The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Ronnie Reagan died over the weekend. To give you some sort of clue as to how that event made me feel, my friends and I played a song in his honour after we read the news. The song was called "Lake of Fire" and it is a heartwarming little tale of going to Hell and suffering for all eternity.
Now that may seem rather spiteful in spirit. After all, we're talking about Ronnie! The harmless dope who made "Well, I uh...I don't recall" a catchphrase. The good-natured buffoon who bumbled his way through every episode of Spitting Image. Not only that but he'd spent the last 10 years watching his brain slowly going soggy thanks to the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (we'll draw a discreet veil over the fact that he almost certainly started to develop the illness in the last years of his Presidency; bearing in mind the Pope is another victim of dementia, yet is still allowed to issue edicts that affect Catholics worldwide, having a 'confused' US President seems almost reasonable). So why, bearing in mind that the death of another person isn't really something one should be celebrating, did my friends and I react with a little whoop of joy and "he's finally dead" sentiments?
Well, because the cuddly image of a genial old buffer who had made it his business to wipe out the menace of Communism to secure freedom for future generations is, to be blunt, a lie. Much eulogising has already been done about how Ronnie "oversaw the defeat of Communism"; He made a speech whilst President that described the USSR as 'an evil empire'. That speech has been reprinted as his finest moment. If we are to listen to the tributes that pour in, we'd think that ol' Ronnie was the last of the Cowboys; a brave and noble soul who fought the bad guys at high noon and sent them packing. But it's horsesh!t. Why? Well...
Firstly, because there was a lot more to the Ronnie Regime than the end of Communism. I actually don't really dispute that it was his presidency that saw the cracks in the Soviet Union become chasms. However, those cracks had been on their way for a while; the Soviet leadership had concentrated pretty much entirely on the Arms Race with the US, and so had neglected its infrastructure and agriculture. So one was left with a cluster of countries with top-notch weapons, but where food rotted uncollected in the fields. Unsurprisingly, this led to a certain amount of unhappiness. Mikhail Gorbachev capitalised on that feeling to start the dismantling of the Single Party State. In other words, it was already happening before Ronnie and his Movie Star Speeches. To give him credit for the end of Communism is like giving a father credit at the birth of a child; sure, he was there at the time. But in the long run he had very little to do with it.
Mainly however, it's the rank stench of hypocrisy (that gives off a pungent odour not unlike one of his Presidential nappies that were a feature of the last years of his life) that bothers me about him. Throughout his reign, he made speeches that had two fundamental pillars to them; that the USSR was an Empire and therefore evil, and that he was using his presidency to guarantee truth, justice, and the American way.
Let's deal with the latter first of all. To listen to Ronnie speak, you'd think that he was turning the US into the Superhero of the world. Under his auspices, poverty and hunger would be eliminated and everyone would be able to sleep soundly in their beds. But if that's the case, why did his policies include deliberate Genocide? No, I'm not making this up; that nice Mr. Reagan gave his approval to a policy that explicitly ordered the Genocide of the people of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Not all of them of course; no, only those troublesome left wing people. Because we don't want no dirty commies on our doorstep, no sirree (I think someone must have told him that Cuba had disappeared or something like that as it was pretty much left alone under a screen of sanctions). So he gave his authorisation for the CIA to train up some of the most brutal torturers in world history and let them loose on the peoples of other nations.
Now maybe I'm being naive (and after seeing how the US military and CIA treat their prisoners in Iraq, I almost certainly am), but encouraging mass murder doesn't really sound very All-American to me. Nor does propping up the various dictatorships in South America. Or arming and encouraging rebels in African states (or governments, depending whether the left or right wing were in power) to commit ever more savage acts of butchery in the name of 'defeating communism'. To me, it sounds like he was advocating and spreading terrorism to a far greater degree than the sandal wearing defectives in Al-Quaida. And, for the most part, he's gotten clean away with it; the American people saw little of this. All they knew was that the Soviet Union had fell, and they were getting some seriously good quality cocaine at low prices (didn't I mention that the right wing governments in South and Central America had no problem using drugs to get additional funds? And that the CIA were perhaps the biggest drug runners of them all?) so who cares if some little brown men get carved up in front of their families. Or if a bunch of street kids get kicked to death by police 'hit squads'.
