[Serious] Does Trump deserve some credit if Iran...

[Jehanne]

Of course, he dumped the nuclear deal negotiated under President Obama; if the authoritarian government in Iran falls and is replaced with a Westernized one, does Trump deserve credit for it?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course, he dumped the nuclear deal negotiated under President Obama; if the authoritarian government in Iran falls and is replaced with a Westernized one, does Trump deserve credit for it?

No. Next question, please.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

trump definitely deserve credit for other aspiring nuclear weapon states refusing to ever treat with the united states again concerning nonproliferation in an era where, let’s not kid ourselves, there will be unprecedented nuclear proliferation and nuclear break outs amongst an ever larger pool with the capability and resources to do so.

Basically trump set the precedent and let the world know there is no give and take with the US when it comes to the ultimate guarantor of sovereignty and territorial integrity,  the US will take first and then rip up the agreement when it is time for her to give.   so don’t ever give the US anything.

outside the american propaganda bubble, kim Jung un now looks a decisive resolute visionary leader for pursuing his nuclear weapons program to its conclusion despite american threats and entreaties.

leaders that have up their nuclear programs in return for american guarantees and concessions now all look like noodle spines fools.

[Jehanne]

Well, my question is rhetorical; as with Ronald Reagan's defense buildup in the 80s, some credit is deserving of President Reagan for the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union. (Having said that, I believe that President Carter would have been a far superior choice for Humanity due to his taking global warming seriously, but, that's off-topic for this thread, at least.) Ditto for Donald Trump.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, my question is rhetorical; as with Ronald Reagan's defense buildup in the 80s, some credit is deserving of President Reagan for the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union.  (Having said that, I believe that President Carter would have been a far superior choice for Humanity due to his taking global warming seriously, but, that's off-topic for this thread, at least.)  Ditto for Donald Trump.

Actually, again, no.  The notion that Reagan build up contributed to Soviet break up is largely self-congratulatory wishthinking by conservatives in the west.   Soviet documents, archives and independent Russian historiography all show in fact the Soviet Union did not perceive the defense burden the Soviet state had to bear to have been appreciable increased by the need to respond to the Reagan build up or the strategic defence initiative.    

What did the Soviet Union in was a strong perception that the general trend where Soviet Union was catching up to the US in economic and technology through the 1950s and early 1960s had reversed through the 1970s, and by the mid 1970s the Soviet Union was falling further behind in total economic productivity and emergent technologies like computers.    The perception was this malaise demanded a fundamental reorganization of Soviet economy and society to overcomes.    Gorbachev wasn’t the first senior Soviet leader to perceive the need to implement this reorganization.  The KGB had been aware of it since early 1970s    In fact it was the KGB leadership that maneuvered to advance gorbachev’s career through the 1970s to put him at the top Soviet leadership to implement this reform, believing him to be both capable enough and young enough to see the reform through.  As it turns out Gorbachev handled the reform terribly and it was this that did in the Soviet state.

KGB head Yuri Andropov’s misjudgment of Gorbachev in the mid-1970 to early 1980 was to a far higher degree responsible for the break up of the Soviet Union in the end of 1980s than any thing Reagan did.

[Jehanne]

Well, my question is rhetorical; as with Ronald Reagan's defense buildup in the 80s, some credit is deserving of President Reagan for the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union.  (Having said that, I believe that President Carter would have been a far superior choice for Humanity due to his taking global warming seriously, but, that's off-topic for this thread, at least.)  Ditto for Donald Trump.

Actually, again, no.  The notion that Reagan build up contributed to Soviet break up is largely self-congratulatory wishthinking by conservatives in the west.   Soviet documents, archives and independent Russian historiography all show in fact the Soviet Union did not perceive the defense burden the Soviet state had to bear to have been appreciable increased by the need to respond to the Reagan build up or the strategic defence initiative.    

What did the Soviet Union in was a strong perception that the general trend where Soviet Union was catching up to the US in economic and technology through the 1950s and early 1960s had reversed through the 1970s, and by the mid 1970s the Soviet Union was falling further behind in total economic productivity and emergent technologies like computers.    The perception was this malaise demanded a fundamental reorganization of Soviet economy and society to overcomes.    Gorbachev wasn’t the first senior Soviet leader to perceive the need to implement this reorganization.  The KGB had been aware of it since early 1970s    In fact it was the KGB leadership that maneuvered to advance gorbachev’s career through the 1970s to put him at the top Soviet leadership to implement this reform, believing him to be both capable enough and young enough to see the reform through.  As it turns out Gorbachev handled the reform terribly and it was this that did in the Soviet state.

KGB head Yuri Andropov’s misjudgment of Gorbachev in the mid-1970 to early 1980 was to a far higher degree responsible for the break up of the Soviet Union in the end of 1980s than any thing Reagan did.

And, so, you don't think that Reagan's supposed "Star Wars" (which everyone today recognizes to have been nothing more than a paper tiger, and quite possibly, even today, impossible to implement on at least a practical level) program did not cause a burden on the Soviet Union's military & industrial complex, which perceived it to be a real threat to nuclear detente and the status quo?  Were not the Soviets themselves trying to keep-up with the West militarily, which caused additional strain on their economy which led to Perestroika?  Are you saying that the Reagan administration deserves no credit for the reforms that led to the Soviet Union's breakup?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Actually, again, no.  The notion that Reagan build up contributed to Soviet break up is largely self-congratulatory wishthinking by conservatives in the west.   Soviet documents, archives and independent Russian historiography all show in fact the Soviet Union did not perceive the defense burden the Soviet state had to bear to have been appreciable increased by the need to respond to the Reagan build up or the strategic defence initiative.    

