Ronald Reagan

ok u got me there

 

No Mia, it would 100% for certain be red, like the rest of your crazy gang do to people.

We do not need Agatha Christie in to solve the mystery of why everyone that disagrees with neocon terrorists has very little, or even red rep whilst people like you have lots of green rep, completely fake of course.

I figured this enigma out at least a year ago.

 

I didn't "leave out" anything, Guerilla, nor did I select "snippets" to prove a point. Please accord the same presumption of intellectual honesty I accord you, as I've never offered otherwise. This was a long speech and these quotes exemplify, in my mind, the man's early and sustained view of the role of the U.S. in the world.

Generally, "Pre-1980" Reagan is problematic, since he was not President until then, and his foreign policy declarations were, by definition, not at center stage. All we can go on are speeches he made while a private citizen, or governor, pertaining to his lifelong view of world communism as an enemy of freedom.

That said, the part you bolded was discussing the Vietnam War. You are neglecting to keep in mind this speech was made in 1964, at the height of that war, and in fact, the part you bolded makes the point: Reagan saw Vietnam as a frontier war against the Soviet Union, and, like today, was arguing that a withdrawal would only encourage America's enemies. Let me quote the entire paragraph:

You are neglecting to see the two sentences that are bolded are inextricably intertwined. I do not know how one can read:

Without seeing the President's belief in an activist America. Given this, the part you bolded was decrying giving up the fight. I'm sorry, Guerilla, but I believe you are taking quotes out of context to fit a belief that doesn't square with the evidence regarding Reagan and his lifelong ideological commitments.

Here, I found the RFK debate. http://reagan2020.us/speeches/reagan_kennedy_debate.asp

Look for yourself. A "snippet":

-Reagan was here defending our engagement in Vietnam.

On another note: I went to Berkeley. You also forget that it was Governor Reagan who ordered in the California Highway Patrol and the National Guard to suppress dissent to the War. One student was killed. He was elected, in fact, in part, on the hard stand he promised regarding the antiwar movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan#Governor_of_California.2C_1967.E2.80.931975

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/06/08_reagan.shtml

Again, I am not arguing the rightness of wrongness of his beliefs regarding free speech, communism or the Soviet Union. I only argue that you are wrong to assert the man was, at heart, an isolationist, who would retreat behind a Fortress America in the post-WWII world. Everything I have found, from very early on, supports a picture of Ronald Reagan as an activist believer in America's role to support and extend his vision of democracy, globally, in a struggle with the then-enemy, the Soviet Union.

 

NPT is alright. He's happy to debate in good faith.

 

Sorry, just saw this.

Since the Soviet Union wasn't attacking the United States, activism. He wasn't resolving to defend America's borders, but fight the expansion of communism - "the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind" - worldwide. It cannot be concluded any other way.

Pre-1980 Reagan was not in charge of a country, and so had no responsibility for the carrying out of foreign policy. As my above posts make clear, his views were consistent throughout his life.

Your Saddam question is easily answered. Reagan saw Iran as the greater of two evils - a fuse to light the spark of Islamic Fundamentalism region-wide. This potential danger touched on the stability of states we had, and have, alignments with, notably the ostensibly secular, oil rich states.

 

Ok, Isolationism is not the opposite of Interventionism. I really dislike when the word Isolationist get tossed out.

An isolationist would restrict trade and travel, not only of foreigners, but of his own people. He might not be for having embassies or relations with other governments. He might want to live behind a wall.

We're talking about non-interventionism. Where you don't live behind a wall, and you also don't walk down the street with a shotgun telling your neighbors how to live.

Btw, before I forget, I wasn't attacking your intellectual honesty, you might have got the single quote block you quoted from somewhere that had amended the speech into one chunk. But it was part of a much larger speech and wasn't in context as posted. No foul play suspected.

Again, Reagan makes the distinction between war and peace clear, saying that submission or appeasement is the way to slavery. No one is suggesting appeasement or submission. Not Reagan, and not Paul. Reagan thought quite a bit of Ron Paul with regards to his stance on national defense. And rightfully so. There is a big distinction to be made between defense (what Reagan preached) and offense or crusades for democracy.