Of course, now America is reaping what it has sown in terms of the terror it engendered throughout the world. And is it the likes of Reagan and his echelon of moneyed friends who supported him that are suffering? Of course it isn't. It's the ordinary people of America who are having their freedoms curtailed, being told to be afraid of anyone different, and (if you're poor enough) being pretty much forced into the army to serve in the 3rd Brigade (Cannon Fodder Division) in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the meantime, an equally unpleasant and even more astonishingly hypocritical President continues the work of spreading terror (Dubya said his favourite philosopher was Jesus; at which point in the Bible exactly did Jesus say "And lo, thou shalt launch a pre-emptive strike on thy enemies"?) and thus pretty much guarantee that the good people of America will be the most hated and fearful folks in the world. It seems to me that Americans shouldn't be mourning this man; they should be cursing him for leaving them a world of hate, fear, and terror. Good ol' Ronnie gave America the world it lives in today. But hey, who cares? He got rid of the evil empire.
A closing note about the end of the USSR; which Imperial power has now replaced the Soviets? Well, the US maintains military bases in roughly 100 different countries. Iraq is being turned into a client state where the 'sovereign' Iraqi government will have to keep the large number of US and UK troops in the country. Afghanistan is being discarded now that it's been invaded. It seems we have a new Evil Empire, with a chimpanzee as their Emperor. Thanks Ronnie; this is your legacy.
Now that may seem rather spiteful in spirit. After all, we're talking about Ronnie! The harmless dope who made "Well, I uh...I don't recall" a catchphrase. The good-natured buffoon who bumbled his way through every episode of Spitting Image. Not only that but he'd spent the last 10 years watching his brain slowly going soggy thanks to the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (we'll draw a discreet veil over the fact that he almost certainly started to develop the illness in the last years of his Presidency; bearing in mind the Pope is another victim of dementia, yet is still allowed to issue edicts that affect Catholics worldwide, having a 'confused' US President seems almost reasonable). So why, bearing in mind that the death of another person isn't really something one should be celebrating, did my friends and I react with a little whoop of joy and "he's finally dead" sentiments?
Well, because the cuddly image of a genial old buffer who had made it his business to wipe out the menace of Communism to secure freedom for future generations is, to be blunt, a lie. Much eulogising has already been done about how Ronnie "oversaw the defeat of Communism"; He made a speech whilst President that described the USSR as 'an evil empire'. That speech has been reprinted as his finest moment. If we are to listen to the tributes that pour in, we'd think that ol' Ronnie was the last of the Cowboys; a brave and noble soul who fought the bad guys at high noon and sent them packing. But it's horsesh!t. Why? Well...
Firstly, because there was a lot more to the Ronnie Regime than the end of Communism. I actually don't really dispute that it was his presidency that saw the cracks in the Soviet Union become chasms. However, those cracks had been on their way for a while; the Soviet leadership had concentrated pretty much entirely on the Arms Race with the US, and so had neglected its infrastructure and agriculture. So one was left with a cluster of countries with top-notch weapons, but where food rotted uncollected in the fields. Unsurprisingly, this led to a certain amount of unhappiness. Mikhail Gorbachev capitalised on that feeling to start the dismantling of the Single Party State. In other words, it was already happening before Ronnie and his Movie Star Speeches. To give him credit for the end of Communism is like giving a father credit at the birth of a child; sure, he was there at the time. But in the long run he had very little to do with it.
Mainly however, it's the rank stench of hypocrisy (that gives off a pungent odour not unlike one of his Presidential nappies that were a feature of the last years of his life) that bothers me about him. Throughout his reign, he made speeches that had two fundamental pillars to them; that the USSR was an Empire and therefore evil, and that he was using his presidency to guarantee truth, justice, and the American way.
Let's deal with the latter first of all. To listen to Ronnie speak, you'd think that he was turning the US into the Superhero of the world. Under his auspices, poverty and hunger would be eliminated and everyone would be able to sleep soundly in their beds. But if that's the case, why did his policies include deliberate Genocide? No, I'm not making this up; that nice Mr. Reagan gave his approval to a policy that explicitly ordered the Genocide of the people of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Not all of them of course; no, only those troublesome left wing people. Because we don't want no dirty commies on our doorstep, no sirree (I think someone must have told him that Cuba had disappeared or something like that as it was pretty much left alone under a screen of sanctions). So he gave his authorisation for the CIA to train up some of the most brutal torturers in world history and let them loose on the peoples of other nations.
Now maybe I'm being naive (and after seeing how the US military and CIA treat their prisoners in Iraq, I almost certainly am), but encouraging mass murder doesn't really sound very All-American to me. Nor does propping up the various dictatorships in South America. Or arming and encouraging rebels in African states (or governments, depending whether the left or right wing were in power) to commit ever more savage acts of butchery in the name of 'defeating communism'. To me, it sounds like he was advocating and spreading terrorism to a far greater degree than the sandal wearing defectives in Al-Quaida. And, for the most part, he's gotten clean away with it; the American people saw little of this. All they knew was that the Soviet Union had fell, and they were getting some seriously good quality cocaine at low prices (didn't I mention that the right wing governments in South and Central America had no problem using drugs to get additional funds? And that the CIA were perhaps the biggest drug runners of them all?) so who cares if some little brown men get carved up in front of their families. Or if a bunch of street kids get kicked to death by police 'hit squads'.
Of course, now America is reaping what it has sown in terms of the terror it engendered throughout the world. And is it the likes of Reagan and his echelon of moneyed friends who supported him that are suffering? Of course it isn't. It's the ordinary people of America who are having their freedoms curtailed, being told to be afraid of anyone different, and (if you're poor enough) being pretty much forced into the army to serve in the 3rd Brigade (Cannon Fodder Division) in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the meantime, an equally unpleasant and even more astonishingly hypocritical President continues the work of spreading terror (Dubya said his favourite philosopher was Jesus; at which point in the Bible exactly did Jesus say "And lo, thou shalt launch a pre-emptive strike on thy enemies"?) and thus pretty much guarantee that the good people of America will be the most hated and fearful folks in the world. It seems to me that Americans shouldn't be mourning this man; they should be cursing him for leaving them a world of hate, fear, and terror. Good ol' Ronnie gave America the world it lives in today. But hey, who cares? He got rid of the evil empire.
A closing note about the end of the USSR; which Imperial power has now replaced the Soviets? Well, the US maintains military bases in roughly 100 different countries. Iraq is being turned into a client state where the 'sovereign' Iraqi government will have to keep the large number of US and UK troops in the country. Afghanistan is being discarded now that it's been invaded. It seems we have a new Evil Empire, with a chimpanzee as their Emperor. Thanks Ronnie; this is your legacy.
The GingerLord wrote:
>
> Fair point. I guess the question is whether the result is more
> important than the reasons for doing it?
Well, it ended the Cold war without us being nuked, so in that regard, yes. However, as there is now only one Imperialistic power in the world with no checks or balances to it....well, hindsight is 20-20 so it's a little churlish to complain. But complain I will...
> I never said that just because the Pope isn't writing the speeches it
> makes certain beliefs any easier for non-Catholics to understand! ;-p
Heh. Well, bearing in mind some of the past Popes and their behaviour and proclamations, an Alzeimic one can't be much worse than, say, Alexander IV.
>
> Fair point. I guess the question is whether the result is more
> important than the reasons for doing it?
Well, it ended the Cold war without us being nuked, so in that regard, yes. However, as there is now only one Imperialistic power in the world with no checks or balances to it....well, hindsight is 20-20 so it's a little churlish to complain. But complain I will...
> I never said that just because the Pope isn't writing the speeches it
> makes certain beliefs any easier for non-Catholics to understand! ;-p
Heh. Well, bearing in mind some of the past Popes and their behaviour and proclamations, an Alzeimic one can't be much worse than, say, Alexander IV.
Light wrote:
> The spending was something that was already in place from the outset
> of the cold war. There's no absolute proof that their was any sort of
> plan. So although one could say that Ronnie upped the spending in
> order to guarantee bankrupcy, I prefer the explanation that 2
> mindless masses kept spending more and more on weapons to prevent the
> other side having the best stuff. It was blind luck that it happened
> in Ronnie's term. As to his anticipation; well, the US ended up just
> as screwed economically. Fortunately, they have an established
> governmental system and didn't need to waste time setting up a new
> one.
Fair point. I guess the question is whether the result is more important than the reasons for doing it?
>
>
> True enough, like all heads of state the Pope isn't the sole arbiter
> of policy. The cardinals come up with an awful lot of it. But it is
> the Pope who has the final say on what becomes policy, hence the
> continuing and insane refusal to allow contraception which has led to
> such laughable proclamations as "condoms don't prevent
> HIV".
>
I never said that just because the Pope isn't writing the speeches it makes certain beliefs any easier for non-Catholics to understand! ;-p
> The spending was something that was already in place from the outset
> of the cold war. There's no absolute proof that their was any sort of
> plan. So although one could say that Ronnie upped the spending in
> order to guarantee bankrupcy, I prefer the explanation that 2
> mindless masses kept spending more and more on weapons to prevent the
> other side having the best stuff. It was blind luck that it happened
> in Ronnie's term. As to his anticipation; well, the US ended up just
> as screwed economically. Fortunately, they have an established
> governmental system and didn't need to waste time setting up a new
> one.
Fair point. I guess the question is whether the result is more important than the reasons for doing it?
>
>
> True enough, like all heads of state the Pope isn't the sole arbiter
> of policy. The cardinals come up with an awful lot of it. But it is
> the Pope who has the final say on what becomes policy, hence the
> continuing and insane refusal to allow contraception which has led to
> such laughable proclamations as "condoms don't prevent
> HIV".
>
I never said that just because the Pope isn't writing the speeches it makes certain beliefs any easier for non-Catholics to understand! ;-p
The GingerLord wrote:
>
> 1. You say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was based on the way
> they spent so much money on the arms race, leading to "a certain
> amount of unhappiness". But wasn't this Reagan's plan? I thought
> he anticipated that the Soviet Union would try to match America's
> missile building program, that would be unsustainable in their
> economic state. Which is exactly what did happen....
The spending was something that was already in place from the outset of the cold war. There's no absolute proof that their was any sort of plan. So although one could say that Ronnie upped the spending in order to guarantee bankrupcy, I prefer the explanation that 2 mindless masses kept spending more and more on weapons to prevent the other side having the best stuff. It was blind luck that it happened in Ronnie's term. As to his anticipation; well, the US ended up just as screwed economically. Fortunately, they have an established governmental system and didn't need to waste time setting up a new one.
>
> 2. Regarding the Pope, I don't think he actually makes any decisions
> at all any more does he? Surely all of his speeches are completely
> scripted and his opinions are "formed" for him by the other
> heads of the church? The difference is that everyone knows the Pope's
> condition, and so allowances are made, whereas in Reagan's case he
> would have been making the decisions himself, without the
> "safety net" of his advisors keeping as close an eye on
> him.
True enough, like all heads of state the Pope isn't the sole arbiter of policy. The cardinals come up with an awful lot of it. But it is the Pope who has the final say on what becomes policy, hence the continuing and insane refusal to allow contraception which has led to such laughable proclamations as "condoms don't prevent HIV".
>
> I hope this doesn't sound too much like nit-picking.
Nope, not at all. I'm always happy to try and answer questions put to me.
Cheers.
>
> 1. You say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was based on the way
> they spent so much money on the arms race, leading to "a certain
> amount of unhappiness". But wasn't this Reagan's plan? I thought
> he anticipated that the Soviet Union would try to match America's
> missile building program, that would be unsustainable in their
> economic state. Which is exactly what did happen....
The spending was something that was already in place from the outset of the cold war. There's no absolute proof that their was any sort of plan. So although one could say that Ronnie upped the spending in order to guarantee bankrupcy, I prefer the explanation that 2 mindless masses kept spending more and more on weapons to prevent the other side having the best stuff. It was blind luck that it happened in Ronnie's term. As to his anticipation; well, the US ended up just as screwed economically. Fortunately, they have an established governmental system and didn't need to waste time setting up a new one.
>
> 2. Regarding the Pope, I don't think he actually makes any decisions
> at all any more does he? Surely all of his speeches are completely
> scripted and his opinions are "formed" for him by the other
> heads of the church? The difference is that everyone knows the Pope's
> condition, and so allowances are made, whereas in Reagan's case he
> would have been making the decisions himself, without the
> "safety net" of his advisors keeping as close an eye on
> him.
True enough, like all heads of state the Pope isn't the sole arbiter of policy. The cardinals come up with an awful lot of it. But it is the Pope who has the final say on what becomes policy, hence the continuing and insane refusal to allow contraception which has led to such laughable proclamations as "condoms don't prevent HIV".
