a peace keeping mission after the slaughter of 8,000 men and boys in Srebrenica.

3. Our involvement in Haiti was as the island decended into chaos after the 1991 military coup. Invasion was not necessary as the military leaders backed down and allowed Aristide to return to power in 1994. UN command took over in 1996.
 

EatTheRich

President
1. Bullshit. Do you have a link to support that claim?

2. We did not invade Yugoslavia. Our troops were part of a peace keeping mission after the slaughter of 8,000 men and boys in Srebrenica.

3. Our involvement in Haiti was as the island decended into chaos after the 1991 military coup. Invasion was not necessary as the military leaders backed down and allowed Aristide to return to power in 1994. UN command took over in 1996.

An invasion on whatever pretext is still an invasion.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member

An invasion on whatever pretext is still an invasion.
The Serbs were slaughtering Bosnians. The UN sanctioned an intervention. The US conducted air strikes to force the Serbs to stop the attack. US troops were part of a peace keeping mission, not an invasion. Remember that the Serbs signed the agreement to have UN forces in the country.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member

An invasion on whatever pretext is still an invasion.
You claimed Clinton threatened the use of nuclear weapons when discussing a return to the cold war. Libya was not an adversary of the cold war. Clinton didn't mention using nuclear weapons on Libya, Perry did.

From your link:
It all started when Defense Secretary William Perry went to the Middle East last month and made a big fuss about Gadhafi building a chemical weapons factory underneath a mountain 40 miles outside the Libyan capital, Tripoli. The United States, he said ominously, would do whatever it took to keep the plant from going into operation.

Would that include using a nuclear bomb to pulverize it because conventional weapons might not be strong enough? Perry was asked.

Can't rule that out, he replied, noting that indeed, conventional bombs might not be able to destroy the underground facility.
 

EatTheRich

President
The Serbs were slaughtering Bosnians. The UN sanctioned an intervention. The US conducted air strikes to force the Serbs to stop the attack. US troops were part of a peace keeping mission, not an invasion. Remember that the Serbs signed the agreement to have UN forces in the country.
NATO forces, no (the U.S. was not part of the UN operation that did nothing to halt the slaughter of Bosnians in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbs in Croatia)? And an agreement signed in the face of a successful Croat-Bosnian offensive which the agreement cut short, creating a de facto partition of Bosnia which left butchers like Karadzic and Mladic in control of much of the country and cementing in place the partition of Yugoslavia that left Milosevic and Tudjman in control of much of that country and set the stage for future slaughters of Albanians and Serbs.

The “peacekeeping operation” was a fig leaf for shunting aside the local muscle so that the top imperialist powers (U.S., France, Germany, UK) could partition the region into their own spheres of influence.
 

EatTheRich

President
You claimed Clinton threatened the use of nuclear weapons when discussing a return to the cold war. Libya was not an adversary of the cold war. Clinton didn't mention using nuclear weapons on Libya, Perry did.

From your link:
It all started when Defense Secretary William Perry went to the Middle East last month and made a big fuss about Gadhafi building a chemical weapons factory underneath a mountain 40 miles outside the Libyan capital, Tripoli. The United States, he said ominously, would do whatever it took to keep the plant from going into operation.

Would that include using a nuclear bomb to pulverize it because conventional weapons might not be strong enough? Perry was asked.

Can't rule that out, he replied, noting that indeed, conventional bombs might not be able to destroy the underground facility.
Libya following the Yom Kippur war was pretty solidly in the Soviet camp … Gaddafi (earlier a close ally of the U.S. and Israel and a longtime friend of Italy) could definitely be a wild card when it came to foreign policy, but his conflicts with the U.S. seem to have been engineered by the USSR to some extent. But you are right, that threat probably didn’t do as much to revive Cold War tension as, say, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
NATO forces, no (the U.S. was not part of the UN operation that did nothing to halt the slaughter of Bosnians in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbs in Croatia)? And an agreement signed in the face of a successful Croat-Bosnian offensive which the agreement cut short, creating a de facto partition of Bosnia which left butchers like Karadzic and Mladic in control of much of the country and cementing in place the partition of Yugoslavia that left Milosevic and Tudjman in control of much of that country and set the stage for future slaughters of Albanians and Serbs.

The “peacekeeping operation” was a fig leaf for shunting aside the local muscle so that the top imperialist powers (U.S., France, Germany, UK) could partition the region into their own spheres of influence.
That makes no sense at all. The partition of Yugoslavia was entirely due to the Serb assault on minority populations...had you forgotten the Olympics there? How did the country go to shit so quickly? It was not because of any western nation wanting to expand their influence there.
 

