I'd like to see how many folks on this Board will give President Reagan any credit for the fall of the USSR. So I propose this poll.

To help you decide, I have found a few comments concerning this issue.

Please bear with me, as they are long and many.

[b]What the liberal elites have said...and please note the dates they said it![/b]

"It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable." --Paul Samuelson, Professor of Economics, MIT, Nobel Laureate, Economics, 1981.

"The Soviet Union is not now, nor will it be during the next decade, in the throes of a true systematic crisis, for it boasts enormous unused reserves of political and social stability that suffice to endure the deepest difficulties." --Seweryn Bialer, Professor of Political Science, Columbia University, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 1982/3.

"I found more goods in the shops, more food in the markets, more cars on the street ... those in the United States who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink are wishful thinkers who are only kidding themselves." --Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., 1982.

"All evidence indicates that the Reagan administration has abandoned both containment and detente for a very different objective: destroying the Soviet Union as a world power and possibly even its Communist system. [This is a] potentially fatal form of Sovietphobia ... a pathological rather than a healthy response to the Soviet Union." --Stephen Cohen, Princeton University Sovietologist, 1983.

"That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene...One sees it in the appearance of well-being of the people on the streets...and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops... Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower." --John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, 1984.

"On the economic front, for the first time in its history the Soviet leadership was able to pursue successfully a policy of guns and butter as well as growth ... The Soviet citizen-worker, peasant, and professional - has become accustomed in the Brezhnev period to an uninterrupted upward trend in his well-being ..." --John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, New Yorker Magazine, 1984.

"What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth...The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth." --Paul Samuelson, MIT, Nobel laureate in economics, 1985.

"It's clear that the ideologies of Communism, socialism and capitalism are all in trouble." --James Reston, New York Times, 1985.

"Can economic command significantly compress and accelerate the growth process? The remarkable performance of the Soviet Union suggests that it can. In 1920 Russia was but a minor figure in the economic councils of the world. Today it is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States." --Lester Thurow, Professor of Economics, MIT, The Economic Problem, 1989.

- to be continued -

[b]What President Reagan said, and when he said it.[/b]

"The years ahead will be great ones for our country, for the cause of freedom and for the spread of civilization. The West won't contain Communism, it will transcend Communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written." --Ronald Reagan, Commencement Address at University of Notre Dame, May 1981.

"In an ironic sense, Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis - a crisis where the demands of the economic order are colliding directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union. What we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to its economic base, a society where productive forces are hampered by political ones. It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying freedom and human dignity to its citizens. [b]A march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history.[/b]" --Ronald Reagan, Address to the British Parliament, June 1982.

"Let us pray for the salvation of all those who live in the totalitarian darkness - pray that they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they [Soviet rulers] preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.... I urge you to beware the temptation ... to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of any [b]evil empire[/b], to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil." --Ronald Reagan, Speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, March 8, 1983.

"In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards... Even today, the Soviet Union cannot feed itself. The inescapable conclusion is that freedom is the victor. [b]General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall![/b]" --Ronald Reagan, Speech at the Brandenburg Gate, 1987.

- continued -

[b]And what those who were liberated said about it![/b]

"Ronald Reagan's appeal ["Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, June 12th 1987], laughed at in the East as reverie and dismissed in the West as being a utopian dream, was to become reality a good two years later with the collapse of East Germany. After the fall of the Wall on 9 November 1989, Brandenburg Gate was officially opened on December 22nd of that year." --Berliner-Morgenpost International, From Fantasy to Wonderful Reality, 1997.

"Ladies and gentlemen, if it had not been for the Reagan defense buildup, if the United States had not demonstrated that it is willing not only to stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it, we probably would not be sitting here today having a free discussion between Russians and Americans." --Boris Pinsker, Soviet Economist.

"American policy in the 1980s was a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union." --Oleg Kalugin, former KGB general (Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, page xi.)