>
> I hope this doesn't sound too much like nit-picking.
Nope, not at all. I'm always happy to try and answer questions put to me.
Cheers.
Firstly I want to make it clear that I'm not about to argue with any of the other points in your post. I just have two points/questions:
1. You say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was based on the way they spent so much money on the arms race, leading to "a certain amount of unhappiness". But wasn't this Reagan's plan? I thought he anticipated that the Soviet Union would try to match America's missile building program, that would be unsustainable in their economic state. Which is exactly what did happen....
2. Regarding the Pope, I don't think he actually makes any decisions at all any more does he? Surely all of his speeches are completely scripted and his opinions are "formed" for him by the other heads of the church? The difference is that everyone knows the Pope's condition, and so allowances are made, whereas in Reagan's case he would have been making the decisions himself, without the "safety net" of his advisors keeping as close an eye on him.
I hope this doesn't sound too much like nit-picking. I honestly did enjoy reading this post - nice to read something intelligent that someone has put some time into ;-)
GL
1. You say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was based on the way they spent so much money on the arms race, leading to "a certain amount of unhappiness". But wasn't this Reagan's plan? I thought he anticipated that the Soviet Union would try to match America's missile building program, that would be unsustainable in their economic state. Which is exactly what did happen....
2. Regarding the Pope, I don't think he actually makes any decisions at all any more does he? Surely all of his speeches are completely scripted and his opinions are "formed" for him by the other heads of the church? The difference is that everyone knows the Pope's condition, and so allowances are made, whereas in Reagan's case he would have been making the decisions himself, without the "safety net" of his advisors keeping as close an eye on him.
I hope this doesn't sound too much like nit-picking. I honestly did enjoy reading this post - nice to read something intelligent that someone has put some time into ;-)
GL
An excellent read and depressingly true...............
Heh, you make him sound like Mom in Futurama.
Ronnie Reagan died over the weekend. To give you some sort of clue as to how that event made me feel, my friends and I played a song in his honour after we read the news. The song was called "Lake of Fire" and it is a heartwarming little tale of going to Hell and suffering for all eternity.
Now that may seem rather spiteful in spirit. After all, we're talking about Ronnie! The harmless dope who made "Well, I uh...I don't recall" a catchphrase. The good-natured buffoon who bumbled his way through every episode of Spitting Image. Not only that but he'd spent the last 10 years watching his brain slowly going soggy thanks to the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (we'll draw a discreet veil over the fact that he almost certainly started to develop the illness in the last years of his Presidency; bearing in mind the Pope is another victim of dementia, yet is still allowed to issue edicts that affect Catholics worldwide, having a 'confused' US President seems almost reasonable). So why, bearing in mind that the death of another person isn't really something one should be celebrating, did my friends and I react with a little whoop of joy and "he's finally dead" sentiments?
Well, because the cuddly image of a genial old buffer who had made it his business to wipe out the menace of Communism to secure freedom for future generations is, to be blunt, a lie. Much eulogising has already been done about how Ronnie "oversaw the defeat of Communism"; He made a speech whilst President that described the USSR as 'an evil empire'. That speech has been reprinted as his finest moment. If we are to listen to the tributes that pour in, we'd think that ol' Ronnie was the last of the Cowboys; a brave and noble soul who fought the bad guys at high noon and sent them packing. But it's horsesh!t. Why? Well...
Firstly, because there was a lot more to the Ronnie Regime than the end of Communism. I actually don't really dispute that it was his presidency that saw the cracks in the Soviet Union become chasms. However, those cracks had been on their way for a while; the Soviet leadership had concentrated pretty much entirely on the Arms Race with the US, and so had neglected its infrastructure and agriculture. So one was left with a cluster of countries with top-notch weapons, but where food rotted uncollected in the fields. Unsurprisingly, this led to a certain amount of unhappiness. Mikhail Gorbachev capitalised on that feeling to start the dismantling of the Single Party State. In other words, it was already happening before Ronnie and his Movie Star Speeches. To give him credit for the end of Communism is like giving a father credit at the birth of a child; sure, he was there at the time. But in the long run he had very little to do with it.
