Best US President

I don't know, he was a bit prog at times...

Harding!

Jeams Pfirp wrote: Lincoln was probably the best president ever, but I put my vote on Reagan.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 13 2007 at 02:00

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Jeams Pfirp wrote: Lincoln was probably the best president ever, but I put my vote on Reagan.   Idem, RR had the balls to do what it was required in the precoise mnoment, if it wasn't for him, John Paul II and Lech Walesa, maybe the USSR would still exist.   EDIT: Just read the previous pages and seen that some people share my opinion and BTW I disagree with Peter, John Paul had a central role in the end of cold war, the Polish sindicates and the situation of the country got more international  support since a Polish was elected Pope and he took such a strong position in favor of Walesa.   Iván

[/QUOTE]


The USSR was going to collapse with any president atop the US, that system was dying from the inside, after years of gigantic expenditure in weapons when it didn't have an economy to support that frenzy, when it had a bureaucratic monster (the nomenklatura of the coumminist party)... better said, from the moment the bolshevik revolution turned its back on the delussional principle of "all are the same" (is delussional not because it's bad per se, but because once you have a party on power, it turns into a privileged class within society) it just started to die. Stalin managed to industralize the country with the five-year plans at a large cost of blood... Kruschev and Brezhnev and Andopov and Chernenko were just puppets of the real ruler: the nomenklatura, the KGB and the system itself. Reagan was just wise enough to see that he had an unlikely ally WITHIN the politburo (mikhail gorbachov) and jut put the appropiate pressure needed for the system to collapse....What's the deal with never giving PEOPLE the credit? It was the PEOPLE of Poland that helped Solitaritat gain enough legitimacy to oppose the Party; it was the PEOPLE in rumania who raised in the squares of Timisoara against Ceaucescu...It was the PEOPLE who forced Hungary to open borders with Austria, and that opened a path towards freedom for the East-German people...THAT brought the wall down, the PEOPLE, it was slow, because there was a political and army aparatus that crushed any opposition but the system itslef was collapsing years ago.... the Pope? He did what he HAD to do, as he was a decent man... But please don't say that him, Walesa and Reagan tore down the wall.... It was GOING TO HAPPEN no matter who was in the White House and in the Vatican... If you have to pick ONE SINGLE person at least pick Mikhail Gorbachov, whose Perestroika and Glasnost really started to bring the moster to his knees... At least that Pope did something, not like the ones during WWII who just were silenced and didn't do anything in the midst of all the apocalypse and the holocaust... But that's what a Pope should do: do SOMETHING. And Reagan? Strong, harsh, I'll give you that.

But please don't make him "the president that brought the Wall down"... be fairer...

T    
    
    

Edited by The T - January 13 2007 at 14:47

Uh? Clinton the best?

Edited by Andrea Cortese - January 13 2007 at 19:41

The USSR was collapsing that's true, but in politics, things may change in a short period, if the glass is already full, you need to add the extra drop, Gorbachov could have been removed if all that pressure from USSR, The Vatican and specially Poland wasn't over them and a radical leader could had made the system survive, they had the weapons and USA required a strong President who wasn't afraid to put the necessary pressure.

Look at Cuba, they are stumbling for decades, they didn't have any support, the logical thing was that the system would had collapsed a few years ago but now with Chavez supporting the Revolution and Venezuela becoming a Communist Government, Cuba has the aid they needed.


Things changed in a couple of years

Things may change in a short period, that’s true. But we’re talking a 70+ years old revolution that was dying and no force could’ve stopped it. Remember that the hard line in the Communist Party DID attempt a coup with Gorbachov and had him secluded in.. well, in the “vacation” Villa they had (I don’t remember the name of the town now…). Of course Yeltsin capitalized on the anger of the people and they desire NOT to return to the old ways… so there was the case: they tried to stop the collapse of the soviet union, they couldn’t. The same applies to the “satellite” countries the USSR once played with like puppets: in all of them there was an uprising of people demanding freedom. It was just bound to happen. I’m sure the same would’ve happened with G. Bush (senior, not the current disaster) or even with democrat Clinton. Yes, me may concede that Reagan was tough, tougher than Carter at least (well, who isn’t). But Reagan was the madman who created the “Star wars” myth of using satellites for military protection… I know, maybe just a ploy to embed fear into the soviets’ brains, but please… that was ridiculous.

