Taking Down Olbermann
By Erick Posted in Culture — Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Leon linked to this in RedHot, but I have to say this is a front page worthy take down of Keith Olbermann.
As for Communism's spread, Olbermann is on more firm ground here. Indeed, if one ignores the post-Vietnam fall to Communism of Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Benin, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Nicaragua, and Grenada, the domino theory does seem a bit weak.
Well done Josh.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | I Guess I'm Just Unique That Way — Comments (2) »
Taking Down Olbermann 57 Comments (0 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
He is really a sad spectacle, a parody of a journalist whose downward spiral from very low heights is too difficult for me to watch.
I truly feel sorry for him. Sort of a Cindy Sheehan figure with a TV show, trying desperately to be either a victim or someone of importance ("I had friends in the Twin Towers, how DARE you ask who they were or whether they even considered me a friend. I shall be their spokeman."). He will go too far one day and be banished to netroot "meet ups", conspiracy theory panels and giving Chris Matthews hot-oil massages.
oil massages? The only thng that would top that indignity is being handed a bucket, a hose and a sponge and getting sent to bathe Jabba The Hutt.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Amnesty Int'l stepped in and said if that were going to happen, ditch the hot oil and bring on the waterboarding. Or all Olbermann, all the time on the prison TV - same thing.
Even if we left Vietnam ultimately, it at least signaled our intention to confront Communism. Any foe that needed to include in its calculus the cost of a war with the United States had to have taken notice. I'm no expert on the topic (or any topic, really) but there may be some cases on the margin where the Vietnam specter influenced an opposing state's behavior. Vietnam wasn't a waste so much in that it showed our intention to confront a foe that wasn't directly in conflict with us.
The downside that we're seeing today is that Vietnam showed our enemies how to defeat us, which is precisely the strategy Iran is using against us today. The other downside is that we Americans love to violate Napoleon's warning to not teach your enemy all your art of war by taking half-measures in order to avoid guilty consciences, a la "Colin Powell and the highway of death" in Gulf War I.
The lessons of Vietnam have never been more relevant to foreign policy and national security than today.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan
Absolutely. I tremble when I think what we are leaving our children with our politically correct conflicts, and the date I mark the beginning of the end is November 7, 2006.
Amen. The lesson of Vietnam was learned quite well by the likes of Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf. Unfortunately Rumsfeld's vision of "transformation" apparently interfered with the Powell Doctrine, which was 110% successful in the 1991 Gulf War. I think that if Rumsfeld would have adhered to the Powell doctrine of "overwhelming force" in terms of ground troops, things would be alot different today.
This is not to sat that transformation is a bad idea. Rumsfeld is on target with the idea that technology can vastly improve the military and displace the need for boots on the ground in **combat**. The Combat was not the problem here. We won the combat phase in 2 weeks.
The issue here was the post-combat phase, which is inherently labor intensive and cannot be displaced by technology (until we develop robots like they had in "The Day The Earth Stood Still" :-).
In any event, the liberals would have gone nuts if we would have tried to send in lots more troops anyway. They complain either way. Send lots of troops and its a tragedy; try to keep a very small footprint in the region and its "incompetence". You can't win for losing.
Speak Conservatively
http://www.cafepress.com/cspeaking
If he had followed the Patton doctrine instead of absorbing the lessons of Vietnam, Sadam would be long gone to meet his just reward before the maker of all men, and we would have been greeted as liberating heros. Instead, Powell backed away when victory was within grasp, left the tyrant in power where he continued to kill thousands of people every year and demoralize those who would have supported us. A solid victory with lots of dead Republican Guards 15 years ago would have been worth more than another 1 million troops on the ground after W called for the take down of the terror monger.
The Powell Doctrine is to go in with "Overwhelming Force". I assume that you are saying that Powell got us into this mess because of the decision not to march all the way to Baghdad in 1991. I dunno who made that decicion in 1991. I assume that it was the SecDef and the president. But times were different then. 911 had not happened and there was no reason to push for regime change. Saddam was keeping iran in check for us and we liked him stirring the pot with Iran for that reason. 911 changed everything. You can't blame those in 1991 with not being able to see the future. And on top of that, if they had decided to go all the way to Baghdad in 1991, they would have done so with "overwhelming force" and taken care of business. The Powell Doctrine was developed to prevent quagmires for **the military**, not the politicians.
