In his January 16, 1984 address, Reagan introduced a strategy for attaining cooperation and understanding between the superpowers. The first element of this strategy was the institutionalization of superpower dialog. “We must and will engage the Soviets in a dialogue as constructive as possible,” declared the only president in forty years never to have met his Soviet counterpart. “High level consultations should become a regular and normal component of U.S.-Soviet relations.” The aim of these meetings would be to reduce the threat of war and to rectify misunderstandings. “We seek genuine cooperation and cooperation begins with communication,” Reagan announced, “In our approach to negotiations, reducing the risk of war — and especially nuclear war — is priority number one.” Notably, the president did not link these talks to changes in Soviet international behavior. This directly contradicted the administration’s earlier position on summit meetings.
Reagan’s call for dialogue held a sense of urgency, as was evident in his assertion that Washington “must and will” enter into talks with the Kremlin. The president also proclaimed, “The fact that neither of us like the other’s system is no reason not to talk. Living in the nuclear age makes it imperative that we do talk.”
Reagan Brought Down The Berlin War With Diplomacy, Not Threats
21 Comments to “Reagan Brought Down The Berlin War With Diplomacy, Not Threats”
-
Lot’s of people think the wall came down because Russia simply ran out of money trying to keep up with us.
-
I remember in an earlier (and by now infamous) thread trying to make this very point to (ahem) a gentleman, who refused to accept that it actually was Reagan himself who overrode his advisers and insisted on sincere talks with Gorbachev. It was the very best thing he did. For all the talk of strength and war we hear, the conservatives forget it was their very own St. Ronnie who did the very thing they constantly scorn. He talked. And the world changed. (and I’m no fan of Reagan’s, but this one thing he did right.)
-
[Lot’s of people think the wall came down because Russia simply ran out of money trying to keep up with us.]
That’s probably part of it, but their economy was in shambles, anyway.
-
[the conservatives forget it was their very own St. Ronnie who did the very thing they constantly scorn.]
“St. Ronnie” — I like that. 🙂 Right-wingers do make Reagan out to be a saint, even though he was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.
-
-
OK, I think I’ve figured out the comment thing…just have to page down far enough to find the reply window.
Reagan…isn’t he the guy they’re going to put on the one dollar bill? Washington, schmashington. Reagan was a god.
-
Mr. Hoffman, Ms. Holland,
Both of you have such a limited knowledge of what you are talking about. I also have to admit that my memory of the Reagan years is not so good that I can just correct your mistakes on the fly. You force me to research the subject.
I’d like to bring up some background on what was happening. With the election of Reagan, the US reversed it’s post Vietnam military weakness. Reagan increased military spending.
Let’s compare that with the USSR. They were well in to their own economic and military decline. Decades of Centralized planning were catching up to them. They also had major political problems, separate from the economy.
Brezhnez died early in Reagan’s first term. They were followed by two old men with health problems Andropov and Chernenko, who were not in a condition to really stand up to President Reagan.
Andropov actually enacted economic reforms that may have helped the Soviets limp along, but when he died Chernenko ended them. Reagan remarked that he could not get anywhere with the Russians because their leaders kept dying. By the time Gorbachov came along American strength and Russian weakness gave Reagan a huge edge in negotiations.
Reagan provoked the Russians with threatened deployment in Europe of Pershing and Tomahawk missiles. This along with the threat of SDI scared the hell out of the Russians. This is what actually worked. PROVE ME WRONG!
Please look up everything I tell you. Also look up what the liberals here and in Europe were saying about how Reagan was going to blow up the world.
Compare how Reagan won with strength and how President Obama tries to bamboozal Islamic Terrorism with weakness. BS may have made him President, but it only goes so far with evil.
You won’t find these truths in your socialist history rewrites.
-
[Also look up what the liberals here and in Europe were saying about how Reagan was going to blow up the world.]
You’re saying Reagan scared them into tearing down the wall? That’s a little nutty, Alan.
-
-
Mr. Hoffman,
“You’re saying Reagan scared them into tearing down the wall? That’s a little nutty, Alan.”
