Your Favorite President

[Sava]

I accept paypal...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh yeah, the closest the world came to nuclear annihilation

A better President would have realized it was no big deal, since we had missles on the northern Turkish coast pointed at the USSR. BOTH sides were into MAD, so it was just another deterrant. In fact, Krushchev only removed the missles when Kennedy promised to remove the nukes from Turkey (though after 6 months so it wouldn't seem like a deal ).

KENNEDY MADE IT A CRISIS! By going on TV like a damned fool, he made everyone go nuts. Any competant president would have gone through the back channels, find out what Krushchev wanted and made the deal. I tell ya if Nixon was in office, we'd never hear of a 'crisis', because it'd get done quietly.

And like I said again... is that it? That's the proof that Kennedy fought against communism? Getting the Soviets to remove missles from Cuba, which just about everyone would have done (just with more tact).

[Sava]

Fine, I'll use that argument against you. Anyone would have done what Reagan did, but a better president would have been smarter.

Gee, I love using outlandish hypothetical situations!!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
Too many people including those in the gay community, and including politicians like Ron refused to take any serious plan of action.

How is this Ron's fault again?

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How is this Ron's fault again?

Because MrFun needs a scapegoat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anyone would have done what Reagan did, but a better president would have been smarter.

Because Carter and Nixon and Ford did the same thing? Bull! What crisis did Reagan face where anyone else would have done the same... but better. He approached the USSR in a new way.

Kennedy, OTOH, dealt with a crisis in which it was obvious the course of action (if you ever read Foundation, it is akin to a Seldon Crisis, almost). And EVEN IF a president did not act to get missles out of Cuba, it wouldn't have mattered... except in an election. Which also reminds me, Kennedy lied, blatently, about the 'missile gap' as well. I thought you hated liars, Sava?

[mrmitchell]

TR bashers...he was, indeed, somewhat a warmonger. Then again, he also had vision, and introduced all sorts of domestic reforms. In addition to environmental commitment--the first President to even give a crap about it.

(The only other President from the era that stands out so much would be FDR.)

[Ramo]

Increased pressure on the Soviets by more pressing on them and building SDI streached the Soviet machine to the limit.

The Soviet response to the SDI was peanuts compared to the Soviet military budget. It really mattered very little. The Soviet Union collapsed ultimately because of Gorby.

Reagan really was another Kennedy in terms of foreign policy. He acted agressively and incompetently when facing a liberal Soviet leader, almost insuring his replacement by a hardliner. And who knows how much longer the USSR would've existed if a coup by the politburo against Gorby succeeded as well as the coup against Kruschev.

[Sava]

Reagam, OTOH, dealt with a crisis in which it was obvious the course of action.

beware when using such shallow arguments Imran, they can be turned against you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Soviet response to the SDI was peanuts compared to the Soviet military budget. It really mattered very little.

Then why did Gorby fear it so that his main request as Rekjavik and other disarmament conferences was for the Americans to stop SDI? Why did plenty of the former government officials in the former KGB say that SDI was the straw that broke the camel's back?

The Soviets KNEW they couldn't compete and KNEW they HAD to compete if the Americans went farther and farther along. That is why they were so concerned and always asked the Amis to stop doing it.

He acted agressively and incompetently when facing a liberal Soviet leader, almost insuring his replacement by a hardliner.

Gorby's election as Premier is almost solely because of Reagan. The Party believed it needed someone young and dynamic to lead the party instead of the old fogeys who were getting HAMMERED by Reagan. So they picked Gorby, even though he was a reformer. They needed someone to be able to stand up to Reagan. They thought they could control him, but failed in the end.

[Imran Siddiqui]

beware when using such shallow arguments Imran, they can be turned against you.

Can you tell me the 'crisis' that Reagan faced? Instead of making up stuff and saying "Ha, Ha, I reversed it!" when you really did no such thing?

[Sava]

According to you, Reagan is THE GREAT SAVIOR AGAINST THE EVIL EMPIRE. Certainly that is a crisis!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... yeah, sure...

How is it a crisis to have a country that dislikes you in a Cold War for 50 years or so? Long crisis, eh? If there was one obvious solution to the crisis, don't you think every President would have handled the USSR the same way?

ZZZZT, sorry Sava, you're wrong again .

[Sava]

Make up your mind Imran, either Reagan's a great savior, or he's not. Your double talk is getting tiresome. And you opened the door for "well if this guy did it, another guy would have done the same thing" comparisons. Don't run away just because you are getting shredded by the likes of me.

[Ramo]

Then why did Gorby fear it so that his main request as Rekjavik and other disarmament conferences was for the Americans to stop SDI?

Because building nukes wasn't a huge priority for either side at the time (and they were covered to a large extent by the arms limitation treaties). The SDI was the main avenue for upping the ante, so that naturally would've been the Soviets' primary concern at such conferences.

Why did plenty of the former government officials in the former KGB say that SDI was the straw that broke the camel's back?

Plenty of former Soviet officials would've said otherwise. In terms of actual spending, the response to the SDI simply wasn't that big relative to the military budget.

Gorby's election as Premier is almost solely because of Reagan. The Party believed it needed someone young and dynamic to lead the party instead of the old fogeys who were getting HAMMERED by Reagan. So they picked Gorby, even though he was a reformer. They needed someone to be able to stand up to Reagan. They thought they could control him, but failed in the end.

Yes, but PR concerns were kind of less important during the time Gorby was in power - when the politburo knew he wasn't very pliant, compared to perestroika, etc. doing practically nothing in terms of toning down American policies towards the Soviets.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The SDI was the main avenue for upping the ante, so that naturally would've been the Soviets' primary concern at such conferences.

Which was the goal of Reagan and the CIA Director.

In terms of actual spending, the response to the SDI simply wasn't that big relative to the military budget.

It did add pressures to it. SDI wasn't huge, but it increased the military budget to more than they wanted. But they had to do it to keep up.

but PR concerns were kind of less important during the time Gorby was in power - when the politburo knew he wasn't very pliant, compared to perestroika, etc. doing practically nothing in terms of toning down American policies towards the Soviets.

Taking him out as soon as he was put in (basically) would have looked desperate. At least by 1991, it may have looked better.

Don't overlook the rhetoric either. Reagan's speech at Moscow State University had a profound effect on the youth of that country. It is one of the most important speeches in US history, IMO (and even Democrats will admit that ).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
Because MrFun needs a scapegoat.

I love it when people make lame attempts to distort my arguments.

Reagan was only one of the number of people in position to do something about the early stage of the AIDS crisis. This includes some gay activists who opposed any changes with the bathouse services when such changes could have headed off wider spread of the disease.

Reagan shut his eyes to reality, in spite of the theoretical conclusion that some scientists produced through research.

[Dom Pedro II]

The Soviets KNEW they couldn't compete and KNEW they HAD to compete if the Americans went farther and farther along. That is why they were so concerned and always asked the Amis to stop doing it.

What I've always failed to understand about this argument is WHY? It's not like Reagan would have started war with the Soviets... even if we had a working SDI (which we didn't). Microwaving 150 million people isn't exactly the best to gain the public's support, and a conventional war taken to Soviet soil would be equally as stupid.

And as you said, it was the straw that broke the camel's back... which means that the camel was pretty overburdened in the first place. Regionalism was breaking out everywhere under Breznev, and his successors never really reined the peripheral territories back in. Gorby had to instute major reforms as a result of this distabilization that loosened the government hold on things... and of course, when you do that, you open the door for even further movement against the government in spite of placating some of the people. The Soviet Union was going down in flames. Gorbachev knew it, the Party knew it, and I'm sure the Reagan administration knew it. If it had not been for SDI, the Soviet Union might have collapsed one or two years later, but it was going down anyway.

Reagan had little more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than Clinton did with the booming economy in the 1990s.

[Defiant]

Thomas Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
TIE:Ronnie and George W.

And I will tell you this now Sava, kiss off!

[Dom Pedro II]

I'm just amazed that no one picked Coolidge (besides me) or Hoover!

I may have to change my vote to Hoover.

[Ramo]

Which was the goal of Reagan and the CIA Director.