"[Reagan administration policies] were a major factor in the demise of the Soviet system." --Yevgenny Novikov, former senior staff member of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee (CPCC) (Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, page xi.)

"Some 100 prominent Poles have formed a committee to rechristen one of Warsaw's central squares 'Reagan Square.' In this they show a splendid sense of history, and of gratitude. The committee's honorary chairman is Marian Krzaklewski, head of Solidarity, who says, [b]'Reagan was the main author of the victory of the Free World over the Evil Empire.'[/b] National Review's old friend and contributor, Radek Sikorski, now Poland's deputy foreign minister, is chairman of the committee. The square in question is currently called 'Constitution Square,' and the constitution it refers to is the bogus, Communist one of 1952. Reagan Square would join plazas named after George Washington and Woodrow Wilson. Obviously enough, we wish the committee well." --National Review, July 26, 1999, pg. 12, column 1.

"We are very happy that the coup failed because we have now really destroyed the communist empire, the Soviet state, and of course, as Ronald Reagan said, it was indeed an evil empire and we are glad that it is gone from the earth." --Andrei Kozyrev, Yeltsin Foreign Minister, speaking to ABC's Sam Donaldson, after the communist hard-liners coup attempt failed in 1991.

[b]Now I shall add a poll![/b]

Eric The(ReaganWasMagnificient!)Hun[>]:)]

There was a very good thread on this about a year or so ago, explained everything and how Reagan did it.

Can't remember anything more than that, sorry.

On principle, I say NO.

Communism was doomed to fail.

"Ronald Reagan won the Cold War
without firing a shot." --Margaret Thatcher

"The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is pleased to have commissioned the internationally renown sculptor, Hamilton Reed Armstrong, to create the Truman-Reagan Freedom Award.

"The front of the medal depicts the two American presidents who most fully represent America’s successful leadership during the Cold War. First, Harry Truman, who with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, blocked the Soviet Union’s imperialist plans following World War II. [b]Ronald Reagan then precipitated the end of the Soviet Union through a strategy of victory through military strength and negotiation which combined a military buildup, resolute public diplomacy, the Strategic Defense Initiative, global support for resistance to communism which together constituted the Reagan Doctrine.[/b] Together these two presidents, one a liberal Democrat, the other a conservative Republican, understood full well the high stakes of the Cold War and took decisive action first to contain the threat of communism and then to end it. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has therefore created the Truman Reagan Freedom Awards, to be given annually to those men and women who have demostrated life-long commitment to the promotion of freedom as well as indispensable leadership to the winning of the Cold War." - From the Victims of Communism, website:[url]http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/about1.shtml[/url]

Eric The(Well,YouKnow...)Hun[>]:)]

i had to vote for the second one down, although Reagan authored a policy which told the Soviets that the US was now adopting a hard-line to foreign-communist-policy, the willingness of those inside the USSR to "open-up" through perestroyka was the real key.

for decades, we raised our fists to the reds, we built up weapons, we went to Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, we talked tough, we tried everything. Reagan was just at the right place at the right time. history has shown us that simply sending a tough message to the reds was never enough ~ Gorbachev, from within, decided to put the wheels in motion that would end the empire. until that decision was made, all the tough talk that people love to remember, was simply like "talking to an iron-reinforced brick wall".

Post from Major Cinncinatus -

Will someone please tell Fidel that!

Of course, as Reagan said, communism was doomed to fail, no matter what.

Eric The(ButNoPeansToTheGipper?HowRude!)Hun[>]:)]

Didn't Reagan try to defeat Fidel, too?
Was Fidel just too mighty?

The USSR fell because it was doomed to fall.
Reagan/US was a catalyst, however.

Post from fatty -

Nonsense, Gorbachev remains today a staunch communist. Events in the Soviet Union just began to slip away from him.

When he was really needed, he was under house arrest under orders from the Politburo.

It was the 'mayor of Moscow', Boris Yeltsin, who organized the revolt against the military in the streets of Moscow, that succeeded in rescuing a visibly shaken (and no longer relevant) Gorbachev, and removing the military from the control of the communists.

