Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who let this thread get drailed by thte conspiracy nutjobs?...off topic, wrong room
too predicatable as always.,when the paid zionist shill is cornered by pesky facts and evidence he cant refute,he evades them running off like the chikenshit coward he is.
Who let this thread get drailed by thte conspiracy nutjobs?...off topic, wrong room
too predicatable as always.,when the paid zionist shill is cornered by pesky facts and evidence he cant refute,he evades them running off like the chikenshit coward he is.
Wrong room.... All your bull has nothing to do with the nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Some people glorify dead Presidents the way old people glorify "the good old days". They like to remember the good stuff and convenietly forget or ignore the bad stuff. Lib's have Kennedy and con's have Reagan. Some folks just feel comfortable living in imaginary thoughts and dreams.
Results are results
REAGAN’S ECONOMIC SUCCESS
Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
•20 million new jobs were created.
•Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
•The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
•The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
•Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
•Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
•Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
•The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
•The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
•The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
•During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
•In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
•The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
(The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
•The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
•The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
as always,thanks for displaying your a hypocrite. I love how you reaganuts worship the NET as the truth.
thanks for displaying your hypocrisy. actual mainstream media reports published from back then in the 80's in his footnotes which prove that all that you just posted is pure bullshit and lies. you lose.Refute the numbers loon, or go back to your Kenedy conspriacy thoeries in the alternet universe that you live in in your basementSome people glorify dead Presidents the way old people glorify "the good old days". They like to remember the good stuff and convenietly forget or ignore the bad stuff. Lib's have Kennedy and con's have Reagan. Some folks just feel comfortable living in imaginary thoughts and dreams.
Results are results
REAGANS ECONOMIC SUCCESS
Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
20 million new jobs were created.
Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
(The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worthassets minus liabilitiesof all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in todays dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
propaganda results.
only problem with your lies zionest agent,is the book that dante referred you trolls to at the very beginning of this thread sets the record straight and counters your lies you came up with on the net with ACTUAL SOURCES THE AUTHOR USES FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BACK THEN.
you reaganut trolls of course wont read that book and look at the evidence from back then published because your too arrogant to admit you have been proven wrong.
sorry but actual sources printed back in the 80's talking about the recession and how reagan shipped jobs overseas counters your lies posted on the NET you worship.
you lose loser.
I've had others try to make the same argument about JFK...citing the same Kennedy request to plan for the withdrawing of US troops. What people like 9/11 never seem to grasp is that governments plan for many different contingencies...Kennedy believing the conflict was being resolved with the communists on the losing side asked for a plan to withdraw troops. Then he came to realize that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe and the talk turned to what would be the best way to shore up South Vietnam. Simply because there was a plan for a withdraw of US troops doesn't mean Kennedy made that call.
I've had others try to make the same argument about JFK...citing the same Kennedy request to plan for the withdrawing of US troops. What people like 9/11 never seem to grasp is that governments plan for many different contingencies...Kennedy believing the conflict was being resolved with the communists on the losing side asked for a plan to withdraw troops. Then he came to realize that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe and the talk turned to what would be the best way to shore up South Vietnam. Simply because there was a plan for a withdraw of US troops doesn't mean Kennedy made that call.
So whats that have to do with Reagan?
I've had others try to make the same argument about JFK...citing the same Kennedy request to plan for the withdrawing of US troops. What people like 9/11 never seem to grasp is that governments plan for many different contingencies...Kennedy believing the conflict was being resolved with the communists on the losing side asked for a plan to withdraw troops. Then he came to realize that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe and the talk turned to what would be the best way to shore up South Vietnam. Simply because there was a plan for a withdraw of US troops doesn't mean Kennedy made that call.
So whats that have to do with Reagan?
Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
Happy now?
I've had others try to make the same argument about JFK...citing the same Kennedy request to plan for the withdrawing of US troops. What people like 9/11 never seem to grasp is that governments plan for many different contingencies...Kennedy believing the conflict was being resolved with the communists on the losing side asked for a plan to withdraw troops. Then he came to realize that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe and the talk turned to what would be the best way to shore up South Vietnam. Simply because there was a plan for a withdraw of US troops doesn't mean Kennedy made that call.
So whats that have to do with Reagan?
Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
Happy now?
I think the Obama Doctrine is "leading from behind"...otherwise known as "I don't have a clue what I'm doing therefore I'm going to do as little as possible".
So whats that have to do with Reagan?
Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
Happy now?
Obama's still using the Bush doctrine...Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire and kept the muslim nutjobs fighting themselves
A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
Lech Walesa
President of Poland from 1990 to 1995, & winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
GDANSK, Poland When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This cant be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Lets remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.President Reagan, in a radio address from his ranch on Oct. 9, 1982, announces trade sanctions against Poland in retaliation for the outlawing of Solidarity.I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. Theyre convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for.
Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.The 1980s were a curious time a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didnt fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.* * *
I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, High Noon. Under the headline At High Noon runs the red Solidarity banner and the date June 4, 1989 of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the Wild West, especially the U.S.But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didnt express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world.
And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.
Lech Walesa
Lech Walesa on Reagan, Valley Patriot
Of course, you would know more.
Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
Happy now?
Obama's still using the Bush doctrine...Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire and kept the muslim nutjobs fighting themselves
You are just making things up. Bush threw out any semblance of a doctrine when he invaded Iraq. He even threw out the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Irag. Terrorist groups flourished under both Bush and Reagan. They grew in size and ability to attack western nations and their allies in Africa and Asia.
Reagan getting all the credit for defeating the Soviet Union is hotly debated in the countries that were freed by the collapse of the USSR. They give credit to the massisve demonstations they conducted, the influence of the Pope and Catholic Church, the nationwide strikes and the threat that the USSR would have to remilitarize Eastern Europe with occupations forces rather than the purely defensive/offenseive forces based in those countries.
The claim that Reagan had the "muslim nutjobs" fighting each other is erroneous at best. The war between Irag and Iran and the way Reagan interfered left scars and problems that would leed to many of the difficulties we face today.
In his new book, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,” Grove City College professor Paul Kengor sheds light on a letter written by KGB head Viktor Chebrikov to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov. The letter is dated May 14, 1983, right as the debate was heating up over Mr. Reagan’s proposed deployment of intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe to counter the Soviets’ medium-range rockets in Eastern Europe.
Most Democrats and much of the left were universally opposed to Mr. Reagan’s plan, which they argued would lead to nuclear war. Heading the list of critics was Mr. Kennedy, who had, according to the Soviet letter, sent former Sen. John V. Tunney to meet with Kremlin leaders. Chebrikov writes that Mr. Kennedy “charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to… Andropov.”
According to the letter, Mr. Kennedy was concerned with “Reagan’s belligerence,” which he felt was in part the result of the president’s popularity. “The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” wrote Chebrikov, relaying Mr. Tunney’s message. “These issues, according to [Mr. Kennedy], will without a doubt become the most important of the [1984] election campaign.”
The letter goes on to say how Mr. Kennedy felt that the Soviets’ peaceful intentions were being “quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted.” Conversely, Mr. Reagan “has the capabilities to counter any propaganda.” In other words, if the letter is to be believed, Mr. Kennedy felt his own president was the real aggressor
Yes, and I of course who have lived in Prague since 1996 have not had a chance to do so. I iwill take the word of people I know and the likes of Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa over some neophyte trustafarian. I'm funny that way I guess.A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
Lech Walesa
President of Poland from 1990 to 1995, & winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
GDANSK, Poland — When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let’s remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.President Reagan, in a radio address from his ranch on Oct. 9, 1982, announces trade sanctions against Poland in retaliation for the outlawing of Solidarity.I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They’re convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for.
Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.The 1980s were a curious time — a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didn’t fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.* * *
I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, “High Noon.” Under the headline “At High Noon” runs the red Solidarity banner and the date — June 4, 1989 — of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the “Wild” West, especially the U.S.But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didn’t express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world.
And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.
Lech Walesa
Lech Walesa on Reagan, Valley Patriot
Of course, you would know more.
This is a tribute to Reagan. Even in the tribute other names are mentioned that helped bring about the fall of the USSR. Reagan was a force in helping to bring down the USSR, but he wasn't the only one. I have been to Eastern Europe many times. I have friends there. I often stay in their homes in towns and cities that few westerners visit. A tribute speech does not counter the many conversations I have had with the everyday people I have had the oppurtunity to discuss this issue with at length.
Yes, and I of course who have lived in Prague since 1996 have not had a chance to do so. I iwill take the word of people I know and the likes of Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa over some neophyte trustafarian. I'm funny that way I guess.A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
Lech Walesa
President of Poland from 1990 to 1995, & winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
GDANSK, Poland When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This cant be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Lets remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.President Reagan, in a radio address from his ranch on Oct. 9, 1982, announces trade sanctions against Poland in retaliation for the outlawing of Solidarity.I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. Theyre convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for.
Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.The 1980s were a curious time a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didnt fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.* * *
I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, High Noon. Under the headline At High Noon runs the red Solidarity banner and the date June 4, 1989 of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the Wild West, especially the U.S.But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didnt express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world.
And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.
Lech Walesa
Lech Walesa on Reagan, Valley Patriot
Of course, you would know more.
This is a tribute to Reagan. Even in the tribute other names are mentioned that helped bring about the fall of the USSR. Reagan was a force in helping to bring down the USSR, but he wasn't the only one. I have been to Eastern Europe many times. I have friends there. I often stay in their homes in towns and cities that few westerners visit. A tribute speech does not counter the many conversations I have had with the everyday people I have had the oppurtunity to discuss this issue with at length.
Refute the numbers loon, or go back to your Kenedy conspriacy thoeries in the alternet universe that you live in in your basementResults are results
propaganda results.
only problem with your lies zionest agent,is the book that dante referred you trolls to at the very beginning of this thread sets the record straight and counters your lies you came up with on the net with ACTUAL SOURCES THE AUTHOR USES FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BACK THEN.
you reaganut trolls of course wont read that book and look at the evidence from back then published because your too arrogant to admit you have been proven wrong.
sorry but actual sources printed back in the 80's talking about the recession and how reagan shipped jobs overseas counters your lies posted on the NET you worship.
you lose loser.
oh and i have posted several links-"which again is something that I am against, which is why i refer people to books" that shoot down your ramblings too many times to remember,not my fault your too much of a chickenshit coward to read my links.hahahahahahahahahaahahaaaaThank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
Happy now?
Obama's still using the Bush doctrine...Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire and kept the muslim nutjobs fighting themselves
You are just making things up. Bush threw out any semblance of a doctrine when he invaded Iraq. He even threw out the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Irag. Terrorist groups flourished under both Bush and Reagan. They grew in size and ability to attack western nations and their allies in Africa and Asia.
Reagan getting all the credit for defeating the Soviet Union is hotly debated in the countries that were freed by the collapse of the USSR. They give credit to the massisve demonstations they conducted, the influence of the Pope and Catholic Church, the nationwide strikes and the threat that the USSR would have to remilitarize Eastern Europe with occupations forces rather than the purely defensive/offenseive forces based in those countries.
The claim that Reagan had the "muslim nutjobs" fighting each other is erroneous at best. The war between Irag and Iran and the way Reagan interfered left scars and problems that would leed to many of the difficulties we face today.
