NationStates Jolt Archive

We've had Reagan vs. Clinton, so now it's time for the Gipper to challenge Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, in the great debating halls of Nation States.

We all know that Bush likes to think of himself as a modern-day Reagan. Both are practically sainted by the American right-wing.

I think I choose Bush, just barely. I don't think he has done as many horrible things as Reagan. Then again, despite the crap, Reagan did help bring down the USSR. I can't decide! Make up my mind, fiends!


PS, I forgot to put a poll. Mods, put one in plz.

I have to agree. While Bush could end up being worse than Reagan, since he has another 4 years to do so, at this point Reagan is the worst.

Lets be honest about Reagan. He didn't do ANYTHING special to take down the USSR. The overextended military funding, ineffective and corrupt economic system, and other inherant problems with the USSR state and goverment, enhanced and empowered by previous presidents made the USSR collapse under it's own weight. Reagan just happened to be the man lucky enough to be sitting in the oval office when the camel's back finally broke.

Lets be honest about Reagan. He didn't do ANYTHING special to take down the USSR. The overextended military funding, ineffective and corrupt economic system, and other inherant problems with the USSR state and goverment, enhanced and empowered by previous presidents made the USSR collapse under it's own weight. Reagan just happened to be the man lucky enough to be sitting in the oval office when the camel's back finally broke.
Actually, King George Bush the 1st was in office when the Wall came down, which puzzles me even further why people think Reagan did it.

Lets be honest about Reagan. He didn't do ANYTHING special to take down the USSR. The overextended military funding, ineffective and corrupt economic system, and other inherant problems with the USSR state and goverment, enhanced and empowered by previous presidents made the USSR collapse under it's own weight. Reagan just happened to be the man lucky enough to be sitting in the oval office when the camel's back finally broke.

No. Had the US elected and reelected McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Kerry et al., the USSR would not have collapsed but rather would have conquered the world. Reagan made all the difference.

No. Had the US elected and reelected McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Kerry et al., the USSR would not have collapsed but rather would have conquered the world. Reagan made all the difference.

Are you serious?

Do you have anything to back this up?

Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Actually, King George Bush the 1st was in office when the Wall came down, which puzzles me even further why people think Reagan did it.

The Berlin Wall came down a few years after the fall of the USSR.

My vote is for Reagan. He was "the people's president" and more people liked him.

Berlin wall comes down: 1989
USSR disbands: 1991

Berlin wall comes down: 1989
USSR disbands: 1991

Sorry, I guess I should have made my statement more clear. I meant that the fall of the USSR was before the wall came down. In the late to mid 1980's there was a lot of reform and unrest that some people call the end of the USSR. I guess technically I was wrong.

Are you serious?

Do you have anything to back this up?

Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Read this book. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385504713/townhallcom/

Read this book. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385504713/townhallcom/

It is purely speculative to say that Reagan made the USSR collapse. Reagan was actually denounced as an appeaser by some on the right for negotiating missile reductions with the USSR.

As for Bush v. Reagan I saw Regean was a better president for his first term becasue he was smarter and more statesmanlike than Bush. As for Reagan's second term I say Bush is better because while Bush is dim-witted Reagan was senile.

I don't like either, so I'd say Reagan because he was funnier.

Lets be honest about Reagan. He didn't do ANYTHING special to take down the USSR. The overextended military funding, ineffective and corrupt economic system, and other inherant problems with the USSR state and goverment, enhanced and empowered by previous presidents made the USSR collapse under it's own weight. Reagan just happened to be the man lucky enough to be sitting in the oval office when the camel's back finally broke.
But Reagan's policies helped to exasperate the problems of the Soviet Union. It would have fallen apart eventually. But Reagan sped it up massively. Perhaps by a decade and a half by my estimation.

