PDA

View Full Version : The Evil Empire Speech



Peter1469
03-08-2014, 12:21 PM
The Evil Empire Speech (http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2003/12/story_of_reagan.html)

This was how the man ended the Cold War, despite the left's refusal to acknowledge it. And it is in sharp contrast to the Neocons of today who never met a nation that they didn't want to invade.


The Evil Empire Speech signaled a new directness in American foreign policy. In spite of hysterical calls in Europe for a freeze on nuclear weapons, Reagan’s approach resulted in the first-ever reduction in nuclear arsenals. And in spite of the panic of those accustomed to making excuses for dictators, Reagan’s straightforward words challenged the Soviet Union’s cruel repression and helped inspire the end to the totalitarian nightmare.


The speech alarmed moderates of the West, delighted millions living under Soviet oppression and set off a global chain reaction that many believe led inexorably to the fall of the Berlin Wall and to freedom for most of Eastern Europe.

The Sage of Main Street
03-08-2014, 03:36 PM
Kennedy's Inaugural Address was just as aggressive against Communism, but its hot air was exposed when he let Cubans get slaughtered on the beach of the Bay of Pigs. The Russians read him correctly as a spoiled fraternity brat and a loose cannon, going off foolishly, wildly, and self-destructively into Vietnam to make up for backing down in Cuba, then almost starting World War III over a missile threat that only got even for our missile threat on Russia from Turkey.

KC
03-08-2014, 03:45 PM
Reagan was at the right time and in the right place, but the fall of the Soviet Union had more to do with who Gorbachev was than who Reagan was. Regan successfully applied pressure though.

Peter1469
03-08-2014, 04:02 PM
The bay of pigs operation was a rouge CIA plot.


Kennedy's Inaugural Address was just as aggressive against Communism, but its hot air was exposed when he let Cubans get slaughtered on the beach of the Bay of Pigs. The Russians read him correctly as a spoiled fraternity brat and a loose cannon, going off foolishly, wildly, and self-destructively into Vietnam to make up for backing down in Cuba, then almost starting World War III over a missile threat that only got even for our missile threat on Russia from Turkey.

Bob
03-08-2014, 04:33 PM
I agree with posts one and two and to a degree with post number three.

Gorbachev was in no way desiring of ending his rule and converting to capitalism as such. Gorbachev wanted what China wanted and has more of today, a productive country.

Reagan was inside of the Soviet Union and while there, spoke his words of wisdom to the students and public and they responded.

Reagan managed to show the Soviets a way out of poverty, a way to hope and a way to change.

Gorbachev to a degree listened.

Some who give Gorbachev credit seem to not understand that it took a great American president to tip him over to the better system.

KC
03-08-2014, 04:43 PM
I agree with posts one and two and to a degree with post number three.

Gorbachev was in no way desiring of ending his rule and converting to capitalism as such. Gorbachev wanted what China wanted and has more of today, a productive country.

Reagan was inside of the Soviet Union and while there, spoke his words of wisdom to the students and public and they responded.

Reagan managed to show the Soviets a way out of poverty, a way to hope and a way to change.

Gorbachev to a degree listened.

Some who give Gorbachev credit seem to not understand that it took a great American president to tip him over to the better system.

Gorbachev wanted gradual reform. He never wanted the Soviet Union to fall, even if his actions directly led to that end. Consider his attempt to cover up Chernobyl. Gorbachev only believed in Glasnost when it was convenient.

Bob
03-08-2014, 05:01 PM
Gorbachev wanted gradual reform. He never wanted the Soviet Union to fall, even if his actions directly led to that end. Consider his attempt to cover up Chernobyl. Gorbachev only believed in Glasnost when it was convenient.

I agree and that is why when discussing the role of Reagan vs Gorbachev, I believe Reagan was far more important to the fall of the Soviet Union than Gorbachev was.

KC
03-08-2014, 05:10 PM
I agree and that is why when discussing the role of Reagan vs Gorbachev, I believe Reagan was far more important to the fall of the Soviet Union than Gorbachev was.

Functionalism vs. intentionalism is one of the most interesting debates in history. The fall of the Soviet Union was a function of the reforms introduced by Gorbachev coupled with an unsustainable economic model, even if this was not an intended consequence of these reforms. I would argue that Gorbachev's actions were more significant than Regan's increased pressure, even if Reagan did play an important role in the collapse.

Again, he may have been the right man for the job but it basically comes down to the fact that he was in the right place at the right time.

Germanicus
03-08-2014, 07:08 PM
Hey Peter, have you heard what Oliver Stone says about Reagan in his anti-American doco series?
the stuff on Reagan is hilarious.

Star Wars.. HA!

KC
03-08-2014, 07:42 PM
Hey Peter, have you heard what Oliver Stone says about Reagan in his anti-American doco series?
the stuff on Reagan is hilarious.

Star Wars.. HA!

Your whole obsession with America is creepy dude.

Germanicus
03-08-2014, 07:50 PM
Your whole obsession with America is creepy dude.

