Poles honour 'Cold Warrior' Ronald Reagan - Page 2 - Jets Insider.com Forums

JetsVault03 · 07-24-2008, 08:16 PM

[QUOTE=kennyo7;2643607]:eek::eek::eek:
Ronald Reagan was the essentialy the man who gave the final kick to an already collapsing house. The fall of the Soviet Union began some 30 years before Reagan was sworn in. Reagan is just one small part contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union. The people who truly deserve credit for the fall are the Russian people themselves[/QUOTE]

No way in any hell, even a liberal indoctrinated hell, was the USSR on its last heels as Reagan took over. After the state Carter left our nation, the USSR was arguably just as powerful as the US. Reagan reestablished the US as the superpower, and restored pride in America.

On a separate note, that's what scares me about what Obama said in Berlin today. I'm sorry, but he is running for President of the United States, not President of the world. Is it not contradictory for Obama to say we need to tear down the walls between nations (i.e. world equality), and simultaneously argue for Iraq to go to hell and a hand-basket by pulling out? The next President should worry more about reestablishing the US as the world economic powerhouse, and improving the welfare of our citizens than making sure Europe is ok. Do you think European politicians give a damn about our welfare? If he wants to be concerned primarily with international welfare, he should run for Secretary General of the UN.

By the way, this makes me proud to be a Pollack. Smartest thing we've ever done.

quantum · 07-25-2008, 03:43 PM

Reagan took office 1.5 years after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan - hardly "in a decline"; if anything, they were flexing their muscles. The 80s arms race pushed the Soviet Union over the edge.

IIRC, there are 2 major statues of Europeans in the US: one is Lafayette, and the other is a Polish general, both of whom helped us during the American Revolution. But that speaks volumes....

Piper · 07-27-2008, 08:46 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti;2643611]Reagan was the peak of the GOP movement - and that was 20 years ago.

right now the Republican brand is broken. Invoking the gipper every 5 minutes doesn't help matters, it only reminds people of a time when the GOP was successful.[/QUOTE]

Sadly true.

The ironic thing is that they now behave like your heroes, the democrats.

The Paranoid Jet · 07-27-2008, 12:11 PM

[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2643523]Ronald Reagan is the main reason for the demise of the Soviet Union.

I know 95% of academia is liberals indoctrinating our kids but sorry, you can't change history.[/QUOTE]

WHAT?!?!#!$!t2t3j0hj34-bnbnb-9nbe9[B]history major overload complete.
[/B]
Whoa. A part of my brain just died.

The Paranoid Jet · 07-27-2008, 12:17 PM

I'm sorry if my last post was disrespectful, but Ronald Reagan didn't cause the Soviet Union to collapse. I'm really, really sorry. I don't hate the Gipper. But it's just not true. It's not a true thing. I've spent a LOT of time researching this. It's one of my preferred areas of study. Ronald Reagan did a lot of great things in his day but he was not the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse. He was, in fact, not as influential as the Soviet economy, Soviet policy shift, the Pope, or Lech Walesa. Again, let me not get branded into a liberal corner because I don't deserve to be there, but that thing that DeanPatsFan said is one hundred percent not true. If you're reading it and considering it, just dismiss it, because it's false.

Breathe breathe breathe breathe log off play outside make the bad feelings stop

Smashmouth · 07-27-2008, 12:43 PM

[QUOTE=The Paranoid Jet;2649534]I'm sorry if my last post was disrespectful, but Ronald Reagan didn't cause the Soviet Union to collapse. I'm really, really sorry. I don't hate the Gipper. But it's just not true. It's not a true thing. I've spent a LOT of time researching this. It's one of my preferred areas of study. Ronald Reagan did a lot of great things in his day but he was not the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse. He was, in fact, not as influential as the Soviet economy, Soviet policy shift, the Pope, or Lech Walesa. Again, let me not get branded into a liberal corner because I don't deserve to be there, but that thing that DeanPatsFan said is one hundred percent not true. If you're reading it and considering it, just dismiss it, because it's false.