The good phrase Reagan coined, I have to say, was: “Mr Goorbachov, tear down that wall”…. No doubt that helped Mikhail gain the courage he needed. It had almost the same impact as “Ich bin ein Berliner” (which, by the way, is wrong: the current expression would’ve been “Ich bin Berliner”).

When we’re talking Cuba, we’re talking a poor, small island that NEEDS a “patron” like the USSR was or Venezuela is now… USSR was THE other superpower… (at least in the books… it has been proven repeatedly that, in the facts, it had nowhere the same military power as the US empire)

There was no merit in menacing with war in an era where the MAD theory ruled (and saved the world: Mutually Assured Destruction)… Both sides knew that, whoever ignited a flame, even with the disadvantage the USSR had, it would still have been able to counterattack and tear not the wall but the WORLD to pieces…. Why don’t we praise Kennedy instead who actually had the courage to stand against his OWN ARMY AND GENERALS that wanted to invade Cuba in the missile crisis and would’ve caused the nuclear holocaust? He stood up TO HIS OWN ARMY and did the rational: save the world from utter destruction… at that particular time, the missile bases in Cuba were a threat to the MAD theory, because they would nullify the possibility for the US of a counterattack and made viable a “first attack” option for the USSR…. But he was COOL enough to understand that he didn’t need to rush his country into apocalypse… (the way a certain texas-born president would do today….) So if Reagan had courage, I’d say Kennedy had …. Well, other things….

Remember The Prague Spring? The Tiananmen Plaza in China? Both were dramatic for USSR and China but the Communist Governments survided the crisis because there was nobody there to support the people fighting for heir freedom.

The people has a lot of credit but without strong leaders and powerful countries supporting them, no changes are possible.


If the US had done anything about Prague (or about Hungary a few years earlier, for that matter), the USSR would’ve invaded West-Berlin, the US and NATO would have had to counterattack, and you know what would’ve been next (hint: a mushroom). About China, that’s an eastern, completely alien society for all of us to understand…. They have their way of thinking… we CANNOT see the world only through OUR EYES (the way a certain idiotic president wants to force democracy in a society that DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE TERM)


Nobody denies that, but without all the other participants, nothing would have happened, a single radical leader could had overthroned Gorbachov and USSR would had survived, but they were receiving atttacks from everywhere, USA, The Vatican, Poland, Hungary etc all simultaneously.

We agree. My point was, let’s not say “Reagan torn down the wall”… Let’s say he HELPED.

About the Vatican part, I don’t know as much as you do, without a doubt, about their involvement in WWI and what good deeds they may have done (though why aren’t those as publicized as their INACTION I don’t know….) but I will accept what you say as I don’t have the knowledge, though I think the supposed representatives of CHRIST (the GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED, regardless whose son he was) should’ve emulated his example and become martyrs, IF THAT WOULD HAVE HELPED STOP THE HOLOCAUST. That would’ve helped bring the US into the war quickier, I think.

With all the usual respect,

T

Believe me T, a Messiahnic leader is all you need to restore a falling empire, a guy that is able to capitalize the anger of the people.

Look at Chavez, it's illogic, Venezuela is one of the countries oin Lation America with higher standart and they are ready to allow Chavez to be President for the rest of his life. The worst thing is that as in any country the state companies work terribly bad and often are in the border of bankruptcy but still people is happy with closing all the free media and the statization of the Petroleum, electricity and telephones.

