Ronald Reagan: A Simple Man Who So Nearly Destroyed Us

[DamnYankee]

You are right, it is a simple question.

Why are you afraid to answer it?

 

[NOVA]

Despite the revisionist nonsense for a small number of pinheads....Ron will go down as one of the greats of the 20thcentury..


the 1980s did not see the gasoline lines and fuel shortages that the 1970s had.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#cite_note-heritage-3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#cite_note-heritage-3
tax cuts (25% cut in the federal personal income taxes) and a refurbished proud military



The success of Reaganomics....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#cite_note-nytimes-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#cite_note-nytimes-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#cite_note-nytimes-4 Moderate deregulation and tax reform,

Removed barriers to efficient economic activity.



A long period of high economic growth without significant inflation


Despite Reagan's stated desire to cut spending, federal spending grew during his administration.

Economist Millton Friedman pointed out that non-defense spending as a percentage of national income stabilized throughout Reagan's term, breaking a long upward trend


New regulations added each year dramatically decreased


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#cite_note-5


Took on the Air Controllers, a highlight....


Attempted to increase the solvency of Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_with_state_names.svg" class="image" title="U.S. Budget & Debt Topics"><img alt="U.S. Budget & Debt Topics" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Map_of_USA_with_state_names.svg/200px-Map_of_USA_with_state_names.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a5/Map_of_USA_with_state_names.svg/200px-Map_of_USA_with_state_names.svg.png by cutting disability and survivor benefits, and by increasing the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Obverse side of the Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Obverse side of the Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/100px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/100px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png payroll withholding tax.


He rejected detente and directly confronted the USSR through a policy of Peace through Strength...the Reagan Doctrine...




Supported for anti-communist rebel movements all over the world...



Ended the Cold War.....actually WON the Cold War....


A decade we can all take pride in.....

 

[Bfgrn]

He rejected detente and directly confronted the USSR through a policy of Peace through Strength...the Reagan Doctrine...

Supported for anti-communist rebel movements all over the world...

EXACTLY...and Reagan's bellicose foreign policy and support for 'anti-communist rebel movements'...has come home to roost.

Reagan's Osama Connection

How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin.

Gorbachev took the helm as the reform-minded general-secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985. Within months, he had decided privately to pull Soviet troops out of Afghanistan.

At a Politburo meeting of Nov. 13, 1986, Gorbachev laid his position on the table: The war wasn't working; it had to be stopped:

People ask: "What are we doing there?" Will we be there endlessly? Or should we end this war? ... The strategic objective is to finish the war in one, maximum two years, and withdraw the troops. We have set a clear goal: Help speed up the process, so we have a friendly neutral country, and get out of there.

In early December, Gorbachev summoned President Najibullah, the puppet leader of Afghanistan, to give him the news: The Soviet troops would be leaving within 18 months; after that, he was on his own.

Two months later, on Feb. 23, 1987, Gorbachev assured the Politburo that the troops wouldn't leave right away. He first had to foster a stable environment for the reigning government and to maintain a credible image with India, the Soviet Union's main ally in the region. The exit strategy, he said, would be a negotiated deal with Washington: The Soviets pull out troops; the Americans stop their arms shipments to the rebels.

However, within days, Gorbachev learned to his surprise that Reagan had no interest in such a deal. In a conversation on Feb. 27 with Italy's foreign minister, Giulio Andreotti, Gorbachev said, "We have information from very reliable sources … that the United States has set itself the goal of obstructing a settlement by any means," in order "to present the Soviet Union in a bad light." If this information is true, Gorbachev continued, the matter of a withdrawal "takes on a different light."

Without U.S. cooperation, Gorbachev couldn't proceed with his plans to withdraw. Instead, he allowed his military commanders to escalate the conflict. In April, Soviet troops, supported by bombers and helicopters, attacked a new compound of Islamic fighters along the mountain passes of Jaji, near the Pakistani border. The leader of those fighters, many of them Arab volunteers, was Osama Bin Laden.

However, Reagan—and those around him—can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev's offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger. Certainly, the danger was, or should have been, clear. Only a few years had passed since the Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power in Iran—the shah toppled, the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage, the country turned over to the mullahs, the region suddenly destabilized. Reagan beat Jimmy Carter so decisively in the 1980 election in part because of the hostage crisis.

Gorbachev had accepted that Afghanistan would become an Islamic country. But he assumed that Reagan, of all people, would have an interest in keeping it from becoming militantly, hostilely, Islamist.

