RIP Gipper

[Cobra1]

The only major disagreement with him will be he endorsed the CIA to arm the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan when the Soviet striked first to stop the flow of Islamic fundamentalism. He was totally responsible for creating the Islamic fundamentalists monsters like Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.. [/B]

ACtually the Russian were in search of a warm water port and Afghan was an opportunity for a beachhead into the PErsian Gulf. Dont forget - the cold war was fought in the ME.

While bin LAden is a Wahabi, expansion of the Islamic empire has never been one of his end games - he just wanted to over throw the Saudis, and to do that - he needed the US to leave Saudi as they promised in 1992 and stop protecting those corrupt princes.

Syria and Iraq, and Egypt are those that are repsonsible for halting the spread of islamic fundamentalism - yet they dont get credit cause the spins masters in Washington are bent to Isreal - and those countries above have not be recognized for their assistance. Assad battled them in Hama, 20,000 people - the remnants of which went to Saudi (and provide the workforce that runs the oil industry). This is a factor as to why it was so stupid to take out Saddam, and continue to support those corrupt Saudis. The US is backing off supporting a Shiite Iraq in favour of the Sunnis - finnally someone is thinking - oil in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and possibly Saudi would put the West into a resource risk situation.

I am curious that no one references the democracies Reagan upset throughout the world as contradicitons of his apparent virtues.

Or the fact that he had "soft campaing money" keep those hostages in Iran in captivity for longer than they should have. That, and Iran Contra are items he should have been impeached for - by contrast Nixon is a saint.

 

[Galahad]

In general I couldn't care less for Reagan's politics or his rein. Despite what others have said during his presidency, I believe he was a smart man. At least smart enough not to be meddlesome on every issue. This however, is also the downfall for some of his policies which continues to affect Americans to this day.

That said, I really like Reagan, the person. He comes across as a leader who genuinely cares about his people. Although this is not reflected in his many social and economical policies which made the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. At a time of low morale at the onset of his presidency, he made Americans proud and patriotic about their country.

Even with his many follies, I think he will be remembered as a people's president.

 

[kbluejayk]

he was a visionary and a great President and served our American friends well....his impact and influence will be felt for years to come!
Only two great men that I know of who switched parties and went on to impact world history!.....Winston Churchill, a Liberal, saw the light and became a Conservative to lead the British in wartime.......and Ronald Reagan, a Democrat who became a Republican and who was influencial in bringing about the end of the Cold War...
Now, if only we had such real leadership in Canada!

 

[onthebottom]

Reagan was the turning point for the US in the 80s, he lead the country out of the defeatist haze that had descended due to Vietnam, high unemployment and inflation and Watergate. He drew many young voters (like me, I was young then) who embraced his view of what America could be and his view of the limited role government should play in our lives. Not only was he a man who could communicate and connect with people, he could also lead. He had a clear vision of where he wanted to take the country and how to get there, and he realized that vision.

Many in the other party made fun of him, thought him unsophisticated and ignorant and without a grasp of the weighty issues he was struggling with. They were proved, by history, to be very mistaken. His "Evil Empire" language was ridiculed as simplistic (although I still can't understand which of those words you couldn't apply to the SU) and confrontational. As usual, the Democrats were on the wrong side of history.

RIP Gipper

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

And another thought,

I don't think that it's an accident that with Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK changing the debate on tax and spending in government the result has been the fastest growing and most successful economies in the world.

OTB

 

[Cool Dude]

State Funeral

It was a very symbolic and moving tribute this evening for Dutch. It was particularly nice to see Reagan's two very close friends there, and two people I happen to admire greatly, Brian Mulroney and of course the "Iron Lady", Margaret Thatcher. Unable to speak, she has recorded her eulogy that will be played at the service on Friday. What a dame!

 

[Drunken Master]

Re: POTUS40, a respect due.

Reagan was a strong, very strong man. Despite my
frustration and anger with him, I will always respect him.

I regrettfuly agree. I am, however, sick and tired of the myth of St. Reagan so popular among the neo-cons.

Why do conservatives have so much trouble with the idea that massive spending + massive tax cuts = massive debt? Where does the idea of "fiscal responsibility" go when the likes of Reagan and Ernie Eves start racking up huge annual deficits? And is there really any doubt that the devil-may-care free-money attitude Reagan sponsored in the 80's lead to the horrible, long-lasting recession of the first Bush era?

And while we're at it, could somebody please - PLEASE - explain to me how Reagan "won" the cold war. Ironically, his solution to the problem of the Soviets was one near and dear to hearts of lefties - throw money at it. Build up the American military to at level never before dreampt of, forcing the Soviets to respond. A good idea, but one which was directly connected to the shabby state of the Soviet economy. I'll grant - grudingly - that Reagan might have given the Soviet empire the ever-so-slightest nudge into collapse. This can hardly consitute a "victory."

I read an editiorial by a former speech-writer of Reagan's praising him for funding the Contras and the Muhajadeen, thus (again) forcing the Soviets to respond in kind. The fact that thousands of civilians ended up being killed in the process and Afghanistan was turned into the kind of quagmire capable of sustaining a bastard like bin Laden seems not to have entered the equation.

The judgment of history tends to be balanced. The same cannot be said for the judgment of dogma.

 

[Drunken Master]

Re: State Funeral

Brian Mulroney

You obviously ain't Canadian. Eh.

"Iron Lady", Margaret Thatcher...What a dame!

MARGARET THATCHER IS A WOMAN?????!!!!!!

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: POTUS40, a respect due.

.......

The judgment of history tends to be balanced. The same cannot be said for the judgment of dogma.

And your post was a great example of the latter.

OTB

 

[tompeepin]

IMHO

Respect the man (unlike the present POTUS) but other than that ... And “less government”? Where? Only in the affairs of the wealthy? Less government means less government intervention and that includes in the foreign affairs of other sovereign people.

I regrettfuly agree. I am, however, sick and tired of the myth of St. Reagan so popular among the neo-cons.

Why do conservatives have so much trouble with the idea that massive spending + massive tax cuts = massive debt? Where does the idea of "fiscal responsibility" go ...

The Congressional Budget office stated that real income of the bottom 90% of taxpayers fell by 7% from the mid-1970s, while the income of the top .01% rose 600%. Yup Reagan was good for the rich - The haves and the have mores - Just like Bush, it was his "base" to cater to. And the huge growing deficit? Cut taxes and "spend" away deficits, that is logical ... the piper never has to be paid … at least not by the rich Americans. During Reagan’s reign the "me" generation was at it’s zenith.

And while we're at it, could somebody please - PLEASE - explain to me how Reagan "won" the cold war.

Again to what extent did the man make the times or the times make the man. The USSR was teetering; Reagan pushed them over the edge. I think that maybe Gorbachev was more a factor than Reagan in the peaceful dismantling of the USSR, otherwise nukes might have flown in desperation.

I read an editiorial by a former speech-writer of Reagan's praising him for funding the Contras and the Muhajadeen, ...

Yes the Muhajadeen and Saddam ... well we know what that lead to ...

But all the immorality related to the Contras is pretty much forgotten ...

Yes history will be more balanced, just as it was with the US involvement in Haiti - but who reads history in depth? Who even keeps up with "current" affairs, except in sound bites?

 

[Drunken Master]

Re: Re: Re: POTUS40, a respect due.

And your post was a great example of the latter.

OTB

Prove me wrong, kids! Prove me wrong!

(/Principal Skinner)