BF2S Forums Reagan. What was so great about him again?

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

ATG wrote:

Ha, they bankrupted themselves trying to be able to beat us.

You kids are funny.

So you are saying that because of Reagan's out of control defense spending, USSR tried to keep up and bankrupted themselves?  Partly true.

Luckily the US can't go bankrupt because of all the foreign nations buying our bonds to support our out of control defense spending.

What about all the Banana Republics that Reagan and Co. supported/overthrew?  What about the arms deals to Iranian terrorists?

Oh yeah, didn't he also send Rummy to Iraq to meet with Saddam to 'open' their economy up?  Didn't we offer weapons/support to both Iran and Iraq during their war?  You mean we (US Govt. under Reagan) probably actually gave Iraq a lot of the chemical weapons in the 80's that we went looking for?

Reagan was a shit president.

Foreign policy changes over time. If it didn't we would still be at war with England. You act according to the situation and best information at the time. Twenty years later you can sit back and comfortably criticize the policy that allowed us the Global Supremacy we have today. Perhaps you would have a different opinion if the outcome of the cold war was different or you were typing your reply from inside Russia.

typing from inside Russia.....LOL.....classic.

And LOL @ GLobal Supremacy. America is so sheltered.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

FYI, the Cold War was lost by Russia. Not won by Reagen.

Glasnost ended the cold war.

Reagan was a pretty decent president because he could make good motivational speeches which got stuff done. He certainly helped the transition at the end of the cold war go more smoothly because of his good public speaking skills.

He was not a great president from an economic perspective, but a pretty good one - the economy was in a bit of a mess when he came to office, due to the recession. I find it funny that Republican supporters always believe that Republican administrations are better with the economy than Democrat ones, an idea that has little basis in fact. Republican administrations increase defence spending to such a degree that huge deficits begin to apear, despite spending cuts in other sectors. As for building and strengthening the overall economy, Reagan did a damn good job rebuilding the economy after the recession. The reforms Reagan introduced mostly did a lot of good, but some of his economic plans went horribly wrong (the savings and loans fiasco is his fault) he borrowed a lot of money too, increasing national debt loads.

Here you can see how, especially recently, Republican presidents have borrowed immense amounts to fill the deficits their administrations have faced.


He is also responsible for a lot of other dodgy stuff. Contras, for example.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

typing from inside Russia.....LOL.....classic.

And LOL @ GLobal Supremacy. America is so sheltered.

Thx, If you have any content to add I'm all ears.

So how did the nuclear proliferation stop the Cold War? You really believe Russia disarmed? We didn't.

You believe the seeds planted by Reagan in the middle east aren't being reaped by conservatives in the know today?

And that other guy really believes we were going to shoot missiles down from outer space?

I have no content to add for all my content is dismissed as liberal crap. In three months a conservative will make the same post and it wil be enlightening.

Continue to ride the horseshit train kids. It'll be fun for a few more years. Vote for the guy you think will be the next Reagan. Thompson. Another actor.  (Yet Democrats pander to Hollywood)

American irony ftw.

Foreign policy doesn't change as much as you think. Russia is still fighting the cold war. You just don't know because Reagan ended it. :rolls eyes:

Disarmed..no. Reduced yes.

I believe the seeds in the mid east were planted long before the 80's. Along with failed nation borders created by our friends the Brits and the UN.

Star wars was never meant to be, Reagan knew that. It was a strategic move of misinformation (Successful I might add).

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

....They had the money! They had the technology! They had the people to do it! But it got voted out by the stupid fucking libs because "Oh we dont want to bring nukes to space" and "Oh itll be SPACE WARS"
That was 20 years ago and it would be COMPLETELY PAYED FOR AND BUILT AND FUNCTIONAL BY NOW!!!!!! I SURE AS FUCK KNOW I WOULD FEEL A LOT SAFER IF WE HAD THIS THING LOOKING OUT FOR US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOULDNT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHHHHH im trying really hard not to fucking lose my grip and go off on you libs..............................

I was pretty sure that an organisation was set up and did/organized huge amounts of research over many years. Many of the big ideas didn't work out due to money and technology problems (i.e. the opposite that you said), but you (the US) did get some things from it. Didn't the patriot missile come from it and some impressive moves forward on the laser technology side (and I'm sure some other stuff).

... but maybe I smoked to much weed in the 80s imagined it all and your right you had the money and tech and it was just the evil liberals that foiled the plan!

Interesting chart Bertser. It looks like the best performer in recent years (50) was Kennedy. Some regard him as conservative Democrat. He cut taxes as well.

Kmarion wrote:

Foreign policy changes over time. If it didn't we would still be at war with England. You act according to the situation and best information at the time. Twenty years later you can sit back and comfortably criticize the policy that allowed us the Global Supremacy we have today. Perhaps you would have a different opinion if the outcome of the cold war was different or you were typing your reply from inside Russia.