And it was Boris Yeltsin, again, who later defied the military revolt in Moscow that threatened the 'revolution.'

Eric The(Remember?)Hun[>]:)]

Eric, it is nice to see you post something that does not involve you getting down on your knees and sucking off the Israelis.

Tom

Post from Cinncinattus -

When? When he sent US Armed Forces to Grenada to rescue the American medical stuidents (and, oh, by the way, destroy the airfield being built by Cuban workers and guarded by Cuban soldiers)?

No, Fidel was not too mighty for him, just too insignificant in the big picture![:D]

Eric The(Monotonous)Hun[>]:)]

Post from Cazador223 -

Wow, Tom, what a pithy statement you make!

I hardly know how to respond to that kind of wit!

Eric The(KissIt!)Hun[>]:)]

thanks for this post eric.
i was too young to appreciate what a great man reagan was, and was completely astounded when the wall came down and soviet union collapsed.

what a LEADER!

churchill ,iirc: if a man is not liberal by his 20's he is heartless. if a man is not conservative by his 40's he is brainless.

And the Chi-Comms!  

which just proves which side he was really on...



yes, but it was Gorby and others before him that made all that possible...



Boris saw an opportunity and took it. recall that it was Nikita Krushchev, in his meeting with Nixon that "openned up" the two societies to eachother for the first time. Nikita was a hard-liner afterall, and eventually gave in to preassures from the Politburo to stop all that dangerous togetherness.

Gorby, had in mind to rekindle perestroyka, fully knowing the eventual consequences. we are trying the same policy on China, where if we sell enough Coca-Cola in China, it will only be a matter of time before the citizenry demands more, MORE western products and policy.

if not Gorby, then Yeltsin, but NOT Reagan. all the media quotes in the world won't sway me either, because we NEEDED the victory, we couldn't have it that our enemy was responsible for the fall, WE needed the victory, so Reagan got the credit, when all he was, was in fact, just another commie-hater.

Patience.

In time, all communist regimes fail.
If you don't agree with this, then you are saying that communism is a form of government that can work.
They all end up as dictatorships, because they must fight to remain communist.
It's just not natural.

Simple Darwinism.
Freedom and capitalism will out live communism, because freedom/capitalism is superior.

Hun...

Excellent topic.  Your research deserves kudos...so here's one:  Good job. [:D]

Reagan absolutely caused the Sovs to collapse and he should receive the accolades.  Unfortunately, far too many in the media and among the socialists still in political office in our country actually bemoan the end of communism and the Soviet Union.  They still loathe Reagan and all he stood for.  The closer Dubya gets to being a Reagan clone...the more shrill become the Lefties in their hatred of him too.

Now...don't you have ANY case work to keep you busy? [>:/]

Sidebar:  One of these days...we need to discuss the IDF attack on the USS Liberty again.  Too much to do right now...but someday I may just post something to draw fire.  (From The Old Retired Naval Officer...[;D])

(Edited because I still can't get my punctuation right!)

Agreed. But allowing a regime to fail on it's own can be a looooooooong wait.  

Many Empires in history have collapsed - but only after centuries of "successful" existance.  The fact that any form of governance eventually collapses does not indicate its inferiority to the successing regime, but rather the natural constant in the universe: [b]change[/b].

One could easily argue today that "freedom/capitalism" is falling to "democratic-socialism" worldwide.  Does that mean that socialism is a "superior" form of governance?

Post from fatty -

Show me one piece of writing, before the fact, that indicates that Gorbachev knew anything about where the Soviet Union was going!

Do you deny that he's still a communist? He is like so many others who still believe that if only the Soviet Union had done communism the right way, it would have succeeded in due course.

Do you see it [u]that[/u] way, too? That it may have worked if done properly?

Eric The(GorbyIsZip)Hun[>]:)]

This gets pretty complicated.

In an awful way, yes.
Like a virus.

