Ronald Regan, You are forgiven! RIP!
View Full Version : Ronald Regan, You are forgiven! RIP!
In short, After watching the sunset funeral. I'd almost
forgotten about how Ronald Regan boycotted the 1980 Moscow
Olympics to the chagrin of many steller US contenders. Yet,
the total sum of the Presidents output over the span of his
tenures certainly over rides this fact.
I'm sure the 1980 US Olympic teams feel the same way!
At anyrate.
God bless the the Regan family. Rest in peace Mr
President...you were most certainly America's first man.
ronnie was the president who brought us iran contra, it was during his
administration that trained and supported such likeable guys as bin laden
and saddam hussein, he was responsible for creating massive deficits with
reckless spending, he thought that ketchup was a food and that trees cause
air polution, he said that the homeless desire to be homeless, he had the
most indicted cabinet members in any one administration and last but
certainly not least was his support of death squads in nicaragua. now
ronnie was a likeable sort kind of guy. he had that certain way to make
people comfortable along with putting them to sleep. however this record
certain does not place him among the ranks of the great presidents of the
20th century. he has to rank well behind both both roosevelt's, truman and
quite possibly eisenhower.
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:3c79a73b9cf6ccb5d4412f2498874e1f@dizum.com...
> In short, After watching the sunset funeral. I'd almost
> forgotten about how Ronald Regan boycotted the 1980 Moscow
> Olympics to the chagrin of many steller US contenders.
> Yet, the total sum of the Presidents output over the span
> of his tenures certainly over rides this fact.
>
> I'm sure the 1980 US Olympic teams feel the same way!
>
> At anyrate.
>
> God bless the the Regan family. Rest in peace Mr
> President...you were most certainly America's first man.
> ronnie was the president who brought us iran contra...
A bad thing, for sure, but for a good cause -- a democratic
Nicaragua (which we now have)
> his support of death squads in nicaragua...
Huh? Show me the presidential memo on that one...
> it was during his administration that trained and
> supported such likeable guys as bin laden and saddam
> hussein
We tilted towards Sadaam for geopolitical reasons.
Remember we had Iran and Iraq warring, and we believed that
Iran was the greater threat at the time (remember the
hostages and the anti-american rhetoric?). So we tilted
towards Sadaam, to prevent Iran from overrunning Iraq and
becoming vastly more wealthy. I'll argue this one all day
with you...
Besides, the vast majority of Sadaam's armaments came
from....France! We supplied just a few%, and gave them
satellite intel on Iranian troop movements, I believe.
Same deal in Afganistan -- we opposed the Soviet union
(was it 30 million or 40 million they killed?), and sided
with what we believed was the lesser of two evils.
Hindsight is 20/20, but the Soviet union had *much* more
blood on it's hands.
> he was responsible for creating massive deficits with
> reckless spending,
Deficits at the end of his admin were large in absolute
terms, but small in terms of the GNP, in the low few %'s.
Most households have debts far higher than 3-4%. Remember
that he purged the rottenness from the US financial system
by cranking down on the money supply, and forced a severe
year long recession. In the face of massive criticism from
all sides. That's leadership.
Because of this purge, after 1982, 18 million jobs were
created in the remaining years of his administration. The
dow was under 1000 then, and it's 10,000 now. Inflation
was in the teens, now it's 1-2%. In the intevening years,
we've been in recession only 6% of the time, as opposed to
a historical average of 33%. The whole economic landscape
is different because of his policies. The "Clinton Boom"
was just a continuation of the Reagan boom following a
year and a half correction which luckily coincided with
the '92 election.
> he thought that ketchup was a food and that trees cause
> air polution
From biology, you should know that many trees (conifers in
particular) emit hydrocarbons (they cause the smoky
mountains to be called that). On the plus side, they also
gobble up CO2.
> he said that the homeless desire to be homeless
Walk the streets of downtown LA or SF. Most are alcoholics
who like being able to drink, or are sadly mentally ill, and
not competent, and should be taken off the streets for their
own good. Sadly, most would rather drink/take drugs than
work for a living.
> he had the most indicted cabinet members in any one
> administration and last but certainly not least was
...but he wasn't impeached, was he?
> now ronnie was a likeable sort kind of guy. he had that
> certain way to make people comfortable along with putting
> them to sleep.
From your command of the facts, sounds like you were asleep
yourself, or are maybe too young to remember this stuff
firsthand and are getting your lines from leftists.
> however this record certain[ly] does not place him among
> the ranks of the great presidents of
the
> 20th century. he has to rank well behind both both
> roosevelt's, truman and quite possibly eisenhower.