After the last Soviet troops departed, Afghanistan fell off the American radar screen. Over the next few years, Shevardnadze's worst nightmares came true. The Taliban rose to power and in 1996 gave refuge to the—by then—much-hunted Bin Laden.

Ten years earlier, had Reagan taken Gorbachev's deal, Afghanistan probably still wouldn't have emerged as the "friendly, neutral country" of Gorby's dreams. Yet it might have been a neutral enough country to preclude a Taliban takeover. And if the Russian-Afghan war had ended earlier—if Reagan had embraced Gorbachev on the withdrawal, as he did that same autumn on the massive cutback of nuclear weapons—Osama Bin Laden today might not even be a footnote in history.

More...

 

[evince]

He talks to all Americans every time he speaks.

Some can only hear the rush of the glen no matter who is speaking

 

[DamnYankee]

EXACTLY...and Reagan's bellicose foreign policy and support for 'anti-communist rebel movements'...has come home to roost.

OBL isn't anti-communism.

 

[Bfgrn]

OBL isn't anti-communism.

OBL was 'anti-communism' aka the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Reagan—and those around him—can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev's offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger.

Gorbachev had accepted that Afghanistan would become an Islamic country. But he assumed that Reagan, of all people, would have an interest in keeping it from becoming militantly, hostilely, Islamist.

After the last Soviet troops departed, Afghanistan fell off the American radar screen. Over the next few years, Shevardnadze's worst nightmares came true. The Taliban rose to power and in 1996 gave refuge to the—by then—much-hunted Bin Laden.

Ten years earlier, had Reagan taken Gorbachev's deal, Afghanistan probably still wouldn't have emerged as the "friendly, neutral country" of Gorby's dreams. Yet it might have been a neutral enough country to preclude a Taliban takeover. And if the Russian-Afghan war had ended earlier—if Reagan had embraced Gorbachev on the withdrawal, as he did that same autumn on the massive cutback of nuclear weapons—Osama Bin Laden today might not even be a footnote in history. (from my linked article)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

OBL was 'anti-communism' aka the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Reagan—and those around him—can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev's offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger.

Gorbachev had accepted that Afghanistan would become an Islamic country. But he assumed that Reagan, of all people, would have an interest in keeping it from becoming militantly, hostilely, Islamist.

After the last Soviet troops departed, Afghanistan fell off the American radar screen. Over the next few years, Shevardnadze's worst nightmares came true. The Taliban rose to power and in 1996 gave refuge to the—by then—much-hunted Bin Laden.

Ten years earlier, had Reagan taken Gorbachev's deal, Afghanistan probably still wouldn't have emerged as the "friendly, neutral country" of Gorby's dreams. Yet it might have been a neutral enough country to preclude a Taliban takeover. And if the Russian-Afghan war had ended earlier—if Reagan had embraced Gorbachev on the withdrawal, as he did that same autumn on the massive cutback of nuclear weapons—Osama Bin Laden today might not even be a footnote in history. (from my linked article)

Please link us to actual quotes that show Gorby and Reagan actually discussed this 'deal'. Because all your article shows is that Italy said the US wouldn't go for it. I would love to read more on this as I do think it was a major fault of Bush Sr. to not help Afghanistan in the transition after the troops left in 89.

 

[Bfgrn]

Please link us to actual quotes that show Gorby and Reagan actually discussed this 'deal'. Because all your article shows is that Italy said the US wouldn't go for it. I would love to read more on this as I do think it was a major fault of Bush Sr. to not help Afghanistan in the transition after the troops left in 89.

Here is an article that is very disturbing...

The Mujahideen, Afghanistan's freedom fighters, used the classroom to prepare children to fight the Soviet empire. The Russians are long gone but the textbooks are not. The Mujahideen had wanted to prepare the next generation of Afghans to fight the enemy, so pupils learned the proper clips for a Kalashnikov rifle, the weight of bombs needed to flatten a house, and how to calculate the speed of bullets. Even the girls learn it.

But the Mujahideen had a lot of help to create this warrior culture in the school system from the United States, which paid for the Mujahideen propaganda in the textbooks. It was all part of American Cold War policy in the 1980s, helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet army on Afghan soil.

The University of Nebraska was front and center in that effort. The university did the publishing and had an Afghan study center and a director who was ready to help defeat the "Red Menace."

In 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. put a rush order on its proxy war in Afghanistan. The CIA gave Mujahideen an overwhelming arsenal of guns and missiles. But a lesser-known fact is that the U.S. also gave the Mujahideen hundreds of millions of dollars in non-lethal aid; $43 million just for the school textbooks. The U.S. Agency for International Development, AID, coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program.