Communism goes against human nature and our desire to be free.

Sadly, democratic-socialism satisfies the Human desire for freedom (a positive quality of Human Nature), AND it also satisfies the unfortunate Human desire to be taken care of.

Democratic-socialism is like cannibalism.  As long as there is a "critical mass" of people in the society to feed upon, socialism (cannibalism) will be a VERY efficient means for the majority to get what it needs.  As long as there is enough people willing to sacrifice everyone's freedom (bodies) to support the system.

Reagan was simply an idiot who was in the right place at the right time.  He IS NOT responsible for the fall of the venerable USSR.  

I think that history will prove that Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton (the best president who ever lived) were the ones responsible for the "opening of the east."

So don't try to confuse us with the facts, because we watch PBS so we know better!

now Eric, you know as well as i do that if Gorby even hinted about his plans, he would have disappeared immidiately ~ i doubt there is any official writings of this policy. he thought that Soviet Communism was not working the way it was, but saw no way to steer it back onto course. he simply gave up, didn't care to tow the company line in the manner prescribed.



no, but he does in his memoirs.



i am not a communist, but by "working" i guess you mean "existing" then yes, look at Cuba, NK, PRC ~ communism at its finest! in the Soviet sense of the word, no, the tracks have been laid that would lead them all out of the system, BEFORE Reagan even took his oath.

again, maybe not Gorby, but DEFINATELY not Reagan alone.

The USSR is not dead, they just changed the name and we payed all of the com-block depts. ie: Poland, Bulgaria, etc.......
If you do not believe this then look at who runs for elections an wins! Boris Yelstin was the former mayor of moscow and a card carring commie, Vladimer Putin was the former head of the KGB and a card carring commie. This has to be the greatest ploy ever pulled by them and we bought it hook line and sinker. The only change they made to there goverment is now you get to vote for your favorite commie boss, just like France!!!!

I would have to say Ronald Reagan's policy of modernization of our military, and the technological advances of the military in armor, personal equipment, and missle defense technology were essential in causing the collapse.  The ill-fated "Star Wars" program was the final straw that broke the camel's back.  The Soviet Union was bankrupted by trying to keep up on the military side with the United States.  As seen in the Gulf War, the Soviet doctrine of more tanks and armor to swarm the battlefield was totally flawed.  They new this, and trying to upgrade the military by pouring money into it killed their economy.  I believe that Reagan's policy cased this, but whether it was an intentional policy to backrupt the U.S.S.R. is a guess.  Ronald Reagan put our own country into major debt to accomplish this, but the capitalist society can overcome that with a soaring economy.  I think it was a race to boom or bust, and the Soviets lost.  Reagan was instrumental in this, whether he did it purposely or not.

He was a great man for this country, and for the world.  Bush Sr. glided on those coat tails for a good long time.  He proved his own mettle in the Gulf War, though.  Thank God for the Republicans and the Bushes.  Can you imagine if Gore was in office, where we would be after Sept. 11?  I shudder to think...

Post from fatty -

How convenient for history that we have none of the pre-fall writings of Gorbachev, but only what he deigns to tell us in his memoirs!

If the Summit at Reykjavík, Iceland, taught us anything about the relationship between the two principal players, Reagan and Gorbachev, it was that Reagan was way out in front of Gorbachev!

Gorbachev never understood Reagan, and after the summit, never did much more than stand in the shadows of Reagan and Thatcher.

Events took their course with Gorbachev. Do you remember what percentage of the vote he won during the first presidential election in the former Soviet Union?

[b]In June, 1996, according to the preliminary results, Gorbachev finished seventh with 0.5% of the vote cast on June 16.[/b]

See results at:[url]http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/dmiguse/Russian/elections.html#topcan[/url]

Yes, what a forceful leader for Russia's future he turned out to be!

Wonder why the Russian people so thoroughly rejected someone of the stature and prestige of Mikhailovitch?

Didn't they know to credit Mikhailovitch with their newly won independence?