1. End of communism. Tens of millions killed/starved
in its name.
2. 20+ year economic boom.
3. End of inflation.
4. Reversed the trend of increasing % of GDP spent on
government (now hovering about 20%)
5. Reversed trend of federal regulation (now rises at a
much lower rate).
6. Tough stand on air traffic controllers (I knew one who
went back to work) stopped the trend for large scale
gov't employee strikes.
He's right up there with Roosevelt, imo (another great
communicator). And he had only two terms.
--Dan
Everyone love Ronald because... let's face it... he wasn't
that bright... and people... especially the ignorant
masses... found that endearing.
--
Nova Scotia, Canada
> Huh? Show me the presidential memo on that one...
>
Its not a presidential memo. Its on the public record. Look
at the newspapers from that time. His administration was
bent on overthrowing the Sandinista government at all costs.
There is no arguement for that. The death squads were
trained by the CIA. If you would like sources let me know as
they will take me awhile to dig out.
>
> We tilted towards Sadaam for geopolitical reasons.
So now that he's not favorable we can overthrow him? Is it
okay for the US to apply double standards as it pleases.
>
> >
> Besides, the vast majority of Sadaam's armaments came
> from....France! We supplied just a few%, and gave them
> satellite intel on Iranian troop movements, I believe.
>
Actually we provided $12 billion in loans and removed him
from the list of terrorist nations. We also supported him
when he gassed the Iranians and Kurds.
If you're going to accuse someone of not being bright, you
might want to check your grammar first.
Why is it that liberals think they are smarter than
everyone else?
I don't think they are smarter or dumber than conservatives,
just wrong.
Oh, this dummy ran the Screen Actors Guild, and was a two
term governor of the largest state in the country. I don't
know if you've ever run an organization, but it does
require a fair degree of smarts, discipline, and hard work
to do well.
-- Dan
"David" <user@host.com> wrote in message news:user-
4839E0.13060513062004@news.hfx.eastlink.ca...
> Everyone love Ronald because... let's face it... he wasn't
> that bright... and people... especially the ignorant
> masses... found that endearing.
>
> --
> Nova Scotia, Canada
Hi Joe:
"Joe" <joeblow632@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a10zc.19394$Fd.643@twister.rdc-
kc.rr.com...
> His administration was bent on overthrowing the Sandinista
> government at all costs. There is no arguement for that.
At all costs? Wouldn't a simple declaration of war do it,
then? Would have been quick work for the army and Marines,
I suspect.
> The death squads were trained by the CIA. If you
> would like sources let me know as they will take me
> awhile to dig
out.
If you provide military training to someone, and he commits
war crimes, that does not make you facially culpable for
those crimes. I don't remember the details, but I do
remember reading about it at the time, and the situation was
more complex.
> > We tilted towards Sadaam for geopolitical reasons.
> So now that he's not favorable we can overthrow him? Is it
> okay for the
US
> to apply double standards as it pleases.
>
> >
> > >
> > Besides, the vast majority of Sadaam's armaments came
> > from....France!
We
> > supplied just a few%, and gave them satellite intel on
> > Iranian troop movements, I believe.
> >
> Actually we provided $12 billion in loans and removed him
> from the list of terrorist nations. We also supported him
> when he gassed the Iranians and Kurds.
I think we looked the other way and held our noses, not
supported it. The strategic goal was preventing Iran from
controlling Iraq. We were in a lousy moral position.
All in all I agree it is a bad deal to support one monstrous
regime over another. That's why it's sometimes best in the
long run to change these bad regimes rather than try to
befriend, "contain", bribe, or otherwise deal with them.
Regards,
Dan
"Joe" <joeblow632@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a10zc.19394$Fd.643@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> Its not a presidential memo. Its on the public record.
> Look at the newspapers from that time.
Please DO NOT quote facts, or ask repubs to read the
newspapers. They are far too scared to face the truth they
may read, and it would intefere with their reality.
I'm not in the mood for an arguement about the Sandinistas.
If you would like to read some very well written work on it
I suggest checking out anything by Chomsky on the subject
(www.chomsky.info). He has written some good articles on
what really happened in Nicaragua.
> All in all I agree it is a bad deal to support one
> monstrous regime over another. That's why it's sometimes
> best in the long run to change these
bad
> regimes rather than try to befriend, "contain", bribe, or
> otherwise deal with them.
