Reagen Dying

ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
It was a combined effort. Gorbachev's initial stupidity in the war with Afghanistan, Reagen's support of the Mujahhadeen, Reagen's simply out-building the USSR, Gorbachev's attempt to turn the USSR into smething more of a 2nd Way Social Democracy.....Reagen and Gorbachev where the two most important people involved, but I'd say Reagen was more important.

Ok, I'm afraid I'm going to contest you on that, and as you're the one claiming it, you're going to have to explain to us, exactly, why this is the case. I would say Gorbachev did infinitely more work from the inside, frmo where it's easier to work.

You're going to have to explain how the peripheral events of the Mujahhadeen and the out-building of the USSR support a collapse which essentially came from the inside.
 
Kharn said:
Indeed it's not.
So it was dominated by the Russians, so what? You know darn well what I meant to say, so stop being petty.

Kharn said:
Except for the part where it has had more genocide than others, you mean?
CCR said:
Genocide or two?
How about 50 million people dead in Stalin's regiem, and many, many millions more dead during Lenin's admnistration, or how about the 2 million dead Afghans with the war there?

Okay, 70 million dead in a few decades. That's a hell of a lot.
Number are of little relevance at this point. Do you think Hitler wouldn't have killed 100 or 150 million people had he had the means? Bluntly put, Stalin killed more people because he had a bigger supply.

What I'm saying is that genocide was a practice of Stalin's regime, and not a policy inherent to communism. That's why it's incorrect to call USSR "the most genocidal", since countries like Nazi Germany practiced genocide to a much greater extent because it's inherent to Nazi ideology. Had there been 50 million Jews in Germany, Nazis would have killed them all without blinking, you can be sure of that.

Kharn said:
That makes it alright, then.
I never said that. Don't pull my statements out of context.

CCR said:
I did'nt compare it to any of the other repressive nations in history. I don't know how you can call it anything then one of the most repressive nations in history, up there with Mao's China, Nazi Europe and mabbe Laos. It's up there.
You stated matter-of-factly that it was the most repressive. Now you say it wasn't. Make up your mind already.

Reagen's legacy will be eradicating the greatest threat to wold peace in history, and bringing the world back from the brink of total nuclear annihialation.
Oh, come on, that's utter bullshit. I won't even bother to comment this.
 
actually our economy is in the toilet from sep 11 and bush
Looked at a newpaper lately?


I don't know if you are trying to say the economy is bad because of something else or because it actually isn't in the toilet

because they seem to be quite conflicted on this matter on news channels...

but it does seem to be getting better, last month was the first time I saw so many "now hiring" signs since before sep 11
 
welsh said:
No doubt, but it seems Ronnie was suffering for a long time.

Congress- "Did you know about the arms for hostages"

Ronnie- "Ahhh... What.... I forgot."

Congress- "Did you know that Ollie North was selling guns to the Contras, the former national guard under Samosa?"

Ronnie- "really, well.... I forgot.. "

On that basis I would assume that all politicians are suffering from alzheimers. The most common phrase at press conferences being "I do not recall". :wink:

He realized that the most important thing in the world was getting rid of the commies. And he did.

This fear of Communism being a plague that would engulf the world is what, IMHO, caused much of the trouble with causing the US to interfere for the worst in the long run. Reagan was a far greater threat to world peace than Gorbachev was and he managed to single handedly demolish the chance of a welfare state which has ramifications for how you live today. I think that people overestimated the threat of Communist influence.

Stalin was not really genocidal because he killed everyone, so what if some happened to be ethnic minorities. It is disturbing to look at film of his military officers and high officials over time. First there are 500, then 300, then 50, then they are getting lonely and freaked. Some of the party members gave him a hunting rifle as a present and he pretended to shoot them with it on the film. He thought it was hilarious. They didn't and were shot two months later. Stalin was a busy bureacrat, as he personally read over all the hit lists and crossed out the names of the few that he thought should live. What a psycho.
 
Stalin was not really genocidal because he killed everyone, so what if some happened to be ethnic minorities. It is disturbing to look at film of his military officers and high officials over time. First there are 500, then 300, then 50, then they are getting lonely and freaked. Some of the party members gave him a hunting rifle as a present and he pretended to shoot them with it on the film. He thought it was hilarious. They didn't and were shot two months later. Stalin was a busy bureacrat, as he personally read over all the hit lists and crossed out the names of the few that he thought should live. What a psycho.
He killed more people then others: There are NO Cossacks, Siberians, Crimean Tartars or Khazarian Jews left.

http://www.faminegenocide.com/

Similar things happend in Circassia, Georgia (but not Abkhazia, his home, oddly enough), Armenia, Estonia, Lithuania.....

You also don't understand the nature of his killings. Stalin set out quotas of people to be killed, more so in some places then other.
So it was dominated by the Russians, so what? You know darn well what I meant to say, so stop being petty.
It was an Empire in the same sense that the Russian Empire was, in that it was a National Kingdom (or Dictatorship of the Proletariant here) headed by the Russians. IF anything it did'nt treat minorities as well as the Russian kingdom.

Number are of little relevance at this point. Do you think Hitler wouldn't have killed 100 or 150 million people had he had the means? Bluntly put, Stalin killed more people because he had a bigger supply.

What I'm saying is that genocide was a practice of Stalin's regime, and not a policy inherent to communism. That's why it's incorrect to call USSR "the most genocidal", since countries like Nazi Germany practiced genocide to a much greater extent because it's inherent to Nazi ideology. Had there been 50 million Jews in Germany, Nazis would have killed them all without blinking, you can be sure of that.
That's bullshit. Marx clearly stated that he top of the social ladder must be DESTROYED, thus that falls under the definition of Genocide.

What of Kruschev's Virgin Land project? What did that plan to do other then eradicate the Turkish nature of the Steepe?

You stated matter-of-factly that it was the most repressive. Now you say it wasn't. Make up your mind already.
I cannot imagine a nation more repressed then the USSR under Stalin.

I don't really think you fully understand what communism is to most (sane) people. You guys where actually more stable under communism then democracy.

Ok, I'm afraid I'm going to contest you on that, and as you're the one claiming it, you're going to have to explain to us, exactly, why this is the case. I would say Gorbachev did infinitely more work from the inside, frmo where it's easier to work.
Gorbachev's incompitence and last minute trying to fix the USSR doomed it. But the main reason the people of Russia DEMANDED change was because the USSR did not want to fall behind technololgically the Americans, and they just could'nt keep up. More in the article.


Sure.
What's a million dead, when it's keeping out the Russians?
Who where killing millions in Afghanistan?

Do you think all these people died because of Chemical wepons? You're bullshiting me here Wooz, I expect better. THe vast majority of Iranian and Iraqi casualties where NOT because of Chemical wepons, and anyway, do you think we still sold it to them after they used it?


Ronald Wilson Reagan, 93, a movie actor who became one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century, died today at his home in California. As 40th president of the United States from 1981 to 1989, he redefined the nation's political agenda and dramatically reshaped U.S.-Soviet relations.



After leaving office, Mr. Reagan suffered in his final years from the mind-destroying illness of Alzheimer's disease. He announced his condition on Nov. 5, 1994, in a poignant letter to the American people in which he thanked them "for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president."

Often called the Great Communicator, the Republican president was an icon to American conservatives, whom he led out of the political wilderness. But his legacy eluded easy ideological classification. Former Senate Republican leader Howard H. Baker Jr. (Tenn.), who served as White House chief of staff during a key period in the Reagan presidency, observed that Mr. Reagan, despite a proclaimed constancy of values, also displayed "a capacity to surprise."

This capacity was especially evident in Mr. Reagan's dealings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Although Mr. Reagan was an outspoken anti-communist who described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," he forged a constructive relationship with the reform-minded Gorbachev, who ascended to power midway through the Reagan presidency.

The two leaders held five summits, beginning with a 1985 meeting in Geneva. At a 1987 summit in Washington, they signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the first pact to reduce U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals. After a follow-up Moscow summit in 1988, Mr. Reagan proclaimed a "new era" in U.S.-Soviet relations.

The thaw that melted the Cold War followed a prolonged period of heightened tensions between the two countries during Mr. Reagan's first term. The relationship reached a low point on Sept. 1, 1983, when a Soviet fighter shot down a Korean Air Lines passenger jet that had strayed over Russian air space, killing all 269 people aboard, including 61 U.S. citizens. In the wake of this incident, military forces on both sides were placed on alert.

Administration critics contended that Mr. Reagan had contributed to the crisis with anti-Soviet rhetoric and by conducting a massive U.S. arms buildup that he had promised during his 1980 campaign. On June 18, 1980, Mr. Reagan told The Washington Post that it "would be of great benefit to the United States if we started a buildup" because the Soviets were too weak economically to compete in an expanded arms race and would come to the bargaining table instead. He predicted the demise of the Soviet Union, most notably in a speech to British members of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster on June 8, 1982, in which he said the Soviets faced "a great revolutionary crisis" and would wind up on "the ash heap of history." In another historic speech, on June 12, 1987, in front of the Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin Wall, Mr. Reagan urged: "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Ten months after Mr. Reagan left office, the German people dismantled the notorious wall that marked the division of their country. On Christmas Day 1991, Gorbachev stepped down and the Soviet Union and the Cold War passed into history. Some historians credit Mr. Reagan for these events -- or at least for accelerating them. Others say the Soviet Union collapsed largely because of internal weaknesses, while still others cite a confluence of internal events and external pressures.

There is general agreement, however, that the meetings between Gorbachev and Mr. Reagan and later between Gorbachev and President George Bush eased the transition from Cold War to peace. Alexander Bessmertnykh, deputy Soviet foreign minister during the Gorbachev-Reagan summits, said at a 1993 conference at Princeton that both Mr. Reagan and Gorbachev were more farsighted than their advisers in their idealistic determination to reduce nuclear arsenals.

Mr. Reagan's economic policies also departed from the mainstream. In his 1980 campaign, he pledged to cut taxes, increase military spending and balance the budget. He carried out the first two promises at the expense of the third.

While the nation prospered after emerging from a 1981-82 recession, the Reagan budgets produced record deficits and a near tripling of the national debt. Toward the end of his term, Mr. Reagan called the federal budget deficit "one of my greatest disappointments" and blamed it on congressional reluctance to cut domestic spending, even though the budget proposals he submitted to Congress had not been balanced.

But the deficits appear less harmful in hindsight. Conservative analyst David Frum has described them as "wartime deficits" and a small price to pay for ending the Cold War. After the Cold War, military spending declined rapidly as a percentage of federal spending, making it easier for Mr. Reagan's successors and Congress to balance the budget. Midway through President Bill Clinton's second term, the federal budget was in surplus. Mr. Reagan also left an economic legacy of low inflation that was maintained by his successors.

Building the Image Even Mr. Reagan's critics acknowledge that he was a masterful political performer. Theodore Roosevelt termed the presidency a "bully pulpit," and Franklin D. Roosevelt gave this pulpit a new dimension in the radio age with folksy "fireside chats." Mr. Reagan, a former Democrat who had voted three times for FDR and admired him, adapted the bully pulpit to television. He sometimes borrowed directly from FDR. A refrain that became a frequent punch line of Mr. Reagan's 1980 campaign speeches -- "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" -- was a variant of an FDR comment in a 1934 fireside chat.

Mr. Reagan gave weekly Saturday radio speeches to the American people, a practice continued by his successors. He was particularly effective in prepared television speeches delivered from the Oval Office. Drawing upon skills forged in his earlier careers in radio, films and television, Mr. Reagan set the standard in using television to promote his presidency.

