Reagan

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As for the 'dozing' during cabinet meetings, I've yet to get proof of this, even though I've been asking on the forum for years .

Jeez, even the man himself joked that the chair he sat in at cabinet meetings should bear a plaque declaring "Ronald Reagan slept here"!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, even the man himself joked that the chair he sat in at cabinet meetings should bear a plaque declaring "Ronald Reagan slept here"!

Yes, making light of a false image is one way to defeat it. At least you acknowledge he was smart .

[Ned]

Originally posted by Theben

ned,

But, do you not remember or did you not learn that that was exactly what Reagan's critics said during his early presidency? They objected to the buildup, to placing new missles in Europe, to Star Wars, on exactly these grounds. At the time, the USSR was perceived as an invincible superpower, and the anti-Reaganites were much more into appeasement than confrontation.

It wasn't about appeasement. It was attempting to curb Ronnie's spendthrift ways. Especially with Star Wars, which was a colossal waste of tax dollars.

I am primarily referring to the outbursts in Europe and from the far left radicals in the US. Reagan had a real hard time getting the Euro's to upgrade to a new US missile. They never agreed to Star Wars, just like they have never agreed to its modern variant, the NMD. There were riots in the streets in Europe and demostrations here in the US. Reagan was called a warmonger, etc. The left preferred appeasement of the USSR.

Sure there were Democrats who were concerned about the cost of the military buildup. But many also were concerned that Reagan was being unnecessarily provocative. Posts from students in US universities at the time are posted here in this thread. Reagan was primarily opposed on ideological grounds, not cost grounds.

[Theben]

IIRC the Europeans didn't want nukes on their soil period, since it made them a higher priority on the nuclear target scale. So I can't blame them there.
And there is a difference between 'appeasement' and 'non-provocative'. Standing your ground is one thing. Provoking a hostile response is another.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Ned:
John, may I ask, where did you learn all this about Reagan since you were born in '87?

By reading about it and talking to people that were there. How else could I have learned about him?

originally posted by Sikander:
You weren't there, and it shows. Your "facts" are a grab bag. Some correct, some incorrect and none with proper context. Your analysis sounds like a very facile set of opinions which are stretched to fit things as they are now. They have nothing to do with the situation in 1981-1989 which was what Reagan had to work with. The man is a complete cipher outside the context of his times.

Some specific examples would be helpful. And the things he did were not because of the situation at the time but because they helped US interests, and it happened to be at the expense of other people.

Being 'hands off' and delegating doesn't mean you don't stand up to your cabinet when you get the chance. In the end, the ultimate power was with Reagan. Usually he let the cabinet do their work, but if he didn't like where they were going he'd say it.

Well of course in the end the ultimate power was Reagan. That's what you'd expect from the president. And of course if he didn't like what his cabinet did he'd say it, I haven't heard of a president that even if he disagreed with what the cabinet was doing didn't say anything. I'd say that if you let the cabinet do the work and only say something when you disagree, that's hands-off. Ultimately it was the cabinet doing the work, he just occassionally would make a decision on his own if he disagreed with the cabinet's.

[The Vagabond]

A few curious stories about Reagan from the Soviet side of the fence.

During his first visit to Moscow (1987, I guess), he was asked whether he was still thinking that the SU was an evil empire. "No, I no longer think so" was Reagan's reply.

About the same time, Gorby and Reagan exchanged TV addresses to their respective nations. Gorby spoke to the American people, while Reagan appeared on the Soviet TV. He (Reagan) ended his speech with the words "God bless you". It was so unusual for the Soviet ear to hear such kind of words on TV that my grandmother, the only religious person in our family, was deeply impressed. She was in love with Reagan ever since.

Also when in Moscow, Reagan expressed his admiration for the Soviet women. In a casual and somewhat perplexed manner, he said something like that: "Oh, not only do they have to take care of their families, but also to work a whole working day!". Wow, that was a masterpiece! Women were bought. First, they appreciated his care. Second, a subtle message was sent that in America women can usually dedicated themselves to their families. No wonder he managed to handle America as he did.

[SpencerH]

Interesting comments vagabond.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Theben
IIRC the Europeans didn't want nukes on their soil period, since it made them a higher priority on the nuclear target scale. So I can't blame them there.
And there is a difference between 'appeasement' and 'non-provocative'. Standing your ground is one thing. Provoking a hostile response is another.

The problem wasn't just the nukes. Nato had a first strike policy. In other words if the Sovs invaded western europe Nato was going to use nukes first to stop the advancing soviet tank columns. They were using nukes to make up for the huge soviet superiority in conventional forces. This was a declared Nato policy.

There was no enthusiasm at all in Europe to become a nuclear battlefield.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


The problem wasn't just the nukes. Nato had a first strike policy. In other words if the Sovs invaded western europe Nato was going to use nukes first to stop the advancing soviet tank columns. They were using nukes to make up for the huge soviet superiority in conventional forces. This was a declared Nato policy.