I'm glad we're in agreement. The problem is that the United
States has supported monstrous regimes from the Nazis and
Mussolini on. Whenever its in our interest we seem to change
them without regard for the history leading up to their
demise. If all we're interested in is geopolitical strategy
(oil) then lets just admit it rather than saying we're doing
things to spread democracy.
Cheers! Joe
Funny how I saw one poll of historians who had Reagan 8th.
Reagan did not train Bin Laden. Bin Laden was fighting the
Soviets in Afghanistan but was not really much of a focus. I
guess you would have done nothing and let the rebels fail in
their attempt to run the Soviet Union out. What did Carter
do to get the Soviets out? Refused to let American
I have a couple of friends who made their respective Olympic
teams and were denied their dream). I gotta think Reagan
would have said "We are sending our American athletes to
Moscow to show the world that American athletes are the best
in the world and that good will triumph over evil." Reagan
would have built on the victory of the US hockey team in
Lake Placid.
Reagan supported Hussein against Iran. Remember Iran?
Remember Iranians taking US diplomats hostage for 444
days under Carter. Sometimes to fight an enemy you make
deals with people you would not normally make a deal
with. Remember WWII. What evil dictator was an ally of
the US and GB?
Iran-Contra--the only bad part was the money for hostages.
It was Congress that passed a law that forbid supporting the
rebels wanting freedom against a communist regime. Yes, the
Democratically controlled Congress (including John Kerry!)
basically supported a communist regime. Screw Democrats.
The Democratically controlled Congress assisted in the
spending spree of the 80s. Also, remember that we came
really close to reducing the deficit because of all the
growth from 1983 or so through the 90s (with a couple of
blips along the way). Democrats never cared about deficits
before or since (only now do they seem to care--only because
it is an election issue). Guess what, people really do not
care about the deficit anyway.
His record includes driving the nails into the coffin of
communism without firing a single shot. Remember when KAL007
was shot down (with a US Congressman on board!) by a Soviet
fighter jet, Reagan could have launched some sort of attack,
but he did not. He knew opinion was on his side. He did all
this without firing a shot. How much is that worth? Before,
throughout the world had a real concern that a nuclear war
would kill everyone on the planet. Are we worried about that
now? Reagan was the first to call the Soviet Union what it
was: an evil empire. I heard an interview with a Soviet
dissident who was emboldened when word of Reagan's speech
got to him. Someone outside of the Soviet Union realized
what was going on just as he, living inside the Soviet
Union, realized.
Reagan also put forth the radical idea that people should be
able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. He (along with
Congress) reduced the top tax rate from 70% (yes, the
highest income earners were paying almost 3/4 of their
income to the federal government!) to 28%. Guess what, tax
revenue skyrocketed! Why? More people were being put to
work. Unemployment decreased from about 10% to ~5%. The Dow
Jones skyrocketed. More wealth was being created. Everyone
benefits from this. (I can hear the liberals now: But only
the rich got rich--not true, many, many people improved
their lot in life).
Inflation was seriously reduced; interest rates plummeted.
Want those Carter inflation rates back?
Reagan was also the first national politician to suggest
that the welfare system was not good for America.
Maybe you do not remember how low things were. Reagan
reminded people that being an American is a good thing
and how Americans will make things better. He believed
in people.
I could have lived without the deficits to be honest. I
really wish he could have made government even smaller. He
had a good start with reducing the tax code by 1000 pages!!!
I wish Republicans would start talking like that again. 1994
was the peak year when the GOP ran on a platform to bring
about dramatic change. Some of it worked (welfare
reform!!!). I wish that the GOP would get back to that
radical thinking rather than increasing spending on things
like the Department of Education (why is the federal
government involved to the extent it is?). Unfortunately,
power corrupts and the desire to stay in power means
spending like drunken sailors on leave.
Reagan's stature will only rise as people come to realize
how important he was and how fortunate America was to have
him come along at that time.
"dwjones45" <dwjones45@comcast.net> wrote in message news:wcqdnTjzd_GZIVbdRVn-
hQ@giganews.com...
> ronnie was the president who brought us iran contra, it
> was during his administration that trained and supported
> such likeable guys as bin laden and saddam hussein, he was
> responsible for creating massive deficits with reckless
> spending, he thought that ketchup was a food and that
> trees cause air polution, he said that the homeless desire
> to be homeless, he had the most indicted cabinet members
> in any one administration and last but certainly not least
> was his support of death squads in nicaragua. now ronnie
> was a likeable sort kind of guy. he had that certain way
> to make people comfortable along with putting them to
> sleep. however this record certain does not place him
> among the ranks of the great presidents of the 20th
> century. he has to rank well behind both both roosevelt's,
> truman and quite possibly eisenhower. "Nomen Nescio"
> <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
> news:3c79a73b9cf6ccb5d4412f2498874e1f@dizum.com...