Your ( Americas ) obsession with us is creepy. We dont want to be America. Your soft power was flawed from the start. I have been flooded with American propaganda since birth. You people made me American. HA! Good thinking. Because I am not. And I am angry about it. Your informal empire is fucked. I want to ban US media like they do in China so future generations of global citizens do not feel the need to rise up against US imperialism to preserve the identity of their own home nations. Sending US trash around the world for all this time is about to blow up in your faces. We know you. But Americas hasnt bothered to know or understand us. The world is coming to get you. And the US could have made the world a Garden of Eden. There is no "lol" about it buddy. You guys fucked up and the party is almost over.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ruRSCW7B4

edit- men will be banned from typing or saying lol in the future if I have anything to do with it. Also if you are not laughing out loud, you are just smiling. (: I miss when "laugh out loud" was a way of describing a terrible US 'comedy'.

edit- FREEDOM!!! HA!

KC
03-08-2014, 07:54 PM
Your ( Americas ) obsession with us is creepy. We dont want to be America.

Your soft power was flawed from the start. I have been flooded with American propaganda since birth. You people made me American. HA! Good thinking. Because I am not. And I am angry about it. Your informal empire is fucked.

I want to ban US media like they do in China so future generations of global citizens do not feel the need to rise up against US imperialism to preserve the identity of their own home nations.

Sending US trash around the world for all this time is about to blow up in your faces. We know you. But Americas hasnt bothered to know or understand us. The world is coming to get you.

And the US could have made the world a Garden of Eden. There is no "lol" about it buddy. You guys fucked up and the party is almost over.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ruRSCW7B4

edit- men will be banned from typing or saying lol in the future if I have anything to do with it.

Also if you are not laughing out loud, you are just smiling. (:

I miss when "laugh out loud" was a way of describing a terrible US 'comedy'.

lol

Peter1469
03-08-2014, 08:09 PM
America isn't obsessed with some Island that most Americans couldn't point out on a map. Get over yourself German.

Max Rockatansky
03-08-2014, 08:27 PM
Reagan was at the right time and in the right place, but the fall of the Soviet Union had more to do with who Gorbachev was than who Reagan was. Regan successfully applied pressure though.

Agreed about Reagan and the influence of Gorbachev. Reagan's pressure, both political and military/economic with his rebuilding of our post-Vietnam military and the initiation of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) was a huge influence on the situation.

I'm neutral on the "who had more to do with the collapse of the USSR" question since I don't know. Both were hugely influential, but both were, as you mentioned, men at the right time and the right place.

Bob
03-08-2014, 08:57 PM
Agreed about Reagan and the influence of Gorbachev. Reagan's pressure, both political and military/economic with his rebuilding of our post-Vietnam military and the initiation of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) was a huge influence on the situation.

I'm neutral on the "who had more to do with the collapse of the USSR" question since I don't know. Both were hugely influential, but both were, as you mentioned, men at the right time and the right place.

Reagan gets scant credit from Democrats. This in my opinion rests with what Carter did more than what Reagan did.

Reagan had a clear plan. His pattern of speeches prior to being president show this clearly. The Evil empire is not some nightmare he dreamed up once president, it was long his view.

Maybe one can credit Gorbachev for allowing Reagan to spill onto his country like honey where Reagan, like in the USA appealed in his speeches to the Soviets. He spoke, they listened.

Gorbachev at no point wanted to have what happened to the Soviet Union take place. I credit him for not using the Army against his people. They wanted change.

Bob
03-08-2014, 09:04 PM
Hey Peter, have you heard what Oliver Stone says about Reagan in his anti-American doco series?
the stuff on Reagan is hilarious.

Star Wars.. HA!

Oliver Stone the master of the false conspiracy you mean? That guy who were he a history teacher would be called a liar all day long?

To you, Star Wars was a joke.

To Gorbachev it was his end.

And he knew it.

Bob
03-08-2014, 09:06 PM
Functionalism vs. intentionalism is one of the most interesting debates in history. The fall of the Soviet Union was a function of the reforms introduced by Gorbachev coupled with an unsustainable economic model, even if this was not an intended consequence of these reforms. I would argue that Gorbachev's actions were more significant than Regan's increased pressure, even if Reagan did play an important role in the collapse.

Again, he may have been the right man for the job but it basically comes down to the fact that he was in the right place at the right time.

So, your claim is that Gorbachev fucked up!!!!

Interesting as to how you appear to not know what Reagan did when he was in the Soviet Union and how suddenly Gorbachev "got religion."

But if you want to blame just Gorbachev on the fall, you made a decent case.

Green Arrow
03-09-2014, 01:48 AM
I don't accept the idea that speeches destroyed the Soviet Union. Sorry. Reagan was an orator, but that's where his contribution to the fall of the Soviets ends.

Bob
03-09-2014, 03:10 AM
I don't accept the idea that speeches destroyed the Soviet Union. Sorry. Reagan was an orator, but that's where his contribution to the fall of the Soviets ends.

That is okay with me. I go by how the Soviets spoke of this later on.

Reagan spoke in a number of places to various audiences.

What surprises me is how dismissive of Reagan you are.

