GameBanshee Forums

I think that some of what is at issue here is the term "great." In popular usage, "great" generally has a lot of positive connotations, and thus anybody who despised Reagan's policies will naturally take umbrage at the description of "great."

But "great" does not necessarily mean "good." In university history departments there has long been debate between two distinct schools or "methodologies." There are those who study 'social history' and those who study 'the great men of history'. In this context, "great men," refers to influential figures and leaders that are seen to have had a significant impact on human history. Going by this definition, it can be reasonably stated that Ronald Reagan was "great," since I think few will argue against the reality that he did indeed have tremendous impact upon history. Whether it was positive or negative is effectively beside the point.

Moreover, Ronald Reagan was a cultural icon, he embodied a set of beliefs and an era. When Reagan came to power, he was perceived to have brought in the dawning of a new optimism, and a revalidation of "The American Dream." I think, as much as anything, this is why so many Americans view Ronald Reagan as "a great man."

Do I think Reagan's policies were "great?" No, I do not...
However, there is one thing I would like to point out. Often when people criticize US foreign policy (which does frequently merit that criticism), they neglect to mention that those puppet regimes in places like El Salvador *were* vigorously supported by a domestic, landowning, bourgeoisie. Yes, had the US (and other foreign powers) not propped up those dictatorships, chances are that popular uprisings may have succeeded, but let us not lay *all* the blame upon 'The Imperialist;" the indigenous elites and military played a significant role of their own.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]But "great" does not necessarily mean "good."[/QUOTE]
you got that right!!!

Great?

Now, I was raised Republican, so I'll not try to act like I'm doing anything but defend Reagan. The reason he was "great" is a matter of his domestic tone, not his actions... He inspired the country.

Contrary to popular opinion, a president is made great by his words, not his actions. A president is the heart of the country, not the brain... Some of Reagan's speeches still move me... twenty years later.

I mean, the most successful president (inasmuch as getting things done) in my lifetime has got to be Clinton, but what was his legacy? It is as tarnished for his personal indiscretions as Reagan's was by his professional ones. Yet people still swear by him... I mean how many sleazy acts must we witness before losing respect?

The sleazy acts are a footnote. His failures regarding Ireland, Israel, and Iraq are a matter of public record, but even they do not diminish his legacy... William Clinton was great for the same reason Reagan was great: they led, and the nation followed...

Kayless, I understand your sentiments...but I can’t let you toss your neck on the block alone

Ronald Reagan is to this day, still my hero. He was the embodiment of all that I hold dear about my country. He was a champion of the individual, and a foe of big government. He had a small set of core values by which he lived and governed. He kept is short and simple, and did it well.

“Man is not free unless government is limited…As government expands, liberty contracts” - Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan was FDR...only inside out...that is a quote from one of his critics, but I find no fault in the statement...

Ronald Reagan's unwavering confidence in the conservative message and the sound judgment of the American people was validated. He campaigned as an unapologetic conservative, and he governed as a conservative, shepherding through Congress monumental, growth-igniting tax cuts and single-handedly winning the Cold War against the Soviets by simultaneously defeating internal liberal opposition at home to our prosecution of that war.

Reagan's achievement was no mean feat, considering that liberals, whose vision culminated in the years of Carter malaise, had resulted in many American’s writing off our nation's greatness as a thing of the past.

Reagan believed that our greatness lay in the people, not the government. He wanted to give the reins back to the people.

Reagan was the most consequential president since Franklin Roosevelt, the most successful Republican leader since Theodore Roosevelt, and the first true conservative to reach the apex of American politics since Coolidge. Reagan won the Cold War almost without firing a shot; he laid the groundwork for the GOP to escape half a century of minority status; and he decisively vindicated the claims of conservatism. Feared by the Communists, patronized by the Democrats, loathed by the Left, Reagan vanquished them all. Reagan had two primary achievements, restoring America's economic health and winning the Cold War. Dinesh D'Souza

Ronald Reagan was real; there wasn't an ounce of phoniness in him. He believed in and loved America with a passionate, contagious patriotism that rippled through the body politic into the national soul. He made it acceptable to believe in the greatness of this country again, in its economic potential and its military might.


Reagan was the architect and implementer of his own foreign policy, and our modern world. His role was indispensable in the prime political drama of the last part of the 20th century. I remember crying as I watched the ‘Wall’ come down. Even the straggling defenders of perestroika now concede that Reagan's intransigence speeded the collapse of the Soviet empire.


