Ken Follett's opinion of the fall of Communism (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Agree or disagree with what?

With Follett's premise: that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism, that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" had nothing to do with the wall coming down, that this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater, and that most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn.

The quote you gave us does not say this is his opinion....

I tried to restart the Berlin Wall thread because it's a good topic but that thread was really on point.

I agree, can't really do anything with the Follett snippet, it's fictional to start with and doesn't even say what Tim says it says.

What I see Follett doing is attempting to make it appear that conservatives purposely spun history in a way they know is not true. It is kind of like creating a strawmen out of a fake alias to prove your point. Tim knows about doing that. I see the Star Wars and military buildup as secondary to the true role that Reagan played, which was through creating a relationship with Gorbachev like no two leaders of opposing superpowers have ever done in history. To deny Reagan credit for that is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, I agree. It's of a piece with the whole Cold War. Reagan brought it home, but it was 40-50 years in the making. And he saw the moment with Gorbachev and where the USSR was at and he stepped up. It's amazing what happened, truly is.

 

[jon_mx]

n the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.

There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

That's Reagan himself. You can see he is plainly pointing out all the factors that had led the USSR to the point they were at, defeated in ideology and left behind culturally and economically.

I'm not sure that those who say Reagan is the end all be all of destroying the USSR and worldwide communism (China changed dramatically after Tienanenmen Square too in `89 btw) realize what Reagan himself said, nor do those who wish to denigrate everything that Reagan did. Personally I think this speech was a big deal, his saying what he said and how and where he said it was a wonderful thing and important, but it's not like he was Gabriel at the Walls of Jericho. But does anyone really say that, even Reagan's biggest supporters?

Reagan himself correctly gives Gorbachev most of the credit. I don't think too many people argue that Reagan was the sole reason for the fall of the Soviet Union. But Reagan played an vital role, albeit an important secondary role to what Gorbachev did. Gorbachev would not have gone as far as he did without the trust he built with Reagan.

 

[Riversco]

Agree or disagree with what?

With Follett's premise: that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism, that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" had nothing to do with the wall coming down, that this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater, and that most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn.

The quote you gave us does not say this is his opinion....

I tried to restart the Berlin Wall thread because it's a good topic but that thread was really on point.

I agree, can't really do anything with the Follett snippet, it's fictional to start with and doesn't even say what Tim says it says.

What I see Follett doing is attempting to make it appear that conservatives purposely spun history in a way they know is not true. It is kind of like creating a strawmen out of a fake alias to prove your point. Tim knows about doing that. I see the Star Wars and military buildup as secondary to the true role that Reagan played, which was through creating a relationship with Gorbachev like no two leaders of opposing superpowers have ever done in history. To deny Reagan credit for that is ridiculous.

I don't know about any of that but Tim is stupid.

 

[jon_mx]

Agree or disagree with what?

With Follett's premise: that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism, that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" had nothing to do with the wall coming down, that this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater, and that most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn.

The quote you gave us does not say this is his opinion....

I tried to restart the Berlin Wall thread because it's a good topic but that thread was really on point.

I agree, can't really do anything with the Follett snippet, it's fictional to start with and doesn't even say what Tim says it says.

What I see Follett doing is attempting to make it appear that conservatives purposely spun history in a way they know is not true. It is kind of like creating a strawmen out of a fake alias to prove your point. Tim knows about doing that. I see the Star Wars and military buildup as secondary to the true role that Reagan played, which was through creating a relationship with Gorbachev like no two leaders of opposing superpowers have ever done in history. To deny Reagan credit for that is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, I agree. It's of a piece with the whole Cold War. Reagan brought it home, but it was 40-50 years in the making. And he saw the moment with Gorbachev and where the USSR was at and he stepped up. It's amazing what happened, truly is.

And if we are talking about the literal fall of the wall, the story is interesting. A German official flippantly made a comment about immediately allowing the free flow of people between east and west Berlin. A security guard not knowing what to do as thousands of people gathered, took those words to heart and opened the gate to the large crowd and the wall began to fall.

 

[DocHolliday]

Sounds like the book is not worth reading for a few reasons. That is too bad. I was looking forward to it.

 

[timschochet]

Agree or disagree with what?

With Follett's premise: that Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of Communism, that "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" had nothing to do with the wall coming down, that this speech was enhanced after the fact to make Reagan's legacy greater, and that most of our efforts to win the Cold War after 1948 were disastrous almost complete failures at every turn.

The quote you gave us does not say this is his opinion....

I tried to restart the Berlin Wall thread because it's a good topic but that thread was really on point.

