1984 ...

[ViRedd]

There was an almost full page article in my morning newspaper about the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down. Not one word ... not ONE ... mentioning the part that Ronald Reagan had in that important time in history.

I watched the news broadcasts last night as well. Again, not one of our "diplomats" mentioned Ronald Reagan in their speeches they gave in Berlin. The hero of the day as far as they were concerned was Mikael Gorbachev. Hillary Clinton is a freakin' bitch!

I'm sure that Winston Smith is still active at the Ministry of Truth ... and he continues flushing tid-bits of history down the hole at his desk in order to change the outcomes.

Does this piss off anyone else in the forum, or is it just me?

 

[TheDemocrat]

"tear down that wall" yeah, your right Vi that made a lot of difference.

 

[ViRedd]

"tear down that wall" yeah, your right Vi that made a lot of difference.

Wow! And that's your answer? You sound like Hillary Clinton. What a shame.

 

[medicineman]

Wow! And that's your answer? You sound like Hillary Clinton. What a shame.

So Vi (Roid), do you have any real knowledge of the Berlin wall. I happened to be in Berlin in '63', actually saw the wall. The only thing Reagan contributed to the demise of that wall was a photo-op where he said "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall". Hell, he wasn't even talking to Gorbachev, but a crowd of US and German onlookers.

 

[ViRedd]

The history Winston Smith flushed down the memory hole at the Ministry of Truth:

The Nation Magazine Pays Tribute to a Despot – by David Horowitz
Posted By David Horowitz On November 10, 2009 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage

Yesterday, Nov. 9, marked the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. That event was as important to the 20th Century as was the victory over Germany and Japan — probably more so, since Nazism was not an ideology with hundreds of millions of followers in the West and throughout the Free World that Communism had.
Among them these followers were the editors of The Nation who opened their anniversary feature – [1] a fawning interview with the last Soviet dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, with these fatuous but also sinister remarks:

“Historic events quickly generate historical myths. In the United States it is said that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of a divided Europe was caused by a democratic revolution in Eastern Europe or by American power, or both.”

​

So, according to The Nation (actually Katrina vanden Heuvel and her husband who conducted the interview,) the Czechs’ velvet revolution, Poland’s Solidarity movement, Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher, America’s military buildup, Nato, the anti-communist cold warriors and the forty year containment of an expansionist totalitarian power had nothing to do with the frustration and collapse of Soviet power, the end of the Cold War and the liberation of more than a billion people from the worst tyranny in history [2]. Instead, according to The Nation, the story has a Communist hero. Contrary to the myths concocted by the democracies of the West, it was really the dictator Mikhail Gorbachev, a man who described his own agenda as “saving Communism” (not to mention a man collusive in its monstrous crimes) whom we are to regard as the hero of the age.

And in case that didn’t register, The Nation’s editors dot the i’s and cross the t’s:

“With the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall approaching, we believed that the leader most responsible for that historic event should be heard, on his own terms, in the United States.”

​

So, the Soviet dictator, unprompted, just decided to let the prisoners of the Soviet empire go free.

And now for that bridge that’s for sale.


But of course this is not really a laughing matter. The Nation’s deep hatred for America, for its institutions and above all its freedoms, is on display here and underscores why the Nation is also in the forefront of the movement to disarm America in the face of its Islamist enemies, undermine its security and deliver us to the mercies of the soldiers of Allah.



Winston Smith is alive and well and operating freely in the Progressvie movement.

 

[TheDemocrat]

Reagan was such a dumbass he thought they were talking about the great wall of china.

 

[medicineman]

The history Winston Smith flushed down the memory hole at the Ministry of Truth:

The Nation Magazine Pays Tribute to a Despot – by David Horowitz
Posted By David Horowitz On November 10, 2009 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage

Yesterday, Nov. 9, marked the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. That event was as important to the 20th Century as was the victory over Germany and Japan — probably more so, since Nazism was not an ideology with hundreds of millions of followers in the West and throughout the Free World that Communism had.
Among them these followers were the editors of The Nation who opened their anniversary feature – [1] a fawning interview with the last Soviet dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, with these fatuous but also sinister remarks:

“Historic events quickly generate historical myths. In the United States it is said that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of a divided Europe was caused by a democratic revolution in Eastern Europe or by American power, or both.”

