Reagan

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by JohnT
I am an admirer of Bill Clinton. [/q]

So am I

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
anyone remember "reaganomics"?

Yes. The Reagan boom was and is legendary.

Do you deny that it occurred?

[Imran Siddiqui]

He had a solid group of core Republican advisors, but not the ability, the desire, or the will to question their direction.

I wonder why this falsity gets repeated so much? Reagan challenged his cabinet all the time. If he didn't we'd have a national ID card already. It's my favorite story: Reagan's entire cabinet was talking about issuing national ID cards (because of some crisis or another) and EVERYONE agreed. Reagan listened to everyone and then said in his regular joking manner "Why stop there, why don't we just put numbers on people's arms". Everyone in the room gasped, and 2 seconds later, no one wanted an national ID card anymore .

[-Jrabbit]

If this story is true, maybe I raise him to a 3...

[Q Classic]

Well, why not ask Gorbachev? Of course the USSR was being bled dry by Afghanistan and by the arms race with the US. Then came the Solidarity phenomenon in Poland that was reinforced by the Pope. This lead to democracy in Poland and then to democracy in Russia. The USSR then collapsed in the face of great pro-democracy leaders from within, like Walesa and Yeltsin.

in regards to the arms race, it was simply because they did not have the economy to compete.

that said... if you're aware of all of these internal and a few external problems in the eastern block which led to the downfall of the soviet system, how can you say that reagan won the cold war? he didn't. he was simply just another guy who happened to have the fortune of leading the us at the time--and that makes him responsible for defeating the cold war? especially when it fell one and three years after his departure?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
You didn't address my point that he made Americans feel good again through his perceived leadership. Which was my only point. I admit that he made mistakes. I'm just saying that the feel good thing was really important to the country at the time, and unless you were around, you probably don't realize how important it was.

Ok -- I suppose Raegan did make Americans feel good -- the same way using dope can make you feel good, but it would still be bad for you.

[rah]

good one.
Yes, there's some truth in that, but overall I think the good outweighed the bad.

RAH
Yes, quite good.

[MrFun]

thanks -- I try

[SpencerH]

Re: Reagan

Originally posted by Dissident
I used to think he was a pretty good president. But I really was too young, and I didn't remember some of the things that happenned.

He talked tough against the russians. but when you think about it, he was all talk and no action.

The point was the Soviets believed he would take action, after all he was a cowboy. Remember the 'we're gonna bomb Moscow in 5 min quote'. His policies hastened the end of the soviets

Sure it invaded grenada. But that wasn't much. A couple minutes of action. And lobbed a few bombs on Libya.

Libya has been pretty much quiet as a mouse since the F111 attacks and the actions by the SAS.

What upsets me is Beirut. Terrorists and people in the middle east found out it only took one bomb to drive the americans away. They still think this today. This is why they are trying to drive us out of Iraq. They are certain a few bombs will drive us away.

Reagan shouldn't have left Beirut go unpunished.

And what about Iran? He did nothing after that did he?

Yes I know the russians were the greater threat at the time, and he had no way of knowing what threat terrorism would pose to the U.S. in the future. But any attack on the U.S. should have been dealt with harshly- no matter who perpetrated it.

As for his domestic policy, well- I'm not overly impressed.

face it, Reagan was average at best.

I wont say much about the Beirut bombing since I was on duty that night. Lets just say it was a fiasco with a lot of causes but Reagan wasnt responsible (aside from trying to help the situation in Beirut by sending troops as peacekeepers).

Action was taken against the perps but it wasnt 'wave the flag'-type stuff.

I gave 'Dutch' a 10.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Well, why not ask Gorbachev? Of course the USSR was being bled dry by Afghanistan and by the arms race with the US. Then came the Solidarity phenomenon in Poland that was reinforced by the Pope. This lead to democracy in Poland and then to democracy in Russia. The USSR then collapsed in the face of great pro-democracy leaders from within, like Walesa and Yeltsin.

in regards to the arms race, it was simply because they did not have the economy to compete.

that said... if you're aware of all of these internal and a few external problems in the eastern block which led to the downfall of the soviet system, how can you say that reagan won the cold war? he didn't. he was simply just another guy who happened to have the fortune of leading the us at the time--and that makes him responsible for defeating the cold war? especially when it fell one and three years after his departure?

Well, Q Cubed, you do seem to admit, in a backhanded way, that Reagan help cause the failure of the USSR. Reagan accellerated the arms race and the USSR tried to keep pace. It couldn't keep up, you say, because it did not have the economy. But had Reagan not accellerated the arms race, perhaps the USSR would not have had to spend so much on defense and perhaps they could have invested more into their economy thus forestalling citizen anger. Think about it.

[realpolitic]

3 - Compared to Bush, he's a saint.

[Q Classic]

Well, Q Cubed, you do seem to admit, in a backhanded way, that Reagan help cause the failure of the USSR. Reagan accellerated the arms race and the USSR tried to keep pace. It couldn't keep up, you say, because it did not have the economy. But had Reagan not accellerated the arms race, perhaps the USSR would not have had to spend so much on defense and perhaps they could have invested more into their economy thus forestalling citizen anger. Think about it.

even without the reagan spending on the military, the infrastructure was not present in soviet russia to increase light industry by any appreciable margin. the soviets had blown all their money on heavy industry back in the 60s and 70s, meaning they'd either have to upgrade those, which was more likely, or write them off entirely to make light industry.

the system just plumb never worked, and by the time the 80s rolled around, the dry rot had set in to such an extent that reagan or no reagan, they would have gone the way of the dodo barring a huge miracle (like, aliens invading and wiping out the entire western world) within twenty years.

so i still don't see how reagan gets credit here. he didn't win the cold war; you can't pin that victory on one man.

why did america have such a huge economy? sure as hell wasn't reagan. not unless you want to shortchange the working man and say all of his efforts are worth something only because of some politician who got into office because he was better than that other guy.

face it. reagan's spending just didn't have much to do with the soviet collapse. it was the success of the american/western system and its people, not the leaders who were lucky enough to be around at the time.

[MrFun]

Let me try ONE MORE TIME . . . . .


Reagan does not deserve credit for the fall of the Soviet Union -- putting credit on one single person for the fall of an entire regime is ridiculous and extremely ignorant.

The Soviet Union fell for a variety of reasons -- which included poor economics, and of the Russian people themselves revolting against communism.

[Ned]

Q Cubed, do you expect the same collapse from Cuba?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun
Let me try ONE MORE TIME . . . . .


Reagan does not deserve credit for the fall of the Soviet Union -- putting credit on one single person for the fall of an entire regime is ridiculous and extremely ignorant.

The Soviet Union fell for a variety of reasons -- which included poor economics, and of the Russian people themselves revolting against communism.

It would have been a better comment without the histrionics, but you're correct, no one man caused the fall of the soviets. I'd like to point out, however, that prior to Reagan there was no evidence that the SU would collapse. Their military was at the height of their power and (potentially) an unstoppable threat to western europe (had they attacked). They had invaded Afghanistan, presumably enroute to a port on the indian ocean. In addition, they continued to fund the Cuban government and the Cuban military exploits throughout the region and in africa. The weak-kneed placating of the soviets by President Carter did nothing to weaken the hold of the communists on the SU and I dont recall ever attending 'a meeting' where "the russian people revolting against communism" was ever seriously discussed (at least not up until 1984 when I went back to uni). So I wonder what you base your comments on?