Ronald Wilson Reagan: Dead At Last!
Houndcat
FINALLY dead, dead DEAD!!
Hooray! May he rot in hell!
Houndcat
Pier-14
wearing black, or you may not. You may also see a white van parked up your
street, or you may not. Freedom will not be compromised, never again. God
bless Ronald Reagan, I hope he has enough jellybeans in the everafter.
"Houndcat" <houn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:NTtwc.1322$am1...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Houndcat
"Pier-14" <fisherm...@comcast.net> wrote
> In about 30 seconds you will hear a sound. You may get a glimpse of a man
> wearing black, or you may not. You may also see a white van parked up your
> street, or you may not. Freedom will not be compromised, never again. God
> bless Ronald Reagan, I hope he has enough jellybeans in the everafter.
Time's up, wimp! The only sound I have heard is the sound of my keyboard
typing up my reply to your so thinly veiled (but ridiculous!) threat.
You've been spending too much time playing hero on your Playstation. Why
don't you go join the US Army and get a close-up look at freedom fighters in
action? IRAQI freedom fighters!
Houndcat
Don Cooper
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Houndcat" <houn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:NTtwc.1322$am1...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Come on, dude. I didn't care for his politics, either, but the guy was a
human being.
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
Huh?
Mokosh
news:Ybxwc.6372$c76.4...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Until he got into politics, perhaps.
What happens to him now is not our call, but I can't help but think he's in
deep shit. (Read "The Inferno" if you haven't.) He has a lot to answer for,
and before a Judge he can't lie to.
MJ
BassPlyr23
WAS a President, he deserves respect on that account.
RIP Mr. Reagan. Condolences to your family.
XLanManX
>From: "Mokosh" knuck...@christless-ornery.net
>Date: 6/5/2004 10:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <IoOdnUEUhvD...@qx.net>
>
>"Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown" <hot...@mofo.com> wrote in message
>news:Ybxwc.6372$c76.4...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>
>> "Houndcat" <houn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:NTtwc.1322$am1...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>> > This thread is for everyone who is glad that the pig Ronald Wilson
>Reagan
>> is
>> > FINALLY dead, dead DEAD!!
>> > Hooray! May he rot in hell!
>> >
>> > Houndcat
>>
>> Come on, dude. I didn't care for his politics, either, but the guy was a
>> human being.
>
>Until he got into politics, perhaps.
Ronnie Raygun gets credit for the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the collapse
of USSR Communism, and the end of the Cold War, not insignificant
accomplishments by any standard. In fact, we could use Ronnie right now. If you
have any complaints about the condition of the country, take it up with
Clinton.
Mokosh
news:20040606092747...@mb-m29.aol.com...
Wish I had a dollar for every fool who actually believes Reagan ever
"accomplished" anything of the sort.
Yawn........back to baseball.
MJ
Pier-14
your vision is very shallow indeed. God Bless Ronald Reagan and his family.
"Mokosh" <knuck...@christless-ornery.net> wrote in message
news:jOudncthQfp...@qx.net...
hamand...@betweentheknees.com
>If the defeat of communism in Europe was and is nothing in your eyes then
>your vision is very shallow indeed. God Bless Ronald Reagan and his family.
And Reagan did what specifically to claim credit for this?
-mhd
Don Cooper
Mokosh wrote:
> He has a lot to answer for,
> and before a Judge he can't lie to.
Or say, "I really can't recall", to.
Don
Mokosh
news:yKCdnTVuCJ7...@comcast.com...
> If the defeat of communism in Europe was and is nothing in your eyes then
> your vision is very shallow indeed. God Bless Ronald Reagan and his
family.
RE-READ:
> > Wish I had a dollar for every fool who actually believes ***Reagan***
Mokosh
news:40C33630...@comcast.net...
Amen. You know, I really believe he was in the first stages of Alzheimer's
while he was still in office. If so, that goes to show the depths his party
was willing to plumb to stay in power. I think it the supreme irony that
that same party made such a to-do over "morals" in Bill Clinton's case when
it so obviously had none of its' own. Clinton behaved like a jackass in his
personal life, but he was nowhere near as evil as Reagan and his henchmen.
MJ
Keith Willoughby
The funny thing is, I get the impression that the people who credit
Reagan for the end of the cold war are doing so because of his supposed
brass-balled beligerent anti-Communism, when in the end, his biggest
contribution was actually sitting down and negotiating with
Gorbachev. That took some guts.
People who I believe deserve more of the credit are Gorbachev, Yeltsin,
Lech Walesa, and the unknown brave bastard who dedided to start booing
Nicolae Ceaucescu during a speech. Now there was a guy (or woman) who
had guts.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Husker Du Du Du, Captain Beefheart, ELO
Kenny
news:87u0xok...@flat222.dyndns.org...
> wrote:
>
> > "Pier-14" <fisherm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>If the defeat of communism in Europe was and is nothing in your eyes
then
> >>your vision is very shallow indeed. God Bless Ronald Reagan and his
family.
> >
> > And Reagan did what specifically to claim credit for this?
>
> The funny thing is, I get the impression that the people who credit
> Reagan for the end of the cold war are doing so because of his supposed
> brass-balled beligerent anti-Communism, when in the end, his biggest
> contribution was actually sitting down and negotiating with
> Gorbachev. That took some guts.
Well he did say he had finally found a Soviet leader he could talk to...
because all the others kept dying on him. ;-)
Kenny
BadgerBC
"Hawking" <M...@privacy.org> wrote in message
news:5vo6c0l1u9dqr16cf...@4ax.com...
> Ask some of the former Soviets.
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040605/D8315LD01.html
>
> I realize it probably won't make any difference to you but only
hate-filled
> liberals refuse to believe Reagan's legacy in helping to end the cold war.
> It's hilarious that he gets more respect now in the former Soviet Union
then
> is given by liberals in his own country.
Ok the enlightened one. Clinton is more respected around the world than he
is in his home country. What's your point? As for Yelena Bonner and
Gerasimov, what do you expect them to say? Bonner is the widow of the most
well known Soviet dissident and Gerasimov long held fellowships at Kennedy
School after 1993. I actually give Reagan a lot of credit for at least
reinvigorating the American cold war strategy albeit at some incredibly
stupid risktaking. I realize history isn't your strong suit, but you might
want try reading some like John Gaddis' Strategy of Containment and Scott
Sagan's The Limits of Safety (or Moving Targets). You might change your
views on Reagan's record when you get to Operation Ryan. Probably not.
You'd rather risk obliterating the world to prove a point. You know the
containment was designed not by Reagan and presidents of both parties going
back to Truman were just as responsible if not more to bring down the
empire. NSC 68 was written by a Democratic White House staff. If you want
to pipe the horns of a Republican president, try G.H.W. Bush. He's the
real unsung hero at this, not Reagan.
>
> By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
>
> MOSCOW (AP) - He stunned the Soviet Union with his tough rhetoric, calling
> it an "evil empire" whose leaders gave themselves the "right to commit any
> crime."
>
> His famed "Star Wars" program drew the Soviets into a costly arms race it
> couldn't afford. His 1987 declaration to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev
at
> the Berlin Wall - "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - was the ultimate
> challenge of the Cold War.
>
> Ronald Reagan's determination to destroy communism and the Soviet Union
was
> a hallmark of his eight-year presidency, carried out through a harsh
nuclear
> policy toward Moscow that softened only slightly when Gorbachev came to
> office.
>
> He is vividly remembered in Russia today as the force that precipitated
the
> Soviet collapse.
>
>
> "Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and
he
> achieved his goal," said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman
for
> the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s.
>
> Reagan's agenda toward Moscow started shortly after the start of his first
> term - and marked a major departure from the mild detente of the Jimmy
> Carter administration.
>
> In 1981, Reagan backed his rhetoric with a trillion dollar defense
buildup.
> U.S.-Soviet arms control talks collapsed, and the two nations targeted
> intermediate-range nuclear missiles at each other across the Iron Curtain
in
> Europe.
>
> The deployment of the U.S. missiles in Europe rattled the Kremlin's
nerves,
> because of the shorter time they needed to reach targets in the Soviet
Union
> compared to intercontinental missiles deployed in the United States.
>
> In an even bigger shock to the Kremlin, Reagan in 1983 launched an effort
to
> build a shield against intercontinental ballistic missiles involving
> space-based weapons.
>
> The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), dubbed "Star Wars," dumped the
> previous doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction that assumed that neither
> side would start a nuclear war because it would not be able to avoid
> imminent destruction.
>
> Even though Reagan's "Star Wars" never led to the deployment of an actual
> missile shield, it drew the Soviets into a costly effort to mount a
> response. Many analysts agree that the race drained Soviet coffers and
> triggered the economic difficulties that sped up the Soviet collapse in
> 1991.
>
> "Reagan's SDI was a very successful blackmail," Gerasimov told The
> Associated Press. "The Soviet Union tried to keep up pace with the U.S.
> military buildup, but the Soviet economy couldn't endure such
competition."
>
> Yelena Bonner, the widow of Soviet dissident Nobel Prize winner Andrei
> Sakharov, praised Reagan for his tough course toward the Soviet Union.
>
> "I consider Ronald Reagan one of the greatest U.S. presidents since the
> World War II because of his staunch resistance to Communism and his
efforts
> to defend human rights," Bonner said in a telephone interview from her
home
> in Boston. "Reagan's policy was consistent and precise, and he had a great
> talent of choosing the right people for his administration."
>
> Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, 61, remembered Reagan fondly
for
> his humor and his toughness.
>
> "His phrase, 'evil empire,' became a household word in Russia," said
> Bukovsky, who now lives in Cambridge, England. "Russians like a
> staightforward person, be he enemy or friend. They despise a wishy-washy
> person."
>
> Retired Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin said that trying to field a response to
> Reagan's Star Wars had "certainly contributed" to Soviet economic demise
but
> argued it didn't play the decisive role.
>
> "The Soviet economy was extremely inefficient and nothing could save it,"
> said Dvorkin, a senior Soviet arms control negotiator during the 1980s.
>
> But Bonner said her husband - who had played a key role in designing
Soviet
> nuclear weapons - believed that deploying U.S. missiles in Europe was
> necessary to bring the Soviet rulers back to the arms control talks.
>
> In December 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev signed a treaty that for the first
> time eliminated the entire class of intermediate-range missiles.
>
> "Reagan and Gorbachev helped end the Cold War," Gerasimov said.
>
>
BadgerBC
What did Samuel Johnson write? The road to hell is paved with good
intentions?
bobch...@webtv.net
fighters, ? you mean cowardly terrorists who cut off prisoners heads,
too bad it wasnt yours,and attack innocent civilians with car bombs and
use woman and children as shields, hide behind their religion, who are
funded by a fundamentlist muslim regime in iran and a terrorist state in
syria and would impose a totalitarian system akin to the former iraqi
govt. your choice ol noun to describe these people gives an insight
into your own sick perverted mind,
EGK
Like I said,reading that wouldnt do any good. The only ones in this country
who refuse to credit Ronald Reagan for what he did to end the cold war are
hate-filled liberals. It isn't just former Soviets who credit Reagan.
There's no need to list all the various historians and political pundits who
agree. You'll just dismiss them all as right-wing conservatives. Tthat was
the whole point of giving a European perspective. But you dismiss that
anyway because it doesn't agree with what you wish to believe.
Here's another for you to chomp on and let loose your bile.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040606/ap_on_re_eu/reagan_world
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
BadgerBC
"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4bv6c0dm23vgltvnr...@4ax.com...
A European perspective? Bonner and Gerasimov (you may try opening up an
Atlas too while you're at it)? Ok whatever. As for Scott Sagan, he's a
political scientist at Stanford who also work for the Hoover Institution
(perhaps you've heard of it. It's been the pipeline for the highest nat sec
officials of this administration) hardly a liberal thinktank. As for John
Lewis Gaddis, he's about as liberal as Attila the Hun. He's books are known
for discrediting the revisionist Cold War historians. Try reading a little
before spewing off the Rush Limbaugh replay tapes.
>
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040606/ap_on_re_eu/reagan_world
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisk
communism. Stop listening that that republican crap.
Wisk
Purr
"XLanManX" <xlan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040606092747...@mb-m29.aol.com...
BadgerBC
Since you seem to think that Sagan and Gaddis were liberal media hacks,
here's something you may want to try
http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/coldwar/source.htm
EGK
<neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:4bv6c0dm23vgltvnr...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:00:27 GMT, "BadgerBC"
>> There's no need to list all the various historians and political pundits
>who
>> agree. You'll just dismiss them all as right-wing conservatives. Tthat
>was
>> the whole point of giving a European perspective. But you dismiss that
>> anyway because it doesn't agree with what you wish to believe.
>> Here's another for you to chomp on and let loose your bile.
>
>A European perspective? Bonner and Gerasimov (you may try opening up an
>Atlas too while you're at it)? Ok whatever. As for Scott Sagan, he's a
>political scientist at Stanford who also work for the Hoover Institution
>(perhaps you've heard of it. It's been the pipeline for the highest nat sec
>officials of this administration) hardly a liberal thinktank. As for John
>Lewis Gaddis, he's about as liberal as Attila the Hun. He's books are known
>for discrediting the revisionist Cold War historians. Try reading a little
>before spewing off the Rush Limbaugh replay tapes.
Obviously you didn't bother to read either article. Here, I'll help with
one. Is Lech Walsea a Limbaugh puppet too?
Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Poland's post-communist
president, recalled Reagan as a "modest" person whose opposition to
communism was firmly rooted in a deeper hatred for inequity.
"President Ronald Reagan will be remembered in the hearts of all Latvians as
a fighter for freedom, liberty and justice worldwide," Latvian Pesident
Vaira Vike-Freiberga said.
In Berlin, Johannes Rau, president of the now-united Germany, said Reagan's
challenge to Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, made in a June 1987
speech before the concrete and barbed wire barrier, will "remain
unforgettable."
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder sent President Bush (news - web sites) a
letter of condolence.
"His engagement in overcoming the East-West conflict and his vision of a
free and united Europe created the conditions for change that in the end
made the restoration of German unity possible," the chancellor wrote.
"Germany will always have an honored memory of President Reagan because of
that."
Now you can crawl back under your rock anytime.
And sorry to disappoint but I don't listen to Limbaugh and never have. I
think ultra right wingers in general are more like you LIEberals then the
rest of us in the country who actually give credit where it's due and don't
care what party the person is in.
"When he saw injustice, he wanted to do away with it," Walesa told The
Associated Press. "He saw communism, and he wanted to put an end to it."
