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 07-14-2012, 04:16 AM
 
4,279 posts, read 5,090,576 times
Reputation: 2372

Advertisements

The Soviets gave up when Reagan told them to beat it at the Iceland summit and he cut taxes which induced massive economic growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2012, 06:12 AM
 
Location: right here
4,162 posts, read 5,511,704 times
Reputation: 4928
Which brings us to...



Absolute nonsense. How Reagan gets credit for something that NO ONE in the United States government even saw coming is amazing, and rather insulting to the policies of Mikail Gorbachev and those who developed the democratic movements that swept through the Warsaw nations as a result of those policies.
This reasoning is flawed in fundamental respects. It both greatly overstates the importance of Reagan's "toughness" in bringing the Soviets to their knees and downplays the truly historic departure of new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev from his predecessors. Three key weaknesses in the narrative stand out.
Jonathan WeilerProfessor, Global Studies, UNC Chapel Hill

Jonathan Weiler: Why Ronald Reagan Didn't Really Win the Cold War

Gorbachev on 1989 | The Nation

Credit for the Fall of Communism[/quote]


Well then Obama shouldn't get credit for killing Osama....he didn't do it..our military did.


I for one think Reagan was one of the best presidents..I was young and I remember listening to one of his speeches..my dad loved him so here I am sitting in front of the tv, not knowing what really he was speaking about. The only things I remember is how much he wanted the american people to become great americans and how the US be great again.

It saddens me that america is not so great right now.

One of my favorite quotes " "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2012, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,768,634 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka View Post
The Soviets gave up when Reagan told them to beat it at the Iceland summit and he cut taxes which induced massive economic growth.
So in your view things are this simplistic? Naturally then Ronald Reagan would have won the cold war by him simply quoting Michael Jackson by telling the Soviets to "beat it"--which makes him a much better president than other cold warriors like Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, JFK, Ike, Truman. I mean, these presidents didn't have the moxy, nor did it occur to them that they could simply tell the Soviets to "beat it." (maybe because Thriller had not been released during their terms in office).

My how simplistic of an analysis. Have you ever thought of writing a book on the subject? Oh, you don't have to because your whole analysis is just one statement, quoted above!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2012, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Not where you ever lived
11,537 posts, read 29,680,578 times
Reputation: 6420
Oh dear, let's not turn this wonderful discussion into a WWI dogfight, eh?


I liked Reagan as a person. He graduated with a double major from a school that is considered one of the TOP 25 Liberal Art Colleges in America, and he was a governor. California politics is a lot different than in the Beltway. I am not convinced any politician in America is fully prepared for the reality of their future in the Oval Office. I think the biggest problems are the Cabinet they select, the Party favors owed, the powerful PACs, and what type of problems they inherit from previous administrations.

I don't think one man can be blamed for all of America's ills. We don't have a Monarchy or Dynasty at the helm. Change is inevitable and most of us do not like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2012, 11:21 AM
 
447 posts, read 714,835 times
Reputation: 366
I can say I liked Reagan. I myself believe to keep peace in the world we need a strong milatary if for anything to make a country think twice about messing with the US and her allies. A strong milatary will help deter fighting and I liked how Reagan was very tuff when he told the Soviets that there is NO way they will win an arms race with us. To many Demacratic Presidents wanted to cut the milatary to unsafe levels which I feel was stupid. I may be biased but I look at the US as the good guys. When I think of WWII and how people of all nations were glad to see US troops. Look at how Soviet troops treated civillians in WWII and how the Nazi's treated all people. That was evil. Even with Japan they were surprised how well we treated them even though they were the loosers. My point is to be the good guys and stay that way you need a strong milatary and Ronald Reagan did that for the US. I dont mean a strong milatary to use it as hopefully that never happens but a strong milatary to hoefully deter the bad countries from knowing they cant defeat a country that stands for justice. Ron
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2012, 05:41 PM
 
5,768 posts, read 11,452,115 times
Reputation: 3854
It's still too hard to assess Reagan's legacy, since many of the trends (economic and social) that began to rise in the 1980's are still underway, and in some regards, we are still living in "the Reagan era" just as much as the Clinton or GW Bush eras. Reagan's eventual legacy will depend on the direction that these things take in our own short and medium-term futures.

