Reagan's Legacy - How will he be remembered?

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Soviet Premier Gorbachev's three predecessors Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko had all died during Reagan's first four years in office. Whenever Reagan was asked why he had waited so long for a summit with the Soviets, he would reply, "They kept dying on me."

Well, certainly Reagan got lucky with this-

Brezhnev presided over the beginning of the internal collapse of the SU. He let corruption get out of hand and did nothing to stop it. I think Andropov would have matched Reagan's belliegerance and postponned any real reforms-that would have continued the internal collapse and corruption, but the Soviet Military Complex would have continued to hum. BUt he drops dead fast, then comes Chernenko, another old guard (obviously too old), he drops dead, and thus comes Gorbachev-thinking of reforming the USSR to save it, but coming too late, unable due to rampant corruption to open up the economy, yet also carrying out political reforms, which brought him down- a lesson, as always, that the Chinese learnt, which is why as the USSR abandoned the East European regimes to their own, they let the tanks roll onto Tianemen.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Verto


Yes, a small feint that drew away German manpower from the Eastern Front, thus allowing the Soviets to take the offensive in the first place.

Actually, the great offensives by the Soviets begun in the winter of '42, with a german counter in summer of '43, followed by Soviet counterattacks for the next 2 years.

To compare-on june 6th, the spearhead of 250,000 men invaded normandy along a front of a few dozen miles. On June 30th, over a million soviet troops attacked 900,000k German soldiers along a front of hundreds of miles.

Even Churchill resognized that in Europe, it was the USSR that gutted the wehrmacht.

[Verto]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, the great offensives by the Soviets begun in the winter of '42, with a german counter in summer of '43, followed by Soviet counterattacks for the next 2 years.

To compare-on june 6th, the spearhead of 250,000 men invaded normandy along a front of a few dozen miles. On June 30th, over a million soviet troops attacked 900,000k German soldiers along a front of hundreds of miles.

Even Churchill resognized that in Europe, it was the USSR that gutted the wehrmacht.

Germany was having to divide it's troops between multiple fronts opened up in Africa, in Italy, and finally Western Europe. They had to send hundreds of thousands to fight against possible invasions, against spectres like Patton's imaginary army force.

Both sides were critical in achieving Allied victory.

And regarding the USSR gutting the Wehrmacht:

The US intentionally allowed the Soviets to take the brunt of Germany's attack, to suffer higher casualty rates, despite the warnings by persons such as Patton.

The US also was key to destroying the German war machine at home, thus giving the Soviets the necessary advantage to advance into Europe.

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, the great offensives by the Soviets begun in the winter of '42, with a german counter in summer of '43, followed by Soviet counterattacks for the next 2 years.

To compare-on june 6th, the spearhead of 250,000 men invaded normandy along a front of a few dozen miles. On June 30th, over a million soviet troops attacked 900,000k German soldiers along a front of hundreds of miles.

Even Churchill resognized that in Europe, it was the USSR that gutted the wehrmacht.

hint: attacks on Germany were ongoing before June 6, 1944 by the allies. By allies I don't include the Soviet Union

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by St Leo
Why would terrorists use nuclear weapons? The point of terrorism is to terrify into doing your thing -- the way 9/11 terrified Bush into helping Osama by deposing Iraq's secular government and moving out forces blasphemously stationed in the holy Saudi Arabia -- and not to wipe out.

You've bot into the Faux news theory that Iraq had anything at all to do with 9/11?

Bush's response to 9/11 has been the exact OPPOSITE of what AQ wanted.

[OzzyKP]

I dunno where the tribute thread went, but I think I'm gonna go down on Thursday to see the viewing in the Rotunda.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Verto
FDR supported Stalin, who murdered millions.

Roosevelt = Reagan = teh evil

I seem to recall that was in a war against a joint enemy that was turning its own citizens (and a a good many civilians in Occupied Europe) into soap, gold bullion and lampshades.

Is it your assertion that Daniel Ortega was about to turn Nicaragua into a replay of the Third Reich, or that perhaps Grenada was going to turn into the Killing Fields of the Caribbean? Perhaps the mighty terror of the Grenadan fishing fleet was going to be unleashed against the shrimp boats of Texas....

Otherwise I fail to see why America under Reagan would invade a member of the British Commonwealth (without even bothering to have the courtesy to inform either Margaret Thatcher or the Queen) or sponsor the kind of people in Central America who raped and murdered not just the brown people, who are so easily forgotten about, but even, shock shock, horror horror, Catholic American nuns, those well known Commie agents of subversion.

'Soon the new secretary of state, Al “I’m in Charge Now� Haig was testifying before Congress that those bothersome nuns might have been trying to run a legitimate roadblock and were shot in the act. (He never explained how or why they also might have raped themselves).'

and:

'...on November 16, 1989, in the midst of another guerrilla offensive — an elite detachment of the Salvadoran army’s First Infantry Brigade staged a pre-dawn break-in into the residential quarters of San Salvador’s private Catholic university. They forced the much-loved and respected Jesuit rector, Father Ignacio Ellacuria, and five other priests — Juan Ramon Medrano, Armando Lopez, Segundo Montes, Ignacio Martin Baro and Joaquin Lopez y Lopez —onto the floor, and then they blew out their brains with automatic rifles. Also murdered were a housekeeper and her daughter.'