The same could have happened in USSR a Popular, fanatic leader promissing could have recaptured the power for the Politboureau or maybe even worst, a dictator a la Castro, but the rest of the world leaded by Reagan, John Paul II and Walesa were toio much.


I wouldn’t agree with that… every falling empire has… well, fallen. Haven’t seen a falling empire rise up again from near the ashes… Chavez doesn’t qualify, as his is not an empire but a small nation (small in the international-power way I mean) that Chavez precisely has turned into a major player, not with the best of practices I must say, (in fact, I disagree with him 110%) but that’s what has played in his favor: the “underdog that faces the empire” theme… I really think it’s not the same as the USSR that WAS an empire, a falling one, and where the only messianic figures they had were dead about 70 years ago (Lenin, who was not a true messianic figure anyway, for he didn’t really convince all the people but a mere fraction that happened to wisely capitalize in the debacle that was Nicolas’ rule in Russia).

That star wars was another factor, believe it or not the capacity of USA to destroy a great percentage of missiles before they reached USA territory was probably the worst threat against USST, who's technology was staying far behind.

Exactly what I said, it was just a threat, but please… “Star wars”? Wonder why Reagan didn’t say that fully dressed as Ronald Skywalker or something….

Well, Kennedy messed it with Bay of Pigs but giving a step back when yhe USSR was decided to retire their forces was a sign of weaknes IMO.

It was the CIA that got him into that awful mess… He was told of everything when little time was available to make the plan any better… but anyway, I really don’t agree with that “interventionist” policy that says that the US can go wherever they want to change governments, so, in the light of this, and keeping in mind that, up to date, Castro hadn’t really been a tyrant as he later become, I’m happy that FOR ONCE someone left a country solve its OWN business…


It was well known that Kruschev had already ordered to stop the missiles from being sent to Cuba, he was not mad and clearly stated he didn't wanted to cause an holocaust, but Kennedy showed weakness first, He should had never gone to Cuba, this made Fidel more popular, but once he was in, he should had followed IMO.


He stopped the missiles from being sent but A FEW were already OPERATIONAL. Off course, it’s the same: as I’m asking not to name Reagan “the wall-destroyer”, but just a helper, I agree that it took TWO people with goodwill to save the earth from the mushroom: Kruschev played his part, but so did Kennedy.


Of course, that was not the moment, I'm sure USSR would have done nothing about Cuba but I'm also sure a protection to the Prague Spring would have caused a lot of problems, but that's why USSR succeded, all the world saw the destruction of a democratic movement and did nothing, it was not the moment, but USSR had no pressure


At that point in time, the world, as you say, couldn’t do ANYTHING to stop that… And neither would have if the USSR had invaded Hungary in the 80’s! The thing is, the USSR was collapsing thanks to a lot of factors and it didn’t have the power (not military, but the LEGITIMACY, if such a word applies to such a tyrannic regime) to stop what was going on ….


Of course we agree in this, but he played an important role.


Yes he did.


There are things people must understand, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church but aklso the head of a State that had to remain neutral (At least in appearence) to survive.

As I said, I don’t know that much. Yo may be absolutely right. Again, just one question:

When did Jesus say: “and you will create a state that will have its own borders, its own little (insignificant) army, its own rulers, etc…..” Where in the Bible (which I don’t know who was it written by but let’s take it as a tool right now) says that Jesus wished his church to be a state? I’m not saying the Vatican as a state didn’t do what was needed, I said THE CHURCH AS SUPPOSED REPRESENTATIVES OF JESUS ON EARTH…..

So many deaths and wars have been cause in Jesus’ name…. but I’d like to see the church, the “state”, instead of accumulating beautiful paintings and gold and costumes, to have BLED as it MADE PEOPLE BLED for just once….

Yes, asking a priest to bled…. That would be a new one.

The few ones that have done it (like the one in Salvador whose name now I can’t remember, maybe Romero?) were CAST OUT by the church….

Great institution. It has to defend “borders”….

I respect every belief, though.