Dinesh D'Souza wrote of Reagan's success." From the assault on detente to the Reagan Doctrine, from the deployment of the Pershing IIs to the Reykjavik summit, Reagan pursued policies that were anathematized by liberals and derided by the "wise men" of the day. He broke with conservative conventional wisdom as well when, in his second term, he brilliantly pivoted and helped Gorbachev along in the dismantling of Communist rule and the Soviet empire.”

Yep...He did all that.

Whether or not you remember Reagan as great or not, will depend largely on your personal convictions.

It was under his administration that the focus was removed from building the welfare state, to reducing Socialism in our country. For the first time in my young life, it was considered good to be the biggest, the best, the strongest. There were lines drawn between the achievers and the non-achievers. There was a difference made between the movers and shakers, and the hangers-on. It was no longer a crime to be rich. You did not have to apologize for your success, nor were you expected to doll out your gains to those who had not earned them. America was the greatest nation on earth, and it was ok to say it out loud.

When he took office, the top tax rates in the United States were 70% and interest rates were @ 18%. You had to wait in line to buy gas. Against the odds, Reagan slashed the top tax rate to 28% Reduced the prime interest rate to a manageable 8% Fostered construction and investment and ignited the economic boom that is still with us.

“Our system freed the individual genius of man. We allocate resources not by government decision but by the millions of decisions customers make when they go into the market place. If something seems too high-priced, we buy something else. So resources are steered toward those things people want most at the price they are willing to pay." ...Ronald Reagan

Capitalism = good. Communism = bad.

It was clean cut and simple. The good feeling of the Fifties had returned to a disco beat. Fifteen year old kids drove BMW’s to school and had American Express gold cards in their purses. If you could not keep up with the Joneses, to bad. You can always work for them.

People actually ‘felt’ it when they sang “God Bless America”...

Speaking of God, he was cool again too. You did not have to deny your religious convictions to be considered ‘enlightened’.

Ronald Reagan had a vision of what America was. “The land of opportunity” not the “Land of Guaranties”.

The main cloud on the fiscal horizon - the long-term insolvency of the government-run pension system - stems from a program Reagan opposed. The end of the federal welfare entitlement was also presaged by Reagan. In the early 1970s, when he was governor of California, he alone opposed the question of whether to federalize that entitlement. It took 30 years and Bill Clinton to recognize, finally, the validity of Reagan's point.

He was willing to spend any amount of money, finagle any deal, roust any opposition, squash any perceived threat, in order to secure that ideal. He believed in working for what you want...taking decisive steps...living by actions not words alone. He took those forgotten values and taught them back to an America that had become self-critical, apathetic, and ashamed.

He was “The Great Communicator”...The most significant Republican of the late twentieth century was a democrat to his fingertips who didn't need a "common touch" because he was so effortlessly a common man himself.

The greatness of our country has been based on our thinking that everyone has a right even to be wrong."
-- Ronald Reagan

He was big and strong and made not a single apology for it. He didn’t give a rat’s you know what about the rest of the world, but he LOVED America.

I know that for many on this board, I have just made the case against the man...but like I said, it is all in your point of view.

The legacy that Ronald Reagan gave to this nation that was the most precious was his unyielding faith in America, the American ideal and the American people.

There are some intellectual giants on this board who, I am sure will have a field day with this post, please be assured I have neither the time nor tallent to defend my assertions line by line...The querry was made, what made Reagan great according to the oppinions of any who deemed him so. I have answered the question with my own opinions and a couple of quotes from others.

Let the feeding frenzy begin

I mean, the most successful president (inasmuch as getting things done) in my lifetime has got to be Clinton, but what was his legacy?

Turned around the single largest budget deficit (until then), an enormous thing that was sucking most of your tax dollar to pay only its interest. He made that into a surplus, which allows a government once again to provide services. If you were elderly and in need of health care, or poor and in need of a shelter, or young and wanted a college loan, or brain-damaged/HIV-infected and in need of hospitalization, or just wanted those horrible ruts on the road fixed, the downtown near you revitalized, or the police and and teachers paid a decent wage, you knew the problems of living under a $200 billion deficit. The money simply isn't there, when needed. It can't be used on federal programs, or sent to the states to use on state and local programs. A government operating under such a drag to the economy gradually grinds to a halt.