I agree, can't really do anything with the Follett snippet, it's fictional to start with and doesn't even say what Tim says it says.

What I see Follett doing is attempting to make it appear that conservatives purposely spun history in a way they know is not true. It is kind of like creating a strawmen out of a fake alias to prove your point. Tim knows about doing that. I see the Star Wars and military buildup as secondary to the true role that Reagan played, which was through creating a relationship with Gorbachev like no two leaders of opposing superpowers have ever done in history. To deny Reagan credit for that is ridiculous.

I don't know about any of that but Tim is stupid.

lol

 

[chet]

I am reading the book right now. I like Follett and will read just about anything he writes but I don't rely on him to help form my political opinion. He's a British writer--nothing more.

IMO, Reagan will continue to be known as one of the best presidents in this country's history.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

BTW, I never said I agreed with Follett. I just thought that passage was startling and worth discussion.

.

I disagree. The premise is so fundamentally flawed and ignorant of history that it can't be taken seriouslyYou could study the fall of communism and US policy and it successes and failures to combat totalitarian Communism and Follet's contribution that you quoted would add nothing to the discussion.

 

[jonessed]

Nice to see that Jon is still following the Limbaugh approach: say it often enough and someone will believe it.

Anyone who lived in that era knows the impact Reagan had. Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev. Reagan's rejuvenating the morale of the US. Reagan's buildup of America's military strength. Reagan's Berlin speech delivered one of the most powerful lines of the 20th Century when he powerfully asked, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

This piece of history of two fictitious characters offered by Follett is complete garbage and only represents the hypothetical mumblings of a couple of left-wing idiots might say. In all likelihood those same two clowns would have thought Reagan's speech was that of a war-monger and would have characterized communism as a great form of government if only they had the right leadership. Only in hindsight would they say that the fall of communism was inevitable. In their hearts they dreamed of a big government socialized state would succeed. There is not one shred of evidence provided that supports any of the non-sense those buffoons said. ### you, BTW.

I lived in that era and knew that a nation of simpletons was being fed a phony bill of goods and lapping it up with gusto. The War on Drugs, the marginalization of minorities and the blatant overspending on the military, all of which fit into the category of "rejuvenating the morale of the US" and which are really last gasps at preserving an ideal of America on the way out, can be laid at that man's feet. And let's not forget his outright hostility towards alternative energies, which will eventually have a greater impact on life on this planet than anything else. His idea that we can just send the troops in and take what we need because "America" was almost criminal in nature. So #### you and all the true believers from an era of going backwards.

 

[igbomb]

Looks like Tim's little jab at Reagan really stirred jon up. Seems a little touchy on that one.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Looks like Tim's little jab at Reagan really stirred jon up. Seems a little touchy on that one.

Shaken, not stirred.

 

[jon_mx]

Looks like Tim's little jab at Reagan really stirred jon up. Seems a little touchy on that one.

LOL.....Yeah, and Tim still denies he is a flaming liberal. Well maybe he is not a flamer, but a liberal by most any measure despite the fact liberals don't claim him.

 

[timschochet]

First off, it wasn't my jab, it was Follett's. Personally I've always been a fan of the Gipper, especially since I visited his Library a few years back. I learned a lot I didn't know. I think Reagan was a great man and a very good President (and a lousy governor of California, but that's separate.)

However, I don't think its demeaning to Reagan to suggest that his role in ending the Soviets has been overstated. After all, he never took credit for that; his followers did. I find jon's argument that Reagan's support of Gorbachev gave the Soviet leader greater legitimacy to be ludicrous and the exact opposite of the truth. Reagan didn't give Gorbachev any support until he was forced into it. Had Reagam given support to Gorbachev that would have weakened, not strengthened Gorbachev's reforms.

Much as I like Reagan, most of his foreign policy was disastrous by any definition. We supported a murderous dictatorship in El Salvador. We supported terrorists attempting to overthrow Nicaragua. We supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and extremists in Lebanon, and Apartheid in Souyh Africa. We've been paying for these errors ever since. Reagan's responses to Gorbachev's reforms and the Solidarity movement in Poland were tepid. Not seeing a whole lot of positive here.

 

[jon_mx]

First off, it wasn't my jab, it was Follett's. Personally I've always been a fan of the Gipper, especially since I visited his Library a few years back. I learned a lot I didn't know. I think Reagan was a great man and a very good President (and a lousy governor of California, but that's separate.)

However, I don't think its demeaning to Reagan to suggest that his role in ending the Soviets has been overstated. After all, he never took credit for that; his followers did. I find jon's argument that Reagan's support of Gorbachev gave the Soviet leader greater legitimacy to be ludicrous and the exact opposite of the truth. Reagan didn't give Gorbachev any support until he was forced into it. Had Reagam given support to Gorbachev that would have weakened, not strengthened Gorbachev's reforms.