Again the disconnect, under Reagan's administration, numerous elections where influenced by the CIA. This isn't in the spirit of believing in the that the people have a right to national self determination.

 

This same phenomenon played itself out in the days immediately after Reagan's death. All sorts of Democrats were coming out of the woodwork claiming to be the ideological descendants of Ronald Reagan.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the nasty filthy things those people said about Ron from 1978 to 1988 cannot help but be appalled at the incredible dishonesty displayed during those days. They attacked Ron when he was unable to defend himself -- after his death. They smeared his memory for their own dishonest political gain.

Now, the Paulinas are pulling the same dirty trick.

This isn't the first person they have smeared. The Paulinas have attempted the same hatchet job on the late great Barry Goldwater - attempting to paint him as just another surrender monkey.

Its no wonder that the enemies of our great nation, like this "grab my heat" Islamist, are in full support of Ron Paul.

 

Sure, he was talking about supporting other democratic regimes so that they did not fall to socialism. Also in that speech is his decrying of the foreign aid given to socialists and dictators. And yet when in power, he did the very same thing.

Yet Iran-Contra was the sale of weapons through Israel to Iran, with the profits going back to the Contras, all conducted by the State Department.

So now Reagan, the ideologue of democracy and the right to national self-determination was fueling both sides of the war.

Is any of this hypocrisy and inconsistency becoming obvious?

Like I said, I liked the young Reagan, not the one who did a horrible job as President, but made us all feel good about ourselves while doing it. He had high ideals, and high ideas, so high perhaps that even he couldn't live up to them. But that doesn't invalidate the ideas, only the restrictions of the power structure.

 

Maybe I am drawing "interventionism" and "isolationism" from history, when these two terms were precisely poised as direct counterpoints to each other, in the cataclysms of both WWI and WWII.

I'm sorry, Guerilla, I'm a bit confused. You stated Reagan wasn't an interventionist. I believe I have shown that the man was, from quite early on; that Reagan by native belief wasn't merely interested in a strong national defense, but saw worldwide communism as a fundamental threat to world peace, that must be actively countered for the freedoms we in the U.S. - and, presumptively, in the nations that "believe as we do" - hold to be dear.

By definition, he was unable to pursue this foreign policy ideal while a private citizen or governor. In office, he clearly did - by interventions in the Caribbean, the Americas, Africa, and the Eastern Bloc. There is a consistent line throughout.

If I am hearing you right, your distinction seems to be between waging a direct war, and merely funding others to do it. In an era of proxy warfare, which Reagan was squarely a part of, direct war wasn't the modus operandi. He funded others to do it. I consider both an interventionist, activist stance.

Now - forgive me, but my son is about to kill me for not helping him to build his latest bionicle. I will hope to return, but it may be awhile.

 

If they were classic liberals, they might have been his ideological descendants. Reagan was a classic liberal, driven to leave the Democratic party because of it's neo-liberal policies.

Reagan didn't die while he was being "smeared" in your words.

Paul on the contrary was one of a handful of Republicans to support Reagan in 1976 and 1980.

But you're missing something. Paul's strongest support is in the Goldwater strongholds like Arizona, Nevada and California. Barry Jr. has endorsed Paul, as has The United Republicans of California (UROC).

The real smear has been labeling Paul a cut and runner, or a "surrender monkey". Nothing could be further from the truth. If you believe that, then you believe that GWB ran on a surrender platform in 2000, because Paul is running on the exact same foreign policy.

 

Sure, and it's probably not to dissimilar to the rhetoric today that if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. History is full of pejorative towards the losers of ideological battles.

Sure, he believed in supporting like regimes. He believed in supporting South Korea. Of course, that was back when everyone was terrified of the domino theory, that if a place like South Korea fell to the North, the whole world would turn communist. Not only was this line of thinking wrong, but it didn't presume a pre-emptive approach.