Hmmm, I wonder what Ronald Reagan's popularity in the former Soviet Union might be? You know damn well it's better than 0.5%! [:D]

I look it up! But in the meanwhile, rest assured that it's probably 2-3 times what the figures are for Gorby!

The fawning Western Press is the only group that continues to believe that Gorby is in any manner relevant!

Eric The(HaveA'Gorbasm'Lately?)Hun[>]:)]

You Must be smoking the same stuff Klinton was, but you inhaled.  Using the words "The best president who ever lived" and Clinton in the same breath is a slap in the face to every decent American.  Do you think Clinton EVER had a clue to what was going on.  That boy was the biggest puppet.  He had advisors that basically told him what to do every step of the way.  The only original thought in his head was intern.  Look at his track record.  That boy would never say or do anything to lose a vote.  That was his only concern.  As for Billary, you can see what her agenda was.  Let's see, find the most liberal democrats area to live in, and hey!  run for office there.  Niether of them were wanted back in Arkansas.  And not moving back proved that.  They are both cunsumate opportunists, and if you can not see through that, maybe you should dress up as an intern and drop by Bill's place.  I'm sure he would be more than happy to entertain you...

As for calling Reagan an "Idiot," I feel for you.  He was a patriot, who only did what was best for his country.  Klinton did only what was best for him.  

Have you seen Blackhawk down?  Wonder why there were no tanks or armor or aircraft to keep the skinnies heads down, and not kill our servicemen?  Ask Klinton.  He was the one who turned down the military on that request.  Politicians should stay out of the military formula.  Same in Vietnam.  But thats another thread...

well, if Gorby wasn't popular after the fall, it is because of two things:
1) the people didn't trust him after he was placed under house-arrest, like you do, they saw it as a sign of betrayal that he wasn't bashing the Berlin wall with a sledge-hammer.
2) Yeltsin took a huge risk by jumping in where Gorby should have. he was then seen as a hero and elected. simple as that.

but instead of carrying on about Gorby (who we both agree was not as instrumental as some) lets see EXACTLY how Reagan did it. show me proof that he went behind the iron curtain and planted the seeds of openness. tell me EXACTLY how Reagan knew every bit financial policy in the USSR, and that he knew exactly how to use it to his advantage. prove to me that if it wasn't Reagan, that it COULD NOT possibly have been any other President. then, explain to me how a bunch of tough language brought down the whole USSR, when similsr events like the Cuban missle crisis only strengthened the regime.

I always was under the impression that the music of Paul Anka did more to destabilize Mother Russia than this "Reagan" guy.

Post from fatty -

Why, fatty, the answer is as clear and obvious as the birthmark(?) on Gorby's forehead!

President Reagan stood toe-to-toe with the leaders of the Kremlin and defied every attempt they made to control US (and NATO) military policy.

[b]No[/b] intermediate range 'theatre' nuclear weapons in Europe, they demanded!

Reagan pushed through, against overwhelming odds, the deployment of such Pershing missiles in Europe!

Arms-control talks with the Soviet Union were then frozen in mutual distrust as the new deployment of U.S. nuclear missiles began in Europe in November 1983.

As Anatoly Dobrynin concluded in his memoirs,
Reagan was "a much deeper person than he appeared," who could make "great decisions" and forced Soviet strategists "to reconsider their positions" when he put Pershing missiles in Europe and stuck to his "Star Wars" defense. Dobrynin insisted, though, that Reagan did not end the cold war and crack "the back of the Evil Empire"; he credits Gorbachev with causing the USSR's fall by not rearming. In Dobrynin's view, Gorbachev neither foresaw the collapse of Eastern Europe nor understood that the Soviet economy has been "outwitted and outplayed" by the West.

But was Dobrynin correct in saying that Gorby caused the USSR's fall by not matching Reagan's military buildup, missile for missile, boat for boat?

Obviously [u]not[/u], because even if Gorby had wanted to match the military spending of the Reagan budgets, by 1995, it was simply not able to do so!