> > In short, After watching the sunset funeral. I'd
> > almost forgotten about how Ronald Regan boycotted the
> > 1980 Moscow Olympics to the chagrin of many steller US
> > contenders. Yet, the total sum of the Presidents
> > output over the span of his tenures certainly over
> > rides this fact.
> >
> > I'm sure the 1980 US Olympic teams feel the same way!
> >
> > At anyrate.
> >
> > God bless the the Regan family. Rest in peace Mr
> > President...you were most certainly America's first man.
> >
> >
>
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vV3zc.3946$Wr.2245@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Hi Joe:
>
> "Joe" <joeblow632@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a10zc.19394$Fd.643@twister.rdc-
> kc.rr.com...
>
> > His administration was bent on overthrowing the
> > Sandinista government at all costs. There is no
> > arguement for that.
>
> At all costs? Wouldn't a simple declaration of war do it,
> then? Would
have
> been quick work for the army and Marines, I suspect.
I can see that going over well. After all Reagan gets
blasted for assisting Grenada!
>
> > The death squads were trained by the CIA. If you would
> > like sources let me know as they will take me awhile
> > to dig
> out.
>
> If you provide military training to someone, and he
> commits war crimes,
that
> does not make you facially culpable for those crimes. I
> don't remember
the
> details, but I do remember reading about it at the time,
> and the situation was more complex.
>
> > > We tilted towards Sadaam for geopolitical reasons.
> > So now that he's not favorable we can overthrow him? Is
> > it okay for the
> US
> > to apply double standards as it pleases.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > Besides, the vast majority of Sadaam's armaments came
> > > from....France!
> We
> > > supplied just a few%, and gave them satellite intel on
> > > Iranian troop movements, I believe.
> > >
> > Actually we provided $12 billion in loans and removed
> > him from the list
of
> > terrorist nations. We also supported him when he gassed
> > the Iranians
and
> > Kurds.
>
> I think we looked the other way and held our noses, not
> supported it.
The
> strategic goal was preventing Iran from controlling Iraq.
> We were in a lousy moral position.
>
> All in all I agree it is a bad deal to support one
> monstrous regime over another. That's why it's sometimes
> best in the long run to change these
bad
> regimes rather than try to befriend, "contain", bribe, or
> otherwise deal with them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
"Joe" <joeblow632@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A14zc.5422$WX1.5212@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I'm not in the mood for an arguement about the
> Sandinistas. If you would like to read some very well
> written work on it I suggest checking out anything by
> Chomsky on the subject (www.chomsky.info).
Joe, you're blowing the game by referencing Chomsky! The man
is a frothing at the mouth America hater, not even remotely
fair, and an expert propagandist.
It would be like me refering you to a book by Rush Limbaugh,
an obvious partisan.
> I'm glad we're in agreement. The problem is that the
> United States has supported monstrous regimes from the
> Nazis and Mussolini on. Whenever its in our interest we
> seem to change them without regard for the history leading
> up to their demise.
Seems to me that we defeated them both at great cost.
If one supports x, and later realizes that supporting x is
bad or mistaken, is one *always* required to always support
x? I can't figure out where you're coming from logically.
Reminds me of my brother, who thinks that if you ever stole
something as a youth, and now realize that it's wrong, that
you are forbidden from ever telling people not to steal.
Or are you making another point?
> If all we're interested in is geopolitical strategy (oil)
> then lets just admit it rather than saying we're doing
things
> to spread democracy.
Suppose several interests coincide -- that we believe that
nurturing movement towards democracy benefits the people in
the region, and the world at large because of a more stable
oil supply, and it eliminates one big state supporter of
terror, and that prosperity dry the swamp of sullen
resentment that breeds terror and terrorists.
Besides, the US can always buy oil -- we're the richest
country on earth. And we've got billions of barrels
domestically if we ever had the political will to drill it.
If it hits the fan, we'd adapt in a few years, and have
popular sculptures of half-buried SUV's arrayed like
Stonehedge in every major city as monuments to the end of
cheap oil.
Regards,
Dan
Brilliant argument! :-)
"_!_ grabber" <alternativerunnerz@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:bc1bcb54.0406131346.7d4cd656@posting.google.com...
