Reagan is famous for ending . . .

First of all, yes it is a legitimate source, unless you offer an alternative source to contradict it. If your source from Stanford.edu said something different to my wikipedia source, you would be right to challenge my source. Otherwise, it is simply a logical fallacy. Contradict the point, which the is the idea that global oil prices fell irrelevant to Reagan's policies starting before any of Reagan's policies actually took place, or find a new tactic. I could find 50 other sources about the same topic, just used Wiki out of convenience. And your article talks about a policy initiative implemented in 1982, when oil prices had already been declining fora almost two years at that point.

- - - Updated - - -

An argument hasn't happened. This is an example of me educating you, you plugging your ears and screaming no, and me getting frustrated and moving on. If you want to make an argument, I am listening (I see you still haven't linked to this mythical argument, that is because it doesn't exist).

 

Grenada was building a long runway with armed Cubans and Soviet help. A runway big enough to land Backfire bombers, if the Soviets wanted to.

Public opinion caused Reagan to pull troops from Beirut. The sentries guarding the Marine barracks had unloaded rifles and couldn't stop the truck loaded with dynamite. They did the same thing with us when I was stationed in Gitmo guarding our planes. I don't know if the Marines have changed that policy now or not.

Yes he did. Did you know Congress had been funding the Contra for two years before that? The CIA got them to leave their homes and family to fight the Nicaraguan government and then chickened out when they blew up a ship in the Nicaragua harbor, afraid they might blow up a Soviet ship next. What do they do then? They can't go home and the Soviets were still making inroads into Central America.

 

Yes an argument has happened and you have lost it.

Much evidence has been presented by others proving you wrong and your entire response is unnh unnhh.

It is you lacking any argument and getting educated

 

So that is the standard? Ok.

A person who actually wielded power in the USSR and one of Gorbachev's closest political allies Alexander Yakovlev, said this when confronted with the question of whether or not Reagan had a role in ending the Cold War.

And the idea that because the person was Russian, they had more credibility, is ridiculous. The fact is Soviet military spending DID NOT increase in the 1980s, so the quote is factually inaccurate, and therefore of no value.

Here are some more quotes just for some fun.

This is from George Kennan, the father of the containment policy.

Here is Jack Matlock, who was the US ambassador to the USSR when the Soviet Union collapsed.

At the moment, I am just appealing to the authority. Using quotes of other people agreeing with me, is not a real argument, but since you asked for it, I obliged. Are you happy now? So since I offered up a far more relevant Russian to counteract the claim, I win by your standard correct?

 

Started after Reagan did everything possible to hurt the Soviets and Gorbachev knew he couldn't get military superiority over the US. Don't forget the Soviets were in Afghanistan, Grenada and Nicaragua which Reagan fought against them at every turn they made. He made it plain to Gorbachev they will never get military superiority over the US.

 

How did Reagan's $1 trillion Star Wars disaster help the USA?

I don't hate Reagan. I just don't worship him. The problem with debating ultra-conservatives is getting past the dogma. The Bible is infallible, the Constitution is infallible, Reagan was infallible and perfect in every possible way.

I guess your strengths aren't history or logic.

 

You should try getting dates and facts of histroy straight before trying to apply logic you can't even get timelines correct

 

It scared the Soviets into thinking America would develop Star Wars and could protect it's self against a nuclear attack, while they had nothing to protect themselves from an American nuclear missile attack. It also drained the Soviets of hard needed cash trying to develop the same.

 

When you see that your enemy is trying to block you in everything you try to do and that he is trying to build a nuclear umbrella to protect himself against your nuclear missiles and you haven't anything to counter it and he can out produce you in weapons, do you think the enemy should think of another way to do things instead of the way they have been thinking? Because thinking the same way can get you wiped out.

 

you mean he wanted to blame America for their collapse rather then blame themselves...imagine that

 

Frankly anyone who cosies up to and entertains torturers and murdering fascist bastards like Thatcher did with Pinochet is not worth pissing on if they are on fire. Reagan was no different. He was a bumbling, brainless embarrassment who could barely string a coherent sentence together. Little wonder conservatives worship him...
http://canvas.union.shef.ac.uk/wordpress/?p=2068

 

No surprise there from the snake!

 

So, which bit was so hysterical; the dictatorship, the torture or the thousands of murders Pinochet's fascist regime committed?
Next we had Reagan on the one hand lecturing about human rights, whilst on the other hand he was actively supporting Pinochet, one of the worst human rights abusers. You couldn't make it up.
And the Republicans really love this guy? Can anyone explain the logic in that?
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-02/local/me-1475_1_human-rights

 

And the Left really hate him, only because he is a Republican and looked up to around the world.

 

Looked up to by who, fascists? Anyone who associates, as Reagan did, with murderous fascists like Pinochet deserves nothing less than derision and hatred.

 

He was presidential, patriotic, and communicated well. The Kenyan has none of those traits!

 

He did talk about replacing Assad for a week or two until the neocons changed their minds and decided the Assad was the lesser of the evils. Do you really think Obie knows anything about the ME? He depends on his dependables.

 

Of course it Putins fault as well. The question is why did Putin feel he could do this completely unchecked? The answer is because he can. He can because Obama gave the green light during his apology tour and Obama is in fact not only perceived as weak, but he is weak. He doesn't give a crap about his own citizens (obviously he let four people die for votes and still refuses to talk about it) much less what Putin is doing halfway around the world. Obama is loving this, it takes away from his scandals.

Im sure Putin is terrified of a US president who thinks his own military is too large and is actively cutting its nuggets off.

 

He got the green light first when he invaded Georgia, resumed nuclear bomber patrols near North America, and planted a Russian flag on the sea floor in the Arctic and Bush did nothing.

 

If the Soviet Union was not set up the way it was his words and actions would have done jack (*)(*)(*)(*).

The Soviet Union collapsed because communism failed and they couldn't support themselves any longer. On such a large scale it just can't keep itself going, if the central leadership isn't 100% psychic and benevolent things will just keep getting worse and worse. Reagan wasn't actually needed for it to collapse - it just happened to be in such bad shape that it collapsed on his watch. Whether he expedited the collapse is not a topic I'm going to decide either way on based on a single AP summary. What I do know is that you do not need Ronald Reagan in order for a communist system to fail, it is quite well set up to do so itself.

 

Couldn't agree more. It's time for Obama to be the one stepping down. He can't run a lemonade stand.

 

Ignoring AIDs for years whilst thousands of Americans died because he didn't want to offend the fundamentalist wing who thought it was a punishment for homosexuality?

 

Reagan never ended the cold war. All the codger did was wheeze out "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall". The Soviet Union was collapsing on it's own and Reagan never did anything.

He was famous for quadrupling the deficit, selling the country to multinational corporations, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, pollute the air and water by deregulating everything. Also famous for the most corrupt administration until the two Bushes.

Also famous for being the first divorced President and as a bad actor (Bedtime for Bonzo). Also for having alzheimer's while in office so Nancy and her astrologer made policy.

 

I don't think they hate him. It's really fear that drives them toward bashing him and trying to destroy his legacy. They know that if a person were to speak the way Reagan spoke, was able to articulate the message the way he was, the map of America on election night would look blood red each and every time.