Mr. Reagan was nearly 78 when he completed his second term, eight years older than the next-oldest president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was when he left office in 1961. But until he was stricken by Alzheimer's, Mr. Reagan's trim, athletic build made him appear younger than his years, and his amiability and self-deprecating humor softened the hard edge of his ideological advocacies. Mr. Reagan poked fun at his age, his work habits and his supposed simple-mindedness. He once said that he knew that hard work never killed anyone, "but I figure, why take the chance?" Much of his humor was spontaneous. Asked while visiting astronauts in Houston before the successful launch of the space shuttle Discovery in 1988 whether he would like to go into space, Mr. Reagan quipped, "I've been in space for several years."

Mr. Reagan maintained high public approval ratings during most of his presidency after the 1981-82 recession. But his popularity plummeted in November 1986 after disclosures that he had secretly approved U.S. arms sales to Iran in an attempt to win release of American hostages held in Lebanon. Mr. Reagan was criticized for violating a promise never to negotiate with terrorists; his defense was that he had dealt with Iranian middlemen, not the terrorists themselves. But the arms sales were a diplomatic embarrassment that undercut U.S. efforts to persuade allies to stem the supply of arms to Iran, which was involved in a prolonged war with Iraq.

The Iran arms deal and follow-up revelations that proceeds from the sales had been diverted to the contra rebels fighting the Marxist government of Nicaragua provoked the seminal crisis of the Reagan administration and led to the dismissal of the president's national security adviser, John M. Poindexter, and Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, the National Security Council staff aide accused of masterminding the diversion.

Prodded by first lady Nancy Reagan and other advisers, Mr. Reagan reluctantly accepted responsibility for the arms sales but denied knowledge of the diversion, which Mr. Poindexter claimed he had approved without telling the president. Neither a joint congressional inquiry nor independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh was able to prove otherwise. Walsh, who conducted a seven-year investigation of the Iran-contra affair, found that Mr. Reagan had "knowingly participated or acquiesced in covering up the scandal," but concluded that there was "no credible evidence that the president authorized or was aware of the diversion of the profits from the Iran arms sale to assist the contras."

The Iran-contra affair, coming on the heels of the 1986 midterm elections in which Democrats regained control of the Senate they had lost when Mr. Reagan was first elected, led to a shake-up of the National Security Council staff under veteran bureaucrat Frank Carlucci and the forced resignation of White House chief of staff Donald T. Regan. Former senator Baker, the Senate majority leader during the halcyon days of Reagan's first term, was brought in to replace Regan and mollify Congress.

Foreign Policy Work Under Baker and his successor, Kenneth M. Duberstein, the administration recovered its momentum during the final two years of the presidency, and Mr. Reagan regained much of the public approval squandered by the Iran-contra affair. This twilight period was marked by foreign policy successes, including the INF Treaty, the beginning of Soviet troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and a long-sought settlement in southern Africa to remove foreign troops from Namibia. A few weeks before he left office, Mr. Reagan also reversed long-standing U.S. policy and approved a "substantive dialogue" with the Palestine Liberation Organization after its leadership renounced terrorism and recognized the legitimacy of Israel.

Overall, the "Reagan doctrine" foreign policy of aiding anti-communist insurrections had mixed results. It succeeded in Afghanistan with bipartisan congressional support and had partial successes in southern Africa and Cambodia, then occupied by Vietnamese troops. But Mr. Reagan failed to mobilize public support in behalf of his favorite anti-communist insurgents, the Nicaraguan contras he called "the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers." Time and again, the Democratic-controlled House resisted his appeals for military aid to the contras. This was a bitter disappointment to Mr. Reagan that was salved after he left office when a combination of U.S. sanctions and pressure from the contras prompted the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua to hold free elections that ousted it from power.

Mr. Reagan was more successful, after a shaky start, in rallying traditional allies behind his vision of a world committed to Western values of political and economic freedom. His staunch friend and ally in this effort was British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, whose support for the Reagan administration was demonstrated most directly in 1986 when she permitted use of British air bases in a bombing attack on Libya conducted in retaliation for the terror bombing of a West German disco frequented by U.S. servicemen.

"President Reagan has achieved the most difficult of all political tasks: changing attitudes and perceptions about what is possible," Mrs. Thatcher said in a tribute to Reagan shortly before he left office. "From the strong fortress of his convictions, he set out to enlarge freedom the world over at a time when freedom was in retreat -- and he succeeded."

Mr. Reagan's commitment to freedom was matched by an abhorrence of nuclear weapons. This view has been traced variously to his longtime interest in science fiction, his acceptance of the biblical prophecy of Armageddon and to an experience on July 31, 1979, when he toured North American Aerospace Defense Command headquarters at Cheyenne Mountain, Colo., and learned that the American people were defenseless in the event of a Soviet nuclear attack.

Even before this tour, Mr. Reagan was skeptical about the conventional Cold War doctrine of "mutual assured destruction," in which peace was maintained through a balance of terror. This concern led in time to the Strategic Defense Initiative proposed by Mr. Reagan on March 23, 1983, and soon dubbed Star Wars, after the popular George Lucas movie.

SDI sought to develop an effective antimissile defense, which Mr. Reagan offered to share with the Soviet Union. The Soviets did not believe him. They denounced SDI, in part because they feared that antimissile research might lead to breakthroughs in other military technologies.

The issue came to a head at a 1986 summit meeting between Mr. Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland, where the Soviet leader insisted on restricting SDI to laboratory research. Although SDI was then no more than a laboratory program, Mr. Reagan reacted, as special assistant Jack F. Matlock Jr. wrote later, "as if he had been asked to toss his favorite child into an erupting volcano," and walked out of the meeting. Because of its abrupt collapse, the Reykjavik summit was seen as a failure; later, Gorbachev and Mr. Reagan agreed that their discussions at the Iceland summit had laid the groundwork for the INF Treaty.

SDI remains a controversial legacy of the Reagan presidency. Mr. Reagan's admirers have called it visionary; his detractors have denounced SDI as dubious science. But there is little doubt that SDI, whatever its feasibility, was a factor in prodding the Soviets to negotiate.

Big Picture, Ordinary Man Mr. Reagan never made a pretense of scientific knowledge or of grasping policy details. He saw himself as a big-picture president who focused his attention on national defense, world peace and economic growth. In a 1982 speech, he said that the United States remained, as always, "a beacon of hope to all the oppressed and impoverished nations of the world."

Reagan often credited his political success to an empathy with ordinary Americans. Asked by a reporter on the eve of his election in 1980 what Americans saw in him, Mr. Reagan replied: "Would you laugh if I told you that I think, maybe, they see themselves, and that I'm one of them? I've never been able to detach myself or think that I, somehow, am apart from them."

Even after two terms as president, Mr. Reagan called himself a "citizen-politician," the phrase he often used to describe himself in 1966 when he was elected governor of California in his first race for public office. Mr. Reagan said he wanted to become part of government in order to reduce its influence.

"This view was not a pose," said his friend Paul Laxalt, an easygoing Republican conservative who served as governor of neighboring Nevada during Mr. Reagan's first term as governor, and who became his Senate sounding board during the Reagan presidency. "Much of life is psychological, and it is Reagan's genius that he convinced himself and others that he was not really a politician, which inspired unbelievable trust in him," Laxalt said.

Mr. Reagan reinforced the impression that he was not a politician by telling stories at meetings where others were discussing policy. Even during the most trying discussions, Mr. Reagan was apt to interject anecdotes from his Hollywood years or his Illinois boyhood, a practice that led critics to accuse him of conducting "government by anecdote." The combination of Mr. Reagan's affable personality and his seemingly casual approach to complex problems prompted some adversaries to agree with Democrat Clark Clifford's assessment that Mr. Reagan was "an amiable dunce." But the Soviets who negotiated with him did not share this assessment --Bessmertnykh, the deputy Soviet foreign minister, said that Reagan handled negotiations "very, very well" and was underestimated by the U.S. media.

Michael K. Deaver, a longtime aide and friend, said that the persistent underestimation of Mr. Reagan was "his secret weapon." In time, it became recognized that Mr. Reagan's pleasant smile and apparent passivity concealed a competitiveness that came to the fore when he was sharply challenged. This competitiveness manifested itself in a desire to succeed, acting as a brake on Mr. Reagan's more conservative impulses and inclining him toward compromise. Richard Darman, a moderate Republican and key White House aide during the first term, described Mr. Reagan as "simultaneously an ideologue and a pragmatist."

This dualism had been evident in Mr. Reagan's two-term governorship of California, where he often sacrificed ideological purity for practical results. As governor, he signed a permissive abortion-rights bill and set aside more state parkland than any governor since Earl Warren. Brushing off criticisms from a conservative legislator who had accused him of betraying his campaign promises by agreeing to a massive state tax increase, then-Gov. Reagan said in 1968: "I'm willing to take what I can get. You have to take what you can get and go out and get some more next year; that's what the opposition has been doing for years."

Mr. Reagan brought this practical approach to his political campaigns. When he ran for governor, the Republican Party was bitterly divided between its conservative and moderate factions. Although Mr. Reagan was on the conservative side, he proved a party unifier who campaigned as strenuously for GOP moderates as he did for conservatives.

After he became president, he took the unprecedented step of passing up loyalist Edwin Meese III, who wanted to be White House chief of staff, in favor of the more pragmatic James A. Baker III, who had managed the campaign of George Bush, Mr. Reagan's principal rival in the GOP primaries.

In office, Mr. Reagan's willingness to take what he could get led to compromises on welfare and education bills when he was governor and to compromises on Social Security and tax reform when he was president. But Mr. Reagan usually defined the context in which the compromises occurred. A prominent Democratic critic, Sen. Gary Hart (Colo.), said that Mr. Reagan was politically successful "not because he is the Great Communicator but because he has values and ideas and acts on them."

This evaluation approximated Mr. Reagan's own view. "I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference; it was the content," Mr. Reagan said in his farewell address as president. "I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation -- from our experience, our wisdom and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries."

Mr. Reagan burst into political prominence in 1964 with a rousing nationally televised speech for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater that stressed anti-government themes and portrayed the election as a choice between individual freedom and "the ant heap of totalitarianism."

The speech raised &dol;1 million, then a staggering sum, for the impoverished Goldwater campaign and made Mr. Reagan a conservative hero overnight. Two years later, he was elected governor of California in a landslide, establishing himself as the most successful conservative politician of the age.

He won a second four-year term as governor in 1970. In 1976, he challenged incumbent President Gerald R. Ford for the Republican nomination and fell short by only 117 delegates. Four years later, Mr. Reagan recaptured the White House for the Republicans by defeating the man who had ousted Ford, President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Reagan was helped enormously in this campaign by soaring inflation and high interest rates, and public frustration over the plight of Americans then held hostage by Iran in the American Embassy in Tehran.

Four years later, Mr. Reagan proclaimed that it was "morning again in America" and won reelection by a landslide, winning 49 states in an uneven contest with Democratic nominee Walter F. Mondale.

"What I'd really like to do is go down in history as the president who made Americans believe in themselves again," Mr. Reagan said six months after his election.

Beyond the Expected Like Franklin Roosevelt, his first political hero, Mr. Reagan defied many stereotypes about his capabilities. And like Roosevelt, Mr. Reagan's life and presidency frequently proved a study in contradictions.