Speak Conservatively
http://www.cafepress.com/cspeaking
Well if the test of causation is if event happened after another, then I'd say the fall of vietnam to communism is responsible for a whole lot else.
His rants doubled his audience, which remains miniscule, so look for this garbage to continue until MSNBC throws in the towel for financial reasons. For all I know, Olbermann goes home, pops open an ale and laughs at his viewers (or to take the contrary view, pops another Prozac).
loveable personality. Blogger Varifrank once got PO'ed at some upstart leftist jerk and called him a sniggering f***-Knob. Perhaps VF conjured up a mental image of Kieth to help him come up with that exact terminaology.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
If guys like Olbermann do stunts like that, they're sure to increase their ratings when their current ratings are already so unbelievably low. If you figure 1% of cable news viewers enjoy watching train wrecks, they'll tune into Olbermann. Since his share of the audience is so small this 1% probably doubles his audience immediately.
I mean, seriously, more people watch the annoying Head-On commercials than they do MSNBC. More English-speaking people watch Spanish Univision than watch MSNBC, if only to look at hot women jibber-jabber at 90 mph.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan
rants, I actually wish the MSNBC audience consisted of more than invalids, shut-ins, prisoners, and the handful of others who can't get to the remote.
is that as bad as Mathews is, he is a towering juggernaut of journalism next to Uberwiennie Olbermann.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Chris softball mathews is getting mad at democrats for not revealing their secret plans for Iraq. I bet he wonders how he got tricked like madeline halfbright did by Kim Jong Il.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be a Democrat.
-CommonCents
Remember that screed a few weeks ago about Bush trampling on Magna Carta, which sent the liberal hearts aflutter on the net?
Now it turns out that Britain is contemplating the abolition of trial by jury for certain types of crimes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6147596.stm
The expected reaction from Mr. Olbermann? None, of course.
Olbermann is a bitter, angry man. He is one of the disenfranchised. (Kennedy, Michael Moore etc...), Did he get fired from ESPN? he was funny there.
Olbermann will soon have a breakdown like Kramer did on stage the other day....except in Olbermanns case nobody will hear it.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you are probably are a legend in your own mind. -CommonCents
anthrax incident after the conservative blogs condemned the act of stupidity.
But KO is dumber than dirt and again waved his bloody hanky & trying to drive his ratings up. If they go up 10%, that's another 50 thousand while even Paula ZZZZZ triples this loser. And BOR surpasses both combined by nearly a million.
What I liked is Scarborough on MSNBC trying to get a Puffington Host hag last night to say something positive about BOR for knocking off OJ's book and show. The crone would only say something like "that's the sort of thing he's known for doing."
Yeah, even Joe had to temper his admiration for O'Reilly a bit cuz Abrams seems to like sturm und drang.
But KO is still not ready for prime time.
I see Olberman getting a promotion soon, to err america.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be a Democrat.
-CommonCents
But does the author sincerely believe that Nicaragua, Grenada, Benin, Mozambique, and Angola turned to Communism because Vietnam did?
And to point to Afghanistan as an example of the Domino Theory is certainly an interesting way of describing the Soviet invasion of that country and propping up of a wildly unpopular, and ultimately doomed, Communism puppet regime.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
does the author sincerely believe that Nicaragua, Grenada, Benin, Mozambique, and Angola turned to Communism because Vietnam did?
The author is arguing, inter alia, that the defeat of the US in Vietnam emboldened communist movements around the world along with the Soviet support for those movements. Moreoever, our retreat from the world in the late 1970s prevented us from taking action to help anti-communist and pro-democratic forces around the world.
There are numerous example of radical Muslims (Zawahiri, Bin Laden, Nasrallah, et al.) pointing to the defeat of the US in Vietnam as indicative of our weakness and unwillingness to protect our interests and suffer losses.
Viewing us as weakened, they double their efforts to weaken us further.
SMG
If we simply want to play a game of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc then you can blame all sorts of things on our withdrawal from Vietnam.
Did Vietnam "embolden" the Soviets to invade Hungary in 1956? Or to solidify their power in 1968?
Truth be told the Soviets were likely disappointed with our withdrawal from Vietnam as we were spending exhorbitant amounts of money to fight that war while the Russians were reaping the benefits of supplying the Vietnamese with arms.
The fact that some opponent of the US pointing to Vietnam as evidence of their strength hardly means that they were "emboldened" by our failures in Vietnam.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Truth be told the Soviets were likely disappointed with our withdrawal from Vietnam as we were spending exhorbitant amounts of money to fight that war while the Russians were reaping the benefits of supplying the Vietnamese with arms.
Sorry, there is no evidence that the Soviets were disheartened over our defeat in Vietnam. You really think they were "disappointed" over the pictures of our helicopters rescuing people from the rooftops of our embassy in Saigon?
They were quite willing to find new clients for their weapons. And they did. Again, their is zero evidence that I know of that Soviet arms sales declined precipitously after our withdrawal from Southeast Asia.
No one is saying that our defeat alone led to those other actions. The world is complex; nations and movements act for a myriad of reasons.
Among the reasons for Soviet expansionism in the 1970s and 80s was a US defeat in Vietnam. They viewed us as weak (we were weak at the time; divided internally, our military in a long drawdown, the people turning inward).
The scholarship on this is extensive.
SMG
Among the reasons for Soviet expansionism in the 1970s and 80s was a US defeat in Vietnam. They viewed us as weak (we were weak at the time; divided internally, our military in a long drawdown, the people turning inward).
Please support this claim with something other than faith. The Soviets made no overt acts for nearly 7 years after our departure from Vietnam.
There is no question that the loss in Vietnam was devastating domestically. But we are talking about the "emboldening" of our enemies, a word which is becoming more a mantra than an adjective.
I also don't think you understood my point about Soviet reactions to our withdrawal from Vietnam. Vietnam took a great deal of our resources, and the Soviets knew it. Those resources could have been better utilized against the Soviets, as they were in the 80s.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The Soviets made no overt acts for nearly 7 years after our departure from Vietnam.
Sorry, you're moving the goal posts. You say "overt acts" when the author cited above and in my own replies we were talking about, among other things, Soviet support for communist movements in the Third World.
Any basic history of Soviet foreign policy during the 1970s and early 1980s will document: Soviet adventurism during that period, a massive increase in strategic weapons development, their repeated flaunting of arms agreements, et cetera.
All of this occurring with our defeat in Vietnam as a backdrop. Not the cause; a cause.
Even Wikipedia is helpful here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Soviet_Union
SMG
Was Soviet expansion dormant in the 50s and 60s? Certainly not. So why should we think that Vietnam had anything but a minor impact on Soviet actions?
Would the Soviets had not invaded Afghanistan had we won in Vietnam? If your answer is yes then I would like to hear why you think so. If your answer is no then the Domino Theory does not explain Soviet aggression in the 70s and early 80s.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Was Soviet expansion dormant in the 50s and 60s? Certainly not. So why should we think that Vietnam had anything but a minor impact on Soviet actions?
Well, you're slowly (ever so) moving a bit. You now acknowledge that it had a "minor impact".
We've gone from no effect to minor impact. Some progress is being made.
The Soviets were indeed more cautious in their expansionist (expansionist - Hungary was in their sphere already) policies during the 1950s and 1960s (see the causes for the Sino-Soviet split for example).
Look, last one from me here. When we say our defeat in Vietnam led to greater challenges from our enemies, we're talking about the entire range of consequences and not just the military aspects of that conflict (the 58,000 deaths, et cetera). E.g., military drawdown, isolationist views, lack of trust in our political institutions, dislike for our military, internal dissension, et cetera.
It is absurd (sorry) to believe that a mortal enemy of the US - seeing how divided we were internally during the latter days of the Vietnam war, seeing how dispirited our military had become, seeing how isolationist the public had become - would not be emboldened (there's that nasty word again) by those trends.
The Soviets, during this period, seeing their main global rival in turmoil greatly expanded their support for communist movements in the Third World. These were policies that were far more aggressive than their approach was in the 1950s and 1960s. And the US, in turn, was more reluctant to counter those moves because of what we call the "Vietnam Syndrome".
It would have been absurd for them not to do so.
SMG
Obviously ANYTHING we do will have an impact on our allies and adversaries.
