View Full Version : So...Did Reagan in the Cold War?

Tennis Fool
Jun 13th, 2004, 04:23 PM
For the record, I originally posted this on MTF a few days ago. Can't really get a discussion going there, so I'm posting here hoping for more responses. Your thoughts???

For those of you have been in a hole, Ronald Reagan, the US President for most of the 1980s died last Saturday and his funeral was held today in the capital.

I'm wondering from those who remember him, and are from the former USSR or its satellities, do you believe, as he has been credited with by the US media, Canada and United Kingdom this week, with ending the Cold War and bringing the fall of Communism?

Why or why not?

I'm very interested in your views. http://menstennisforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Jun 13th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Tennis Fool
Jun 13th, 2004, 09:35 PM
Thanks. I'll just add that, having lived my childhood and teens in the 80s that I really thought nuclear annihilation under Ronald Reagan was a great possibility. How could you not with massive Defense budget (no government shrinking there) and Star Wars campagin?

You also had movies like "The Day After", "Red Dawn" and the Mad Max series to give you warm thoughts of nuclear winter.

RR scared me and never, once, did I think of the 80s as a time of "optimism".

YS, what was it like living behind the Iron Curtain in the 80s?

Jun 13th, 2004, 11:12 PM
YS, what was it like living behind the Iron Curtain in the 80s?
It was OK. Great cheerful life, not as many opportunities as you have here, but also a lot of opportunities as you don't have here. Just different. But it was not bad, not bad at all. I'd love to have a piece of that back.

Tennis Fool
Jun 13th, 2004, 11:25 PM
Opportunities such as?

jack duckworth
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:12 AM
he was not really running the country...you do know this?:),,,he was just acting a role..he thought he was in a movie:)

Jun 14th, 2004, 12:23 AM
Opportunities such as?
To do things that are good and interesting but not economically payable, such as studying arts, history, poetry, archeology, etc. The state would pay for that, and it would pay professionals to study that, do research.

Or, for instance. At some point I got excited about mountains. And the state would pay 70% for my training, having nothing in return. Or I would want to go skiing, and the state would recognise my right to have some rest and ski and would pay 70% of that. There were plenty of arts, kinds of literature which were extremely interesting and had a lot of following, but they are dying out now, because those kind of people who would be involved in those arts back then would be busy making money now. In other words, it was a kind of life that didn't revolve around money.

Of course, there were plenty of downsides too, downsides that would ultimately outweigh positives big time, but it doesn't mean that there was no positives. There are definitely things that I miss.

Tennis Fool
Jun 14th, 2004, 12:43 AM
Those "state-sponsored" arts were the kinds of programs Reagan cut out in the 80s. I think healthcare is the one "state-sponsored" program older Republicans are really wishing they had now.

What were the negatives that outweighed the positives? Don't beg the question ;)

Jun 14th, 2004, 12:48 AM
Those "state-sponsored" arts were the kinds of programs Reagan cut out in the 80s.
That was one of many examples, but the bottomline still remains - that live not revolving around money has its advantages.

What were the negatives that outweighed the positives?
They are obvious. Isolationism. Limited opportunities for professional growth. Lack of variety in food. Many more.