While he was the oldest U.S. president, Mr. Reagan often expressed the vision of a young man who believed, as he said, that America should "reach for the stars." Launching his reelection campaign on Sept. 3, 1984, at a rally in Orange County, Calif., Mr. Reagan said, "We present to the people of America a sparkling vision of tomorrow, a belief that greatness lies ahead, only waiting for us to reach out for it."

There were other contradictions. Mr. Reagan, the only divorced man to serve as president, preached family values but was a distant figure to his four children and his grandchildren. He urged a religious revival yet rarely went to church. He lauded military heroism after spending World War II in the hometown comfort of a Hollywood studio making training films.

But on March 30, 1981, when he was shot and seriously wounded by John W. Hinckley Jr. outside the Washington Hilton Hotel, Mr. Reagan gave an impressive demonstration of the heroism he frequently celebrated. As liberal Boston Globe columnist David Nyhan put it: "Reagan won our hearts the day he was shot. He almost became JFK and settled instead for John Wayne, becoming legend with a wince and a wisecrack: 'I hope all you doctors are Republicans.' "

Mr. Reagan also survived colon cancer. Within weeks of an operation to remove cancerous polyps in 1985, he was riding the range again at Rancho del Cielo, his mountaintop California ranch northwest of Santa Barbara. Never one to dwell on negatives, Mr. Reagan managed to persuade himself that he never had cancer. As Mr. Reagan described his medical condition, the surgeons had removed "a self-contained polyp" that "had begun to develop a few cancer cells."

One of the paradoxes of Mr. Reagan's political career was that he campaigned ceaselessly against government, even as an incumbent president, but wound up strengthening the presidency and the influence of the central government. John B. Anderson, an independent candidate for president in 1980, complained that Mr. Reagan "made government seem more an enemy than a friend of the people." But because American attitudes toward government closely reflect their opinion of the president, public opinion surveys showed that trust in government increased during the Reagan years.

Conservative columnist George Will, a friend and confidant of Mr. Reagan, contended that he also made enduring political contributions to his party and to the conservative movement. "He caused conservatives to grow up," Will said. "He changed the conservative movement from one of catharsis for the disaffected into a movement of government."

One of the weapons in Mr. Reagan's personal arsenal for accomplishing this change was his irrepressible sense of humor. Few politicians understood the distinction between seriousness of purpose and taking oneself too seriously as well as Mr. Reagan, who relentlessly poked fun at himself and his fellow conservatives. Asked after his election in 1966 what kind of governor he would be, Mr. Reagan replied, "I don't know, I've never played a governor." At a Gridiron Dinner early in his presidency, Mr. Reagan quipped, "Sometimes in our administration the right hand doesn't know what the far right hand is doing."

But Mr. Reagan sometimes exhibited lapses that undermined his Great Communicator image. Factual errors were commonplace at his infrequent White House news conferences. He seemed often to have a sketchy command of military matters and once left the impression that submarine-based nuclear missiles could be recalled in flight. He forgot the names of Cabinet officers, trusted aides and visiting dignitaries. In Brazil, he toasted the people of Bolivia.

Mr. Reagan brushed off criticisms about his verbal missteps, which he said were blown out of proportion by the media. In any case, he rarely suffered politically for such mistakes. It became fashionable among the president's critics to say, in a metaphor coined by Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), that Mr. Reagan had a Teflon coating because nothing seemed to stick to him.

Poor but Secure Mr. Reagan was born on Feb. 6, 1911, in Tampico, Ill., in the front bedroom of a five-room flat above the general store on Main Street where his father worked. He was the second and last son of John Edward Reagan, an itinerant shoe salesman known to everyone as Jack, and Nelle Wilson Reagan, who suffered through a delivery so difficult that her doctor advised her not to have more children.

Jack Reagan, a muscular, hard-drinking man of Irish ancestry who dreamed of owning his own shoe store, drifted from town to town in central Illinois before settling in Dixon, where his sons went to high school and which they considered their home town. On the night he was elected president, Mr. Reagan turned to his brother, Neil, and said, "I'll bet they're having a hot time in Dixon tonight."

Mr. Reagan's remembrances of boyhood in small-town central Illinois are tranquil ones, reminiscent of the attitudes of George Orwell's middle-class heroes about life in England before World War I. "It isn't that life was softer than now," says one of them. "Actually, it was harder. People on the whole worked harder, lived less comfortably and died more painfully. . . . And yet what was it people had in those days? A feeling of security, even when they weren't secure. More exactly, it was a feeling of continuity."

This feeling was expressed sentimentally by Mr. Reagan in his autobiography, "Where's the Rest of Me?" published in 1965, in which he described his boyhood as "a rare Huck Finn idyll" in which he explored the mysteries of woods and meadows and enjoyed escapades and pickup games of football with other boys.

But there was a dark side to Mr. Reagan's childhood. His father was an alcoholic, and Mr. Reagan's autobiography describes a scene in which, as a rather scrawny 11-year-old boy, he discovered him "drunk, dead to the world" on the porch and dragged him in from the snow and up to bed. Mr. Reagan acknowledged in later interviews that his father's drinking was a recurrent problem of his boyhood. As a child, he shared his mother's distaste for alcohol. As an adult, he would drink a glass of wine with dinner but rarely consumed hard liquor.

Mr. Reagan's mother, Nelle, dominated the household, took her children to concerts and plays, and was the major influence in her younger son's life. Neil often observed that he was more like Jack Reagan in his habits, while his brother took after their mother. Neil was baptized in the Roman Catholic religion of his father, but Ronald became a member of his mother's Christian Church (the Disciples of Christ).

According to family accounts, Ronald Reagan began to read when he was 5, enjoyed participating in family theatricals and possessed a remarkable memory that his brother described as photographic.

The Reagans, never prosperous, were almost crushed by the Depression, which forced his father to close a shoe store opened with borrowed money and sent his mother to work in a dress shop for &dol;14 a week. Years later, trying to demonstrate that he understood the problems of the unemployed, Mr. Reagan frequently related a Depression story about how his father, then working as a salesman, opened a letter on Christmas Eve expecting a bonus and learned that he had been fired. Describing his family's economic plight in those days, Mr. Reagan said, "We didn't live on the wrong side of the tracks, but we lived so close to them we could hear the whistle real loud."

But Mr. Reagan rarely dwelt on deprivation in talking about his boyhood. Except for the references to his father's alcoholism, Mr. Reagan's accounts of his boyhood in Dixon were exceptionally cheerful.

For seven summers, Dutch Reagan, as he was then known, worked as a lifeguard at Lowell Park on a treacherous section of the Rock River north of Dixon, and rescued 77 people. Mr. Reagan also became an accomplished doodler, dreamed of becoming a cartoonist and was the lightest tackle on his undermanned high school football team, which in his senior year in 1927 lost seven of nine games. The motto under his class photo in his senior yearbook, echoing a rosy sentiment that Mr. Reagan had expressed earlier that year in a poem, said, "Life is just one grand sweet song, so start the music."

The subsequent four years at Eureka College, a small liberal arts school near Peoria, were also generally happy ones for Mr. Reagan, an indifferent student but an enthusiastic football player who was valued more for scrappiness than his athletic skills. He became a leading member of the dramatic society, joined a fraternity, washed dishes in the girls' dormitory and nourished an ambition to become a radio announcer.

Radio Days Mr. Reagan graduated on June 7, 1932, in the depths of the Depression. The cement plant where his brother worked had closed, and most of the family income came from Nelle Reagan's income as a seamstress. But Mr. Reagan was typically optimistic about his job prospects, even at a time when millions of Americans were unemployed.

Borrowing a well-worn family car, Mr. Reagan set out on a swing of small-town radio stations. In Davenport, Iowa, he tried out for a part-time sports announcer's job, recreating the fourth quarter of a Eureka College football game from memory. He gave it a Reaganesque twist on the winning touchdown, giving himself credit for a block that he had missed.

The tryout earned Mr. Reagan what became a &dol;10-a-game job broadcasting University of Iowa home football games. When a staff announcer's job opened up, Mr. Reagan was hired by WOC for &dol;100 a month. While he found it difficult to read commercials in a conversational tone, Mr. Reagan learned that he could sound spontaneous if he memorized a script before he read it. He followed this practice with important radio and television speeches during much of his political career.

Mr. Reagan's principal gift as an announcer was his voice, which, in the words of a subsequent observer, "recedes at the right moments, turning mellow at points of intensity. When it wishes to be most persuasive, it hovers barely above a whisper so as to win you over by intimacy, if not by substance. . . . He likes his voice, treats it like a guest. . . . It was that voice that carried him out of Dixon and away from the Depression."

In 1933, Reagan's voice carried him to Des Moines and WOC's larger sister station, WHO. Broadcasting over a new 50,000-watt clear-channel station that carried throughout the Midwest, Mr. Reagan became a well-known sports announcer whose specialty was recreating play-by-play accounts of Chicago Cubs baseball games that the station received through telegraphic wire.

Mr. Reagan was fascinated by Hollywood. In 1937, he went to Catalina off the Southern California coast to cover the spring training of the Chicago Cubs, and an actress friend from Des Moines introduced him to movie agent Bill Meiklejohn. By his account, Mr. Reagan considerably exaggerated his college acting experience, and Meiklejohn persuaded Warner Bros. to give him a screen test. He passed, and Mr. Reagan quit his radio job and drove to California in a new Nash convertible.

At the time, Hollywood was a magnet for stage-struck Americans, and many aspiring actors who had been signed to contracts waited months or years to make their first films. But Warner Bros. was looking for a wholesome and likable young man for its B-movie division to replace Ross Alexander, an actor who had committed suicide. Mr. Reagan, who vaguely resembled Alexander, filled the bill.

The Face Is Familiar Mr. Reagan made his film debut in June 1937 as a crusading radio announcer in a minor crime movie, "Love Is on the Air." During the next two decades, he made 52 films, concluding with "Hellcats of the Navy" in 1957, in which the leading lady was his second wife, Nancy Davis. A 53rd film, "The Killers" -- the only movie in which Reagan portrayed a villain -- was made for television in 1964 but was ultimately released in movie theaters because it was considered too violent for the small screen.

Mr. Reagan's film career was a productive one in which he displayed a particular talent for light comedy roles. While often overshadowed by better-known actors, he received many good reviews. Much of Mr. Reagan's early career was spent in the B-film division, where his knack for quick memorization made him a valuable asset. Producers of B films, as Mr. Reagan often put it, "didn't want them good, they wanted them Thursday." Mr. Reagan was considered a cheerful journeyman who worked hard and did not agitate for star roles. Most often, as Garry Wills put it in his social history "Reagan's America," Mr. Reagan played "the heart-warming role of himself."

Mr. Reagan graduated to major movies with a small but significant part in the 1940 film "Knute Rockne -- All American," which starred Pat O'Brien as the famed Notre Dame football coach. Mr. Reagan played George Gipp, a Notre Dame football player who died of pneumonia and years later was the inspiration for a Rockne halftime pep talk in which he exhorted his team to "win one for the Gipper." Four decades later, this nickname was revived by reporters covering the presidential campaign, who routinely called Mr. Reagan "the Gipper."

In one scene in the movie, Gipp arrives for a Notre Dame football practice and is asked by Rockne if he can carry the ball. "How far?" Gipp replies with an insouciance that typified Mr. Reagan, in both his film and political careers.

Of all Mr. Reagan's films, the most acclaimed and his personal favorite was "Kings Row," set in a small southern town. Mr. Reagan was cast as Drake McHugh, a pleasure-loving young man whose legs are sadistically amputated by a crazed surgeon (Charles Coburn) who wants to keep him away from his daughter. When he awakens from surgery and finds that his legs are missing, McHugh cries out, "Where's the rest of me?" Mr. Reagan used this line as the title of his 1965 autobiography; he said it was intended as a symbolic expression that there was more to his life than making movies.

