On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:31:57 -0500, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:

The your sources are all biased opinion. Each news organization has a bias.
Each person writing an op-ed peice for a newspaper has a bias. Each
individual oberserving an event has a bias.
I agree.
But I can also think for myself. And I can use various sources with
various Bias's. And I am careful about interest that are persued
within the specific bias presented. That what every citizen should do
in my view.

In terms of who deserves the most credit it is unmistakenly
Gorbatsjov. Why is it there is such a need to blow up the part Reagan
played? Don't you think any president with a smart advisor would have
done not exactly the same but would have added in the same amount?

No, Reagan was the drivinig force in tearing down the iron curtain.
Well thank you. Now I don't have to think anymore. I just have to
repeat, Reagan was the driving force, Reagan was the driving force.

Let me put it in another way: What would have become of this alleged
"Reagan-directed-end-of-the-cold-war" if Gorbatsjow hadn't been there
but another Brenzjnev-type or Chroestjow-type?
A few more years and a few hundred thousand people behind the iron curtain
would be dead.
What would the amount of casualties be when Bush hadn't started war on
false pretences? Or am I using biased information?

As another poster here said, Reagan was in the car, he wasn't the
driver but he was in the car. I admit to that. But any us president
would have been in that car.
The winners write the history and the loosers complain about it. In the
future it will be read that Reagan won the cold war throught the economic
might of the USA and the democratic principles that it promoted. Fair or
unfair this is what history will see.
What is it with this obsession with winners and losers....