I fail to see how you can, in one hand, propel Soviet aggressiveness in Afghanistan due to American weakness but then dismiss the Soviet invasion of Hungary as being just a consolidation of Soviet power. From both a political and military perspective the invasion of Hungary was FAR more troubling than the invasion of Afghanistan and we were FAR MORE capable of deterring that invasion, if we wanted to, than the Afghan invasion which we could do absolutely nothing against.
You keep making claims with no backing. How were the Soviets MORE aggressive post-Vietnam than pre-Vietnam? Did the Soviets attempt to put nuclear missles 90 miles of the US coast before or after Vietnam? Did they begin fomenting Communist uprisings in Central and South America before or after Vietnam?
Simply saying so doesn't make it so. And, so far, you have said absolutely nothing to support the claim that the DOMINO THEORY and Vietnam were the cause of the litany of countries the author cites, to go Communist.
Honestly tying Nicaragua to Vietnam borders on the absurd and delusional.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You keep making claims with no backing
Please, you make counter-claims with no backing. Neither one of us in this venue can provide extensive footnotes or references to materials buttressing our claims. This is a blog where we make comments in generalities and without extensive (or even cursory) documentation.
No, I admit I cannot present here the minutes of every Politburo meeting where Brezhnev discussed taking advantage of a weakened United States post Vietnam.
If you actually think that the Soviet Union did not view the US coming out of the ashes of Vietnam as a weakened power, a weakened nation to be taken advantage of in geopolitical matters, then there's nothing I can present here that will dissuade you.
Because if you believe that, then you're not only ignoring the history of the Soviet Union, you're ignoring the history of 10,000 years of mankind.
SMG
If you actually think that the Soviet Union did not view the US coming out of the ashes of Vietnam as a weakened power, a weakened nation to be taken advantage of in geopolitical matters, then there's nothing I can present here that will dissuade you.
Where did I say anything such thing? My point has been, from the very beginning, that the Domino Theory and the alleged "victims" of the Domino Theory is a false premise and conclusion.
The fact that the Soviet Union leveraged our failure in Vietnam does not vindicate those who believe in the Domino Theory. It simply exemplifies the basic fact of world affairs that weakness can be used by your adversaries.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Having said the above does NOT mean I believe that Vietnam had anything directly to do with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However it could be argued that our lost of political, economic, and military muscle because of Vietnam did. However it could be just as easily argued that had we avoided Vietnam all together we would have been far stronger in 1975 than had we won Vietnam, Domino Theory be darned.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
over all but the Lower 48. The domino theorists said that if we let Vietnam go communist that many more would also go communist. We did and many did. The key to the theory is "let". Weakness invited more aggression. Kind of like the letting by Clinton and the kind of letting the Dems are anxious to re-visit.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Let's try and avoid absurd extremes. Choosing to not get involved in a former French colony and allowing Communism to spread to areas of strategic importance to us are 2 completely different matter.
Who was the "aggressor" in Nicaragua? Who was the aggressor in Grenada?
If you want to say that Laos and Cambodia fell because of Vietnam that's one thing. But to suggest that nations on the other side of the globe 15 years later turned to Communism because of Vietnam defies all reason.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Getting lazy and only reading the subject line before launching into extremely absurd accusations of extreme absurdity coupled with totally unrelated questions? But let's break this down, especially since you seem to be living in "Moral Equivalency World Citizen nation" today while enjoying the affluence, comfort and safety of the evil aggressor whose founders owned slaves Imperialist responsible for all the ills of the world post-Clinton France II, aka USA.
Satellite TV of our surrender and later abandonment of our S Viet ally coupled with Carter's kiss and admonition to let go of our "inordinate fear of communism" led directly to the USSR's decision to topple the Afghan domino. Much as Europe's appeasement of Hitler on the March led to dominoes falling. Weakness invites aggression and by-standers choose strong horses.
Its not "that Vietnam fell", its that we "let them fall", thus making it clear we were no deterrent to the falling of more dominoes.
Think of bullies and lunch money until someone punches the bully, ie The Real World.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
You feeling ok this morning? Your first paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Anyway if I am reading you correctly you aren't advocating that the Domino Theory was correct as much as claiming that American failures bolstered Soviet aggression. Is this the case?