Mainly however, it's the rank stench of hypocrisy (that gives off a pungent odour not unlike one of his Presidential nappies that were a feature of the last years of his life) that bothers me about him. Throughout his reign, he made speeches that had two fundamental pillars to them; that the USSR was an Empire and therefore evil, and that he was using his presidency to guarantee truth, justice, and the American way.
Let's deal with the latter first of all. To listen to Ronnie speak, you'd think that he was turning the US into the Superhero of the world. Under his auspices, poverty and hunger would be eliminated and everyone would be able to sleep soundly in their beds. But if that's the case, why did his policies include deliberate Genocide? No, I'm not making this up; that nice Mr. Reagan gave his approval to a policy that explicitly ordered the Genocide of the people of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Not all of them of course; no, only those troublesome left wing people. Because we don't want no dirty commies on our doorstep, no sirree (I think someone must have told him that Cuba had disappeared or something like that as it was pretty much left alone under a screen of sanctions). So he gave his authorisation for the CIA to train up some of the most brutal torturers in world history and let them loose on the peoples of other nations.
Now maybe I'm being naive (and after seeing how the US military and CIA treat their prisoners in Iraq, I almost certainly am), but encouraging mass murder doesn't really sound very All-American to me. Nor does propping up the various dictatorships in South America. Or arming and encouraging rebels in African states (or governments, depending whether the left or right wing were in power) to commit ever more savage acts of butchery in the name of 'defeating communism'. To me, it sounds like he was advocating and spreading terrorism to a far greater degree than the sandal wearing defectives in Al-Quaida. And, for the most part, he's gotten clean away with it; the American people saw little of this. All they knew was that the Soviet Union had fell, and they were getting some seriously good quality cocaine at low prices (didn't I mention that the right wing governments in South and Central America had no problem using drugs to get additional funds? And that the CIA were perhaps the biggest drug runners of them all?) so who cares if some little brown men get carved up in front of their families. Or if a bunch of street kids get kicked to death by police 'hit squads'.
Of course, now America is reaping what it has sown in terms of the terror it engendered throughout the world. And is it the likes of Reagan and his echelon of moneyed friends who supported him that are suffering? Of course it isn't. It's the ordinary people of America who are having their freedoms curtailed, being told to be afraid of anyone different, and (if you're poor enough) being pretty much forced into the army to serve in the 3rd Brigade (Cannon Fodder Division) in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the meantime, an equally unpleasant and even more astonishingly hypocritical President continues the work of spreading terror (Dubya said his favourite philosopher was Jesus; at which point in the Bible exactly did Jesus say "And lo, thou shalt launch a pre-emptive strike on thy enemies"?) and thus pretty much guarantee that the good people of America will be the most hated and fearful folks in the world. It seems to me that Americans shouldn't be mourning this man; they should be cursing him for leaving them a world of hate, fear, and terror. Good ol' Ronnie gave America the world it lives in today. But hey, who cares? He got rid of the evil empire.
A closing note about the end of the USSR; which Imperial power has now replaced the Soviets? Well, the US maintains military bases in roughly 100 different countries. Iraq is being turned into a client state where the 'sovereign' Iraqi government will have to keep the large number of US and UK troops in the country. Afghanistan is being discarded now that it's been invaded. It seems we have a new Evil Empire, with a chimpanzee as their Emperor. Thanks Ronnie; this is your legacy.
Now that may seem rather spiteful in spirit. After all, we're talking about Ronnie! The harmless dope who made "Well, I uh...I don't recall" a catchphrase. The good-natured buffoon who bumbled his way through every episode of Spitting Image. Not only that but he'd spent the last 10 years watching his brain slowly going soggy thanks to the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (we'll draw a discreet veil over the fact that he almost certainly started to develop the illness in the last years of his Presidency; bearing in mind the Pope is another victim of dementia, yet is still allowed to issue edicts that affect Catholics worldwide, having a 'confused' US President seems almost reasonable). So why, bearing in mind that the death of another person isn't really something one should be celebrating, did my friends and I react with a little whoop of joy and "he's finally dead" sentiments?
Well, because the cuddly image of a genial old buffer who had made it his business to wipe out the menace of Communism to secure freedom for future generations is, to be blunt, a lie. Much eulogising has already been done about how Ronnie "oversaw the defeat of Communism"; He made a speech whilst President that described the USSR as 'an evil empire'. That speech has been reprinted as his finest moment. If we are to listen to the tributes that pour in, we'd think that ol' Ronnie was the last of the Cowboys; a brave and noble soul who fought the bad guys at high noon and sent them packing. But it's horsesh!t. Why? Well...