"We were providing education behind the enemy lines," says Goutier. "We were providing military support against the enemy lines. So this was a kind of coordinated effort indeed.

"I eventually was involved in some of the discussions, negotiations for removing the Soviets from Afghanistan. I was an American specialist in these discussions and many people in those discussions said just as important as (the) introduction of stinger missiles was the introduction of the humanitarian assistance because the Soviets never believed the U.S. would go to that extent."

"The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks," says CBC'S Carol Off. "What discussions did you have with the Mujahideen leaders? Was it any effort to say maybe this isn't the best for an eight-year-old's mind?"

"No, because we were told that that was not for negotiations and that the content was to be that which they decided," says Goutier.

There were those who opposed the text book project, such as Sima Samar who ran a school in those days, but opposition did little good.

"I was opposing but we had no choice," says Samar, who served as minister of women's affairs for the interim government that ran Afghanistan after the Taliban were driven out. "It was already done and… nobody had the freedom to speak against all those things."

"I was interested in being of any type of assistance that I could to help the Afghans get out of their mess and to be frank also anything that would help the United States in order to advance its interests," says Goutier.

American interests were well served. But after the defeat of the Soviet empire, the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan. The country descended into civil war. The U.S. gave almost no money to help rebuild after the war against the Soviets and no money to rewrite the school textbooks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html

 

[Phantasmal]

wow.... you are starting to go off the deep end.

The 'first Bush attack'??? LMAO... that was a UN led effort to remove Saddam from Kuwait.

Quit revising history.

Quit being a nit picker, the majority of forces in Iraq, both times, were USA forces. I guess the word superpower only fits when you wish it to do so?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here is an article that is very disturbing...

The Mujahideen, Afghanistan's freedom fighters, used the classroom to prepare children to fight the Soviet empire. The Russians are long gone but the textbooks are not. The Mujahideen had wanted to prepare the next generation of Afghans to fight the enemy, so pupils learned the proper clips for a Kalashnikov rifle, the weight of bombs needed to flatten a house, and how to calculate the speed of bullets. Even the girls learn it.

But the Mujahideen had a lot of help to create this warrior culture in the school system from the United States, which paid for the Mujahideen propaganda in the textbooks. It was all part of American Cold War policy in the 1980s, helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet army on Afghan soil.

The University of Nebraska was front and center in that effort. The university did the publishing and had an Afghan study center and a director who was ready to help defeat the "Red Menace."

In 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. put a rush order on its proxy war in Afghanistan. The CIA gave Mujahideen an overwhelming arsenal of guns and missiles. But a lesser-known fact is that the U.S. also gave the Mujahideen hundreds of millions of dollars in non-lethal aid; $43 million just for the school textbooks. The U.S. Agency for International Development, AID, coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program.

"We were providing education behind the enemy lines," says Goutier. "We were providing military support against the enemy lines. So this was a kind of coordinated effort indeed.

"I eventually was involved in some of the discussions, negotiations for removing the Soviets from Afghanistan. I was an American specialist in these discussions and many people in those discussions said just as important as (the) introduction of stinger missiles was the introduction of the humanitarian assistance because the Soviets never believed the U.S. would go to that extent."

"The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks," says CBC'S Carol Off. "What discussions did you have with the Mujahideen leaders? Was it any effort to say maybe this isn't the best for an eight-year-old's mind?"

"No, because we were told that that was not for negotiations and that the content was to be that which they decided," says Goutier.

There were those who opposed the text book project, such as Sima Samar who ran a school in those days, but opposition did little good.

"I was opposing but we had no choice," says Samar, who served as minister of women's affairs for the interim government that ran Afghanistan after the Taliban were driven out. "It was already done and… nobody had the freedom to speak against all those things."

"I was interested in being of any type of assistance that I could to help the Afghans get out of their mess and to be frank also anything that would help the United States in order to advance its interests," says Goutier.

American interests were well served. But after the defeat of the Soviet empire, the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan. The country descended into civil war. The U.S. gave almost no money to help rebuild after the war against the Soviets and no money to rewrite the school textbooks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html

So.... instead of linking us to any sort of documentation on the alleged deal Reagan rejected, you link to yet ANOTHER unsubstantiated article?????

Next time just say 'I don't have any evidence' and leave it at that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Quit being a nit picker, the majority of forces in Iraq, both times, were USA forces. I guess the word superpower only fits when you wish it to do so?

LOL.... it is not nitpicking to ask someone to be accurate. There is a HUGE difference between "The first Bush attack" and "The US led a UN coalition to liberate Kuwait."

