Ron Paul Deceived. BucEyedPea Believed. (The Fabricated Reagan Quote)

[patteeu]

I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but I wanted to create a separate thread where BucEyedPea can feel free to admit that Ron Paul was wrong or argue endlessly with me about it if she's still in denial without hijacking another thread.

In July of 2006, Ron Paul got up in front of the House of Representatives to speak in opposition to a resolution condemning Hezbollah's attack against Israel. In his statement, he quoted Ronald Reagan to bolster his case. I should say he "mis-quoted" Reagan though, because as it turns out the quote was FABRICATED.

Since then, BucEyedPea has repeatedly referenced that quote here on the pages of ChiefsPlanet. At last count, I've seen her reference it no less than 16 times. What's with these appeasement conservatives and their need to pretend that Ronald Reagan would have approved of their misguided, neo-isolationist message?

See my next two posts for the details.

[Saul Good]

You can just google "Ronald Reagan 49" if you can't stand the suspense.

[orange]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

49

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

?

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Anybody care to help out IJ on this one?

It's the 49th Parallel, of course. Damn that James K. Polk!

54 40 or Fight, I say!!

[|Zach|]

IJ, Saul is referring to the atomic number of indium.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by go bowe

damn neocons id da debbil...

go Bowe sighting!

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

This thread (and comments) should highlight why I raised the question.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com..._the_greatest/

The big thing to get me researching Reagan and his legacy was his colossal failure in Afghanistan and what it turned into. (aka Charlie Wilson's War)

WTF are you talking about? Colossal failure in Afghanistan?

You really are sitting in Moscow, aren't you comrade?

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by patteeu

WTF are you talking about? Colossal failure in Afghanistan?

You really are sitting in Moscow, aren't you comrade?

Colossal failure as in what it bred. Sure, he got the quick victory but the Afghanistan of today is due in large part to his policy.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Colossal failure as in what it bred. Sure, he got the quick victory but the Afghanistan of today is due in large part to his policy.

You're going to have to connect a few dots for me.

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You're going to have to connect a few dots for me.

Google reagan. Colossal failure.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Imagine 7 years from now the economy is still being run by Obama, and the war is still going on. Also, we're basically in a cold war with China.

Then, imagine that the next president comes in, ends the war in the ME with a victory, and bankrupts China.

That's why Reagan is so idolized. Let me know if you have any questions about why Abraham Lincoln, another great Republican, is still idolized.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Colossal failure as in what it bred. Sure, he got the quick victory but the Afghanistan of today is due in large part to his policy.

The Afghanistan of today isn't much different than the Afghanistan of Jimmy Carter's day (with NATO troops there instead of Soviet troops). In between Carter and Obama, Reagan defeated a superpower. Your take would be mind bogglingly off base if you were someone who considered the Americans to be the good guys.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The Afghanistan of today isn't much different than the Afghanistan of Jimmy Carter's day (with NATO troops there instead of Soviet troops). In between Carter and Obama, Reagan defeated a superpower. Your take would be mind bogglingly off base if you were someone who considered the Americans to be the good guys.

Curious, what would you say in response to this:

Anybody who claims that Reagan singlehandedly ended the Cold War is flat-out wrong. It's just simply not true.
Let me start by examining the actions that Reagan took to end the cold war, in bullet form.

-Ordered the largest peacetime buildup of US troops in history -Delivered speech at the Berlin Wall -Signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

While most people think that Reagan somehow miraculously saved the world from the Soviet Union, I argue that the Soviet Union was doomed to fail.
First, understand the nature of the Soviet military-industrial complex. That term gets thrown around in relation the United States, but we cannot even compare to the Soviets during the height of the Cold War. 25% of their GDP went into the military.

The Soviets were also fighting in Afghanistan, and we all know how well that went over for them. After 9 years, they lost and allowed a civil war to perpetuate, eventually leading to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This also caused a huge economic drain, which brings me to my next point.
Fighting wars and investing heavily in the military will eventually suck an economy dry. With a surplus of oil, a war being fought, and tons of money being dumped into the military, the Soviet Union's economy had stalled.
Gorbachev realized the need for reform and that's what he did. He allowed for greater freedom of the press, tried to reduce the corruption at the highest levels of government, and most importantly reduced the size of the military. Search perestroika or glasnost for further information.

Without a massive military, the Soviet Union itself became unsustainable and had to break up. The Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse before Reagan came to power, Reagan merely "beat" them through kicking the United States war machine into high gear.

I can't help but see the similarities between the US now and the Soviet Union then. Our military is spread far too thin and is far too large to begin with. We have dumped trillions of dollars into military spending and run up a bill that will take decades to pay off. We are currently fighting two wars with no clear goals or deadlines for troop withdrawal. Once the wars are over, more money will have to be spent to restore our armies to appropriate levels.

We face many of the same problems the Soviets did at the end of their time, and Gorbachev-style reforms will become increasingly necessary for the United States to survive. The United States cannot be hegemonic forever, especially if we cannot pay the bills. The first path to recovery is to drop the misconception that Ronald Reagan should be revered as a president. Increased military spending may have ended the Cold War, but if unchecked it will be the undoing of America as well.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Curious, what would you say in response to this:

That passage gives Reagan absolutely no credit for the fact that the Soviets were stuck in Afghanistan for 9 years. FAIL

I don't think Reagan did it single-handedly. He had a lot of help from Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II among other allies and supporters, but he was a key leader of the West when the West broke the Soviets.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The Afghanistan of today isn't much different than the Afghanistan of Jimmy Carter's day (with NATO troops there instead of Soviet troops). In between Carter and Obama, Reagan defeated a superpower. Your take would be mind bogglingly off base if you were someone who considered the Americans to be the good guys.

Still trying to peddle this nonsense? The soviets were doomed by their own policies and Reagan was just fortunate enough to be there when they finally collapsed under their own weight.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That passage gives Reagan absolutely no credit for the fact that the Soviets were stuck in Afghanistan for 9 years. FAIL

I don't think Reagan did it single-handedly. He had a lot of help from Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II among other allies and supporters, but he was a key leader of the West when the West broke the Soviets.

However the overriding factor in the USSR's collapse was their own policies and actions.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The Afghanistan of today isn't much different than the Afghanistan of Jimmy Carter's day (with NATO troops there instead of Soviet troops). In between Carter and Obama, Reagan defeated a superpower. Your take would be mind bogglingly off base if you were someone who considered the Americans to be the good guys.

Reagan did NOT defeat a superpower. The entire concept is comical. That Reagan, by spending money on the military and "standing firm" or whatever (not that we hadn't been stnading firm for nearly 40 years already) somehow caused the USSR to collapse. Seriously, just think about how nonsensical that is.