For those of us who lived through the Cold War and Carter's malaise, Reagen was a giant. Sure- he had some pretty wacky political appointees and he slept through a lot of his second term but the Soviets started falling apart in 1989 and shortly thereafter, the evil empire completely imploded.

When a group of hardliners tried to restore Communism, the people decided that it wasn't going to happen and put themselves, in mass, in the way effectively making military action by either side impossible.

That action alone says more about his legacy than anything else that I could think of.

Reagen was in no way perfect but a whole lot of people of my generation fully expected to meet our end fighting a Soviet surge into Central Europe outnumbered 7:1 in every key weapons category [thanks Jimmy f-ing Carter].

Despite revisionist historians, Carter was the single worst president in American history responsible for allowing the military to wither on the vine at the height of the cold war, allowed the country to be humiliated by Iran and his economic policies brought about triple digit inflation.

Carter believed in disarmament and was apparently willing to disarm first- despite 10,000 Soviet warheads targeted on American cities with triple redundancy and massive treaty violations of which our intelligence services were completely aware (CBC of 1970- Chemical & Biological Weapons Convention- in 1979 an accident at a Soviet bioweapons factory killed an unknown number of people).

Reagen did many things that were wrong and/or I simply disagreed with but overall his foreign policy effectively dismantled the single most deadly regime in the history of mankind without ever forcing a direct superpower confrontation.

In the years following the fall of the Soviet Union, I was involved with a contractor which translated and reported on documents handed over to the Bush administration by Boris Yeltsin. The idea was that full disclosure would lead to trust. My job was to act as a science "reality checker" as I have a strong background in the physical sciences.

I can not say too much about what I saw in those documents because I'm still bound by the terms of the National Security Act but I will say that it was the stuff of nightmares. Plague bombs that cover hundreds of square miles, nukes designed to create high level fallout and render areas completely uninhabitable, genetically engineered plant fungi to destroy crops and cause starvation...

Humanity has averted extinction but the tools of the Apocalypse that never was are products of 60s and 70s technology. While the imminent threat of mass annihilation is gone, technology, for good or evil purposes, marches on. The Cold War generation's nightmares are not gone and without a great deal of vigilance, we will see them again.


The dangers posed by Weapons of Mass Destruction have had major policy implications on every administration since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It started with George Bush Senior who used US funds to clean up and dismantle old Soviet nuclear, chemical and biological facilities. US funds were also used to employ former Soviet weapons scientists into peaceful private sector activities.

The Clinton Administration continued to assist the Russian Federations individual states and the central government clean up and employ scientists with expertise in the most dangerous technologies. In the mid/late-ninties this funding was cut by the Clinton Administration and a number of clean up projects are sitting around in desperate need of completion like nuclear powered ships rusting away at the docks.

The George W Bush Administration, after the 9/11 attacks made WMD proliferation a causus belli and put the three rouge nations known to be attempting to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction on notice. Iraq was found to have chemical and biological weapons in the 1991 Gulf War and their leader had used chemical weapons to intimidate his populous and discourage a coup. Because of UN sanctions, Iran and North Korea had developed domestic weapons industries and have chemical and nuclear facilities in which could develop chemical or nuclear weapons.

Although this struggle is unpopular and many suggest who are developed world to deny WMDs other countries, containing these weapons is absolutely necessary for world stability. Imagine terror orgs like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda with nerve gas or a nuclear weapon being able to operate in the shadows. A nuke in Kashmir would easily trigger a larger war between India and Pakistan. Nerve gas attacks on civil populations would cause chaos and potentially trigger a larger war by accident (or design).

This is the difficulty that we face and must take responsibility for. As the worlds only remaining superpower we can't do it alone. We must repair relations damaged by the ham-handedness of the Bush the 2nd's foreign policy. We need partners, not rivals who are acting in enlightened self interest.

I agree whole-heartedly James. We need to start with Europe, for they are as close to a second superpower as a nation can be other than China. A united front between Europe and the US is exactly what we need. Reagan was good at maintaining good relations with Europe. I won't say that I agree with everything he did, because I do not. However, as far as Republican presidents in the 20th century, he was by far the best.

I don't think that Regan gets the direct credit for the collapse of the USSR. It had been rotting from the center long before he became president. Gorbachev's fumbling efforts at economic reform had as much to do with the collapse as anything Regan did.

Given the way that the US has been conducting its foreign policy since it attained the status of sole superpower, it doesn't really make me sleep better at night. However, the US seems to be suffering from its own economic rot so the days of superpowerdom are likely numbered.

We need someone in the Oval office who will help America...
we need to re establish better ties with Europe and the world as a whole
we need to end the wars and just bring eachother together.