Breathe breathe breathe breathe log off play outside make the bad feelings stop[/QUOTE]

:yes: Since you have researched this I would like to see more of what you have to say on the Matter. I feel the same way about Reagan, he had alot to say about the USSR therefore giving the false impression it was all about him. I dont think this was intentional on his part and I dont think for a second he felt it was all about him either. I think Reagan was a pretty honest guy and if you asked him at the time, he would have not taken as much credit as some folks give him for that particular issue.

long island leprechaun · 07-27-2008, 03:25 PM

[QUOTE=The Paranoid Jet;2649534]I'm sorry if my last post was disrespectful, but Ronald Reagan didn't cause the Soviet Union to collapse. I'm really, really sorry. I don't hate the Gipper. But it's just not true. It's not a true thing. I've spent a LOT of time researching this. It's one of my preferred areas of study. Ronald Reagan did a lot of great things in his day but he was not the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse. He was, in fact, not as influential as the Soviet economy, Soviet policy shift, the Pope, or Lech Walesa. Again, let me not get branded into a liberal corner because I don't deserve to be there, but that thing that DeanPatsFan said is one hundred percent not true. If you're reading it and considering it, just dismiss it, because it's false.

Breathe breathe breathe breathe log off play outside make the bad feelings stop[/QUOTE]

Watch out for the Reagan Evangelicals. They don't read anything about him or the history of the period, but they BELIEVE in Ronnie blindly. People like CBNY have the incredible nerve to brand anyone who prefers Obama to McCain as an "Obama Disciple" or other such nonsense. Ronald Syme, the great Roman historian, commented wisely (he was speaking of Augustus) that: "Undue insistence upon the character and exploits of a single person invests history with dramatic unity at the expense of truth." He could just as well have been speaking of Ronald Reagan. By his military spending (at great expense to our own economy) Reagan did generate an urgency for Gorbachev to disarm and shed the expense of missile programs at a time when Soviet finances were in serious trouble (JetsVault03's comments are simply wrong and contradictory). What I do find interesting is that the factors that compelled perestroika, glastnost, etc. were oddly and ironically similar to some of the variables facing the U.S. today. Oil, military adventurism, a failing economy, tired economic models, and paranoia in the highest quarters. No one, not even Gorbachev, knew what he was unleashing when he liberalized policy. He sparked a revolution.

The Paranoid Jet · 07-27-2008, 03:45 PM

[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2649815]Watch out for the Reagan Evangelicals. They don't read anything about him or the history of the period, but they BELIEVE in Ronnie blindly. People like CBNY have the incredible nerve to brand anyone who prefers Obama to McCain as an "Obama Disciple" or other such nonsense. Ronald Syme, the great Roman historian, commented wisely (he was speaking of Augustus) that: "Undue insistence upon the character and exploits of a single person invests history with dramatic unity at the expense of truth." He could just as well have been speaking of Ronald Reagan. By his military spending (at great expense to our own economy) Reagan did generate an urgency for Gorbachev to disarm and shed the expense of missile programs at a time when Soviet finances were in serious trouble (JetsVault03's comments are simply wrong and contradictory). What I do find interesting is that the factors that compelled perestroika, glastnost, etc. were oddly and ironically similar to some of the variables facing the U.S. today. Oil, military adventurism, a failing economy, tired economic models, and paranoia in the highest quarters. No one, not even Gorbachev, knew what he was unleashing when he liberalized policy. He sparked a revolution.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Gorbachev understood quite well that his measures (PARTICULARLY glasnost) could quite well result in a revolution. I wish I still had a coursepack with a good translation lying around to quote from, but there was a famous speech where he rallied strongly against the implication that he was spurring a revolution, which at least proves that he felt it might have been an issue.

Reagan blew on a playing card castle. But others had been blowing for longer and harder. That being said, he had the balls to blow.

long island leprechaun · 07-27-2008, 07:15 PM

[QUOTE=The Paranoid Jet;2649849]I disagree. Gorbachev understood quite well that his measures (PARTICULARLY glasnost) could quite well result in a revolution. I wish I still had a coursepack with a good translation lying around to quote from, but there was a famous speech where he rallied strongly against the implication that he was spurring a revolution, which at least proves that he felt it might have been an issue.

Reagan blew on a playing card castle. But others had been blowing for longer and harder. That being said, he had the balls to blow.[/QUOTE]

I disagree re what Gorbachev predicted, despite an awareness of the worst-case possibility. I am sure there were many within the Soviet establishment who feared revolution and expressed that fear. Gorbachev believed that his liberalization would be welcomed, particularly in Eastern Europe, with improved relations between Moscow and its satellites. How wrong he was... nor did he expect the revolt to spread to the republics. For the Soviets, the worst case scenario was triggered and they couldn't stop it.

