Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it Kerry vs Bush and Reagan?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is it Kerry vs Bush and Reagan?

    Heard on the news today that Bush is having some of Reagan's legecy bestowed upon him. Can Kerry beat both Bush and the Reagan legacy?

  • #2
    What is the Reagan legacy and how important is it regarded in the US?
    "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
    which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
    The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
    returned to its home base."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Priest
      Heard on the news today that Bush is having some of Reagan's legecy bestowed upon him. Can Kerry beat both Bush and the Reagan legacy?
      This is just typical electoral propaganda. You can bet Bush will try to use Reagan's legacy during the election, but that does not mean we should get on this smoke and mirrors bandwagon. All politicians (including democrats) try to say that he is inspired by some great predecessor.

      But reality is that there is only one Ronald Reagan, and there is only one George W. Bush. Bush should be judged according to what he did during the last 4 years, not if he compares or not with Ronald Reagan. Reagan was President in the 80s, this the first decade of 2000, it's a very different world.

      Comment


      • #4
        .

        A good way to compare Reagan and Bush is under the leadership of Reagan our military suffered the greatest attack in the face of terror in history and under Reagan, we pulled out and did nothing. Bush has been far more aggressive militarily then Reagan ever was.
        Get the US out of NATO, now!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SparceMatrix
          A good way to compare Reagan and Bush is under the leadership of Reagan our military suffered the greatest attack in the face of terror in history and under Reagan, we pulled out and did nothing. Bush has been far more aggressive militarily then Reagan ever was.
          Well, Bush had a more favorable political environment to carry out a more aggressive military policy than Reagan. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebannon came at a time when there was growing opposition to the US effort in that country. The attack just reinforced the opinion that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Even if Reagan wanted to be aggressive (not saying he did), Congress and more importantly, the American people would have opposed it.

          The same can be said to some degree about the Clinton Administration. Even if he wanted to stay in Somalia or hunt down Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the American people and Congress would not have supported it, particularly if the results were like that of OEF and OIF.

          I don't think Bush could pursue most of the policies he is without 9/11. The American people viewed the attack as an act of aggression by a foriegn power (just of a different caliber), and were prepared to incur serious losses to remove what they saw as an threat to their security.
          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X