![]() |
In article ,
longwave wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , longwave wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , John Barnard wrote: Go back and take a look at history, Telamon. Eastern Europeans have a history of standing up to the Russians. Budapest in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 come to mind and it was a shame that the USA decided to abandon those countries and do nothing. The Solidarity revolution was a Polish revolution which had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Reagan or the USA. Brenda Ann quite rightly pointed out that the Poles and the East Germans stood up to the Russians of their own accord. Poland, out of all the Eastern European block, has always had the stones to fight back a little and retain some measure of autonomy. I've always liked Reagan but he sure as hell didn't have anything to do with the Solidarity revolution. Sorry go back and read it yourself. We outspent Russia in the arms race bankrupting them. When Russia lost the arms race Gorby negotiated the current state of affairs with Reagan. That's why things changed. The Polish Solidarity was a help but not the reason. Besides Reagan gave aid and assistance to the Solidarity union and other opposition groups in eastern europe. Neither you nor anyone else can pull this revisionist bull**** on me. I saw this happen in real time. You saw what you wanted to see. No single president should get the credit for winning the arms race. We outspent the USSR for more than forty years. Every president since Truman contributed to the ultimate collapse of the USSR. Reagan happened to be president when the end came. How can you say that I saw what I wanted to see? No one knew how things were going to turn out. Stinking Liberals were calling Reagan an out of control cowboy "Ronald Ray Guns" because they though he would start WW3 confronting the Russians. Reagan built up the military and forced the Russians into bankruptcy trying to keep up. The eastern europeans saw their chance to throw off the yoke of communism with the Russians in their weakened state. I meant you see it now how you want to see it. There was never any guarantee that confronting the Russians would not start WW3. Reagan was fortunate to have a counterpart in the Soviet Union (Gorbechev) who was willing to negotiate honestly. If it had been a hard liner like Stalin, he would have laughed in Reagan's face, no matter how much we spent on defense. I see things the way they are not how I want to see them no matter how strongly I feel about something. My emotions do not influence my internal view of reality to the point that I do not recognize the facts of a situation. The discussion now departs from the actual past but I would have to speculate that the outcome of Reagans efforts would remain unchanged if a hard liner like Stalin were the Soviet premier at the time because their economy could not keep up with ours. The Russians would fail and their economy collapse regardless of who was in charge. Reagan didn't just "happen to be there." He had a sense of destiny and a job to do that took guts facing down the Russians and the left wing in this country like Kerry that just wanted to give up and negotiate with the Russians from a weak position. You are right that it did not start with Reagan but he did finnish it. If Kennedy was not assassinated he might have done it but Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter didn't do it. Clinton would not have done it either. All of those presidents continued the nation's commitment to stand up against communism but they couldn't have caused the collapse of the USSR during their presidency because the Russians were still too strong to be bankrupted by an increase in our defense budget. Reagan came along at a time when the USSR was experiencing serious domestic problems both economic and political, mainly caused by the war in Afghanistan, which turned out to be their 'Vietnam'. Through will and conviction he challenged the Russians forcing them to focus on us in the arms race. It was world class poker game and Reagan didn't bluff. The Russians finally ran out of money with a economy that could not keep up with ours. Weakened from the effort they gave up the hold they had on eastern europe since WW2 and the cold war was basically ended. The Russian's finally ran out of money after decades of the cold war, not just the Reagan years. Let me put words in your mouth and say that the other presidents or someone else elected in Reagan's place would have accomplished the same thing he did if elected to his term and I believe you to be wrong. Someone else would not have done what he did because they do not have the optimism, conviction and just plain guts it took to face down an evil empire that had thousands of ballistic missiles pointed at us and issue a ultimatum to them that they must acquiesce to a verifiable nuclear reduction treaty or face an escalation that they could not afford. There is no higher stakes poker game than that and we all know who blinked first. Reagan faced great odds in his presidency and navigated this country through many great perils with an optimism and conviction that this is the greatest nation on earth and by the grace of God will preserver; thrive even, in the face of adversity. Reagan is a one of a kind. I have missed hearing from him this last decade and now he is gone forever. You are not likely to come across the sense of humor he had in any other politician. Not likely that you will ever have another president be such a father figure to this country who knows what he wants and how to get it driven by a deep sense of faith and belief in the principles that this country was founded on. He was solid as a rock and a true conservative. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Telamon wrote in message ...