What did the Soviet Union in was a strong perception that the general trend where Soviet Union was catching up to the US in economic and technology through the 1950s and early 1960s had reversed through the 1970s, and by the mid 1970s the Soviet Union was falling further behind in total economic productivity and emergent technologies like computers.    The perception was this malaise demanded a fundamental reorganization of Soviet economy and society to overcomes.    Gorbachev wasn’t the first senior Soviet leader to perceive the need to implement this reorganization.  The KGB had been aware of it since early 1970s    In fact it was the KGB leadership that maneuvered to advance gorbachev’s career through the 1970s to put him at the top Soviet leadership to implement this reform, believing him to be both capable enough and young enough to see the reform through.  As it turns out Gorbachev handled the reform terribly and it was this that did in the Soviet state.

KGB head Yuri Andropov’s misjudgment of Gorbachev in the mid-1970 to early 1980 was to a far higher degree responsible for the break up of the Soviet Union in the end of 1980s than any thing Reagan did.

And, so, you don't think that Reagan's supposed "Star Wars" (which everyone today recognizes to have been nothing more than a paper tiger, and quite possibly, even today, impossible to implement on at least a practical level) program did not cause a burden on the Soviet Union's military & industrial complex, which perceived it to be a real threat to nuclear detente and the status quo?  Were not the Soviets themselves trying to keep-up with the West militarily, which caused additional strain on their economy which led to Perestroika?  Are you saying that the Reagan administration deserves no credit for the reforms that led to the Soviet Union's breakup?

Do you not read what you respond to? There is no evidence - internal or external - that the Soviets out-spent themselves trying to keep up with the West’s military expansion. 

Lech Walesa had more to do with the dissolution of the USSR than Reagan did.

Boru

[Jehanne]

And, so, you don't think that Reagan's supposed "Star Wars" (which everyone today recognizes to have been nothing more than a paper tiger, and quite possibly, even today, impossible to implement on at least a practical level) program did not cause a burden on the Soviet Union's military & industrial complex, which perceived it to be a real threat to nuclear detente and the status quo?  Were not the Soviets themselves trying to keep-up with the West militarily, which caused additional strain on their economy which led to Perestroika?  Are you saying that the Reagan administration deserves no credit for the reforms that led to the Soviet Union's breakup?

Do you not read what you respond to? There is no evidence - internal or external - that the Soviets out-spent themselves trying to keep up with the West’s military expansion. 

Lech Walesa had more to do with the dissolution of the USSR than Reagan did.

Boru

Yes, I do read all the responses to my posts in their entirety.  In this case, what is there to respond to??  Internal Soviet documents???  The various medieval Inquisitions kept copious notes on their proceedings, also!  I do not regard internal Soviet documents as being, necessarily, the ultimate source of truth, or even necessarily representative of the truth.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Do you not read what you respond to? There is no evidence - internal or external - that the Soviets out-spent themselves trying to keep up with the West’s military expansion. 

Lech Walesa had more to do with the dissolution of the USSR than Reagan did.

Boru

Yes, I do read all the responses to my posts in their entirety.  In this case, what is there to respond to??  Internal Soviet documents???  The various medieval Inquisitions kept copious notes on their proceedings, also!  I do not regard internal Soviet documents as being, necessarily, the ultimate source of truth, or even necessarily representative of the truth.

So, even though there is no evidence that the Soviet Union spent itself into oblivion, you’re going to insist that it did so? I’m happy to consider any evidence you have to support your side of the issue.

But back to our muttons: What has Trump done that would foster the development of a democratic, secular regime in Iran?

Boru

[Jehanne]

Yes, I do read all the responses to my posts in their entirety.  In this case, what is there to respond to??  Internal Soviet documents???  The various medieval Inquisitions kept copious notes on their proceedings, also!  I do not regard internal Soviet documents as being, necessarily, the ultimate source of truth, or even necessarily representative of the truth.

So, even though there is no evidence that the Soviet Union spent itself into oblivion, you’re going to insist that it did so? I’m happy to consider any evidence you have to support your side of the issue.

But back to our muttons: What has Trump done that would foster the development of a democratic, secular regime in Iran?

Boru

Here is one citation:

Reagan relaxed his aggressive rhetoric toward the Soviet Union after Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Soviet Politburo in 1985, and took on a position of negotiating. By the late years of the Cold War, Moscow had built a military that consumed as much as 25% of the Soviet Union's gross national product at the expense of consumer goods and investment in civilian sectors.[13] But the size of the Soviet Armed Forces was not necessarily the result of a simple action-reaction arms race with the United States.[14] Instead, Soviet spending on the arms race and other Cold War commitments can be understood as both a cause and effect of the deep-seated structural problems in the Soviet system, which accumulated at least a decade of economic stagnation during the Brezhnev years.[15] Soviet investment in the defense sector was not necessarily driven by military necessity, but in large part by the interests of massive party and state bureaucracies dependent on the sector for their own power and privileges.[16]

Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#Cold_War