I'll never forget an interview Reagan gave after gutting federal programs to keep the borderline mentally ill in state facilities all over the US. There were many, many complaints at the time about homeless loiterers who were out of touch with reality, in some cases wandering into (and being killed by) traffic. It made many newspaper and television headlines, which shows the extent to which people were aware of the problem, if nothing else.

Some of these people ended up in Lafayette Park, opposite the White House. Shortly before Christmas, in below freezing conditions when they were still out there--no services available to take them in, because they needed advanced medical assistance, not simply shelter--Reagan said about them, "There are always going to be people [like this]. They make it their own choice for staying out there." (A couple of 'em died a few nights later.)

This isn't a legacy of "feel good." This is a legacy of "turn away and make belief nothing wrong is happening." Clinton, whatever his personal shortcomings (and they were many and varied), turned around that gaping budget deficit into a budget surplus. That's Clinton's legacy: a government that actually had the money to do what a government is supposed to do. That isn't a slogan. That's a simple, cold fact, based on actual budget figures. Don't let partisan views blind you to this genuine accomplishment, because you need money to run a government and a country. Not realizing this is like whistling while walking over a cliff.

The main cloud on the fiscal horizon - the long-term insolvency of the government-run pension system - stems from a program Reagan opposed. The end of the federal welfare entitlement was also presaged by Reagan. In the early 1970s, when he was governor of California, he alone opposed the question of whether to federalize that entitlement. It took 30 years and Bill Clinton to recognize, finally, the validity of Reagan's point.

Scayde, the enormous federal debt run up by Reagan was due to doubling defense expenditures, already the single largest line item in the budget before he took office. Far from cutting government, he expanded it, but did so by creating new bureaucracies in defense. Government pensions were miniscule compared to this. Consider how much of a deficit Reagan's intellectual descendant, Bush Jr, has wracked up following a similar line of thinking: more than $500 billion due to defense allocations over the last several years.

Reagan's budget cuts were extremely broad and often senseless, made on the basis of general philosophy rather than practical business sense. While there were many instances of this, the most spectacular involved removing from the US legal system a requirement for savings and loans to pass through a number of regular government inspections, as well as get insurance. This was all eliminated along with the government bureau in charge, to concentrate expenditures in defense. Do you remember the Texas Savings and Loan Scandal of the mid-80s? All those banks that started without any cash on hand and engaged in dodgy business practices, because they weren't being monitored by a credible agency. When the bubble burst and people began demanding their money, there was no money to be had: it had all been invested in volatile bond issues with lengthy maturities, something no federal regulator would have ever approved. The S&Ls didn't even insurance coverage. The result was an additional $50 billion to the national deficit.

Clinton didn't follow Reagan, and I'm not sure where you found that. Clinton raised taxes, and cut defense spending: these were his measures, the opposite of Reagan's, and he did them over the screams and insults of a Congress that hated his guts. He repeatedly took long investment trips with corporate executives to Japan and Western Europe, in order to "grease" the economy's wheels, and prevent his macro economic measures from cooling industry down. He was given private credit for securing a number of important trade and business deals by many who wouldn't say a word publically in his favor.

I personally have a low opinion of Clinton's sensibilities, intellect and character, but he was definitely not a Reagan manque. Reagan killed the US economy, both on a federal and local level. Clinton brought it back to life, while being spit up on openly by the politicians who still wanted to look good for opposing new taxes. We should give praise where praise is due.

@stramoski: Sounds like an very dangerous way to judge a politician, since their most profound effect on society and the world around them is through their actions, not their appearance. Many not so pleasant dictators have been extremely charismatic and made parts of their people feel good about themselves.

@Scayde: You do not need to defend your assertions line by line, since all those based on Reagans achievements have already been disputed and no evidence to support them has yet been presented. As for his charimatic effect on the American people, I think it is obvious but it does not define his greatness. Rather, it is the essence of my question. How can he, despite his documented effect on the real world be held in such high regard just because he inspires his people? I doubt that the American people are inspired by words from a man with a blatant disregard for human life, even if that human isn't American, so it must be something else. What is that something else? Or am I to assume that Americans in general are a bloodthirsty bunch who want to lay waste to all other lands and pillage their riches?

