Another funny story: Fooled by Regan's geopolitics

avatar pjorourke, avatar .. is cracking up over this:

Reagan's contribution was mainly in the area of geopolitics and philosophy.

In geopolitics (which the President does control) where he broke the back of the Soviet Union by outspending them militarily. He correctly realized that matching what would be a high budget for us would run the wheels off their economy. Originally Posted by pjorourke

ROTFL. IMHO Reagan's geopolitics was just a joke.

No comment or critizism, just it really cracks me up. e.g. Reagan's geopolitics was to support exactly the religious fanatics which later gave you the terror a la 9/11.

The irony is neither Reagan nor Bush really had any clue of geopolitics. But let's see it from a pragmatic, conservative point of view: The Il-76 is much more in demand than the Hercules. why? well, if i were pjorourke i'd say the Ilyushin Il-76 outfucks the Hercules even today.

(for the noobs: Il-76 was what the soviets used in their afganistan war; and Il-76 is what does the bulk load jobs for the US Army and contractors for Iraq and Afganistan nowadays.)

another Reagan irony, he read Mikhail Bulgakov: The Master and Margarita , just he never really understood it.


-- Эх, Никанор Иванович! -- задушевно воскликнул неизвестный. -- Что такое официальное лицо или неофициальное? Все это зависит от того, с какой точки зрения смотреть на предмет, все это, Никанор Иванович, условно и зыбко. Сегодня я неофициальное лицо, а завтра, глядишь, официальное! А бывает и наоборот, Никанор Иванович. И еще как бывает!


'Eh, Nikanor Ivanovich!' the unknown man exclaimed soulfully. "What are official and unofficial persons? It all depends on your point of view on the subject. It's all fluctuating and relative, Nikanor Ivanovich. Today I'm an unofficial person, and tomorrow, lo and behold, I'm an official one! And it also happens the other way round - oh, how it does!'



(hint for noobs: in the excerpt below, look what the russian text says what is transl. in english simply as "persons")

So is this going to be a thread about planes?

So is this going to be a thread about planes? Originally Posted by Ansley

Hopefully so, but I have to confess that I'm a real aviation lightweight.

The largest plane I've ever flown was a Beechcraft Baron.

The most fun was a Bonanza V-35B!

So is this going to be a thread about planes? Originally Posted by Ansley

no, just about Reagan-Bush irony of geopolitics.

Reagan's sharp plan was to support the Mujahideen in afganistan, he saw them as freedom fighters against the communists in soviet union

the soviets plans weren't much better, just the Mujahideen were infused by Reagan dollars, so soviets needed to think efficient and e.g. used and tested the Ilyushin Il-76 extensively in this war.

fast forward some year. Bush comes a long. Mujahideen are no longer seen as freedom fighter but as terrorists, hell even whole afganistan is declared a rouge state.

given the Reagan incompetence all what the all powerful US army has as long haul carrier is the C-130 Hercules. expensive, insecure and shitty. and totaly out-dated.

so what is bringing the bulk load of miliary and civil cargo to Iraq and Afganistan for the US, the soviet Ilyushin Il-76

no Originally Posted by ..

Well shoot. I should have known better.

so, Reagan's geopolitics are bad because he didn't design the best military cargo plane? geez, and all this time I had been focused on the successful resolution of the cold war.

Well shoot. I should have known better. Originally Posted by Ansley

Ahh, so we should fuel the fire?

In Girum Imus Nocte et Consumimur Igni.

so, Reagan's geopolitics are bad because he didn't design the best military cargo plane? geez, and all this time I had been focused on the successful resolution of the cold war. Originally Posted by trojanman

no, just he supported those who raised hellfire for bush later

plus the soviets learned a lot what works and what not. reagan financed part of the war but it's actually the soviet aircraft that survived it.

Ahh, so we should fuel the fire? Originally Posted by ..

Is this some kind of puzzle? I don't know anything about jet fuel.

What is being said is that Reagans foresight bit us in the fucking ass...to be fair Carter put that group in place in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

That is a very complex part of the world. We have not figured that out as of yet....or maybe we have and we are just picking what seems the lesser of two evils at the time. This Afgan Prez that Bush oh so loved is being a real pain in the ass.

Hopefully so, but I have to confess that I'm a real aviation lightweight.

The largest plane I've ever flown was a Beechcraft Baron.

The most fun was a Bonanza V-35B! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You think you're a lightweight??!! The largest I've ever flown, was a paper airplane. But then, I folded it all by myself.

An excellent point! Certainly bringing the USSR down pales by comparison to the foresight of giving North Korea nuclear technology. . . let's hear it for Jimay! Talk about a "religious nut job" who not only turned his cheek but the nations to our enemy. . . sort of reminds me of someone more recent. . . but I "hope" we "change" that at the first opportunity.

Will Bush 43 be the next Truman?

I flew an A330....