Reply With QuoteYes, one must always be on guard around charming men.
Ronald Reagan: A Simple Man Who So Nearly Destroyed Us
After all the rose coloured spectacles commentary on Ronald Reagan in recent days, a more sober analysis from Andrew Alexander on how he nearly caused WWIII.
By Andrew Alexander
Last updated at 8:02 AM on 9th February 2011
It was recently the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, the man who brought the world so near to a nuclear holocaust
History is a moving target. Hit it at the right moment and you will get a good picture of the past, otherwise it is a succession of inners and outers and plain misses.
The 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth has seen a mixture
of marksmanship, ranging from accurate to deranged, the latter as befits a dangerously deluded man who brought the world so near to a nuclear holocaust.
Yes, of course he was charming and engagingly modest. Yes, he understood a great simplicity of economics: that lower taxes could increase *government revenues.
Simplicities were, indeed, his *speciality. The Cold War was, to him, an extension of Hollywood B-movies where there were good guys and bad guys, with the white hats eventually defeating the black hats in the final shoot-out.
Those journalists who followed his campaign trails wondered if they heard him correctly. Did he really say Russia had ‘hardened’ all its *factories against nuclear blast? Did he actually say that the *Kremlin was preparing an attack and that war was likely?
Yes, he did. The man he appointed Under Secretary of Defence claimed the U.S. could recover from nuclear war in *two to four years. And, Reagan absurdly claimed, there was no word in the Russian language for freedom (there is, it’s svoboda).
No wonder the Kremlin was alarmed. Matters were made worse by U.S. Air Force planes and warships being ordered to test Soviet defences by advancing up to and sometimes into its airspace and territorial *waters. It led to the shooting down of a *Korean airliner by an over-zealous fighter pilot.
Double agent Oleg Gordievsky, the head of KGB in London at the time, warned how the US war games were being interpreted in Moscow
But this was by no means the key incident. The planned ‘Able Archer’ exercise by the Pentagon had the Soviets fearing these war games would suddenly convert into an all-out attack. Fortunately, the head of the KGB in London, Oleg Gordievsky, was a double agent and warned how this was being interpreted in Moscow. Able Archer was changed. We were lucky, too, that a Soviet colonel disregarded standing orders and declined to fire his missiles when the radar registered a launch from the U.S. It was *actually a trick of the sunlight.
Then there was the Star Wars project for a missile shield in outer space. It has been seen by admirers of Reagan as a brilliant manoeuvre — the system so expensive that the Soviet Union could never meet the cost of a response and would have to sue for peace.
In fact, CIA analysts saw the project — if it came into being — as capable of being matched by Soviet counter-*measures without undue cost.
But the plan looked to the Kremlin like another disguise for that final attack on what Reagan dubbed ‘the evil empire’ in his warlike rhetoric.
If we have to single out a U.S. *President who brought about the end of the Cold War, it would be Jimmy Carter.
In 1979, he inveigled the Soviet Union into its war in Afghanistan, thus creating the *Taliban. It proved an unwinnable ten-year war — how history repeats itself!
The intense unpopularity and *outright failures in that conflict were a *serious factor in bringing to *power Mikhail Gorbachev, long sceptical of the sustainability of the Communist system.
To Reagan’s admirers, the end of the Cold War blotted out everything else. And there was a lot else. He came as near to formal indictment as President Nixon. The ‘Iran-*Contra’ scandal involved defying a specific Congress ruling by sending aid to Nicaraguan exiles seeking to overthrow the Left-wing government.
He was warned that these very roundabout deals were, in fact, *illegal. At least his deals to support Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran were legal, if heavily disguised.
Among the historical messages of the Reagan presidency must be a warning to beware of charm. This, we might recall, was Tony Blair’s strong point — and he ended up embroiling us in two Middle East wars. Historians can muse on the role of charm in the wrong hands.
They may also like to muse on the fact that Reagan was so much in the hands of his wife Nancy. She had her own views on the President’s appointments and on dates which were ‘unlucky’. And she, it turned out, was being advised by an *astrologer in San Francisco.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz1DVbMvKPc
Last edited by Aoxomoxoa; 02-09-2011 at 04:54 PM.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're going, and hook up with them later.
Yes, one must always be on guard around charming men.
An Egyptian writer, Ptah Hotep, put patriarchal beliefs as clearly as
anyone in the early civilizations: "If you are a man of note, found for
yourself a household, and love your wife at home, as it beseems. Fill her
belly, clothe her back. . . . But hold her back from getting the mastery.
Remember that her eye is her stormwind, and her vulva and mouth are her
strength."
oh lord, here we go again....yeah...reagan nearly destroyed us...LOL
the far left's hatred for the man is insane
Loyal to the end
Because he challenged them?Originally Posted by tom prendergast
like Clinton and Obama
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. —CHARLES A. BEARD
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. - Patrick Henry
LMAO... Reagan almost started WWIII???After all the rose coloured spectacles commentary on Ronald Reagan in recent days, a more sober analysis from Andrew Alexander on how he nearly caused WWIII.
By Andrew Alexander
Last updated at 8:02 AM on 9th February 2011
It was recently the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, the man who brought the world so near to a nuclear holocaust
History is a moving target. Hit it at the right moment and you will get a good picture of the past, otherwise it is a succession of inners and outers and plain misses.
The 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth has seen a mixture
of marksmanship, ranging from accurate to deranged, the latter as befits a dangerously deluded man who brought the world so near to a nuclear holocaust.
Yes, of course he was charming and engagingly modest. Yes, he understood a great simplicity of economics: that lower taxes could increase *government revenues.
Simplicities were, indeed, his *speciality. The Cold War was, to him, an extension of Hollywood B-movies where there were good guys and bad guys, with the white hats eventually defeating the black hats in the final shoot-out.
Those journalists who followed his campaign trails wondered if they heard him correctly. Did he really say Russia had ‘hardened’ all its *factories against nuclear blast? Did he actually say that the *Kremlin was preparing an attack and that war was likely?
Yes, he did. The man he appointed Under Secretary of Defence claimed the U.S. could recover from nuclear war in *two to four years. And, Reagan absurdly claimed, there was no word in the Russian language for freedom (there is, it’s svoboda).
No wonder the Kremlin was alarmed. Matters were made worse by U.S. Air Force planes and warships being ordered to test Soviet defences by advancing up to and sometimes into its airspace and territorial *waters. It led to the shooting down of a *Korean airliner by an over-zealous fighter pilot.
Double agent Oleg Gordievsky, the head of KGB in London at the time, warned how the US war games were being interpreted in Moscow
But this was by no means the key incident. The planned ‘Able Archer’ exercise by the Pentagon had the Soviets fearing these war games would suddenly convert into an all-out attack. Fortunately, the head of the KGB in London, Oleg Gordievsky, was a double agent and warned how this was being interpreted in Moscow. Able Archer was changed. We were lucky, too, that a Soviet colonel disregarded standing orders and declined to fire his missiles when the radar registered a launch from the U.S. It was *actually a trick of the sunlight.
Then there was the Star Wars project for a missile shield in outer space. It has been seen by admirers of Reagan as a brilliant manoeuvre — the system so expensive that the Soviet Union could never meet the cost of a response and would have to sue for peace.
In fact, CIA analysts saw the project — if it came into being — as capable of being matched by Soviet counter-*measures without undue cost.
But the plan looked to the Kremlin like another disguise for that final attack on what Reagan dubbed ‘the evil empire’ in his warlike rhetoric.
If we have to single out a U.S. *President who brought about the end of the Cold War, it would be Jimmy Carter.
In 1979, he inveigled the Soviet Union into its war in Afghanistan, thus creating the *Taliban. It proved an unwinnable ten-year war — how history repeats itself!