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040606/ap_on_re_eu/reagan_world
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"BassPlyr23" <bassp...@aol.communism> wrote in message
news:20040606085200...@mb-m03.aol.com...
I basically feel that way, although mostly because he was a human being. We
all have failings.
Houndcat
<bobch...@webtv.net> wrote
"> houndcat you filthy vermin subhuman piece of shit, iraqi freedom
> fighters, ? you mean cowardly terrorists who cut off prisoners heads,"
No, I mean Iraqi citizens who are defending their nation from an unprovoked
foreign invasion by the US! Nick Berg was practically handed to the sickos
who butchered him by the FBI!
[Read: "THE VICTIM - U.S. Officials Failed to Protect Slain Civilian, Family
Says" By RICHARD LEZIN JONES and JILL P. CAPUZZO from the May 13, 2004 New
York Times]
Not only that, but the authenticity of that video has been seriously called
into question.
[Read: "Berg Beheading: No way, say medical experts",
by Ritt Goldstein, Asia Times, 22 May 2004. Excerpt: "American businessman
Nicholas Berg's body was found on May 8 near a Baghdad overpass; a video of
his supposed decapitation death by knife appeared on an alleged
al-Qaeda-linked website (www.al-ansar.biz) on May 11. But according to what
both a leading surgical authority and a noted forensic death expert
separately told Asia Times Online, the video depicting the decapitation
appears to have been staged.
"I certainly would need to be convinced it [the decapitation video] was
authentic," Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said from New Zealand. Echoing Dr
Simpson's criticism, when this journalist asked forensic death expert Jon
Nordby, PhD and fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death
Investigators, whether he believed the Berg decapitation video had been
"staged", Nordby replied: "Yes, I think that's the best explanation of
it." ]
> too bad it wasnt yours,and attack innocent civilians with car bombs and
> use woman and children as shields, hide behind their religion,
The US prefers to drop cluster bombs on civilians, including women and
children. They like to use 60 caliber machine guns and bombs to blow up a
wedding party. Civilized?
"who are
> funded by a fundamentlist muslim regime in iran and a terrorist state in
> syria and would impose a totalitarian system akin to the former iraqi
> govt."
The US gov't is run by Christian fundamentalists who talk about fighting a
"crusade" against "terrorists" (ie Muslims).
The US is imposing a puppet government on the Iraqi people...until recently,
the leader of this puppet government was Ahmed Chalabi, a criminal wanted
for bank fraud! The US supported the Saddam Hussein regime for YEARS, when
it suited the US' interests, all the time that he was murdering his
political opponents and gassing Iranians. The US also has long had a policy
of aiding and abetting the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as a counterweight
to the rise of socialist workers parties in the mideast. The US armed and
trained Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to shoot down USSR's civilian
airliners in Afghanistan!
Wake up, brother!
Houndcat
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Kenny" <kpou...@DELETEMEnetzero.com> wrote in message
news:2ih3vsF...@uni-berlin.de...
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Hawking" <M...@privacy.org> wrote in message
news:5vo6c0l1u9dqr16cf...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 15:04:01 GMT, hamand...@betweentheknees.com wrote:
>
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040605/D8315LD01.html
>
> I realize it probably won't make any difference to you but only
hate-filled
> liberals refuse to believe Reagan's legacy in helping to end the cold war.
> It's hilarious that he gets more respect now in the former Soviet Union
then
> is given by liberals in his own country.
>
Good thing they never asked anyone in the defense industry, who could have
told them that it was a farce.
Houndcat
improve the lives of one single person in this country?
This was the man who declared ketchup to be a vegetable, so he could cut
funding for school lunch programs! This was the man who closed down
psychiatric hospitals all over the US, turning mentally ill patients out
into the streets, where many have been living ever since! This was the guy
who called Osama Bin Laden and co. "freedom fighters" when they were running
around throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women in Afghanistan...and
compared them to George Washington and Paul Revere!
Human? Hardly!
Houndcat
BadgerBC
> Obviously you didn't bother to read either article. Here, I'll help with
> one. Is Lech Walsea a Limbaugh puppet too?
>
> Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Poland's post-communist
> president, recalled Reagan as a "modest" person whose opposition to
> communism was firmly rooted in a deeper hatred for inequity.
>
> "President Ronald Reagan will be remembered in the hearts of all Latvians
as
> a fighter for freedom, liberty and justice worldwide," Latvian Pesident
> Vaira Vike-Freiberga said.
>
> In Berlin, Johannes Rau, president of the now-united Germany, said
Reagan's
> challenge to Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, made in a June 1987
> speech before the concrete and barbed wire barrier, will "remain
> unforgettable."
>
> German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder sent President Bush (news - web sites)
a
> letter of condolence.
>
> "His engagement in overcoming the East-West conflict and his vision of a
> free and united Europe created the conditions for change that in the end
> made the restoration of German unity possible," the chancellor wrote.
> "Germany will always have an honored memory of President Reagan because of
> that."
>
> Now you can crawl back under your rock anytime.
What did you expect these leaders to say at his death? This is besides the
point anyway.
Read (I know it's a challenge, but it's going to prove helpful in life) what
I wrote in the post to which you replied with the usual drivel about liberal
media, historians, etc. I said I gave credit to Reagan for reinvigorating
the containment strategy. And READ what I wrote thereafter about Op Ryan
and what it meant in the history of the Cold War. Someone else pointed out
in this thread correctly that Reagan's greatest contribution was meeting
Gorbachev half way despite the urgings of some of his closest advisors like
Richard Pipes at NSC and Weinberger. However, much of the credit for
persuading Reagan goes to Margaret Thatcher and the British. That part is
incontrovertible. Heck even the CIA admits that in declassified histories.
It's all about risk taking and if you think it's worth it then you didn't
live through the Cuban Missile Crisis as a child.
>
> And sorry to disappoint but I don't listen to Limbaugh and never have. I
> think ultra right wingers in general are more like you LIEberals then the
> rest of us in the country who actually give credit where it's due and
don't
> care what party the person is in.
It's funny that just because I write something negative about Reagan that
you accuse me of being a liberal. Hardly any of my friend would think that.
Actually I am a registered Republican albeit one who's political orientation
was formed by the works of Jacob Javits. Reading your garbage makes one
point the figure at exactly the right man here for hijacking what once had
been a party of Lincoln and turning it into a party of George Wallace. As
for not listening to Rush, sure you haven't (or maybe not today). If I'm a
LIEberal, then Hitler is a moderate conservative.
EGK
<neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:rr07c09r7f89ln1df...@4ax.com...
>What did you expect these leaders to say at his death? This is besides the
>point anyway.
>
>Read (I know it's a challenge, but it's going to prove helpful in life) what
>I wrote in the post to which you replied with the usual drivel about liberal
>media, historians, etc. I said I gave credit to Reagan for reinvigorating
>the containment strategy. And READ what I wrote thereafter about Op Ryan
>and what it meant in the history of the Cold War. Someone else pointed out
>in this thread correctly that Reagan's greatest contribution was meeting
>Gorbachev half way despite the urgings of some of his closest advisors like
>Richard Pipes at NSC and Weinberger.
Pot? Meet Kettle. you seem to be the one having reading comprehension
problems. You've chosen to argue against things I never said. Reagan
faced down the Soviets with rhetoric at first and a high priced game of
chicken. They strained their economy passed the breaking point trying to
keep up. Once the Soviet's had someone in office whom Reagan could work
with, he switched gears and signed some of the biggest non proliferation
treaties in history.
> However, much of the credit for
>persuading Reagan goes to Margaret Thatcher and the British. That part is
>incontrovertible. Heck even the CIA admits that in declassified histories.
>It's all about risk taking and if you think it's worth it then you didn't
>live through the Cuban Missile Crisis as a child.
>> And sorry to disappoint but I don't listen to Limbaugh and never have. I
>> think ultra right wingers in general are more like you LIEberals then the
>> rest of us in the country who actually give credit where it's due and
>don't
>> care what party the person is in.
>
>
>It's funny that just because I write something negative about Reagan that
>you accuse me of being a liberal. Hardly any of my friend would think that.
>Actually I am a registered Republican albeit one who's political orientation
>was formed by the works of Jacob Javits. Reading your garbage makes one
>point the figure at exactly the right man here for hijacking what once had
>been a party of Lincoln and turning it into a party of George Wallace. As
>for not listening to Rush, sure you haven't (or maybe not today). If I'm a
>LIEberal, then Hitler is a moderate conservative.
Right back at you, pal. Reading your total bullshit and distortions and
noticing your own lack of reading comprehension is astounding. I said the
only people in the US who deny the legacy of Reagan being largely
responsible for ending the cold war are hate-filled LIEberals and I believe
it to be true. Here you are now backtracking and admitting that one of his
greatest accomplishments was his ability to switch gears and meet Gorbachev
at the bargaining table. Despite that, you even try denying him credit
there too and instead say it was all Margaret Thatcher. You're quite
transparent.
I read your listed web page about Project Ryan but don't see what point
you're trying to make. Reagan DID play a high priced game of chicken with
the Soviets and won. To claim he shouldn't have done that because of the
possible outcome, you must believe FDR should have nevever entered WWII
either.
Reagan wasn't a perfect president but I believe he'll go down in history as
one of the best. If you want to take time to read what I think is a very
fair portrait of Reagan which often discounts the conservative point of
view, here's a very good one.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahahahahahaha
Hawking wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 15:04:01 GMT, hamand...@betweentheknees.com wrote:
>
> Yelena Bonner, the widow of Soviet dissident Nobel Prize winner Andrei
> Sakharov, praised Reagan for his tough course toward the Soviet Union.
>
> "I consider Ronald Reagan one of the greatest U.S. presidents since the
> World War II because of his staunch resistance to Communism and his efforts
> to defend human rights," Bonner said in a telephone interview from her home
> in Boston. "Reagan's policy was consistent and precise, and he had a great
> talent of choosing the right people for his administration."
>
> Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, 61, remembered Reagan fondly for
> his humor and his toughness.
>
> "His phrase, 'evil empire,' became a household word in Russia," said
> Bukovsky, who now lives in Cambridge, England. "Russians like a
> staightforward person, be he enemy or friend. They despise a wishy-washy
> person."
>
> Retired Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin said that trying to field a response to
> Reagan's Star Wars had "certainly contributed" to Soviet economic demise but
> argued it didn't play the decisive role.
>
> "The Soviet economy was extremely inefficient and nothing could save it,"
> said Dvorkin, a senior Soviet arms control negotiator during the 1980s.
>
> But Bonner said her husband - who had played a key role in designing Soviet
> nuclear weapons - believed that deploying U.S. missiles in Europe was
> necessary to bring the Soviet rulers back to the arms control talks.
>
> In December 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev signed a treaty that for the first
> time eliminated the entire class of intermediate-range missiles.
>
> "Reagan and Gorbachev helped end the Cold War," Gerasimov said.
Two things missing from this analysis (which is otherwise factual)
1. Reagan's campaign among the Western Europeans to scotch the building of a
natual gas pipeline from Siberia to Western Europe. Reagan recognized this plan
as "the west selling the soviets the rope by which they (ther west )would be
hung. It denied the soviets significant foriegn monetary reserves they
deperately need in the early to mid 80's.
2. the increased funding to continue 'stealth' and 'smart weapons' technology.
The first rendered the Soviets new and very expensive air defense radars obsolete
and the second rendered the soviet military strategy of overwhelming an enemy
with huge number obsolete. The advances were not made public but the KGB (ergo
the Soviet High Command)knew.
They never recovered.
Reagan did not start either program. The credit for that remains elsewhere. But
he pushed the critical increases in funding through a reluctant congress when
popular opinion demanded otherwise. That is leadership and vision.
Don't forget the DJI stood at 879 (not a typo) in August 1981. Reagan's economic
policies (voodoonomics in the immortal words of George HW Bush) lead to the
tripling of stock values during his admin. and the market has never looked back.
When he left office the country was a far safer and far richer place than when he
started. President Jimmah could never make that claim.
Even mainstream democrats have the good sense to forget campaign rhetoric after
the election. Let the radical fools howl at the moon.
Kenny
news:28832-40C...@storefull-3278.bay.webtv.net...
Just remember that Houndcat represents a very small fringe minority in this
country (in his delusioned state he probably thinks he represents all
"workers", but he doesn't). Also remember that his ideology is dying. Be
thankful for both those facts. The only thing I worry about is that one of
these days Houndcat might go off the deep end and pull a Tim McVeigh. But I
suspect that he's really a coward at heart and will do nothing but whine
about all of the world's problems for the rest of his miserable life. Which
is something else we should be thankful for.
Kenny
BadgerBC
Genius, I know I have to explain all the assumptions but try a little common
sense. Risk taking is one thing when it comes to negotiating a car lease or
a mortgage. It's another when it deals with a nuclear crisis. And no
Reagan didn't sign some of the biggest non proliferation treaties. (No
surprise here that you're using the wrong term) NPT was signed by Nixon
negotiated during Kennedy and Johnson. LTBT was signed by Kennedy. START
was negotiated by Reagan, initialed under Bush and signed under Clinton.
Get your facts straight. Also, you might want to read Richard Perle's
account of Reykavijk summit and the heartattack Reagan almost gave to his
national security staff when he decided to go along with disarming all
nuclear weapons. (And that's Richard Perle not some Democratic hack).
That's "sleepwalking through history" to borrow Gary Wills' phrase. As for
economies of the former Soviet Union, you do have the CIA's NIEs saying the
same thing throughout the 70s and 80s that they were in inevitable decline.
Did it accelerate as Carter from 1978 and Reagan from 1981 built up the US
military? Of course. And that's what I meant when I said he reinvigorated
the containment strategy. What he played was stupid nuclear brinkmanship.
How am I back tracking when it was in my first post in this thread ("I give
credit to Reagan for reinvigorating the containment")? Oh I forgot you don't
understand the term. I am admitting that his greatest accomplishment was
meeting halfway? Keith wrote that.
>
> I read your listed web page about Project Ryan but don't see what point
> you're trying to make. Reagan DID play a high priced game of chicken with
> the Soviets and won. To claim he shouldn't have done that because of the
> possible outcome, you must believe FDR should have nevever entered WWII
> either.