By the time "Kings Row" was released in 1942, Mr. Reagan was in the Army. He had joined the cavalry reserve in 1937 because he liked to ride horses and was called to duty in April 1942. But Mr. Reagan's nearsightedness disqualified him from combat duty. Instead, he was assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit of the Army Air Corps, which had taken over the Hal Roach studios in Culver City a few miles from Mr. Reagan's home. Mr. Reagan spent the war at Fort Roach, as its inhabitants called it, making training films and appearing in a 1943 Irving Berlin musical, "This Is the Army." He was discharged on Dec. 9, 1945, with the rank of captain.

Mr. Reagan met his first wife, actress Jane Wyman, in the 1938 film "Brother Rat," which featured the debut of Eddie Albert. Their relationship was encouraged by gossip columnist Louella Parsons, another Californian who came from Dixon. They were married in Glendale on Jan. 26, 1940, and had a daughter, Maureen Elizabeth, a year later. In 1945, they adopted a son, Michael Edward. Another child was born four months premature in 1947 and died the same day.

In May 1948, Wyman filed for divorce, saying that Mr. Reagan had become "very political" and that she did not share his interests. Mr. Reagan, trying to save the marriage, acknowledged in an interview with his friend Parsons that he may have spent too much time on the Screen Actors Guild and politics. "Perhaps I should have let someone else save the world and saved my own home," he said.

The divorce became final on July 18, 1949. Because Mr. Reagan neither initiated nor wanted the divorce, he sometimes behaved as if it had not occurred. Thirty-two years later, he said in an interview, "I was divorced in the sense that the decision was made by somebody else."

Mr. Reagan often described the two-year period after his divorce as the most difficult of his life. He became despondent and quarrelsome and was dissatisfied with the film roles offered him by Warner Bros.Like many other actors on the verge of stardom before World War II, he was not well known to the new young audiences that flocked to the movie theaters after the war.

A Change of Heart In these uneasy years, Hollywood was shaken by labor strife, congressional inquiries into alleged communist influence and competition from the fledgling medium of television. All these events impinged on Mr. Reagan, a self-proclaimed "bleeding-heart liberal" who had joined the United World Federalists, which advocated world government.

But Mr. Reagan's liberalism did not last long. He was soon persuaded that the Communist Party was trying to dominate liberal groups to which he belonged and gain control of Hollywood craft unions. Mr. Reagan briefly became an FBI informant, although this was not known at the time, and an ardent anti-communist. As president of the Screen Actors Guild, which he led in a successful strike against the movie producers, he helped implement the blacklist that prevented suspected Communists from working in movies. At the same time, Mr. Reagan opposed what he viewed as an indiscriminate effort by the House Un-American Activities Committee to smear liberals who had unwittingly joined leftist organizations.

Although he remained a Democrat for the next decade, the political struggles of this period left a mark on Mr. Reagan, who would later trace his anti-communism to clashes with communists in the film industry.

Mr. Reagan met Nancy Davis, an attractive minor actress at MGM, in 1951, at the height of the congressional investigations. By her account, she had a friend arrange the meeting with Mr. Reagan on the pretext that she needed to explain personally why her name had wrongly appeared on a list of supposed communist sympathizers.

Nancy Davis said later that she knew immediately that Mr. Reagan was "the man I wanted to marry." They were married on March 4, 1952, and Nancy Davis quit her career to become a wife and mother. Their daughter, Patricia Ann, was born later that year. In 1958, Nancy Reagan gave birth to their second child, named Ronald Prescott.

Mr. Reagan's career also took a new direction. He had been an early critic of television for its potential impact on Hollywood, but when it became clear to him that the new medium was here to stay, Mr. Reagan decided to join it. In 1952, as Screen Actors Guild president, he signed a confidential contract with Music Corp. of America allowing it to produce an unlimited number of television shows. Two years later, Taft Schreiber, the MCA vice president in charge of television productions, asked Mr. Reagan to host "General Electric Theater," a new series of weekly dramas that became the most popular show in its 9 p.m. Sunday time slot and by 1956-57 was rated third among all TV shows.

Mr. Reagan's contract with General Electric, initially for &dol;125,000 a year and soon raised to &dol;150,000, introduced him to a new generation of young people, many of whom would later vote for him. It also provided an unusual political apprenticeship. The contract required Mr. Reagan to spend 10 weeks a year touring GE plants, giving as many as 14 speeches a day. "We drove him to the limit," said Edward Langley, then a GE public relations man. "We saturated him in Middle America." Out of this saturation came the polished and patriotic speech that Mr. Reagan delivered for Goldwater in 1964, two years after his GE contract ended.

By then, Ronald and Nancy Reagan were an enduring team. She was supportive of his ambitions, shrewd in her personal judgments and highly protective. In Mr. Reagan's political campaigns and subsequently in the White House, she became a powerful figure who played a key role in choosing and ousting aides on the basis of their loyalty and effectiveness. Nancy Reagan acknowledged that she took a role in selecting her husband's staff, saying he needed this because he was sometimes too tolerant in his judgment of people. Mr. Reagan was similarly protective. While he often brushed aside attacks on his policies, he bridled at even the slightest criticism of his wife.

Mr. Reagan left office on a high note on Jan. 20, 1989. The last Gallup Poll of his presidency gave him a 63 percent approval rating, the highest for any departing president since FDR died in office in 1945. Mr. Reagan was also buoyed by the 1988 presidential election, in which Vice President George Bush defeated Democrat Michael Dukakis, an outcome some commentators said reflected the electorate's desire for a continuation of the Reagan presidency.

The Longer View Mr. Reagan's first years of retirement in California were idyllic. The Reagans moved to a spacious ranch house on a wooded acre in upscale Bel Air, a five-minute drive from Mr. Reagan's office on the 34th floor at 2121 Avenue of the Stars in Century City, where he worked on his memoirs. Whenever possible, he slipped away to his mountaintop ranch, a two-hour drive from Bel Air, to ride horses and do ranch work. On May 3, 1992, the Reagans hosted Mikhail Gorbachev and his wife, Raisa, at Rancho del Cielo, where they gave their visitors white Stetson hats and reminisced about the old days.

Nancy Reagan observed that her husband had a preference for heights. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, built at a cost of &dol;57 million, was also on a mountaintop, this one in Simi Valley, with an expansive view of rugged, brown hills that had served as backdrops for movie Westerns.

The dedication of this library at a Nov. 4, 1991, ceremony brought together five presidents for the first time in history. Jimmy Carter, the only Democrat among the presidents, set the tone of the event when he said, "Under President Ronald Reagan, the nation stayed strong and resolute and made possible the end of the Cold War."

But Mr. Reagan's world changed in 1993, when Mrs. Reagan and their friends noticed that he seemed increasingly forgetful. The first public demonstration of his decline occurred on Feb. 6, 1993, at the Reagan library, where Mr. Reagan repeated a toast to Mrs. Thatcher verbatim during a celebration of his 82nd birthday. At his annual visit to the Mayo Clinic in 1994, doctors diagnosed Alzheimer's disease.

Mrs. Reagan wanted the world to remember her husband in the prime of his presidency and guarded him from visitors, caring for him with protection from the Secret Service and assistance from a dedicated nurse. Out of public life, Mr. Reagan became an almost mythological figure. In the 1990s, when young basketball players were saying that they wanted to "be like Mike," in reference to the iconic basketball star Michael Jordan, Republicans of varying views and capabilities were promising to be like Ronald Reagan. During the 2000 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, both Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain claimed to be Mr. Reagan's rightful heir, even though the negative commercials they used to attack each other contrasted with Mr. Reagan's positive style of campaigning.

Meanwhile, historians were reevaluating the Reagan presidency, which looked better to many of them in retrospect then it did when he left office. A Sienna Research Institute survey of academic historians and political scientists ranked Mr. Reagan 22nd among the then-40 presidents soon after he left office, but he rose steadily in subsequent rankings. In 2000, a C-SPAN poll of presidential historians and biographers placed Mr. Reagan 11th among presidents. The eminent political historian James MacGregor Burns, best known for his books about Franklin D. Roosevelt, said in a 1999 column in The Washington Post that Mr. Reagan would rank with FDR among the "great" or "near-great" presidents of the 20th century.

Among those who shared a high opinion of Mr. Reagan was his old rival, Mikhail Gorbachev, who in a retrospective on American television called Mr. Reagan "a really big person -- a very great political leader." It was an opinion widely shared by Mr. Reagan's fellow Americans.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer
 
What does that mean?

I find it absurd that you guys accuse me of being the one who lacke nuance. America got it's hands dirty in the cold war. So what? I think it's absurd that you think you have the right to judge the American nation for actions it did against the most violent, repressed nation, that, besides fucking over thier own people, fucked over the people they conquered in the pre-war period, and put in people like Checescu.

Did America have a Chechescu? Did we have three? Did we have purges? Did we have Stalin? No. We did not.

Nuance. Learn the word- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nuance


This fear of Communism being a plague that would engulf the world is what, IMHO, caused much of the trouble with causing the US to interfere for the worst in the long run. Reagan was a far greater threat to world peace than Gorbachev was and he managed to single handedly demolish the chance of a welfare state which has ramifications for how you live today. I think that people overestimated the threat of Communist influence.
End of the welfare state? Yeah, go tell that to people over in the Projects. Great laugh, they'll have.

Surely, however, the Soviet Union was the greater enemie to world peace then Reagen. What if a civil war triggered? What would happen if the Tanks moved in, took Gorbachev out of office?

Fear of communism? By God, do you mean to suggest that the people of Poland, the people of Bulgaria, the people of Romania, where BETTER under Communist rule?
 
I think that the whole fear of Communism as an idealogy was wrong. The enemy was not Communism but the oppressive Russians and their influence on the states that were effectively controlled by Moscow. My family came to Australia to escape the Communist regime in Poland put there by the Russians, who just wanted an excuse to protect their own borders and increase their power. Do you think that the Polish would have been Communist if the Soviets hadn't taken them over? But then the US supported fascists to stop evil Communism when they should have just opposed Russian influence in the early Cold War years.
 
Looked at a newpaper lately?
You do realise your economy still is fucked up, don't you? It's still nowhere near per-sept 11.

Eh? No.
It was a combined effort. Gorbachev's initial stupidity in the war with Afghanistan, Reagen's support of the Mujahhadeen, Reagen's simply out-building the USSR, Gorbachev's attempt to turn the USSR into smething more of a 2nd Way Social Democracy.....Reagen and Gorbachev where the two most important people involved, but I'd say Reagen was more important.
How, exactly? You keep stating it as if it were a fact. "Yes, Reagan destroyed the USSR. Bwaha!"
But really, you've never given any detail whatsoever. Not even here. Frankly, I doubt Reagan could have done anything with his case of alzheimer's then.

Wow. THat's fairly close to a lie. First of all, he sold chemical wepons to the Iraqis so they would'nt go to the Commies. He realized that the most important thing in the world was getting rid of the commies. And he did.
Eh? How is "he sold chemical weapons to Iraq" exactly "close to a lie." He just did. There's no lie there.

Reagen's legacy will be eradicating the greatest threat to wold peace in history, and bringing the world back from the brink of total nuclear annihialation. Did he have problems? Yes. But he did more then any post war president to bring stability and peace to the world.
No, it won't. Reagan's legacy will probably be a legacy of failures, since that is almost always what people remember. More specifically, in case you hadn't just noticed, no-one here thinks that he helped bring the USSR down. So how exactly do you think to keep this "legacy" intact on your own?
Your statements here are so fucking ignorant it's almost unbelievable. He spent a great deal on arms, he messed a lot with the economy, and then you claim that he brought stability. It's incredible how misguided people can be.


