Reagan’s Central American policy was. That, and stopping Communism. It’s not, I think, that the Reagan administration didn’t care about democracy or human rights. They did…they just thought that Communism was the greatest danger to democracy and human rights out there. Therefore, they reasoned, even if a government oppresses a segment of their people, it’s a lesser evil than a Communist state. Therefore, from Reagan’s standpoint, it was better to support states like El Salvador, South Africa, Iraq, etc., against Communist threats, with a view to encouraging democratization when Communism was defeated. Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who was really the driving intellectual force behind US foreign policy in the Reagan years) wrote a pretty famous article about this called “Dictatorships and Double Standards”
In the article, she argued that dictatorships could be divided into traditional authoritarian dictatorships and new modern totalitarian ones. She argued, among other things, that traditional autocracies are more prone to peaceful liberalization than modern totalitarian ones, and that Communist revolutionary governments are prime examples of the modern totalitarian state.
Reagan’s Central American policy was. That, and stopping Communism. It’s not, I think, that the Reagan administration didn’t care about democracy or human rights. They did…they just thought that Communism was the greatest danger to democracy and human rights out there. Therefore, they reasoned, even if a government oppresses a segment of their people, it’s a lesser evil than a Communist state. Therefore, from Reagan’s standpoint, it was better to support states like El Salvador, South Africa, Iraq, etc., against Communist threats, with a view to encouraging democratization when Communism was defeated. Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who was really the driving intellectual force behind US foreign policy in the Reagan years) wrote a pretty famous article about this called “Dictatorships and Double Standards”
In the article, she argued that dictatorships could be divided into traditional authoritarian dictatorships and new modern totalitarian ones. She argued, among other things, that traditional autocracies are more prone to peaceful liberalization than modern totalitarian ones, and that Communist revolutionary governments are prime examples of the modern totalitarian state.
Not with any reliability. The term for this is “October Surprise,” as I recall, and it’s a favorite among conspiracy theorists. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible that there’s something to the accusation, but as far as I’m concerned it hasn’t been proved or documented to any reasonable degree.
Sorry to interrupt the Carter gush-fest, but wouldn’t ardent support for brutal dictators, such as Castro, and encouragers of terrorism, such as Arafat, tend to preclude one from being hailed as a champion of peace and love? Just wondering. You may now resume Carterpalooza.
Ironically, that submarine has been outfitted over the last year to eavesdrop on undersea fiber-optic cables. Carter tried hard during his presidency to limit Navy monitoring of non-strategic targets, e.g. civilians and businesses, and to this day a lot of people in SIGINT interception despise him for trying to ruin what they see as a fun part of the job. I get the feeling that the USS Jimmy Carter was picked for that outfitting just so Naval Security Group could thumb its nose at Carter.
Ah, Jeff…Do you care to back these claims up with some facts? I know he visited Cuba and gave an uneditted speech to the Cuban people over the Cuban airwaves…But how exactly does this translate into “ardent support” for Castro? The Pope visited Cuba too. And, Nixon visited China, and …
I’d comment on that, but I’m actually involved in the design of said platform, and have signed stuff saying I won’t tell people about the … oops, almost said it.
I’m glad he got the Nobel, and I think he deserves it just for his tireless efforts in the Middle East, which actually did a lot of good, and for his work with Habitat for Humanity.
But my God, he was an awful president. He is almost single-handedly responsible for destroying the morale of the American people, with his constant apologetic attitude and his talk of ‘malaise’. His solution to the energy problem? Wear a sweater. While the sentiment is fine (turn down your thermostat and help out), the image of Carter in a sweater was defeatist and negative.
His economic prescriptions were terrible. His appeasement of the Soviets helped instigate the invasion of Afghanistan. During his term, violence broke out all over the world.
Which just goes to show you that being a good man does not equate to being a good president.
The president who should get the Nobel is Ronald Reagan. He left the world a MUCH safer place after his two terms. His administration not only helped break the backs of the Soviets, but even before then he had achieved the first real reductions of missiles in Europe.
I’m sure that’ll make the lefties around here blow a gasket.
Being from CT, I you’re attached to NSGD Groton? Never met anyone from there when I was training as a CTI, it’s pretty small. Must be nice to be stationed in the NE instead of sent halfway around the world from your family like for CTIs
UnuMondo, now returning from this hijack to your regularly scheduled thread
Whoo-whee I’m drunk. Anyways, um. Rhum Runner, since I’m drunk and my momma raised me to be a lady, I ain’t going to tell you what you can do with them “rose colored glasses” you think I’m wearing. Hmpfh. I see far more with my own eyes–sober or drunk–than all these so-called “informed” folkes see. [sniff] Instead, I ‘ll ask you what exactly you mean by coming in here with such a snotty comment like what you posted. What about my post makes you think I’m waering rose colored glasses? If you’re some military type whta ain’t seen any combat yet, and I offended you, sorry, but I’ve dealt with fellas what actually done saw real combat, and them’s the folks what ought to be looked at before we think about the efficacy of war. War is just illogical, and it’s a big ol’ waste of time and resources. Peace is what requires real brain power and work.
Nope. I don’t ride 'em, just build 'em (think the big green building down the river from the base). Although I worked with quite a few NSG guys at my last job. And if half of the stories I heard were true …
Since 1990 was the SECOND election Ortega had run under the rules of the constitution of Nicaragua - they ran one in 1984 - why not?
I would imagine Ortega was doomed to lose an election sooner or later.
As for Carter; he seems to be a good and principled man. His embracing of hideous, evil dictators isn’t a good thing, but I think the Peace Prize can fairly be awarded for doing things for peace, whether or not you’re fooled by Fidel Castro’s hype.
I am quite proud that Jimmy Carter was given the Nobel Peace Prize; that an American, in the face of war drums beating against the doubt of other countries, should be so honored. It seems like a vote for the best tendencies of American democracy.
Despite the debate on his effectiveness as President, I greatly admire his continued public service. Bein’ a fellow Southerner, I guess he jes’ can’t help it. He continues to remain active, well into his seventies, in programs that have the hope of making the world a better place. Where are Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton so visible on that front? Carter continues to work and allow his profile to call attention to political issues. He could just as easily retire to the golf course.
Carter was a preposterously bad President, but he is a perfectly nice ex-President.
I could probably think of half a dozen or so people who did more for world peace than he, but he has been lobbying for this awfully hard for years, so what the hey.
Yes, Reagan deserves the prize more, since he won the Cold War (peacefully), but the Nobel Committee isn’t about to admit to that.
Nah…It just isn’t worth it, Sam! We already know that we are supposed to believe that Reagan won the Cold War, cut taxes while raising government revenues (and its only those evil spending Dems in Congress that are to blame for the growth of the deficit during the 80’s), and is responsible for the boom in the 90’s…Until Clinton/Gore came along and put the economy in a tailspin in 2001, which Bush Jr. is currently rescuing us from. Oh yeah, and I almost forgot how during that time, the Republicans in control of Congress erased the deficit and put us into surplus (at least temporarily).
I simply love:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: how President Carter is castigated for attempting to rescue the US hostages in Iran, while President Reagan gets away scott free with letting Americans like Terry Anderson rot away as hostages in captivity for more then 5 YEARS.
And as for gas being $1.00 a gallon, even at the time it was still way underpriced, just as it is today.
If you’re some military type whta ain’t seen any combat yet, and I offended you, sorry, but I’ve dealt with fellas what actually done saw real combat, and them’s the folks what ought to be looked at before we think about the efficacy of war. War is just illogical, and it’s a big ol’ waste of time and resources. Peace is what requires real brain power and work.