> "Joe" <joeblow632@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<a10zc.19394$Fd.643@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > Its not a presidential memo. Its on the public record.
> > Look at the newspapers from that time.
>
> Please DO NOT quote facts, or ask repubs to read the
> newspapers. They are far too scared to face the truth they
> may read, and it would intefere with their reality.
> Joe, you're blowing the game by referencing Chomsky! The
> man is a
frothing
> at the mouth America hater, not even remotely fair, and an
> expert propagandist.
>
> It would be like me refering you to a book by Rush
> Limbaugh, an obvious partisan.
We can save this debate for another day. I like the other
point we have better.
>
> > I'm glad we're in agreement. The problem is that the
> > United States has supported monstrous regimes from the
> > Nazis and Mussolini on. Whenever
its
> > in our interest we seem to change them without regard
> > for the history leading up to their demise.
>
> Seems to me that we defeated them both at great cost.
>
> If one supports x, and later realizes that supporting x
> is bad or
mistaken,
> is one *always* required to always support x? I can't
> figure out where you're coming from logically.
The problem is that we have always known that x, y, and z
are bad. If you read the internal record that has been made
public we knew that Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, Germany,
Italy, etc were all run by tyrants. There has never been any
secret about this. Human Rights Watch has been releasing
reports about atrocities under Iraq, El Salvador, Guatemala
since their organization's inception (often at great cost to
the lives of their field agents). To dismiss these and other
reports (Americas Watch, Amnesty International) as liberal
rubbish takes quite a leap of faith. For example, the United
States had a pretty good idea during WWII that the Nazis
were killing Jews, whether we knew the extent that they had
taken it to is another matter. However, this country was
rabidly anti-semetic at the time (still might be today) and
would have never gone to war to merely "save the Jews".
The other point I try to make is that if we are going to
support dictators and then overthrow them when it convenient
for our geopolitical strategy, then lets not revise history.
Lets admit that we support Saddam with money, chemicals,
training, logistics, and rhetoric. Lets come clean and say,
hey we made a mistake supporting this guy while he killed
tens of thousands of Iranians and tens of thousands of his
own people.
At the same time lets not fool ourselves about wanting to
install democracy in the countries we overrun. If we're
overthrowing one dictator for another (Vietnam overthrow
of Diem in favor of the military generals) then lets
admit that too.
>
> > If all we're interested in is geopolitical strategy
> > (oil) then lets just admit it rather than saying
> > we're doing
> things
> > to spread democracy.
>
> Suppose several interests coincide -- that we believe that
> nurturing movement towards democracy benefits the people
> in the region, and the
world
> at large because of a more stable oil supply, and it
> eliminates one big state supporter of terror, and that
> prosperity dry the swamp of sullen resentment that breeds
> terror and terrorists.
I agree that prosperity will reduce terrorism, but then lets
stop being terrorists ourselves. Violence will only beget
more violence. If the US is this pillar of justice and
righteousness then it should have the gall to stop the cycle
of violence. Period. Just stop bombing, stop supporting CIA
coups, stop sending in troops, etc. If we spent half our
military budget on world development we could save TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF LIVES EVERY DAY. In one week we could save more
lives than Saddam killed in all his reign by providing safe
drinking water in all of Africa to prevent diarrhea and
diptheria.
If we really had an interest in increasing prosperity in
these regions we would stop instituting policies that favor
exploitation of the mass population.
>
> Besides, the US can always buy oil -- we're the richest
> country on earth. And we've got billions of barrels
> domestically if we ever had the
political
> will to drill it.
>
The problem is that it costs more energy to drill these
reserves than they will provide. We have gone after the
largest and cheapest reserves first, leaving the ones that
will probably yield little to none at a profit.
> If it hits the fan, we'd adapt in a few years, and have
> popular sculptures of half-buried SUV's arrayed like
> Stonehedge in every major city as monuments to the end of
> cheap oil.
>
The **** will hit the fan and I don't think it will be
pretty. The Hubert curve predicts that we should hit peak
production within in the next 3-20 years. Being a
pessimist, I'm giving them about 10. I think that I will be
fourtunate enough in my lifetime to see the beginning of
the end of the oil age.
Dan, Just out of curiosity, who do you think Chomsky is a
propagandist for? Who or what do you think he represents? He
is never published in the major print magazines or websites.
He is rarely on TV and if and when he is, its on foreign
stations or PBS and its affiliates. I hardly see how someone
who receives so little coverage can be called a
propagandist. Its like saying I'm a propagandist because I
have a weblog.