Much as I like Reagan, most of his foreign policy was disastrous by any definition. We supported a murderous dictatorship in El Salvador. We supported terrorists attempting to overthrow Nicaragua. We supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and extremists in Lebanon, and Apartheid in Souyh Africa. We've been paying for these errors ever since. Reagan's responses to Gorbachev's reforms and the Solidarity movement in Poland were tepid. Not seeing a whole lot of positive here.

And your criticism is even more ludicrous. You think there are/were better options in the middle east? Yeah, Saddam and the Taliban suck....but we get rid of them and ISIS steps in. Nobody has a solution for those ###holes. The reason for getting behind Saddam was that Iran was even a bigger mess. There are no good answers in the Middle East, and Reagan was no better or worse than any of the Democrats whose foreign policy you worship. And BTW, Reagan was not forced into supporting Gorbachev. Reagan changed his stance of calling the Soviets and evil empire and trying to work with the Soviets as soon as Gorbachev rose to power. Reagan nuclear weapons deals did more to wipe out nuclear weapons than any treaty to date. Reagan worked hard on coming to common ground with Gorbachev and their personal relationship went a long ways towards achieving the eventual collapse.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Nice to see that Jon is still following the Limbaugh approach: say it often enough and someone will believe it.

Anyone who lived in that era knows the impact Reagan had. Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev. Reagan's rejuvenating the morale of the US. Reagan's buildup of America's military strength. Reagan's Berlin speech delivered one of the most powerful lines of the 20th Century when he powerfully asked, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

This piece of history of two fictitious characters offered by Follett is complete garbage and only represents the hypothetical mumblings of a couple of left-wing idiots might say. In all likelihood those same two clowns would have thought Reagan's speech was that of a war-monger and would have characterized communism as a great form of government if only they had the right leadership. Only in hindsight would they say that the fall of communism was inevitable. In their hearts they dreamed of a big government socialized state would succeed. There is not one shred of evidence provided that supports any of the non-sense those buffoons said. ### you, BTW.

I lived in that era and knew that a nation of simpletons was being fed a phony bill of goods and lapping it up with gusto. The War on Drugs, the marginalization of minorities and the blatant overspending on the military, all of which fit into the category of "rejuvenating the morale of the US" and which are really last gasps at preserving an ideal of America on the way out, can be laid at that man's feet. And let's not forget his outright hostility towards alternative energies, which will eventually have a greater impact on life on this planet than anything else. His idea that we can just send the troops in and take what we need because "America" was almost criminal in nature. So #### you and all the true believers from an era of going backwards.

Damn, how short are you?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

First off, it wasn't my jab, it was Follett's. Personally I've always been a fan of the Gipper, especially since I visited his Library a few years back. I learned a lot I didn't know. I think Reagan was a great man and a very good President (and a lousy governor of California, but that's separate.)

However, I don't think its demeaning to Reagan to suggest that his role in ending the Soviets has been overstated. After all, he never took credit for that; his followers did. I find jon's argument that Reagan's support of Gorbachev gave the Soviet leader greater legitimacy to be ludicrous and the exact opposite of the truth. Reagan didn't give Gorbachev any support until he was forced into it. Had Reagam given support to Gorbachev that would have weakened, not strengthened Gorbachev's reforms.

Much as I like Reagan, most of his foreign policy was disastrous by any definition. We supported a murderous dictatorship in El Salvador. We supported terrorists attempting to overthrow Nicaragua. We supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and extremists in Lebanon, and Apartheid in Souyh Africa. We've been paying for these errors ever since. Reagan's responses to Gorbachev's reforms and the Solidarity movement in Poland were tepid. Not seeing a whole lot of positive here.

Ok, what would have been the consequences of doing nothing and of a communist El Salvador, a communist Nicaragua, a communist and Soviet held Afghanistan, and a racially based communist led revolt in South Africa?

And why would we have done anything different with gorbachev that would have just led to the USSR staying in existence? You think we should have supported Gorbachev, how after 40+ years of Cold War we would just reverse that policy just as it was about to succeed?

 

[timschochet]

First off, it wasn't my jab, it was Follett's. Personally I've always been a fan of the Gipper, especially since I visited his Library a few years back. I learned a lot I didn't know. I think Reagan was a great man and a very good President (and a lousy governor of California, but that's separate.)

