Ronald Reagan

RE: Good Riddance

>>Excuse me, Doug, but neither Clinton nor Kerry said

>anything

>>that contradicted my post.

>

>You said that anyone who claims that Reagan was devoted to

>freedom deserved derisive laughter. Kerry, Clinton,

>Gorbachev, and the NYT Editorial Board all said exactly that.

No, they did not. I've read the quotes you posted, and that is NOT what they say.

>The fact that someone allies themselves with authoritarian

>regimes does not preclude the fact that they fought for

>freedom, since sometimes alligning oneself with an

>authoritarian regime is a necessary means for fighting for

>freedom.

>If you - or anyone else - has any doubt about this painfully

>obvious fact, just ask yourself this: FDR formed an

>alliance with Josef Stalin,

Sorry, Doug, but your analogy simply doesn't work. FDR, as you know, helped Stalin because both leaders were trying to (and eventually did) destroy a regime that had enslaved half of Europe. The result of their joint efforts was that a number of countries that had been enslaved by the Nazis were freed.

But whose freedom was Reagan fighting for by helping Saddam to stay in power? At the time it was argued that the purpose of helping Saddam's regime survive was to keep Iran too busy to export its brand of Islamism to other countries. But the other Islamic countries we were trying to "save" were not democracies, nor were we making any effort to change them into democracies. Reagan was quite happy to let those countries remain dictatorships so long as they were run by people friendly to America. Where in that situation do you see anyone "fighting for freedom"?

And what was the result of Reagan's policy? Iran and Iraq fought a long and costly war in which both regimes survived and both remained dictatorships. The other Islamic countries also remained dictatorships. Why would anyone see this as a struggle for "freedom"?

Ask Soviet victims what they think of Reagan

>Today during the newscasters describing the ceremony in Simi

>Valley,one of the women who work with me broke down crying.

>Her Son was a victim of the death squads in El Salvador that

>operated with the support and financial backing of the Reagan

>administration.

From OpinionJournal.com, today:

<<Natan Sharansky (né Anatoly Shcharansky), the Soviet dissident turned Israeli official, tells a story of Reagan in today's Jerusalem Post:

"In 1983, I was confined to an eight-by-ten-foot prison cell on the border of Siberia. My Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's "provocation" quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth--a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us."

Let's remember that Reagan took a lot of flak for that statement--from many of the same people who now criticize President Bush for, among other things, identifying the axis of evil. In 1983 they agreed with Pravda rather than Sharansky. Apparently they are condemned to repeat history.>>

RE: Good Riddance

>Sorry, Doug, but your analogy simply doesn't work. FDR, as

>you know, helped Stalin because both leaders were trying to

>(and eventually did) destroy a regime that had enslaved half

>of Europe. The result of their joint efforts was that a

>number of countries that had been enslaved by the Nazis were

>freed.

You are conceding the only point I was making with the FDR-Stalin analogy. The mere fact that a political leader enters into an alliance with a brutal dictator does not, by itself, prove that the political leader was an enemy of freedom. As you concede, there are circumstances where entering into such an alliance - even where the parter in the alliance is one of the most depraved and purely evil dictators in history -- can be done in order to promote and defend freedom.

We can debate the wisdom endlessly of whether the U.S. did the right thing - under both Democratic and Republican Administrations throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s -- by opting to enter into alliances with unquestionably bad people and oppressive leaders where they assessed that such alliances would promote U.S. interests. Many, many books have been written by foreign policy experts debating that topic, and we're not going to make headway debating it here. I will, though, note several points about the argument you are advancing:

(1) Ronald Reagan was not the first, nor was he the last, U.S. President to find common cause with dictators, murderers and other assorted foreign cretins. For the last five decades, the U.S. foreign policy establishment under EVERY PRESIDENT has been predicated on the principle that pragmatic self-interest, rather than a search for purity, should dictate our foreign policy. If you want to object to that policy, Reagan is hardly the inventor or chief propagator of it. Your quarrel is with all U.S. Presidents and their foreign policies since - at least - FDR.

(2) Every Western country -- i.e., virtually every democratic free society on the planet -- depends upon the free and affordable flow of oil. I know of nobody who doubts that severe impediments to the oil supply, or severe disruptions to the oil market, would cause extraordinary damage to the health and stability of the world's democracies.

Thus, the juvenile, mindless cries of "No blood for oil" shouted by Leftist eternal children notwithstanding, efforts to ensure a stable and reliable flow of oil are, BY DEFINITION, efforts towards defending free societies. Why else do you think that virtually the entire free world coalesced around the U.S. efforts to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and prevent him from inching toward Saudi Arabia? Because free countries know that they need a stable oil market in order to continue to be free.