​

So, according to The Nation (actually Katrina vanden Heuvel and her husband who conducted the interview,) the Czechs’ velvet revolution, Poland’s Solidarity movement, Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher, America’s military buildup, Nato, the anti-communist cold warriors and the forty year containment of an expansionist totalitarian power had nothing to do with the frustration and collapse of Soviet power, the end of the Cold War and the liberation of more than a billion people from the worst tyranny in history [2]. Instead, according to The Nation, the story has a Communist hero. Contrary to the myths concocted by the democracies of the West, it was really the dictator Mikhail Gorbachev, a man who described his own agenda as “saving Communism” (not to mention a man collusive in its monstrous crimes) whom we are to regard as the hero of the age.

And in case that didn’t register, The Nation’s editors dot the i’s and cross the t’s:

“With the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall approaching, we believed that the leader most responsible for that historic event should be heard, on his own terms, in the United States.”

​

So, the Soviet dictator, unprompted, just decided to let the prisoners of the Soviet empire go free.

And now for that bridge that’s for sale.


But of course this is not really a laughing matter. The Nation’s deep hatred for America, for its institutions and above all its freedoms, is on display here and underscores why the Nation is also in the forefront of the movement to disarm America in the face of its Islamist enemies, undermine its security and deliver us to the mercies of the soldiers of Allah.



Winston Smith is alive and well and operating freely in the Progressvie movement.

Well, in fact, it was Gorbachev that made the real difference, Perestroika and glasnost or something like that. Say, have you been reading the John Birch mantra again?

 

[Buddreams]

uhm.. does it really matter?

 

[kjar]

actions speak louder than words.

 

[medicineman]

uhm.. does it really matter?

Probably more to former East Germans, not much to me.

 

[MexicanWarlord420]

Reagan is champion to the republicans because he made greedy white men feel better about being greedy white men.

LONG LIVE THE CORPORATIONS!

 

[doc111]

Reagan was such a dumbass he thought they were talking about the great wall of china.

Typical democrat....can't even admit that Reagan was a great president. Let's not talk about how we armed and funded the mujihudeen in Afghanistan which contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. No, you're right. He played no role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Read a history book, that is if you can read.

 

[TheDemocrat]

Typical democrat....can't even admit that Reagan was a great president. Let's not talk about how we armed and funded the mujihudeen in Afghanistan which contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. No, you're right. He played no role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Read a history book, that is if you can read.

Excuse me, I thought it was Charlie Wilson that was responsible for arming mujihudeen. I wonder how our soldiers feel now that those weapons are being used against them.


I didn't realize Reagan was great president.

 

[swazifarmer]

Reagen and Thatcher = SCUM

 

[Stoney McFried]

Why do conservatives try to act like Ronald Reagan was some sort of Republican God? Do they think the folks who lived through him have all forgotten?
Ronald Reagan was one of the key figures in making the War on Drugs what it is today. His regime portrayed all drug users as morally corrupt,addicted,dangerous junkies who were hopelessly hooked after one toke.He instituted mandatory minimum drug sentences, and an expensive anti drug propaganda campaign based on misinformation and outright lies that we still suffer from today.
Iran Contra!!!!
During his presidency, the deficit skyrocketed.
He cut funding for schools. Ketchup was to be classified as a vegetable.
He went after reporters who wouldn't agree with or push his propaganda to the American people.
He chopped social spending drastically.
He cut taxes for the rich,but not the middle class or poor.
He backed terrorists. We supplied weapons to insurgents in Nicaragua,and to Saddam Hussein himself.
He made fat cat ceo's even fatter.His policies increased the amount of their salaries to epic proportions.
Trickle down economics!!!
He had no sympathy for the mentally ill, closing down mental health hospitals as governor and later nixing programs proposed during his presidency to help the mentally ill.
The STAR WARS program cost billions of dollars for the American Taxpayer,only to be later abandoned.
He supported the deregulation of industries,which lessened accountability of said industries.
He ignored AIDS for nearly the entire time he was in office. Why? He believed maybe it was a punishment from god to those who were violating the ten commandments with their "illicit" sex acts.
He wanted to abolish Social Security.
He removed environmental protections with relish and appointed a secretary of the interior who didn't believe we needed to protect the environment because "The second coming of Christ was at hand."
Reagan had a plan to take over the government by staging a false national emergency...Dick Cheney was to be one of the members of this new government.This new government would have disregarded the constitution and created a dictatorship with Ronnie at its head,suspending elections indefinitely.He established a line of succession for this new government.Dick Cheney was one of them.
He blamed trees for pollution.
He refused to stand against Apartheid.




