Ronald Reagan: The Greatest President Ever

exactly.well said.

 

one of the best most reasonable well thought out posts on this thread.

 

also very well said.some people like this thread starter though choose to do this and ignore the facts.

 

Well that covers my Dad as well as the Pope, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl. And half the Western world. Why the US President has to be the default reason for anything is a mystery (and of course is arrant nonsense that we can all laugh at).

Americans think the whole world revolves around them. How sad (but strangely funny) to see such an ignorant and childish world-view!

Did Reagan for a lifetime extol the virtues of democracy? I don't think so. This is the Reagan who under the enemy's-enemy-is-my-friend doctrine bankrolled and supported murderous Latin American thugs, rapists and killers in his enthusiasm for "democracy" which usually (actually always) includes the requirement to respect the rule of law, and doesn't approve of raping American nuns or gunning down the (rather conservative) Archbishop of San Salvador.

The ignorance of Americans of the crimes of their country eh?

What did Reagan do to hasten the demise of communism? He did accelerate the arms race with the USSR which would have put a lot of strain on the Soviet economy... if the USSR had responded. But the USSR did not respond, so it had a negligible effect.

In Eastern Europe, where communism collapsed first, the arms race had no effect, as the Eastern European economies did not fund the arms race.

And in the late eighties Reagan even made it easier for the USSR leadership to shore up their own power by negotiating arms reduction treaties with them so that they could actually downsize their nuclear forces and ease the economic pressure on their failed system.

It's an American nationalist myth, more a LIE, that Reagan played a significant part in the collapse of communism. What he did do was enable the killing of a lot of leftists who campaigned for democracy and freedom in right wing dictatorships. That goes down well with American conservatives whose support for democracy and the rule of law evaporates when they don't get their own way (just look at Newt-Ignore-the-Constitution-Gingrich for evidence).

Reagan talked a good Cold War though. He said a lot of rabble rousing stuff to get the dumbkopf rednecks salivating and whoopeeing. He was a great cheerleader who made some good speeches. That's about it really.

Despite the lack of any real evidence that Reagan did anything significant to end the Cold War, if you want alternate reasons, here's a few below. The most significant factor was the actions, bravery and sacrifice of the people of the USSR and Eastern Europe who risked and gave their lives for freedom, not something that I am aware that Reagan ever did. I know its hard for conservatives to actually acknowledge that the people themslevs actually change anything, but as with most change, it is the people and their local leaders, who are the main drivers of change, reform and revolution.

Some reasons are as follows:

1. The economic collapse of a system based on socialist planning
2. The formation of independent trades unions in Poland (Solidarity) by leftwing socialists and Catholic conservatives
3. The fact that 90% of Poland was Catholic and explicitly rejected marxism-Leninism for decades
4. Pope John Paul II
5. Nixon and Chou Enlai ( a conservative and a communist)
6. Gorbachev, perestroika and glasnost
7. West German TV in East Germany
8. Hungary dismantling its border with Austria leading to the migration of thousands of East germans to the West
9. Imre Nagy - Wiki him
10. Alexander Dubcek - Wiki him
11. Vaclav Havel - Wiki him
12. Monday Demonstrations in Germany
13. Charter 77 - Wiki it
14. Civic Forum in Czechoslovakia
15. Fourteen protestors killed in Vilnius in 1991 fighting the Red Army

And on and on...

 

There you go spewing FACTS again!
Haven't you been warned about this?
LOL!

 

Though I don't agree with a lot of the stuff above, I will give you a "B" for effort. I think there may well be some contributing factors there to the fall of the USSR. I don't think they mitigate Reagan's contribution to the fall of the USSR or the democratization of the world in the 80's and 90's.

I think it is totally inaccurate to give Gorbi credit when he is still a socialist to this day. He was trying to keep the regime together not dismantal it.

 

And the Gipper helped Gorby by negotiating arms reduction treaties with him. Unfortunately for these two buddies, the people of the Baltic States spoiled it and gave their lives to repel Gorby's Red Army.

You misused the word "causation" and 'correlation" before. Now it seems you are also all at sea with the word "mitigate". And what has "credit" got to do with causation? Gorbachev's leadership was a cause, as was Nixon's ping pong diplomacy. That doesn't mean they deserve credit. What arrant nonsense you write here.

As is usual with conservatives on this forum, you totally fail to address the real arguments I make in my post. Still - as evidenced by GOP primaries - I see that even when you argue amongst yourselves that abuse is all you have for each other, so I shouldn't feel too hard done by!

The people who argue that without Reagan the USSR and Eastern European communism would still be going strong are a real hoot. I don't notice any serious conservative historians arguing this though.

 

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Soviet-Empire/dp/0761525556/ref=sr_1_32?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328068539&sr=1-32"]Amazon.com: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire (9780761525554): Brian Crozier: Books[/ame]

 

That guy is a historian in the same way Glen Beck is!! No serious historian of any respectability makes the claim. That includes the conservative ones. There is no question that no serious Soviet expert in any field believes in such fairy tales. It is entirely nonsense, believed only by the uneducated in America(and maybe a few in Britain who by into similar myths about Thatcher).