While I would argue that Soviet weakness, rather than American weakness, was what prompted the Afghan invasion I can at least see your point and say that is a reasonable one.
Doesn't really address the original author's claim that Nicaragua, Grenada, et al. turned to Communism due to some nebulous Domino Theory.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
When I feel this way I tend to write first paragraphs at a post-graduate school for MENSA level. My apologies. I was trying to shame you into loving America (the good guys) more than the admiration of egghead liberal intellectuals and trial lawyers...
smile, sort of (btw, have you met your cousin Tenniru)
big smile
as the two of you combine to sap the rooster of the stamina to service the henhouse...
But yes, you make good points here. I would simply say that the domino theory presumes and is the logical result of American failure, since we had the power but not the will to prevent falling dominoes.
The USSR in the late 70s did have economic problems they sought to solve by raping Afghanistan, but they had dangerous strategic advantages thanks to the post-Vietnam retreat by McGovern Dem party dominated appeasement including the gutting of intel and defense and refusal to confront the USSR.
you should read "Reagan's War"
The USSR was actually discussing the possibility of a first strike pre-Reagan.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Not sure who or what tenniru is.
Certainly anytime the US loses in a diplomatic, military, or political matter, it damages our national interests. I doubt that anyone with even a cursory understanding of world affairs would disagree with that.
However that doesn't mean that continuing a losing fight interminably is the proper course either. Sometimes the best course of action is take your lumps and move on.
It is difficult to talk about hypothetical alternate histories but what would have happened had.
a) we not engaged in Vietnam?
b) we continued the fight for another 5 to 10 years in Vietnam?
I don't know the answers to these questions obviously but my belief is that our entry into Vietnam delayed the end of the Cold War and that had we continued to fight in Vietnam for another 5-10 years we would have seen more dead Americans and a lengthening of the Cold War. Of course I have no way to really prove that so this really means very little.
As for the USSR, I suspect that anything short of the US threatening nuclear attacks in response to the Afghan invasion, would have done little to stop the Soviets. We had no means TO stop them. And they were in desperate need of the strategic gains of a Soviet controlled Afghanistan.
One final note. The Soviets may have considered a first strike option in the 70, but that consideration would have likely ended very quickly. At the time the US possessed a vastly superior nuclear strategic force. Russian nukes were woefully inaccurate at the time and would likely have done very little against our land-based nukes. And our boomers were essentially untouchable by the Russians. They literally had no idea where they were. So while they could have killed tens of millions of Americans they would have assured their own self-destruction as our response strike would have wiped out their remaining nuclear forces, their military, and just about every Russian city.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Truth be told the Soviets were likely disappointed with our withdrawal
Scene, Politburo meeting, November 1975.
Brezhnev: "Comrades, the glorious fatherland is in a serious crisis. We must take drastic action!"
Suslov: "General Secretary, what is it? What has happened?
Brezhnev: "The Americans have been utterly defeated in Vietnam! Their military is in tatters, their people divided fighting one another in the streets!"
Silence.
Suslov (laughing uproariously): "General Secretary, you knucklehead!! You're such a kidder!
Brezhnev (laughing uncontrollable): "Yeah, but I had you there for a second, didn't I? As if anyone would believe such a story! More vodka!!"
[When we remove people, we remove them. The fact that you've mistaken your favorite porn provider for a serious political commentator is actually vaguely irrelevant, and now, so are you.]
[PS: Be grateful that I've deleted your comment completely: your whining about free speech issues clashed horribly with your compatriot's attempt to DOS our comments section. - Moe Lane]
we've found an entire turkey for you.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
A billion cajillion Iraqis dead. And all done by US forces chopping off their heads with soup spoons.
The movement of communism to places like Ethiopia or Central America had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the fall of Viet Nam.
Okay.
You believe that the defeat of the US in Vietnam played no role in Soviet expansionism in the 1970s and 1980s? That once seeing the US retreat from Southeast Asia, that the Soviets rolled up their tent and went home?
No support for other Communist movements in Africa and elsewhere? No anti-US forces took the defeat by the US in Vietnam as a sign of anything?
Okay.
Umm, have you read any books on Soviet foreign policy-making during this period?
SMG
SMG:
I am shocked that you do not understand the reality of Vietnam. The freedom loving revolutionary movements sprung up precisely because of the excesses in Vietnam of the running dog imperialist jackbooted storm troopers of the US.
did however pave the away for our victory in the Cold War by making possible the opening to China. However "weak" America looked on paper in the late 70s, it is important to note that with the de facto alliance with China the containment of the Soviet Union was completed. And it was this geopolitical fact I believe that emboldened the Soviets to start up a new round of trouble-making throughout the world.
What "de facto alliance with China" are you talking about?
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
it is important to note that with the de facto alliance with China the containment of the Soviet Union was completed.
De facto alliance?
The Soviets and China had split years earlier (early 1960s) when Mao and Khrushchev broke over ideological differences re dealing with the West/capitalist pigs (umm, that was us).
Whether we had recognized Peking or not, the Soviets were going to have to "watch" their neighbors to the East.
Re: What "de facto alliance with China" are you talking about?
Obviously there were no public treaties signed. But just as obviously the US made it very clear to the Soviet Union that they were not to invade let alone nuke China, or depose its leadership (and in fact the Soviets considered these things om the late 60s; there appaers to have been an attempt at a coup in 1969, with the failed plotters fleeing toward Russia but crashing in the Gobi Desert). And just as obviously the Chinese, while keeping up all their Maoist rhetoric, agreed not to meddle in American interests anywhere else as long as America made no threatening moves on their borders (Korea and SE Asia) and kept Japan pacifist. We will probably never know the verbal deals cut by Kissinger and Chao en Lai (sp?), but they scared the daylights of the Soviets whose worst nightmares came not from the West but from the East. From 1971 onward the Soviets always had to keep an eye on their back knowing full well that the US had the China trump card ready to play if it ever came to open hostilities. The Afghanistan nvasion was a desperate and doomed attempt to flank the strategy by breaking out of the containment ring the US had closed (which had also been ruptured by the fall of the Shah and the ensuing crisis in Iran). When that failed, and with the resolute Mr Reagan in charge and threatening wonderous new technologies to counter Societ nuclear force (the "evil empire's" principle claim to strength and power) it was game over for the Soviets and needed only for the realist Gorbachev to come along and accept it.
that is the most fanciful and illogical rendition of history I have ever heard.
there were no public treaties signed. But just as obviously ...there appaers to have been ...And just as obviously...We will probably never know the verbal deals cut by Kissinger ...The Afghanistan nvasion was a desperate and doomed attempt to flank the strategy ...the realist Gorbachev to come along and accept it.
I write a lot better fiction than this. In the first place, good fiction requires the "willing suspension of disbelief." Yours does not pass the smell test.
Conjecture...supposition..speculation...
Might I suggest a create writing class at a Junior College.
one in which Russia and China were firm allies in the Cold War? Maybe one in which the Soviets won the Cold War? Or may I ask how old you are that you are unaware of this history and dismiss it a "fiction"? Most of these events happened when I was still a child, but what I have relayed to you is simply the history I have read in reputable books and heard by word of mouth (from my Republican, very anti-Communist father, for one). Please do tell us what happened in your world's history, or what odd history books you read that do not include Nixon's Chinese-US detente and its devastating effects of Soviet ambitions. I mean I really thought these things were commonly known and quite uncontroversial, beyond the reach of any political correctness or ideological airbrushing. Which would be especially weird here on RedState as we are talking about the geopolitical successes of GOP presidents!
reversed a decade long US appeasement of the Soviets with a strategy even Kissinger himself says should have been his policy a decade earlier, ie WE WIN, THEY LOSE, ie Peace thru Strength and confrontation, including saying NO at Reykjavik.
Another alternate universe credits Carter with scaring the USSR into freeing its millions of slaves by threatening to kiss Gorby's birthmark and include Amy in summit talks.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
With Viet Name came the national taboo against using our troops to defend our beliefs abroad. That shift to realism caused us to turn more toward technology and armaments in substitution for blood, both to buy friends and to deter the Soviets. The logical culmination of that was SDI.
Meanwhile, Vietnam led to Carter's paralysis over the Iranian hostages, which gave us Mr. Reagan.
So pulling out of Vietnam won the Cold War.
(The above is an example of the folly of viewing history with simple cause and effect, when in reality everything causes everything else.)
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.