One implies that Bush Sr. just up and decided to launch a war on Iraq.

The other shows that in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the UN decided to go in and remove Iraqi's from Kuwait. That coalition force was led by the US.

The word 'superpower' has NOTHING to do with it.

 

[Bfgrn]

So.... instead of linking us to any sort of documentation on the alleged deal Reagan rejected, you link to yet ANOTHER unsubstantiated article?????

Next time just say 'I don't have any evidence' and leave it at that.

You right wingers are funny...it's as if there is 800 numbers like 1-800-CIA-true.

Fred Kaplan isn't some blogger. In the late 1970s, he was the foreign and defense policy adviser to Congressman Les Aspin, who became United States Secretary of Defense Les Aspin.

 

[Phantasmal]

LOL.... it is not nitpicking to ask someone to be accurate. There is a HUGE difference between "The first Bush attack" and "The US led a UN coalition to liberate Kuwait."

One implies that Bush Sr. just up and decided to launch a war on Iraq.

The other shows that in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the UN decided to go in and remove Iraqi's from Kuwait. That coalition force was led by the US.

The word 'superpower' has NOTHING to do with it.

By Liberate Kuwait, you mean liberate the oil that Saddam was stealing from Kuwait, right.

Well, you call it want you want, I see it as the Bush attack.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You right wingers are funny...it's as if there is 800 numbers like 1-800-CIA-true.

Fred Kaplan isn't some blogger. In the late 1970s, he was the foreign and defense policy adviser to Congressman Les Aspin, who became United States Secretary of Defense Les Aspin.

Again.... if you don't have anything other than a quote from an Italian who supposedly told Gorby that Reagan wouldn't be interested... just say so.

You acted 'all concerned' and pretend it is a 'great travesty and screw up by Reagan' yet you have NO evidence it actually transpired.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

By Liberate Kuwait, you mean liberate the oil that Saddam was stealing from Kuwait, right.

No. I mean the United Nations decided to go in and protect one of its nation members. The United States led the coalition because we are the largest contributor to the UN and we also possess the largest military.

Well, you call it want you want, I see it as the Bush attack.

ROFLMAO.... and THAT shows that you are just a complete partisan hack on this topic.

 

[Socrtease]

Bullshit again. That is simply a line the masters of the left have spoon fed to you. The trend started long before Reagan was in office. Ike was the last President to preside over a decline in US debt. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter all continued adding to the debt year after year. Each getting progressively worse.

You are ignorant if you think Reagan was a proponent of big government or debt.



The champion for children.... unless of course the parents cant be inconvenienced... then you support killing those kids

The working poor are harmed consistently by the policies of the Democrats.

Tell us... what are the Dems doing for the homeless.

yes, if at anytime children are an inconvienence it is Dem policy that they may be taken out in the yard and murdered. Funny how the right doesn't think the government has any business in medical care, until it comes to abortion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

yes, if at anytime children are an inconvienence it is Dem policy that they may be taken out in the yard and murdered. Funny how the right doesn't think the government has any business in medical care, until it comes to abortion.

lol.... sorry should have put unborn in front. I made a poor assumption that people would be smart enough to know what I was referring to. Leave it to a lawyer to prove me wrong.

Abortion is about human rights. Very rarely is it about medical care. If the womans life is in danger, then it is a decision between the doctor and the woman. The right to life supersedes other rights.

 

[Phantasmal]

No. I mean the United Nations decided to go in and protect one of its nation members. The United States led the coalition because we are the largest contributor to the UN and we also possess the largest military.



ROFLMAO.... and THAT shows that you are just a complete partisan hack on this topic.

No, it shows I don't fall for all the propaganda, which party would I be hacking since I am not a Democrat or a Republican? The Libertarian Party? The Green Party? The Party of Free Thinkers?

 

[Canceled2]

No, it shows I don't fall for all the propaganda, which party would I be hacking since I am not a Democrat or a Republican? The Libertarian Party? The Green Party? The Party of Free Thinkers?

You frigging vote for and defend almost all demcrats and liberal policy...you are FAR from a free thinker in that regard.

 

[cawacko]

No, it shows I don't fall for all the propaganda, which party would I be hacking since I am not a Democrat or a Republican? The Libertarian Party? The Green Party? The Party of Free Thinkers?

""I mean the United Nations decided to go in and protect one of its nation members. The United States led the coalition because we are the largest contributor to the UN and we also possess the largest military.""


Do you think that comment is propaganda or spin?