Again, as a President, Reagan didn't live up to many if any of his ideals.

I hear ya, I'm sicker than a dog and need to get some work done.

But it's a good debate and I am happy to continue it later if you like.

 

I am not impressed by your poorly developed appeal to popularity.

Hitler was popularly elected, as was Ahmadinejad.

Wrong is wrong, no matter how many people support it.

Abusing the legacy of Ronald Reagan will not gain your savior the Presidency of the United States. Americans are not that dumb.

 

Did you say wrong is wrong? yet no mum's the word on mossadegh and iraq. Your very slective in which statements you make an answer on.
So i guess by your means its ok to destroy a democracy in a budding country. A man who says he speaks the truth will face the truth no matter what subject we are talking about.

Fact no 1 we helped destroy democracy in Iran
fact no 2: Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11

Folks didnt i predict he wouldnt reaspond to these questions.

 

Sick - yep, hear you. How's 3 slipped discs (real gift - cervical, high thoracic, and lumbar, L1/L2) and swallowing vicodin like candy to deal with the pain? Anyway...enough milking sympathy. Briefly, before I dive away....

We define isolationism quite differently, it seems. In my definition, it has little to do with internal policy, and everything to do with foreign policy. Most briefly, I define it as a country's stance that seeks absolute disentanglement from the world stage, that acts entirely in its own self interest, and leaves other countries to deal with their internal politics. The interwar Beggar-Thy-Neighbor politics would be a classic example. I do not understand your defining it to include restrictions on internal policy, regarding one's own citizens ("shotgun telling your neighbor how to live"), and I very definitely poise it to be the opposite of interventionism - by definition, involvement by one nation state in the internal affairs of other countries.

Reagan's views as a private citizen and governor weren't in the language of "we like to help friends" alone. I repeat:

1964. We're at war, and for all mankind. Not, "we need to seal our borders, and ensure the commies don't infect us," but the world is facing a crisis of historical import, the crisis is global communism, and we are at war.

You cannot accept this, and believe Reagan had any other viewpoint in mind but a manichean conflict, globally, and such a viewpoint was formed early on, well before his Presidency. He supported foreign interventions to curb communist influence, and squelched domestic dissent. The above quote, and the one we both provided regarding widows of soldiers lost to the Vietnam War, was in direct support of that Vietnam War, right in line with Kennan's theory of containment - the domino effect, as you say. If you accept this, I fail to understand how you can say the man was not an interventionist, body and soul.

That containment didn't presume a pre-emptive war doesn't negate the fact the policy was interventionist in the extreme. The postwar period was replete with proxy war, as the Balance of Terror demanded; and Reagan was, ideologically, very much a part of the stream.

I cannot agree with your view that Reagan was, natively, non-interventionist in outlook. You have said, looking at Reagan pre- and post-1980, that we are looking at an essentially Janus-faced turnaround. I might have missed it - if so, apologies. Can you indicate what leads you to conclude Reagan was non-interventionist, pre-1980?

 

Thank you Chicken.Will. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not going to comment on the "dumb-ness" of my fellow citizens, but I will say that running on George Bush's 2000 foreign policy platform is a good move.

 

Isn't this what Switzerland does? Do we call the Swiss Isolationists?

Yeah, but that is narrowing down foreign policy to "do we influence the internal affairs of other nations, or do we not". I think there is a lot more to foreign policy than friend-foe, war-peace.

The neighbor example was meant to be expanded to the global community. I mean, really, how would say the people of South Carolina feel about the Governor of Mississippi influencing their elections? Or the North Carolina National Guard being deployed in South Carolina uninvited by the state?

Where do we draw the line, on what is sovereign and what is not?

Again, you're arguing Isolationism versus Interventionism. One could argue that Hitler was an Isolationist and an Interventionist. Kinda defeats the use of contrasting terms, doesn't it?

I don't think the American people in 1964 were as dumb as people today, and honestly led to believe that the argument Reagan was making for Goldwater that America had to save mankind.

He's speaking about an ideological war, not a physical one.