And he just died for Christ's sake. Dont mock a man on the day he dies...
We're stating truths. That's not mocking.

Number are of little relevance at this point. Do you think Hitler wouldn't have killed 100 or 150 million people had he had the means? Bluntly put, Stalin killed more people because he had a bigger supply.

What I'm saying is that genocide was a practice of Stalin's regime, and not a policy inherent to communism. That's why it's incorrect to call USSR "the most genocidal", since countries like Nazi Germany practiced genocide to a much greater extent because it's inherent to Nazi ideology. Had there been 50 million Jews in Germany, Nazis would have killed them all without blinking, you can be sure of that.
*sigh*
Okay, ratty, we're talking about which nation was the most genocidal one. There is only one way to measure that, and that is with numbers. Stalin was undoubtedly the worst, or at least one of the worst. This is not about intent, this is about what had actually happened.
Plus, no-one is saying that genocide is inherent to communism (well, not now anyway.), we're talking about the regime itself. ANd the regime was Stalin's regime, and genocide was committed. Therefore the USSR was one of the most genocidal regimes in history.
Do not equate communism with USSR, please, since that's what you're doing.

That's bullshit. Marx clearly stated that he top of the social ladder must be DESTROYED, thus that falls under the definition of Genocide.
Okay, this is one of the stupidest statements ever made. Marx was not talking about the violent destruction of the social ladder, or even the murdering of those people. He was talking about kicking out the entire social ladder in itself. He does not pretend to want to kill everyone.

Do you think all these people died because of Chemical wepons? You're bullshiting me here Wooz, I expect better. THe vast majority of Iranian and Iraqi casualties where NOT because of Chemical wepons, and anyway, do you think we still sold it to them after they used it?
What the hell did you expect them to do with the chemical weapons? Eat them? Sjeesj.
Really, CC, you need to start looking at history without the bias and the complete unbalance. You blatantly ignore whatever fact you don't like, and then you pull out completely nonsensical logical twists of the mind to "prove" your point.
Gorbachev's incompitence and last minute trying to fix the USSR doomed it. But the main reason the people of Russia DEMANDED change was because the USSR did not want to fall behind technololgically the Americans, and they just could'nt keep up. More in the article.
What? You don't think it's the bit where they all got repressed and were economically in a really bad place, and Gorbachev who tried to counter that by altering the system, which would finally come crashing down with Jeltsin? No? Interesting...

I find it absurd that you guys accuse me of being the one who lacke nuance. America got it's hands dirty in the cold war. So what? I think it's absurd that you think you have the right to judge the American nation for actions it did against the most violent, repressed nation, that, besides fucking over thier own people, fucked over the people they conquered in the pre-war period, and put in people like Checescu.
We're not saying that somehow the USA was worse than the USSR ('cept for maybe Ratty), but we're calling you unnuanced because you pass by all of the historical facts and nuances and plaise every bit of responsibility for any good thing happening from the beginning of Reagan's presidency to 1990 with Reagan. That's not only silly, it's completely unbalanced, it lacks nuance and is historically completely incorrect. THAT is why we're calling you unnuanced.

Don't steal my fucking lines. Mkay?

End of the welfare state? Yeah, go tell that to people over in the Projects. Great laugh, they'll have.
Indeed, because their lives are all so really great, and your welfare state is really so great in comparison to, say, the deconstructed Dutch welfare state of today. Oh, wait, our welfare state is still much bigger than yours even though ours has been deconstructed throughout some 20-odd years. Hah! Welfare state in the USA...

Surely, however, the Soviet Union was the greater enemie to world peace then Reagen. What if a civil war triggered? What would happen if the Tanks moved in, took Gorbachev out of office?
"What ifs" are no way to argue something, CC. Look at the facts and then comment. You cannot really believe that increasing the deficit of the USA by almost three times its previous value to increase military spending by a huge amount is contributing to world peace.

Fear of communism:
Fear of communism is only justified in part. A significant part of communist ideology was indeed to convert the entire world to communism, possibly by force, and the USSR acted upon this ideology, at least under Stalin it did.
However, this does not mean that everything communist is suddenly something to be feared. Post-war Greece was suffering from oppression, and there were communist rebels, who had been freedom fighters during the Italian/German presence, who wanted to change that; they wanted to give farmers some money, and they wanted to get rid of an oligarchic government. However, when the communists did something, the USA saw it as an attempt made by Stalin to instate yet another communist regime. This cost the Greeks a lot of lives and suffering, and it has been shown that Stalin had nothing to do with the Greek communists. It's things like that that make a fear of all communism a stupid and silly thing.
 
I think Sander just owned you, CCR... tee-hee!

CCR said:
That's bullshit. Marx clearly stated that he top of the social ladder must be DESTROYED, thus that falls under the definition of Genocide.
What?! Marx never promoted genocide, where the hell did you hear that?

I don't really think you fully understand what communism is to most (sane) people. You guys where actually more stable under communism then democracy.
I would hardly qualify paranoid fear of communism as "sane". Communism as a system is based on idea of equality and welfare for everyone. Though it failed to put these ideals to practice, it's a fallacy to judge it as some kind of evil ideology whose disseminators are bent on destroying every spark of good in the world and turning Earth into Hell. And if I had to choose between a totalitarian fascistoid regime depicted in corporate anti-utopia movies and a communist dictatorship, I'd go with communist dictatorship any day.

Let me tell you something from my personal experience. My grandpa was a high-ranking politician and a very senior Party member in his time. By hanging out with him, I had opportunity to meet many communist politicans, including former Yugoslavian ministers of agriculture, of defense and of external affairs. I even met a former JNA colonel who was Tito's pilot in World War II! I can tell you that none of these people are evil boogeymen with genocide of capitalists in their mind. Quite the contrary, they are mostly very kind and intelligent people, true idealists who mean well and are determined to bring justice, equality and unity to my country, but who are also deluded and unable to grasp the fact that their system is inherently flawed and can never work. I'd rather be ruled by these honest and straightforward, if a bit blunt people, than by sleazy capitalist demagogues who traded their seat in Trilateral Commission for a comfy chair in a government office and now work with nothing but their personal gain in mind.

Did America have a Chechescu?
Oh, you had your share of cruel genocidal dictators who acted as your puppets. Ever heard of Augusto Pinochet or Manuel Noriega? I'll choose communism over fascism any day, thank you. And it's spelled Ceausescu.

Sander said:
Okay, ratty, we're talking about which nation was the most genocidal one. There is only one way to measure that, and that is with numbers. Stalin was undoubtedly the worst, or at least one of the worst. This is not about intent, this is about what had actually happened.
Plus, no-one is saying that genocide is inherent to communism (well, not now anyway.), we're talking about the regime itself. ANd the regime was Stalin's regime, and genocide was committed. Therefore the USSR was one of the most genocidal regimes in history.
Do not equate communism with USSR, please, since that's what you're doing.
Do not equate Stalin's regime with USSR, please, since that's what you're doing. There were Soviet dictators after Stalin, some of them rigid like Brezhnyev, others quite competent and open-minded like Gorby. By saying that USSR is the most genocidal country in the history, you imply that all regimes that ruled it were genocidal. This is simply not the case. Genocide in USSR was work of one insane individual and his chronies. In Third Reich, genocide was work of the entire nation, and it was a continous practice as long as Third Reich existed as a political entity (which was a relatively brief time). As far as I'm concerned, that's at least one country that was more genocidal than Soviet Union.

That said, I'm glad USA outlived the USSR and managed to prevent spread of rigid communism. I strongly believe in socialist ideals, but I also believe they should be administered in ways that don't include a bullet to the back of your head.
 
Do not equate Stalin's regime with USSR, please, since that's what you're doing.
I'm not. I am saying that Stalin made up a significant part of the entirety regime of the USSR, and therefore the actions he took should not be seen as loose from the regime of the USSR. He was as much a part of the USSR-regime as Gorbatchev was. Probably moreso, because he was in office much longer.

Do not equate Stalin's regime with USSR, please, since that's what you're doing.
No, I am not. I am explicitly stating that Stalin's regime was one of the most genocidal regimes in history, and that therefore the entirety of the USSR regime was, viewed in a total view. However, I am not saying that the USSR regime was genocidal after Stalin left. Do not put words into my mouth or try to pull meanings from them that are not there, thank you.

This is simply not the case. Genocide in USSR was work of one insane individual and his chronies.
True, but that one insane individual and his chronies ruled the USSR for the longest period of time of any ruler, and moreover, they established a lot of the ideological and practical basis of the later USSR. Therefore it is impossible to view the USSR as seperate from Stalin, even though some of the actins of Stalin were not contiued after his well-deserved death.

In Third Reich, genocide was work of the entire nation, and it was a continous practice as long as Third Reich existed as a political entity (which was a relatively brief time). As far as I'm concerned, that's at least one country that was more genocidal than Soviet Union.
Here you make a mistake: you try to judge a country's "genocidalness" by its intent. This cannot be done, because it makes no sense. The intent of Stalin was to establish complete cotrol, and in the process he got rid of everyone he disliked. That was genocide. The intent of Hitler was to kill all jews, that too was genocide. However, when you look at the facts you will notice that Stalin probably killed more, and therefore Stalin's regime (and with it the regime of the USSR) should be judged as more genocidal.
It is impossible to judge a nation by intent, because that would mean that some of the most misguided regimes are the "best" regimes ever established. Intent does not equate action.
 
You do realise your economy still is fucked up, don't you? It's still nowhere near per-sept 11.
Yeah, it's pretty close, as the internet boublle popped before 9/11, and we have another internet economy growing, this one not a boubble.

How, exactly? You keep stating it as if it were a fact. "Yes, Reagan destroyed the USSR. Bwaha!"
But really, you've never given any detail whatsoever. Not even here. Frankly, I doubt Reagan could have done anything with his case of alzheimer's then.
The war in Afghanistan was probably among the most important events in the decline of the USSR. Only thing Carter did was have an embargo. Reagen trains the Mujahhadeen. Gives them the only wepon they can use against the Hinds, the best wepon the USSR had in this war:stingers. Without American intervention, the war in Afghanistan for the USSR would have created another satallite state, like Mongolia.

And do you mean to suggest that it would have happened without Reagen? If Dukakis had been president? The reason the USSR had no economy was because they focused on keeping up with the US in terms of military industrial capacity. That's why they failed-they focused upon keeping up with the US instead of keeping thier people content, and they did'nt have the capacity for both.


Eh? How is "he sold chemical weapons to Iraq" exactly "close to a lie." He just did. There's no lie there.
You know what? You state this like it is some kind of absolute truth.
The main people to give chemical wepons to Saddam and the Ayyatohlas are...(drumroll please).....BRITISH AND GERMAN COMPANIES!

No, it won't. Reagan's legacy will probably be a legacy of failures, since that is almost always what people remember. More specifically, in case you hadn't just noticed, no-one here thinks that he helped bring the USSR down. So how exactly do you think to keep this "legacy" intact on your own?
Your statements here are so fucking ignorant it's almost unbelievable. He spent a great deal on arms, he messed a lot with the economy, and then you claim that he brought stability. It's incredible how misguided people can be.
Yeah, but how many people here are liberal?

My own? Damn, when was the last time you penetrated the Coasts of the US?