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/03/25th-cooper.php

I'm not quite sure how the activities of Central American death squads killing Jesuits and housekeepers furthered either the creation of democracy or an ethical foreign policy, but then I wouldn't have backed the murderers of Unita in Angola, or described someone who disembowelled his predecessor as being like one of the Founding Fathers. Although, I can't actually recall much disembowelling going on amongst the Founding Fathers, so perhaps Reagan had some other atrocities in mind...

[St Leo]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm not quite sure how the activities of Central American death squads killing Jesuits and housekeepers furthered either the creation of democracy or an ethical foreign policy, but then I wouldn't have backed the murderers of Unita in Angola, or described someone who disembowelled his predecessor as being like one of the Founding Fathers. Although, I can't actually recall much disembowelling going on amongst the Founding Fathers, so perhaps Reagan had some other atrocities in mind...

Wasn't George Washington Carver the guy who carved up George Washington?

Or should I stop getting my US history from the Simpsons?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Bush's response to 9/11 has been the exact OPPOSITE of what AQ wanted.

Wow... you really have no clue. Read some books. I get tired of telling you your wrong.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm not quite sure how the activities of Central American death squads killing Jesuits and housekeepers furthered either the creation of democracy or an ethical foreign policy, but then I wouldn't have backed the murderers of Unita in Angola, or described someone who disembowelled his predecessor as being like one of the Founding Fathers. Although, I can't actually recall much disembowelling going on amongst the Founding Fathers, so perhaps Reagan had some other atrocities in mind...

Wasn't George Washington Carver the guy who carved up George Washington?

Or should I stop getting my US history from the Simpsons?

I think he was the gent who sliced up the Thanksgiving turkey.

Or he might have been the chap who was with Reagan when Reagan 'filmed' the death camps and 'went' to Nicaragua.

As for getting your history from 'the Simpsons', it seems to be more accurate than some people's.... or perhaps the yellow shade of Simpsons' history is just preferable to the whitewash currently being used by the Reaganites.

[johncmcleod]

Only if you really care about that sort of things. Me being an ends justify the means type of person, it doesn't.

Yeah, I actually have concern for human life and I care about that sort of things. What Reagan did in Africa and Central America was completely unexcusable and atrocious, and it did no good. There was no 'ends.' All it resulted in was better American business and millions of lives ruined.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by the_ceebs
Let's not forget Ron's actions on the 40th aniversary of D-Day

Laying a wreath in an SS cemetary.

You mean Bitburg?

49 out of 2000 graves?

A mountain out of a molehill.

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id342.htm

[Sava]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


Yeah, I actually have concern for human life and I care about that sort of things. What Reagan did in Africa and Central America was completely unexcusable and atrocious, and it did no good. There was no 'ends.' All it resulted in was better American business and millions of lives ruined.

You see... the thing with the right is, they don't give a **** about human life. They don't care about freedom, or human rights, or stopping oppressive dictators. It's all about what's good for corporations. How fitting that their idol is an alzheimers patient who had a truly evil foreign policy. America's idolatry of Reagan almost makes me think we deserve to be attacked by terrorists. Is this what happened to Rome in the last days? Evil Roman emperors fiddling like idiots, living like Gods while the city burned? It's really a shame that America propagates freedom and all those warm fuzzy things... but in the end, we're lead by evil men. I'm so sick to my stomach. Every time I see Reagan's stupid face, I want to throw up.

America started out with such good intentions. Lip service was paid about freedom, and all men being created equal while America remained a slave-owning nation. And it took a war to stop that evil practice. I think one word can sum up America. Hypocrisy. It's all bull**** and I'm sick of it. It's sad to say that evil pieces of **** like Osama bin Laden have just cause to hate America. It was so sad on 9-11 to see all those innocent people dying... not because a bunch of psychoes "hated freedom"... it's because America has commited great evils upon the world and now evil was being commited upon us because of the actions of evil men like Ronald Reagan. **** you mr reagan. **** you mr bush. God, I hope there's a hell. Because if there is, men like reagan and bush will surely be burning in it.

That's reagan's legacy. And hopefully, Satan's sticking a hot poker in his ****ing ass right now.

I'm done with this thread.

[DinoDoc]

Finally. I was begining to worry at your case of raging diarrhea of the mouth.

[johncmcleod]

Though Sava may have expressed it in a childish way at some parts of the post, he's actually right on the money. What he said made as much sense as anything in the thread. It is so true.

The conservatives worship him and hold parades for him. They talk about what a great president he was. How he stood for democracy. Yet you bring up examples to these people of how murderous of a leader he was. In Central America, Asia, and Africa he supported and helped commit some of the most brutal acts in the history of mankind. Yet they shrug it off and say, "The means are justified by the end."

America makes me sick.