Everyone gets to chose what they wish to believe in of course, and you provided me with an answer to my question. Didn't do me a whole lot of good though, but now at least I realise that my question in this respect is the same question as with the election and Dubbya... Why do people prefer a fantasy world over the real thing?

Scayde, the enormous federal debt run up by Reagan was due to doubling defense expenditures

While defense expenditures skyrocketed, the truth is that federal revenues boomed on Reagan's watch. Something which is overlooked by his detractors. His supporters see the resulting defense related deficit as an investment in an early end to an expensive conflict. A price some felt was worth paying.

Clinton didn't follow Reagan, and I'm not sure where you found that

Sorry, this is a misunderstanding. I never meant to imply that Clinton followed Reagan in policy or practice...by recognize I meant seen to fruition. It was under the Clinton administration that decentralization of the Federal Welfare system took place and the burden of public aid was returned to the states to deal with or do away with as they saw fit. Something that Reagan had tried unsuccessfully to achieve.

Why do people prefer a fantasy world over the real thing?

Silur, this statement implies that those who do not agree with you on the way that reality should be, live in a fantasy. That is fine if it is your oppinion, but it hardly makes it true. It is entirely possible that for instance..to use your own words...Americans in general are a bloodthirsty bunch who want to lay waste to all other lands and pillage their riches?..or, it could be neither of the two..there are many other possibilities. I for one am totally aware of both his foreign policies, and he record in Central Amercia. Yet I admire what I consider his achievements. I do not think that one cancels out the other. but then, I , like yourself, am entitled to my personal oppinion .

[QUOTE=Scayde]
While defense expenditures skyrocketed, the truth is that federal revenues boomed on Reagan's watch. Something which is overlooked by his detractors. His supporters see the resulting defense related deficit as an investment in an early end to an expensive conflict. A price some felt was worth paying.[/quote]

Scayde, let's say you invest in a retail business I run (the more fool, you) that's currently losing $5000. Six months later, you come by to see how things are doing. After checking the figures, you notice that my expenditures are now $400,000. Ah, I reply, but I have reveues of $2000! And even if my revenues are constant while my expenditures are increasing rapidly, it's obvious that my revenues are great!

Not so. Expenditures and revenues are tied together, and they are extended in a line across time. Examining them separately can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings. Reagan had a whopping overall budget deficit: taking into account all federal revenues vs expenditures, the result was $200 billion in the hole. That was the deficit we were servicing with our tax dollars. There was no early end to any expensive conflict, since the US wasn't involved in a largescale conflict at the time. Reagan's neo-con advisors in his first administration thought America Should Be Strong, and the way American myth runs, the only way to be strong is to have the biggest, most expensive guns, and in the largest number, too. Reagan fully agreed with this: it was his decision. The budget deficit soared. These days, everybody associated with that decision backpedals and makes excuses, which in itself is a clue to how embarassing it is.

Looking at the budgets from 1986 and 2001, Reagan's non-tax-related revenues were 8.1% of his budget, while tax revenues brought in 9.3%. Clinton, in his last budget, had 8.2% of the revenues from non-tax-related items, and 12.2% from tax revenues. On the other hand, direct defense spending under Reagan was 6.2%, while under Clinton, it was 2.9%. (Remember, those figures relate to billions of dollars, so even 1/10th of a percent difference is enormous in terms of actual capital.) The decline of the deficit meant that while interest on the national debt was a whopping 3.1% under Reagan in 1986, it had dropped to 2.0% by Clinton's last year. It was these factors--cutting defense spending, increasing taxes--that turned around the hefty Reagan deficit into a Clinton surplus.

Sorry, this is a misunderstanding. I never meant to imply that Clinton followed Reagan in policy or practice...by recognize I meant seen to fruition. It was under the Clinton administration that decentralization of the Federal Welfare system took place and the burden of public aid was returned to the states to deal with or do away with as they saw fit. Something that Reagan had tried unsuccessfully to achieve.

Agreed, but Clinton also raised taxes to provide the states with enough support for the welfare system. He offloaded the responsibility for management, which was a good idea, but he had the sense to provide the means to finance it. As opposed to Reagan and his ideological godson, Dubya, who cut state funds to the bone, and smiled serenely while the states and localities took the flack for not providing services to their inhabitants.