So propping up a country like Iraq in order to prevent Iran from asserting hegemony over the world's resources - or fuelling both sides to a standstill so that neither can disrupt the balance of power in the Middle East - is about as necessary in defending freedom as anything I can think of. It may mean that you have to get your hands dirty by dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein, but -- as WW2 demonstrated - that is often necessary in order to advance the cause of freedom.

(3) I will note, again and again, the irony that you are a vigorous critic of the United States' past policies of supporting tyranny in the Middle East, and yet simply refuse to recognize that your criticism is shared first and foremost by George Bush, who gives speeches about past U.S. foreign policy errors which sound exactly like your posts.

With the much maligned war in Iraq, we have overthrown one of the most oppressive dictators in that region, and have set that country on a course which is undeniably headed towards free elections. It strikes me as rather fucking clear that the people who claim to hate Reagan because he supposedly promoted tyranny in the world aren't very genuine in their purported concern about freedom for the oppressed people of the world, since virtually every one of these Loud Crusaders for Freedom vigorously oppose the war we just fought which overthrew a vicious dictator and created the opportunity for unprecedented democracy and freedom for 25 million human beings.

RE: Good Riddance

>>My comment on Reagan's death is, "Good riddance to bad

>>rubbish."

>

>Second most eloquent epitaph I've heard for him.

Let me make sure I have the moral code down pat:

When right-wing politicians express happiness over the death of homosexuals, that's sick, evil, fascist, and wrong.

But when homosexuals express happiness over the death of right-wing politicians, that's good, just, fair and understandable.

Is that how it works?

RE: Ask Soviet victims what they think of Reagan

>Finally, the leader of

>the free world had spoken the truth--

Another reason Bush should not want to be compared to Reagan. :7

RE: Good Riddance

>the war we just fought

It's over? The troops are coming home? I hadn't heard that. I'm so out of the war loop.

RE: Good Riddance

>>the war we just fought

>

>It's over? The troops are coming home? I hadn't heard

>that. I'm so out of the war loop.

Most historians say that World War 2 ended in 1945. Are you under the impression that that's when the "troops came home"? See, Ricky - sometimes when a war ends, the troops remain. Did you really not know that? Did you know that we still have troops in South Korea? Are you under the impression that the Korean War is still being fought?

And congratulations on - yet again - being able to dive into a lengthy discussion and, with the precision of a marksman, be able to single out the most substantive and important point and, with such pithy, focused comments, really get right to the crux of the matter.

RE: Good Riddance

No you silly little man,when an evil monster dies and rather than shout hurrah!from the rooftops he is nearly beatified than that is the time for shout out his sins.

You cannot spin his faults enough to cover up the crimes,treason,and inhumane treatment of the citizens of the world.

So stop it-you are looking very foolish.

RE: Good Riddance

Doug, you're adorable. :*

RE: Good Riddance

>No you silly little man,when an evil monster dies and rather

>than shout hurrah!from the rooftops he is nearly beatified

>than that is the time for shout out his sins.

>You cannot spin his faults enough to cover up the

>crimes,treason,and inhumane treatment of the citizens of the

>world.

>So stop it-you are looking very foolish.

See if you can follow this:

You're celebrating Reagan's death. and you said that he - as well as anyone who believes in Reaganomics -- deserves to die and burn in hell.

So what right do you have to open that fat trap of yours and object when some right-wing Christian fanatic says the same thing about gay people?

And, for that matter, how can any of your left-wing comrades have tolerate and remain quiet in the face of the hateful garbage which spittles out of your mouth (in between bites of food) and the mouths of similar hate-mongers like you, object when right-wingers say about homosexuals what you say about right-wingers?

If it's ok for you to celebrate their deaths and screetch that they burn in hell, how can it be objectionable for them to say the same thing about you?

>>I agree with you. I greatly admired Ronald Reagan. Prior

>to

>>President Clinton, President Reagan is the only other

>>president to have served two terms in the White House. That

>>says a lot about how people felt about this man as this

>>nation's 40th president.

>

>I'm sure you can't really have meant that Clinton and Reagan

>are the only two presidents to have served two terms. US

>Presidents elected to two terms have included:

>

>George Washington (1789-97)

>Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)

>James Madison (1809-17)

>Jsmes Monroe (1817-25)

>Andrew Jackson (1829-37)

>Abraham Lincoln (1861-65; elected to two terms but

>assasinated)

>Ulysses Grant (1869-77)

>Grover Cleveland (1885-89 and 1893-97)

>Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)

>Woodrow Wilson (1913-21)

>Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945; elected to four terms and died

>in office)

>Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)

>Richard Nixon (1969-74; elected to two terms but resigned)

>Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)

>Bill Clinton (1993-2001)

>

>BG

>

Sorry, I should have been more specific, I should have mentioned General Eisenhower as the last commander in chief to complete two terms in office prior to Mr Reagan. I was online late last night. I was somewhat tired and I just wanted to complete my original post and in the process I left out a tiny detail. It's my fault and I made a mistake.