The intense unpopularity and *outright failures in that conflict were a *serious factor in bringing to *power Mikhail Gorbachev, long sceptical of the sustainability of the Communist system.
To Reagan’s admirers, the end of the Cold War blotted out everything else. And there was a lot else. He came as near to formal indictment as President Nixon. The ‘Iran-*Contra’ scandal involved defying a specific Congress ruling by sending aid to Nicaraguan exiles seeking to overthrow the Left-wing government.
He was warned that these very roundabout deals were, in fact, *illegal. At least his deals to support Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran were legal, if heavily disguised.
Among the historical messages of the Reagan presidency must be a warning to beware of charm. This, we might recall, was Tony Blair’s strong point — and he ended up embroiling us in two Middle East wars. Historians can muse on the role of charm in the wrong hands.
They may also like to muse on the fact that Reagan was so much in the hands of his wife Nancy. She had her own views on the President’s appointments and on dates which were ‘unlucky’. And she, it turned out, was being advised by an *astrologer in San Francisco.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz1DVbMvKPc
Seriously, you left wing nutjobs and your hatred of Reagan is nothing short of ridiculous.
The above is a complete work of nonsense.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
What an extraordinarily ill-informed and one sided article. I was at a debate at the Oxford Union in which Former President Gorbachev state clearly and openly that the "star-wars" policy, together with his initial ideas for perestroika and glasnost, were the three things that ended the Cold War. Of "star-wars" he stated "we did not know whether the Americans could make it work, but we knew that we could not, and that we had no way of matching it. It forced us to the table and sped up [the reforms]." This is not only a repudiation of the position taken in this article but a clear rebuttal.
- David, High Wycombe, UK, 09/2/2011 15:36Pretty sad that the commentators have a far greater understanding of what occurred than the moron who wrote the article for your dailymail." No wonder the Kremlin was alarmed. Matters were made worse by U.S. Air Force planes and warships being ordered to test Soviet defences by advancing up to and sometimes into its airspace and territorial *waters. " So what? The Russians tested OUR defences for decades using exactly those tactics - why else did we have the (very costly) D.E.W. line? Reagan's bluff regarding 'Star Wars' was masterly, and brought the Cold War to an end. He may have been a lunatic - but he achieved some notable successes. The place he really fell down, though, was in not realising that government's job is regulation - and the financial woes of America can be dated back to his time in office.
- Philip, Bankrupted Britain, 09/2/2011 15:29
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
Why is it that reagan's charisma and gift of gab got him the moniker "the great communicator", but Obama's charisma and gift of gab got him the moniker of "empty suit"?
Inquiring minds want to know...
intelligent americans learned their lesson?
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. —CHARLES A. BEARD
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. - Patrick Henry
Obama is not the orator Reagan was, he is not even at Clintons level. Take away the teleprompter and he is a weak orator.
Quote from Cypress:
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "
He should have just surrended to the mighty soviets.
"It [the draft] is duty rather than slavery. I part with the author on the caviler idea that individual freedom (whatever that may be to the person) leads to nirvana, anyone older that 12 knows that is BS."
-Midcan5 (liberals on freedom)
"Allow me to masturbate my patriotism furiously and publicly at this opportunity."
-Ib1yysguy (liberals on honoring fallen soldiers)
"There is no 'equal opportunity' today unless the government makes it so."
-apple0154 (liberals on constitutionalism)
because reagan actually "communicated" with the american people. obama only communicates to his lefty base.
those can't be real, they're dated september 2, 2011.....
Obama communicates with all the people. But the folks on the right refuse to even listen. If anyone feels miffed by Obama, it's the left. The President has bent over backwards to communicate with the right, only to be de-legitimatized by birthers, disrespected and interrupted 48 times by assholes like Bill O'Reilly.
Applause is the spur of noble minds, the end and aim of weak ones.
Edmund Burke
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
so by going on o'reilly, obama is "communicating" with the right
lmao
Posting Rules
Bookmarks