Bye the way, from the things I have read of his, he is
hardly an "America hater." He has claimed that his is the
most free nation on the earth and has claimed to love this
country, but not its government. There is a difference.
Maybe you should give some of his readings a try. I've read
and listened to Limbaugh, Bennet, Falwell, Buchanan, etc
before and have found it enlightening.
Cheers! Joe
"Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:WM8zc.4206$Wr.3094@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Joe" <joeblow632@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:A14zc.5422$WX1.5212@twister.rdc-
> kc.rr.com...
> > I'm not in the mood for an arguement about the
> > Sandinistas. If you
would
> > like to read some very well written work on it I suggest
> > checking out anything by Chomsky on the subject
> > (www.chomsky.info).
>
> Joe, you're blowing the game by referencing Chomsky! The
> man is a
frothing
> at the mouth America hater, not even remotely fair, and an
> expert propagandist.
>
> It would be like me refering you to a book by Rush
> Limbaugh, an obvious partisan.
>
> > I'm glad we're in agreement. The problem is that the
> > United States has supported monstrous regimes from the
> > Nazis and Mussolini on. Whenever
its
> > in our interest we seem to change them without regard
> > for the history leading up to their demise.
>
> Seems to me that we defeated them both at great cost.
>
> If one supports x, and later realizes that supporting x
> is bad or
mistaken,
> is one *always* required to always support x? I can't
> figure out where you're coming from logically.
>
> Reminds me of my brother, who thinks that if you ever
> stole something as a youth, and now realize that it's
> wrong, that you are forbidden from ever telling people not
> to steal.
>
> Or are you making another point?
>
> > If all we're interested in is geopolitical strategy
> > (oil) then lets just admit it rather than saying
> > we're doing
> things
> > to spread democracy.
>
> Suppose several interests coincide -- that we believe that
> nurturing movement towards democracy benefits the people
> in the region, and the
world
> at large because of a more stable oil supply, and it
> eliminates one big state supporter of terror, and that
> prosperity dry the swamp of sullen resentment that breeds
> terror and terrorists.
>
> Besides, the US can always buy oil -- we're the richest
> country on earth. And we've got billions of barrels
> domestically if we ever had the
political
> will to drill it.
>
> If it hits the fan, we'd adapt in a few years, and have
> popular sculptures of half-buried SUV's arrayed like
> Stonehedge in every major city as monuments to the end of
> cheap oil.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
On 2004-06-13, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> In short, After watching the sunset funeral. I'd almost
> forgotten about how Ronald Regan boycotted the 1980
> Moscow Olympics to the chagrin of many steller US
> contenders. Yet,
Ummm ... wasn't that Carter ?
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
>Ummm ... wasn't that Carter ?
Yup, in the heat of the moment I assumed Ronnie however only
after deep thinking it hit me. It was Carter. At any rate, I
think the most memorable olympic occured at LA in 1984.
Consequently, the soviets and east germans boycotted that
olympic...but overall...one of the last victorious olympics
by an American team.
Yee Haw!
Hi Joe:
> The problem is that we have always known that x, y, and z
> are bad. If you read the internal record that has been
> made public we knew that Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil,
> Germany, Italy, etc were all run by tyrants. There has
> never been any secret about this.
Yes, it's never been any secret that we've supported bad
regimes because the alternative was worse. (in the informed
opinions of the policy makers of the time)
"[Executing a] foreign policy on firm principles is like a
man who attemps to walk through a dense forest with a long
pole clamped horizontally between his teeth" — Bismark
So what else is new? The world is not a nice place, and
no amount of idealism is going to change it. Distasteful
decisions will still have to be made. And sometimes
doing nothing is the worst path (eg, pre wwII tolerance
of Hitler).
I guess I'm a bit more cynical about human nature than you
are -- one of the key differences between the liberal and
conservative world view, imo.
> Human Rights Watch has been releasing reports about
> atrocities under Iraq, El Salvador, Guatemala since their
> organization's inception (often at great cost to the lives
> of their field agents). To dismiss these and other reports
> (Americas Watch, Amnesty International) as liberal rubbish
> takes quite a leap of faith.
I never thought it was rubbish. But that doesn't mean I
would blindly support a leftist totalitarian alternative, to
pick an example. I think communism creates misery and
poverty, so that assaults my ideals. Look at
> For example, the United States had a pretty good idea
> during WWII that the Nazis were killing Jews, whether
> we knew the extent that they had taken it to is
> another matter.