Rohale

RE: Good Riddance

>You are conceding the only point I was making with the

>FDR-Stalin analogy. The mere fact that a political leader

>enters into an alliance with a brutal dictator does not, by

>itself, prove that the political leader was an enemy of

>freedom.

My point is that it also doesn't show him to be a steadfast champion of freedom, which is what you seem to be saying of Reagan.

>As you concede, there are circumstances where

>entering into such an alliance - even where the parter in the

>alliance is one of the most depraved and purely evil dictators

>in history -- can be done in order to promote and defend

>freedom.

Not quite. As I have said many times before, I think that supporting tyrants and murderers because they seem for a time to be willing to help us is NEVER a sound policy in the long run. It was not sound in the case of FDR nor was it sound in the case of Reagan.

>We can debate the wisdom endlessly of whether the U.S. did the

>right thing by opting to enter into alliances with unquestionably

>bad people and oppressive leaders

No, we can't. Helping tyrants and murderers is NEVER a smart policy in the long run, as history has shown over and over again. The only thing we can debate is why so many leaders seem too stupid to realize this. Could it be something in the water in DC?

> If you want to object to that policy,

>Reagan is hardly the inventor or chief propagator of it. Your

>quarrel is with all U.S. Presidents and their foreign policies

>since - at least - FDR.

What I am objecting to in this thread is characterizing Reagan as a lover of freedom when the facts, the undeniable, incontrovertible facts, show that he was quite willing to support some of the world's most vicious tyrants if he thought (mistakenly, in my view) that this strategy served American interests. No one who pursues such a strategy deserves to be called a lover of freedom. When the next president dies, we can have the same discussion about him if you wish.

>Thus, the juvenile, mindless cries of "No blood for oil"

>shouted by Leftist eternal children notwithstanding, efforts

>to ensure a stable and reliable flow of oil are, BY

>DEFINITION, efforts towards defending free societies.

Frankly, your view of oil policy sounds as though you've been in hibernation since Jimmy Carter was president. The energy experts I hear and read no longer believe that an oil embargo of the type that occurred in the 70s is possible. The "oil weapon" that some people imagine an unfriendly regime in the Gulf could use against the West is now a limp noodle. The economics of oil and the demographics of the region are now such that the Gulf regimes must sell oil to survive.

>So propping up a country like Iraq in order to prevent Iran

>from asserting hegemony over the world's resources - or

>fuelling both sides to a standstill so that neither can

>disrupt the balance of power in the Middle East - is about as

>necessary in defending freedom as anything I can think of.

Nope. It was stupid at the time and is just as stupid now to believe that Iran could "assert hegemony over the world's resources." As events have shown, the Iranian mullahs can't even figure out how to run their own economy, much less anything else. The threat they posed was never real. Reagan helped Saddam stay in power for nothing.

>(3) I will note, again and again, the irony that you are a

>vigorous critic of the United States' past policies of

>supporting tyranny in the Middle East, and yet simply refuse

>to recognize that your criticism is shared first and foremost

>by George Bush, who gives speeches about past U.S. foreign

>policy errors which sound exactly like your posts.

The irony is that Bush's speeches come from someone who has never lifted a finger to support democracy in the Mideast, and who in fact has forged new alliances with dictators in Pakistan and Central Asia rather than carrying the banner of freedom there. While Bush talks about aiding democracy and stopping terror in Iraq, he props up a tyrant in Pakistan who has a long history of supporting Islamic terror and helping rogue regimes acquire nuclear weapons. Bush's actions don't match his words in this area as in so many others. It's hard for me to believe you're taken in by such transparent lies, but apparently you are.

> It strikes me as rather fucking clear that

>the people who claim to hate Reagan because he supposedly

>promoted tyranny in the world aren't very genuine in their

>purported concern about freedom for the oppressed people

It strikes me as rather fucking hypocritical for any conservative to crow about overthrowing Saddam to support democracy and human rights, when the truth is that we supported and helped him during some of the worst of his atrocities. Reagan and Bush never made a peep about Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms until a time came when he showed he was no longer willing to be our "boy" in the region and do our bidding. Only then did we suddenly "discover" what an awful tyrant and menace he was to Western civilization. Such disgusting hypocrisy deserves nothing but a Bronx cheer.

RE: Good Riddance

>You're celebrating Reagan's death. and you said that he - as

>well as anyone who believes in Reaganomics -- deserves to die

>and burn in hell.

>

>So what right do you have to open that fat trap of yours and

>object when some right-wing Christian fanatic says the same

>thing about gay people?

Gay-bashing expresses class-directed prejudice. So does the expression "some right-wing Christian fanatic."

In contrast, this celebratory thread is about Ronald Reagan, a specific individual who did particular evil things.

It does my heart good to know that Reagan died of a disease that he cut research funding for, as soon as he became president, in order to shrink "oversized government."