Was crazy... took almost 9 hours to get there (we live nearby Simi Valley, where the Reagan library is) in total. The drive that usually takes 15 minutes took over 3 hours, and the wait in line was a bit over 5. But very worth it, to me. Although i didn't necessariy agree with a lot of what he did, he was a great man who followed what he believed, and he was my fraternity brother to boot . The sight of the honor gaurd around him was intense and it was altogether a very touching and moving scene... the thing I remember most was, in the piles and piles of flowers, pictures, letters, and other momentos that people left for him, was a letter from a person who grew up in the Soviet Union. In broken english, the person thanked Reagan for ending the cold war peacefully and said Reagan was the reason he was alive and living in the United States today. Anyone else check it out?
I live in Simi and work off of Madera...traffic this week has been CRAZY! Unfortunately, I was not able to take the time to pay my respects.
Unfortunately I couldn't go see him. However, I must say this: without a doubt my little brother doesn't understand what it is like to fear nuclear annihilation thanks primarily to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. He will sorely missed and I will remember the only speech of his I can remember hearing at all (due to my age), and I'll remember it with pride.
How's he doin? Juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust kiddin I wanted to go but couldn't convince anyone to stand in line that long with me. So I wussed out. Reagan was great ! Nothin like not backin down when there's a bizilaton (2mff speak for a lot) of nuclear weapons pointed everywhere.
hey kennedy dealt with the same nuke thing, not like it hasnt been a problem before. After doing some reading, i came to a conclusion, Reagan was loved because of his humbleness and you fealt like he was an ordinary man. The same reason Princess Diana was loved. Not because of any policy or great thing he did, but just because of who he was.
yes kennedy dealt with the same thing and did a fantastic job, the difference is by the time his presidency ended (hmmm...not sure that I want to go there) the threat still existed and may have actually been worse as tensions between the new nations where rather high. Congrats on seing Reagan, I watched the procession in the capital.
Actually no. Under Kennedy the US lost a standoff with the Soviet Union and had to pull missles out of Turkey. This was after the Bay of Pigs incident. Reagan basically told Gorbachev to "stuff it" when he refused to accede to the demand that the United States abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative. He said his aim was not agreement, but victory. And this wasn't the only thing he did to win the Cold War. Trade embargos on Russian goods, aiding anti-communist efforts in communist countries, the man really challenged the USSR headon. What about the games with Libya? True cowboy spirit. Qadaffi (sp?) said stay out of his lake, Reagan had naval manuvers in the Gulf (his lake). Their planes tracked ours, we turned and shot them down. They launched SAMS, we sank their ships and destroyed their radar. They drew a "line of death", Reagan flew right past it and bombed the asshats. Libya wasn't heard from much after that. I like the man for what he did, not just who he was. EDIT: Don't forget strengthening the economy also
It could be argued that 'voodoo' economics, the whole trickle down theory, did not strengthen our economy. I don't htink his domestic policy was that great. His economic theories were a bit antiquated and would have worked better 30 years prior to his presidency, IMO However, I am a big fan of his foreign policy, as mentioned above by gp001. Gotta love grit!
Actually no. Under Kennedy the US lost a standoff with the Soviet Union and had to pull missles out of Turkey. Yes, but they had wanted to yank those out anyway. They were Jupiter missles and quite unreliable. So it was easy enough to allow that so as to give Kruschev a way to back off and save face. Not that it helped him when the Politburo deposed him later and brought in Breschnev.
I keep thinking of the movie "iron eagle" There is a line in it that goes. "we got a new president now...named...Ronnie Reagan."
Whatever the underlying rationale was, in the scheme of the Cold War this was seen as weakness on the part of the US.
Certainly anything could be argued. Clinton argued that the meaning of "is" is nebulous. Yikers! That said, It's hard not to argue that backing down and ultimately destroying the Soviet Union PEACEFULLY, is one of the largest factors in any and all economic prosperity that will be acheived in the post cold war era. Whatever the economic challenges we face in the future (Military and otherwise), one less tremendous strain will be on our budget, that strain being the arms race with the Soviets. REGAN WAS A GREAT MAN.
We were going to pull them out but they could have easily been replaced. PLus, they didn't know we were going to pull them out...it was a weak move.
Whatever the underlying rationale was, in the scheme of the Cold War this was seen as weakness on the part of the US. Not really. Let's face it. After that and the Bay of Pigs was over, Cuba basically became a sidenote in American policy i.e. an issue of little consequence. Kruschev was seen as the loser which is why he was removed from power. JFK has already ordered the removal of the Jupiters in Turkey and it was well-documented. So it was Kruschev who was suckered by getting a 'concession' that was already in the process of being done anyway. The classic account of this is, "Essence of Decision" by Graham Ellison. It is structured analysis of the decisons made by JFK. He had to corral a lot of guys. Its a bit heavy, but a great read. Check it out sometime.
I guess we could debate this forever, but how do you not see this as a sign of weakness? They said "do it" and it appeared as though "we did what they said". I view that as a sign of weakness. You can extrapolate the effects of the concession as being good if you wish, but I view the concession in and of itself an act of weakness. A far different scenario than the Reagan-Gorbachev Iceland talks.
The great majority of historians view the crisis as JFK's finest moment. The agreement to remove the Jupiters was done to allow Kruschev to back down gracefully. Saving face is very important when the world is watching. Kruschev was not demanding anything and got nothing. JFK was in firm control of the situation by then. Kruschev was given to making grandiose demands and then backing down. Berlin was his first. Cuba was his second. There was not to be a third because he had succeeded in committing political suicide. If it was such a victory, why did the Politburo yank him rather than reward him? Great topic for a Mustang site! A pleasure talking with you. Take it easy.
I saw him 20 years ago when most of you were still in the cradle. I was standing by the highway as his motorcade passed me by and was waving at him. I was alone and about 5 miles out of town. He saw me, and shifted his seating position so he could look at me and waved back. I also have a hand written letter from him thanking me for a small contribution that I gave him for the "cause". Remember Oli? Very cool.
Good story Oz. I went to the funeral procession yesterday. It could not have been better. Class and respect all the way.
Nothing was demanded? In agreement to pull out of Cuba he demanded 2 things: 1. That we agreed we would never invade Cuba, 2. That we pull the missles out of Turkey. Even though strategically we had the advantage and could have said "NO", Kennedy conceded.
