Ronald Reagan: The Greatest President Ever

and Israel got the arms from..... where again?

This loop does not address my point:

Either Reagan was complicit in the sale of arms to Iran, or he didn't know what his own administration was doing.

 

I did respond, but perhaps you weren't aware I was responding to you. I saw several posts by people who don't bother to watch the videos or read the threads. Yours was one of them I was responding to here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/4806928-post53.html
I can tell who has and hasn't listened to the videos in the OP.
The reason I don't like to respond to posts such as yours is it is entirely opinion based with no referenced materials or facts to dispute. If you had watched the videos, you would see that Reagan was a man who was committed to ending the evil of communism years before he became president. He committed to a military build up and other policies to stop communist expansionism that was running rampant under the Carter administration. You will never see a video of President Carter at the Berlin Wall demanding that Brezhnev tear down this wall. I doubt you will find many speeches where he was standing up to the USSR like Reagan did in his "Evil Empire" speech. Frankly, your opinion about Reagan having much less to do with the downfall of the USSR than Gorbachev is complete fantasy. Gorbachev was doing everything he could to keep the USSR in power as a communist state. It completely defies the reality of history.

 

Here's the thing --- BFD. I agree he was complicit or he did't know. But either way, this is a scandal in which everything that happened was good. (again see list above).

 

I voted for Honest Abe for the old school, and Reagan for the modern era. To me, it was kind of a tie between George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, but I know more about Abe than George. Reagan for the modern era is a no-brainer.

 

Those of us alive during the Reagan era remember what an unpopular president he was. Clinton was far more popular during his term. Only years after Reagan left office did the conservative historical revisionism machine kick into high gear and get to work redefining the unpopular Reagan as BestPresidentEvah. That's one benefit of a national media which is almost entirely conservative-owned.

 

I was a kid in California at the time of both. Reagan was God there from start to finish. A republican. Seems impossible these days. People hated Clinton there because he shutdown the military bases. But every place is different I'm sure. Of course, that was before I learned to do my own research as to how the world works. Lincoln, and on, have been presidents that really had no genuine power. I admit, it didn't get obviously corrupt until the early 20th century around Teddy's era. The last half of the 20th century was a joke as to there being anything genuine to our system. The early 21st century is turning into a disaster.

 

Teddy Roosevelt? He basically served 2 terms. Was behind the Spanish-American War. You know the Maine? The 1st false flag? Up until then all wars had been for the benefit of the nation, whether defense or expansionism. The Spanish-American War was the prototype for all modern wars, by money men, for money men. He was the 1st 100% for sale president.

 

FDR was inbred elitist, the result of cousins marrying cousins for generations to keep the wealth in the family. He spearheaded the financial wing of the modern day globalists with Brenton Woods, you know, the people who now rule the industrialized world, using American blood and tax dollars to attack any nation that dares to want sovereignty. The people who are destroying America, where they come from, the country that made them, simply because there is profit and global power to be had? (*)(*)(*)(*) FDR. If Hoover would have remained the president we would have never went to bed with communists and there would have never been a cold war for Reagan worshipers to claim he is king because "the Berlin Wall came down".

 

Reagan second term popular vote = 58.8%
Clinton second term popular vote = 49.2%

They both had the same popularity rating when the left office 68%.

 

Gorbachev did everything he could to keep the Soviet Union together? That is completely at odds with the reality of the situation. Doing everything he could would have involved invading poland, just like Brezhnev did in Czechoslovakia and Khrushchev did in Hungary. He didn't!! That is a fact that is undeniable, even by Reagan sychophants. It has nothing to do with opinion, only the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is, Reagan's military spending didn't drive the Soviets to try to compete. They didn't try to compete. They actually cut military spending many years during Reagan's presidency. So Reagan using some sunny platitudes is what brought about the end of the Soviet Union? What sort of delusional nonsense is this? As I said, the Soviet Union fell because Gorbachev tried to reform, and that meant allowing peripheral Soviet bloc nations to determine their own government. Which meant they didn't send in the tanks, as precedent indicated they would. Reagan's platitudes had nothing to do with it. Only delusional right wingers think otherwise.

 

Your post is delusional.

 

Saying that Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, is like saying Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with ending slavery.

 

So, that point made, let me ask my question once again:

Under what conditions would it be OK, in your opinion, for the Obama administration to be complicit in the sale of arms to Iran, whether or not Obama himself knew about the transaction?

 

If they were used to overthrow the current regime. That would be okay with me.

 

No, it would be like saying Lincoln had nothing to do with the emancipation of the serfs in Russia(which happened around the same time). That is a far better analogy. No one who actually knows anything about Soviet history actually believes Reagan had much to do with it.

 

Prove it. Where are your links? You just make stuff up and don't back it up.

 

What do you want proved? What I did, was called making an argument. Every fact I used to support that argument is objectively true. Gorbachev didn't invade Poland like his predecessors did in similar situations. Did he? Am I missing the great invasion of Poland? The Soviets didn't try to match Reagan's military spending.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm


After that what do you want me to "prove"?? I can no more prove that the Soviet Union didn't fall because of Reagan, than you can prove it did. All I can do is make a strong argument, and all you can do is do the same. I have made a strong argument. Your argument is that Reagan really hated communism, told the Soviets to "tear down this wall," and because of the powers of Reagan's Jedi mind tricks, they just couldn't help but listen. It is entirely absurd.


PS. Mr Gorbachev didn't tear down any walls. All he did, was not stop the German people from doing so. Just like he did not stop the poles, the Czechs, etc.

 

After a closer look, it seems that is the historical version, according to Gorbachev.

Reagan, Thatcher and Pope Saved the West
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/8/135128.shtml?s=lh
The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/breviews/francisp/president.html
John Paul II, Reagan and Thatcher
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/john-paul-ii-reagan-and-thatcher/
The great Ronald Reagan takes his rightful place
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/07/great-ronald-reagan-takes-his-rightful.html

 

Gorbachev was not responcible for the end of the Cold War. He was thrown out in a military coup:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7lZKyDgMgo&feature=related"]1991 The Soviet Coup 1of3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Wow, you want to live in country like that?

 

So, if they sold arms to the government of Iran in order to overthrow the current regime, that would be OK. That's the answer?

I'd have to agree with that, if that's how they would be used, but it's hard to see how that could ever happen.

 

That's exactly how Osama Bin Laden got his army started. Now we have seen where that leads. Will we never learn to mind our own business?

 

That is how it was supposedly portrayed to Reagan, that the arms would go to moderate factions within the Iranian Army who would then look kindly on America for helping to overthrow the Mullahs.

 

Everyone has an opinion.

 

Remember that Perot fella? Anyways, you haven't shown Reagan was popular. You just showed Mondale wasn't.

Average popularity, from wiki
Clinton -- 55.1%
Reagan -- 52.8%
Bush I -- 60.9%

So, the real question is why wasn't Bush I deified, given that he was much more popular than Reagan? (and given that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, when Bush I was president, not Reagan.)

Seriously, why is Reagan given credit for something that happened entirely when Bush the elder was president?