>
What no Cliff Notes so didn't bother to read the whole thing? Here I'll do
a public service and give you a starter, GO TO ABLE ARCHER. Or better yet,
seeing that reading isn't your cup of tea, rent 13 Days and see how easy it
is to contain a superpower crisis. That's what Scott Sagan's works have
been and what John Lewis Gaddis who's a conservative cold war historian was
pointing out about how the Cold War was waged over time. I don't have a
problem giving a Republican president a lot of credit. Eisenhower was
influential in winning the world opinion over during the times of national
liberation in then the Third World. Only Nixon could've gone to China and
also could've initiated detente. The hardest part wasn't what Reagan,
Carter, Ford, Nixon, or Johnson had to do which is to fight the Cold War.
It was Kennedy trying to avert a nuclear war when it seemed inevitable and
George Bush ending the Cold War and transitioning the fall of the Iron
Curtain without a disaster. That was where most credit lies. Not Reagan who
casually joked on a radio broadcast to American public that "we begin
bombing in 15 minutes." I don't mind all the eulogies (that's expected) and
accolades, but saying that Reagan won the Cold War is inaccurate not only in
contemporaneous sense, but it's also wrong in historical assessment.
Hahahahahahaha
Kenny wrote:
please don't plant any seeds. the world is a dangerous enough place.
BadgerBC
"Hahahahahahaha" <mad...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40C39045...@earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> Two things missing from this analysis (which is otherwise factual)
> 1. Reagan's campaign among the Western Europeans to scotch the building
of a
> natual gas pipeline from Siberia to Western Europe. Reagan recognized
this plan
> as "the west selling the soviets the rope by which they (ther west )would
be
> hung. It denied the soviets significant foriegn monetary reserves they
> deperately need in the early to mid 80's.
That would not be entirely correct. Zbig Brzezinski in 1978-79 opposed and
had lobbied hard to prevent the European govts to stop the transfer of
technology through COCOM as well as the construction of the pipelines. What
I mean is this was a bipartisan policy. Where Reagan's enthusiasm took him
is that the US planned to sabotage the pipelines. This was in Thomas Reed's
new memoir.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0402/27/a06-76436.htm
> 2. the increased funding to continue 'stealth' and 'smart weapons'
technology.
> The first rendered the Soviets new and very expensive air defense radars
obsolete
> and the second rendered the soviet military strategy of overwhelming an
enemy
> with huge number obsolete. The advances were not made public but the KGB
(ergo
> the Soviet High Command)knew.
>
> They never recovered.
>
> Reagan did not start either program. The credit for that remains
elsewhere. But
> he pushed the critical increases in funding through a reluctant congress
when
> popular opinion demanded otherwise. That is leadership and vision.
They began the research on stealth during the Nixon Ford years (ironically
based on a Soviet physicist work which had been published openly no less)
and Carter authorized the development and acquisition of F117 and B2. Where
they differed was on B1B and MX. Carter administration didn't think these
were survivable systems in case of nuclear exchange (the Carter
administration wanted to emphasize Ohio Class Trident subs) and cancelled
them. Reagan brought them back. The Stealth systems were merely
continuation of a program initiated under James Schlesinger. There was a
long continuities in defense programs of various administrations. That's
simply because it takes a long long time to develop and procure systems.
>
> Don't forget the DJI stood at 879 (not a typo) in August 1981. Reagan's
economic
> policies (voodoonomics in the immortal words of George HW Bush) lead to
the
> tripling of stock values during his admin. and the market has never looked
back.
>
Never looked back huh? 1987?
> When he left office the country was a far safer and far richer place than
when he
> started. President Jimmah could never make that claim.
>
True. But there were a lot of potholes that were needless.
bobch...@webtv.net
of natural causes. or perhaps the cia killed him. you are an enemy
sympathazer who will accept any statement that fits your perverted anti
american world view. perhaps you havent noticed but we are under attack
and were long before the iraqi invasion, n fact al queda declared war on
america as far back as 1991, we just didny wake up to the fact until
9/11/01. yeh freedom fighters , what a laugh,
Mokosh
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:03:33 -0400, "Mokosh"
> <knuck...@christless-ornery.net> wrote:
>
> >"XLanManX" <xlan...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >collapse
> >> of USSR Communism, and the end of the Cold War, not insignificant
> >> accomplishments by any standard. In fact, we could use Ronnie right
now.
> >If > you have any complaints about the condition of the country, take it
up
> >with
> >> Clinton.
> >
> >"accomplished" anything of the sort.
> >Yawn........back to baseball.
> >MJ
>
> You're obviously ignorant. I don't know that being a liberal makes you
that
> naturally but in your case it seems to have helped a lot.
>
> You toss out a lot of insults and bullshit and believe it's fact then "say
> back to baseball". The fact of the matter is that many people on both
sides
> of the political spectrum are just as fucking ignorant as you obviously
are.
> They liken politics to sports and only acquire just enough information to
> make them appear stupid. All they know to do is root root root for the
home
> team and never let real facts or logic get in the way of their opinions.
>
> Wake the fuck up. You and people like you are the real problem in this
> country. Everyone screams for bipartisanship in politics but it's like
> telling a Redsox fan they should root for the Yankees in the series
because
> it's good for the American league.
My disagreement with and utter dislike of Reagan neither makes me ignorant
or adds one iota of credibility to your namecalling. What facts or logic?
You haven't presented any, all you did was rant. And all I did was express
my opinion, which you conservatives can't seem to tolerate as long as it
differs from yours.
MJ
XLanManX
>Message-id: <jOudncthQfp...@qx.net>
>> >Subject: Re: Ronald Wilson Reagan: Dead At Last!
>> >From: "Mokosh" knuck...@christless-ornery.net
>> >Date: 6/5/2004 10:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <IoOdnUEUhvD...@qx.net>
>> >
>> >"Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown" <hot...@mofo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Ybxwc.6372$c76.4...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Houndcat" <houn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:NTtwc.1322$am1...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> > This thread is for everyone who is glad that the pig Ronald Wilson
>> >Reagan
>> >> is
>> >> > FINALLY dead, dead DEAD!!
>> >> > Hooray! May he rot in hell!
>> >> >
>> >> > Houndcat
>> >>
>> >> Come on, dude. I didn't care for his politics, either, but the guy was
>a
>> >> human being.
>> >
>> >Until he got into politics, perhaps.
>>
>collapse
>> of USSR Communism, and the end of the Cold War, not insignificant
>> accomplishments by any standard. In fact, we could use Ronnie right now.
>If > you have any complaints about the condition of the country, take it up
>with
>> Clinton.
>
>Wish I had a dollar for every fool who actually believes Reagan ever
>"accomplished" anything of the sort.
>Yawn........back to baseball.
>MJ
>
Good idea, twatty. Maybe you know more about baseball than politics.
EGK
<neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>but saying that Reagan won the Cold War is inaccurate not only in
>contemporaneous sense, but it's also wrong in historical assessment.
Argue with the historians who think differently. You can claim it's only
said in nice eulogies if you like but most people who lived during the times
know different.
By the way, for someone who keeps claiming I can't read, I do notice how you
keep on totally ignoring the links provided that don't fit your preconceived
views of the world. I think you need to look in a mirror before casting
aspersions, pal.
>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
Here, I'll help you. You seem to really need it and it's hardly from a
conservative point of view::
Reagan has a good claim to the credit he receives for a foreign policy of
confronting and challenging the Soviet Union that helped bring on its
collapse--a central theme of any account of his life. But the vexing problem
for conservatives, then and now, was that Reagan's bellicosity, which they
liked, obscured an equally strong belief that nuclear weapons could and
should be abolished, a conviction found mainly on the liberal left. Long
before he became president, Reagan had argued for a massive military buildup
not just to confront the Soviets, which hardliners approved, but also to put
the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective
arms control--a goal to which conservative pragmatists subscribed. But no
one shared, or even understood until late in the game, Reagan's desire for
total disarmament. "My dream," he later wrote in his memoirs, "became a
world free of nuclear weapons." This vision stemmed from the president's
belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war--and
that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets,
eliminated nuclear weapons.
Mokosh
You just lost the argument. Namecalling is the last defense of a person who
knows they're wrong.
MJ
Vinnie S.
> wrote:
>
>> "Pier-14" <fisherm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If the defeat of communism in Europe was and is nothing in your eyes then
>>>your vision is very shallow indeed. God Bless Ronald Reagan and his family.
>>
>> And Reagan did what specifically to claim credit for this?
>
>The funny thing is, I get the impression that the people who credit
>Reagan for the end of the cold war are doing so because of his supposed
>brass-balled beligerent anti-Communism, when in the end, his biggest
>contribution was actually sitting down and negotiating with
>Gorbachev. That took some guts.
I thought is was because they ran out of money?
Vinnie S.
Mokosh
class
> in denigrating Reagan.
I said I hoped he was barking in hell and I meant it. Life for poor and
working people was a misery during his administration.
Your claim that you wish you had a dollar for every
> fool who thinks Reagan accomplished anything of the sort is what makes you
ignorant.
>
> And the fact is as stated. You're part of the large problem in this
> country. You're a hater.
A hater of injustice.
You're someone who treats politics like a
> sporting event.
Similar to that of throwing Christians to lions, yes.
The other side can't possibly have done anything good or
> have any good ideas because they're not your team.
Oh - my - God....when did I ever say I belonged to any team? I dislike most
politicians, of any party.
Get a freaking clue.
Of what? How to defend the indefensible, as you are doing? He polished
apples abroad at the expense of his own people. Fed Headstart kids ketchup
while making himself look good to the elite. It's you who needs to get a
clue.
> At least you're like two peas in a pod with people like Moammar Gadhafi.
>
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040607/D831R22G0.html
>
> Jun 6, 8:04 PM (ET)
>
> By JASON KEYSER
>
> LONDON (AP) - Former President Ronald Reagan was remembered
snip
BadgerBC
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 22:22:33 GMT, "BadgerBC"
> <neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >but saying that Reagan won the Cold War is inaccurate not only in
> >contemporaneous sense, but it's also wrong in historical assessment.
>
> Argue with the historians who think differently. You can claim it's only
> said in nice eulogies if you like but most people who lived during the
times
> know different.
>
Throughout the thread, I've named specific reasons as to why it is
unreasonable to assume that Reagan won the Cold War. You claim there are
"historians" who think differently. Well, start naming them and point out
some of the reasons.
> By the way, for someone who keeps claiming I can't read, I do notice how
you
> keep on totally ignoring the links provided that don't fit your
preconceived
> views of the world. I think you need to look in a mirror before casting
> aspersions, pal.
Reading and comprehending (I won't even hope for analysis out of you) are
two different things. You've cited Josh Green's assessment as if that's
slam dunk testimony that ends all debates. He may or may not have reasons
to believe it but like you he doesn't even give reasons as to why he
believes it be the case. When you go buy a book, do you just read the
blurb? Just because Green is a liberal Democratic columnist who happens to
believe something contrary to expectations doesn't make it credible. Again,
what evidence or reasoning is there?
>
> >> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
>
> Here, I'll help you. You seem to really need it and it's hardly from a
> conservative point of view::
>
> Reagan has a good claim to the credit he receives for a foreign policy of
> confronting and challenging the Soviet Union that helped bring on its
> collapse--a central theme of any account of his life. But the vexing
problem
> for conservatives, then and now, was that Reagan's bellicosity, which they
> liked, obscured an equally strong belief that nuclear weapons could and
> should be abolished, a conviction found mainly on the liberal left. Long
> before he became president, Reagan had argued for a massive military
buildup
> not just to confront the Soviets, which hardliners approved, but also to
put
> the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective
> arms control--a goal to which conservative pragmatists subscribed. But no
> one shared, or even understood until late in the game, Reagan's desire for
> total disarmament. "My dream," he later wrote in his memoirs, "became a
> world free of nuclear weapons." This vision stemmed from the president's
> belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war--and
> that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets,
> eliminated nuclear weapons.
>
>
Evidence? (outside of ghostpenned memoir of Reagan) Much of the
documentary files from the first administration have been declassified
starting with NSC18 written by Richard Pipes when he was at NSC. If there
had been such intentionality from the beginning, those presidential decision
memos would've been released a long time ago. Or even poliy position papers
(presumably they would've been argued out among the principals and deputies)
Or are they in the same repository as the UFO artifacts?
Hahahahahahaha
BadgerBC wrote:
it was a dead issue under carter
Michael
> Lech Walesa, and the unknown brave bastard who dedided to start booing
> Nicolae Ceaucescu during a speech. Now there was a guy (or woman) who
> had guts.
Whatever happened to old Lech after he was defeated in the 95 election?
Mike
Keith Willoughby
They did. Command economies aren't efficient, and the Soviet economy had
been faltering since the 70s.
What I mean, though, is that the belligerency *without* the negotiation
would have been a much more dangerous game. A nuclear superpower who can
see a time when they're not a superpower might decide it's time to use
'em or lose 'em. I got the feeling that some people in the Reagan
administration would have seen Reagan's negotiations as a weakness, not
a strength. I know some of them, Richard Pipes included, thought a
nuclear war was winnable, which is a) insane and b) the thoughts of
someone with a place booked in the shelters.
For all the fantasies by self-important politicians of top-down defeats,
of the conquering hero, it seems to be that it's the bottom-up
revolution that is more effective. That guy who started booing
Ceaucescu, who gave the people around him the confidence to boo, which
started the booing as a ripple throughout the crowd. Suddenly, the
soldiers don't fancy killing tens of thousands of their own, Ceaucescu
knows he's vulnerable, people start to realise he's vulnerable. The
hierarchy starts to break down, and all of a sudden, Ceaucescu has been
summararily executed and the secret police are burning papers. From
small acorns, etc.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"I see him with a small but perfectly formed Watteau"
BadgerBC
> >
> >Throughout the thread, I've named specific reasons as to why it is
> >unreasonable to assume that Reagan won the Cold War. You claim there are
> >"historians" who think differently. Well, start naming them and point
out
> >some of the reasons.
>
> I haven't seen any specific reasons except your one web page. You take
that
> and assume that's proof. Again, Pot? Meet kettle.
First, unless you're EGK or whatever, this is your second post. The only
citation you provide is a AP cable wire in which Bonner and Gennady
Gerasimov are extensively quoted in praise of Reagan. I've already replied
that those comments are to be expected. Whatever, that's not even
important. I've already replied to EKG about his use of blurbs and offering
as proof. But if you like, I don't even care if you take Bonner, Gerasimov,
Walesa, or anyone else for that matter. That isn't the main issue here.
Let's review what we have been (that is EGK and myself since this is your
first reply) have been arguing about. First, the contention was that Reagan
won the Cold War. My reply was that a) Cold War was waged by presidents
going back to 1947-49 (depending on how one periodizes the outset). b)
Containment which is the term (as it seems you and EGK have not heard of
this which bespeaks volumes about the state of American education) for the
Cold War strategy used by both parties was outlined by George Kennan in 1947
X telegram and then codified in NSC 68 by Nitze in 1950 and reaffirmed in
bipartisan manner in every administration including George H.W. Bush.
Containment was applied symmetrically and asymmetrically meaning aggression
is met locally and physically "contain" the expansion (i.e., create a
firebreak) and that the United States and the West would compete and then
economically strangulate the Soviet Union. Kennan presciently wrote back in
1947 that the Soviet system was inherently flawed not only economically but
also politically. Internal contradictions (his ironic use of a Marxist
concept) within the Soviet Union will gradually rot the system leading to a
collapse. The United States had to assess the means and ends while
vigorously countering Soviet advances vs core areas of the West. This
basically has been the strategy (remarkable one since it was written in 1947
even before the supposed start of the Cold War) of the US and the West for
over forty years. Economic warfare (like COCOM and GATT) or insurgency
campaigns around the globe were waged throughout every administration
thereafter (Truman had Greece, Korea. Eisenhower had wars of liberation and
decolonization, Malay, Phillippines, Cuba and DR. Kennedy had Vietnam,
Cuba. Johnson of course was consumed by Vietnam. Nixon had Vietnam,
Cambodia, Allende as well as insurgency campaigns in Africa. Carter had
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reagan well you already know about.) Do you
detect a pattern?
These points are not liberal or conservative. It's the consensus (unless
you read some New Left Revisionist historian like Kolko, Alperovitz or
Williams who've been discredited by the emergence of documentary evidence
since the end of the Cold War) these days. When I mentioned John Gaddis as
a source (whether it is Strategies of Containment or Now It Can Be Told or
any of his essay compendia), I was trying to get the one that would be
accepted by the likes of you, i.e., a conservative historian who also
happened to be respected by all sides. Actually whether you look at the
syllabi of a conservative historian at LSU or the most leftist historian at
Berkeley, you will always find his works as the basis of any course. It's
the starting point of any debate in the Cold War historiography.
As for immediate criticisms of Reagan on waging his Cold War, my contention
(as well as many of those who lived through the times as an adult) is that
he took risks that were extraordinary. One may say that in hindsight that
it was worth it, but in perspective that is not something that's shared by
all. It boils down to this. What is clear is the Soviet Union is slowly
dying from within and the highest policymakers knew it as it's been
documented by declassified CIA NIE from the late 60s through 70s and 80s.
Everyone criticized the CIA that it couldn't predict the downfall of the
Soviet Union. Well now those people realize how wrong they were. (As matter
of fact Milt Bearden who was the head of the SE Division at the Directorate
of Operations talks about this in his recent memoir covering the end of the
Cold War). Soviet leaders going back to Brezhnev knew of this and were
trying to look for a way to reverse this trend, most notably Andropov. So we
have a trend here that is irreversible. Now, as for Reagan's risktaking,
Operation Ryan was a Soviet reaction that emerged as Andropov was becoming
convinced that the West was contemplating a preemptive strike to decide the
Cold War once and for all. Able Archer was a NATO exercise that probably
brought the West closest to an open conflict since the Cuban Missile Crisis
(according to Gordievsky who was the head of the KGB 1st Directorate's
Western Europe section and a British spy). When the British intelligence
saw how the Soviets were reacting to some of the scare tactics, they
notified Thatcher who tried to convince Reagan to tone down. (I mean
there's another incident not in this CIA official history, but in the
folklore among Navy sub community that at a given moment all the US hunter
subs pinged the Soviet missile subs around the globe simultaneously thereby
letting them know that we can sink all their submarine deterrent. I suppose
this will come out at some point, but it's just a folklore at Groton). This
was just a part of an overall strategy by Reagan administration to convey to
the Soviet Union that we were willing and able to wage a nuclear war. If
you don't believe me, then look up Fred Ikle (Asst Secy of Defense) or the
conservative political scientist who was the voice of the administration
like Colin Gray who penned "War is Winnable" in Foreign Policy back in 1980.
When I point to Scott Sagan's work, I refer to it only as a corroboration
rather than asking someone to subscribe to his conclusion. Sagan worked
with Condi Rice and Stanford poli sci dept and at the Hoover Institution.
He's hardly your definition of a Democratic hack. He's someone who
specializes in nuclear strategy and crisis management as well as
proliferation theory.
My problem with this approach, as someone who remembers the Cuban Missile
Crisis as a child and as someone who's studied a bit of history and policy
analysis is that it's irresponsible. He had to be 100% certain that the
Soviet leadership was not going to up the ante in a crisis. There is just
no margin for error when it comes to nuclear brinkmanship. Remember this is
the highest stake poker game one can play. If he starts escalating and then
steps back the United States and the West loses credibility, it is a
devastating setback in Cold War. After Cuba, Khrushev was toppled and the
Soviets credibility immensely leading to the Sino-Soviet break. And if you
think it's easy to manage a nuclear crisis, rent Thirteen Days as a video
(or if you have the time, take a look at James Blight's oral history of the
decisionmakers of the US and the Soviet Union). Before you dismiss the
movie outright, the lead actor is Costner (a Republican), and the two
historical advisors Ernie May (Harvard historian who has close ties to this
administration as well as a longtime inhouse historian for the CIA going
back to William Casey years) and Philip Zelikow (the staff director for the
9/11 Commission who served as a senior director under the Bush
administration and is a close friend of Condi Rice) are not going to lead
you to some leftist vision of the crisis. What is clear from studying the
crisis is that despite both sides looking for a way out, there were inherent
momentum that inexorably pushed them to an outbreak of hostilities. Any
number of things (U2 getting shot down, SAC bomber crossing into the Soviet
Union, etc) could've triggered a blowup. The United States didn't know at
the time that there were tactical nuclear weapons on the island already. We
know what would've happened if Khrushev didn't reply eight hours before the
invasion order. Kennedy was under heavy pressure to invade for most of the
crisis. This was a mentally and physically grueling ordeal for president,
and given what we know about Reagan during Grenada (when he supposedly slept
through the early part of the invasion), it doesn't inspire confidence in
him as a crisis manager when all the chips are down.
Personally, I don't have a problem with his defense buildup. It would've
happened anyway after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan regardless of who
was in the White House. I don't even mind the SDI. However, what I do
criticize Reagan heavily is that he took senseless risks early in his first
administration that could've spiralled out of hand. Inadvertent accidents
(like about 30 times NORAD had false early warnings because of hardware
glitches in forty years) happen as part of routine. A president of the
United States didn't need to go look for trouble with brinkmanship, because
the stakes were so extraordinarily high. In a game of chicken with nuclear
weapons, the decision to blink or step away from bluff is difficult
precisely because a side has so much to lose in terms of prestige. It's the
classic prisoners' dilemma.
>
> I've already given you evidence but you just outright dismiss the people
> saying it. Apparently the people in the Soviet Union who believe Reagan
was
> largely responsible mean nothing to you. That's your choice but don't sit
> and act all high and mighty and claim you're right simply because you and
> others make contrary claims. As if your opinion matters more.
>
> Many historians are liberals themselves. Some are conservative. I can
> offer both but you'll agree with the ones you choose and claim the ones
that
> disagree with you are incorrect. Again, that's your choice.
John Lewis Gaddis is a Yale historian who happens to be a Republican all his
life. He devoted his whole life discrediting the New Left historians of the
Cold War. He's had extraordinary access to the NS officials of this
administration including Condi Rice (as they were colleagues at Hoover).
Look there's no changing of your opinion or mine obviously. But do yourself
a favor, just to become a better informed American citizen and at least as
tribute to tens of thousands of Amercans who died fighting the Cold War,
read any of John Gaddis' books. He's a conservative personally, but about
as evenhanded in judgment as anyone. He too believes Reagan was very
important in waging and winning the Cold War (he was active in Republican
local politics when he used teach at Ohio University), but he wouldn't say
any one president was responsible for winning. There is a continuity of
purpose and means (albeit to varying degrees) that lasted over forty years.
>
> I believe Reagan's policies towards the Soviets was a stark contrast for
> them from the preceding decades. Especially Jimmy Carter's brand of
detente
> which looked a lot like Neville Chamberlain's version of appeasement.
If you're going to criticize Carter at least get the history right. Detente
was Nixon-Kissinger doctrine. Zbig Brzezinski was as much of a Cold War
fighter as anyone. Unfortunately for current times, he tried and succeeded
in turning Afghanistan into a Soviet Vietnam. You don't have to look hard
to find a videoclip of his speech to the Mujahadeen exhorting them to kill
the Soviets in the name of Allah back in 1980. This guy hated the Soviets
more than anyone of us put together. And there was no appeasement. M1
Abrams, Stealth program, Apache, Nimitz class carriers, KH-11 satellite
systems, etc, I mean the list goes on and on for programs that were approved
in Carter administration and deployed during the Reagan years. Rearmament
began in 1978-79. That's in Congressional records. All one has to do is to
look at the budget bills of 1978,79 and 80.
> Reagan faced down "the evil empire" and made them blink.
Well that's the point isn't it? You're probably too young to even remember
the Cold War and its heydays, but the brinkmanship had incredibly high risk.
Countless number of wars began due to miscalculations throughout history
(notably WWI and Pearl Harbor). All it takes is one mistake and none of us
would've been alive even to type this.
>Then when he had
> Gorbachev to work with, he switched gears against the advice of his most
> hawkish advisers. To make claims that his policies didn't work to end the
> cold war is to deny the truth
>
Who is making this claim? I cannot believe I have constantly repost. "I
actually give a lot of credit to Reagan for reinvigorating the containment
policy albeit at some stupid risktaking." This is what I wrote in my first
post in reply to yours. For translation, containment is the US global
strategy to fight the Cold War vs the Soviet Union.
Again, as I stated to EGK, quoting someone's statement that contains no
evidence whatsoever is merely citing blurbs of a book. As for Rosenthal, I
agree with him that the Clinton administration erred heavily in their
dealings with China. However, he's a not professional historian and I doubt
he's even heard of Ryan and Able Archer. Gordievsky defected in 1989 and
his book wasn't cleared for publication until 1992. Whatever, it's not
important. However, the fact remains, there were several incidents of
intended provocations that led Andropov to order an all out effort to
determine whether the West was going to initiate a preemptive strike and
that Reagan assumed the Soviets would not respond in any way. It was a
monumental gamble. If he erred, heck as Kennedy once remarked about LeMay
and Acheson, no one would've been alive to criticize him anyway.
> http://www.policyreview.org/mar97/reagan.html
>
> A.M. Rosenthal: There was a communist empire and it was evil. Ronald
Reagan
> did as much as any leader in the world to help bring about the end of that
> empire. He also proved it false, as the Clinton administration now claims
in
> the case of China, that struggling against a foreign dictatorship
> necessitates consigning to total isolation. President Reagan was able both
> to keep up the pressure on the Soviet Union militarily, economically, and
> politically and to maintain contact with its leaders because it was to
their
> interest to do so. I think all this certainly raises Mr. Reagan to the
> status of above average.
>
> I think it is silly for contemporaries of a president to try to fit him
into
> a permanent historical niche. I would expect that, as time went on,
history,
> if not the historians, will judge him as near-great for his contribution
to
> the downfall of the evil empire.
>
> A.M. Rosenthal was the executive editor of the New York Times from 1977 to
> 1986.
Don Cooper
"Vinnie S." wrote:
> I thought is was because they ran out of money?
That'll do it, too.
: )
Don
Don Cooper
Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown wrote:
> Good thing they never asked anyone in the defense industry, who could have
> told them that it was a farce.
You mean those were just cartoons?
Don Cooper
Hawking wrote:
> You're obviously ignorant.
Write this on the board 50 times:
MJ is not ignorant.
Don Cooper
Michael wrote:
> Whatever happened to old Lech after he was defeated in the 95 election?
I believe he went on to coach third base for the Twins.
Don Cooper
Wisk wrote:
> Excuse me, but EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN PRESIDENT carried the ball against
> communism. Stop listening that that republican crap.
That's true. Carter was pretty tough, too. No matter what these ass
clowns say.
Vinnie S.
>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 15:04:01 GMT, hamand...@betweentheknees.com wrote:
>
>>"Pier-14" <fisherm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If the defeat of communism in Europe was and is nothing in your eyes then
>>>your vision is very shallow indeed. God Bless Ronald Reagan and his family.
>>
>>And Reagan did what specifically to claim credit for this?
>>
>>-mhd
>
>Ask some of the former Soviets.
>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040605/D8315LD01.html
>
>I realize it probably won't make any difference to you but only hate-filled
>liberals refuse to believe Reagan's legacy in helping to end the cold war.
>It's hilarious that he gets more respect now in the former Soviet Union then
>is given by liberals in his own country.
Gorby was quoted a being distraught.
>By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
Vinnie S.
Mark Sotelo
"Vinnie S." <no...@coldmail.com> wrote:
Who was more hate filled then Reagan? Let's enjoy his love, shall we.....
How Reagan felt about you jobless loafers
"Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders."
--California Governor Ronald Reagan, in the Sacramento Bee, April 28, 1966
How Reagan felt about "YOUR" grandparents
"...a faceless mass, waiting for handouts."
--Ronald Reagan, 1965. (Description of Medicaid recipients.)
BadgerBC
> I made a comment earlier that I was the same person. You originally
replied
> to me on this account . I replied back on a different computer as EGK.
>
> I still fail to understand the point you're making by any of this above.
> Yes, that was a strategy. Reagan was still the only one that escalated
the
> buildup to the point where the Soviet's economy could not keep up.
> Reagan was also the first to scare the Soviets in to believing he thought
a
> Nuclear war was winnable. Even if he really didn't. That was the point
of
> the so-called Star Wars program being one of the most successful piece of
> blackmail in political history. Reagan was vilified for it by his critics
> but the Soviets took it very seriously. So seriously that they kept
trying
> to get it included in bargaining in Reykjavík. Reagan refused.
>
Again, I've done all I can for persuasion. If you think it's simple matter
to contain a crisis and scare the Soviets and simply pull back, that's your
prerogative. All I can say is I sure hope Pres Bush and whoever his
successor is doesn't feel that way, because there will be many such crises
with various states possessing delivery capabilities. Maybe you don't play
poker, but if you have a pair of 2's and the pot is already 80percent of
your holdings, and the other guy is still in it, you're already in a world
of hurt. By having on a pair of 2s, I mean there is no way to avoid
retaliation or escalation if it begins.
You really don't want to bring up Reykjavik. If you read Caspar
Weinberger's memoir, Fighting for Peace, you'd find that Reagan also
initially went along with Gorbachev idea to disarm all nuclear weapons in
return. Heck even an unabashed admirer of Reagan like Richard Perle
confirms this in his interview with PBS Frontline piece on the Cold War.
That wasn't Reagan's finest moment demonstrating his understanding of
nuclear doctrines. Even the most unabashed peacenik would pause before
thinking about getting rid of all nuclear weapons between US and USSR.
Look, for all Reagan's supposed good heart and intentions, he could never
figure out that SDI wasn't going to be purely a defensive weapon. Jeez,
this isn't going to a seminar on nuclear strategy. Both sides knew SDI
wasn't going to be full proof. However, both sides (except Reagan) knew if
(as the transition to SDI or BMD is carried out) that SDI could be good
enough to absorb the remaining retaliatory strike after a preemptive strike
by the side that possessed this. That's why I even brought up the
apocryphal account of US subs pinging Soviet boomers. Richard Perle who was
the Asst Def Secy for Policy points this out clearly. Perle didn't care if
the Soviets saw it as a first strike weapon. Neither did Fred Ikle who wrote
"Every War Must End." Reagan probably didn't believe SDI to be a first
strike weapon and probably thought it was going to be full proof. Otherwise
I cannot see any reason for him to initially agree to Gorbachev's proposal
to disarm and keep SDI. His aides had to quickly retract what he'd agreed
to Gorbachev. This is a matter of public record. Even Strobe Talbott of
Time magazine reported it contemporaneously.
>
> >As for immediate criticisms of Reagan on waging his Cold War, my
contention
> >(as well as many of those who lived through the times as an adult) is
that
> >he took risks that were extraordinary.
>
> Or visionary.
Or an idiotic version of Dr. Strangelove.
>
> >One may say that in hindsight that
> >it was worth it, but in perspective that is not something that's shared
by
> >all.
>
> Yes, they would say it was worth it. And in my opinion the only people
who
> can look at something like that and say it wasn't worth the risk, will
never
> take risks. They are the Neville Chamberlains of the world and
appeasement
> is a way of life. I also believe they are the same people who have lived
> through 9/11 and now want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it
> never happened.
I was waiting how long it'd take before you moved into a drone mode. Ok.
Every president of the United States since Truman was a Chamberlain except
Reagan and George W. Bush. Happy?
>
> > It boils down to this. What is clear is the Soviet Union is slowly
> >dying from within and the highest policymakers knew it as it's been
> >documented by declassified CIA NIE from the late 60s through 70s and 80s.
> >Everyone criticized the CIA that it couldn't predict the downfall of the
> >Soviet Union.
>
> You keep harping on this and fail to note that I said even Reagan himself
> believed that about the Soviet Union. That they would rot from within.
> That's exactly what he based his successful policies on. You act like
> Reagan just sat around with his hands stuck in his pockets and the Soviet
> Union just happened to fall under his and Bush's watch.
>
> >Well now those people realize how wrong they were. (As matter
> >of fact Milt Bearden who was the head of the SE Division at the
Directorate
> >of Operations talks about this in his recent memoir covering the end of
the
> >Cold War). Soviet leaders going back to Brezhnev knew of this and were
> >trying to look for a way to reverse this trend, most notably Andropov.
>
> And Reagan upped the ante so they could not hope to reverse the trend.
> Instead, his policies sped it up.
At what risk? O what's the point, you're right Reagan won the Cold War.
Now go back to the Sox NG and leave us alone. You win.
>
> >> I believe Reagan's policies towards the Soviets was a stark contrast
for
> >> them from the preceding decades. Especially Jimmy Carter's brand of
> >detente
> >> which looked a lot like Neville Chamberlain's version of appeasement.
> >
> >If you're going to criticize Carter at least get the history right.
Detente
> >was Nixon-Kissinger doctrine
>
> Forgive me for not believing you're not a liberal. Liberals tend to be
the
> only people I know that are as pompous as you appear to be. I know
exactly
> who coined the phrase detente. Try reading what I wrote. I said
"Carter's
> BRAND of detente looked a lot like appeasement.
> The history of relations with the USSR since the 60's was based on the
idea
> of a nuclear exchange being mutually assured destruction.
>
Listen idiot. I've voted for Republican presidents long before you were old
enough to drool. Not the proudest moment or decision in my life voting for
Nixon, but having been someone brought up in a family of career military
officers I was as hawkish as anyone. It's morons and lemmings like you who
populate what once was a party of Lincoln (though I'm still a registered GOP
because I still remain hopeful) that I can hardly recognize it as anything
but an encarnation of George Wallace. Just because I disagree with almost
cultish worship of Reagan among the current GOP doesn't make me a liberal.
But then again, with the likes of you and the current climate of the party
regulars, whoever doesn't toe the party line is a liberal. As for your
idiotic comment about arrogance and liberals, try reading some of the
comments made by Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, and Cheney before the invasion
of Iraq. I supported the war for strategic reasons having nothing to do
with Iraq or terrorism. I agree with National Security Strategy of the
current administration drafted in 2002. However, the arrogance of
certainty they exuded when they belittled Army Chief of Staff Shinseki's
warnings about the troop levels required for the postwar period speaks
volumes about who's arrogant.
As for your definition of detente, what did you do look it up in an
encyclopedia? What was Carter's brand of detente? It's a striking comment
since none of the Carter admin official would even agree they engaged in
detente and most historians of the Cold War would agree. Tell me what is
detente? Was it appeasement detente, when the Carter administration turned
the most important Soviet ally in the Middle East Egypt to the West at Camp
David? Was it appeasement when Carter administration initiated covert
action vs the Soviets in Afghanistan supplying arms to the Mujahadeen? Was
it appeasement when Carter declared in what is now called the Carter
Doctrine stating that any advance into the Persian Gulf (ie Iran) will be
considered an encroachment on vital US interest and will be met by force?
Was it appeasement when Carter administration created Rapid Deployment Force
(RDF which later became Centcom) after the Iranian Revolution in case the
Soviets took advantage of the situation? Heck, deeds are more important than
images, and one quick look at defense budgets of 78, 79, 80 would reveal 15%
increase each year. Was it appeasement when the Carter administration
inherited the draft of SALT II which set the ceiling of nuclear warheads at
13000 while balancing the distribution toward land based ICBMs and rejected
it outright? They sought and attained rebalance so that US advantage in
submarine deterrent (which is more survivable) would be preserved while
minimizing the Soviet advantage (landbased ICBM). Considering the previous
administration of Nixon Ford Kissinger was ready to sign the original SALT
initialed version of SALT II, I'd say Brzezinski and Carter did rather well
for our national interest.
> >. Zbig Brzezinski was as much of a Cold War
> >fighter as anyone. Unfortunately for current times, he tried and
succeeded
> >in turning Afghanistan into a Soviet Vietnam. You don't have to look
hard
> >to find a videoclip of his speech to the Mujahadeen exhorting them to
kill
> >the Soviets in the name of Allah back in 1980. This guy hated the
Soviets
> >more than anyone of us put together. And there was no appeasement. M1
> >Abrams, Stealth program, Apache, Nimitz class carriers, KH-11 satellite
> >systems, etc, I mean the list goes on and on for programs that were
approved
> >in Carter administration and deployed during the Reagan years.
Rearmament
> >began in 1978-79. That's in Congressional records. All one has to do is
to
> >look at the budget bills of 1978,79 and 80.
>
> Jimmy Carter was a nice guy. Unfortunately what most people remember when
> thinking of Carter on defense is helicopters breaking down in the desert.
> Failure.
Typical. All images of TV, not facts or books or reality. What were you
seven?
>
> >> Reagan faced down "the evil empire" and made them blink.
> >
> >Well that's the point isn't it? You're probably too young to even
remember
> >the Cold War and its heydays, but the brinkmanship had incredibly high
risk.
> >Countless number of wars began due to miscalculations throughout history
> >(notably WWI and Pearl Harbor). All it takes is one mistake and none of
us
> >would've been alive even to type this.
>
> But we are alive and I'm almost 50, thanks.
Sure, right.
> Boy, I'd hate to imagine you
> taking our leaders to task for their incredible risks against the Nazi's
or
> Japanese during WWII. I mean how could they have possibly been worth the
> risks? We should have just cowered within our borders. (rolling eyes).
> You must have considered D-Day a wholly unacceptable risk considering the
> cost and the chance that we might never gain a foothold in Europe. Best
to
> wait till Germany rose up and overthrew the government themselves.
Hey asshole. My family has had three KIA in WWI , Korea and Panama. My
late uncle was a career Marine infantry officer (who survived Tarawa and
Chosin Reservoir) who did more in service of this country than half the
cabinet in this administration. Don't fucking preach to me about the cost
of sacrifice. It's the chickenhawks like you and half the NSC who will
demonstrate their bravery to the last American sons and daughter excluding
theirr own.
BadgerBC
> Then what the hell are you arguing about? Lots of football teams use the
> same or similar strategies too. They don't all win.
> Reagan won. He made them blink. You don't think the risks were
acceptable.
> Reagan did and he turned out to be right. Reagan changed the face of the
> GOP and the Dems have been playing catch up ever since. His optimism
gave
> people hope and pride in being Americans. The liberals were left to hem
and
> haw and spout gloom and doom. Reagan had a "can do" attitude. And he
did.
>
You're just too damn thick to even pretend to have a debate on this. You
can have the last word.
> > I cannot believe I have constantly repost. "I
> >actually give a lot of credit to Reagan for reinvigorating the
containment
> >policy albeit at some stupid risktaking." This is what I wrote in my
first
> >post in reply to yours. For translation, containment is the US global
> >strategy to fight the Cold War vs the Soviet Union.
>
> If your definition of "reinvigorating" is putting enough pressure on them
to
> win it, you're correct.
>
EGK
<neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Hawking" <M...@privacy.org> wrote in message
>news:h6k9c01qk3r3706rr...@4ax.com...
>
>> Forgive me for not believing you're not a liberal. Liberals tend to be
>the
>> only people I know that are as pompous as you appear to be. I know
>exactly
>> who coined the phrase detente. Try reading what I wrote. I said
>"Carter's
>> BRAND of detente looked a lot like appeasement.
>> The history of relations with the USSR since the 60's was based on the
>idea
>> of a nuclear exchange being mutually assured destruction.
>>
>
>Listen idiot. I've voted for Republican presidents long before you were old
>enough to drool. Not the proudest moment or decision in my life voting for
>Nixon, but having been someone brought up in a family of career military
>officers I was as hawkish as anyone. It's morons and lemmings like you who
>populate what once was a party of Lincoln (though I'm still a registered GOP
>because I still remain hopeful) that I can hardly recognize it as anything
>but an encarnation of George Wallace.
Thanks for proving me correct in my opinion of you. Tsk tsk. and you claim
to be an adult, who voted before I was drooling? Sounds like you're so old
now you're starting to drool yourself. I'm a registered independent myself
and voted for Harry Brown in the last election.
Doesn't change the fact that I believe Reagan was the best President in my
lifetime. Reagan thought in positives. Not the negatives you and the
liberals like to constantly preach.
> Just because I disagree with almost
>cultish worship of Reagan among the current GOP doesn't make me a liberal.
Spouting the same rhetoric was actually the tip-off.
>As for your definition of detente, what did you do look it up in an
>encyclopedia?
LOL more pompous arrogance.
>> Jimmy Carter was a nice guy. Unfortunately what most people remember when
>> thinking of Carter on defense is helicopters breaking down in the desert.
>> Failure.
>
>Typical. All images of TV, not facts or books or reality. What were you
>seven?
And yet more pompous arrogance. You're doing great, pal.
>> >> Reagan faced down "the evil empire" and made them blink.
>> >
>> >Well that's the point isn't it? You're probably too young to even
>remember
>> >the Cold War and its heydays, but the brinkmanship had incredibly high
>risk.
>> >Countless number of wars began due to miscalculations throughout history
>> >(notably WWI and Pearl Harbor). All it takes is one mistake and none of
>us
>> >would've been alive even to type this.
>>
>> But we are alive and I'm almost 50, thanks.
>
>Sure, right.
And I think you're a liar about not being a hate america first brand of
LIEberal. See how that works, Mr pompous? You call names and make
insinuations and you get them right back.
>> Boy, I'd hate to imagine you
>> taking our leaders to task for their incredible risks against the Nazi's
>or
>> Japanese during WWII. I mean how could they have possibly been worth the
>> risks? We should have just cowered within our borders. (rolling eyes).
>> You must have considered D-Day a wholly unacceptable risk considering the
>> cost and the chance that we might never gain a foothold in Europe. Best
>to
>> wait till Germany rose up and overthrew the government themselves.
>
>Hey asshole. My family has had three KIA in WWI , Korea and Panama.
Yes? And your point? You think you're the only one? Seems like it was
too great a risk to do any of those things by your logic. Better to bury
our heads in the sand and wait till things go away on their own. Oh, but
what happens if they don't?
>My
>late uncle was a career Marine infantry officer (who survived Tarawa and
>Chosin Reservoir) who did more in service of this country than half the
>cabinet in this administration. Don't fucking preach to me about the cost
>of sacrifice. It's the chickenhawks like you and half the NSC who will
>demonstrate their bravery to the last American sons and daughter excluding
>theirr own.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I had lots of family in the military also. An uncle in
the Battle of the Bulge, another on a navy ship in the South Pacific and
another who was a Marine fighting among other places on Iwo Jima. I also
had a neighbor a few years older then me who won the Medal of Honor while
dying in Vietnam. You think that makes you or me special? Sorry to burst
your balloon, bud.
I think it's you that needs to head on back to the Sox group. Hell, the
way you are if the Sox win someday you can claim victory for every player
and manager since Babe Ruth played for them. You can say they all used the
same strategy that culiminated in ultimate victory. LOL
Me, I'll cheer for the Yankees and ReaganBino
Vinnie S.
>On 6/7/04 2:31 PM, in article vjn9c0dvmn8tpcsjc...@4ax.com,
>"Vinnie S." <no...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:38:58 GMT, Hawking <M...@privacy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 15:04:01 GMT, hamand...@betweentheknees.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Pier-14" <fisherm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If the defeat of communism in Europe was and is nothing in your eyes then
>>>>> your vision is very shallow indeed. God Bless Ronald Reagan and his family.
>>>>
>>>> And Reagan did what specifically to claim credit for this?
>>>>
>>>> -mhd
>>>
>>> Ask some of the former Soviets.
>>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040605/D8315LD01.html
>>>
>>> I realize it probably won't make any difference to you but only hate-filled
>>> liberals refuse to believe Reagan's legacy in helping to end the cold war.
>>> It's hilarious that he gets more respect now in the former Soviet Union then
>>> is given by liberals in his own country.
>>
>> Gorby was quoted a being distraught.
>>
>>> By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
>>
>>
>> Vinnie S.
>Who was more hate filled then Reagan? Let's enjoy his love, shall we.....
>
>How Reagan felt about you jobless loafers
> "Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders."
.
Well, that is right a good part of the time.
Vinnie S.
Keith Willoughby
> They are the Neville Chamberlains of the world and appeasement is a
> way of life.
Neville Chamberlain negotiated peace and prepared for war. He did
everything he could, considering that the UK armed forces were not
prepared for war in 1938.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"The catcher hits for .318 and catches every day
The pitcher puts religion first and rests on holidays"
Houndcat
"BadgerBC" <neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote
"Kennan presciently wrote back in
1947 that the Soviet system was inherently flawed not only economically but
also politically. Internal contradictions (his ironic use of a Marxist
concept) within the Soviet Union will gradually rot the system leading to a
collapse."
Kennan had simply understood Trotsky's analysis of the essential instability
of the Stalinist regime due principally to the Stalinists' fundamentally
anti-Marxist belief that the Russians could build "socialism in one
country".
Kennan had obviously read "The Revolution Betrayed" by Leon Trotsky
(Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1937; now available from Pathfinder Press).
Trotsky's book is the best analysis of the successes and failures of the
Stalinist regime up to that date. Trotsky said that unless there was a
political revolution in the USSR that overthrew the Stalinist bureaucracy
and restored workers democracy in the USSR, (and subsequently spread the
revolution throughout the world) the USSR would eventually be isolated and
crushed by the more advanced industrialized capitalist states.
It is a Marxist principle that in order for socialism to rise to the level
of "real Communism", socialism must be established in AT LEAST several of
the most advanced capitalist countries first, (so it would be built on an
adequate economic and technological basis) and then the workers revolution
had to be spread throughout the world, just as the capitalists had done in
the 18th and 19th centuries. The Stalinists repudiated Marxism when they
repudiated this fundamental tenet of Marxism, and instead pushed for
"peaceful co-existence" with the capitalist West.
Trotsky's prediction, sadly, turned out to be right. And the workers of the
former USSR have paid a high price for the betrayals of the Stalinists.
I hope Trotsky is not confirmed once again in the case of China.
All of this discussion has been far more interesting than I thought it would
be! You all are offering reading lists to each other. I highly recommend
Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" to all of you. And if you're really
ambitious, read his "History of the Russian Revolution" as well.
Houndcat
Houndcat
"Hahahahahahaha" <mad...@earthlink.net> wrote
"Don't forget the DJI stood at 879 (not a typo) in August 1981. Reagan's
economic
policies (voodoonomics in the immortal words of George HW Bush) lead to the
tripling of stock values during his admin. and the market has never looked
back."
Uh, I seem to remember a major stock market crash in the mid 1980s.
"When he left office the country was a far safer and far richer place than
when he
started. President Jimmah could never make that claim."
Um, may I interrupt? Reagan vastly expanded Jimmy Carter's support for the
Afghan mullahs and their friends, like Osama Bin Laden, turning them from a
totally marginalized social force in most of the "Arab World" into a heavily
armed and well-financed international terrorist threat. Under both Carter
and Reagan, the CIA taught Bin Laden and friends how to blow up Soviet
helicopters with rocket-propelled granades (sound familiar?), and how to
shoot down Soviet civilian jetliners with US-made "Stinger" missles.
The claim that Reagan's policy was fundamentally opposed to Carter's is
nonsense, as is the claim that the world was made a "far safer and far
richer place" due to the policies of the Reagan administrations.
Reagan was a swine and a major war criminal. So was Jimmy Carter.
Houndcat
Houndcat
"Vinnie S." <no...@coldmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sotelo wrote:
>
> >Who was more hate filled then Reagan? Let's enjoy his love, shall we.....
> >
> >How Reagan felt about you jobless loafers
> > "Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders."
> .
> Well, that is right a good part of the time.
>
> Vinnie S.
Yeah the unemployed are all a bunch of "freeloaders", unless, of course,
it's YOU, or one of your friends, or someone in YOUR family who are
unemployed, right Vinnie?
Houndcat
Houndcat
"Hawking" <M...@privacy.org> wrote
> And the fact is as stated. You're part of the large problem in this
> country. You're a hater. You're someone who treats politics like a
> sporting event. The other side can't possibly have done anything good or
> have any good ideas because they're not your team. Get a freaking clue.
>
> At least you're like two peas in a pod with people like Moammar Gadhafi.
>
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040607/D831R22G0.html
>
> Jun 6, 8:04 PM (ET)
>
> By JASON KEYSER
> [edit]
> The former U.S. president was not remembered so fondly in many Arab
nations.
> The Reagan years marked the beginning of what Lebanon's culture minister,
> Ghazi Aridi, called a "bad era" of American Mideast policy that he said
> continues to this day.
>
> Political analyst and former Syrian ambassador to the United Nations
Haitham
> al-Kilani agreed.
>
> "Reagan's role was bad for the Arab-Israeli conflict and was specifically
> against Syria. He was the victim of the Israeli right wing that was, and
> still is, dominating the White House," al-Kilani said.
>
> Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi said he was sorry that Reagan died without
> standing trial for 1986 air strikes he ordered that killed Gadhafi's
adopted
> daughter and 36 other people.
>
> Reagan ordered the April 15, 1986, air raid in response to a disco bombing
> in Berlin allegedly ordered by Gadhafi that killed two U.S. soldiers and a
> Turkish woman and injured 229 people.
>
> "I express my deep regret because Reagan died before facing justice for
his
> ugly crime that he committed in 1986 against the Libyan children," Libya's
> official JANA news agency quoted Gadhafi as saying Sunday.
>
I am not ashamed to be in agreement with Gadhaffi on this one!
Gaddafi, like the stopped clock, is right this time. I agree with him 100%:
Reagan's savage bombing of Libyan civilians for a crime they certainly had
nothing to do with is utterly indefensible and Reagan should have been tried
for this crime, as well as for his many other crimes committed from
Nicaragua to the Phillippines.
Houndcat
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Vinnie S." <no...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:7r0ac0ldgvejd4jdl...@4ax.com...
was a racist distortion to justify his proposed cuts. Of course, Clinton was
the one who eventually implemented them.
Kenny
news:dX8xc.21122$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "I express my deep regret because Reagan died before facing justice for
> his
> > ugly crime that he committed in 1986 against the Libyan children,"
Libya's
> > official JANA news agency quoted Gadhafi as saying Sunday.
Man what a hypocrite (and worse).
Looks like he's been taught a lesson though, since you don't hear about much
terrorist activity backed by him these days. When he dies I'll be sure to
express my regret that he died before facing justice for his ugly crimes.
Oh and I'm sorry his kid died because of his crimes.
Kenny
QuiGon12
>
> I realize it probably won't make any difference to you but only
hate-filled
> liberals refuse to believe Reagan's legacy in helping to end the cold war.
> It's hilarious that he gets more respect now in the former Soviet Union
then
> is given by liberals in his own country.
Well said... I love how the liberals spent all of the 80's telling us that
Reasan was leading us headfirst into a nuclear war, but then after the
collapse of communism, they acted like the collapse was inevitable and still
refuse to give Reagan credit.
Mokosh
Thank you Don. But some folks are too steeped in their chosen ideology to
have any respect for opinions which clash with theirs. Quite simply, I
despised Reagan; my opinion of him was formed from direct experience with
his policies, not bullshit from books and pretty speeches. His
domestic/economic 'trickle" crap damn near ruined the lives of my family and
many friends. During that time I did volunteer work at a local church
outreach, and the sheer numbers of jobless, homeless and hungry people
flocking there (I can only imagine what larger cities must have dealt with)
because of his ruthless disregard for simple human decency would have made
anyone with a soul weep. We had nuns, NUNS mind you, teaching people how to
lie to get adequate public assistance. The only thing he would have loved
more than to see the underclass wiped out would have been to keep free of
the blame of it.
His "freedom" rhetoric sounded good. The large tears he cried over enslaved
people in Communist countries were impressive (though I believe every poor
Russian muzhik could have dropped dead for all he cared), and many good
Americans fell for it, mostly the ones whose bellies were full. I am not
God, so his motives will never be known, but it appeared to me that Reagan
gave a damn for nothing but his own starry image abroad, and to hell with
the poor and working class at his own doors.
MJ
Russil Wvong
I just wanted to say, thanks for taking the time to post all of this.
It's fascinating. I keep meaning to find a good history of Reagan's
foreign policy ("Strategies of Containment" only goes up to Carter),
but haven't done it yet.
I'll second the recommendation for John Lewis Gaddis and "Strategies of
Containment," as well as "13 Days." There's also a good documentary
that came out recently, "The Fog of War": Errol Morris interviews
Robert McNamara.
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
abe slaney
This
>>was just a part of an overall strategy by Reagan administration to convey to
>>the Soviet Union that we were willing and able to wage a nuclear war. If
>>you don't believe me,
No, I believe you...I clearly remember VP candidate Bush saying at one
point during the 1st campaign that we could survive with some meager
percentage of our population intact.
Stanley Kubrick was right...they're all bungling lunatics. We got out of
that decade by sheer grace. I'm not so sure about this one.
Mokosh
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:16:06 -0400, "Mokosh"
> <knuck...@christless-ornery.net> wrote:
>
> >"Don Cooper" <dcoope...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:40C4D653...@comcast.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> Hawking wrote:
> >>
> >> > You're obviously ignorant.
> >>
> >>
> >> Write this on the board 50 times:
> >>
> >> MJ is not ignorant.
> >
> >Thank you Don. But some folks are too steeped in their chosen ideology to
> >have any respect for opinions which clash with theirs. Quite simply, I
> >despised Reagan; my opinion of him was formed from direct experience with
> >his policies, not bullshit from books and pretty speeches. His
> >domestic/economic 'trickle" crap damn near ruined the lives of my family
and
> >many friends.
>
found
> to have similar stories under every administration. I was a member of
the
> working poor and was never better off then under Reagan. I have lots of
> friends and relatives who agree with me. You're right that some folks are
> too steeped in their chosen ideology. You should look in the mirror for
one
> of them.
>
> Please explain these facts of which you're obviously ignorant.
>
> When Reagan left the White House, the deficit amounted to 2.8 percent of
> Gross Domestic Product, after having hit 6 percent of GDP in 1983. The
> economy grew out of the 1982 recession and by the end of Reagan's
presidency
> the unemployment rate was 5 percent, less than half what it was in 1982."
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5151912/
Yes? And this proves what? You label statistics as facts, which is a foolish
thing to do.
Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to. I know what I saw
and lived through...grown men and women working at Mickey D's in desperation
and the admin smilingly saying that unemployment was down. Now, Dubya, in
unconscious imitation perhaps, wants to call fast food jobs "Manufacturing"
in an effort to make himself look good. MOST POLITICIANS DO NOT CARE WHAT
HAPPENS TO POOR PEOPLE ONCE THEY ARE ELECTED. Reagan's was perhaps the most
soulless administration of recent times.
Mirrors? Here, have some Windex. NEXT!
MJ
Branden Wolner
news:NTtwc.1322$am1...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com:
> This thread is for everyone who is glad that the pig Ronald Wilson
> Reagan is FINALLY dead, dead DEAD!!
>
>
> Hooray! May he rot in hell!
>
> Houndcat
>
>
>
I find this post to be utterly without taste and disgusting. If you want to
criticize the man's policies and politics, that is fine. There is no need
to attack him personally. And I don't say that because of "respect for the
dead." I say that out of respect in general. Leave this kind of ad hominem
vitriole to the radical right where it belongs.
--
Go Yankees!
Go Lakers!!
Go Rangers!
Go Giants!! FASSLE IS GONE and Eli is here!
Branden Wolner
news:20040606092747...@mb-m29.aol.com:
>>Subject: Re: Ronald Wilson Reagan: Dead At Last!
>>From: "Mokosh" knuck...@christless-ornery.net
>>Date: 6/5/2004 10:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <IoOdnUEUhvD...@qx.net>
>>
>>"Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown" <hot...@mofo.com> wrote in message
>>news:Ybxwc.6372$c76.4...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>>
>>> "Houndcat" <houn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:NTtwc.1322$am1...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>>> > This thread is for everyone who is glad that the pig Ronald Wilson
>>Reagan
>>> is
>>> > FINALLY dead, dead DEAD!!
>>> > Hooray! May he rot in hell!
>>> >
>>> > Houndcat
>>>
>>> Come on, dude. I didn't care for his politics, either, but the guy
>>> was a human being.
>>
>>Until he got into politics, perhaps.
>
> Ronnie Raygun gets credit for the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the
> collapse of USSR Communism, and the end of the Cold War, not
> insignificant accomplishments by any standard. In fact, we could use
> Ronnie right now. If you have any complaints about the condition of
> the country, take it up with Clinton.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
QuiGon12
news:AKGdndOOVL4...@qx.net...
>
> Yes? And this proves what? You label statistics as facts, which is a
foolish
> thing to do.
> Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to. I know what I saw
> and lived through...grown men and women working at Mickey D's in
desperation
> and the admin smilingly saying that unemployment was down.
LOL..!! You refute the validity of statistics, then you give absolutely
nothing in response except for anecdotal evidence. The economy of the 80's
was strong - especially compared to the economy of the 70's. If you are
people you knew spent an entire decade doing nothing but working at
McDonald's, then I submit to you that that is probably all they were
qualified to do.
-----
"This is our year." - Cardinals fan, NFL commercial
"The road to the Super Bowl goes through Cleveland." - Browns fan, same
commercial
"Tom Brady isn't really all that great" - Jets fans, same commercial.
QuiGon12
news:Xns950269B851DDDde...@130.133.1.4...
>
> I find this post to be utterly without taste and disgusting. If you want
to
> criticize the man's policies and politics, that is fine. There is no need
> to attack him personally. And I don't say that because of "respect for the
> dead." I say that out of respect in general. Leave this kind of ad hominem
> vitriole to the radical right where it belongs.
