« | »

Reagan On Russia’s History Of Violations

President Reagan Discusses Soviet Violations of Arms Control Agreements with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in a letter written on 28 October 1985, from the Thatcher Foundation via the The Making the History of 1989:

Dear Margaret:

We have discussed many times my deep concern over Soviet violations of arms control agreements. As you know, the US Government has conducted several extensive studies, and concluded that the Soviet Union has violated its legal obligation or political commitment with respect to the SALT II Agreement, the ABM Treaty, the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons, and the Helsinki Final Act. In addition, the Soviets have likely violated the provisions of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty.

We have shared our findings and the evidence for them with the British Government in both NATO and bilateral talks, including extensive meetings between our experts and yours.

As we approach the November meetings with Mr. Gorbachev, it is more than ever for the West to make clear to the Soviet Union that violations and actions inconsistent with arms control commitments are unacceptable, not just to the US but to other Western nations as well. The Nuclear Planning Group Ministerial, which will be held October 29 and 30 in Brussels, is an ideal time for NATO to state publicly its concern over Soviet violations, and I sincerely hope your government will support us in including such language in the communiqué.

The US and its NATO Allies have a shared interest in supporting the arms control process. The Soviet pattern of noncompliance raises fundamental concerns about the integrity of the arms control process, concerns that—if not corrected—undercut the viability of arms control as an instrument to assist in ensuring a secure and stable future world. A strong Allied consensus on concern over Soviet violations will strengthen our efforts both in seeking corrective actions from the Soviet Union and in seeking effective verification procedures for future agreements. The success of such efforts will improve the prospects for the Nuclear and Space Talks.

Ron

But of course this healthy skepticism is another part of the ‘Reagan Revolution’ that Mr. Obama wants to roll back.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, April 8th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Reagan On Russia’s History Of Violations”

  1. Petronius says:

    When judged by results, Liberalism has been a colossal failure. Trouble is, Liberals are not bothered by results.

    When Liberal policies fail, as they normally do, Liberals have two methods for dealing with the bad news. One is to spin the facts to disguise what they have done. Thanks to a compliant media, and the short-term memory of the American idiocracy, this approach is generally successful.

    The second method is to ignore the results of their failed policies. Ignoring bad results is what Liberals do best. They slip on the blinders, ignore the mess they’ve made, and forge ahead. They have been doing this for decades.

    It is a fundamental mistake to believe that Liberals care about results. Conservatives and other normal, non-ideological people often make the mistake of assuming that Liberals are like us, and actually care about the results of their government programs and policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our error stems from our failure to understand the nature of ideological thinking. When confronted with results that are inconsistent with their ideology, ideology always wins. Thus Liberals choose either to reinterpret the results until the results conform to their ideology, or they will ignore the results.

    Conservatives are pragmatic and results-oriented. They will scrutinize a government action to determine whether it actually works: whether it promotes freedom for the individual, maintains the social order, protects the security, independence and sovereignty of the country, whether it advances the interests of Western Civilization, promotes economic freedom and prosperity, and whether it is sound fiscal policy, affordable, and within our economic means. If their government action does not accomplish these aims, the conservative will admit his mistake and try a different approach.

    Not so the Liberal.

    Liberals generally do not pay attention to results. They don’t care whether their programs work. Liberals, apart from promoting their own power and wealth, and the power of the state over the lives of individuals, do not give one single jot about the results of their actions. They don’t look back. They will never critically examine the results of their policies.

    Instead, they get amnesia. They turn their backs on the mess they have made, and move immediately on to the next “problem,” the next “crisis,” the next “good cause,” the next “program.” They live for the moment, for power, and for their ideology. They enjoy the rush they get from their nihilism and destruction, from occupying the moral high ground, from being holier-than-thou, from having hearts that bleed, from implementing their ideology, and from strengthening their stranglehold over the lives of other individuals. Nothing else matters.

    One recent example: Liberals have never acknowledged their role in the sub-prime mortgage mess that brought the world to economic crisis in late 2008. In fact, they continue to insist that lenders must make more loans to unqualified borrowers. They pretend to be offended when Alan Greenspan confronts them with the facts of their dangerous, failed policies.

    Liberalism is infected with Marxism. Marxism colors and permeates Liberalism through and through. After one hundred years of experience with Marxism, we find that it has failed in every place and every time it has been tried. It has been a consistent failure. More than a failure, a catastrophe. Everywhere Marxism has been attempted, it has been an utter disaster. Marxism has given us one dystopia after another. Yet Liberals still believe in it. They practically worship it. In fact, Marxism –– notwithstanding an unblemished record of one hundred years of disasters –– has never had more influence in Liberalism than it has at present. Liberals deliberately ignore these bad results.

    Over one hundred million people were murdered by communism in the Soviet Union, Red China, Southeast Asia, Cuba, North Korea, and elsewhere. Half the world lived in chains and slavery. And yet Liberals never gave it a second thought.

    Instead they urged (and still urge) unilateral disarmament, dismantling our anti-missile defenses, defunding Star Wars, pulling American missiles out of Europe and Turkey, cutting support to the Contras, defense cuts, peaceful coexistence, test bans, arms control agreements, termination of weapons research, termination of defense contracts, compromise, accommodation, withdrawals, appeasement, apologies, endless negotiations followed by endless excuses for endless Soviet violations, and the endless “peace process.”

    They urged “better Red than dead,” and boasted that “uncle Joe” was not such a bad guy once you really got to know him. To this day, they still defend the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, toast Daniel Ortega, and make pilgrimages to Cuba. They love to quote Chairman Mao the way Rumpole of the Bailey quotes Wordsworth. Their entire ideology is infected with communism. And yet they have never once looked back. They have never once reconsidered and apologized to the world for the catastrophic results of their persistently pro-communist policies.