But I thought you might to hear Dobrynin's views on the matter!

Eric The(Helpful)Hun[>]:)]

All this talk of it being historically inevitable that communism would fall is silly.  As silly as the communists thinking that it was inevitable that they would win.  Freedom is a historical anomoly.  It has been present on the earth for only a small percentage of recorded history, and when it is present only a small percentage of the world's population actually get to experience it.  Then it fades away into tyranny.  Even today, less than one-third of the world's population enjoy freedom.  Freedom is hardly inevitable.  Nor is it eternal.

We just about lost the Cold War.  In 1980, Iran was holding our citizens hostage with impunity.  Most of Africa was pro-commy.  The Arabs were destroying our economy and we did nothing about it.  The West Germans and French were preparing to make accomodations with the USSR.  At home, we were traumatized by Vietnam and a Communist state, Niceragua, was in place on North American soil.  The only thing that was saving us was the Sino-Soviet split.

Backwards states have been taking over more advanced countries since the beginning of time, and right does not necessarily make right.  After all, Britian and France could not beat Germany, and Germany could not beat the USSR in WWII.  Did Athens conquor Sparta?  While history is on the side of the bigger battallions, at some point nations become so decadent that they do not have the will to defend themselves.  We were there in 1980.  

Reagan installed the Pershings, which showed the Soviets that we still had political will, restored the economy, and started the defense buildup.  This required the Soviets to make changes, which in turn let loose changes they could not control or forsee.

VIETNAM and AFGHANISTAN were two of the contributing factors to toppling the soviet union. simply put, the spent and bled themselves white.

reagon's defense expenditures may have been the last straw for ivan, but ronnie deserves little credit for anything other than reading the words from those speeches you posted exerpts from.

of course, i hear no praise for the cold warriors that long preceded r.r.. no mention of jack kennedy, the leader that stood toe to toe with the soviet union when fingers were poised over the buttons?

r.r. was a good man, but he didn't topple the soviet union...despite margaret t's best attempts to single-handedly rewrite history.

i think our friend Dobrynin gives Reagan way too much credit. Reagan was not an economist, he was an actor. IF his policy-men and women told him to undermine the Soviet economy by outspending it, then bravo! but don't give Reagan credit. IF his Secratary of State told him to ignore the remarks and demands of the Soviets and to go ahead with the placement of Europpean missles, than cudos to him, but don't credit Reagan with it.

IF you, like most Americans demand a simple, one worded explanation of the fall of the USSR, then so be it ~ but i think that one-word you're looking for is the name of that incredibly brave, extraordinarily selfless tank-driver who refused to run over/fire upon his own countrymen when ordered to do so. HE and HE alone brought down the Union of Soviet I'll kill You Before i Feed You Socialist Republics. HE and HE alone showed the country and the world, that Russians are not willing to kill their own anymore.

but simplicity is not the answer here, i believe, and always will, that it was culmination of events and policies, each with its own contributor(s) that occurred at the perfect time, at the perfect place.

Post from CAMPYBOB -

JFK stood toe-to-toe with Krushchev over the missiles of October? Don't make me laugh!

He and brother Bobby were furiously trying to undo the mess that their own shennanigans had gotten the US into!

You need to read Seymour M. Hersh's book on JFK, The Dark Side of Camelot, to see what I'm talking about.

Course, it's no secret!

Hey, whatever happened to those Jupiter missiles that the US had stationed in Turkey?

Oh, right, they were the 'price' the US had to pay for JFK's monkeyshines in Cuba!

Eric The(SomeColdWarrior!)Hun[>]:)]

Post from fatty -

Keep repeating that over and over again if it makes you feel good.

But it won't make it so!

He sure seems to have 'kicked butt' of all the experts in economics and political science whose pronouncements I cited in the opening sequence in this thread!

Oh, but that was his speechwriters' vision and courage, not his!

I think you've pretty much capitulated with this post! A great leader is one that will have good folks around him as well!

