Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Was Reagan an appeaser for negotiating with Gorbachev about tactical nukes?

A lot of righties say any negotiating with countries like Iran or Venezuela or the designated boogeyman of the moment is just like appeasing Hitler.

The odd thing is, none of these countries we're supposed to be afraid of now have the capacity to invade or annihilate the United States.

By contrast, the Soviets had enough nukes to wipe the US off the map back in the 80s (the Russians and Chinese still do), and though the Soviets were behind us in technology in some ways, they more than made up for it in numbers of tanks, nukes, and other hardware.

And unlike the spread out Soviet Union, the countries we are supposed to be afraid of today are relatively compact, medium-sized ones that would take relatively few of our nukes to incinerate every square inch of. So why should we be more afraid of them than Reagan was of Gorbachev?

If the Soviets could not sustain an arms race, do you think Iran can or Iraq could have even if they had what Bush claimed?

And unlike Iran, the Soviets HAD invaded neighboring countries in the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and Afghanistan.

Why was Reagan negotiating with them NOT appeasement but negotiating with some medium-small country now is?

Democrats need to call bullshit on the Republican talking points and put things in perspective if they want to end the war and the assault on our democracy. I don't think they aren't out of cowardice or stupidity but because too many agree with what Bush is doing, seizing Persian Gulf oil to give it to his cronies on terms they choose.


No comments: