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.
Hmm, little affect on world history you say? The middle east feared him. Feared him so badly, the day it was realized he would be president, Iran realised the hostages.
Actually, the hostages were released at the moment Reagan became President... early afternoon on Inauguration Day, 1981. Alleged "fear of Reagan" had nothing to do with it. Assuming that we can discount for the moment the evidence (such as shipments of military supplies from Israel to Iran in March 1981) that Reagan campaign officials had illegally negotiated with Iran to hold the hostages at least through the election, we are left with the established explanation of Khomeini's desire to humiliate Carter however he could for having supported the Shah, and particularly for having allowed that exiled former ruler into the US for medical treatment. I'm sure you'll remember the Shah. He's the brutal, Saddam-like dictator whom the US and Britain installed in Iran in 1953 in a naked interventionist oil-grab, thereby undoing the democratic government of Mohammad Mossadeq, who was obliged to live under house arrest for the rest of his natural life. Not very many Americans actually recall these events. Every Iranian does.
Khomeini of course had nothing to do with the US Embassy takeover, and the hostages might have been seen as excess baggage by him, something to be bargained away quickly. But the Ayatollah was a shrewd politician, and he quickly realized instead that a hard line on the hostages could be of considerable advantage to him in the internal political process of marginalizing the moderate and secular factions within the still unstable power structure of the fledgling Revolutionary Government, and also in maintaining his popular support and image among the anti-Western masses. Reagan's role in all this was of course nil. Save perhaps for the fact that any release of the hostages during say the summer of 1980 would have been a severe blow to his campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38
The great German wall ring a bell? End of communism in the USSR, ring a bell? Lybia, ring a bell? Shall I go on?
That's one ringy-dingy. Two ringy-dingies. Unfortunately, Reagan played no particular role at all in Eastern European events of the time. It was merely his good fortune to be on duty as they unfolded, much as it had been Carter's misfortune to be on duty at the time of the 1979 Oil Embargo. Reagan did do a fine job as international cheerleader for Solidarity and for tearing down this wall, thus echoing the similar efforts of every President since Truman, but while on the stage, his role was limited to that of a walk-on.
Libya was one of Reagan's many failures. His interventionism culminating in the bombing raids that killed Qaddaffi's daughter accomplished nothing, but did serve to shore up the political stature the regime while turning Qaddaffi himself into a pan-Arab icon. They helped sear into Arab memories yet another Mossadeq-like image of American brutality, and of course, they led directly to Lockerbie. Those raids were launched over Britain's objections and were strongly criticized by major anti-Qaddaffi groups and organizations. They were just another example of the utter impracticality of knee-jerk, cowboy militarism. We've had some more of those since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38
Domestic? Enjoy the strong economy and growth we have had for about 25 years now in America? Reagan got it all rolling.
By doing what again? Reagan's economic policies were at first criticized, then they failed completely, and ever since, they have been classified as discarded. Except of course in the minds of some absurd people. There are always the absurd people. What Reagan actually began was a now 30-year process of turning away from the thesis of managed capitalism to one of laissez faire free-market capitalism. The era has been characterized by industrial decay, destruction of the social contract, consolidation in the place of competition, an emphasis on profits over people, absurd budget imbalances, increasing inequities of income, wanton fraud and abuse, degradation of the environment, and a general loss of American economic power and prestige. I guess you see all of these as being good things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38
As for Aids? Don't want Aids, don't get it, it really is that simple Always been my stance on it.
If that's always been your stance, you've always been wrong, as well as very poorly informed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38
Other then the very small percentage of babies born with it and rape vicitms, the other 99% get it from being really, really stupid.
Tell that to the 30% of HIV/AIDS victims diagnosed in 2005 who contracted the disease through good old missionary-position heterosexual relations. It turns out that one of those really, really stupid things of yours is taking no precautions because you believe yourself to be involved in a strictly monogamous relationship...especially if you are a woman...
i like geore bush u guys might bash him but he has the old school way of thinking we need. what would al gore do thats more better than bush?i think the porblme is that bush has the way of thinking and idea that may be apreciated in 10-15 yers but right now its not acepted because of radical liberal thought movement.
"more better"...geez, what school did you attend? get an online degree, lol, they are valuable tools in the Dubya unemployment explosion, lol...
i like geore bush u guys might bash him but he has the old school way of thinking we need. what would al gore do thats more better than bush?i think the porblme is that bush has the way of thinking and idea that may be apreciated in 10-15 yers but right now its not acepted because of radical liberal thought movement.
actually none of them, I think the office is overated and should seriously be abolished, about all any of them have really accomplished historically is keeping the costume stores succsessful.
The only group of people in the world who credit Reagan with ending the Cold War are US right-wingers. They are also very nearly the only group among whom Reagan was extremely popular.
Sorry to burst your misguided bubble, but you are wrong. He "tore down that wall" (with the help of others) and he instrumental in the USSR implosion. Do you recall when Reagan died? The cross-country funeral procession and burial ceremony that lasted a week? That such love and RESPECT was shown as hundreds of thousands came out to honor the man. I bet you were sick to your stomach that so much fuss was given such an inconsequential man, ROFLMAO.
Quote:
It is the President and his economic aides and advisers who write the Budget of the US Government. Protest to the contrary all you like...it won't change the fact, one that many grade-schoolers are already quite familiar with.
Didn't pdg post that link for you? The one "government for kids"? Your ignorance about fundamental knowledge regarding the three branches is astounding.
Carter was more than "unlucky". His policies (the same today for dems/libs) are just plain wrong-headed. Examples of what the country would look like if the dems/libs had their way.
Detroit, and Michigan as a whole. Controlled for years by the dems.
New Orleans. Ditto.
Buffalo, NY. Ditto.
California. Ditto
Just a sampling of what the dem/lib economic/social policies can do for you.
Blindly posting those biased sites isn't exactly helping your case, nor will it change the facts I posted.
Yes, biased of course. Would you believe what Jewish survivors would tell you of the Holocaust? No, of course not. Biased sourcing. Meanwhile, the facts you posted did not include the fact that in terms of funds actually spent, nine times as much money went to research on Legionnaire's Disease (killer of almost 50) than to HIV/AIDS. Those were Reagan's priorities. And they stayed Reagan's priorities. Only after Nancy's close friend and frequent White House guest, Rock Hudson, died of AIDS did she manage to club him into any sort of recognition of the disease at all. Reagan not only failed to recognize and address the growing crisis, he actively and deliberately ignored it, while a killer brought about the deaths of at least ten times more Americans than the attacks of 9/11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
None. And neither did Reagan. The U.S. never gave Saddam/Iraq WMD.
Yes, we did. And then we essentially gave them the GPS coordinates of Iranian troops on which to use them. Among the agents provided to Saddam by the US or through US-arranged private contracts were anthrax, mustard gas, and botulinum. Presursors for other agents were also provided, along with the tools and technology needed to process and deliver these on the battlefield. When George W Bush complained that Saddam had used WMD on his neighbors, those were US-supplied WMD's delivered using US-provided logistical support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Saddam's ties with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations was mainly in the '90s and later.
Saddam had no ties with al Qaeda and had no signifcant relationship. He had long-standing relationships with various Palestinian organizations that have been classified as terrorist groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Failure of Reaganomics? LOL! The most prosperous decade the U.S. had enjoyed since the 1940s was a "failure?" LOL!!!
Yes, complete failure. Nothing that was supposed to happen did, and Reaganomics was long gone by the time that second term rolled around. As I noted earlier, Reagan does at least deserve a tip of the hat for having recognized a policy disaster when he saw one and then having taken steps to reverse course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Regarding AIDS (which I already posted facts on), the social safety net, Iran/Contra, etc, only the anti-Reagan people are ignorant to the truth. You are obviously an anti-Reagan person who will never give him credit for anything, even though Carter and Clinton (among others) pale in comparison to Ronald Reagan.
Blah-blah-blah, as usual. Your so-called facts are for money which Reagan could and should have spent but didn't. The truth, regardless of one's views of Reagan, are that he quite purposefully distanced himself from AIDS and AIDS victims for years, allowing and supporting policies of retribution rather than remediation while thousands upon thousands of Americans suffered and died. This is not a matter of interpretation. It is simply what happened, and historians will not be kind to him over it.
Get real. Reagan was either mocked or loathed in Europe- how do I know? I lived there during the late Reagan years. The only people who "liked" him were politicians who tried to be diplomatic. Thatcher wasn't that popular in the UK either, at least with the younger generation. The only reason she won was by galvanizing the fascist tendencies of her country around the Falklands War.
Sorry to burst your misguided bubble, but you are wrong. He "tore down that wall" (with the help of others) and he instrumental in the USSR implosion.
Would have happened with him or without him. Reagan's role was inconsequential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Do you recall when Reagan died? The cross-country funeral procession and burial ceremony that lasted a week? That such love and RESPECT was shown as hundreds of thousands came out to honor the man.
Yeah, people get all dewy-eyed over Elvis, too. Doesn't mean he would have made a good President. Probably better than W, though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
I bet you were sick to your stomach that so much fuss was given such an inconsequential man, ROFLMAO.
Bonus holiday for me. We had a really good tee-time...too bad the weather didn't much cooperate...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Didn't pdg post that link for you? The one "government for kids"? Your ignorance about fundamental knowledge regarding the three branches is astounding.
Yeah, and you'd think what with running back and forth between OMB, Treasury, and Capitol Hill all these decades, I'd have figured all this out by now, wouldn't you. But since you apparently weren't very much impressed with the link provided to the Budget document itself...the one where it says "My budget,this. My budget, that. My budget, the other thing. Signed, George W. Bush"...maybe you could do so much as read the first sentence of the Wikipedia article for United States federal budget. It ascribes authorship. The words it uses in so doing are..."the President". Oh well....
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Carter was more than "unlucky". His policies (the same today for dems/libs) are just plain wrong-headed.
I strongly suspect that you don't know what any of them were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Examples of what the country would look like if the dems/libs had their way.
Detroit, and Michigan as a whole. Controlled for years by the dems.
Michigan? Yes, the governor has been a Democrat for the last five years, and for twelve years out of the past forty-five. Republicans have just never been given a chance out there...
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.
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.