Eric The(BTWThoseFolksGiveReaganTheCreditAsWell)Hun[>]:)]

its their job to suck-up! what's your excuse???

capitulation? did you even read the whole thing? i didn't see Reagan, or any other American in Red Square that day! this is an issue of internal demise, supplanted by the foreign policy of their greatest agitant. Reagan, although useful, does not deserve credit for 75 years of internal dessent. nor does he deserve credit for that tank-driver's bravery, nor does he deserve credit for thirty-five different groups within the USSR that helped foment the modern way of thinking.

fat(YourOversimplificationDoesNotBecomeYou)ty

You beat me to this little bit of history that was only finally revealed a few short year ago. You sir are a well read man. Would Communism have failed eventually. Perhaps, all systems fail eventually, even democracy. As one of the Founding Fathers said, "there never was a democracy yet that had not murdered itself" or something close to that. But were it not for Ronald Reagan, many more dominos of communism would have fallen and have been responsible for continued decades of tyranny and the murder of tens of millions if not hundreds of millions more lives.

Post from fatty -

BTW, Mr. fatty, Ronald Reagan is no longer President. It does not in any way threaten their current jobs to 'suck up' to Reagan now!

Had that 'Gorbasm' yet?

Eric The(FolksWillWantToKnow)Hun[>]:)]

i wouldn't know, i'm still trying to figure out why you are! but by all means, please believe everything you're told! Mrs. Thatcher would be proud!

and if you're wondering, i am a huge fan of Reagan's, a huge dispiser of ANYTHING red. BUT, i am bigger fan of giving credit where credit is due. in this case, in your poll, i voted #2, and that's the way it's staying. Reagan, nor Superman for that matter (not even God) could have single-handidly brought down the whole USSR.

realistically yours,

fat(WakeUpBeforeItsTooLate)ty

Post from fatty -

Yes, I did.

I especially liked the part about:


That appears to me an admission that Pres. Reagan knew who to choose for policy positions!

Why not give Pres. Reagan the credit for having the right people to do the right jobs?

Isn't that what great leaders are noted for?

I mean, what company of Union soldiers did Lincoln command during the War Between The States?

Give up?

Eric The([u]All[/u]OfThem!)Hun[>]:)]

For all of you Anti-Reaganites...sorry...but history will eventually prove the case that RR was one of the greatest presidents ever...AND largely responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union.  Spending them into oblivion was a stroke of genius!  They never had a chance.

Please go back and do a bit of really detailed analysis of the history of the period.  You might start by researching what came before to set the stage for Reagan, do a bit of reading up on Gorby and his staff...and RR and his...then move on to the world at that time.  Having set the temporal stage, look carefully at what happened at key times such as the summit in Reykavik.  Reagan made a hard offer to Gorby about reducing the nuclear weapons proliferation and then refused to give up SDI aka Star Wars, which is the big bargaining chip Gorby wanted to take home!  When he did not, Gorby's friends and allies HERE in America, the liberal (Dare I say Socialist?) media and the socialist (I won't even consider daring that...'cause they ARE all Reds!) professors on our campi all went f**king NUTS...saying the Reagan was leading the world down the path of certain nuclear holocaust!  I remember the nuclear war gloom and doom movies that Hollywood was producing then...and which they resurrect ever so often.  Awful stuff.  "Reagan the loose cannon...Reagan the bomber".  On the tube every damn night.

During this same time, Reagan sent the troops to Grenada to free that little island from the Reds...and the lefties at home went crazy with rage.

Then, Reagan sent the Navy and Air Force to bomb the shit out of Khadaffi.  They missed the bastard but chased his sorry ass across the desert with an A6E Intruder and a 1000lb bomb!
He's been quiet ever since...(If you ignore Lockerbie.)

Then when the Iranians got froggy, he send the Navy to smash their Navy in Operation Praying Mantis.  Another fit from the left.