Firstly, because there was a lot more to the Ronnie Regime than the end of Communism. I actually don't really dispute that it was his presidency that saw the cracks in the Soviet Union become chasms. However, those cracks had been on their way for a while; the Soviet leadership had concentrated pretty much entirely on the Arms Race with the US, and so had neglected its infrastructure and agriculture. So one was left with a cluster of countries with top-notch weapons, but where food rotted uncollected in the fields. Unsurprisingly, this led to a certain amount of unhappiness. Mikhail Gorbachev capitalised on that feeling to start the dismantling of the Single Party State. In other words, it was already happening before Ronnie and his Movie Star Speeches. To give him credit for the end of Communism is like giving a father credit at the birth of a child; sure, he was there at the time. But in the long run he had very little to do with it.
Mainly however, it's the rank stench of hypocrisy (that gives off a pungent odour not unlike one of his Presidential nappies that were a feature of the last years of his life) that bothers me about him. Throughout his reign, he made speeches that had two fundamental pillars to them; that the USSR was an Empire and therefore evil, and that he was using his presidency to guarantee truth, justice, and the American way.
Let's deal with the latter first of all. To listen to Ronnie speak, you'd think that he was turning the US into the Superhero of the world. Under his auspices, poverty and hunger would be eliminated and everyone would be able to sleep soundly in their beds. But if that's the case, why did his policies include deliberate Genocide? No, I'm not making this up; that nice Mr. Reagan gave his approval to a policy that explicitly ordered the Genocide of the people of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Not all of them of course; no, only those troublesome left wing people. Because we don't want no dirty commies on our doorstep, no sirree (I think someone must have told him that Cuba had disappeared or something like that as it was pretty much left alone under a screen of sanctions). So he gave his authorisation for the CIA to train up some of the most brutal torturers in world history and let them loose on the peoples of other nations.
Now maybe I'm being naive (and after seeing how the US military and CIA treat their prisoners in Iraq, I almost certainly am), but encouraging mass murder doesn't really sound very All-American to me. Nor does propping up the various dictatorships in South America. Or arming and encouraging rebels in African states (or governments, depending whether the left or right wing were in power) to commit ever more savage acts of butchery in the name of 'defeating communism'. To me, it sounds like he was advocating and spreading terrorism to a far greater degree than the sandal wearing defectives in Al-Quaida. And, for the most part, he's gotten clean away with it; the American people saw little of this. All they knew was that the Soviet Union had fell, and they were getting some seriously good quality cocaine at low prices (didn't I mention that the right wing governments in South and Central America had no problem using drugs to get additional funds? And that the CIA were perhaps the biggest drug runners of them all?) so who cares if some little brown men get carved up in front of their families. Or if a bunch of street kids get kicked to death by police 'hit squads'.
Of course, now America is reaping what it has sown in terms of the terror it engendered throughout the world. And is it the likes of Reagan and his echelon of moneyed friends who supported him that are suffering? Of course it isn't. It's the ordinary people of America who are having their freedoms curtailed, being told to be afraid of anyone different, and (if you're poor enough) being pretty much forced into the army to serve in the 3rd Brigade (Cannon Fodder Division) in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the meantime, an equally unpleasant and even more astonishingly hypocritical President continues the work of spreading terror (Dubya said his favourite philosopher was Jesus; at which point in the Bible exactly did Jesus say "And lo, thou shalt launch a pre-emptive strike on thy enemies"?) and thus pretty much guarantee that the good people of America will be the most hated and fearful folks in the world. It seems to me that Americans shouldn't be mourning this man; they should be cursing him for leaving them a world of hate, fear, and terror. Good ol' Ronnie gave America the world it lives in today. But hey, who cares? He got rid of the evil empire.
A closing note about the end of the USSR; which Imperial power has now replaced the Soviets? Well, the US maintains military bases in roughly 100 different countries. Iraq is being turned into a client state where the 'sovereign' Iraqi government will have to keep the large number of US and UK troops in the country. Afghanistan is being discarded now that it's been invaded. It seems we have a new Evil Empire, with a chimpanzee as their Emperor. Thanks Ronnie; this is your legacy.