The Soviet Union only lasted as long as it did because of the U.S. Read, for example, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony C. Sutton; Inside the State Department by Bryton Barron; Survival is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future by Prof. Richard Pipes. As for the phony "collapse" of the USSR, read New Lies For Old and The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn.

Lets be honest about Reagan. He didn't do ANYTHING special to take down the USSR. The overextended military funding, ineffective and corrupt economic system, and other inherant problems with the USSR state and goverment, enhanced and empowered by previous presidents made the USSR collapse under it's own weight. Reagan just happened to be the man lucky enough to be sitting in the oval office when the camel's back finally broke.
By no means do I believe he was soley responsible for the collapse of the USSR. I think that he just sped up the inevitable by about a decade. We cannot forget the liberal resistance movements in Eastern European countries. Reagan hurt the Soviet economy by inducing further arms racing. I think it was a very risky thing to do, but it turned out for the good.

The Soviet Union only lasted as long as it did because of the U.S. Read, for example, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony C. Sutton; Inside the State Department by Bryton Barron; Survival is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future by Prof. Richard Pipes. As for the phony "collapse" of the USSR, read New Lies For Old and The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn.
Well, in the 50s and 60s Khrushchev actually was pushing for an end to the arms race and peace between the two superpowers (Cuban missile affair aside).

The American leadership chose the riskier route of continued confrontation. They chose to help impoverish the Russian people. They chose to encourage the USSR to remain authoritarian and oppressive. They chose to risk the whole world with rapid nuclear proliferation.

They simply could not allow the USSR to show an economic system that could be successful. In the early 60s projections showed that the Soviet economy would be stronger than the American economy by 1983, if things continued at those rates. Their business lobbies could not have that.

One fact that always seems to elude most people is that, even though Russia is allegedly non-communist, communists are still running the show. Yeltsin was a member of the Communist Party. 'President' Vladimir Putrid was a KGB monster.

Well, in the 50s and 60s Khrushchev actually was pushing for an end to the arms race and peace between the two superpowers (Cuban missile affair aside).

The American leadership chose the riskier route of continued confrontation. They chose to help impoverish the Russian people. They chose to encourage the USSR to remain authoritarian and oppressive. They chose to risk the whole world with rapid nuclear proliferation.

They simply could not allow the USSR to show an economic system that could be successful. In the early 60s projections showed that the Soviet economy would be stronger than the American economy by 1983, if things continued at those rates. Their business lobbies could not have that.

Continuous U.S. aid and trade kept the Soviet Union from collapsing. Communism would have died for real in 1921 had not Herbert Hoover traveled to Russia and begged then-President Harding to give aid to the Soviets. Here's a list of some of the big corporations that traded and aided the Soviets:

AEC
Acme Mfg. Co.
Alcoa
Allen Bradley
Alliance Tool and Die Corp.
Allis-Chalmers
Allsteel Press Co.
Alpha Press Co.
American Can Co.
American Chain & Cable
American Express
American Magnesium Co.
Applied Magnetic Corp.
Ara Oztemal
Armco Steel
Atlas Fabricators Inc.
Automatic Production Sys.
Babcock & Wilcox
Bechtel
Belarus Equip. of Canada Ltd.
Bendix Corp.
Besley Grinder Co.
Bliss, E.W. Div. of Gulf & Western Industries
Boeing
Borg-Warner
Brown & Root Inc.
Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co.
Brunswick Corp.
Bryant Chucking Grinder Corp.
Burr-Brown Research Corp.
C-E Cast Equipment
Carborundum Co.
Carlton Machine Tool Co.
Carpenter Technology Corp.
Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Centispray
Century Data
Chase Manhattan Bank
Chemetron Corp.
Cincinnati Milacron Inc.
Clark Equipment
Cleveland Crane & Eng.
Colonial Broach
Combustion Engineering...

And the list goes on and on and on and on...

We were pretty prosperous under Reagan. I personally like both, but push comes to shove, I choose the Gipper.

