We'd all be here today. If Reagan was in the White House at the time, there wouldn't have been a Cuban Missile Crisis.
Did I say that? No, I did not! It was just "game over" for a failed experiment...USSR. Giving credit to Reagan is just nonsense. Would not have mattered who was in the White House. The USSR was done. For more reasons than I care to go into here. Sure, "Star Wars" (SDI) got a lot of press for "spending the USSR" into oblivion. Very convenient explanation. Even the most simple of the simple minded have to know that one useless over emphasized science project could not bring down the worlds second most powerful country. The country was just basically flawed. Period. By the way, you want to give Reagan credit for this? OK...(I've said this before, but the truth bears repeating). Reagan was told about the "Red Menace". Then he was told about the "Star Wars" defense plan. So being Reagan, he figured we were about to be invaded by Mars, so he gave the Star Wars thing the go-ahead. And that's how he defeated the USSR. Peace, :Rs7
here's a very handy start for you http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=217719#post217719
Hapaboy, were you even alive in 1962? Do you have any clue what the world was like then? We were NOT NUMERO UNO then. Russia had a superior space program, and a bigger and more well equipped army, a nuclear arsenal at LEAST as overwhelming as our own, and a leader that was a fanatic. The USSR wanted missiles in Cuba. Cuba wanted missiles in Cuba. Reagan being in the White House would have changed this???? Do you remember Khrushev pounding his shoe on the table at the UN? I do! Do you remember Khruschev telling Kennedy to his face on US soil the "we will bury you"? I do. (He was pissed they wouldn't let him into Disneyland....how do you "reason" with that kind of mentality?) Don't be naive. The only reason Khrushev backed off in Cuba was he was in a very high stakes "poker game" with a smarter, ballsier and more rational player than himself. Reagan? Our only chance with him in a crisis like that would have been if they didn't tell him about it. Let him sleep through it. (NOT UNPRECEDENTED BTW....I believe they told him about the first American strikes on Tripoli in '86 after he woke from his nap). Hapaboy, I will be glad to debate anything with you. I will even let you pick the subject and tell me which side of the issue you want me to argue. It's all in fun, and just a mental exercise. But thinking that Reagan would have had the brains, the sense, and the discipline to avert what appeared to the entire world like an unavoidable situation in 1962 is a stretch for even the most rabid Reaganite. It just never could have worked with him. Hell, Al (I'm in charge here) Haig would have probably launched nukes before Reagan was informed of the situation. DID Reagan say or did he NOT say "you guys make policy....I'll sell it"? You think Kennedy had that mentality? Get a grip. Or at least admit you don't know. Because you are making a fool of yourself with these statements. Not your fault if you were not alive then. Seeing history and living through it is very different than making it up based on what you think you know. Peace, rs7
Ok, I'll give it to you anyway. As an African American they all leave an extensive amount to be desired. Domestic social issues? They are all a joke. But in fairness, the issue starts within my community first. As soon as we can get everyone to realize that it is not us who makes Jesse Jackson the default voice we will have made the first step to becoming viable. He amazes me in being the so-called voice of the community. I, and many others, can address issues ourselves. Especially the one that says we don't all vote for democrats! False question also. It is the congress in most instances that makes or breaks a budget. As in the case with Clinton, the republican congress put that budget together remember? It was the one that was going to kill old folks and starve all of our children. It was called the "Contract on America" by the democrats. And in the African American community we were supposed to all loose homes, and all the civil rights gains since Martin Luther King if it passed. When it passed, we were all supposed to go to church and pray mightily for deliverance from the evil. We were told that we needed to support our "Black President." The only friend a black male had, our one and only chance. Do you feel me here? It even got as bad as to be totally sickening. The democratic party, in our community, was selling the concept that underlying the whole Lewinski issue was an attack on black men everywhere. I am supposed to find some comfort in that message? Do you remember Jesse stepping in to pray for Bill? The party was saying that we as black men needed overlook any troubles he might have as the republicans were just playing the hidden race card. The false issues from the Democratic party anger me and many of my friends and associates. We are not suffering and in need of welfare issues to be put to the head of the line. The only time that we are truly called upon is when it's time to vote. They are notorious for providing the token representation, or the sole seat on a board of ten. And even then it is with the understanding that the person is there merely as a placeholder who's vote is counted in the default "wherever we tell you position." No don't expect me to fall into the lesser of two evils category. The level of pissivity is too high. Of late many of my associates (and I) have decided that not only can we be viable as noncommitted, but that we don't walk in lock step with either party. We too can stake a viable claim to being conservative on many issues. We invest in the market, buy luxury items and have an interest in wanting a lower tax burden too. I am always asked don't I want social security saved. Extremely dumb question. But I and many of my friends don't plan on existing on its receipt. I am amazed at the politicians playing that game. When I hear of politicians (democrats mostly) who earn over $150k annually tell me that their aged mothers/fathers can't get medicaid to cover the medication, I don't fault the system. I look at the jerk and immediately know who I can't waste a vote on. This is a person who I am supposed to trust fiscal responsibilities to? This joker who can't take responsibility for his own parents care. Comedy of errors! And somehow this is compassion and responsible government action. Let me awaken you to a startling fact. In my community many individuals have families. Families who are looking into making sure that the whole family is addressed. I have included not only my parents on my insurance policy, but so have all my brothers. We sat them down and addressed investments, aging, assets, health care and death. But we didn't stop there. My brothers even took it to another level. They have covered their in-laws. I recently took survey of many of my associates to make sure that the message was getting around. Of over 100 individuals, in excess of 75% have done something very similar. Many of those who hadn't are in the beginning stages of doing so. Another fact, over 80% have IRA's and stock investment plans. This spanned the the gamut of single, divorced, married, and with children. It also spanned across all the income levels. Many of us are actually viewing social security as a possible supplement to our own personal developed plans (Seeing as how it might not be there). I truly hope this is the "biased opinion" that you expected. If so, then I and many of my associates do fit your profile!