We're stating truths. That's not mocking.
I frankly don't think this discussion on you're side is appropriate today. The guy died one of the more horrifying deaths I can imagine.

Okay, ratty, we're talking about which nation was the most genocidal one. There is only one way to measure that, and that is with numbers. Stalin was undoubtedly the worst, or at least one of the worst. This is not about intent, this is about what had actually happened.
Plus, no-one is saying that genocide is inherent to communism (well, not now anyway.), we're talking about the regime itself. ANd the regime was Stalin's regime, and genocide was committed. Therefore the USSR was one of the most genocidal regimes in history.
Do not equate communism with USSR, please, since that's what you're doing.
Yeah. Why compare it to the USSR, when I have Cambodia or Maoist China, that actually killed more people percentage wise (CAmbodia) or just killed more people (Maoist China)?

Okay, this is one of the stupidest statements ever made. Marx was not talking about the violent destruction of the social ladder, or even the murdering of those people. He was talking about kicking out the entire social ladder in itself. He does not pretend to want to kill everyone.
Sorry. I seem to have forgotten his years of fighting against the violent Communards, or his distaste for violent revolution. :roll:


What the hell did you expect them to do with the chemical weapons? Eat them? Sjeesj.
Really, CC, you need to start looking at history without the bias and the complete unbalance. You blatantly ignore whatever fact you don't like, and then you pull out completely nonsensical logical twists of the mind to "prove" your point.
Firstly, the more I look at evidence, the less there seems to be that the US sold Chemical wepons to Iraq. Secondly, it was extremely important that the Soviet Union not gain a foothold in the MidEast, and the US just tried to keep them out of there.

Again, I realize that the US did some REALLY shitty things. But we where fighting an enemy who was in comparison evil. I don't really think you are able to keep that in perspective.

What? You don't think it's the bit where they all got repressed and were economically in a really bad place, and Gorbachev who tried to counter that by altering the system, which would finally come crashing down with Jeltsin? No? Interesting...
Why where they economically in a hard place? Can you say US policies?

We're not saying that somehow the USA was worse than the USSR ('cept for maybe Ratty), but we're calling you unnuanced because you pass by all of the historical facts and nuances and plaise every bit of responsibility for any good thing happening from the beginning of Reagan's presidency to 1990 with Reagan. That's not only silly, it's completely unbalanced, it lacks nuance and is historically completely incorrect. THAT is why we're calling you unnuanced.
Yeah. I go to bed at night and jerk off to the idea of giving wepons to the Mullahs for terrorists to realease hostigaes, and Contras. That's exactly what I do.

Indeed, because their lives are all so really great, and your welfare state is really so great in comparison to, say, the deconstructed Dutch welfare state of today. Oh, wait, our welfare state is still much bigger than yours even though ours has been deconstructed throughout some 20-odd years. Hah! Welfare state in the USA...
Yeah. But it's still here. And that's not what that guy said.

"What ifs" are no way to argue something, CC. Look at the facts and then comment. You cannot really believe that increasing the deficit of the USA by almost three times its previous value to increase military spending by a huge amount is contributing to world peace.
It did-it ended communism.
The '80s are over. You guys thought that that would end the world. And we are still here, because we eliminated a threat to world peace.

However, this does not mean that everything communist is suddenly something to be feared. Post-war Greece was suffering from oppression, and there were communist rebels, who had been freedom fighters during the Italian/German presence, who wanted to change that; they wanted to give farmers some money, and they wanted to get rid of an oligarchic government. However, when the communists did something, the USA saw it as an attempt made by Stalin to instate yet another communist regime. This cost the Greeks a lot of lives and suffering, and it has been shown that Stalin had nothing to do with the Greek communists. It's things like that that make a fear of all communism a stupid and silly thing.
:lol:
You think you can argue with me about Greek history? ME?!
Yeah. THey sure did some good Freedom fighting. Damn, do you know ANYTHING about the Greek civil war? They took thousands-FUCK ALMOST A MILLION-children and placed them in Albania and the FYR. They killed thousands.

Jesus, they're the reason Papagos came to power. That and the Turks. Why? People where scared shitless by them.
 
Yeah, it's pretty close, as the internet boublle popped before 9/11, and we have another internet economy growing, this one not a boubble.
Not entirely true, y'know. The economy is still quite bad, and frankly, I wouldn't bet on it getting any better soon. Oil prices are still very down.
And if you now say "but they're going down" you forget the fact that we are talking about now.

The war in Afghanistan was probably among the most important events in the decline of the USSR. Only thing Carter did was have an embargo. Reagen trains the Mujahhadeen. Gives them the only wepon they can use against the Hinds, the best wepon the USSR had in this war:stingers. Without American intervention, the war in Afghanistan for the USSR would have created another satallite state, like Mongolia.
I can't argue you here, mainly because I am unfamiliar with the specifics of this war, and what the democratic stance on this was. Heh.

And do you mean to suggest that it would have happened without Reagen? If Dukakis had been president? The reason the USSR had no economy was because they focused on keeping up with the US in terms of military industrial capacity. That's why they failed-they focused upon keeping up with the US instead of keeping thier people content, and they did'nt have the capacity for both.
More I can't argue with, because my knowledge is to limited. Damnit. Can someone come in here?


You know what? You state this like it is some kind of absolute truth.
The main people to give chemical wepons to Saddam and the Ayyatohlas are...(drumroll please).....BRITISH AND GERMAN COMPANIES!
STOP TWISTING AROUND THE FACTS! Goddamnit, CCR, all I said was that chemical weapons were sold. YOu can't deny that, BECAUSE IT IS A FACT! I'm not saying ANYTHING about other countries or whatever, I'm saying that the Reagan administration sold chemical weapons. You really need to go against every little bit of text I say, don't you? Even when I'm just stating facts.

Yeah, but how many people here are liberal?
Quite a few of them. Then again, there are quite a few liberals in the USA as well.
Frankly, you're the only American around here spouting those views.

My own? Damn, when was the last time you penetrated the Coasts of the US?
When was the last time you looked at opinions? Historians don't exactly view Reagan as a good president, and more than half of your country is still made up out of non-conservatives, and even amongst conversatives there are bound to be people who don't give credit to Reagan for those things.

Yeah. Why compare it to the USSR, when I have Cambodia or Maoist China, that actually killed more people percentage wise (CAmbodia) or just killed more people (Maoist China)?
Compare? Huh? Where, exactly, was I talking about comparison? And compare what exactly? Read what is said , CCR.
Sorry. I seem to have forgotten his years of fighting against the violent Communards, or his distaste for violent revolution
I love it how you take facts and then show me using sound logic and knowledge that I'm completely wrong.
And in case you hadn't noticed yet, that was blatant harsh sarcasm. Get over yourself and use arguments instead of not-so-witty one-liners.

Firstly, the more I look at evidence, the less there seems to be that the US sold Chemical wepons to Iraq.
Que? So...without actually giving us any explanation whatsoever, you just state that it's not likely that the US sold chemical weapons, even though every bit of evidence points in the opposite direction. Oh, goody, that clears everything up for me. I must say, CCR, you really have me convinced.
You know, I think this sarcasm thing is really working out for me. Maybe I'll stick to it.

. Secondly, it was extremely important that the Soviet Union not gain a foothold in the MidEast, and the US just tried to keep them out
of there.

Again, I realize that the US did some REALLY shitty things. But we where fighting an enemy who was in comparison evil.
I hate you for this habit, you know that? You go around every little bit of fact there is, state one thing, the get the facts pointed out to you again, and then try to get around it by swinging the argument in a completely different way.
Let's recap, shall we:
First you state that you did sell them, but that y'know, they didn't cause as many casualties, and that you stopped selling them when they used them.
Then I asked you what you think they would've done with those weapons, and you go a completely different way caliming that you didn't sell those weapons, and completely ignore the fact that you just said that using chemical weapons is bad, and try to point out the usefulness of it all.
Frankly, if this is how you'll continue to debate, I'll completely ignore every single one of your posts from now on. You can do whatever you want, I'm not going to debate with someone who thinks ignoring things and twisting things until people forget what was said is a decent way of making an argument.

I don't really think you are able to keep that in perspective.
You know, I could go off on a little rant about nuance, the importance of it and how I damn well know that, but I'll just leave you with this bit of text to think about it and twist it around to see what your self-centered rhetoric can get out of it.
Yeah, I'm pissed off, you got that straight.

Why where they economically in a hard place? Can you say US policies?
Possibly, possibly it was the fact that they had a shitty system with some bad systems, probably it was a combination of both.

Yeah. I go to bed at night and jerk off to the idea of giving wepons to the Mullahs for terrorists to realease hostigaes, and Contras. That's exactly what I do.
See what I mean? You entirely ignore an argument, twist it around until you like it, and make a completely nonsensical remark which is supposed to make me look bad, but actually makes no sense at all.
You don't make arguments, CCR, you take the facts and twist them around, only stating truths when you happen to like them, and for the rest you only use nice little bullshit remarks o completely, and I mean completely, ignore any argument you can't counter.

Yeah. But it's still here. And that's not what that guy said.
It's still here, although so minutely it doesn't count. I fear that if Bush stays there for any longer, it'll just be gone.

It did-it ended communism.
Lesson 1 in debating: You do not use what you're arguing as a given statement.

Now let's dissect the next bit of text, shall we?
The '80s are over.
This is correct.
You guys thought that that would end the world.
When, exactly, did I think that? How exactly did I even live back then?
And we are still here,
True.
because we eliminated a threat to world peace.
And I need to show you, once again, that that is what we are arguing about. Jesus.

You think you can argue with me about Greek history? ME?!
Yeah. THey sure did some good Freedom fighting. Damn, do you know ANYTHING about the Greek civil war? They took thousands-FUCK ALMOST A MILLION-children and placed them in Albania and the FYR. They killed thousands.

Jesus, they're the reason Papagos came to power. That and the Turks. Why? People where scared shitless by them.
Fuck.you.
Yeah, that's right, fuck you. I haven't said a single thing about how well they were doing, and you go off on a rant about how sucky they were and how they killed almost a million (where, exactly, did you get this statistic from anyway?). Fuck you. That's not what the point was, the point was that the USA helped the established Greek oligarchical government to repell the rebels because the USA were scared of the communists. That's what it was about, it was NOT about how the Greek rebels killed almost a million people.
You keep on twisting arguments around, and you try to make everything go your way. Whenever you see something coming from someone you disagree with in a thread where you're disagreeing with him, you immediately go off in a frenzy to try to comment on each and every statement, and ignore the ones you can't find a thing to say about, no matter how correct these statements may be.
 
Not entirely true, y'know. The economy is still quite bad, and frankly, I wouldn't bet on it getting any better soon. Oil prices are still very down.
And if you now say "but they're going down" you forget the fact that we are talking about now.
China and India's consumption of oil doubles yearly. This is the end of cheap oil, and the market will adjust to it.

STOP TWISTING AROUND THE FACTS! Goddamnit, CCR, all I said was that chemical weapons were sold. YOu can't deny that, BECAUSE IT IS A FACT! I'm not saying ANYTHING about other countries or whatever, I'm saying that the Reagan administration sold chemical weapons. You really need to go against every little bit of text I say, don't you? Even when I'm just stating facts.
Okay. Prove it. I'm saying he did'nt. I've yet to see conclusive evidence that he did, just rhetoric.

Quite a few of them. Then again, there are quite a few liberals in the USA as well.
Frankly, you're the only American around here spouting those views.
This is a tiny board populated mostly by Euros. It's not representative of anything outside of NMA.