Worse, we turned back a boatload of Jewish refugees who
ended up mostly dead because of that. We also interned
thousands of Japanese on the west coast (including my Dad's
best friend's family). Not that those little blemishes seem
to damage FDR's image very much. Now that I think about it,
Reagan is arguably greater than FDR because of that....but
that's another argument.
> However, this country was rabidly anti-semetic at the time
> (still might be today) and would have never gone to war to
> merely "save
the
> Jews".
Similar ambiguity colored the Civil War as you
know...history isn't pretty, but both conflicts (Civil War
and wwII) ended well. (...yes, you can argue that it took
another hundred years to get rid of Jim Crow, etc, but it
did eventually end)
> The other point I try to make is that if we are going to
> support dictators and then overthrow them when it
> convenient for our geopolitical strategy, then lets not
> revise history. Lets admit that we support Saddam with
money,
> chemicals, training, logistics, and rhetoric. Lets come
> clean and say,
hey
> we made a mistake supporting this guy while he killed
> tens of thousands of Iranians and tens of thousands of
> his own people.
I've heard a lot about pre-war Sadaam support, but no, the
Prez hasn't gone grovelling and apologizing about it, other
than tangentially. Of course we tilted against Iran and for
Iraq for various reasons. It is not a state secret, by any
means. Does any informed person think otherwise? Talk shows
on the left and right both discuss this.
I suppose you are suggesting more grovelling would be
in order. I think we're doing fine by getting rid of
the bastard.
> At the same time lets not fool ourselves about wanting
> to install
democracy
> in the countries we overrun. If we're overthrowing one
> dictator for
another
> (Vietnam overthrow of Diem in favor of the military
> generals) then lets admit that too.
There has been much discussion on the likelyhood and
advisability of trying to cook a microwave-quick democracy
in areas like Iraq. National Review and American Spectator
have had lively debates on both sides of this issue, and I
think I've read some interesting stuff in the Atlantic
Monthly (which I also subscribe to).
There are sad counterexamples in many of the former African
colonies: they have "one man, one vote, one time", and the
president becomes president for life.
See, even conservatives ponder ambiguity.
> I agree that prosperity will reduce terrorism, but then
> lets stop being terrorists ourselves.
If you think we're terrorists for going to war against
terrorist regimes, we need to talk seriously...another
day, though.
> Violence will only beget more violence.
...Until we win...and we must. See Japan and Germany
for examples. But not all victories need come at the
end of a gun.
> If the US is this pillar of justice and righteousness
> then it should have the gall to stop the cycle of
> violence. Period.
You sound like me in my UCLA days in the '70's. Ah, the
power of moral purity! I thought Chomsky was great back
then. No, we're not perfect, but we strive constantly to
better ourselves. Just look at our history.
As you can probably guess, in my Frame of Reference, we
stop the cycle of violence by defeating the madmen who
started it. As Montgomery said about the Germans: "They're
not safe until they're dead or in the pen". Sorry if that
sounds harsh.
> Just stop bombing, stop supporting CIA coups, stop sending
> in troops, etc. If we spent half our military budget
on
> world development we could save TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES
> EVERY DAY. In one week we could save more lives than
> Saddam killed in all his reign by providing safe drinking
> water in all of Africa to prevent diarrhea and diptheria.
The latest National Geographic reports that 6 to 7 million
have disappeared in Iraq. So that's about 300,000 per year
of Sadaam's rule. Ergo: one year without Sadaam saves
300,000 people. Does that do anything for you?
But wait, aren't we also spending 15 billion on Aids
prevention in Africa? That should save in excess of
1,000,000 lives. We're doing far more than the advanced EU,
with it's microscopic military spending, does. How can that
be that evil Uncle Sam is doing more than the exhalted EU +
Canada? France is snuggling up to Syria, now that uncle
Sadaam is in the pen.
> If we really had an interest in increasing prosperity in
> these regions we would stop instituting policies that
> favor exploitation of the mass population.
More 70's radical stuff. Been there, thought that. Another
argument, for another day.
> The problem is that it costs more energy to drill these
> reserves than they will provide. We have gone after the
> largest and cheapest reserves first, leaving the ones that
> will probably yield little to none at a profit.
I believe that known reserves will power us for several
hundred years, from my last reading on the subject. The more
years go by, the more oil we discover. An amazing and counter-
intuitive trend, but true. The cost issue will settle itself
as it always does in a market.
> The **** will hit the fan and I don't think it will be
> pretty. The Hubert curve predicts that we should hit peak
> production within in the next 3-20 years. Being a
> pessimist, I'm giving them about 10. I think that I will
be
> fourtunate enough in my lifetime to see the beginning of
> the end of the
oil
> age.