For me this need embodies Ronald Regan as a man a gentleman and a friend
He was everyones grandfather kindly and supportive and he brought the United States
out of the shithole that Carter et al caused in the 1970's

I know i am young but Regan is my hero

I agree with everyone on here, Reagan's Legacy is great and his impact is titanic on the development of the late 20th century and early 21st century. I adore the man in his actions as a leader and his abilities as a politician seeing clearly through the red tape. He may have his flaws, but they are what made him more human.

Communism ended under his policies and he should be credited for it. However, we have to think about certain ramifications for what occurred during the 1980's and the destruction of communism. Without an "Evil Empire", fractured states exist with nuclear capabilities. The Mid-East has become a hot zone for major problems due to what happened in the 1980's such as the Iran Iraq war and Afghan-Soviet war.

A lot of debts had to be paid for the end of the Soviet Union; whether it was worth it or not is still up to debate. We have gained a greater sense of freedom in the world and the global climate of cooperation seems to be growing. However, there are many things such as terrorist states and dictatorships that were spawned in the 1980's struggle that have barely ended. Destroying the Soviet Union as a state was just one part, but containing the shock that it created is what the US is still doing today.

Hehehe, my mom would argue every one of you down about Jimmy Carter. She has a pretty unique point of view as far as he goes.

Anywho, it's all well and good to talk the talk, but the key to all of it is execution. The current president did a terrible job of executing his plans, and lost all support incredibly quickly. Never before has a president completely LOST support the way he has. I mean, some have been unpopular, but I really can't recall any president who has ever just been shunned by over half the population of the U.S.

GWB is an idiot. He may be a right-minded idiot on key points, but he's also wrong on a lot of key points. For instance, where are all of those WMDs? They never existed. The man went nutso when he had no clue what he was doing.

Tact, cunning, poise, execution. These are extremely important in a president, and the next one better damn well have them to fix the mess that's going on now.

Reagan doesn't exactly tickle my pickle. Then again, I'll not go so far as dude from the Boondocks and say he was the devil. No, really, count the letters in his name. Ronald Wilson Reagan. 666. He's the devil.

Hmm, well forgive me for being a detractor, but as far as presidents go I'm not overly fond of Reagan.

As others mentioned I think he gets a slightly disproportionate amount of credit for the collapse of the USSR.

I also think he fumbled the ball pretty massively when it comes to the AIDS epidemic.

Furthermore, I personally think he set the wheels in motion for the development of quite a few political situations and ideologies that I'm not at all fond of.

He seems like one of the most likable presidents though. He had good charisma and he seems like a decent, nice guy. But as far as political legacy I'm just not really a big fan.

On the other hand politically my beliefs and values are pretty different from his so I suppose it's only natural that I wouldn't be a big fan.

Just my thoughts,
Kevin

Seconded about the AIDS stuff, Kevin. I've heard the pope was also responsible for the fall of the USSR. One thing that ticked me off, a line by Allen Ginsberg

QUOTE

Birdbrain organized Operation Condor to spray poison fumes on the marijuana fields of Sonora
Birdbrain got sick in Harvard Square from smoking Mexican grass

QUOTE

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3580.html

The Reagan era saw the creation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) school propaganda program, and the spraying of American marijuana fields with the toxic weedkiller paraquat. Reagan's Drug Czar, Carlton Turner, said that kids deserved to die as punishment for smoking the poisoned weed. Two years later, he called for the death penalty for all drug users.

.........Hummm, so many comments where to start?? Reagan will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents we ever had. He did dismantle the USSR, through 'economic wars' the Russians couldn't keep up. For you Bush bashers, out there be please be advised there were WOMD in Iraq, ask the Kurds to whom he used them against. I've seen the non-bloody corpes of children, women and men lying dead in the streets. The WOMD was also confirmed by the UN, including the French, Germans and other countries, what Saddam did with them prior to the 2nd invasion is still unknown although pockets of chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. Carter was by far the worst president this country has ever had, trying to pacify known enemys with retorict, only made us seem weak in their eyes. As if you think you can talk down a bully, when has that worked? Getting back to Reagan, as far as the AIDS epidemic goes, he simply did not understand it, gays were not unknown to him, he did work in the Hollywood industry afterall. He failed by letting his Czar handle it.

I've read you guys' praise of Reagan. The USSR's fall being his work seems to be rewriting history. He was at the right time and the right place, the USSR started crumbling long before. It was a regime that could not sustain itself in the world as it was, and its worst enemies were its leaders. As for WOMD, they were used in WWI already, and a dictator as SH just had to love something that could crush opposition. And biological weapons are still around anyway, not even talking about the volume of "regular" weapons such as bombs and guns so the hunt can last forever...

As I said, I'm very much inclined to agree with Francois on this point.