When was the last time you looked at opinions? Historians don't exactly view Reagan as a good president, and more than half of your country is still made up out of non-conservatives, and even amongst conversatives there are bound to be people who don't give credit to Reagan for those things.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0605.html

I love it how you take facts and then show me using sound logic and knowledge that I'm completely wrong.
And in case you hadn't noticed yet, that was blatant harsh sarcasm. Get over yourself and use arguments instead of not-so-witty one-liners.
My point was that comparitively the USSR was not the worst of the Communist nations. Cambodia and China where just as bad.

Que? So...without actually giving us any explanation whatsoever, you just state that it's not likely that the US sold chemical weapons, even though every bit of evidence points in the opposite direction. Oh, goody, that clears everything up for me. I must say, CCR, you really have me convinced.
You know, I think this sarcasm thing is really working out for me. Maybe I'll stick to it.
Damnit, you're the one making the claim, prove it.

First you state that you did sell them, but that y'know, they didn't cause as many casualties, and that you stopped selling them when they used them.
Now who's twisting facts?
There's a dffirence between selling and using. If we did sell them it was to limit communist influence in the area and assure that Iran would'nt be able to recreate the Sassanid Empire.

And you're the one twisting the facts here. Do you mean to suggest that all those Iranians and Iraqis would be alive today if somebody had'nt supported an anti-communist regiem? People died in wars long before chemical wepons.

Then I asked you what you think they would've done with those weapons, and you go a completely different way caliming that you didn't sell those weapons, and completely ignore the fact that you just said that using chemical weapons is bad, and try to point out the usefulness of it all.
No, then I realized that you just took this "fact" for granted, that you did'nt even try to prove it, like it was a law of gravity, that everyone knew it.

Frankly, if this is how you'll continue to debate, I'll completely ignore every single one of your posts from now on. You can do whatever you want, I'm not going to debate with someone who thinks ignoring things and twisting things until people forget what was said is a decent way of making an argument.
Yeah, and you've never twisted an argument? I do it, of course, but that's inevitable.

Possibly, possibly it was the fact that they had a shitty system with some bad systems, probably it was a combination of both.

Of course it was a combination of both, but that's my point, both where needed.

See what I mean? You entirely ignore an argument, twist it around until you like it, and make a completely nonsensical remark which is supposed to make me look bad, but actually makes no sense at all.
You don't make arguments, CCR, you take the facts and twist them around, only stating truths when you happen to like them, and for the rest you only use nice little bullshit remarks o completely, and I mean completely, ignore any argument you can't counter.
What?
You're statement (
We're not saying that somehow the USA was worse than the USSR ('cept for maybe Ratty), but we're calling you unnuanced because you pass by all of the historical facts and nuances and plaise every bit of responsibility for any good thing happening from the beginning of Reagan's presidency to 1990 with Reagan. That's not only silly, it's completely unbalanced, it lacks nuance and is historically completely incorrect. THAT is why we're calling you unnuanced
. )
was just as silly. I don't think reagen was God.


It's still here, although so minutely it doesn't count. I fear that if Bush stays there for any longer, it'll just be gone.
:clap:
Nice non-sequitor there. Also flame bait.

Lesson 1 in debating: You do not use what you're arguing as a given statement.

Now let's dissect the next bit of text, shall we?
You said Reagen's policies where not good for world peace. I'm saying that it helped end the Soviet Union, for reasons you where not able to refute.

When, exactly, did I think that? How exactly did I even live back then?
The entire decade of '80s music was based upon the assumption that Reagen was going to end the world. Ever heard 99 Luftballoons? Or played Wasteland even?

Fuck.you.
Yeah, that's right, fuck you. I haven't said a single thing about how well they were doing, and you go off on a rant about how sucky they were and how they killed almost a million (where, exactly, did you get this statistic from anyway?). Fuck you. .
Don't make this personal, please? It just gets annoying. I respect you're debating abilities, why the hell must you come up with shit like "fuck you"?

That's not what the point was, the point was that the USA helped the established Greek oligarchical government to repell the rebels because the USA were scared of the communists. That's what it was about, it was NOT about how the Greek rebels killed almost a million people.
Okay, so we did something wrong? Greece would have been better as a member of the Eastern Bloc?

Do you even realize what you are writing? This is total shit. Papagos and friends where bad, and the Greek Monarchy was somewhat fascistic, but the Communists sprang up as anti-Fascists, not as anti-Monarchists. Thus thier reaction was against the Italian invaders, and not the relitively nice "oligarchial" Monarchy.

You keep on twisting arguments around, and you try to make everything go your way. Whenever you see something coming from someone you disagree with in a thread where you're disagreeing with him, you immediately go off in a frenzy to try to comment on each and every statement, and ignore the ones you can't find a thing to say about, no matter how correct these statements may be.
Mabbe I do. Infact, alot of the time I do.
 
China and India's consumption of oil doubles yearly. This is the end of cheap oil, and the market will adjust to it.
And you do it anyway. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "now"? Huh?

Okay. Prove it. I'm saying he did'nt. I've yet to see conclusive evidence that he did, just rhetoric.
And
Damnit, you're the one making the claim, prove it.
:roll:
Nice links:
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/ronald-reagan/
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/political-scandal/iran-contra/
And then there's this:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
Happy?
This is a tiny board populated mostly by Euros. It's not representative of anything outside of NMA.
So? That little bit of text didn't claim that, now did it?

Oh, yeah, Kerry will really lash out at a deceased president. You do realise that if he were to say anythin negative, his chances of winning the presidency would now be virtually nil.
Plus, I don't see anything about that legacy of communism. YOu're doing it again, CC. You're leading the argument away from it again. If I see this in one more post of yours, I'll just ignore you from now on on this entire board.
My point was that comparitively the USSR was not the worst of the Communist nations. Cambodia and China where just as bad.
And my point was that that had extremely little to do with what was being said.
And it still doesn't have much to do with it.
Now who's twisting facts?
You are.
There's a dffirence between selling and using. If we did sell them it was to limit communist influence in the area and assure that Iran would'nt be able to recreate the Sassanid Empire.

And you're the one twisting the facts here. Do you mean to suggest that all those Iranians and Iraqis would be alive today if somebody had'nt supported an anti-communist regiem? People died in wars long before chemical wepons.
READ WHAT THE FUCK I SAY BEFORE YOU FUCKING COMMENT!
I refuse to give any further comment on this. You fucking ignored EVERYTHING I said there. I'll spell it out for you: F-U-C-K Y-O-U. Oh, I'm offensive? No fucking shit, that's what you get FOR NOT REPLYING TO WHAT I SAY, AND JUST REPEATING WHAT YOU WERE SAYING!

No, then I realized that you just took this "fact" for granted, that you did'nt even try to prove it, like it was a law of gravity, that everyone knew it.
And in doing so YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED WHAT YOU AND I HAD SAID BEFORE!
Yeah, and you've never twisted an argument? I do it, of course, but that's inevitable.
No, it isn't inevitable. If I ever twist an argument you are welcome to tell me, and I'll apologize and change what I said. I will. If you're correct, that is. If you try you can get past it, and simply reply to what is said. Note how I haven't claimed that you were actually wrong on several of those claims you made back there, mainly because my knowledge on the subjects wasn't sufficient.

Of course it was a combination of both, but that's my point, both where needed.
Possibly. Again, I won't comment too much on i because I don't know enough of the facts. Kharn get in here. ;)

What?
You're statement (. )
was just as silly. I don't think reagen was God.
Did i say that? No? Then shut the fuck up. I said that you were placing a lot of responsibility with Reagan where it wasn't due, and gave him a lot more credit than was due. I could go a lot further with that as well. And instead of actually saying anything about it, you make a stupid one-liner. And what worsens it is that you only reply to a small bit of what I said there and ignore the rest. Fuck you.


Nice non-sequitor there. Also flame bait.
Since when is stating an opinion flame-bait? I could show you why I fear that, but it'll derail the thread.
And how exactly is it a non-sequitur? I never stated a causal relationship between the two.
You said Reagen's policies where not good for world peace. I'm saying that it helped end the Soviet Union, for reasons you where not able to refute.
And am still not able to refute. However, that does not mean you can take it on as a given, because I haven't agreed to it. It is not a premiss until I also agree with it. And I haven't.


The entire decade of '80s music was based upon the assumption that Reagen was going to end the world. Ever heard 99 Luftballoons? Or played Wasteland even?
During the 3 years I lived in the 80's I did not listen to music much, y'know, nor did I have a clue what they were talking to. I like some of the music, most I despise, but just because I know the music doesn't mean that I somehow share their thoughts. You addressed me and that group of people as if I belonged to them. I can't have, since I wasn't even alive back then.


Don't make this personal, please? It just gets annoying. I respect you're debating abilities, why the hell must you come up with shit like "fuck you"?
Why? Because I'm not afraid to show my opinion. When I think something, I say it, whether it is correct or incorrect or even friendly. I've stated what I think, and I'll continue doing it.

Okay, so we did something wrong? Greece would have been better as a member of the Eastern Bloc?
Now you're doing the exact same thing as the Americans back then were: you're assuming that the rebels were backed by Stalin and would've joined up with Stalin later on. Fact is, that we'll never know, but fact also is that a lot of rebels weren't hard-line communists, but people who wanted the government to not starve the farmers to death.
Do you even realize what you are writing? This is total shit. Papagos and friends where bad, and the Greek Monarchy was somewhat fascistic, but the Communists sprang up as anti-Fascists, not as anti-Monarchists. Thus thier reaction was against the Italian invaders, and not the relitively nice "oligarchial" Monarchy.
Yes, originally it was. After the war, however, the tables turned, and the rebels, having their country liberated, wanted to make the situation better for the farmers, mainly. So they turned on the oligarchy which was basically starving the small farmers. The USA supported the government because they simply thought that the rebels were a bunch of Stalinist rebels. Remember that we were talking about the fear of communism, not about how justified those rebels were in wanting what they wanted.

Mabbe I do. Infact, alot of the time I do.
Good, then you realise that you do that. Now you should also change it, if you want to, you know, convince anyone, or earn the respect of people.
 
And you do it anyway. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "now"? Huh?
What? Oil prices are'nt going to go down dramatically until we find some kind of synthetic stuff. This is a natural rescource and the need for it is going thru the roof as the two most populated nations in the world need more of it.

Still, job growth is amazing.
Moderatly. I still don't think it's fair to say that Reagen was responsible for the death of a million Iranians/Iraqis, as he stopped after it was apparent that Saddam was insane. Before that he was seen as something more of an Anwar Sadat then an Adolph Hitler.

And, for the record, I'm still skeptical.

Oh, yeah, Kerry will really lash out at a deceased president. You do realise that if he were to say anythin negative, his chances of winning the presidency would now be virtually nil.
Plus, I don't see anything about that legacy of communism. YOu're doing it again, CC. You're leading the argument away from it again. If I see this in one more post of yours, I'll just ignore you from now on on this entire board.
The vast majority of people liked Reagen. Clinton called him the greatest president sense Kennedy in a Vanity Fair interview, and he obviously always liked him.

He was called the Great Communicator for a reason. He was far to the right, but he got alot of Democrats to vote for him. People-Democrats and Republicans alike-like him. Just watch CNN's Crossfire some time. Even Paul Begala does'nt fuck with him.

No, it isn't inevitable. If I ever twist an argument you are welcome to tell me, and I'll apologize and change what I said. I will. If you're correct, that is. If you try you can get past it, and simply reply to what is said. Note how I haven't claimed that you were actually wrong on several of those claims you made back there, mainly because my knowledge on the subjects wasn't sufficient.
Then don't comment on it. When I don't disagree with a statement, or when I know nothing about it, I typically don't comment on it.