Overly simplistic, but ahhhh yea. It certainly is less “nutty” than you two saying that all Reagan did was negotiate.
I hope you checked my facts. I certainly gave more relevant background information than you and Ms. Holland.
I will repeat my point. Ronald Reagan understood that you negotiate from strength. That meant Pershing, Tomahawk, and SDI.
As opposed to your hero who canceled the East Europe missile shield for empty promises from Russia. Call him Chaimbelin or Carter, President Obama has no clue how to deal with America’s enemies. And worrying about what the Europeans think of us is amazingly stupid. The Europeans hated Reagan as much as they hated George Bush.
It will take a few years as it did with Carter to have something expose Obama’s weakness.
-
Ah, yes… The anatomy of a right-winger argument: straw-men, fallacies, and the cherry picking of facts.
[It certainly is less “nutty” than you two saying that all Reagan did was negotiate.]
I believe that would be a logical fallacy. Nobody said all he did was negotiate. Diplomacy is more than just negotiating; it’s going to the table with a position of mutual respect. Gorbachev came to power with a platform of reform, which opened the door to diplomacy. Reagan also contributed to the destruction of the Soviet’s already failing economy by getting Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices (Russia’s economy is highly reliant on the sale of oil). There were many factors that brought down the Berlin wall, but threats were not the reason.
[I certainly gave more relevant background information than you and Ms. Holland.]
Well, sure… You cherry picked facts that supported your opinion. That doesn’t prove your opinion to be fact.
[Ronald Reagan understood that you negotiate from strength.]
I don’t think too many people would disagree that its best to negotiate from a position of strength, but was it really worth all the money we spent on SDI — especially since it never came to fruition? Reagan tripled the federal debt, which in the long run has made us weak. Obama is now negotiating with China from a position of weakness since we owe them so much money.
[As opposed to your hero who canceled the East Europe missile shield for empty promises from Russia.]
I guess that would be a straw-man argument. First of all, democrats generally don’t elevate politicians and pundits to the status of “hero.” We’re of the opinion that politicians work for us. Second, Obama and Medvedev are now working together to control Iran’s nuclear ambitions. There was an article in the N.Y. Times today about it.
[The Europeans hated Reagan as much as they hated George Bush.]
So it doesn’t matter if people hate us? Isn’t that why we were attacked on 9/11?
[It will take a few years as it did with Carter to have something expose Obama’s weakness.]
It only took eight months to expose Bush’s weakness.
-
-
Mr. Hoffman,
“It only took eight months to expose Bush’s weakness.”
So 911 was George Bush’s fault?????I would say it exposed the intelligence weaknesses of the Clinton Administration, along with the real damage inflicted on the intelligence community by Democrats putting in firewalls between the FBI and the CIA. Deny it if you can.
“The anatomy of a right-winger argument: straw-men, fallacies, and the cherry picking of facts.”
Cherry picking facts. You mean like this cherry pit, “Reagan also contributed to the destruction of the Soviet’s already failing economy by getting Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices ”
In case you are not quite aware of the FACTS, there was a world wide oil glut in the mid to late 80s. I’m not saying that there is not an atom of truth in what you said, but not much more than an atom.
“There were many factors that brought down the Berlin wall, but threats were not the reason.”
If you look back in our discussion, it was you who injected the Berlin Wall falling, in to the arms reduction discussion. The two are related, but not identical in their causes. Reagan threatening to deploy missiles in Europe and forcing the Russians to consider having to fund their own SDI, most definitely brought about the arms treaty. I can more than match you fact for fact comrade.
“but was it really worth all the money we spent on SDI — especially since it never came to fruition? Reagan tripled the federal debt, which in the long run has made us weak. Obama is now negotiating with China from a position of weakness since we owe them so much money.”
You liberals never will learn the lessons from the cold war. How much money would a nuclear war have cost???????????????? I’d say SDI was an incredible bargain. Do not forget that Ronnie Raygun did not triple the federal debt all by hisself. There was a Democratic Congress blissfully buying votes with my taxpayer money. Back then they called it PORK. Today Nancy Pelosi calls it transparency.
