|
Nnanji -> RE: What is the world coming to under Trump (9/11/2017 4:14:27 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoscoX
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji
First a Republican president does a deal with Democrats. No link, you've all seen it.
Now:
http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Did-the-Saudi-Crown-Prince-make-a-covert-visit-to-Israel-504777
Arab leaders visiting Israel.
But... Didn't Jimmy Carter bring peace to the Middle East??? They all said... !
Now President TRUMP is doing it instead???
You're comparing el presidente to Carter?
I thought that was a terminal insult* in republican circles...
*(an insult so insulting that if you say it to somebody, one of you is going to die)
Carter was an awesome human being but leader, not so much.
I daresay that he couldn't lead pissants to a picnic.
I don't think he could lead ants to a picnic, but I think he would make a good neighbor.
We're agreed on that
Carter and then Gorbachev ended the cold war. Just because the propaganda has it that Reagan-speak turned it around, tell me when the Soviets did anything because they were told to or because of words.
Revisionist history is strong in this one.
Well you are going to need much more than that. What did Reagan do ? Nothing but talk. When Reagan told Gorby no at Iceland which was in fact reversed when Gorbachev balked at what was going to be SDI. Still, it was hailed as if it was the fucking second coming. You know, that liberal media was all flowers and praise simply for saying no to what...dropping SDI at a Salt II negotiation.
The real history:
The Reagan proposals for broad reductions in nuclear arms reflected an effort by Reagan Administration officials to deflect the criticism directed at them by antinuclear activists for continuing the arms race. By proposing reductions that the Soviets were sure to resist, the Reagan Administration could blame the ongoing arms race on the Soviet Union and justify continued U.S. development of strategic weapons. At the same time, however, this approach to arms control led Moscow to abandon talks in 1983.
After Mikhail Gorbachev took power in the Soviet Union in 1985, the two countries resumed arms control discussions. At a summit meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, Reagan once again proposed a fifty percent reduction in long range strategic weapons. At this point, Gorbachev was far more inclined to consider the proposal and act upon it, because economic problems in the Soviet Union made ending, or at least curtailing, the expensive nuclear arms race a necessity.
What prevented a deal at this juncture was not the ambitious nature of the proposal, but the ongoing U.S. research into a missile defense system under President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. The Soviets argued that under the1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty developing a missile defense system was illegal, and they demanded that the United States halt research on the project before any agreement be reached on long-range strategic weapons reductions.
A 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union provided a way around this impasse by calling for fifty percent reductions in long-range strategic weapons and a new treaty to reconfirm a mutual commitment to the ABM Treaty. Although this agreement appeared to have solved the problem, the treaty was not completed before the end of the Reagan Administration.
Tell me just why it was important to include intermediate range nukes in Salt II ?
It is proper to quote your sources. I'm sure wearecommies.com would appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