Green Arrow
03-09-2014, 03:11 AM
Gorbachev wanted gradual reform. He never wanted the Soviet Union to fall, even if his actions directly led to that end. Consider his attempt to cover up Chernobyl. Gorbachev only believed in Glasnost when it was convenient.

Nobody's perfect. He was still more transparent than our own government.

Green Arrow
03-09-2014, 03:12 AM
That is okay with me. I go by how the Soviets spoke of this later on.

Reagan spoke in a number of places to various audiences.

What surprises me is how dismissive of Reagan you are.

Why? Just because Republicans deify Reagan does not mean everybody else does too.

Bob
03-09-2014, 03:26 AM
Why? Just because Republicans deify Reagan does not mean everybody else does too.

No, I simply recall the cold war. I do admit I appreciate what he did. I rather dislike how Americans suppose Gorbachev was this great destroyer of the Soviets but do not want Reagan to have credit.

Green Arrow
03-09-2014, 03:53 AM
No, I simply recall the cold war. I do admit I appreciate what he did. I rather dislike how Americans suppose Gorbachev was this great destroyer of the Soviets but do not want Reagan to have credit.

Well, unlike Reagan, Gorbachev did more than just make rousing speeches. But I don't even put a whole lot of credit on him, either. It was the men and women of Russia and other Soviet satellite nations like Poland that felled the Soviet Union, and they didn't do it by making speeches surrounded by protective guards in between lavish hotel stays and a nice office in the White House. They did it with their own blood, sweat, and tears.

Max Rockatansky
03-09-2014, 05:12 AM
Gorbachev at no point wanted to have what happened to the Soviet Union take place. I credit him for not using the Army against his people. They wanted change.

There's a lot to be said about an idea whose time has come. Reagan and Gorbachev were participants, but they were not the sole or even main instigators of the Soviet Union's collapse. I do think Reagan's actions helped accelerate that collapse, but it was already in progress.

The Sage of Main Street
03-09-2014, 09:50 AM
The bay of pigs operation was a rouge CIA plot.

The CIA used rouge? Were they a bunch of transvestites?

The Sage of Main Street
03-09-2014, 09:57 AM
Functionalism vs. intentionalism is one of the most interesting debates in history. The fall of the Soviet Union was a function of the reforms introduced by Gorbachev coupled with an unsustainable economic model, even if this was not an intended consequence of these reforms. I would argue that Gorbachev's actions were more significant than Regan's increased pressure, even if Reagan did play an important role in the collapse.

Again, he may have been the right man for the job but it basically comes down to the fact that he was in the right place at the right time.

So was Truman. But that small-town crook chose to create a plausible threat in order to fund the MI Complex. From 1917 on, there were many crises caused by the unnatural demands of Communism, but the dictatorship managed to overcome them as foreign leaders thought they could let it fall on its own.

The Sage of Main Street
03-09-2014, 10:02 AM
Hey Peter, have you heard what Oliver Stone says about Reagan in his anti-American doco series?
The stuff on Reagan is hilarious.

Star Wars.. HA!

I'd rather trust the KGB's intelligence than the CIA's, which is a Keystone Kops circle jerk of fraternity drunks and acadummies. The Soviets were terrified of Star Wars, so I assume that it was a viable defense initiative.

The Sage of Main Street
03-09-2014, 10:17 AM
Your soft power was flawed from the start. I have been flooded with American propaganda since birth. Sending US trash around the world for all this time is about to blow up in your faces. But America hasn't bothered to know or understand us. And the US could have made the world a Garden of Eden.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ruRSCW7B4





I resent all this talk about "America" or "White people." Real Americans have no power; it is our loose-cannon ruling class of morons and thieves who make us hated. We must dispossess and deport the 1%, just like Castro did by bundling in undesirables during the Mariel boatlift.

KC
03-09-2014, 12:20 PM
Well, unlike Reagan, Gorbachev did more than just make rousing speeches. But I don't even put a whole lot of credit on him, either. It was the men and women of Russia and other Soviet satellite nations like Poland that felled the Soviet Union, and they didn't do it by making speeches surrounded by protective guards in between lavish hotel stays and a nice office in the White House. They did it with their own blood, sweat, and tears.

That's another big source of debate in history among academics. If you want to give credit to an individual, Gorbachev deserves more than Regain, even if both were at least partly responsible. However for a phenomenon like this there are usually broad social and ideological factors. The Reagan vs. Gorbachev debate assumes a sort on Nietzschean vision of historical cause and effect as determined by the acts of great men, but causation is almost always a combination of Hegelian social forces and Nietzschean individuals.

Was Gavrilo Princip wholly responsible for the chain of events that led to WWI, or were broad forces such as the rise of European nationalism more to blame? This same debate can be applied to nearly any historical question.

Peter1469
03-09-2014, 05:19 PM
Yes, but rousing speeches mobilize men to action. Leaders don't win wars. They inspire others to do it.


Well, unlike Reagan, Gorbachev did more than just make rousing speeches. But I don't even put a whole lot of credit on him, either. It was the men and women of Russia and other Soviet satellite nations like Poland that felled the Soviet Union, and they didn't do it by making speeches surrounded by protective guards in between lavish hotel stays and a nice office in the White House. They did it with their own blood, sweat, and tears.