    If Liberals really cared about the results of government actions, they would have abandoned their ideology decades ago and converted to the common sense policies of Reagan-Thatcher conservativism. Because if there ever was an American politician whose policies produced good, grand, and glorious results, it was President Ronald Reagan.

    Thank you for this timely reminder, Steve.

    Ceterum censeo hostem esse delendum.

    • proreason says:

      Wonderful essay, per usual Pertonius.

      I have one significant point of disagreement with the otherwise perfect description.

      You imply, or at least don’t deny, like almost every observor of the liberal mindset, that liberals are well-intentioned, a view that is virtually dogma. Everyone, it seems, believes that liberals are generous people.

      I agree it might be true for a subset I would call the infatuated flower children. But I think that fraction of the liberal population is very small, probably less than 20% of the total.

      At the top, roost the master criminals; i.e., 99% of all liberal politicians, including Obama, Pelosi and Reid. They are amoral thugs who have invented an ideology for personal gain. I see no difference between them and Stalin and Mao. If they had been born in a different country, they would be commissioning the mass murders to keep themselves in power rather then commissioning the destruction of the the US economy and social frameworks. Many RINO’s are in the camp as well as every Democrat politician.

      And then there is the vast majority of the liberal population, which includes “minorities”, union members, government employees, lawyers, professors, teachers, and many others. They are not quite as ruthless and cynical as the criminal echelon, for the most part. They simply are liberals because they seek personal gain for the least effort. They heartily support either re-distribution or the insurance of the advantages liberalism bestows on themselves, be it union priviledges, a guaranteed lifetime job, or the ability to prey on the powerless. Of course, they all deny that they are in it for themselves. Some may even believe the denial. This large group for the most part is relatively benign, but thoroughly greedy and self-interested, despite any rhetoric to the contrary.

      In the middle, you have the small group of genuine idealogues. The Kennedy environment nut is an example. He has everything he needs. I think he actually believes his own blather. Jimmy Carter may be in that group as well. There are few others. They are nearly as dangerous, by the way, as the political criminals, because they supply the mental energy that is masterfully exploited by the criminal commissars.

      There is a subset of the middle group that bears special mention…young liberals. Since the brainwashing by the master demagogues is so intense and so pervasive, almost all young people fall prey to the con. I don’t really blame them, until they are experienced enough understand that there is a better path, and deliberately reject it out of pure self-interest.

      So for me, I consider virtually all of them to be criminals, from petty thieves up to megalomaniacal mass-murderers.

      And that view has been substantiated by personal experience. It can be fun to talk with liberals for a while, because before long, each will reveal his or her own dirtly little secret, the benefit he or she expects to receive by selling out to the masters of deception. Usually, it’s money. Sometimes it’s security, and less frequently, it’s ego gratification.

    • Petronius says:

      Pro :

      I would not be one of those who agree that Liberals are generous people. Quite the contrary. They are generous only with other-people’s-money. But never with their own.

      They do, however, eagerly wish to appear to be generous. It helps them get elected. And they certainly enjoy the celebrity that goes with the appearance of generosity, with the appearance of having hearts-that-bleed, the celebrity status which is so generously bestowed upon Liberals by a fawning media. Ego gratification, as you call it, looms large as a motivating force among Liberals. (Vision of Brian Williams bowing to Nerobama.)

      Your classification of Liberals by degrees is a useful one. I would note one thing: government employees. In the Federal civil service there is a vast difference between the civilian agencies and the defense agencies. Defense agencies are well managed, businesslike, and normally are staffed with veterans who work under the supervision of active duty military officers. They are rather conservative. Workers in the civilian agencies are a whole different kettle of fish. Of course the entire government, including the armed forces, is filthy with affirmative action.

      Today’s Liberal leaders are Bolshevik thugs, radical nihilists and revolutionaries, criminal robber gangs and totalitarians. There may be a very small element who are innocent people of good intentions. But they are few and far between.

      I strongly suspect that Nerobama is mad. Not angry (although he is clearly an angry man), but mad. He is certainly full of hate for America, even obsessive hatred.

      In the middle and lower ranks, I think there may be more Liberals who suffer from madness or mental illness than from good intentions. It would probably not be possible for an innocent person to remain a Liberal for very long, if one is also a rational, thinking, knowledgeable, and decent person. For the followers, Liberalism means embracing an ideology and becoming a true-believer. It means turning your back on reality. It means not wanting to know what is true. Or else they want their piece of the pie.

      If memory serves, I was a Liberal myself for a few months when I was about age 15. No doubt it was related to a temporary excitation of the hormones. Whatever remnants of Liberalism that may have been still circulating inside my bloodstream were expelled at college. I rebelled against the blatant indoctrination I was exposed to by Liberal/Marxist university professors. Their propaganda had the precisely opposite effect on me than they intended.

      Of course, it is far more difficult for young people today to cast off Liberal propaganda, because today indoctrination begins in pre-school.

      There may have been a time when it was still “fun” to talk to Liberals, if even for a while, but for me those days are long gone. Since Nerobama and that bunch came to power, I can’t stand to be anywhere around a Liberal. I would much rather chat with you, Rusty, jobeth, LD, JohnMG, sheehanjihad, and others here on S&L.

      One final matter requires comment. Most Liberals are anti-white racists. And many of these anti-white racists are themselves white. This is such a strong strain of this in Liberalism that I think they deserve special mention in your classification.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »