Ronald Reagan's Birthday and the Myth of Reagan

[QuickHitCurepon]

Nobody even dreamed it was possible to defeat the Soviets until Reagan came along.

Essay How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War - Conservapedia

From Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter, the policy when dealing with the Soviet Union was containment. Containment failed. The ultimate goal of the Soviet empire was a global communist revolution, therefore the Soviets could never have been contained. When Ronald Reagan came into office, he initiated a policy of confronting the Soviet Union, marking a sharp departure from the "détente" policy of the 1970s.

Reagan advocated a radical agenda: challenge the Soviets everywhere. Economically, politically, militarily, and especially psychologically. Not just coexist with the Soviets, but defeat them. His strategy for an endgame to the Cold War was that there would be no coexistence with the Soviets. From beginning to end, the goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union.

The combined effects on the Soviet economy was costing the Soviet empire billions. The Soviets had increased defense spending by 45 percent, billions were lost in hard currency, billions more was spent on bolstering nervous third world communist dictators and all they had to show for it was dead young Russian and other Soviet citizens shipped home from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Reagan's leverage had worked and the Kremlin was now backed into a corner. After less than five years of Ronald Reagan, the hardliners of the Soviet leadership could no longer hide the economic damage of their rule. This gave the reformers an opening. Mikhail Gorbachev was elected by a one vote majority in the politburo and that vote was by Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had met with Reagan six months earlier and told him that he knew that Reagan's goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union. The politburo went with a reformer such as Gorbachev because they knew the only way they could compete with the United States and meet the Reagan challenge is by changing. So Gorbachev was brought into power in response to Ronald Reagan. So Reagan was really responsible for bringing Gorbachev into power.

Take the fact that communism drives any country broke, add a Reagan-supported arms build up as well as a Reagan-supported second arms race in space, add a Reagan-supported Vietnam-like quagmire, and mix in Reagan-supported socio-political upheaval in Soviet satellite states. It was more than the Soviet system could take. Especially with a Reagan-supported reformer in charge of the Soviet Union.

If any of those things had not happened, the Soviet Union could have survived their crises.

Well, I disagree. but he was a great leader.

Would you have wanted it done differently?

 

[hangover]

It's easy to understand why Republicans need the MYTH of Ronald Reagan. He was the only Republican since Ike who wasn't voted out of office, forced to resign, or left the country in shambles of war and recession. So we get treated to the mythological Reagan who was a paragon of conservative virtue, ignoring the guy who actually was president from 1981 to 1989.

To quickly recap- The Real Ronald Reagan:

Tripled the National Debt.
Engaged in huge public spending programs.
Negotiated with Terrorists and traded arms for hostages.
Raised Taxes after cutting them.
Gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens.
Compromised with the Democratic Majority to expand social security.
Reached agreements with America's adversaries.
Appointed moderates to the Supreme Court
Rarely went to church and believed in Astrology

That was the REAL Ronald Reagan, and he was a good president because he was a PRAGMATIST, not a ideologue. An ideologue was George W. Bush, who kept to his policies even when they FAILED.

What we won't get is a real discussion of what the implication of his policies were, such as the undermining of the middle class through free trade and deunionization of the private sector.

He wasn't a good president because he tripled the national debt after promising to balance the budget in his first four years. And Iran/Contra should been grounds for his impeachment. But he got off by claiming he was and Alzheimer victim. And he WAS a hard core ideologue.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Good thing I'm not a Republican then.

"People are going to have sex married or not" isn't the issue, the issue is engaging in risky behavior then taking an innocent life to pay for that risk, which you seem to be ok with.

I'm not.

I think all innocent life should be protected, especially those that are the most vulnerable and incapable of protecting themselves.

My expectations are irrelevant. We are discussing abortions which you seem to think is perfectly fine. Although you would never consider it.

Seems to me like you don't care that an innocent life is being taken as long as it's not you doing it, which is a callous way to be. IMO

You can think however you like, but you are just ignoring reality. In reality, there are people who are horrible rotten people, drug abusers, murderers, people who abuse their pets and their children. There are people who just don't give a shit about themselves or anything else, and certainly not some little baby in their womb that they are FORCED to carry against their will. Your expectations from people who are inherently flawed are silly.

They were forced to get pregnant, meaning every woman that has had an abortion was raped?

I'm pretty sure that not all were forced to get pregnant.

I'm glad to see you put women that have abortions in the same category as drug abusers, murderers and those who abuse pets and children, but it's odd that you defend them.

I said forced to carry out a pregnancy against their will, which would be the case if people like you had their way. I am a realist.

In other words, you can be as irresponsible with your body as you wish because terminating an innocent life is perfectly ok.

You sure got life fucked up.

Look, if you're going to be dickhead, don't address my posts anymore. Fuck you.

Truth hurts huh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nobody even dreamed it was possible to defeat the Soviets until Reagan came along.

Essay How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War - Conservapedia

From Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter, the policy when dealing with the Soviet Union was containment. Containment failed. The ultimate goal of the Soviet empire was a global communist revolution, therefore the Soviets could never have been contained. When Ronald Reagan came into office, he initiated a policy of confronting the Soviet Union, marking a sharp departure from the "détente" policy of the 1970s.

Reagan advocated a radical agenda: challenge the Soviets everywhere. Economically, politically, militarily, and especially psychologically. Not just coexist with the Soviets, but defeat them. His strategy for an endgame to the Cold War was that there would be no coexistence with the Soviets. From beginning to end, the goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union.

The combined effects on the Soviet economy was costing the Soviet empire billions. The Soviets had increased defense spending by 45 percent, billions were lost in hard currency, billions more was spent on bolstering nervous third world communist dictators and all they had to show for it was dead young Russian and other Soviet citizens shipped home from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Reagan's leverage had worked and the Kremlin was now backed into a corner. After less than five years of Ronald Reagan, the hardliners of the Soviet leadership could no longer hide the economic damage of their rule. This gave the reformers an opening. Mikhail Gorbachev was elected by a one vote majority in the politburo and that vote was by Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had met with Reagan six months earlier and told him that he knew that Reagan's goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union. The politburo went with a reformer such as Gorbachev because they knew the only way they could compete with the United States and meet the Reagan challenge is by changing. So Gorbachev was brought into power in response to Ronald Reagan. So Reagan was really responsible for bringing Gorbachev into power.

Take the fact that communism drives any country broke, add a Reagan-supported arms build up as well as a Reagan-supported second arms race in space, add a Reagan-supported Vietnam-like quagmire, and mix in Reagan-supported socio-political upheaval in Soviet satellite states. It was more than the Soviet system could take. Especially with a Reagan-supported reformer in charge of the Soviet Union.

If any of those things had not happened, the Soviet Union could have survived their crises.

The Useful Idiots still can't come to terms with Reagan's defeat of their home team, they thought they were invincible.

Reagan defeated the USSR so soundly, he left them only one play: Take over the US democrat Party and destroy the USA from within

 

[bendog]

Nobody even dreamed it was possible to defeat the Soviets until Reagan came along.

Essay How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War - Conservapedia

From Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter, the policy when dealing with the Soviet Union was containment. Containment failed. The ultimate goal of the Soviet empire was a global communist revolution, therefore the Soviets could never have been contained. When Ronald Reagan came into office, he initiated a policy of confronting the Soviet Union, marking a sharp departure from the "détente" policy of the 1970s.

Reagan advocated a radical agenda: challenge the Soviets everywhere. Economically, politically, militarily, and especially psychologically. Not just coexist with the Soviets, but defeat them. His strategy for an endgame to the Cold War was that there would be no coexistence with the Soviets. From beginning to end, the goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union.

The combined effects on the Soviet economy was costing the Soviet empire billions. The Soviets had increased defense spending by 45 percent, billions were lost in hard currency, billions more was spent on bolstering nervous third world communist dictators and all they had to show for it was dead young Russian and other Soviet citizens shipped home from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Reagan's leverage had worked and the Kremlin was now backed into a corner. After less than five years of Ronald Reagan, the hardliners of the Soviet leadership could no longer hide the economic damage of their rule. This gave the reformers an opening. Mikhail Gorbachev was elected by a one vote majority in the politburo and that vote was by Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had met with Reagan six months earlier and told him that he knew that Reagan's goal was the destruction of the Soviet Union. The politburo went with a reformer such as Gorbachev because they knew the only way they could compete with the United States and meet the Reagan challenge is by changing. So Gorbachev was brought into power in response to Ronald Reagan. So Reagan was really responsible for bringing Gorbachev into power.

Take the fact that communism drives any country broke, add a Reagan-supported arms build up as well as a Reagan-supported second arms race in space, add a Reagan-supported Vietnam-like quagmire, and mix in Reagan-supported socio-political upheaval in Soviet satellite states. It was more than the Soviet system could take. Especially with a Reagan-supported reformer in charge of the Soviet Union.

If any of those things had not happened, the Soviet Union could have survived their crises.

Well, I disagree. but he was a great leader.

Would you have wanted it done differently?

I've no problem with Reagan, and I think he was great leader. His legacy is still unclear, but that's no diss. My only comment is that the notion that he defeated the USSR has a lot of myth around it, as it was not really that simple. His military buildup may have deterred the aging soviets, but it nearly caused a nuclear exchange too. His SDI may have been the camel that broke the soviets' back in just calling off the arms race. But, the result is still the cause of much of the Russian paranoia that haunts us today.

At the top of the thread, I posted that perpetuating the myth of Reagan the warrior who "won" the cold war militarily doesn't really do his legacy, and his central beliefs, justice.

What he did do was take a country that was ashamed of Vietnam and make it realize that sacrifice to prevent countries from falling into the horror of communism is something to be proud of, even if it failed. That was greatness.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

His military buildup may have deterred the aging soviets, but it nearly caused a nuclear exchange too.

That's true. However if it came that close in a set chain-of-events, think of how greater the possibilities could have been for nuclear war if the Cold War had dragged out indefinitely.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

His SDI may have been the camel that broke the soviets' back in just calling off the arms race. But, the result is still the cause of much of the Russian paranoia that haunts us today.

It may take awhile for all the suspicions to disappear on both sides, maybe more so on the Russian side. Obama isn't helping at all by sticking his nose in the Ukraine affair.

 

[Political Junky]

Progs hate Reagan because he called their home team an Evil Empire, vowed to defeat them and dealt them a crushing defeat that liberated hundreds of millions from the oppression of Soviet Communism.

There are statues of Reagan all throughout Eastern Europe where he is loved and reveared as their Liberator

Really?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

JoeB would like the Cold War to return and to live under the constant threat of nuclear war.

 

[JoeB131]

You're a stooge and would be in the first wave of people rounded up and the executed if your communist masters ever got total control.

The middle class and the poor did far far far better under Reagan than Obama.

Lie to yourself all you want, lie to me and I'll vaporize you

Frank, you're a borderline retard, so normally I don't bother with you.

But, no, Reagan gutted the unions, therefore, he gutted them middle class. Period. You can't have a middle class without unions.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB would like the Cold War to return and to live under the constant threat of nuclear war.

As opposed to what? Living under constant fear of having my job outsourced to China?

I'd rather have the nukes back.

 

[JoeB131]

Sounds like you are beginning to like Reagan. So why do you have such a problem with the fact that he was so popular and still is?

Guy, I voted for Reagan twice. But here's the thing, I like the HISTORICAL Reagan.

Not the one you talk about on Hate Radio all day, because that guy never existed.

 

[bendog]

His military buildup may have deterred the aging soviets, but it nearly caused a nuclear exchange too.

That's true. However if it came that close in a set chain-of-events, think of how greater the possibilities could have been for nuclear war if the Cold War had dragged out indefinitely.

Well, the thought is that it could not have because of inherent inefficiencies in the soviet economy. Reagan was the first potus to go all out in believing the analysis that the soviets were a lot worse off than other analysis. And that belief helped him with his theory of confrontation, and we win you lose. That may well have hastened the soviet realization that they weren't gonna win the cold war.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody even dreamed it was possible to defeat the Soviets until Reagan came along.

That's simply not true. People were predicting the disollution of the USSR all the way back to the 1960's, and for the same reason most Empires fall.

It had nothing to do with an old senile actor yelling at a wall.

 

[JoeB131]

Whether it got deployed or not, Reagan was very good at selling Star Wars (SDI) and who better than a Hollywood star to do it. Nonetheless, SDI could have worked well if we had committed to it.

NO, it wouldn't have. What it was is hitting a bullet with a bullet.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

But, no, Reagan gutted the unions, therefore, he gutted them middle class. Period. You can't have a middle class without unions.

The unions have really disappeared alright.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're a stooge and would be in the first wave of people rounded up and the executed if your communist masters ever got total control.

The middle class and the poor did far far far better under Reagan than Obama.

Lie to yourself all you want, lie to me and I'll vaporize you

Frank, you're a borderline retard, so normally I don't bother with you.

But, no, Reagan gutted the unions, therefore, he gutted them middle class. Period. You can't have a middle class without unions.

Might be the most moronic statement made by a progressive so far today.

Check how the middle class fared during Reagans tenure

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Nobody even dreamed it was possible to defeat the Soviets until Reagan came along.

That's simply not true. People were predicting the disollution of the USSR all the way back to the 1960's, and for the same reason most Empires fall.

There are always predictions by a handful of people.

 

[JoeB131]

Might be the most moronic statement made by a progressive so far today.

Check how the middle class fared during Reagans tenure

At a young age, someone should have explained to you that correlation does not equal causality.

Yes, the Middle Class STILL did okay DESPITE Reagan, because we hadn't shipped all the good manufacturing jobs out of the country yet. Heck, I'll even give Reagan SOME props on calling the Japanese on Dumping, forcing them to make cars here.

The Damage he did, however, continues to resonate.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody even dreamed it was possible to defeat the Soviets until Reagan came along.

That's simply not true. People were predicting the disollution of the USSR all the way back to the 1960's, and for the same reason most Empires fall.

There are always predictions by a handful of people.

Yeah, but those people knew what they were talking about, unlike Ronnie Ray-gun.