And in any case, the central themes of Clinton's budget turnaround were raise taxes, and lower defense spending. These worked. The opposite under Reagan was an abject failure of his administration, and it's proving one under Dubya--whose budget deficit due to defense expenditures, by the way, are more than double those Reagan achieved.

Oh, are we going to feel the pinch when the penny drops.

@Scayde&Others: I am sorry that people are put off by our obvious dislike for Reagan. I think nobody mean to just spew out hostilities at the man and his supporters, but rather try to get a conclusive answer to an important question.

Now, if I am allowed to put words into peoples mouths...

"Great" in the title of this thread is not meant to be a word that is open to anyones definition. For anyone who has not been around GB since his death that might be far from obvious. "Great" instead means a man you would be happy to support for power, even in retrospect, due to the things he have accomplished. If he is to be called great here than he did more good than bad in the fields that you personally consider important.

I think the reason why the debate has been a long winded and repetitive one is that some questions about him have never been answered:

The economy: That Reagan cut taxes are clear, and it is easy to see how people could like that. The question here is do you think that is a viable policy even if it is not sustainable? If so why? Is a governments deficit irrelevant for some reason? Or are there any other explanation?

Soviet Union: That Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union is very controversial to say the least. If you belive he did that explains some of part of the positive opinion about him, but it would be nice to know why you believe that. How is the defence budget of US connected to Gorbachevs reforms, and refusal to crack down on the satellite states? Soviet Union was not in danger of beeing forecebly overrun in any way, it was not a situation were USA intimidation of that kind was possible.

The foreign policy: Provided you know about Reagans record here, how can anything make up for it? Is it not an important enough issue? If so, why? Or do you only know part of it, or think it is overblown? If you stated what you think he did perhaps it is easier to find an explanation for what many see as very strange priorities.

Now, I am sure everyone can understand the importance of the above questions, particularly the 2 last ones, and why I, among others, have difficulties letting this go unanswered.

@Scayde: Opinions are generally based on facts. I can comprehend that one without any concern for the rest of the world could view Reagan in a positive way IF the reasons you stated were true. All factual evidence contradicts those statements, as have been shown in this thread and others, and by professional economists and analysts worldwide. Opinions need to be revised when new information becomes available or apparent. While Reagan was president, it was only possible to see what was readily apparent; El Salvador, Iran, etc. As for the economy and long term effects on the world, this is much easier and is much more reliable to fathom in retrospect. The amount of information on Reagans effect on the US is overwhelming, and it does not support your statements. As for the effects on the world, they are equally well documented and show without a doubt that Reagan was a war criminal and was directly responsible for numerous massacres of civilians. If this is of no concern to you, I suggest you visit El Salvador or speak to some of the survivors of Contra assaults. Maybe you will have a change of heart, even though you say you are aware of it.

[QUOTE=Scayde]fable...I am no economist, nor am I am accountant, but I do know that national budgets are based on projections of anticipated outlay vs expected receipts receivable.[/quote]

I didn't post figures from prospective national budgets, @Scayde. The figures I posted for Reagan and Clinton were the actual expense figures long *after* those years had past. So they aren't cases of "wishful thinking," but achievement, bad, good, or in between.

Clinton rode in on the back of tremendous fiscal growth.

Quite the opposite. During the 4 years that preceded Clinton, the GNP under George Bush rose only an average of 0.7% per year, which made it the lowest since the depression. The median household income fell, unemployment rose steadily, the number of people below the poverty line increased each year, and the national deficit continued to rise. In the elder Bush's favor, he inherited a lot of his burgeoning economic problems from Reagan. Against him, however, is the fact that he didn't even begin to perceive problems existed, much less formulate a coordinated strategy for dealing with these issues.

By the time his 8-year administration left office in February 2000, Clinton could look back on 107 consecutive months of economic expansion, an American record. 22.2 million jobs had been created since he took office, the most under any administration, and more than the three preceding terms of Reagan and Bush, together. 91% of the jobs were in the private sector. Unemployment had dropped from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% in 2000. And the poverty rate fell from 15.1% in 1993, to 12.7% in 1998: the lowest since 1979.

I've never tried to hide my intense distaste for Clinton as a human being. But he came in with severe budgetary problems caused by Reagan and Bush, worked to fix them with or around a Congress that hated his guts, and succeeded remarkably well. He did this on his own (though with advisors; still, every president has those), and that's an extraordinary achievement.