Then, when Reagan's boys Poindexter and North[illegally?] got guns to the Contras and aided the freedom seekers in Nicaragua to achieve free elections and end the Commie rule of Danny Ortega, the Loony Lefties had another spasm...and THAT one was a doozy.  Those Sandalistas have NEVER forgotten that one.  They were down there again recently campaigning for Ortega for Chrissakes!  They must have felt bad...'cause Danny Boy just lost another free election to the forces of democracy.

(Gee...doesn't Dubya sort of sound like Reagan here?)

Bottom line....do your homework.  Reagan was a great man...that history will eventually bring to the top of the best four or five presidents ever.

PS...I do think RR made a couple of very bad choices...such as when he didn't take on the terrorists after the Beirut barracks bombing in '83.  Now we have to deal with them...and it's tougher now.

hey, i'm all for it! why don't you start a poll asking if we thought that Reagan's people were SOLELY responsible for the demise of the USSR??? and i'll still vote #2, that NO one person, nor one single factor was SOLELY responsible!



and here too, i would say that all Unionists were responsible for victory, NOT just one man.

...and i don't think anyone is saying that Reagan was not a great leader, i am certainly not "bashing" him. i just hate oversimplification.

Reagan did accellerate by decades the downfall of the USSR. They were always on the edge, trying to go toe to toe, economically with the top capitalist nation. No communist regime can compete with capitalism, the economic overhead of trying to take care of everyone just doesn't allow for excess spending. There also isn't a lot of insentive to excell when you get paid the same amount whether you work your ass off or sit at your desk picking your nose all day.

Reagan definitely was the guy that pushed them off the narrow balance beam. The only bad thing was he nearly bankrupted our economy in the process. There was a time the unemployment went over 10%, and that was after they officially reduced the amount of hours a week that defined someone as "unemployed". He really maxed our credit cards out. I hope Bush 2 doesn't do the same.

I'm not sure what your point is by quoting a bunch of economics professors.  Combining a "science" based largely on the use of tea leaves and the bones of small mammals (economics) with a "profession" based largely on studying more and more about less and less until one knows everything about nothing (professors) is bound to yield more buffalo shit than the great plains saw before the coming of the white man.

As for Ronald Reagan, well, I think he was an excellent B-movie actor.  He was a republican.  And he preferred eating jelly beans to playing with cigars.  These are all good.  But I doubt that he wore a cape and a funny suit under his suit.

Wasn't his B.A. in economics?

Anyway, JFK and Co. were the biggest bunch of actors to ever administer our country.  Second only to Thomas Jefferson as the most overrated presidency.  They totally chickened out at the Bay of Pigs, and surrendered during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I do not think anyone is saying Reagan won the Cold War all by himself.  Truman and Eisenhower got the game going, but Kennedy, Johnson and Carter started losing it for us.  If Carter had won a second term,  the world would be a very different place.  I think Reagan was more the straw that broke the camel's back; if it were not for him, it might have been our back that had cracked.

The gambit used by Reagan and his top people to destroy the Soviet Union via FINANCIAL methods was an absolute masterstroke.     They simply cashed a MUCH bigger check than the Soviets were even capable of WRITING, much less covering.  Yet the Soviets HAD to try to counter the developments of the SDI program, though they could not afford to follow that hideously expensive program.   The cost broke their economy, weak as it was in real terms.

Sun Tzu would have applauded.   We won the war without any hostilities.

CJ

Well, 80% of those responding gave Pres. Reagan chief responsibility for the fall of the USSR, which is pretty good, I think!

Eric The(AndDamnCorrect!)Hun[>]:)]

The Russians are still Commies, only now their military is a shambles.

The best we can hope for is that their (our) guidance systems in their IC/IRBM's will wear out just sitting in the silo's.

That being said, I don't give RR or even that other real man of the 80's, Margaret Thacher, total credit, but I'll give them a 9.5 for speeding up the process.

Jay
[img]http://www.commspeed.net/jmurray/images/iroc-cop.gif[/img]