However, I don't think its demeaning to Reagan to suggest that his role in ending the Soviets has been overstated. After all, he never took credit for that; his followers did. I find jon's argument that Reagan's support of Gorbachev gave the Soviet leader greater legitimacy to be ludicrous and the exact opposite of the truth. Reagan didn't give Gorbachev any support until he was forced into it. Had Reagam given support to Gorbachev that would have weakened, not strengthened Gorbachev's reforms.

Much as I like Reagan, most of his foreign policy was disastrous by any definition. We supported a murderous dictatorship in El Salvador. We supported terrorists attempting to overthrow Nicaragua. We supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and extremists in Lebanon, and Apartheid in Souyh Africa. We've been paying for these errors ever since. Reagan's responses to Gorbachev's reforms and the Solidarity movement in Poland were tepid. Not seeing a whole lot of positive here.

Ok, what would have been the consequences of doing nothing and of a communist El Salvador, a communist Nicaragua, a communist and Soviet held Afghanistan, and a racially based communist led revolt in South Africa?

And why would we have done anything different with gorbachev that would have just led to the USSR staying in existence? You think we should have supported Gorbachev, how after 40+ years of Cold War we would just reverse that policy just as it was about to succeed?

You ask several questions here, all of them very complicated. I NEVER said to do nothing.

But to be brief:

1. El Salvador would never have become Communist. Our insistent support of the government there actually increased the level of conflict.

2. The Sandinistas were not Communist, they were socialist. They were also freely elected, and we would have been far better off opening up trade with them than what we did.

3. The Soviets never would have held Afghanistan because they could not afford to economically.

4. There was never a chance of a Communist revolt in South Africa. What ultimately happened in 1990 (peaceful transfer of power) could have taken place as early as 1960, after Sharpesville, if not for our continual financial support of the Apartheid regime.

5. The flaw in your thinking regarding points 1-4 is that you seem to believe Communism was a monolithic thing, all subservient to the Soviet Union. This of course was a major flaw in American foreign policy thinking from 1945-1990. We know much better now that this never was the case, but your questions are like a throwback to that earlier error.

6. Gorbachev represented major reform in the Soviet Union. What he had in mind was an opening to capitalism, the way that China has over the last 40 years or so, while keeping centralized control of politics. I don't know if this would have been possible in the Soviet Union- I doubt it. But my point is that Reagan and his advisors didn't know how to react to it. So they fumbled around, reacting to each new change. They certainly didn't instigate any of the changes. The best that can be said about Reagan's involvement, IMO, is that it happened mostly on his watch.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wow, lots of wrong info IMO there, Tim.

ES was definitely in trouble, the rebels there were vicious.

The Sandinistas were very much communist, their 2.0 version is lighter but is of the Chavez brand, which is also very, very bad. Today they have a trade arrangement with Putin and they have a deal in place to build a second Canal between the Pacific and Gulf. Nothing good has come of that.

The flaw in your thinking regarding points 1-4 is that you seem to believe Communism was a monolithic thing, all subservient to the Soviet Union.

I've never thought that, but I do know that is a common academic criticism of US policy during the 50s-80s. It's not necessary to believe these countries would have been USSR puppets, it's enough to know that there would have been economic and political disaster in perhaps 20 countries like these if we had not taken steps. You can't applaud the Truman Doctrine on the one hand and then criticize its application for the next 3 decades as though they were unconnected.

But my point is that Reagan and his advisors didn't know how to react to it. So they fumbled around, reacting to each new change. They certainly didn't instigate any of the changes.

Yeah that was quite a shocker, the USSR started to crumble and Gorby tried to find a way out, and needless to say maybe the US could at best sit and watch, but what Reagan did was turn up the pressure. We did not give them a breather or a window of opportunity to recover or offer financial or moral support, to hell with that we wanted them to crumble and they did. Are we really complaining? Eastern and Central Europe followed and so did as a practical matter post-Maoist China.

Bush Sr. was very suited to handling the transition. - If something was lost it was after Bush Sr. got thrown out of office and Bill Clinton twaddled his thumbs until Putin came to power. And Bush Jr. did the same when Putin came to power. And then we continued on our heels under Bill's wife at SOS and Obama. The whole thing has been a trainwreck since 1992. But I don't think RR deserves anything but credit for pushing/shoving/watching/helping or however you want to describe it while it was happening. Not sole credit, mind you, but credit. Thankfully they did go over that cliff quite quickly once they got to that edge.