I will split my reply into two posts. One that will question specific statements and conclusions, and one that will contain my own conclusions. I'll start with questioning some specific issues:

Scayde wrote:
ie: I would never murder my neighbor because he is a Communist. However...Communism as a whole threatens my way of life, therefore I would support an international policy that makes every attempt to thrwart its spread. Even to the point of a civil war if I perceived it to be an immanent threat. If I stop and truly think of the individuals who will loose their lives in said struggle. ..it would cause me great pain...still...my own personal needs would outweigh the needs of others in this case. I am an isolationist at heart...and do not support our involvement in civil wars as a general principal, but I would make an exception if I believed that the outcome would in fact have a direct impact on my way of life and sense of security at home.

When such extreme actions as invading other countries, overthrow their democratically elected regimes and killing their innocent civilian populations are taken, the motive must indeed be great. However, for a start it needs at least to be fact based and not based on a paranoid fantasy. When it is not fact based, it is a warcrime in my eyes. You claim you were personally threatned by communism. Let me ask you: how on earth should Nicaragua, El Salvador or Honduras have won a war against the US and spread communism to your country? Do you really believe these small, poor countries posed a real threat to US security? If that is what you believe, can you explain and present the reasons for why you hold this belief?

While I am capable in evaluating the consequences on a global scale, my prime concern is my own community and personal way of life. This might sound amoral to one who has taught themselves to think and reason instinctively at the higher level, it makes perfect sense to those who see the world in a more myopic view. I believe that most people, not just Americans, view the world through this lens. Since my personal standard of living mushroomed under the leadership of Reagan, It is only natural for me to hold him in high regard for the positive effect he had on my and my communities prosperity. There was an unprecedented economic boom in my community and the huge majority of the members of my community prospered under his leadership.

So are you saying that economic development in your community were worth the lives of thousands of innocent South Americans? That would not be only myopic, that would be immoral beyond my comprehension.

It is no secret that I think it is immoral to give priority to one's own material wealth at the cost of other people's lives. However, it is not the myopic view (called "proximity bias" in social psychology) per se I view as immoral, it is the hypocrisy that you can do to others what they are not allowed to do to you, I view as the most immoral.

If I understand your reasoning correctly, you claim that self-interest and perceived threats to one's own life style, justifies killing of others. If so, you must also justify that others will kill you and invade your country for the same reason.

Thus follows, that if a communist or an islamic terrorist perceive the US is a threat to the lifestyle of their people, it is acceptable that they invade the US, overthrow Bush and kill thousands of civilians.

If you acknowledge that followers of aggressive communist, islam extremist or whatever policies' leaders have the same rights as you do, and that other countries have the same right as America has, I will no view you as immoral, I will just disagree with you.

If on the other hand you think the US has an exclusive right to invade other countries and kill people in other countries because you dislike their culture, I will hold this an immoral racist opinion. It is nothing specific for you, it is a general moral principle of mine and also consistant with the defitinion of racism: The opinion that one country, culture or people of specific ethnic background, are superior to another country or culture or people of other ethnic background, so that this justifies invading that country and killing it's inhabitants without military provocation from that country, is a racist opinion.

When I think abstractly...I do morn the loss of life that was the price of these actions, but I would also wish to point out that funding rebel incursions against Communism in an area so close to my home, which had been successful would have deeply affected my way of life, I tend to find it acceptable to term these as casualties of war. I do not feel it is justified to liken Reagan to the likes of Pol Pot who massacred millions of his own countrymen.

The US sponsored Pol Pot, because he was against the Soviet Union. Do you like him better becasue of that?

Pol Pot was responsible for the killings of 1-2 million people. I abhor the man more than I abhor Reagan.

The Reagan administration did not only fund the Contras, it also trained and armed them. Reagan called them "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers" although the contras slaughtered schoolteachers, priests and children.