07-24-2008, 08:16 PM	#21
JetsVault03 Veteran Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 380	[QUOTE=kennyo7;2643607]:eek::eek::eek: Ronald Reagan was the essentialy the man who gave the final kick to an already collapsing house. The fall of the Soviet Union began some 30 years before Reagan was sworn in. Reagan is just one small part contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union. The people who truly deserve credit for the fall are the Russian people themselves[/QUOTE] No way in any hell, even a liberal indoctrinated hell, was the USSR on its last heels as Reagan took over. After the state Carter left our nation, the USSR was arguably just as powerful as the US. Reagan reestablished the US as the superpower, and restored pride in America. On a separate note, that's what scares me about what Obama said in Berlin today. I'm sorry, but he is running for President of the United States, not President of the world. Is it not contradictory for Obama to say we need to tear down the walls between nations (i.e. world equality), and simultaneously argue for Iraq to go to hell and a hand-basket by pulling out? The next President should worry more about reestablishing the US as the world economic powerhouse, and improving the welfare of our citizens than making sure Europe is ok. Do you think European politicians give a damn about our welfare? If he wants to be concerned primarily with international welfare, he should run for Secretary General of the UN. By the way, this makes me proud to be a Pollack. Smartest thing we've ever done.

07-25-2008, 03:43 PM	#22
quantum GFY Snatchez! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI Posts: 17,905	Reagan took office 1.5 years after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan - hardly "in a decline"; if anything, they were flexing their muscles. The 80s arms race pushed the Soviet Union over the edge. IIRC, there are 2 major statues of Europeans in the US: one is Lafayette, and the other is a Polish general, both of whom helped us during the American Revolution. But that speaks volumes....

07-27-2008, 08:46 AM	#23
Piper Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from) Posts: 13,197	[QUOTE=bitonti;2643611]Reagan was the peak of the GOP movement - and that was 20 years ago. right now the Republican brand is broken. Invoking the gipper every 5 minutes doesn't help matters, it only reminds people of a time when the GOP was successful.[/QUOTE] Sadly true. The ironic thing is that they now behave like your heroes, the democrats.

07-27-2008, 12:11 PM	#24
The Paranoid Jet Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 2,999	[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2643523]Ronald Reagan is the main reason for the demise of the Soviet Union. I know 95% of academia is liberals indoctrinating our kids but sorry, you can't change history.[/QUOTE] WHAT?!?!#!$!t2t3j0hj34-bnbnb-9nbe9[B]history major overload complete. [/B] Whoa. A part of my brain just died.

07-27-2008, 12:17 PM	#25
The Paranoid Jet Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 2,999	I'm sorry if my last post was disrespectful, but Ronald Reagan didn't cause the Soviet Union to collapse. I'm really, really sorry. I don't hate the Gipper. But it's just not true. It's not a true thing. I've spent a LOT of time researching this. It's one of my preferred areas of study. Ronald Reagan did a lot of great things in his day but he was not the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse. He was, in fact, not as influential as the Soviet economy, Soviet policy shift, the Pope, or Lech Walesa. Again, let me not get branded into a liberal corner because I don't deserve to be there, but that thing that DeanPatsFan said is one hundred percent not true. If you're reading it and considering it, just dismiss it, because it's false. Breathe breathe breathe breathe log off play outside make the bad feelings stop

07-27-2008, 12:43 PM	#26
Smashmouth Smashing....um.....Mouths. Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Dallas Via Brooklyn NY Posts: 3,159	[QUOTE=The Paranoid Jet;2649534]I'm sorry if my last post was disrespectful, but Ronald Reagan didn't cause the Soviet Union to collapse. I'm really, really sorry. I don't hate the Gipper. But it's just not true. It's not a true thing. I've spent a LOT of time researching this. It's one of my preferred areas of study. Ronald Reagan did a lot of great things in his day but he was not the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse. He was, in fact, not as influential as the Soviet economy, Soviet policy shift, the Pope, or Lech Walesa. Again, let me not get branded into a liberal corner because I don't deserve to be there, but that thing that DeanPatsFan said is one hundred percent not true. If you're reading it and considering it, just dismiss it, because it's false. Breathe breathe breathe breathe log off play outside make the bad feelings stop[/QUOTE] :yes: Since you have researched this I would like to see more of what you have to say on the Matter. I feel the same way about Reagan, he had alot to say about the USSR therefore giving the false impression it was all about him. I dont think this was intentional on his part and I dont think for a second he felt it was all about him either. I think Reagan was a pretty honest guy and if you asked him at the time, he would have not taken as much credit as some folks give him for that particular issue.