Because you would never, *ever* engage in "ad hominem vitriole" right,
Branny...?
Mokosh
news:lumdnebOP_z...@comcast.com...
> "Mokosh" <knuck...@christless-ornery.net> wrote in message
> news:AKGdndOOVL4...@qx.net...
> >
> > Yes? And this proves what? You label statistics as facts, which is a
> foolish
> > thing to do.
> > Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to. I know what I
saw
> > and lived through...grown men and women working at Mickey D's in
> desperation
> > and the admin smilingly saying that unemployment was down.
>
> LOL..!! You refute the validity of statistics, then you give absolutely
> nothing in response except for anecdotal evidence. The economy of the
80's
> was strong - especially compared to the economy of the 70's. If you are
> people you knew spent an entire decade doing nothing but working at
> McDonald's, then I submit to you that that is probably all they were
> qualified to do.
Yeah right. And a B actor was qualified to be President.
MJ
Mark Sotelo
KILLER, COWARD, CONMAN -
GOOD RIDDANCE, RONNIE REAGAN
MORE PROOF ONLY THE GOOD DIE YOUNG
Sunday, June 6, 2004
by Greg Palast
You're not going to like this. You shouldn't speak ill of the dead. But
in this case, someone's got to.
Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.
In 1987, I found myself stuck in a crappy little town in Nicaragua
named Chaguitillo. The people were kind enough, though hungry, except for
one surly young man. His wife had just died of tuberculosis.
People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan,
big hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to
Nicaragua because he didn't like the government that the people there
had elected.
Ronnie grinned and cracked jokes while the young woman's lungs filled
up and she stopped breathing. Reagan flashed that B-movie grin while
they buried the mother of three.
And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American
marines in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a
whipped dog ... then turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med
war was a murderous PR stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning
down Cubans building an airport.
I remember Nancy, a skull and crossbones prancing around in designer
dresses, some of the "gifts" that flowed to the Reagans -- from hats to
million-dollar homes -- from cronies well compensated with government
loot. It used to be called bribery.
And all the while, Grandpa grinned, the grandfather who bleated on
about "family values" but didn't bother to see his own grandchildren.
The New York Times today, in its canned obit, wrote that Reagan
projected, "faith in small town America" and "old-time values." "Values" my
ass. It was union busting and a declaration of war on the poor and anyone
who couldn't buy designer dresses. It was the New Meanness, bringing
starvation back to America so that every millionaire could get another
million.
"Small town" values? From the movie star of the Pacific Palisades, the
Malibu mogul? I want to throw up.
And all the while, in the White House basement, as his brain boiled
away, his last conscious act was to condone a coup d'etat against our
elected Congress. Reagan's Defense Secretary Casper the Ghost Weinberger
with the crazed Colonel, Ollie North, plotted to give guns to the Monster
of the Mideast, Ayatolla Khomeini.
Reagan's boys called Jimmy Carter a weanie and a wuss although Carter
wouldn't give an inch to the Ayatolla. Reagan, with that film-fantasy
tough-guy con in front of cameras, went begging like a coward cockroach
to Khomeini pleading on bended knee for the release of our hostages.
Ollie North flew into Iran with a birthday cake for the maniac mullah
-- no kidding --in the shape of a key. The key to Ronnie's heart.
Then the Reagan roaches mixed their cowardice with crime: taking cash
from the hostage-takers to buy guns for the "contras" - the drug-runners
of Nicaragua posing as freedom fighters.
I remember as a student in Berkeley the words screeching out of the
bullhorn, "The Governor of the State of California, Ronald Reagan, hereby
orders this demonstration to disburse" ... and then came the teargas
and the truncheons. And all the while, that fang-hiding grin from the
Gipper.
In Chaguitillo, all night long, the farmers stayed awake to guard their
kids from attack from Reagan's Contra terrorists. The farmers weren't
even Sandinistas, those 'Commies' that our cracked-brained President
told us were 'only a 48-hour drive from Texas.' What the hell would they
want with Texas, anyway?
Nevertheless, the farmers, and their families, were Ronnie's targets.
In the deserted darkness of Chaguitillo, a TV blared. Weirdly, it was
that third-rate gangster movie, "Brother Rat." Starring Ronald Reagan.
Well, my friends, you can rest easier tonight: the Rat is dead.
QuiGon12
>
> Yeah right. And a B actor was qualified to be President.
> MJ
Funny how you conveniently omit his terms as governor of California, his
political stumping for Barry Goldwater, and his emergence on the national
scene during the 70's.
TomAllen2001
Yankees won 2 rings during the Carter term
Zero during Reagan
Zero during GHW Bush
4 during Clinton
and Zero GW Bush ....
Or is it 4 under Rudy and Zero under Hillary?
Just one last thing for you youngsters (although I am impressed by the number
of history books you're able to quote from):
THE 70's SUCKED and Reagan made it stop... unless you were a Welfare Queen or
Parole Violator... and ...
We won the Cold War because Marx never heard of credit cards.
Go Yankees
Red Sox Suck
Vinnie S.
<hot...@mofo.com> wrote:
>> >How Reagan felt about you jobless loafers
>> > "Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders."
>> .
>> Well, that is right a good part of the time.
>>
>Nonsense. It's a small part of the time, as is welfare. His "welfare queen"
>was a racist distortion to justify his proposed cuts. Of course, Clinton was
>the one who eventually implemented them.
>
I disagree. There are plent of people that go unemployment many times, over and
over again. I would guess many self employed people, especially, during slow
persiods, like landscapers in winter.
Welfare is just worse.
Vinnie S.
Branden Wolner
news:20040608162304...@mb-m11.news.cs.com:
> I finally realized why you guys hate Reagan so much.
>
> Yankees won 2 rings during the Carter term
> Zero during Reagan
> Zero during GHW Bush
> 4 during Clinton
> and Zero GW Bush ....
>
> Or is it 4 under Rudy and Zero under Hillary?
>
????
> Just one last thing for you youngsters (although I am impressed by the
> number of history books you're able to quote from):
> THE 70's SUCKED and Reagan made it stop... unless you were a Welfare
> Queen or Parole Violator... and ...
> We won the Cold War because Marx never heard of credit cards.
>
While I won't claim that Reagan did not help accellerate the fall of the
Soviet Union, it is childish and naive to think that it would not have
happened anyway. Their economy went into the toilet during the space race
of the 60s. They were doomed to oblivion. Reagan may have hastened that
doom by 6 months or 6 years. But it's ludicrous to give him all the
credit. He also put *us* deep into debt - debt we were just crawling out
from under until Bush bankrupted us for good.
BTW, for those who think of Bush as Reagan's political heir, consider
this:
After Reagan got his tax-cut passed in 1981, he saw that revenue was
drying up fast and he rolled back much of the corporate tax-cut and even
part of the personal income tax cut in 1982. After Bush got his tax-cut
passed in 2001, he saw that revenue was drying up fast and so he pushed
for even more tax-cuts. These reveals a fundamental difference in the
purpose of these tax-cuts. Reagan cut taxes to stimulate the economy
first and foremost. Bush's tax-cuts are meant primarily to redistribute
wealth the wealthiest and bankrupt the government.
In 1983, with bipartisan support Reagan raised the payroll tax and
created the SSI trust fund in order to preserve SSI. Bush is desperately
trying to bankrupt SSI.
Reagan loved science and technology. Reagan dropped tons of cash into
public research efforts in biomedicine, chemical engineering and physics.
Bush is terrified of science, consistently ignores warnings about global
warming and mercury poisoning. Reagan would not support Bush's stem-cell
research ban.
Finally, as pointed out today by Paul Krugman, when terrorists killed
marines in Beirut, Reagan faced the Nation and said: "If there is to be
blame, it properly rests here in this office and with this president.
And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good." Bush cannot
even fathom that he's made a single mistake in his entire presidency.
Reagan is dead. Love him or hate him, he was an infinitely better
president than Bush.
BadgerBC
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 22:47:04 -0400, "Mokosh"
> <knuck...@christless-ornery.net> wrote:
>
> >"Hawking" <M...@privacy.org> wrote in message
>
> >class
> >> in denigrating Reagan.
> >
> >I said I hoped he was barking in hell and I meant it. Life for poor and
> >working people was a misery during his administration.
>
> Then you said that people who believed Reagan accomplished the things they
> said he did were fools. You're ignorant on both counts.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5151912/
Well, there you again. Tell me do you only read movie reviews and quote
your favorite critics' comments only? Or do you even bother to go see one?
Let's look the GDP numbers. First, Reaganomics had its roots in Friedrich
Hayek and part Milton Friedman's monetarism (I know history not really your
strong suit, but indulge me). The underpinning (to grossly simplify a large
body of work) is that one must decrease the money supply (M1 or M1+M2
depending on one's perspective) in a national economy. Before you call me a
liberal and shout Reaganbino, look it up in your Webster's dictionary (it
should be somewhere after detente).
Reagan with the help of Volcker did just that drastically which resulted in
1981-83 (1st qt) economic slowdown necessitated by prime int rate going up
to 14.2 for a short time. Some say it was avoidable, but I tend to agree
with Reagan, Friedman, and Volcker that it was a necessary medicine given
the flawed assumptions of Keynesianism that was applied going back to
1969-70 (after the abrogation of dollar standard and the Bretton Woods
regime) and the resulting stagflation. Plus, the Carter admin miscalculated
the hyperinflationary aftereffects of the fall of Shah and the resulting
quadrupling of crude (which translated into huge inflation). They should've
intervened earlier (by tightening the money supply), but they didn't and
they paid for it on election day.
To his credit Reagan knew quite a bit about Hayek (I think he knew him
personally) and of course was in close consultation with Milton Friedman at
Hoover as he'd known him for years before his presidency. The problem
however is that Reagan didn't (or more accurately couldn't) execute his
Reaganomics policy. His assumption (as he was an inveterate gambler) was
that if he raised the deficit level (as he knew going in) really high to an
untenable height, Congress (a Dem House and a Rep maj but Dem voting Senate)
would be forced to cut the domestic spending. In other words, he could play
a game of chicken and he was convinced Congress would blink and do what he
wanted to all along which is to cut what he saw as the evils of Great
Society as well as Nixon years. Of course he miscalculated and Congress (as
anyone who knows anything about how DC works could've told him) kept the
domestic spending in budgets 1981(84), 1982(85), 1983 (86) which resulted in
record breaking deficits. Obviously this was not Reagan's intent and it
horrified some of his closest advisors. The first among his advisors to
come out against this was David Stockman (The Education of David Stockman)
his director of Office of Management of Budget who wrote a tell all book.
Second was Donald T. Regan who was the Treasury Secy as well as White House
Chief of Staff when he recounts his difficulty in getting Reagan's attention
whenever he brought the subject of deficit for four years.
The net result was with deficit spending of 82-84 T bills had to post
extremely high (12-14 percent depending on tranche) interest. The immediate
result is that dollar appreciated markedly which killed the US export sector
(steel, agriculture, textile) beyond rescue. That's why there was a Tokyo
and Plaza Accords as various OECD countries had to bring the dollar down
slowly to a perceived "normal" level. In the meantime there was a huge
deficit looming which why Gramm Rudman Act was passed late in 1985. With
1986 budget (which means it's effective 1989) you do see constraints being
place here. When George H.W. Bush decided to renege his promise and raise
taxes he had no choice. Gramm Rudman was in effect.
Now before you call me a liberal again, these are the facts. You can look
them up in any public databases like National Bureau of Economic Research
online or Bureau of Economic Accounts. I'm sure the fed reserve of St Louis
has a site also. The question then becomes, why was there a high jump in
GDP? The answer is simple as both Keynesian, postKeynesians, Monetarists,
or even classical liberal economists would agree. There was a quick
infusion of money in the system when demand was depressed. This is borne out
by all the macro data. Simply put it is a Keynesian stimulus. I wonder if
Reagan really knew this was going to happen, but whatever, he was at the
helm so he should get the credit for it. However, the trouble comes in the
latter part of 1985-87 when the manufacturing, textitle and agricultural
sectors took heavy losses as expensive dollar hurt them.(C.Fred Bergsten,
and Gary Hufbauer of Institute for International Economics have written
probably 30 books on this subject which is accepted as consensus) That's
why we heard calls for protectionism throughout the country and there was a
lot of anti Japanese sentiment as cheaper yen made imports much more
attractive. Reagan administration's response to this looming political
crisis (and I can't really blame them as they didn't know the unintended
consequences) was to convince the Japanese govt to impose "voluntary export
restraint" (ie we twisted their arms to reduced the number of cars Japan
exported into the US). Problem is if you reduce the number of cars, then
Japanese companies will move into higher end market to recoup the ag profit
lost due to loss of volume by increasing p margin. So we have Acuras and
Lexuses and Infiniti wiping out Cadillacs and Lincolns.
To reprise, the US was facing unsustainable federal deficit (compounded by
trade deficit) in 1985-86. Congress passed Gramm Rudman in 1985 which meant
by 1988 -89 (as budget bill is passed 3years in advance) there was going to
be decrease in money supply (a govt has number of options to do this:
taxation, reducing govt spending, etc). In case, you've forgotten, there
was 1987 market crash which was predicted by responsible investors like
Buffett given the inevitable decrease in M supply. Given the same choice as
Reagan faced in 1981-82, Bush chose to raise taxes rather than reduce govt
spending in 1989-90. Had Bush known what he knew by 1992, he wouldnt've cut
the spending. Unfortunately for him, the credit card bill was looming and
he had no idea there was going to be a bundle of money dropped on his lap
the next week. Namely, he had no idea by 1992, the Cold War was going to
end and the Soviet Union was going to disappear which would've given him the
peace dividend responsible for a lot of economic growth in 1990s (and it
wouldn't have mattered if it were Clinton, Perot, Bush or Dole who had been
the president. Two biggest reasons for the growth was the peace dividend
and growth of productivity due to microprocessor revolution. The only thing
I give the Clinton admin credit is that they maneuvered the US safely across
many intl currency crises that could've blown up into global financial
crises.) What does this mean? Reagan initially used "Reaganomics" which
turned into traditional Keynesian economic program of expansion (as Congress
initially wouldn't budge). It resulted in economic growth (and think of it
in terms of opp cost) which had to be paid for by the Bush administration.