The Nicaraguan people had elected the Sandinistas. The Sandinistas never even called themselves communist. A country close to you was communist. And you term killing of these innocent Nicaraguan civilians as "casualties of war". Israel is a country in the Middle east, which basically agrees with US culture and political views. The Arab countries surrounding Israel may "feel threatned" by a democratic, judean country close to them. Do you think they should invade Israel, overthrow Knesset, put PLO in the lead instead and kill thousands of Israeli civilians? And what about the victims of the 9/11 attack? Are they also "casualties of war"? I am sure Al-Quada perceive themselves as very threatned by Western culture. Western culture is coming really close to them as you know. So why should not the same principles you defend the US for, be valid also for them? And what about Egypt and Algeria, they are very close to for instance Italy and France. Should Algeria invade France do you think, to protect it's own culture from potential influence of French culture?

(You may think I am trying to be sarcastic here, but I am not at all, I am applying your own arguements on other countries, because I would like to know whether you really think the US has superior rights.)

To my knowledge, and despite research regarding statements made here, I can find no evidence where Reagan was ever indicted , much less prosecuted for war crimes. He did face review and impeachment proceedings for his Iran Contra arms for hostages, for which he made apologies and effected immediate change in policy.

I know that you stated you are not going to defend your opinions here, but when you have time I recommend that you read:

The US Congress final report from Nov 1987, which final conclusion was that Reagan bore "the ultimate responsibility" for "secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law." North and Poindexter was convicted on several points, among them lying to the congress, destroying documents, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Reagan pleaded he had no information about the ongoings, and was not convicted, although notes in his diary clearly demostrated that he had sold weapons to Iran.

The 1986 ruling from the International court of justice, which convicted the US for the activites in Nicaragua, but the US refused to pay restitution and vetoed the UN resolution that all states should obey international law. The US has not payed this fine to this day.

If you prefer the more emotional and personal account of a single individual who was there, rather than the reports, I also recommend you to read this interview with a US Vietnam Veteran who returned his congressional medal of honour in protest against the US involvement in Central America:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Amy_G ... rview.html

The US Congress final report from Nov 1987, which final conclusion was that Reagan bore "the ultimate responsibility" for "secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law." North and Poindexter was convicted on several points, among them lying to the congress, destroying documents, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Reagan pleaded he had no information about the ongoings, and was not convicted, although notes in his diary clearly demostrated that he had sold weapons to Iran.

The 1986 ruling from the International court of justice, which convicted the US for the activites in Nicaragua, but the US refused to pay restitution and vetoed the UN resolution that all states should obey international law. The US has not payed this fine to this day.

And the Reagan administration also approved the sale of chemical and biological WMD (including full strength anthrax) to the Hussein regime in Iraq. This kind of decision is of such importance that it had to have been made at the very top. Hussein's thuggish barbarity was already well-known, given his treatment of his own people; and in any case, you don't see anthrax to a foreign government engaged in a war (as Iraq was, with our then-enemy, Iran) if you don't expect it to use the acquired weapons. Reagan bears full responsibility for the use of those WMD against the Iranians, and at least partial responsibility for their subsequent use at home.

Oh, I forgot:

[QUOTE=Scayde]
Dinesh D'Souza wrote of Reagan's success."he brilliantly pivoted and helped Gorbachev along in the dismantling of Communist rule and the Soviet empire.”

Yep...He did all that.

[/QUOTE]

Dinesh D'Souza is a highly conservative American writer who has written articles with titles such as "Ten Great Thing About America" and "How Ronald Reagan Won The Cold War". He is know for denying the existance of institutional racism in the US. He founded an ultraconservative journal, which published papers critising woman students and black people. He has published material where black Americans are accused of having a mentality to which racism from white people is only a sound response, and that slavery had nothing to do with segregation and racism, but was merely a finacial institution. It is easy to look for credit for one's ideas by quoting references that simply agrees with your own opinions. Just because D'Souza share your opinion, does not give your or his opinion more validity. Lots of people have fantasy-based opinions.

It would be interesting in any Reagan supporter posted the objective, fact based information on which their belief that Reagan influenced the fall of the Soviet union. Facts can usually be found in independent reports, rather than in popular books or papers by political extremists. News websites such as BBC and CNN can be helpful, history books and independant reports are the most useful. It should be noted, that facts are descriptions of events that happened in reality. An opinion such as "Reagan influenced the downfall of Soviet because he spend trillions of dollars on the arms race" is not a fact, since the conclusion is an interpretation. If you can post evidence that Gorbatjev actually decided and acted his reforms as a response to events in the US, we have evidence for a fact.