Well, naturally given that they were a pair of militaristic psychos.

It did add pressures to it. SDI wasn't huge, but it increased the military budget to more than they wanted. But they had to do it to keep up.

Sure, a minor budget increase in the military adds pressures to the economy. But that's in terms of accelerating long-term economic decline. A hardliner could've kept a regime with a declining economy afloat indefinitely.

Hell, the horrendous military spending is what kept the Soviet economy afloat in the short term. When Gorby started to reverse the trend (despite Ronnie's provocations) by dismantling the military, the Soviet economy totally dissolved due to the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.

Taking him out as soon as he was put in (basically) would have looked desperate.

Which they were. Look at the string of leaders in power between Brehznev and Gorby. I don't think it's unlikely that they'd decide to axe him as well.

Don't overlook the rhetoric either. Reagan's speech at Moscow State University had a profound effect on the youth of that country. It is one of the most important speeches in US history, IMO (and even Democrats will admit that ).

Sure, speech can be important. But if it's speech towards a wrongly or incompetently percieved goal, that makes it pretty much irrelevent.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

1790-1877: Thomas Jefferson
1877-1945: Teddy Roosevelt
1945-present: Harry Truman (Personally, I'm iffy about implying that any of the post-WWII guys was any good...)

Worst:

1790-1877: James Buchanan
1877-1945: Warren Harding. ("I am a man of limited talents from a small town. I don't seem to realize that I am president." Woodrow Wilson and Benjamin Harrison are tied for second worst in my book.)
1945-present: Gerald Ford. Or Jimmy Carter, for that matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo, ask many Russians who listened to that speech, and they can tell you the impact it had. It's a fabulous speech delievered wonderfully. Not dealing with Russia, but an anecdote I like is when Reagan spoke in China and made this really great speech about free markerts and democracy. An American reporter was standing next to a young Chinese individual, when the person's eyes went wide and he turned to the reporter. He pointed to Reagan and say "He good Yankieman". Hehe.

The power of rhetoric is very, very strong. That combined with hardline policies was the show the USSR that the US was not going to back down.

You have to remember that by the late 70s, the US was looking down and out. It was the low point for the country since 1945. Reagan comes in, say we aren't done yet. Beefs up the military, talks tough, and most important is incredibly optimistic (which is learned from FDR), and projects strength.

YES, it WAS a huge gamble, but it paid off in the end. If it failed and a hardliner took over in 1991, then you could easily say it failed, but it was worth taking. As FDR (A president I admire very much) said (paraphrasing) even if it doesn't work, you have to try something.

And of course, as you know, the guy who is most well renown for being a hardliner CAN reach out to the side without being pummeled for it. Which is why NO ONE dared to call Eisenhower soft on communism (which they would have called someone who had done what he did without the 'stars'). Reagan was able to go over the Moscow, was able to go to meet Gorby so much, and be friendly with him, because people knew that he was such an anti-communist. The Great Communicator didn't let political ideology get in the way of friendship . And if you are friends with the leader of the USSR, but hate the system, you may have better influence, wouldn't you think?

Who knows, if we followed detente, In my opinion, Gorby probably wouldn't have gotten elected, and we probably still would have a USSR here, though vastly weakened (some might not say that was such a bad idea though).

I DO think that SDI's main benefit was the problems that it would lead to in the future of the USSR. Gorby saw this and so did many other leaders of the poliburo. If a hardliner took over in 1991, the massive increases he'd have to put into SDI (to match our massive amounts) would have killed it. Without SDI, I don't think the USSR ends up as weak as it did in 1989 or 1991.

And Dom, I actually do think Clinton's switcheroo in 1995 (when the Republicans swept in) did help the economy. He indicated he wouldn't mess around in it again, and backing welfare reform, etc., helped as well. He changed from 'socialist health care' Bill to 'pro-business' Bill. Psychologically that had an impact, I think.

[Lord Merciless]

My Favorites:
George Washinton,
Abe Lincoln,
FDR,
Ronald Reagan,
Bill Clinton.

My despised ones:
James Buchanan,
Benjamin Harrison,
Warren Harding,
Jimmy Carter.