Reagan's Legacy - How will he be remembered?

[Drake Tungsten]

So, how long until we get Reagan on a coin? I suggest the fifty cent piece.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, I'm going to assume your trolling him and thus don't actually believe much of what you say

Assume away, but I do believe about 90% of what I said.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
The more you fight terrorists, especially Muslim ones, the more people around the world see the US fighting and killing people, and the more they hate us and more people join terrorist groups. We go around fighting Al Qaeda we just make it look like a war on Islam and we piss off a lot of Muslims, who in turn join organizations like Al Qaeda and kill innocent people.

Not really.

Most of the world is united with the US in the war on terrorism, including the vast majority of Islamic states. Of course it will piss of fundies but they are fundies and pissed off due to their very nature.

[germanos]

I can only give my personal view, and being a non-american, my view on his legacy is rather limited to his foreign policies, not on his domestic ones like the economy.

As he is the first president that I conciously remember, I remember him most as a US president that represented US militarism, and a relentless US policy of confrontation.
The 80's were quite a decade of doom from my perspective: here we had a bad recession, unemployment was high (which didn't effect me too much, as I was a student, but sure did not paint a good picture of what the future could hold for me), and the prospect of a war, likely to turn nuclear, seemed not too far away.
Reagan's policies appeared to do little to diffuse the situation, on the contrary: he chose confrontation.
The many wars that were fought (in Africa, middle and south-america, asia, war on drugs etc.) showed that the US was capable of doing bad things, and it was clear the world wasn't that black and white as what would be comfortable. This didn't really strengthen me in the opinion we had the right guys on our side.
Reagan was scary, and the most frightening thing was his apparent idiocy at times, the most frightening example his 'radio-speech' were he notified the US-populace that bombing of the USSR would commence in 15 minutes. Sure, it was very clear this was supposed to be laughed at, but I did so only to get rid of the knot in my stomach, not with a passion.
It was very difficult to feel comfortable with this guy at the helm of the USA, and I was glad he could only serve two terms.

The turn that took place during his presidency was truly amazing however: when Gorbatsjov emerged as leader of the USSR, quite suddenly a thaw in east-west relations occured, and I will be forever thankfull that Reagan did take the opportunaty to cooperate with the Soviets.
I remember very well how thin the edge of the coin appeared, and how uncertain it was if the change of leadership in the USSR, with the announced change in policies as well (perestroika, glasnost, what would it mean?) would really be able to make a difference from the world that was.
And it was evident that Reagan's attitude to the opportunaty at hand would be one of the decisive factors if the world was really to change direction at the crossroads at hand, or if would be only a glimmer of hope that would soon fade away.

IIRC, it was the summit in Reykyavik that really broke the ice in the end, and I remember very well the releive I felt when the historic thaw became apparent.

If anything, I think that the greatest achievement of Ronald Reagan is that he took the opportunaty at hand with the rise of Gorbatsjov, and that he was able to end his path of confrontation, and switch to a path of cooperation.


I will remember Reagan for a long time as the caracter from the 'Frankie goes to Hollywood' clip though: "when two tribes go to war", and it may be very well that this clip showed very much the situation where both the USA and the USSR found themselves: the ring-fight they were both in was not going to get them anywhere, and it was draining both there resources to an unacceptable level.

[Dis]

confrontational?

would you rather he back down in the face of the Soviets?

Some of you need to understand what a strong president is. Reagon was a strong president (except during the Beirut thing I lament upon in my above post)

At no time in the 80's were we even remotely close to war. That happened during a democrat's presidency during the 1960's.

[Imran Siddiqui]

At it is said, Diss... it is best to negotiate from a position of strength. Though I am glad that the USSR allowed a Gorby to rise to the position where things could be worked out without total paranoia on both sides of the bargaining table.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Dissident
confrontational?

would you rather he back down in the face of the Soviets?

Uhmm... So you agree he was confrontational?

Or do you disagree

[Dis]

well I was kind of young.

The Evil empire rant is a bit confrontational I admit. But other than that, I can't remember any specific examples. Perhaps the military buildup could be seen as confrontational. But the military was in a very bad state. I've heard stories from navy guys about the state of the navy in the 1970's. It was in shambles. Although Reagan may have went overboard. I don't think a 600 ship navy was needed. But that is what Reagan wanted.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Opinions will vary greatly depending on whether you're American or not. Growing up in the Cold War, Reagan terrified me. Labels of "evil" are way off the mark, but when you're sat inbetween the US and the USSR with a massively escalating arms race (plus SDI that looked like giving the US the ability to use nukes with impunity- at least, for people in the US), and US F1-11 jets are bombing Libya out of British air bases, it's a scary place to be.

I have grey hairs with his name on.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Dissident
I think Reagan was a great president. And yes I also think Thatcher was a great prime minister. So you know what side I lean on.

but what I am really dismayed at is the response to the Beirut bombings. 0 response. Marines I talked to in the navy wanted to kick some ass after that happened, but we did nothing. I understand his main focus was on communism, but we should have done something about the terrorist threat.

So I don't think he was that "tough" of a president. We could have taken care of the terrorist problem back then. Between him and Jimmy Carter terrorists got the idea that they could push the U.S. around and we'd back down. Which was true. Because of this, I have to pace partial blame of 9/11 on Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

That was an early mistake. The way he handled Libya, and those hijackers, demonstrated that he had learned from it.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So, how long until we get Reagan on a coin? I suggest the fifty cent piece.

Nah.

Knock Grant off the twenty!

[Drake Tungsten]

Nah.

Knock Grant off the twenty!

That option came to mind, as well. Why not do both? All the best presidents have both a bill and a coin with their image on it.

BTW, isn't Andrew Jackson on the twenty? I thought Grant was on the fifty...

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Imran, I'm going to assume your trolling him and thus don't actually believe much of what you say

Assume away, but I do believe about 90% of what I said.

Im referring to the whole "The US is the defender of freedom and democracy!" bit

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Nah.

Knock Grant off the twenty!

That option came to mind, as well. Why not do both? All the best presidents have both a bill and a coin with their image on it.

BTW, isn't Andrew Jackson on the twenty? I thought Grant was on the fifty...

Damn, you're right...

Knock Jackson off the twenty!!!

[Drake Tungsten]

Let's just knock Grant off the fifty and grace both the 50-cent piece and the 50-dollar bill with Reagan's image.