The Catholic Church is not famous for doing evangelism or making TV shows ot attacking other Churches, that you must accept, by the cointrary we are usually the target of many Protestant Churches who will do anything to discredit us.

We have at least 10 TV programs of Evangelists in Peruvian TV and ALL OF THEM ATTACK CATHOLIC CHURCH but nobody talks about cases like:

That I can agree with. But is the usual case of the minority trying to upset the majority.

This are facts that the anti Catholic movements never talk about, the Vatican not only saved almost 90% of the Roman Jewishs (89.62%) but also saved a total of 40,000 lives without counting the soldiers and pilots that were hidden by the Vatican directly.

The Pope remained neutral in appearence because all those lives were in their hands, this is more than most Churches did.

Of course coward rumors have been released by the CIA that he could have been a Nazi informer but this is absurd, nobody saves so many lives and is a traitor (BTW: The CIA later reported that the information provided to the Germans was false in order to mislead them at the risk of his own life), the same things were said about Schindler after the war and today is a hero.


I will agree that trusting the CIA is not wise.

This is the portrait of a hero almost unknown because nobody cares to know the truth about the Catholic Church role in the WWII.

The paradox is that while most Christians ignore this:

The Israel Government (Not Catholic or Christian), honors his memory 40 years after his death and three years after the false rumors spreaded by CIA and the Daily Telegraph in UK (Monsignor O'Flagherty was Irish and didn't liked the English Government).

I never said there aren’t true, good, honest catholics. I never said there aren’t ANY good priests. You seem to be a true, honest catholic. What I really don’t agree with is THE INSTITUTION.

The only thing achieved would have been that the Vatican would have been occupied, the Pope removed, a nazi puppet Pope named (As a puppet German pseudo Lutheran Church was created when Hitler appointed a Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller, who led a "German Christian" movement within the church) and Germany would had made use of all the power and resources of the Catholic Church.


The US hasn’t had many catholic presidents (curiously, Kennedy is an exception), but I’m sure Roosevelt would’ve entered the conflict earlier if the church and the Pope would’ve been attacked… But about this all is speculation… Neither you nor I have the truth, for it didn’t happen.

But really, I admire your passion in defending your creed. It would be so nice if everybody did, whatever their beliefs be. The problem is, the majority’s TRUE creed is MONEY…. And that’s something that even the church has helped to create. But that’s matter for another discussion.

Respects,

T
    
    

Edited by The T - January 14 2007 at 21:20

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   The funny thing is that I am not the most faithful Catholic, rarely go to Mass, dislike the Catholic fanatics as much as any other fanatic, I even have my disagreements with the doctrine like admiting abortion in exceptional cases (Therapeutic abortion in order to preserve maternal health [already accepted by the Church], rape or malformation of the phoetus that will lead to an unavoidable death), I used condoms since I remember (I believe it's more responsible to avoid conception than to bring unwanted children without having to reach abortion), in other words, I'm far from being the perfect Catholic.   But I believe in Jesus and I also believe the Pope as the successor of Peter and I'm very tired to see how my Church and the Church of my parents is constantly under attack by some of our so called brothers.   Honestly, I never heard a Jewish or a Moslem attacking the Pope with such hate as some Christians, or calling us the whore of Babylone, by the contrary they have always showed respect for the Holy Father, receiving him in the Sinagoogues and the Mosques as a brother in the God of Abraham. Iván

Great posts Ivan, especially about Pope Pious. Shame I missed this while it was hot.

Reagan is so far out of the league of any modern president. He was eloquent, intelligent, and at the same time very firm and willing to take action. As many people said, he was able to compromise while not compromising his principles, which speaks of his greatness. The prosperity of the country following his predency speaks for itself. I believe he's the only modern president able to to be mentioned with the same breath as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln.

Presidente Jorge Arbusto got a vote and his Father didn't?

I would've voted for Bush 41 a hundred times before 43....

Edited by JJLehto - March 01 2007 at 14:35