Your hero Obama does not even have national defense to blame for his record deficits. The TARP and porkulus bills are only the current problems. If Obama-care goes through, Barak the Great will have to have knee pads sewn in to his trousers, for the position he will be negotiating from in front of the Chinese.
“First of all, democrats generally don’t elevate politicians and pundits to the status of “hero.””
Did you pound that one out on your keyboard with a straight face? President Obama, as of yet, has no accomplishments as President. Yet at his ascension to his throne, he was acclaimed by one and all as an historic President. He and his lovely wife graced the covers of innumerable magazines and newspapers.
Then there was the immortal, “Barak Hussein Obama, mmm,mmm,mmm, Barak Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.” And then there was the Nobel Peace Prize. Granted it was not just Democrats that raised him beyond hero, to Superhero status, but I pretty much just lump you all together.
-
[along with the real damage inflicted on the intelligence community by Democrats putting in firewalls between the FBI and the CIA. Deny it if you can.]
Do you have any evidence to support that claim or did you just pull it out of your ass?
[In case you are not quite aware of the FACTS, there was a world wide oil glut in the mid to late 80s. I’m not saying that there is not an atom of truth in what you said, but not much more than an atom.]
A lot of historians would disagree with your analysis. Look it up.
[How much money would a nuclear war have cost? I’d say SDI was an incredible bargain.]
I believe that would be a straw-man argument. Nuclear war would have resulted in mutual annihilation. I don’t think the Russians were that crazy.
[The TARP and porkulus bills are only the current problems.]
The TARP was awarded before Obama took office and Obama is now considering using the remainder of it to cut the deficit. The stimulus has created and saved a lot of jobs, and may have prevented our economy from plummeting into a full scale depression.
[And then there was the Nobel Peace Prize.]
You’re just jealous. 🙂
-
-
Mister Hoffman,
“[And then there was the Nobel Peace Prize.]
You’re just jealous. 🙂 ”
I have to give you that point on pure humor.
“[In case you are not quite aware of the FACTS, there was a world wide oil glut in the mid to late 80s. I’m not saying that there is not an atom of truth in what you said, but not much more than an atom.]
A lot of historians would disagree with your analysis. Look it up.”
I don’t have to look it up, I remember it.
“[How much money would a nuclear war have cost? I’d say SDI was an incredible bargain.]
I believe that would be a straw-man argument. Nuclear war would have resulted in mutual annihilation. I don’t think the Russians were that crazy.”
It’s not a question of the Russians being crazy. With so many atomic fire crackers ready to go off, any misunderstanding could have triggered WW3.
“[along with the real damage inflicted on the intelligence community by Democrats putting in firewalls between the FBI and the CIA. Deny it if you can.]
Do you have any evidence to support that claim or did you just pull it out of your ass?”
If you visited conservative sources this would be old hat for you. I don’t expect you to trust my source but I give it anyway.
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/Two_Cents/2cworth.040417.html
“9-11 Commission member Gorelick prevented information sharing between divisions of FBI to enforce Carter-era laws banning cooperation between the CIA, FBI and other intelligence mechanisms.”
-
Who the hell is John Christian Ryter? lol! That’s your source?
If there are laws that prevented information sharing, what are they and why weren’t they repealed with the homeland security act? Sorry Alan, but I think you’re full of crap.
-
-
Mr. Hoffman,
Unfortunately I am going from memory and I found a site that confirmed what I said. I will search and try to find a more neutral source that you may accept. I did not just pull it out of my ass. A few years ago this was the accepted viewpoint among us right wingers. Now that the 911 commission report and the accompanying news have faded in to history, it’s more difficult to just pull up the proof.
I will stop making excuses and as time permits try to better document my statement.
-
Mr. Hoffman,
I offer the following.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956
Gorelick’s Wall
excerpts:
“”In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.”
” But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.”
“1995, memo in which Jamie Gorelick–then Deputy Attorney General and now 9/11 Commissioner–instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of “appearances” they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required.”
-
Well, it appears that the author of that opinion piece took a few liberties with the facts. Actually, Ashcroft was blamed for creating the “wall, which it appears had been in existence since the late seventies.