Did i say that? No? Then shut the fuck up. I said that you were placing a lot of responsibility with Reagan where it wasn't due, and gave him a lot more credit than was due. I could go a lot further with that as well. And instead of actually saying anything about it, you make a stupid one-liner. And what worsens it is that you only reply to a small bit of what I said there and ignore the rest. Fuck you.

Calm the hell down. I don't think Reagen was responsible for all good things in the 80s, just like I don't think Bush Jr. makes the sun go up and breathes life in to puppies.

Reagen did some odd things. He was the nail in the coffin to McCain's Republican Party, moved it fairly far to the right, which opend the door for Clinton's Demcoratic Party, his deficit hurt America, and he was'nt the smartest guy in the wold (though I find that Rotten article to be offensive and wrong, he was smarter then most people gave him credit for).

Since when is stating an opinion flame-bait? I could show you why I fear that, but it'll derail the thread.
And how exactly is it a non-sequitur? I never stated a causal relationship between the two.
Stated an opinon out of nowhere. It would be like me calling Islam a violent religion in this topic (which I'm not going to do). It has nothing to do with the argument on hand.

During the 3 years I lived in the 80's I did not listen to music much, y'know, nor did I have a clue what they were talking to. I like some of the music, most I despise, but just because I know the music doesn't mean that I somehow share their thoughts. You addressed me and that group of people as if I belonged to them. I can't have, since I wasn't even alive back then.
I was only alive for 2 (a year and a half half of them a Reagen year, whooopie).

Why? Because I'm not afraid to show my opinion. When I think something, I say it, whether it is correct or incorrect or even friendly. I've stated what I think, and I'll continue doing it.
It's just rude. It's not at all nessicary, and it just gets people angry which leads to flame wars rather then good, constructive arguments.

Now you're doing the exact same thing as the Americans back then were: you're assuming that the rebels were backed by Stalin and would've joined up with Stalin later on. Fact is, that we'll never know, but fact also is that a lot of rebels weren't hard-line communists, but people who wanted the government to not starve the farmers to death.
Actually, they did have ties with Stalin. They got thier wepons from him, they took the children they captured to Stalanist nations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1064683,00.html

http://www.grecoreport.com/the_black_book_of_communism_and_the_greek_civil_war.htm
America supported the Monarchists, the Soviets supported the Communists? Why? To support thier ideas.


Yes, originally it was. After the war, however, the tables turned, and the rebels, having their country liberated, wanted to make the situation better for the farmers, mainly. So they turned on the oligarchy which was basically starving the small farmers. The USA supported the government because they simply thought that the rebels were a bunch of Stalinist rebels. Remember that we were talking about the fear of communism, not about how justified those rebels were in wanting what they wanted.


Still, it was'nt fully the Monarchy's fault that these people exsisted. Communisim becomes alot more attractive when the fascists are in the backyard. Look at France.........
 
I warned you. This is, for now, the last post I'm posting in response to you. From now on I'll ignore you.

What? Oil prices are'nt going to go down dramatically until we find some kind of synthetic stuff. This is a natural rescource and the need for it is going thru the roof as the two most populated nations in the world need more of it.

Still, job growth is amazing.
We.were.talking.about.now. Now.is.not.the.future. Am.I.being.clear?
Moderatly. I still don't think it's fair to say that Reagen was responsible for the death of a million Iranians/Iraqis, as he stopped after it was apparent that Saddam was insane. Before that he was seen as something more of an Anwar Sadat then an Adolph Hitler.

And, for the record, I'm still skeptical.
That.was.never.my.fucking.point.
And in case you don't get it: this is why I will ignore your future posts (for now at least).


The vast majority of people liked Reagen. Clinton called him the greatest president sense Kennedy in a Vanity Fair interview, and he obviously always liked him.

He was called the Great Communicator for a reason. He was far to the right, but he got alot of Democrats to vote for him. People-Democrats and Republicans alike-like him. Just watch CNN's Crossfire some time. Even Paul Begala does'nt fuck with him.
No-one fucks with him because now he's dead, and he was demented. It's not nice to fuck with demented people, and it's bad for anyone's political career.
However, I can't fully comment on this, because I don't know the facts about the American public's real opinion on this. My guess is that neither do you, since I haven't seen a poll come from you either.
Although I must say that
Then don't comment on it. When I don't disagree with a statement, or when I know nothing about it, I typically don't comment on it.
I didn't, now did I? When I don't know enough to comment on something, I don't. When I notice that I agree with, I insert a *nods* or something similar. I don't just ignore bits of text, and I certainly don't twist around arguments.
Calm the hell down. I don't think Reagen was responsible for all good things in the 80s, just like I don't think Bush Jr. makes the sun go up and breathes life in to puppies.

Reagen did some odd things. He was the nail in the coffin to McCain's Republican Party, moved it fairly far to the right, which opend the door for Clinton's Demcoratic Party, his deficit hurt America, and he was'nt the smartest guy in the wold (though I find that Rotten article to be offensive and wrong, he was smarter then most people gave him credit for).
Wow. That's quite a turn-around from what you've said in the rest of this thread, y'know.
That's not to say that I disagree with you.
Stated an opinon out of nowhere. It would be like me calling Islam a violent religion in this topic (which I'm not going to do). It has nothing to do with the argument on hand.

Then use the correct term:Dictionary.com's definitoin of non-sequitur:
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
The statement followed logically, because it was on the same subject, adn I did not establish a causal relationship between the two, so point 1 isn't valid either.

I was only alive for 2 (a year and a half half of them a Reagen year, whooopie).
And this has anything to do with this...how? I was complaining about you saying that I believed that, and then you come up with this. You ignore what I say and then state something else.

It's just rude. It's not at all nessicary, and it just gets people angry which leads to flame wars rather then good, constructive arguments.
So? I am clear about what I think and I am not going to change that. I will not simply avoid to hurt someone's feelings or be rude if they've severely pissed me off. And I did not see any good constructive arguments on your side, so you can just as well leave that last bit out of that bit of text.

Actually, they did have ties with Stalin. They got thier wepons from him, they took the children they captured to Stalanist nations.
Burden.of.proof.
They took the children away does not equal "they were supported by Stalin".
And those two links do not state anything of the nature. One states that children are being temporarily let back into Greece, which, again has NOTHING to do with what I was saying, the other link states that the forces abducted children. I am not contesting that, get that through to your brains!
America supported the Monarchists, the Soviets supported the Communists? Why? To support thier ideas.
Wrong. The Soviets would have supported the commuists, if they had been there, which they hadn't. According to the links you gave, only Tito helped. ANd he is not Stalin.
And America supported the Monarchists because they didn't want communists there. That's not supporting their ideas (you know, democracy and all that), that is opposing other ideas. Major difference.
Still, it was'nt fully the Monarchy's fault that these people exsisted. Communisim becomes alot more attractive when the fascists are in the backyard. Look at France.........
Where.did.I.say.that.the.Monarchy.was.to.blaim.for.the.communists?

Right, I hope you enjoy replying to this (or not) because this will be the last bit of text you'll get from me directed at you. Goodbye.
 
I warned you. This is, for now, the last post I'm posting in response to you. From now on I'll ignore you.
Drama queen.

We.were.talking.about.now. Now.is.not.the.future. Am.I.being.clear?
I don't know what you're talking about. Oil prices are going up because demand is going up and it's not going to ever go down unless India and China nuke eachother. Get that clear? These two countries now need all the oil they can get for thier economy, and they're just going to need more. INSPITE OF THIS THE ECONOMY IS STILL GOING UP!

That.was.never.my.fucking.point.
And in case you don't get it: this is why I will ignore your future posts (for now at least).
I know. I just think there was an actual reason to it, Reagen did'nt do it because he was some kind of Sadist or hated the Iranian people.

No-one fucks with him because now he's dead, and he was demented. It's not nice to fuck with demented people, and it's bad for anyone's political career.
However, I can't fully comment on this, because I don't know the facts about the American public's real opinion on this. My guess is that neither do you, since I haven't seen a poll come from you either.
Goddamnit, you think the Vanity Fair article came out today? Clinton liked Reagen. So does Kerry. Ted Kennedy was one of the first people to call Nancy when he died.
People liked Reagen. He is generally conssiderd an above average president outside of the Kucinich left.

Heck, Gorbachev is on CNN right now singing his praises.

I didn't, now did I? When I don't know enough to comment on something, I don't. When I notice that I agree with, I insert a *nods* or something similar. I don't just ignore bits of text, and I certainly don't twist around arguments.
Okay, I ignore it. Maybe I should nod like you, but I find it kind of annoying that in some situations you continue arguing.

Wow. That's quite a turn-around from what you've said in the rest of this thread, y'know.
That's not to say that I disagree with you.
I just don't want to talk about him negatively right now. He just died one of the worst deaths imagineable.

Then use the correct term:Dictionary.com's definitoin of non-sequitur:
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
The statement followed logically, because it was on the same subject, adn I did not establish a causal relationship between the two, so point 1 isn't valid either.
Okay, it was'nt a non-sequitor, but it still smelled kind of flame baity too me.

So? I am clear about what I think and I am not going to change that. I will not simply avoid to hurt someone's feelings or be rude if they've severely pissed me off. And I did not see any good constructive arguments on your side, so you can just as well leave that last bit out of that bit of text.
See, Conservative Americans have a long history of a great thing called emotional repression. You just take all of you're emotions and push them down until you picture them in you're feet, or something along those lines.

Now, occasionally you'll burst out in the middle of a Japanese resteraunt when someone trips one of you're repressed memories, but that's not my problem. Typically in thse kind of debates name calling is not the best approach, unless you just want to toy with that person (which at this point I am suspecting you are doing).

Burden.of.proof.
They took the children away does not equal "they were supported by Stalin".
And those two links do not state anything of the nature. One states that children are being temporarily let back into Greece, which, again has NOTHING to do with what I was saying, the other link states that the forces abducted children. I am not contesting that, get that through to your brains!

They. Where.Stalinists. THey abducted children to give them to Stalanists. That's as good an evidence of anything.

Wrong. The Soviets would have supported the commuists, if they had been there, which they hadn't. According to the links you gave, only Tito helped. ANd he is not Stalin.
And America supported the Monarchists because they didn't want communists there. That's not supporting their ideas (you know, democracy and all that), that is opposing other ideas. Major difference.
Yep, I might have been wrong here. Though I don't have any problem with calling the revolutionaries Stalinsts, as they supported him.

Where.did.I.say.that.the.Monarchy.was.to.blaim.for.the.communists?
You did'nt. I was putting it into perspective that the Monarchy was not to blame for the rise of the Communists. The Greek King was not Chain Kai-Shek.

Right, I hope you enjoy replying to this (or not) because this will be the last bit of text you'll get from me directed at you. Goodbye.
Drama queen.
 
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
I warned you. This is, for now, the last post I'm posting in response to you. From now on I'll ignore you.
Drama queen.

Alright, you two, cut it.

Sander, calm the fuck down and get off your fucking high horse.

CC, don't egg him on and get off *your* fucking high horse.

Can't you two talk to each other as sensible adults? Jeesh.
 
Who says adults are sensible? I know plenty enough who aren’t.

I think the only way this can be settled is a duel by pistols, at dawn! 20 paces, let the better man win.

Really, political discussions rarely turn out well (or even accomplish all that much).
 
Back
Top