Because conservatives have no memories for anything other than the talking points they get each morning from the RNC (Republican National Committee) that need to compete with their decision whether to go gay that day or not - and because Reagan jacked up defense spending in a race with the Soviets to see who would blink and go bankrupt first - they blinked first but not by much.
2007-05-04 02:58:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ben 5
·
1⤊
4⤋
Though all of the prior presidents deserve credit for the constant pressure applied to the USSR it was Ronald Reagan that actually called it evil and escalated the cold war to a pace never seen before. Thus in an effort to keep up with Reaganomics the USSR went bankrupt in the process. Thus allowing Ronald Reagan to say ,"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!".
2007-05-04 02:59:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Maybe because it's true?
Reagan was the first American president to put teeth behind his stand against Soviet aggression, yet at the same time was willing to talk with Gorbachev and work on ways to improve the situation. His "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech also went a long way. But it was very clear that Reagan, unlike any of his predecessors in either party, put great emphasis on this issue, and the timing was right. Gorbachev was the right man to be on the other side. Unfortunately, the Bush League has mismanaged our relationship with Russia to the point that we now are approaching another bad period. Still, it won't be a repeat of the Cold War where we constantly worried about missiles coming.
Reagan made it clear that he might actually fight, so the Soviets had to try to keep up. Furthermore, Reagan didn't send the Russians lots of money to keep funding their failed system, like many of his predecessors did. (Look up stats on foreign aid to Russia pre-1980). So, he did preside over the dismantling of the Soviet threat. He recognized that it wasn't such a great threat after all, and he forced them to re-think their blustery strategy. In the end, he gave us a safer society. Now, if only we had another Reagan to show us that the Islamo-Fascist "threat" is as mushy as the Soviet one.
I'm voting Ron Paul for President!
2007-05-04 03:12:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by skip742 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
Because he poured a lot into our defense budget making Russia have to do the same to keep up with us. He also took a hard line against communism and didnt try to appease them or make friends with them like the democrats do to this day.
Ya with the way we talk as cons sometimes, youd think we went over there and crushed them with our military! But I think this is an important lesson about communism that in part of defeating it is be stronger than they militarily, outlast them, and dont allow them for one second to have hope or think they are right. Also fighting and standing up to their satelitte regimes like vietnam and cuba are important. But Reagan was a truly great leader that understood these things.
2007-05-04 03:36:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because a sitting President always takes the credit or gets the blame. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Nixon all contributed to the end of the Cold War, but when Mr. Gorbachev "tore down the wall", Reagan was in the Oval Office.
Clinton was credited with leaving the country with a huge budget surplus when he left office, although several other Presidents before him helped that to happen.
Johnson was blamed for being 'defeated' in Vietnam, but Presidents before him knew it was an unwinnable 'war'.
The lone exception will be George W. Bush, who started the unconstitutional and illegal was against Iraq at the beginning of his term, and will be blamed for one of the worst atrocities in American history. However, shortly after Bush leaves offices (and sticks taxpayers with a crushing TRILLION-DOLLAR debt), this country will experience the worst economic depression in its history (much worse than 1929), and the Republicans will try to blame the sitting Democratic President for that! That's why you won't see much of an effort on the part of Republicans to win the 2008 election: they'll sit back, rest on their laurels, then come back in power in 2012 or 2016. -RKO- 05/04/07
2007-05-04 03:00:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
1⤊
4⤋
Because his policy of a massive military buildup while the USSR was struggling economically caused the less efficient USSR to bankrupt itself to keep up. The fall of the USSR had been coming for a long time, but Regan understood that it took something other than appeasement to hasten its arrival.
For you people that are too young to know the truth at least admit it.
2007-05-04 03:24:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by meathookcook 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
Because he did. I know it is fashionable in certain circles to credit Gorbby and others for this great victory but think it through. Until Reagan became pres we had policies that ranged from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to peaceful coexistence (Jimmy Carter) which viewed the Soviets as a legitimate counter balance to American power that would always exist. Reagan called the Soviets what they were(evil empire) worked to stop their advances in the world (Grenada) and despite the hysteria of the left and the sabotage of his efforts by pink Europeans succeeded in bringing them down. If not Reagan than who?
2007-05-04 02:57:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6
·
4⤊
4⤋
Not know but the new Bush is doing his damnedest to start another Cold War
2007-05-04 03:18:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because HE DID!!!!!!! He was in office at the time it happened, therefore he gets the credit. Much the same as Bill Clinton gets credit for the surplus, even though it was the Repuclican congress that actually was responsible.
2007-05-04 03:06:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by just the facts 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
After King Richard Nixon, the publican's needed a hero. Never mind all of the screw ups Ronnie made, he made the "tear down this wall" speech. In their minds Ron won the cold war, just like he did on T-V. Adding up all of the negatives of his presidency, it's hard to find much to shout about. Best part is he probably had no recall of his last 4-5 years in office.
2007-05-04 02:57:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