"Len" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:46:10 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:

The true reason is they couldn't outspend us! We were ever advancing our
military and delivery systems. Imagine if you will the soviet military
mind
when he learns that US attack subs have been consistently inside soviet
protected waters for 10 years and most of the soviet subs have been
shadowed
undetected for much of that time. Regan began a policy of informing the
Russians of these facts by allowing the soviet subs to detect our subs as
we
come up behind then by our pinging them (One ping is like a radar lock for
aircraft). This gave away a tactical advantage but put pressure on the
government.

Along with pressure on the military Regan put the world press to use. IF
you grew up in Poland you probably couldn't hear many of his speeches. He
simply pointed out that the Soviet economic system didn't work, that
educated people were trying to leave Russia while our country had to
patrol
it's borders to keep people out.

I differ with your statement: "Whatever president of the US, Eastern
Europe
would have changed like it did." I think it would have taken another 10
years and would have been very brutal with many internal fights and
quashing
of rebellions. Regan policies and speeches created enough support for
Gornatsjov (sp) that he could turn internal Russian politics on a
different
course instead of the self destructive one it was on.

I'd be interested in where you get your news and the books that were used
in
your education system. We have many here in this country that have a
similar view of world events and I'd like to pin down the sources of this.

Jeff,

My sources are the news, opinion-papers and comments by america-
watchers (of various bloodtypes).

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.

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.

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.

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.