I saw the comment about Vietnam differently. Widows to be asked if the price of maintaining peace indefinitely is worth it.

I don't buy that. I agree Vietnam was pre-emptive, it's since been proven that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag, and the war was fought under dubious circumstances. Of course, it's unlikely that Reagan knew this at that time.

I agree with your statement on proxy war, but I don't believe it was driven by Reagan, but rather the former head of the CIA and vice-president, Bush.

He did a Janus-faced turnaround on everything else he stood for.

Reagan was for sound money, and limited government. He was for reducing the welfare state and removing the Dept. of Ed.

None of that materialized under his Presidency.

Look, I'll yield the point. Reagan was not ever a non-interventionist. We're arguing in circles and someone has to give.

 

I'm not looking for a "win," Guerilla - I never am. I found the discussion engaging.

I would say that up until Switzerland's involvement in Nato's Partnership for Peace program, and its commitment to send in armed troops to Kosovo in 2002, yep, Switzerland was isolationist. Unequivocally so.

I would agree, foreign policy is obviously more than friend-foe, war-peace. Interventionism seeks to do whatever is in the nation's self interest, and that can change - obviously, since former "friends" become foes, and vice versa. Sometimes, it is to provide infrastructure propitious for American development; sometimes, as in the case of Reagan's backing Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, it is to preserve that infrastructure from a perceived impending destruction. And so on.

Pretty crappy. Which is why many aren't real happy with us right now. Not sure of your point here - I think much of U.S. foreign policy since Kennan has been flawed.

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. Isolationism isn't raw national aggrandisement, it's withdrawal from foreign involvement. Hitler's regime was anything but isolationist. From alliances formed with fascist regimes elsewhere, to being the first true military Keynesian in preparation for foreign involvement, to interventions in the domestic affairs of other nations, by influence, force or the threat of force (Quisling, anyone?) he was an interventionist in the extreme.

My definitions, anyway - it might be that we are saying many of the same things regarding what constitutes isolationism and interventionism, so to be clear: I am defining isolationism as a nation that "seeks absolute disentanglement from the world stage, that acts entirely in its own self interest, and leaves other countries to deal with their internal politics." Fortress America, as an example. I define interventionism as an activist foreign policy that seeks to intervene in the internal political and economic affairs of other nations, to redound benefits to the home country or to those nations whom the home country deems important to its national interest.

Here, I am not talking about the the libertarian view - which I now realize you must have been talking about: avoidance of foreign entanglements, but an open-door policy regarding trade and other mutually beneficial exchanges. By my definitions, I am talking about a mutually exclusive relationship between isolationism and interventionism.

Can't agree. Again, in 1964, he wasn't Commander in Chief, so we have to go with whatever comments he made that touch on our subject. His 1964 comment was directly dealing with the Vietnam War - a physical, and not an ideological battle, or contest for "the minds of men" worldwide. I just found this - in case there's any doubt about his views on whether we were waging an ideological or a physical war against communism, another couple of quotes by the then-private citizen, on Vietnam:

-Note that this includes the quote we discussed earlier is also on this page.

http://www.vietnamwar.net/quotations/quotations.htm

As to your other comments on proxy war, I am not making the pitch that Reagan was the point man. I am merely and strictly disagreeing with your contention that he was in his heart of hearts a non-interventionist prior to 1980, and the benighted face man for interventionism, post 1980.

I am also not taking up whether he was "janus faced on everything else" post 1980. Mine was, again, a very close look at his activist stand in foreign policy, and what role he believed America should play in the world, his entire political life.

 

I know. We're two days to the first primary (frazzled nerves), I keep puking from the flu and don't feel I can carry on my side of the debate.

You can call it a win, a loss or a draw. I'm ok with any of them, and I'm ok with you.

 

Oh, and I will respond to the rest tomorrow.

 

Can we hug? This vicodin is making me all weepy.

Get better, man. I've had a damn horrible cough for weeks. Really special to cough and feel your hands and legs go numb from the spinal thing. (sniff, sniff).