Well, based on my reading of reserves, I don't think we'll
ever run out, but if we do, mankind will move on as it
must and always has. So far Paul Erlich ain't exactly
batting 1,000.
Regards,
Dan
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:2a0dd9cf2b5300607d149c6b5f507165@dizum.com...
> >Ummm ... wasn't that Carter ?
>
> Yup, in the heat of the moment I assumed Ronnie however
> only after deep thinking it hit me. It was Carter. At any
> rate, I think the most memorable olympic occured at LA in
> 1984. Consequently, the soviets and east germans boycotted
> that olympic...but overall...one of the last victorious
> olympics by an American team.
>
> Yee Haw!
>
>
>
Atlanta in 1996 was pretty damn good for the US.
I also believe the US won the medal count in Sydney and hit
a record in SLC in 2002.
> > Violence will only beget more violence.
>
> ...Until we win...and we must. See Japan and Germany for
> examples. But
not
> all victories need come at the end of a gun.
>
> > If the US is this pillar of justice and righteousness
> > then it should have the gall to stop the cycle of
> > violence. Period.
>
> You sound like me in my UCLA days in the '70's. Ah, the
> power of moral purity! I thought Chomsky was great back
> then. > As you can probably
guess, in my Frame of Reference, we stop the cycle of
> violence by defeating the madmen who started it. As
> Montgomery said about the Germans: "They're not safe until
> they're dead or in the pen". Sorry
if
> that sounds harsh.
You know all of this comes down to frame of reference. I had
a flash of insight about this while hiking the other day and
I realized that in the end neither of our opionions, nor
those of anyone else on any conceivable subject matter due
to frame of reference.
I respect your opinions, but don't agree with them, and I am
very glad to have had a civil debate with you.
As for moral purity, I believe that is a propagandist term
that they started using against Jimmy Carter in the 70s. I
don't believe in moral purity. I believe in compassion and
dignity. I believe we are all human beings and that common
thread that holds us together can give us the power and will
to do great things.
No, we're not perfect, but
> we strive constantly to better ourselves. Just look at our
> history.
>
If this is in reference to the US then "we need to have a
nice little chat someday." If in reference to our own
humanity, then I agree.
>
>
> But wait, aren't we also spending 15 billion on Aids
> prevention in Africa? That should save in excess of
> 1,000,000 lives. We're doing far more than the advanced
> EU, with it's microscopic military spending, does.
We do far less with humanitarian aid than we should. Your
AIDS prevention money is also assuming the drug companies
ever agree to it. I really doubt it will save 1000000 lives
(a friend of mine is an AIDS researcher and the prospects
for resolving the AIDS problem in Africa are far more grim
than anyone is willing to admit). $15b is a spit in the
bucket compared to what we spend on military and military
aid to other countries.
> More 70's radical stuff. Been there, thought that. Another
> argument, for another day.
>
So simply by blowing it off as 70s radical stuff you can
completely dismiss it?!?! Just because the popular movements
of the 70s didn't succeed in all their aspects doesn't mean
that the other aspects can't. The 70s movement helped end
the Indochina conflict(partially), enacted the Civil Rights
legislation, and furthered the rights of women. If you
really think about it, thats quite a leap to make over the
course of 10+ years.
> I believe that known reserves will power us for several
> hundred years,
from
> my last reading on the subject.
Check who wrote your reading.
The more years go by, the more oil we
> discover. An amazing and counter-intuitive trend, but
> true. The cost issue will settle itself as it always does
> in a market.
Again, it doesn't matter how much is there. It matters how
you get it. If it is really expensive monetarily and
energetically to extract (ie, shale extraction, deep sea,
national monuments, national parks) then its not profitable.
Sure the oil companies will drill it, but we will pay for it
at the pump and through subsidization with our tax dollars.
>
> > The **** will hit the fan and I don't think it will be
> > pretty. The
Hubert
> > curve predicts that we should hit peak production within
> > in the next
3-20
> > years. Being a pessimist, I'm giving them about 10. I
> > think that I
will
> be
> > fourtunate enough in my lifetime to see the beginning of
> > the end of the
> oil
> > age.
>
> Well, based on my reading of reserves, I don't think we'll
> ever run out,
but
> if we do, mankind will move on as it must and always has.
> So far Paul Erlich ain't exactly batting 1,000.
>
Hubert predicted the peak of US production within ~5 years
if I recall and his model has predicted other countries
peaks well also.
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