EatTheRich

President
That makes no sense at all. The partition of Yugoslavia was entirely due to the Serb assault on minority populations...had you forgotten the Olympics there? How did the country go to shit so quickly? It was not because of any western nation wanting to expand their influence there.
Of course it was. A recap of events:

Slovenia and Croatia, the wealthiest and most industrialized parts of the country, purport to secede as a means of accelerating privatization and attracting foreign (especially W. German) investment.
The self-determination of these republics is denied by Yugoslavia, which seeks by means of military coercion to hold the country together and slow the pace of privatization. The Serb-dominated political elite of Yugoslavia is encouraged by Russia, which seeks to slow privatization as a means of extracting concessions from imperialist powers, and France, which seeks a counterweight to German influence.
Yugoslavia’s methods against Croatia involve ethnic massacres of Croats as a means of achieving military victory wi th out building a broad consensus on the basis of forthright defense of socialism and socialist equality. This in turn drives Croatia’s leadership in a national chauvinist direction with conscious influence from Croatia’s former fascist regime.
Serbs in Croatia, encouraged by the Yugoslavian leadership, rise up against ethnic persecution by the radical nationalist Croatian regime. Serbs are massacred en masse.
Bosnia-Herzegovina, the most ethnically diverse republic, secedes as an essentially defensive measure in an attempt to withdraw from the war and avoid becoming an oppressed part of a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. Both Croatian and Yugoslav (Serb) forces leverage ethnic nationalism and religious bigotry in an effort to break up Bosnia-Herzegovina and perpetrate atrocities against Bosnian Muslims. The U.S. and UK back Bosnian Muslim interests as a counterweight to German, French and Russian influence.
The UN muscles through a de facto partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina on ethnic lines. Dutch UN troops stand by while Serb nationalist forces bombard Srebrenica. A multi-ethnic community including many Serbs defends Sarajevo.
NATO pushes through a new partition plan along lines more favorable to the U.S. and Germany and imposes it on the population.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Of course it was. A recap of events:

Slovenia and Croatia, the wealthiest and most industrialized parts of the country, purport to secede as a means of accelerating privatization and attracting foreign (especially W. German) investment.
The self-determination of these republics is denied by Yugoslavia, which seeks by means of military coercion to hold the country together and slow the pace of privatization. The Serb-dominated political elite of Yugoslavia is encouraged by Russia, which seeks to slow privatization as a means of extracting concessions from imperialist powers, and France, which seeks a counterweight to German influence.
Yugoslavia’s methods against Croatia involve ethnic massacres of Croats as a means of achieving military victory wi th out building a broad consensus on the basis of forthright defense of socialism and socialist equality. This in turn drives Croatia’s leadership in a national chauvinist direction with conscious influence from Croatia’s former fascist regime.
Serbs in Croatia, encouraged by the Yugoslavian leadership, rise up against ethnic persecution by the radical nationalist Croatian regime. Serbs are massacred en masse.
Bosnia-Herzegovina, the most ethnically diverse republic, secedes as an essentially defensive measure in an attempt to withdraw from the war and avoid becoming an oppressed part of a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. Both Croatian and Yugoslav (Serb) forces leverage ethnic nationalism and religious bigotry in an effort to break up Bosnia-Herzegovina and perpetrate atrocities against Bosnian Muslims. The U.S. and UK back Bosnian Muslim interests as a counterweight to German, French and Russian influence.
The UN muscles through a de facto partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina on ethnic lines. Dutch UN troops stand by while Serb nationalist forces bombard Srebrenica. A multi-ethnic community including many Serbs defends Sarajevo.
NATO pushes through a new partition plan along lines more favorable to the U.S. and Germany and imposes it on the population.
Please explain how there is any benefit to the US in the warfare that went on for years before the UN or Nato got involved. Remember that after Tito died it was the Serbs who sought to create a Serb dominated replacement for communism. The republics rebelled in 1991 and began talks of secession. It went on until 1994 when the UN condemned the Serbs.

After Tito's death in 1980, relations between the six republics of the federation deteriorated. Slovenia, Croatia and Kosovo desired greater autonomy within the Yugoslav confederation, while Serbia sought to strengthen federal authority. As it became clear that there was no solution which was agreeable to all parties, Slovenia and Croatia moved towards secession. Although tensions in Yugoslavia had been mounting since the early 1980s, events in 1990 proved to be decisive. In the midst of economic hardship, Yugoslavia was facing rising nationalism among its various ethnic groups. By the early 1990s, there was no effective authority at the federal level. The Federal Presidency consisted of the representatives of the six republics, two provinces and the Yugoslav People's Army, and the communist leadership was divided along national lines

Yugoslav Wars - Wikipedia
 

EatTheRich

President
Please explain how there is any benefit to the US in the warfare that went on for years before the UN or Nato got involved. Remember that after Tito died it was the Serbs who sought to create a Serb dominated replacement for communism. The republics rebelled in 1991 and began talks of secession. It went on until 1994 when the UN condemned the Serbs.

After Tito's death in 1980, relations between the six republics of the federation deteriorated. Slovenia, Croatia and Kosovo desired greater autonomy within the Yugoslav confederation, while Serbia sought to strengthen federal authority. As it became clear that there was no solution which was agreeable to all parties, Slovenia and Croatia moved towards secession. Although tensions in Yugoslavia had been mounting since the early 1980s, events in 1990 proved to be decisive. In the midst of economic hardship, Yugoslavia was facing rising nationalism among its various ethnic groups. By the early 1990s, there was no effective authority at the federal level. The Federal Presidency consisted of the representatives of the six republics, two provinces and the Yugoslav People's Army, and the communist leadership was divided along national lines

Yugoslav Wars - Wikipedia
Seriously? How could the U.S. benefit from a proxy war among factions tied to France and Russia, Germany, and Britain, that was both a symptom of and a precipitating factor in the breakup of socialist multinational solidarity, and that distracted the world’s attention from Russia’s bloodier war in Chechnya that the U.S. supported?
 
Top