Neo-cons seem to forget...just because he didn't get a blow job in the oval office doesn't make him a saint.

[SIZE=+1]

[/SIZE]​

http://www.prorev.com/reagan.htm

There was an almost full page article in my morning newspaper about the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down. Not one word ... not ONE ... mentioning the part that Ronald Reagan had in that important time in history.

I watched the news broadcasts last night as well. Again, not one of our "diplomats" mentioned Ronald Reagan in their speeches they gave in Berlin. The hero of the day as far as they were concerned was Mikael Gorbachev. Hillary Clinton is a freakin' bitch!

I'm sure that Winston Smith is still active at the Ministry of Truth ... and he continues flushing tid-bits of history down the hole at his desk in order to change the outcomes.

Does this piss off anyone else in the forum, or is it just me?

 

[doc111]

I'm neither conserviative nor a liberal. I'm an independent. Yes Ronald Reagan, like any president, had some f***ed policies, but he did some good things too. He is considered by many to be the president responsible for the fall of communism. Yes the drug war was ramped up largely in response to the crack cocaine epidemic. Yes he did spend a shitload on Star Wars but that is one of the things that was credited for collapsing the Soviet Union as well. We simply outspent them. Charlie Wilson was largely responsible for taking on the Afghanistan issue but like Truman said, "The buck stops here". If the administration gets blamed for all the bad shit it did, it should also be credited for the good it did as well. I grew up in the 80's and we lived in fear of global nuclear annhilation for the better part of the decade. Thanks in part to Reagan we no longer have that same fear. We will never have a president where everyone agrees that everything they do is perfect but this thread was mainly about his role in the fall of communism. He should be recognized for that.

 

[Stoney McFried]

I grew up in the 80's, too, I don't remember anyone living in fear of annihilation by the Soviet Union. Reagan didn't play as big a role in the end of the cold war as his propaganda machine had us believing...nor was the U.S.S.R as big of a threat as that same propaganda machine painted it. The Soviet Union and it's leaders were ready for change before the "cold war",and have stated that the actions and words of the Reagan administration at this time,including the arms race and increased U.S.military spending,"played no role" in forcing the Soviets in to a conciliatory position,and threats by the U.S actually strengthened the resolve of "hard-liners" in the Soviet Union.
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum06072004.html


Basically, the Soviet Union's economy was in shambles,so military spending had to be reduced. A wave of change had swept the people of the U.S.S.R,and the regime simply couldn't continue as it had been. The end of the cold war came about mostly because the Soviet economy simply could not sustain the level of military spending required to keep up with us in the arms race.
I'm not saying Reagan didn't help Gorbechev,but change was coming to Russia no matter who would have been in office.

I grew up in the 80's and we lived in fear of global nuclear annhilation for the better part of the decade. Thanks in part to Reagan we no longer have that same fear. We will never have a president where everyone agrees that everything they do is perfect but this thread was mainly about his role in the fall of communism. He should be recognized for that.

