U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 07:48 AM
 
Location: New York Area
16,504 posts, read 6,512,900 times
Reputation: 12705

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
"Speaking to the National Association of Evangelicals."
Even before the Internet he knew the speech would have national reach (rhyme not intended). When three N.Y. Times writers attack the speech within a week that is not broad consensus and agreement in any sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 07:54 AM
 
20,568 posts, read 11,471,205 times
Reputation: 20779
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Even before the Internet he knew the speech would have national reach (rhyme not intended). When three N.Y. Times writers attack the speech within a week that is not broad consensus and agreement in any sense.
The New York Times writers were among those who were caught by surprise when Reagan was elected in the first place.

I was not a fan of Reagan's politics in the least (although he wasn't a bad president to work for), but it was clear that he was popular.

Even the fact that the US population rode so merrily behind his military campaigns was evidence enough of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:23 AM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
11,464 posts, read 11,163,054 times
Reputation: 7565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
The New York Times writers were among those who were caught by surprise when Reagan was elected in the first place.

I was not a fan of Reagan's politics in the least (although he wasn't a bad president to work for), but it was clear that he was popular.

Even the fact that the US population rode so merrily behind his military campaigns was evidence enough of that.
I don't think the US population "rode merrily along behind his military campaigns." There were lots of people who thought he took action arbitrarily and without justification. I still find it difficult to justify the military invasions of Granada and Panama.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:39 AM
 
20,568 posts, read 11,471,205 times
Reputation: 20779
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
I don't think the US population "rode merrily along behind his military campaigns." There were lots of people who thought he took action arbitrarily and without justification. I still find it difficult to justify the military invasions of Granada and Panama.
If your handle indicates that you're a member of Mensa, then I'm not surprised you find it difficult to justify the military invasions of Granada and Panama.

But you don't represent the general American population.

I didn't say it was justified.

I said it was popular.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Shawnee-on-Delaware, PA
3,988 posts, read 3,665,777 times
Reputation: 7450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azureth View Post
The USSR had always been an evil empire based on the worst dictators and people one could imagine, even bringing us towards nuclear war. So in 1983 when he gave the speech, why was there any controversy at all? It's akin to saying Nazis are bad guys yet anyone would disagree?
People were afraid of "poking the bear", fearing that the Soviets would launch nukes against us because of what Reagan said.


Cooler heads knew that even the Soviets weren't mad (crazy) enough to launch nukes over a few words.


What Reagan said was "Enough!" He and others were tired of appeasing a weak, tottering dictatorship and treating them as equals. A few years later the Evil Empire collapsed under its own weight, freeing the people of Eastern Europe who had lived behind an Iron Curtain for decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:44 AM
 
Location: New York Area
16,504 posts, read 6,512,900 times
Reputation: 12705
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994 View Post
People were afraid of "poking the bear", fearing that the Soviets would launch nukes against us because of what Reagan said.

Cooler heads knew that even the Soviets weren't mad (crazy) enough to launch nukes over a few words.

What Reagan said was "Enough!" He and others were tired of appeasing a weak, tottering dictatorship and treating them as equals. A few years later the Evil Empire collapsed under its own weight, freeing the people of Eastern Europe who had lived behind an Iron Curtain for decades.
That about says is all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:16 AM
 
15,227 posts, read 13,860,118 times
Reputation: 7009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azureth View Post
Meh, I wish we would have blown every Soviet and their supporters into oblivion. Anyone that supports such an Satan like ideology doesn't deserve to exist in the first place. Imagine if in today how awesome it would be if nearly every single square inch of Russia were complete and ultimate wastelands, and the evil Russian people were to completely become extinct as a people. No evil Vlad Putin, Americans would be able to come in and actually make valuable use of of the resources of their BS country.

* The Soviet Union is ''the focus of evil in the modern world'' and ''an evil empire,'' while Americans are ''enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ to oppose ... with all our might'' the ''sin and evil in the world.''...


"If he goes to Orlando to talk to the evangelical preachers, he denounces the Russians as an ''evil empire....''



Just think for a moment about it all.

Those are pretty hefty statements.
But are they true?

They are *supposedly* based on scriptures.

So do you all claim that you figured scriptures out?
That Reagan figured them out with certainty?

What makes you think so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:25 AM
 
15,227 posts, read 13,860,118 times
Reputation: 7009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
At the time Reagan took office, there had been no outwardly visible change at all in the Soviet Union.

There was not, in fact, much national controversy over Reagan's "Evil Empire" speeches at the time he made them--a few bleats from the intellectual far left were hardly heard.

Remember, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan not long before Reagan took office, and that provided all the context he needed. The nation generally went along with Reagan as far as handling the Soviet Union was concerned. His "Star Wars" initiative was wildly popular. Even Democrats were busy trying to prove they could be tough, too.

Remember, the Soviets *invaded Afghanistan* after the request of its government for help to fight the radical Islam in the country.
So.. does it then make the radical Islam the "ultimate good" in your book ( since the Soviets intended to fight it, while the US supported it)
?
Was the radical Islam the "ultimate good vs evil (i.e. "the Soviets)" from Reagan's point of view as well then?


(So, speaking of the major controversies ( and then some more) and the whole Reagan's approach here... )

Last edited by erasure; Yesterday at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:50 AM
 
20,568 posts, read 11,471,205 times
Reputation: 20779
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Remember, the Soviets *invaded Afghanistan* after the request of its government for help to fight the radical Islam in the country.
Yeah, that was the Soviet line.

At least you're consistent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Holly Neighborhood, AUSTINtx
3,597 posts, read 5,359,465 times
Reputation: 2263
In retrospect it doesn't really bother me, especially given the cartoonish, partisan nature of today's political climate. Also I could use similar, more nuanced language like 'dysfunctional' or 'corrupt' for the old U.S.S.R. which isn't far way from the adjective Reagan used.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top