 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
What si Reagan know for and to be remembered for?
|
Invading Grenada to avenge dead marines in Lebanon.
A connection I found hard to make, but there you are.
The said invasion being a violation of the treaty of the Organisation of American States, the Rio Pact, the United Nations charter, and the American constitution.
Then there's the withdrawal from UNESCO, cutting off funds to the U.N.'s Fund for Population Activities, America's being the sole casting vote AGAINST a World Health Organization code for infant formula, and threatening withdrawal from the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, the Food and Agricultural Organization and the International Atomic Energy Commission.
In Nicaragua, the American government and the C.I.A. and the extremely unpleasant American client states of El Salvador and Honduras supported the Central American equivalents of Middle East terrorists against the wishes of the Nicaraguan government and people, foreign aid workers, and the other Central American governments.
Then of course under Reagan, after sanctions were imposed against South Africa, U.S. exports to South Africa actually increased from $1.28 billion in 1987 to $1.71 billion in 1989, according to the U.S. Commerce Department. What was the nature of some of these exports?:
'The effect of the easing of the arms embargo, both in terms of the actual regulations and in terms of interpretation, has been documented in Military Exports to South Africa: A Research Report on the Arms Embargo by NARMIC. The study reveals that more than $28.3 million worth of military equipment was authorised for sale to South Africa for fiscal years 1981-1984, as compared to $25,000 for 1979.'
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/histo...night840403.htm
I may be mistaken in thinking that sanctions aren't actually meant to increase trade, but there you are...
Then of course there's Liberia, and the support for that charming gentleman and disemboweller of the previous ruler, Samuel K. Doe.
Reagan’s support for the dictatorship of Samuel Doe surged ahead throughout the 1980s. In 1984, Doe altered laws to make himself eligible for election, shut down or banned newspapers, banned opposition parties, and unsurprisingly was elected in what was clearly a rigged election.
"This performance established a beginning, however imperfect," Assistant Secretary of State Chester Crocker told Congress two months later, and 'at least it was a movement toward democracy'. He further justified his statement with the claim that, 'in any case, all African elections were known to be rigged' at that time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconne...ssays/uspolicy/
'When Charles Taylor, Liberia's current president, launched a war against Doe in 1989, his "method was to exploit the genocidal rage of the Gio and the Mano," the two tribes that had suffered the most under Doe's Krahn tribe. "No one has the slightest idea how many people died in the ensuing bloodbath," Berkeley wrote. "Conservative estimates put the number of casualties at 20,000 to 25,000. That would be about one percent of Liberia's population of 2.5 million. But a visitor soon realizes that virtually everyone lost a relative.'
Well I don't like Mr. Crocker's recipe for making democratic cakes very much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
but what I am really dismayed at is the response to the Beirut bombings. 0 response. Marines I talked to in the navy wanted to kick some ass after that happened, but we did nothing. I understand his main focus was on communism, but we should have done something about the terrorist threat.
So I don't think he was that "tough" of a president. We could have taken care of the terrorist problem back then. Between him and Jimmy Carter terrorists got the idea that they could push the U.S. around and we'd back down. Which was true. Because of this, I have to pace partial blame of 9/11 on Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. |
I am ambivalent about this line of argument. While it did add an arrow to the quiver of al Qaeda, he may not have seen the successful exit ramp down the road either. Better to exit earlier with a failure rather than later with a failure. Of course, the same could be said of Clinton with Somalia, except with a lot fewer casualties.
A more interesting line of argument against Reagan's legacy in light of current events is that he funded the jihadis against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was a move that made really good sense at the time, but it helped create the infrastructure (and confidence) for the pan-Islamist militants who we are fighting so hard today.
A good counterargument is that the Saudis were sending their boys off to Afghanistan and would have done so with or without US support. The Saudi leadership now appears to see Afghanistan as a big mistake of its own doing.
Last edited by DanS on 07-06-2004 at 08:15
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
molly bloom 
its really disturbing and sickening the deification of reagan considering the evil in the world he supported... and that's only the tip of the iceberg.  |
I don't actually believe Reagan was personally responsible- I suspect at heart he was a small town American thrust onto a national and international stage and playing beyond his capacity.
I also believe that the mental infirmity was there long before the public were informed- I mean, who would tell Yitzhak Shamir AND Simon Wiesenthal separately, on two different occasions, that he had filmed the death camps in Europe, when he hadn't been there at all?
Of course the spin was put on it that Wiesenthal's English wasn't tnat good (he has an Austrian accent, not deafness) or that Shamir misunderstood, or better that Reagan 'misspoke', but clearly, some things were being plucked out of the imagination (such as his having been to Nicaragua) and owed little to reality.
It would be akin to Margaret Thatcher claiming to have worked for Great Britain's war effort at Bletchley Park or in Whitehall, when in fact she was at university.
I don't believe he was evil, I do believe he was a frontman for some ruthless people and for some morally indefensible acts- the support his government gave for the Contras and the apartheid regime in South Africa, for Doe's Liberian dictatorship and Savimbi's Unita terrorists.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2004 07:18
|