 

[jon_mx]

6. Gorbachev represented major reform in the Soviet Union. What he had in mind was an opening to capitalism, the way that China has over the last 40 years or so, while keeping centralized control of politics. I don't know if this would have been possible in the Soviet Union- I doubt it. But my point is that Reagan and his advisors didn't know how to react to it. So they fumbled around, reacting to each new change. They certainly didn't instigate any of the changes. The best that can be said about Reagan's involvement, IMO, is that it happened mostly on his watch.

Just horrible spin.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

6. Gorbachev represented major reform in the Soviet Union. What he had in mind was an opening to capitalism, the way that China has over the last 40 years or so, while keeping centralized control of politics. I don't know if this would have been possible in the Soviet Union- I doubt it. But my point is that Reagan and his advisors didn't know how to react to it. So they fumbled around, reacting to each new change. They certainly didn't instigate any of the changes. The best that can be said about Reagan's involvement, IMO, is that it happened mostly on his watch.

Just horrible spin.

Tim doesn't agree with Follett, no, he just thinks that Reagan didn't do anything and a conservative cabal created a cover story to give him sole credit.

 

[timschochet]

6. Gorbachev represented major reform in the Soviet Union. What he had in mind was an opening to capitalism, the way that China has over the last 40 years or so, while keeping centralized control of politics. I don't know if this would have been possible in the Soviet Union- I doubt it. But my point is that Reagan and his advisors didn't know how to react to it. So they fumbled around, reacting to each new change. They certainly didn't instigate any of the changes. The best that can be said about Reagan's involvement, IMO, is that it happened mostly on his watch.

Just horrible spin.

Tim doesn't agree with Follett, no, he just thinks that Reagan didn't do anything and a conservative cabal created a cover story to give him sole credit.

I disagree with the bolded.

I also disagree with Follett's assertion that the US did not "win" the Cold War. Earlier in this thread I stated how we did it, which Follett seems to ignore. But I do agree with Follett about Reagan's involvement.

 

[roadkill1292]

He made all you conservative weenies feel all cuddly and safe, didn't he, by standing up to those ol' meanies from the eastern block. And you could wave your big foam No. 1 fingers at all the rallies with all the other good white people and make fun of the hippies and welfare queens. After prayers, of course.

Well, bye.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

He made all you conservative weenies feel all cuddly and safe, didn't he, by standing up to those ol' meanies from the eastern block. And you could wave your big foam No. 1 fingers at all the rallies with all the other good white people and make fun of the hippies and welfare queens. After prayers, of course.

Well, bye.

Reagan is quite the Rorschach test.

 

[rockaction]

He made all you conservative weenies feel all cuddly and safe, didn't he, by standing up to those ol' meanies from the eastern block. And you could wave your big foam No. 1 fingers at all the rallies with all the other good white people and make fun of the hippies and welfare queens. After prayers, of course.

Well, bye.

I was six when he was elected. By the age of ten, I knew the difference between him and communists that had rounded people up into camps and sent them to gulags and wouldn't even respect nor tolerate the printed or spoken word, no matter how much it cut to the heart of true political speech.

Since that day, it has become easier and easier to laugh at leftist apologists who refuse to give the great old man any credit. It should uninvite someone from proper discourse. They who would cast so much aspersions about "rape denialism" or "climate change denialism" -- it is they who deny, deny, deny. Because all along, the welfare state's modus operandi was to interfere, interfere, interfere.

It is obtuse and deranged to think Reagan had nothing to do with the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall. That's a declarative. History doesn't need to reclaim him - he and his words and deeds and actions are there, for posterity, on record, ever-present, shining like a city upon a hill.

 

[jon_mx]

Now if Obama went down to our Mexican border and said, "Tear Down this Wall", Tim would jizz in his pants.

 

[jon_mx]

Well, bye.

If only that was a real promise.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

He made all you conservative weenies feel all cuddly and safe, didn't he, by standing up to those ol' meanies from the eastern block. And you could wave your big foam No. 1 fingers at all the rallies with all the other good white people and make fun of the hippies and welfare queens. After prayers, of course.

Well, bye.

5'7" tops

 

[timschochet]

Now if Obama went down to our Mexican border and said, "Tear Down this Wall", Tim would jizz in his pants.

Damn right I would. But I wouldn't give him any credit for actually tearing it down unless he, you know, tore it down.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

2004 profile of Pol Pot from The Economist.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now if Obama went down to our Mexican border and said, "Tear Down this Wall", Tim would jizz in his pants.

Pretty prescient comment, there may actually be a wall there one day.

 

[wikkidpissah]

The way i heard it - and i was still in communication w fedfolks @ the time - is that Reagan policy wonks pushed for Star Wars & aiding Afghanistan because forcing USSR defense spending past 30% of GNP would be ruinous. Gorbachev sold the Soviet @ 31.