Okay, you'd have preferred an all-out confrontation rather than years of paranoia and using other states as proxies. Never had you down as pro-global nuclear war... Which, of course, was the other realistic option. Peaceful coexistence would have been nice to have had on the table, sadly it wasn't.
In that case your Real figures show TWO major plunges in the four years BEFORE Thatcher takes office with only ONE major plunge during her time in office.
I've heard it all now! If you don't agree with support for Cambodian and Indonesian mass murderers, you're in favour of nuclear war!
That is an oversimplification, but the fact remains that if you wanted to confront and roll back Communism (and I think most would agree that was a very worthy and noble goal) then your options were limited if you were not willing to go to war. One of those options was supporting Third World dictators who at least opposed the Soviets and their allies (for their own reasons). Life does not give you the luxury of perfect options.
Don't call me names and I'll give it another look. But if someone doesn't keep a civil tongue in their head when they speak to me then I'm under no obligation to respond to them. I'm responding to you as a courtesy, not because you deserve an answer.
This may shock you, but it's really not about what you agree or disagree with. The world, and it's politics, do not revolve around you and what you want. I don't especially agree with mass murder, but you know what, if being chummy with a mass murderer is one of the less disagreeable options on the table I'll take it. The Cold War required the kind of calculations where morality got tossed out of the window to avoid much greater dangers. You take the Rorschach options, frankly I haven't the ego for that. And given your own past, perhaps you ought to be a little more forgiving of those who may have supported what they perceived to be a lesser evil?
Your binary choice is worthy of ep or Dayton. There were other options, both realistic and more moral, whether you acknowledge it or not. Like maybe not sending the SAS over to train the Khmer Rouge. Doing so was hardly a necessary manoevure against Soviet Russia. And I don't have any "past" at odds with that.
Eisenhower's speech should be put in the proper context of the times Remember, the beloved "Ike" also believed in THREATENING ALL OUT NUCLEAR WAR against any nation that might threaten U.S. interests with conventional weapons. That was how "Ike" hoped to hold down maintaining a large, expensive standing military. I think we'll agree that Ike's dream of nations around the world cowed by the ever present threat of massive U.S. nuclear attacks is something that was best dispensed with......
Why do you make threats that you can't possibly back up?? Only the pathetically weak use words to hide their lack of actions.
Comments on this post RickDeckard disagrees: Really? Sounds like your wet dream. When have I advocated nuclear war?
See, now you're learning, growing that skin thickness a bit. And by the way, there was no need to respond to my observation that you are a dumbass. You can either use the information I provide, or ignore it and continue to be a dumbass.
"Percentage change in real GDP". If you knew what you were talking about, which you rarely do, then you'd know the difference between real and nominal and which one is inflation adjusted. Also how exactly do you propose someone "inflation adjust" an unemployment rate? I'm actually curious about what your thought pattern here is or lack there of.
I assume you know that one of the purposes for "Atoms for Peace" Garamet, was to make the idea of the use of nuclear devices more ACCEPTABLE Scientific American had an article on that very concept a few years ago. Also, you confuse public statements with actual policy which is often radically different.
How did you arrive at that interpretation? Which of course you can't cite. And there's nothing like revisionist history. No. But I would be interested in which aspects of Eisenhower's policy you believe showed a willingness to engage in a first strike.
How could anybody in their right mind not say that she was good for the UK. She made the hard decisions but they were the right decisions. Government run businesses just cannot survive. It was totally noncompetitive and there were long strikes going on for ages that killed so much good industry. That is what the working class in England was suffering from. Crazy decisions being made. The golden goose was being killed and people realized it too late when they put her into power. I grew up in the 70s and there were British sports cars and Motorcycles all over the place here in the US. The Unions and the Government failed to modernize and lost all that. I was there in the UK from 87-90 and I saw the things she was trying to do because they just made sense. If railroads are continually on strike or in threat of it, then why not privatize it and give it a chance?
Who was that? I know of a man that went from Governor of Texas to the White House, but not from the Texas state senate to the white house. Big difference. Anyways the point is moot because Obama was a US Senator when he got elected.
Here you go. http://www.americanforeignrelations...egy-and-Diplomacy-A-strategy-of-overkill.html Read more: http://www.americanforeignrelations...acy-A-strategy-of-overkill.html#ixzz2Pur768tx In particular, note this As Secretary of State Dulles said in a news conference on 18 July 1956, "In the case of a brush-fire war, we need not drop atomic bombs over vast populated areas." It might suffice merely to vaporize key military and industrial installations. And this Abstract bombast about massive retaliation notwithstanding, in only three instances did Eisenhower actually warn other governments that the United States was prepared to launch a nuclear attack if its demands were not met. In April 1953 the Korean armistice talks between the communist Chinese and Americans had bogged down over the question of exchanging prisoners of war. At Dulles's behest, neutral India cautioned China that if peace did not come soon, the United States would resort to nuclear warfare. The two sides quickly agreed on international supervision of the repatriation of captured troops. Shortly thereafter, as the French position in Indochina disintegrated, Washington warned Beijing that direct military intervention in support of the communist Vietminh would be met with an American atomic attack on China. Finally, on 20 March 1955, as the communist Chinese bombarded the Nationalist-held islands of Quemoy and Matsu, Dulles publicly speculated about possible American use of "new and powerful weapons of precision, which can utterly destroy military targets without endangering unrelated civilian centers." This foolhardy boast sent shivers around the world, especially throughout Asia, where national leaders recalled ruefully that the only atomic bombs dropped so far had fallen on an Asian people. Eisenhower, who was privately determined to defend the islands with nuclear weapons if necessary, gradually realized that he could not rattle the nuclear sword without arousing global apprehension. According to the scholar Gordon H. Chang, communist China's conciliation had contributed significantly to ending the crisis, but at the cost of Beijing's realization that it would have to build a nuclear force to counter modern-day American gunboat diplomacy in the western Pacific. Read more: http://www.americanforeignrelations...acy-A-strategy-of-overkill.html#ixzz2Purk8PJO
Do yourself a favor and gain even some minimal knowledge on a topic before opening your mouth for foot insertion.
Yeah, what kind of deal do you strike with a country that clears mine fields by forming up their soldiers and marching them across it?