As for the WOMD being or not being in Iraq...well that really isn't the basis for my criticism of US involvement to begin with. I was never in favour of this 'preemptive strike' nonsense to begin with. Of course it would be easier to stomach if it seemed like there was indeed an imminent threat (which, who knows, maybe there was. It's all relative and open to conjecture anyway), but I still wouldn't have supported that particular way of handling it. Indeed I never supported U.S. involvement in Iraq or the war, even when it was very popular to do so and even though I was in a very conservative location at the time.

If I can add my two cents on a couple of comments .

The mention of Europe becoming a world superpower .

Rebuild the ties with Europe

Unfortunately, I don't think you can look to Europe as being of one mind or one power when it comes the military objectives of a superpower.

I don't mean to isolate or criticize any nation here, but there is such difference in opinion of the role of individual member nations that I don't believe that some would ever be willing to become closer with the US for the simple reason that they are the only superpower.

What I'm basing this on is the role of NATO and the current war in Afghanistan. Sometimes this may be forgotten in the US media, but NATO is still at war daily with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Currently, the nations dedicating the most troops under the NATO flag are the US, the UK, and Canada. Many European and NATO countries are in Afghanistan, but the majority are there in a 'non combat' role. Otherwise their military personnel are not allowed to engage the enemy.

Recently Canada, which has the lead role in Kandahar province, probably the most violent and volatile place in the country, asked for assistance in helping them in their battle with the Taliban from other NATO countries.

Who responded? The US, the UK and thankfully France. The rest were nada, nope, no way, we will help rebuild, but it is not our place to fight the Taliban. I may be wrong, as their is some European countries that are engaged in military operations, but none were willing to add more manpower.

To make any suggestion of making Europe as a whole a superpower, must be understood that Europe will never be a superpower due to the fact that it is many individual nations with individual ideologies and objectives. To have unanimous agreement to act militarily is nothing I believe we will see in our lifetimes.

Sorry, probably . I will give Reagan credit for having a better relationship with the world, but that was a time when it was us vs. them (depending on what side you were on). The lines are not that clear anymore.

Steve

Remembering a few facts:

When it first hit the national news in 1981, AIDS was very much a scientific mystery. It wasn't even called AIDS until some time later. It's common name in the beginning was GRID- Gay Related Immune Deficiency. At that time, the time from diagnosis to death was 2-6 months.

AIDS was so mysterious because it was caused by a retro-virus: something very new and previously not know to cause disease in humans. The best scientists in the world couldn't say anything definitive about it- and this problem lasted for many years. It acted like a virus but they couldn't find one. It acted like a communicable disease but they couldn't find a causative agent. Was it caused by sex? Was it caused by drugs? Was it another ailment exacerbated by drugs/chemicals?

CDC (the Center for Disease Control) refused to classify AIDS as an infectious disease for many years because the bureaucrat-scientists in charge didn't want to go out on a limb without a disease causing organism. Without classification, AIDS became a scientific orphan. CDC wouldn't fund it because it was unclassified which was the problem with many organizations. The organization that really began AIDS research in a big-time fashion was the American Cancer Society. AIDS scared the living sh*t out of their board of directors because from their point of view, it looked like communicable cancer.

In 1984 Gallo of the American Cancer Institute/Institute of Human Virology wrote a paper claiming that HIV was the cause of AIDS. He immediately got into a fight with Luc Montagnier and his collaborators at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France over the exact organism and the credit for the work. This stalled a great many efforts for two years as lawyers sorted out who had the rights to what. The first tests for AIDS were actually tests for hepatitis B began ~1986.

There wasn't even a reliable test for HIV infection available before 1988, the last year of Reagen's term.

If you are to damn Reagen for mishandling the AIDS epidemic, there is plenty of damnation to go around. Despite some self-serving books which were written by some people to resurrect their reputations, the medical establishments handling of AIDS was appalling. The entire episode was marked TOP TO BOTTOM by confusion, bureaucratic bungling, empire building and greed. Two whole years were spent deciding who was going to have the rights to drugs discovered as a result of the discovery of the disease organism.

Blaming Reagen is an idealogical knee-jerk reaction and a simple minded cop out.

Early on the gay community did very little to help itself. In many big cities gay political leaders refused to close gay bath houses until science gave a definitive cause for the disease and epidemic was discovered. Consider how much momentum HIV gained in the bathhouses of the big cities in the five years before the HIV virus was "discovered".

Thanks for the historical background. I did follow these events, as I hit puberty a couple years after AIDS became known. Your version doesn't differ much from what I know. Though the Reagan administration did not declare research on AIDS and funding of it a #1 priority, but then, tons of people just didn't care much. And Ronald Reagan himself did not vow to wage a war on gay people.

But in the same way, I think pointing him as the one who brought down the USSR single-handedly is giving him too much credit. So if there's credit to be given, there plenty of credit to be given around. The cult of the leader is best left to North Korea.