I think some trends and future areas of focus are taking shape, though. For instance, there were warnings way back in the 1970's that Medicare and Social Security could potentially become troublesome due to the reliance of those programs on the retiree:worker ratio. However, these programs were not really adjusted or adapted during the Reagan era. The national debt was steadily increased, and a lot of things were simply shoved on down the road for someone else to deal with in the future.

That future is arriving now, and if these programs blow up financially, it will probably pull down Reagan's overall reputation a bit. He'd be seen as one in a string of presidents who failed to grapple with what would later become the nation's core dilemmas.

One area where Reagan's legacy may be improving is in foreign policy and his military policies. At the time, his critics saw him as a dangerous warmonger. But during his time in office, US forces did not undertake that many direct combat missions. Reagan shied away from putting lots of Americans directly into certain wars where the "hawks" were demanding more US involvement. For instance, the Cuba-Angola-South African mess, or in El Salvador. The US record in these places and others is tarnished for other reasons, but after the Lebanon debacle, Reagan had a certain reluctance to shove US soldiers into ground engagements. Grenada was a puny island. The Libya raids were conducted from the air.

War-hawks actually gained a lot more ground in DC and the foreign policy establishment once Reagan was out of office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2012, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,479 posts, read 18,509,977 times
Reputation: 21471
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
1. Ending the economic recession of late 70's and early 80's. America dove into a deep economic recession (one that rivals our current one) during the last years of the Carter Presidency. This recession was not only typified by high unemployment. We also experienced some very unusual at the same time--record high inflation.
Real Inflation was not "record high."

The Real Inflation in the post-WW I period was significantly worse, and so was the Real Inflation following the 1st Great Depression of the 19th Century (which end coincided with the start of the Civil War).

So your analysis fails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The Federal Reserve must be given some credit for ending the inflation that occurred.
Well, you know, that is their job, since they are a central bank, and that's what all central banks on Earth attempt to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
They raised interest rates to record high levels and that caused the recession to become particularly deep.
(Sigh), nothing like have a person unfamiliar with Economics make a really silly comment.

The US central bank, which is called the Federal Reserve, does not operate in a vacuum. All powers of the Federal Reserve are checked and balanced by the US Congress and the President. For every single action which the central bank may take can be negated or undone by Congress. Congress just has to want to do it.

The central bank told Carter what he must do, namely that he must cut spending. Carter refused to do that, and since both the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats, that is a failure on the part of Carter to provide leadership. Of course, the guy was an idiot who had been governor of Georgia at a time when Georgia was a podunk backwater State and nothing like Georgia is now.

You had excess US Dollars in the global economy because of spending during Vietnam, because of the Grotesque Society, because of other domestic programs, and other reasons. That money had to come out, and the only way to get it out was to raise interest rates, since Carter refused to cut spending.

The other factor that you and everyone else ignores is the FICA/SECA tax rates:
1969 4.20%
1971 4.60%
1973 4.85%
1974 4.95%
1978 5.05%
1979 5.08%
1981 5.35%
1982 5.40%
1984 5.70%

A lot of you still have this bizarre belief that you can take money out of people's pockets and it never gets missed. It does get missed.

The US leaving the Gold Standard had an affect as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Reagan's policies though of lowering taxes undoubtedly contributed to the economic recovery that took place. The country recovered relatively rapidly from high unemployment that occurred.
Why?

What are recessions? Recessions are a naturally occurring reallocation of Capital from the least efficient use to the most efficient use. That reallocation sometimes results in wholesale shifts of Capital from one region to another (even one country to another). You actually saw that. Textiles shift from New England to the South East, and heavy and light manufacturing shifts from the Midwest to the South (and also to the West/Southwest).

The reason people went back to work, is because there was an outlet (actually several) to absorb the excess Capital which existed in the form of Labor.

That does not always happen. There have been many times in history when there was no outlet to absorb the excess labor and so it just sat around (or rather people just sat around). That is very often true when new technologies are introduced.

In this current economy, there is no outlet for the excess labor, nor will there be an outlet. You lost jobs, permanently, and only an idiot would waste time and money trying to "create" jobs that cannot be created.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
2. Ending the Cold War. An objective student of history would have to say that the Cold War would have eventually ended on its own.
An objective student of history? Are you serious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
By the 1970's the Soviet economy was staggering under the wait of mismanagement.
That is not entirely true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The country could never compete with foreign countries in terms of exports.
And why was that?

The United States and the United Kingdom conspired to bloc the accession of East Bloc currencies to the world market for trade.

For those who don't get it, you could walk into a bank and exchange US Dollars for French Francs, Swiss Francs, Austrian Schillings, German Marks, Belgian Francs, Dutch Guilders, Spanish Pestas, Italian Lira, Greek Drachmas, British Pound Sterling, and many others, but you could not exchange your US Dollars for Rubles, or Hungarian Forints, Romanian Lei, Eastern Marks, Polish Zlotky or Yugoslavian Dinars.

Why? I just told you why. The US and UK conspired to bloc the accession of East Bloc currencies to the world market for trade.

How can you trade for something that is not allowed to be traded?

The Bretton Woods Agreement. The US Dollar becomes the de facto currency of international trade. You want oil, natural gas, corn, soybeans, tin, copper, iron, gold, silver, platinum, gauze bandages, everything was traded in US Dollars.

Sure, France and Germany could trade between themselves in French Francs or German Marks or US Dollars or even British Pound Sterling if they wanted to do so, but not so the East Bloc Countries.

In typical fashion, most of you don't realize that Soviet economics history consists of two very distinct periods, the pre-War II Period and the post-WW II Era. The Soviets had a robust economy in the pre-WW II Period, but in the post-War Era their economy dd not fare well, largely in part due to continual harassment by the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Massive defense spending that occurred during the Reagan Presidency sent a clear message to the Soviets that they would have to make an intense struggle to maintain any parity with the USA. Eventually, this proved too much and Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, realized that and sought to make peace with the US.

That accelerated their financial demise. Without out that, the Soviets might have eventually pulled through.


Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
We had been through the hostage crisis in Iran.

Because of your own stupidity.


Smith had Khomeini in his pocket. All you had to do is roll out the red-carpet. Instead, the bungling Carter listened to his Social Democrats-turned-Neo-Cons and messed everything up.


You send a military officer to a foreign country to instigate a coup? Sorry, that is an act of war. The takeover of the embassy mission was justified. They forfeited their protections under international law by engaging in espionage, sabotage and acts of war.



Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
On the negative side, the Iran/Contra Scandal occurred while Reagan was President. This scandal was not an example of a corrupt or evil President. The problem that the scandal exemplified had more to do with the fact that Reagan became more and more out-of-touch with what was going on around him by about 1986.

Well, he is president and it is a bureaucracy, what did you expect?


In January 1985 at a press conference when Reagan said there were no "back-pack nukes" in Germany, do you think he was lying intentionally? No, he was merely stating the facts as he knew them, and he only knows what his staff tells him. I knew there 226 back-pack nukes in Germany, and I knew exactly were everyone of them was, but Reagan didn't. Why would he? He's nothing more than a freaking temporary employee. Like all presidents, he gets a Secret ATOMAL clearance as a matter of "professional courtesy" and the only reason he even gets that, is because ultimately it's a president's call to use nuclear weapons.


I have it on good word he was fuming mad when he found out. He signed the order in September 1986. I had just gotten back from Druzba '86 (a Warsaw Pact exercise) where I had been an observer out with Soviet nuclear units. We started pulling back-packs in October, and finished about the 3rd week of March or so. Reagan was in Germany about 2 weeks later in April. Some wreath laying ceremony at Bergen-Belsen and another in Bitburg where there was a brouhaha because a Nazi was buried in the cemetery. One of his people came over and talked to my Jesus Crew to thank them on Reagan's behalf.


In a bureaucracy, you have a lot of people with awesome power and authority, and they have budgets that don't always get audited, and they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want to do, especially if no one is looking over their shoulder, and that is especially true for the Alphabet Agencies.


What was Clinton's excuse for the Iran-Kosovo Affair? Clinton can't say he didn't know, because after Iran-Contra, the law was changed, and Clinton personally approved his #1 Neo-Con Tony Lake to handle that -- that's why Lake got shot down for an appointment as Director CIA -- I mean christ on his throne, Lake just violated 50 US Public Laws and half a dozen UN Security Council Resolutions, and people want him to be the CIA Director? Right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
He was just starting to experience early onset Alzheimer's Disease. However, he was not in control at this point and almost no one in the country really understood what was occurring. Ideally, Reagan's term in office would have ended by 1986. However, it didn't and in the last two years of his presidency there were legitimate concerns over whether a man in his condition should serve in the highest office in the land. Most of this was kept from the public and I regard it as a disservice.
Says who? I read daily and weekly intelligence summaries, especially when Gorbachev and Reagan were meeting in Iceland. Reagan was as sharp as a tack, knew exactly what he wanted, and picked the right people to help get the job done.


There wasn't anything wrong with Reagan and he was very much in control.



Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Its overlooked now, but virtually no President before or after had Ronald Reagan's ability to make verbal gaffes. Some were silly. Others were downright dangerous. One day, the during the very height of the Cold War, he made a joke about bombing the Soviet Union. Another time, he shocked a segment of the public by saying that nuclear missiles "could be recalled" after they were fired.
So? Okay, Reagan proved he was human and rather dark morbid sense of humor. And again, Reagan only knows what his staff tells him, so if they don't relate the facts correctly, then gaffes like that are possible.

In reality, nuclear missiles cannot be "recalled" once launched. Many (but not all) can either be rendered inert or destroyed in-flight, provided there's a telemetry hook-up.

In spite of what most of the idiots falsely believe, nuclear warheads are not "live" at launch from missiles or tube artillery, or even gravity bombs. A Pershing II arms itself in-flight after it first senses that it is traveling in excess of Mach 2, and at a certain altitude and it has an acquired target. Those are all safety features to prevent the accidental or intentional detonation of a warhead in the event one is stolen or captured. You can send bad altitude data to the PII and shut it down in-flight. It will impact in a dust cloud. Worst case scenario, you might get a 0.01 kt detonation.

What did Blow Job Bill say? "I did not have sex with that woman," right? Clinton and the Gorebot had plenty of gaffes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The Reagan Presidency marked a period where the distribution of income in this country became ever more lopsided.
Which Law of Economics says that income distribution has to be equitable?

Are you going to ignore the fact that your labor force participation rate when from 63.3% to 67.7%?

Well, of course you are. You have to ignore all of those women entering the work-force increasing the Supply of Labor and driving down wages, you know, since that really harms your argument. Your employment level went from 98 Million in 1980 to 112 Million by 1988.

Where do you think those 14 Million workers came from? They just fell out of the sky? No, those are women entering the work-force (labor force went from 98.1 Million in 1980 to 97.2 Million in 1983 to 101.2 Million in 1984).

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Reagan tax policies greatly favored the wealthy. The number of people calling themselves millionaires greatly increased. Unemployment was 10% at one point in the Reagan Presidency (before it declined).
A little revisionist history there?

Presidents write the tax codes? Really?

The House was controlled by the Democrats from 1955 to 1995. The House does the budget, right?

Historically...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Now let me deal with the mythology.

The recession of 1973-1975 was the result of OPEC's oil embargo and a major correction in the stock market. Reagan nor any other policy maker had any effect on the recovery.

Do you even know what you're talking about? The myth here is your claim that Reagan was president in 1973.


Crikey, and I thought the damn Committee for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) was bad with their propaganda that Reagan was elected in October of 1979 and immediately ordered the deployment of the Pershing II and GLCM-109G nuclear weapon systems (I kid you not -- the CND actually published that in their propaganda books -- look in the Library of Congress).


Mythologically....


Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
His place in history?

The President who chose to ignore the crisis while AIDS raged across America and the world.

Over-react much? You might want to study history. Reagan did all the right things, and in spite of what you believe, 0.01% of the population is not a crisis, and not worth bankrupting the country over.


Rationally....


Mircea


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawkfist View Post
He did the right thing at the right time. His policies were effective in the 80's, as there was a different economic climate than there is today. Too many people today want to try and implement those policies now in 2012, which I don't think would work. As a Republican, I wish Reagan wasn't treated as such a giant among conservatives. It's 2012, not the 1980's. Let's move on.

Hats off to you for the having the common sense and critical thinking skills to view things rationally.


These idiots think all recessions are created equally. They are not. Just like there are several different types of Inflation -- Real Inflation, Wage Inflation, Interest Inflation, Cost Inflation etc -- and each has its own root cause, and therefore has its own unique solution.



Recessions are no different. Each has its own root cause, and a solution -- assuming one is even possible -- is only forthcoming if people understand the cause of the recession.


Saluting...


Mircea


Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
The subject of AIDS is something different, however. As a volunteer for a major AIDS organization, though, I will tell you that those of us dealing with this most devastating medical crisis of the second half of the 20th Century ... Reagan was consider a VILLAIN

There was no leadership from either the White House or from most sectors of government to deal with that crisis. Tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Americans died needlessly as a result.

Rant much? 0.01% of the population is not a crisis.



Between 1981 and 1985 the US had already spent $85 Million on AIDs


How much more do you want?


You want to steal my money because people who engage in illegal, immoral, ethical or deviant sexual behaviors get sick? I'm not going give up my standard of living just because a bunch of heroin addicts got AIDS.



Sorry, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.



I'll pony up a pack of matches so you can burn their bodies -- cheaper than a wooden casket in a potter's field, and less work too.


Realistically...


Mircea



Quote:
Originally Posted by DiogenesofJackson View Post
So in your view things are this simplistic? Naturally then Ronald Reagan would have won the cold war by him simply quoting Michael Jackson by telling the Soviets to "beat it"--which makes him a much better president than other cold warriors like Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, JFK, Ike, Truman.

JFK? JFK caused the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK flubbed Berlin. Flubbed the Bay of Pigs. Flubbed the murder of Ngo Diem and his dim-witted half-brother side-kick, and just about messed up everything. Oh, yeah, the non-existent missile gap and the non-existent bomber gap.

Nixon? Nixon and that idiot Kissinger damn near started WW III with their duplicity over the Pakistani-Indian War. Sending the Enterprise there was really stupid, especially in light of Kissinger's playing China against India. And then of course we have Golda Meier threatening to go nuclear if Nixon doesn't give Israel satellite and aerial recon, plus supplies, because the Israeli's are getting their asses kicked in the Yom Kippur War.

Carter? Mucked up Afghanistan, mucked up Iran, mucked up damn near everything as well.

Truman? You mean the guy who thought he could nationalize US steel mills, because, you know, the president derives extra-constitutional authority from the Stamp Act Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. Oh, and Truman the clown who over-threw the Greek government?

At least Ike stayed on top of things.

And Johnson? What a loser. Vietnam, overthrew the Greek government again, plus all of the other shenanigans he and the Neo-Cons (they were called Social Democrats at that time) were into.

I'll take Reagan (or Ike) any day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiogenesofJackson View Post
I mean, these presidents didn't have the moxy, nor did it occur to them that they could simply tell the Soviets to "beat it."
Well, JFK was banging Soviet spies posing as prostitutes, so he was sort of politically compromised, but hey, no problem, he just sends RFK to trample the 1st Amendment and threaten the lives of two Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper editors to keep them from revealing that the top dog in the British Politician Sex Scandal wasn't even British -- it was JFK.

Ranking...


Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
I think some trends and future areas of focus are taking shape, though. For instance, there were warnings way back in the 1970's that Medicare and Social Security could potentially become troublesome due to the reliance of those programs on the retiree:worker ratio. However, these programs were not really adjusted or adapted during the Reagan era.
Uh, I don't even know to respond to lies like that.

Ford appointed a commission to study Social Security. It was too late in the term for Ford to act on the commission's recommendations, but Carter did the right thing and implemented most of what the commission suggested.

Reagan then appointed a commission to study Social Security further -- you look like a fool now -- and Reagan worked with Congress on problems of Social Security.

Because of that, you had these increases in the FICA tax rates:

1969 4.20%
1971 4.60%
1973 4.85%
1974 4.95%
1978 5.05%
1979 5.08%
1981 5.35%
1982 5.40%
1984 5.70%
1988 6.06%
1990 6.02%

There were also corresponding increases in the SECA tax rates for Medicare. So, it looks like Nixon did his job, Ford did his job, Carter did his job, Reagan did his job, and Bush the Elder did his job to protect the financial stability of both Social Security and Medicare.

Who dropped the ball?

That would be Blow Job Bill, Bush the Younger and The Boy King™.

Any questions?

You know, there is such an animal called the Social Security Administration web-site -- look into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
That future is arriving now, and if these programs blow up financially, it will probably pull down Reagan's overall reputation a bit. He'd be seen as one in a string of presidents who failed to grapple with what would later become the nation's core dilemmas.
What programs?

Seeing how you BOLO'd on your Social Security rant, I'm wondering if you can even find the US on a map of the world.

Debunking...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2012, 11:04 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
100,584 posts, read 103,099,456 times
Reputation: 113355
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka View Post
The Soviets gave up when Reagan told them to beat it at the Iceland summit and he cut taxes which induced massive economic growth.
Oh, yeah, like the Soviets step to the command of the Amerikansky Prezident. This shows profound ignorance of how the USSR worked. More Reagan mythology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2012, 11:42 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,318 posts, read 21,988,792 times
Reputation: 18436
Default Better than Dubya; but that's it

Economically, his "trickle-down" economic theory continues to haunt us today as the only economic theory that his party clings to. It has never worked, and helps those who are privileged remain that way. It helps those who benefit from the unearned privilege, continue to do so. The trickle never happens. His lack of creativity in devising a more ingenious and effective economic solution for Republicans to implement, only underscores the fact that he was a mediocre president at best. He wasn't a visionary. He wasn't supremely intelligent. He didn't appear to have to overcome any adversity to get where he was. His quips are a California lark trademark.

In Reagan, it is true that he was not a great president who came along and caused change. Rather, those were great times, and this medicore, second-rate actor happened to be in the right place at the right time. The cold war was set to end anyway. Reagan benefited from the presence of a truly great man in Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. I would place Reagan far, far below our current President, maybe a notch above Bush who was the worst ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2012, 03:57 AM
 
4,279 posts, read 5,090,576 times
Reputation: 2372
Absolute nonsense. How Reagan gets credit for something that NO ONE in the United States government even saw coming is amazing, and rather insulting to the policies of Mikail Gorbachev and those who developed the democratic movements that swept through the Warsaw nations as a result of those policies.
This reasoning is flawed in fundamental respects. It both greatly overstates the importance of Reagan's "toughness" in bringing the Soviets to their knees and downplays the truly historic departure of new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev from his predecessors. Three key weaknesses in the narrative stand out.
The Left will never quit in trying to rewrite history. They will never give credit to Reagan for ending the Cold War since he defeated their dream country, the USSR. Sure, "nobody saw it coming", because "they" the beltway, Washington elites, CIA, etc...made their careers on the Cold War never ending....but Reagan was ahead of them, he was unwilling to surrender. He believed the Soviet Union could be defeated and he did it. Remember his speeches calling the Soviets evil? The left, MSM went nuts, but who was right and who was wrong?

We won, Reagan won, the Left lost, Communism lost, USSR was defeated.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top