In fact, the extremely vast majority of 'Soviet' technology was Western, mainly American, technology, which the Soviets received as a result of "peaceful trade," "detente," etc. Aid to the Soviets began early in 1918, when Woodrow Wilson began sending them aid in hopes that it would "mellow" them. Later administrations milked the same sorry excuse, that trading with the Soviets would make them more "democratic" and lead to "peace." No country on earth has done more to advance communism than the USA.

bump

The Soviet Union only lasted as long as it did because of the U.S. Read, for example, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony C. Sutton; Inside the State Department by Bryton Barron; Survival is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future by Prof. Richard Pipes. As for the phony "collapse" of the USSR, read New Lies For Old and The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn.

That's quite a list of readings. I don't suppose you could be bothered to explain your points for those of us who don't have quite so much free time on our hands?

That's quite a list of readings. I don't suppose you could be bothered to explain your points for those of us who don't have quite so much free time on our hands?

They basically describe how the major corporations (strongly encouraged by the government) actively traded "non-strategic goods," to make a quick buck, how the Soviets used the "non-strategic goods," to build weapons, military vehicles, etc., and how the USSR was completely dependent upon this trade.

No. Had the US elected and reelected McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Kerry et al., the USSR would not have collapsed but rather would have conquered the world. Reagan made all the difference.

LMAO.All Reagan did was make speeches and he didn't win the war. Russia was already coplasing, but not because of Reagan. Reagan did not make all the difference. I'm tired of America saying we did all the work when you don't give any credit to anyone else.

Now Reagan did rally some people in Germany, but it wasn't just because of him; it was also because of they were frankly tired of Russia telling them what to do. Also Reagan made great speeches to persuade the Iranians to let go the hostages. Now if I were to chose Reagan or Bush I would without a doubt chose the Gipper. I'm not saying Reagan was a bad president; he was a an a little bit above average president. Not the best, but one of the best.

The Gipper was a president who made us feel better about ourselves, a leader that you could look up to, a grandfather, etc. The Gipper was kind of like Kennedy, they both didn't do much, but he infleunced us somehow.

P.S. Yes I'm an American and no I'm obviously not proud of everything about this country.

Reagan was better because he vetoed non-military spending while Bush hasn't.

My vote would have to go to Reagan. In all fairness, he is one of the best friends the US Constitution has had in the White House.

That is, he knew exactly where the limits of the President's power were and rarely overreached it. He also knew exactly what Congress' job is and frequently reminded them. Not that they really listened -- but that's another thread! ;)

He also knew how to use the Media to his advantage. Presidents Clinton and Kennedy did too, but Reagan had an insiders' advantage.

Also Reagan made great speeches to persuade the Iranians to let go the hostages.
That's not how it happened. The Republican Party actually negotiated with the Iranians to keep the Americans as hostages in late 1980. They arranged for them to be released for Reagan's inauguration.

They did this while the Carter administration was still in power, and I don't understand how they got away with it. Not that Carter was good, but I don't see how an outside group got away with subverting the US administration .

Reagan was better because he vetoed non-military spending while Bush hasn't.
?????????????Comparing Bush and Reagan.....Just no, just no.They're not alike.Bush didn't make me feel better about America, Bush didn't make me look up to him as a grandfather,etc.Reagan wasn't like a person that made things better; Reagan was the type of president who you could look up to and ask for advice,feel better about America,etc.

yes he did make some things better non-morally wise.

That's not how it happened. The Republican Party actually negotiated with the Iranians to keep the Americans as hostages in late 1980. They arranged for them to be released for Reagan's inauguration.

They did this while the Carter administration was still in power, and I don't understand how they got away with it. Not that Carter was good, but I don't see how an outside group got away with subverting the US administration .
My bad.I wasn't around then....so I don't know!Yes I know he negotiated with the Iranians, but I know he did make a speech about it that scared the Iranians. I'm not 100% positive, but I'm 51% positive. :)