Just as I said I will believe in Creationism the day I see scientific data supporting it, I will acknowledge Reagan's part in the fall of the Soviet union when I see fact based data supporting this. Contrary to what you may believe, I am not at all a person whos mind is difficult to change, I probably change opinion on things more often than I change clothes. But opinions based on feelings and subjective interpretations based on non-facts, are per definitions fantasy, and fantasies never change my opinion on anything. One of the most important tasks in making progress in science, is to transfer fantasy and speculation into facts. Can anyone do the same with their fantasies about Reagan's role in the downfall of the Soviet Union by providing a description of the mechanisms, actions and consequences - based on actual events.

Ok, in this post I will sum up my conclusions regarding why some people think Reagan was a "great" man. The quotes are all from this thread:

- Reagan said the right things, made decisive actions, and looked genial but serious. The endless verbal stumbles (and some horrifically insensitive remarks) were overlooked, because for quite a few people, he helped them feel good about the US.

- Ronald Reagan was a cultural icon, he embodied a set of beliefs and an era. When Reagan came to power, he was perceived to have brought in the dawning of a new optimism, and a revalidation of "The American Dream." I think, as much as anything, this is why so many Americans view Ronald Reagan as "a great man."

- Ronald Reagan was real; there wasn't an ounce of phoniness in him. He believed in and loved America with a passionate, contagious patriotism that rippled through the body politic into the national soul. He made it acceptable to believe in the greatness of this country again, in its economic potential and its military might.

- He was big and strong and made not a single apology for it. He didn’t give a rat’s you know what about the rest of the world, but he LOVED America.

These are all emotional arguments. These arguments all go in the direction of Reagan making Americans feel good about themselves and their country.

Then we have the crimes against human rights and international law: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Iran-Contras affair, the arming of Iraq, of Muhajedin, the 1982 attack killing hundreds of civilians in a refugee camp in Lebanon, the branding of ANC and other anti-apartheid movements as terrorists...etc, etc. In short, killing thousands of cilivians without any military provocation or evidence of threat from those countries.

Possibly moderating the judgement of Reagan's responsibility for warcrimes, is the idea that he was involved in the downfall of the Soviet Union, which is a fanatasy until it is demonstrated by facts.

Conclusion: Reagan made us feel good.

No matter the cost of other people's lives. Reagan made some Americans feel good and proud of their country in a patriotic way. Therein lies his "greatness".

Thank you all for replying to my questions.

Silur, I do believe that fable is adequately explaining why some people feel that Ronald Reagan was great. He likens an image of the man in America to a King Arthur, presiding over Camelot.

[QUOTE=fable]...Most people in any nation identify themselves with that nation. If we accept this, then most of those people in turn would find it difficult to live with an image of their nation as somehow inadequate and insufficient. This is especially the case in the US, where people are taught early in school to accept a series of myths regarding the manifest destiny of the US...[/quote]

How very, very true. A non-American would have a difficult time understanding this, without some insight. To many, it boils down to this decision: hang on to the myth, or let it go? What happens when you let it go, and discover that you (and millions of others like you) have been misled for most of your life?

[quote="fable]...Reagan said the right things"]

An innocent observer (without any preconceptions of the man) would notice that Ronald Reagan was a master salesman. This makes sense, since he spent part of his career as a frontman for General Electric. He was an actor as well...and had some rather brilliant PR. Like fable states, he obtensibly was for smaller government...giving people the impression he wanted to relieve Americans of the excessive tax burdens they bore. Yet his record shows otherwise. Most aren't aware of this. Instead, when confronted with evidence that shows his massive military spending (and no real governmental streamlining taking place or being proposed during his two terms in office), propaganda exists which counters it by proclaiming, "the arms race with the USSR was crucial in his plan to end the Cold War, he had to counter their threat," and "he was opposed by a liberally-controlled congress that fought him every step of the way."

Somewhere in the mix, however, it is possible to separate the myth from truth, and America from an unscrupulous federal government that has a bi-partisan appetite for power. It's difficult to do, but it can happen if one remembers America a long time ago, before the big lie had a chance to saturate the very cultural fabric of America. Someone like Reagan...Bush...even Clinton...are not the problem. They are the symptoms of an even deeper problem. We can discuss the branches all day long, Silur, but I propose that your inability to understand why anyone would consider Reagan great hits on the roots of the tree...and why someone like Reagan would not only get elected, but be elected for a second term.