[cut] I've always liked Reagan but he sure as hell didn't have anything to do with the Solidarity revolution. Sorry go back and read it yourself. We outspent Russia in the arms race bankrupting them. When Russia lost the arms race Gorby negotiated the current state of affairs with Reagan. That's why things changed. The Polish Solidarity was a help but not the reason. Besides Reagan gave aid and assistance to the Solidarity union and other opposition groups in eastern europe. Actually the funny thing is that both of you are right. CIA with help of Vaticano bank did sepnt enormous sum of money in order to help Solidarity. However, nobody has any idea what happened to this money. Solidarity leaders usually say that they never received any real help, and there is BIG suspicion that most of that help disappeared during the operation and only tiny sum finally reached people needing it. Saying that, i must say that many in Poland are now honouring the president Reagan. Not that he singlehandly won Cold War (the pope + Lech Walesa and few other people could disagree) but he was on the greatest factors in speeding the USSR collapse. |
"Curmudgeon" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:06:16 -0400, "mrhangster" Michael Bryant and Steve Lare were one in the same person. Kinda new here arent ya? Not very bright either. |
|
Ronald Reagan. The man who defeated Soviet Communism (no wonder liberals hate him). May he rest in peace. (snip) First of all, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. Instead, he severely weakened our relationship with our European allies, and that was the real key to the events that followed. His endless rhetoric, his decision to place even more nuclear weapons in Europe, his attack on Libya, his rhetorical threats towards France following that attack on Libia, and a number of other questionable actions, convinced many in Europe the Russians were not all that bad in comparison. As a result, it was the efforts by European leaders to reach out to the Russians, such as decisions by France and Germany to help Russia build an oil pipeline to Europe and England's decision to increase trade with Russia, that truly caused Russian leaders to rethink their positions. As others have pointed out, there were certainly other factors influencing Russia's decision (declining economy. political unrest, and so on), but these alone would not have, and had not in the past, caused Russia to change. The key ingredient, missing in the past, was a shift in European thinking. And that shift was caused by a widespread rejection of Reagan's war mongering attitudes - attitudes that were a throw-back to the early days of the cold war and, like Reagan himself, very much out of place in the world at that time. Stewart |
In article . net,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: Ronald Reagan. The man who defeated Soviet Communism (no wonder liberals hate him). May he rest in peace. (snip) First of all, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. Snip If anyone is looking for proof of that an alternate universe exists here it is. The best that can be said about you is that at least you had the decency to wait until he was buried to denigrate him. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Telamon" wrote: (snip) The best that can be said about you is that at least you had the decency to wait until he was buried to denigrate him. The truth doesn't denigrate. I was there at the time to see that shift in European thinking. And, by leaving this country not long before Reagan took office and returning not long after he left, I was also able to more clearly see what eight years of his presidency had done to this country. I returned to see homeless people in the streets of even small towns (something I had rarely seen outside the larger cities before), violent crime like I had never seen before, stagnated wages for workers (most were earning no more than when I left), sharply increased prices for most everything, shocking corporate greed, jobs moving overseas, a growing immigration problem, a declining military, declining political freedoms, a country growing more politically divided then I had ever seen it before in my lifetime, and so on. In my opinion, anyone who actually thinks Reagan was good for this country doesn't really give a damn about this country. The same could probably be said of Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr. Each have taken this country to a new low. Stewart |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... First of all, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. Instead, he severely weakened our relationship with our European allies, and that was the real key to the events that followed. His endless rhetoric, his decision to place even more nuclear weapons in Europe, his attack on Libya, his rhetorical threats towards France following that attack on Libia, and a number of other questionable actions, convinced many in Europe the Russians were not all that bad in comparison. As a result, it was the efforts by European leaders to reach out to the Russians, such as decisions by France and Germany to help Russia build an oil pipeline to Europe and England's decision to increase trade with Russia, that truly caused Russian leaders to rethink their positions. As others have pointed out, there were certainly other factors influencing Russia's decision (declining economy. political unrest, and so on), but these alone would not have, and had not in the past, caused Russia to change. The key ingredient, missing in the past, was a shift in European thinking. And that shift was caused by a widespread rejection of Reagan's war mongering attitudes - attitudes that were a throw-back to the early days of the cold war and, like Reagan himself, very much out of place in the world at that time. Stewart Surely you don't want to confuse the average right wing , slightly fascistic American with an intelligent evaluation of what really happened, especially if it happened out side the borders of the US and Hollywood TV :) Pete |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message ... You weren't the only person who witnessed events unfolding. Fortunately, there were many others who had a much better vantage point to see certain things happening. Things you were obviously blind to. Regardless of your opinion, intent or political leanings, nothing you can say or do can overcome all of the positive accomplishments and the enduring legacy of the man. Of course, even though glowing esteem for the man crosses all political boundaries, I guess there will always be the fringe minority clamoring for attention by either fabrication and/or distortion & spin in their attempts to re-write history as they would prefer it -=jd=- -- It was a time of right-wing lunacy, a time of selling out the country to multinationals, a time of the first feeble-minded president in our lifetime, the beginning of extreme right wing ideology taking control of the Republican party, which had until then been a fairly reasonable, middle-of-the-road party. The US and other countries are still reeping what was sowed by the Reaganites in the 80's. Above all, it was a time when form prevailed over substance, and the American population to a large extent fell for it. Many Americans still believe the lies about less governement, which, of course, is a euphamism for less government for the multinationals, but more government for YOU. Pete |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com