Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (148820)	10/24/2004 2:14:56 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Um. I know you're always looking for opportunities to demonstrate your worshipful (but "objective", of course ) attitude toward various conservative political icons, but eulogistic hagiography of Reagan isn't particularly relevant to anybody outside the faithful fold. I mean, it's nice that they said nice things about him after he died, and I know there's a whole industry of official conservative "history" of the era, not to be confused with propaganda or anything, but Reagan actually left sort of a mess. Not quite as big a mess as W is going to leave, by all indications, but it took 10 years or so to dig out from under the Reagan era deficits.

To: Neocon who wrote (148820)	10/24/2004 2:15:50 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I read Walesa's tribute back in June and thought it was a fitting peace. My relatives in urban and rural Poland (one arrives here tomorrow as a matter of fact) have distinct memories of the time, of Reagan, of Walesa, and of the Pope in his more able years. Many Poles would agree with the purpose and sentiment conveyed in Walesa's piece. I believe our disagreement is that you believe the Soviet Union would not have fallen if it were not for Reagan; I disagree completely. I disagree but I have given Reagan his due - he was a player of the times, and his actions rounded out the play, in as much as the existing military and economic might of the US, and relative economic weakness of the Soviets, were part of the backdrop. I give Reagan his due but also believe the Soviet Union would have fallen in much the same way without Reagan at the helm. Its the combination of players and backdrops which made it possible. Accepting this doesn't diminish Reagan's role or importance to the times. which is a position quite unlike the one you are making.