07-27-2008, 03:25 PM	#27
long island leprechaun Don't mess with Angel Eyes. All Pro Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: greenwich village, NYC Posts: 7,244	[QUOTE=The Paranoid Jet;2649534]I'm sorry if my last post was disrespectful, but Ronald Reagan didn't cause the Soviet Union to collapse. I'm really, really sorry. I don't hate the Gipper. But it's just not true. It's not a true thing. I've spent a LOT of time researching this. It's one of my preferred areas of study. Ronald Reagan did a lot of great things in his day but he was not the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse. He was, in fact, not as influential as the Soviet economy, Soviet policy shift, the Pope, or Lech Walesa. Again, let me not get branded into a liberal corner because I don't deserve to be there, but that thing that DeanPatsFan said is one hundred percent not true. If you're reading it and considering it, just dismiss it, because it's false. Breathe breathe breathe breathe log off play outside make the bad feelings stop[/QUOTE] Watch out for the Reagan Evangelicals. They don't read anything about him or the history of the period, but they BELIEVE in Ronnie blindly. People like CBNY have the incredible nerve to brand anyone who prefers Obama to McCain as an "Obama Disciple" or other such nonsense. Ronald Syme, the great Roman historian, commented wisely (he was speaking of Augustus) that: "Undue insistence upon the character and exploits of a single person invests history with dramatic unity at the expense of truth." He could just as well have been speaking of Ronald Reagan. By his military spending (at great expense to our own economy) Reagan did generate an urgency for Gorbachev to disarm and shed the expense of missile programs at a time when Soviet finances were in serious trouble (JetsVault03's comments are simply wrong and contradictory). What I do find interesting is that the factors that compelled perestroika, glastnost, etc. were oddly and ironically similar to some of the variables facing the U.S. today. Oil, military adventurism, a failing economy, tired economic models, and paranoia in the highest quarters. No one, not even Gorbachev, knew what he was unleashing when he liberalized policy. He sparked a revolution.

07-27-2008, 03:45 PM	#28
The Paranoid Jet Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 2,999	[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2649815]Watch out for the Reagan Evangelicals. They don't read anything about him or the history of the period, but they BELIEVE in Ronnie blindly. People like CBNY have the incredible nerve to brand anyone who prefers Obama to McCain as an "Obama Disciple" or other such nonsense. Ronald Syme, the great Roman historian, commented wisely (he was speaking of Augustus) that: "Undue insistence upon the character and exploits of a single person invests history with dramatic unity at the expense of truth." He could just as well have been speaking of Ronald Reagan. By his military spending (at great expense to our own economy) Reagan did generate an urgency for Gorbachev to disarm and shed the expense of missile programs at a time when Soviet finances were in serious trouble (JetsVault03's comments are simply wrong and contradictory). What I do find interesting is that the factors that compelled perestroika, glastnost, etc. were oddly and ironically similar to some of the variables facing the U.S. today. Oil, military adventurism, a failing economy, tired economic models, and paranoia in the highest quarters. No one, not even Gorbachev, knew what he was unleashing when he liberalized policy. He sparked a revolution.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Gorbachev understood quite well that his measures (PARTICULARLY glasnost) could quite well result in a revolution. I wish I still had a coursepack with a good translation lying around to quote from, but there was a famous speech where he rallied strongly against the implication that he was spurring a revolution, which at least proves that he felt it might have been an issue. Reagan blew on a playing card castle. But others had been blowing for longer and harder. That being said, he had the balls to blow.

07-27-2008, 07:15 PM	#29
long island leprechaun Don't mess with Angel Eyes. All Pro Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: greenwich village, NYC Posts: 7,244	[QUOTE=The Paranoid Jet;2649849]I disagree. Gorbachev understood quite well that his measures (PARTICULARLY glasnost) could quite well result in a revolution. I wish I still had a coursepack with a good translation lying around to quote from, but there was a famous speech where he rallied strongly against the implication that he was spurring a revolution, which at least proves that he felt it might have been an issue. Reagan blew on a playing card castle. But others had been blowing for longer and harder. That being said, he had the balls to blow.[/QUOTE] I disagree re what Gorbachev predicted, despite an awareness of the worst-case possibility. I am sure there were many within the Soviet establishment who feared revolution and expressed that fear. Gorbachev believed that his liberalization would be welcomed, particularly in Eastern Europe, with improved relations between Moscow and its satellites. How wrong he was... nor did he expect the revolt to spread to the republics. For the Soviets, the worst case scenario was triggered and they couldn't stop it.