I might consider voting for Reagan, but that would be contingent on Nancy's good health, not Ronnie's. After all, when he gets on the podium, someone has to be there to tell him what to say.
Let me see if I can help you out here. I don't want the article that was written by/about some guy reading the budget document. Nor am I concerned if you have read his document. Substance! I want the actual budget document that YOU read that allowed YOU to come to the conclusion that this document by this guy MIGHT be accurate and not slanted to give the intended impression.
RS7, bless your heart. You're obviously very passionate in your belief that Reagan was a complete idiot. And I'm delighted about your "anytime-anywhere" debate challenge. That's all very fine and well, and opinions you are of course entitled to. But please do not presume to call me naive and a fool and lecture me like you're some Grand Poobah of History and I'm in your classroom sucking on a lollipop wearing a "Mr. RS7 - Teacher of the Year" shirt. So rest your sphincter for a minute and let me try to explain my statement. My statement is based on a simple premise - the Cuban Missile Crisis would not have occured under Reagan because there would not have been a Communist Cuba for Kruschev to put his missiles on in the first place. As we are all aware, the Bay of Pigs invasion was a dismal failure. Among other things, not only were Cuban exiles used, but Kennedy decided not to use US armed forces to assist them. I don't believe Reagan would have hesitated for a second to use the full conventional might of the US military the second Castro's aligned himself with the USSR; even if he had waited that long, the Bay of Pigs would have been fought using US troops and equipment. From what we know about Reagan, facts of his personality that you call idiotic, do you think he would have tolerated a Communist regime seventy miles away for as long as Kennedy did? As far as nuke arsenals, Khrushchev knew that Soviet missiles were only powerful enough to be launched against Europe but U.S. missiles were capable of striking the entire Soviet Union. The US, RS7, had the strategic nuclear advantage. That's why Kruschev wanted missiles in Cuba in the first place, to be able to reach the US mainland. So you may say, "Well, Kruschev could have threatened Europe then." But, given what you think you know about Reagan, do you think he would have let the threat of Europe override the very close threat of Cuba? It was Kennedy's lack of involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion that gave Kruschev the idea that the US would do little to resist Soviet expansionism, and was a major factor in encouraging Kruschev to even attempt to place Soviet missiles in Cuba. I don't think Reagan would ever have given Kruschev the impression of a weak America. You can hate him, but you have to admit he was more than willing to not only build-up but project US military power. Just my .02 peace
Laying the Cuban Missile Crisis at Kennedy's doorstep makes little sense at all. Castro seized power during the Eisenhower presidency and the Bay of Pigs (fiasco) was concocted by his administration, specifically, the CIA. A noble but incredibly stupid plan. Kennedy inherited this. The USSR had a potential hostage geopolitical relationship with Western Europe during the decades after WW2 and only the NATO alliances and US presence prevented a more expansive Soviet control in Europe. Once the Cubans had aligned themselves with the Soviets the Soviets had expressed to the US that they considered Cuba a protectorate. Why do you think Eisenhower's people arranged a Cuban populated brigade to re-take the island? To formally separate the US from the action. You say that Reagan would not have tolerated a Communist regime seventy (the correct distance is 90) miles away for as long as Kennedy but the fact is Reagan tolerated Castro for 3-1/2 times as long as Kennedy. The allowance of a Soviet sponsored regime in Cuba and the potential for the presence of Soviet ballistic missiles in Cuba are vastly different. And you have missed this essential difference. Your words: "I don't believe Reagan would have hesitated for a second to use the full conventional might of the US military the second Castro's aligned himself with the USSR, even if he had waited that long, the Bay of Pigs would have been fought using US troops and equipment" I am not sure that he would have sent US forces into Cuba. There is no indication of his readiness to use armed force save for Grenada, a country which three kindergartners with squirt guns could vanquish. But if he had, you appear to grant that the Soviets would have attacked Western Europe and that would not have given Reagan pause. That would have tripped the NATO obligations and who knows what may have happened. I think that possibility would have given him pause, just as it did every single President from Truman on. Further, instead of speculating on how Reagan would have reacted to Soviet influence in our "backyard", let's look at what Reagan did when Socialists gained power in Nicaragua. He created, or allowed, the Iran-Contra scandal. A terrible blight on US government. And he accomplished nothing to dislodge the sandinistas from power. Whether Kruschev would have undertaken missile emplacement in Cuba under a different US president is open to debate. But to assume that Reagan would have operated under the most simplistic of assumptions in a complex geopolitical event is rather, well, Reaganesque.