 

[doc111]

I grew up in the 80's, too, I don't remember anyone living in fear of annihilation by the Soviet Union. Reagan didn't play as big a role in the end of the cold war as his propaganda machine had us believing...nor was the U.S.S.R as big of a threat as that same propaganda machine painted it. The Soviet Union and it's leaders were ready for change before the "cold war",and have stated that the actions and words of the Reagan administration at this time,including the arms race and increased U.S.military spending,"played no role" in forcing the Soviets in to a conciliatory position,and threats by the U.S actually strengthened the resolve of "hard-liners" in the Soviet Union.
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum06072004.html


Basically, the Soviet Union's economy was in shambles,so military spending had to be reduced. A wave of change had swept the people of the U.S.S.R,and the regime simply couldn't continue as it had been. The end of the cold war came about mostly because the Soviet economy simply could not sustain the level of military spending required to keep up with us in the arms race.
I'm not saying Reagan didn't help Gorbechev,but change was coming to Russia no matter who would have been in office.

Remember that movie "The Day After". We had a fallout shelter in the school I attended and we actually had drills. I guess it depends on where you lived but I remember very vividly how nuclear annhilation was always being discussed. Both sides used propaganda and I totally agree that much of what was being said was greatly exaggerated. Perhaps you are right and the collapse was inevitable but I think it's only fair to credit Reagan with some part whether it be by way of his rhetoric or actual policy in ending the cold war. Point is whenever politics are involved both sides can spin history to favor their party's role in it. I'm not a "Reagan-o-phile" but I think he had a positive impact on history as it pertains to the cold war. Hindsight is 20/20 but the whole story is rarely told. And of course the Russians are gonna say that U.S. military spending played no role but It's obvious we were in an arms race with them. In the end we won that race even if the victory was purely economic.

 

[ViRedd]

I grew up in the 80's, too, I don't remember anyone living in fear of annihilation by the Soviet Union. Reagan didn't play as big a role in the end of the cold war as his propaganda machine had us believing...nor was the U.S.S.R as big of a threat as that same propaganda machine painted it. The Soviet Union and it's leaders were ready for change before the "cold war",and have stated that the actions and words of the Reagan administration at this time,including the arms race and increased U.S.military spending,"played no role" in forcing the Soviets in to a conciliatory position,and threats by the U.S actually strengthened the resolve of "hard-liners" in the Soviet Union.
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum06072004.html


Basically, the Soviet Union's economy was in shambles,so military spending had to be reduced. A wave of change had swept the people of the U.S.S.R,and the regime simply couldn't continue as it had been. The end of the cold war came about mostly because the Soviet economy simply could not sustain the level of military spending required to keep up with us in the arms race.
I'm not saying Reagan didn't help Gorbechev,but change was coming to Russia no matter who would have been in office.

Could any of this have come about because of the hard line taken by Reagan and Thatcher? What would the outcome have been if Carter were president instead of Reagan? Was Reagan's "Star Wars" a contributor to the Soviet's economic downfall ... a downfall that ultimately lead to liberating hundreds of thousands of people in Eastern Europe? If your answer is yes, wasn't "Star Wars" the butt of liberal jokes just like Reagan was himself?

 

[Stoney McFried]

No, the Soviet economy had been declining for years. The Soviets really didn't increase their military spending by very much as a result of the arms race-they simply couldn't have kept up with us even if they had wanted to,which they really did not. But because of their years of militarism,the Soviet economy began to crumble.Infant mortality went up,health care and industry began to collapse.The country simply could not sustain itself if it adhered to the policies of the past that were responsible for the state the U.S.S.R found itself in.Decreased military spending was inevitable.
They had realized their system had failed,and that they needed to change or die.Simple as that.
As I stated in a previous post ,Reagan (and Thatcher) "getting tough" with the Russians only served to delay the fall of Communism in that country,as those who were for it redoubled their resistance to change in order to defy us.

Could any of this have come about because of the hard line taken by Reagan and Thatcher? What would the outcome have been if Carter were president instead of Reagan? Was Reagan's "Star Wars" a contributor to the Soviet's economic downfall ... a downfall that ultimately lead to liberating hundreds of thousands of people in Eastern Europe? If your answer is yes, wasn't "Star Wars" the butt of liberal jokes just like Reagan was himself?