Please oh please tell me what in American Foreign Policy has changed!  We have the same ass-backward foreign policy then as we do now.  Try to pressure unfriendly (read: not 100% accepting of our economic imperialism) regimes politically, economically, militarily.

The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault.
Major Ralph Peters, US Military

That is our foreign policy, and has been for some time now.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Foreign policy changes over time. If it didn't we would still be at war with England. You act according to the situation and best information at the time. Twenty years later you can sit back and comfortably criticize the policy that allowed us the Global Supremacy we have today. Perhaps you would have a different opinion if the outcome of the cold war was different or you were typing your reply from inside Russia.

Please oh please tell me what in American Foreign Policy has changed!  We have the same ass-backward foreign policy then as we do now.  Try to pressure unfriendly (read: not 100% accepting of our economic imperialism) regimes politically, economically, militarily.

The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault.
Major Ralph Peters, US Military

That is our foreign policy, and has been for some time now.

Ralph peters is retired, he now contributes here.

The difference I am speaking of is in the way we pressure. Reagan didn't need to put troops on foreign soil to gain world respect. Bush couldn't do that with a hundred thousand troops and billions of dollars.

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Yeah, what a great job he did ending the Cold War!

Are you people serious?  Reagan played no significant role in the breakup of the "evil empire".

You sound like a disgruntled sports fan. 

"They didn't beat us, we beat ourselves."

No, they beat you, you lost.

Ultimately we beat them economically. Reagan cut taxes also.

Nope. USSR was doomed from the start. Nationalism was too strong in the satellite states. Stalinism held it in check temporarily, but when Grobachov introduced moderate reforms, the nationalism arose again and spurred the seperatation of the Soviet Union. Soviet Russia could have lasted for a century or more had it not been for nationalism among the other Soviet states.

Kmarion wrote:

Ralph peters is retired, he now contributes here.

Did you also know MLK Jr died in 1968 and St. Augustine has been dead for hundreds of years?  Amazing how their comments are still relative today.

Kmarion wrote:

The difference I am speaking of is in the way we pressure. Reagan didn't need to put troops on foreign soil to gain world respect. Bush couldn't do that with a hundred thousand troops and billions of dollars.

Reagan pressured with proxy wars (I know you love that word ).  That was one thing he had going for him- His ability to provide material support for "anti-communist/socialist" forces (including advisors) in Latin American countries then claim ignorance was something our little monkey now is far too incapable of.

Also, the guy (Reagan) also sometimes chose the dates he would meet with dignitaries based on his astrologers predictions.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-24 11:58:23)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Ralph peters is retired, he now contributes here.

Did you also know MLK Jr died in 1968 and St. Augustine has been dead for hundreds of years?  Amazing how their comments are still relative today.

Kmarion wrote:

The difference I am speaking of is in the way we pressure. Reagan didn't need to put troops on foreign soil to gain world respect. Bush couldn't do that with a hundred thousand troops and billions of dollars.

Reagan pressured with proxy wars (I know you love that word ).  That was one thing he had going for him- His ability to provide material support for "anti-communist/socialist" forces (including advisors) in Latin American countries then claim ignorance was something our little monkey now is far too incapable of.

Also, the guy (Reagan) also sometimes chose the dates he would meet with dignitaries based on his astrologers predictions.

I was just adding information about your source. I have both his books. I'm pretty familiar with his opinion.

The astrology thing is pretty funny though. I thought it was just his wife that was into that stuff.

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Interesting chart Bertser. It looks like the best performer in recent years (50) was Kennedy. Some regard him as conservative Democrat. He cut taxes as well.

What lessons can be taken from that?

Tax cuts = good

Massive military expenditure = bad

Simple formula for US economic success.

He increased defense spending, funded the Space Race, cut taxes,  and kept the deficit under control. Not bad I must say.

He decreased it as a percentage of GDP and as a percentage of discretionary spending though and that's what counts.

Unlike Reagan who increased it whatever way you look at it. As has Bush, but Bush just seems to spend other peoples money like water as though debt doesn't matter.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-24 13:04:00)

Ronald Reagan stopped left wing extremist groups from taking power in small countries that were undergoing civil wars. And he did so by making sure right wing extremist groups took power in aforementioned small countries.

Kmarion wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

He decreased it as a percentage of GDP though and that's what counts.

Which technically means he didnt decrease spending, the GDP did.

Yes we can see that in the image Bertser posted. I don't think anyone is advocating "let's just make a deficit". He was able to maintain the balance. No matter how you look at it the defense funding increased. He could have placed those funds in other programs, he picked defense. Kennedy stated numerous time that the US was falling behind the Soviets in military spending and he encouraged devoting discretionary funds to be routed into national defense.

That's why I also mentioned that he decreased military expenditure as a percentage of discretionary spending. He dedicated a smaller portion of the budget to the military than his predecessors. Then Nixon came to power and started increasing it.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-24 13:53:55)