There was no enthusiasm at all in Europe to become a nuclear battlefield.

Ah, yes, I do recall that now. Thanks.

[Ned]

From The New York Times
February 19, 2003 Another March of Folly? By Christopher Buckley WASHINGTON — Twenty years ago this month, I was an aide to Vice President George Bush during another trans-Atlantic crisis. There were demonstrations in European capitals in which America was portrayed as the threat to world peace and the American president was called a warmonger, a "cowboy" and worse. Vice President Bush's response in February 1983 may hold some lessons for President Bush in February 2003.

Two decades ago the vice president was dispatched to London to calm things down, to hold hands, to remind our European friends and allies that we were still all in this together. What made his trip necessary was the controversy over deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe; several years earlier, the Europeans had requested that the United States place Pershing 2 missiles in Europe to counter Soviet medium-range missiles that were aimed at the Continent.

But when the missiles were ready to be put in place, Europe changed its mind. We don't want those missiles after all, Europe decided, under pressure from its left and the Soviet Union. You'll just use them to wage nuclear war on our soil.

The United States countered that it had half a million American troops in Europe. These missiles were manifestly to protect them as well as Europe. And without them, the Soviets could destroy 100 European cities — along with those American troops — in 20 minutes with their SS-20's.

I was in the vice president's motorcade. I remember the demonstration we had to get through in London, on our way to the speech at Guildhall. Furious crowds lined the streets with signs that, 20 years later, remain unprintable in this newspaper. This particular group of angry demonstrators had been organized by the London School of Economics, as I recall, playing hooky from Keynes.

Watching them through the car windows, up close, face to face, inches away, I couldn't decide how to react. Here I was, an official member of the United States government — the speechwriter — driving through a capital that the United States had not considered hostile territory since 1814, and here were dozens of people calling me by quite unpleasant names.

What was the protocol? Did one smile and wave back serenely, as the queen would have — and as the vice president, a few cars ahead, surely was doing? Or did one sit sullenly and refuse even to acknowledge the young hearties of the L.S.E.? I could bring myself to do neither. Instead, I offered my best composed smile, and when I had made sure there were no cameras, I exercised a middle option.

Sometimes diplomacy can be satisfying. I hereby apologize for my appalling lapse in decorum.

That night in Guildhall, as the vice president gave a positively brilliant speech, the shouting of the demonstrators seemed loud enough to rattle the stained-glass windows of the historic building. There was a question-and-answer session afterward. A politician wearing the clerical collar of the Church of England rose and in a tone of high moral revulsion denounced the United States for bringing emotions in Europe to the present boil and for forcing on an unwilling England and Continent these ghastly weapons. He had children, he announced with umbrage, and he rather hoped he would be able to see them grow up and not be incinerated in a nuclear exchange initiated by America.

The vice president began to answer, in his usual earnest, thoughtful and patient way. And then he stopped. I saw the air go out of him. He sighed. It was as eloquent and sincere a sigh as I have ever heard from a politician.

"Look, I have kids too," he said. "Don't you think I want to see them grow up?"

He followed this remark by saying that these missiles — he did not add, "That you asked us for, bub" — were intended to make Europe safer, not more dangerous. He reminded the gentleman that President Ronald Reagan had pledged to meet with General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev "at any time" and "any place" to sign an agreement eliminating all intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

The moment was defused. I had never seen the vice president in better form.

We flew home the next day. In the following weeks, German voters elected candidates who supported the Pershing missile deployments. A few months later, the missiles went in.

A few years after that, Mikhail Gorbachev effectively surrendered in a cold war that had lasted almost four decades, and in a few more years the Berlin Wall came down. Game, set, match. The Gulag Archipelago is now Vladimir Putin's Russia. NATO now extends to the Baltics.

http://www.greatertalent.com/buckley021903.shtml

[johncmcleod]

Um, OK. That whole story is from a conservative American that worked in the Reagan administration. Don't you think that when talking about Bush and Reagan he might just a little bit biased?

[Ted Striker]

no

USA and allies whooped Soviet ass

Now the cowardly Muslim terrorists are going to get theirs

[Ned]

John, Why do you say a NY Times reporter who opposed the war in Iraq - read the end of the article online - is a conservative?

[Alexander's Horse]

They big lie in that article is the "they asked for the missiles" bit.

[Q Classic]

ned, not all who opposed the war were liberals. you did have a few conservatives who opposed the war in iraq.

not all liberals opposed the war, either.

===

the problem with star wars is that it'll never work until we have the technology for it, and we won't have the technology for it unless we spend a lot on it. so while we're spending all of that money, it won't work for most of the time.

my godfather's son is part of the team at raytheon working on their stuff. they've got a cute shirt that says "discrimination is our goal".

it has nothing to do with race.