Credit card bill had to be paid. Now, where Reagan should get credit is
probably the point of contention that you and I had ironically enough. His
role in ending the Cold War. I don't believe he was the guy who won the
Cold War but played a strong role in it. It was the peace dividend that
really helped to reduce the budget deficit (until last year).
Now the question of intentionality with Reagan, you say Reagan knew
confronting the Soviets would lead to disarmament talks and Glastnost.
Again, had there been such intent, there would've been position papers,
documents, decision memoranda. Remember the Cold War is over and it would
serve the GOP cause to release these things. Heck they even declassifed
information on how CIA blew up the Siberian pipeline in 1982. If you think
Reagan only gave verbal instructions and the vast bureaucracies of the
State, Defense, intelligence community, Treasury, Energy, and USTR would go
along with this without it, you have less than zero understanding of how the
federal government works. Richard Pipes, Richard Perle, Cap Weinberger have
all written memoirs and have given interviews after the end of the Cold War.
None so far have provided documentary proof that there were such
considerations long term.
As for Reaganomics, he never applied it. David Stockman his budget director
and Donald T Regan his treasury secretary confirm this in their memoirs.
There is a book by John K. Galbraith that's coming out that actually
recounts this in closer detail. However, plenty of U Chicago economists
(Galenson, Heckman, etc) have confirmed this despite their personal
political preference (needless to say is staunchly Republican) in their
research.
As Napoleon once said that he'd rather be a lucky general than a good one,
Reagan perhaps was just that. I give him far more credit for understanding
economics than he did about nuclear doctrines. However, he never got to
implement what he wanted to do. The reason why George H.W. Bush called it
voodoo economics was for the simple fact that he didn't think the domestic
spending cuts would be attainable for political reasons (and taxation would
be necessary). Well, Reagan proved him wrong. They wouldn't have to do
either of those options in his eight years. They'd have to be carried out
in 1986, 1987 bill (1989, 1990). The real sucker of this is President Bush
who probably will never get the proper credit for ending the Cold War
without a shot fired when all seemed likely not only in 1989, but 1991.
Whatever, your hero worship of Reaganbino is your religion. I'd rather
stick to facts and analysis.
>
> When Reagan left the White House, the deficit amounted to 2.8 percent of
> Gross Domestic Product, after having hit 6 percent of GDP in 1983. The
> economy grew out of the 1982 recession and by the end of Reagan's
presidency
> the unemployment rate was 5 percent, less than half what it was in 1982."
Now that's one of the most blatant example of lying through numbers. If you
look at the principal amount yes. Not if you include the total cost with
14%+ the int rates on those tbills.
>
> The reason Reagan attracted so many so-called "Reagan Democrats" is
because
> he changed the nature of the Republican party to one of "can do" while the
> Democrats then and since have sat around bitching and complaining about
what
> he did. Reagan's sense of optimism was diametrically opposed by the
> Liberals doom and gloom and what's become their trademark "blame America
> first" attitudes..
There you go again. Reaganbino, right?
BadgerBC
>
> Finally, as pointed out today by Paul Krugman, when terrorists killed
> marines in Beirut, Reagan faced the Nation and said: "If there is to be
> blame, it properly rests here in this office and with this president.
> And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good." Bush cannot
> even fathom that he's made a single mistake in his entire presidency.
>
Taking responsibility is one thing, acting irresponsibly is another.
Invading Grenada to cheer up a nation is irresponsible. Withdrawing the
Marines in the face of terrorists thereafter is irresponsible. All it did
was to encourage them further and regard American resolve as weak. If the
US withdraws from Iraq now, we might as well fold up the Middle East and
hand it over to Iran (because that's precisely what took place in 1983 when
it came to Lebanon). Robert Baer who was the deputy CIA COS in Beirut
recounts this really well in See No Evil. I'd rather have Reagan not
apologize but show some of the supposed hardness vs Iran at that time before
they started a hostage campaign which resulted in Iran Contra.
HPLeft
"BadgerBC" <neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Spxc.68509$5t4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Well, there you again. Tell me do you only read movie reviews and quote
> your favorite critics' comments only? Or do you even bother to go see one?
Outstanding post. I must admit that economic theory is not my strong suit.
You have an impressive grasp of it.
Matt C
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:15:58 -0400, "Mokosh"
> <knuck...@christless-ornery.net> wrote:
>
> >"Hawking" <M...@privacy.org> wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> When Reagan left the White House, the deficit amounted to 2.8 percent
of
> >> Gross Domestic Product, after having hit 6 percent of GDP in 1983. The
> >> economy grew out of the 1982 recession and by the end of Reagan's
> >presidency
> >> the unemployment rate was 5 percent, less than half what it was in
1982."
> >>
> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5151912/
> >
> >Yes? And this proves what? You label statistics as facts, which is a
foolish
> >thing to do.
> >Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to. I know what I
saw
> >and lived through...grown men and women working at Mickey D's in
desperation
> >and the admin smilingly saying that unemployment was down. Now, Dubya, in
> >unconscious imitation perhaps, wants to call fast food jobs
"Manufacturing"
>
> for all. Most all analysts would agree that we completed the switch to a
> service oriented economy under Clinton. Ever heard of NAFTA? It was a
long
> process going from a manufacturing economy but it definitely sped up in
> those years. Welfare reform during the Clinton administration had a lot
to
> do with the low-income jobs created also. Suddenly many people with
little
> or no skills were thrown in to the job market.
>
> And I'm not blaming Clinton either like you do Reagan. It takes a very
long
> time for any sitting President's policies to have a major affect on the
> economy. Instead I give Clinton much credit for overseeing a generally
> good economy during his years. It doesn't change the fact that things
like
> outsoursing and jobs leaving for foreign markets became quite common.
We're
> still seeing that today.
> The Reagan Bush administrations defense spending led to much of the boon
in
> computer technology that we rode for years to come. Or do you think all
the
> high-tech for smart bombs and such materialized out of thin air?
>
> >in an effort to make himself look good. MOST POLITICIANS DO NOT CARE WHAT
> >HAPPENS TO POOR PEOPLE ONCE THEY ARE ELECTED. Reagan's was perhaps the
most
> >soulless administration of recent times.
>
> liberal rhetoric.
>
> Here's an interesting piece from a union man: I doubt you'll bother to
read
> it. It goes against what you wish to believe.
>
> http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/cap_st15.html
>
> The Jobs Legacy. Clinton inherited several trends destructive to good
> unionized jobs, and he proceeded to speed them up. The decade of the '90s
> saw the net destruction of more than one million manufacturing jobs,
> replaced by millions in the service sector. In almost every case, the new
> jobs paid less, with few if any benefits. Clinton's support for schemes
like
> the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the current "NAFTA for
> Africa" bill have led directly to an epidemic of plant closings, hundreds
of
> thousands of jobs lost, and the exploding trade deficit.
NAFTA was largely championed by conservatives. Many Democrats opposed it.
>
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
have dealt with people using these programs on a regular basis (my mother is
retired). The majority of people on welfare and unemployment WANT a job. I'm
not saying there aren't abuses, but they're not as common as some would have
you believe.
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"BadgerBC" <neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Spxc.68509$5t4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
Christ, man, it's refreshing to have posters who do their homework and know
their stuff.
BadgerBC
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:06:03 GMT, "BadgerBC"
> <neilricha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hawking" <M...@privacy.org> wrote in message
> >news:hk59c0lnlo4uoimuh...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 22:47:04 -0400, "Mokosh"
> >> <knuck...@christless-ornery.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Hawking" <M...@privacy.org> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> You were the one who started the name calling by showing your lack
of
> >> >class
> >> >> in denigrating Reagan.
> >> >
> >> >I said I hoped he was barking in hell and I meant it. Life for poor
and
> >> >working people was a misery during his administration.
> >>
> >> Then you said that people who believed Reagan accomplished the things
they
> >> said he did were fools. You're ignorant on both counts.
> >
> >>
>
> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5151912/
> >
> >Well, there you again. Tell me do you only read movie reviews and quote
> >your favorite critics' comments only? Or do you even bother to go see
one?
>
> contradicted. This wasn't a debate about Reaganomics or the trickle down
> theories. She said because she and her friends were bad off, and Reagan
> just had to be the worst president in history and she just knew he didn't
> care about the poor and in fact wanted to stomp all over them. It's pure,
> unadulterated bullshit.
>
> >Let's look the GDP numbers. First, Reaganomics had its roots in
Friedrich
> >Hayek and part Milton Friedman's monetarism (I know history not really
your
> >strong suit, but indulge me). The underpinning (to grossly simplify a
large
> >body of work) is that one must decrease the money supply (M1 or M1+M2
> >depending on one's perspective) in a national economy. Before you call
me a
> >liberal and shout Reaganbino, look it up in your Webster's dictionary (it
> >should be somewhere after detente).
>
> like.
>
>
Only after you look up some facts and put down Rush audiotapes.
> >Now before you call me a liberal again, these are the facts.
>
> So let me ask you. You give lots of facts but you seem hard pressed to
> offer any concrete opinion of your own. Was Reagan the monster from
horror
> movies that Mokosh claims he was?
>
> >You can look
> >them up in any public databases like National Bureau of Economic Research
> >online or Bureau of Economic Accounts. I'm sure the fed reserve of St
Louis
> >has a site also. The question then becomes, why was there a high jump in
> >GDP? The answer is simple as both Keynesian, postKeynesians,
Monetarists,
> >or even classical liberal economists would agree. There was a quick
> >infusion of money in the system when demand was depressed. This is borne
out
> >by all the macro data. Simply put it is a Keynesian stimulus. I wonder
if
> >Reagan really knew this was going to happen, but whatever, he was at the
> >helm so he should get the credit for it.
>
> This is what makes me peg you as a liberal. Everytime you give Reagan
> credit for anything in your posts you do this. You either make a claim
that
> he was merely following the advice of Margaret Thatcher or wonder if he
knew
> what was going to happen. As if he just happened to luck in to anything
> positive. That's exactly the type of rhetoric they routinely use.
>
It's called being factual. Margaret Thatcher bit is what's written on the
CIA declassified internal history which is also echoed in a number of recent
books on the time period. Get this through the thick skull of yours. If
being a Jacob Javits Republican is being a liberal, you're just a lemming of
Rush Limbaugh (which is more than evident). You can bury your head in the
sand (your favorite term isnt it?) and deny that Reagan had nothing but good
judgment throughout his 8 years but historical works (not some blurbs you
drag out of webblogs) aren't going to represent it as such. Liberal
rhetoric? David Stockman and Donald T. Regan are liberal only in the
classical economic sense. Also, equating Munich with Able Archer just
demonstrates how little you grasp history. Neville Chamberlain or Halifax
didn't have 30 minutes to decide the fate of the world.
>
> >Now the question of intentionality with Reagan, you say Reagan knew
> >confronting the Soviets would lead to disarmament talks and Glastnost.
>
> I said that Reagan was tough on Soviet leaders. When he recognized in
> Gorbachev someone he felt actually desired change, he was intelligent
enough
> to work with him. He saw the opportunity when it presented itself.
That's
> quite a bit different.
"I still fail to understand the point you're making by any of this above.
Yes, that was a strategy. Reagan was still the only one that escalated the
buildup to the point where the Soviet's economy could not keep up.
Reagan was also the first to scare the Soviets in to believing he thought a
Nuclear war was winnable. Even if he really didn't. That was the point of
the so-called Star Wars program being one of the most successful piece of
blackmail in political history. Reagan was vilified for it by his critics
but the Soviets took it very seriously. So seriously that they kept trying
to get it included in bargaining in Reykjavík. Reagan refused."
This is your post in case you've forgotten or do not recall (now I see why
you worship Reaganbino). I know analysis isn't really your cup of tea, but
when you type "Reagan was the first to scare the Soviets into believing he
thought a nuclear war was winnable..even if really didn't" do you sense
intentionality when making this claim? If so, where are the papers? Public
policy doesn't get implemented without a paper trail. Unless Ollie North
rips them up.
>
> >Again, had there been such intent, there would've been position papers,
> >documents, decision memoranda. Remember the Cold War is over and it
would
> >serve the GOP cause to release these things. Heck they even declassifed
> >information on how CIA blew up the Siberian pipeline in 1982. If you
think
> >Reagan only gave verbal instructions and the vast bureaucracies of the
> >State, Defense, intelligence community, Treasury, Energy, and USTR would
go
> >along with this without it, you have less than zero understanding of how
the
> >federal government works. Richard Pipes, Richard Perle, Cap Weinberger
have
> >all written memoirs and have given interviews after the end of the Cold
War.
> >None so far have provided documentary proof that there were such
> >considerations long term.
>
> >> When Reagan left the White House, the deficit amounted to 2.8 percent
of
> >> Gross Domestic Product, after having hit 6 percent of GDP in 1983. The
> >> economy grew out of the 1982 recession and by the end of Reagan's
> >presidency
> >> the unemployment rate was 5 percent, less than half what it was in
1982."
> >
> >Now that's one of the most blatant example of lying through numbers. If
you
> >look at the principal amount yes. Not if you include the total cost with
> >14%+ the int rates on those tbills.
>
> And what's lying about reducing unemployment by more then half? To listen
> to Mokosh, you'd have expected everyone making less then 50k a year must
> have been put on the dole by Reagan.
>
Federal deficit being 2.8 percent GDP in 1988 after hitting 6 percent in
1983. Anyone who looks at the number with an understanding of how the
federal budget works realizes how cooked the numbers are (not even
accounting for the interest payment for tbills issued in those years). The
federal debt in principal in 1981 was 1 trillion. By 1988 was 4 trillion
with some high rate tbills and coupons coming into maturity in early 1992-93
(which meant they had to be reissued at comparable rates.) What saved this
country was the peace dividend and the growth of the economy which
drastically increased the tax receipts.
> >> The reason Reagan attracted so many so-called "Reagan Democrats" is
> >because
> >> he changed the nature of the Republican party to one of "can do" while
the
> >> Democrats then and since have sat around bitching and complaining about
> >what
> >> he did. Reagan's sense of optimism was diametrically opposed by the
> >> Liberals doom and gloom and what's become their trademark "blame
America
> >> first" attitudes..
> >
> >There you go again. Reaganbino, right?
>
> Is there some point there? You disagree with that also? Big surprise.
> Many, many people will say that one of the biggest impacts Reagan had on
> them during those years was making them proud to be Americans again.
That's
> something we as a country hadn't felt since the Vietnam war.
>
No. For someone who's quick to connect what he perceives to be rhetoric with
liberals, you sure are engaging in a lot of Rush talk when you claim to be
an independent.