On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:50:55 -0500, thunder
wrote:

I give Gorbachev quite a bit of credit, but it could be they both needed
each other to succeed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

I really would like to say ok, they would have needed each other.
But why this rather pathetic claim as a Reagan-victory. The title of
this article you mention "How Reagan won the cold war" is just a
(another) example of swollen rhetorics overestimating ones own
importance.

In Europe, as far as I can overlook, sentiments are as I described.
Gorbatsjov was a unique, intelligent USSR-leader with vision. The
barking from the side made not much difference. This barking had been
going on for ages, so why did it result precisely at that moment ?
Correct, cause Gorbatsjov entered the building.

I don't know why it is necessary to claim this historical event as a
Reagan-victory without ANY attention to fi recent developments in the
satellite-states, without attention to the immense internal
production-problems, without any attention to the distinction between
process and event. I do have some clue in mind though.

Please bare with me for just another second of your lifetime.
What would become of the world if the dominant american style would
become less bombastic selfboasting and more diplomatic.
I think it would prevent the ongoing war from expanding further.

But you as republicans have enough problems on your hands....
All I want to add is don't be surprised if your attitude keeps
"friends" and "allies" from giving you the aid you automatically think
you're entitled to.

Regards, Len.