These are the words of John Ashcroft:
First, I did not invent the “wall,” which is not a wall but a set of procedures implementing a 1978 statute (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA) and federal court decisions interpreting it. In a nutshell, that law, as the courts read it, said intelligence investigators could conduct electronic surveillance in the United States against foreign targets under a more lenient standard than is required in ordinary criminal cases, but only if the “primary purpose” of the surveillance were foreign intelligence rather than a criminal prosecution.
Read the entire transcript here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20786-2004Apr17
-
-
Mr. Hoffman,
I am trying to be polite, but one of us can’t read.
“At last week’s hearing, Attorney General John Ashcroft, facing criticism, asserted that “the single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents” and that I built that wall through a March 1995 memo. This is simply not true.”
The author Jamie Gorelick in defending herself said that Ashcroft blaming her for the wall was untrue. I can’t find where Ashcroft was blamed for the wall.
I would also point out that your party controlled Congress in 1978, when the FISA law came to be.
So if you take Jamie’s 95 memo and pair it with the 78 law, it sure does look like a smoking gun, or should I say smoking Democratic Party installed firewall.
-
[So if you take Jamie’s 95 memo and pair it with the 78 law, it sure does look like a smoking gun, or should I say smoking Democratic Party installed firewall.]
Please, you’re just trying to figure out a way to blame democrats. The FISA law didn’t prevent communications between agencies. It just defined guidelines for sharing information so prosecutions wouldn’t be hampered.
We’re seeing now what happens when laws are broken when dealing with terrorists. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was tortured into talking, which makes whatever he said inadmissible in court.
-
-
Mr. Hoffman,
I have no problem if they water boarded the terrorist. I think they should have really tortured the worthless bastard. I don’t care whether they can admit evidence. This whole trial is a farce. The water boarding was done to save American lives. If some idiot like Obama wants to give a foreign terrorist rights and then the guy is acquitted it will be on Obama’s head. Besides you do realize that now Mr. Mohammed has been given a presumption of innocence. He can claim his confession was coerced and get it thrown out.
So how can the administration give him a fair trial while saying he is guilty? They have tainted the jury pool. A halfway OK lawyer can make a circus out of this. A lawyer can demand to confront the spies we have and expose them. This is not about justice. This is about Obama caving in to his brain dead left wing commie base and trying to put the Bush Presidency on trial. It will blow up in your faces.
Closing Guantanamo is equally brain dead. Figuratively these clowns are lepers. Short of shooting them, letting them rot in Guantanamo is absolutely the best that could happen to them.
I hope I sound heartless. You liberal appeasers will be the death of my country.
-
[The water boarding was done to save American lives.]
That’s not true. The waterboarding was done to try to get KSM to say there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and bin-Laden so Bush could invade Iraq. The intelligence gathered was worthless.
[This is about Obama caving in to his brain dead left wing commie base and trying to put the Bush Presidency on trial.]
Ha! And that really pisses you off since you were one of his little sheep. Baaaaaa…
[You liberal appeasers will be the death of my country.]
You right-wing nut-jobs have already destroyed our country. You’ve destroyed our economy. You’ve destroyed everything our founding fathers envisioned for this country. You’re just a scared little sheep who needs the president to act tough so you feel safe.
-
-
Mr. Hoffman,
“You’re just a scared little sheep who needs the president to act tough so you feel safe.”
Well with Obama as Prez,,,like uh that will ever happen.
Obama only gets tough on his fellow Americans. If he would only sick his street thugs on the terrorists, the way he sicked them on the bonus babies of AIG, then I could sleep at night.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×3793848
“That’s not true. The waterboarding was done to try to get KSM to say there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and bin-Laden so Bush could invade Iraq. The intelligence gathered was worthless.”
I don’t know specifically about the intelligence from KSM, but neither do you. I do know that numerous plots after 911 were disrupted by intelligence. That information came from somewhere. The terrorists were not calling your progressive buddies at the NYtimes, giving them the latest scoops on the plots. If they had the Times would have protected their sources and not forwarded the information to the hated CIA.
DRUDGE RETORT 