 

How did I misuse the words, causation, correlation and mitigate? Mitigate means: "lessen the gravity of".

So let's put that in the very same sentence:

I don't think they lessen the gravity of Reagan's contribution to the fall of the USSR or the democratization of the world in the 80's and 90's.

Now, does that not make sense to you? If it doesn't then the problem is at your end and you do not understand what the words mean.

Don't try to correct me when you do not know what you are talking about.

 

Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope all played a big role in the downfall of the Iron Curtain.

 

The pope and Reagan played small roles, Thatcher almost none, but their roles were SMALL!! I already explained the reality to you, and you have simply covered your ears and closed your eyes and said "nuh uh!!" You have failed to address my argument in any way, you have simply reasserted your absurd proposal over and over again.

 

Sounds like a new game to play. Okay, you have failed to address my argument in any way, you have simply reasserted your absurd proposals over and over. I explained to you the reality and you simply covered your ears and closed your eyes and say, "uh-uh!" Reagan, Thatcher and the Pope all teamed up to end communism in the world because they knew that life behind the Iron Curtain was a form of slavery. Read the following books, then come back and write another post:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/President-Pope-Prime-Minister-Changed/dp/1596980168"]Amazon.com: The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World (9781596980167): John O'Sullivan: Books[/ame]

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/john-paul-ii-reagan-and-thatcher/#ixzz1l6VfqrV5

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Margaret-Thatcher-Political/dp/1595230475"]Amazon.com: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage (978159523047: Nicholas Wapshott: Books[/ame]

 

My, aren't we opinionated!

 

You really believe everything that is written in books and everything your history teacher and Faux news tells you, right?
Reagan was a war criminal, who supported the FARCs, go read who they were.
Pope Pius XII did not openly condemn the massacre of the Jews while during WWII the Nazis and the Fascists brought millions in the concentration lagers.
I suggest you to find more appropriate “heroes” for your future!

 

I know who your hero is...

 

You have still failed to address anything, you have simply once again, reasserted your original preposition and linked to a couple of books I don't care about. Just so you know, that is another logical fallacy. You are appealing to "authority." Which I put into quotes because calling the authors of that trash authorities on anything is an extreme stretch. Which makes your decision to forego argument in favor of linking to those books all the more questionable. If you linked to something by say Ronald Grigor Suny which said what you are saying, it might hold slightly more weight.


Here is a link to a book by an actual scholar on the subject, who has some credibility in the field.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Armageddon-Averted-Soviet-Collapse-1970-2000/dp/0192802453"]Amazon.com: Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000 (9780192802453): Stephen Kotkin: Books[/ame]

Read it and learn something. This an appeal to an actual authority. The head of the Russian studies department at Princeton, not a right wing hack journalist. You see the credibility is slightly skewed. And before you go on about left wing academia, Kotkin is far from a left-wing ideologue, and he is often criticized by marxist academics(who are much rarer now than they used to be), for criticizing the soviet union as much as he does.

 

This was not a response.

 

And another book for you:

 

My response was a response. Your response is not a response.

 

I think that it is you who has, "failed to address anything, you have simply once again, reasserted your original preposition and linked to a couple of books I don't care about. Just so you know, that is another logical fallacy. You are appealing to "authority."

What makes your author better than my authors? You seem to think that the same appeal to authority fallacy is okay when you do it because your authorities are "actual" authorities. I see no reason to believe Kotkin, Berkeley educated Princeton professor is not a flaming liberal. He visited the USSR twice before it collapsed and didn't see it coming. So what kind of credibility does he have to say that Reagan had nothing to do with it?

In actuality, you would have to be a liberal to believe that Reagan was not directly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. I remember the marches and the protests of the leftist loonies both at home and in Western Europe. They protested his policies toward the USSR. Is it any surprise that now that the USSR has disolved that they would say he had nothing to do with it?

 

and I've got a book that says aliens built the pyramids!...it's in a book so it must be true

I prefer to believe Gorbachev who began economic reforms of the Soviet Union before Reagan even became president.

 

So you pick the arguments that you think you can win and ignore the rest. And your argument here is "if you don't agree then you are wrong". Your abusiveness is not even funny. Can't you even inject some humour?

You really still haven't understood "mitigate". Let's see your argument again:

You were a bit selective weren't you? You edited the definition to twist it to your meaning didn't you? Let's see.

Taking an American source (you can tell by the spelling), "mitigate" means:

2.Lessen the gravity of (an offense or mistake).Merriam Webster

Note what is in the brackets, which you conveniently missed.

So let's look at the "very same sentence" eh? As you did:

I don't think they lessen the gravity of the offense or mistake of Reagan's contribution to the fall of the USSR or the democratization of the world in the 80's and 90's.

Come on now. Don't go all shy on us. It's bollocks now isn't it? You didn't really mean that Reagan made a mistake or committed an offense now did you? Even though that is what you said. You just didn't understand what "mitigate" means?

It's OK. It doesn't make you a bad person. I always understood that mitigate meant to reduce the effect (ie the gravity) of something bad (offence or mistake). That's why I instinctively knew your usage was bollocks. And all your abuse that I don't know what I am talking about now looks rather foolish doesn't it?

(I think that's called checkmate)

Now how about answering the arguments?