The Greatest [person from each country]

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Aug 7 2005, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Aug 7 2005, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Aug 8 2005, 12:11 AM
I'm surprised Reagan was picked as the greatest American too. I would've thought Kennedy would be the popular choice.

I like Lincoln or King as the greatest. I would push for Jefferson as well, except for the fact he was a slave owner.

Kennedy made a lot of huge mis-steps in my mind, somebody mentioned the invasion and blockade of Cuba, which was b huge cluster -**** and extended the cold war by 30 years, when Kruschev (sorry, can never spell his name) was actually trying to thaw the cold war while gutting his military. In my mind he was a great speechmaker but a pretty bad president in terms of his foreign policy.

Reagan, I've always had a ton of respect for, he pretty much forced the Warsaw pact to blink and crumble, worked for the re-unification of Germany, and helped his own country recover from the malaise of the Vietnam war. I'd definately rank Reagan as a top 5 president. [/b][/quote]
I agree Kennedy made some misteps like the Bay of Pigs and getting involved in Viet Nam, but he inherited the Cold War from Eisenhower where the foriegn policy was called brinkmanship. A lovely atmosphere to grow up in.

Kruschev was no peacemaker. He brought on the Cuban missile crises and Kennedy reacted. Probably the closest time to nuclear war we will experience, but their was more to Kennedy. He was a man of a new era and wanted to run things in a much more democratic manner and get rid of the inside corruption. The USA and the west was leaving the post war behind and new era of hope was coming. Kennedy was a breath of fresh air after the very structured and repressive 50s. I believe he would never have gotten the USA as deeply invoved in VietNam as they did. To sum it up Kennedy was a man of the people and loved by my generation. He helped bring equal rights to the USA and thus was also deeply hated. I still remember hearing the shocking news when Kennedy was shot.

Ronald Raygun, now there was a warmonger who tried to return brinkmanship as a way for the USA to succeed. He gets credit for the downfall of the USSR but he had little to do with it. The war in Afganistan bankrupted their economy and the union movement in Poland did more to bring down the East Bloc then Reagan ever did. Reagen had good instincts and good speech writers to take advantage of the situation and claim credit in the one sided American press which a lot of you seem to accept as the gospel.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by icarus@Aug 7 2005, 05:53 PM
USA
1. Ronald Reagan
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Martin Luther King, Jr.
My guess: Lincoln, although this one is tough.# Although I never would've guessed Reagan.

I suppose without Reagan, we'd all be mutants in a nuclear wasteland by now, driving around in Mad Max cars. And unlike Lincoln and Kennedy, he was shot and survived. Then he toppled the Soviet Union. He'll always be the great American Hero president. Sure he had his share of controversies (Iran-Contra) but boy were his speeches moving. People compare him with George Bush but there's no comparision. Reagan's movie-star voice and manners warmed the hearts of America while his extremely stubborn ideology demolished the iron curtain.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube+Aug 8 2005, 01:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hack&Lube @ Aug 8 2005, 01:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-icarus@Aug 7 2005, 05:53 PM
USA
1. Ronald Reagan
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Martin Luther King, Jr.
My guess: Lincoln, although this one is tough. Although I never would've guessed Reagan.

I suppose without Reagan, we'd all be mutants in a nuclear wasteland by now, driving around in Mad Max cars. And unlike Lincoln and Kennedy, he was shot and survived. Then he toppled the Soviet Union. He'll always be the great American Hero president. Sure he had his share of controversies (Iran-Contra) but boy were his speeches moving. People compare him with George Bush but there's no comparision. Reagan's movie-star voice and manners warmed the hearts of America while his extremely stubborn ideology demolished the iron curtain. [/b][/quote]
You actually believe that? Amazing!

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by Vulcan+Aug 8 2005, 03:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vulcan @ Aug 8 2005, 03:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I suppose without Reagan, we'd all be mutants in a nuclear wasteland by now, driving around in Mad Max cars. And unlike Lincoln and Kennedy, he was shot and survived. Then he toppled the Soviet Union. He'll always be the great American Hero president. Sure he had his share of controversies (Iran-Contra) but boy were his speeches moving. People compare him with George Bush but there's no comparision. Reagan's movie-star voice and manners warmed the hearts of America while his extremely stubborn ideology demolished the iron curtain.

You actually believe that? Amazing! [/b][/quote]
I never said I was serious. Yes, I seriously believe that without Reagan, Mel Gibson would be our savior as we'd all be driving around in dune buggies with spikes on our shoulders. I do have an over-irrational fondness for the 80s though...which includes both Mad Max and Reaganomics.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Vulcan@Aug 8 2005, 07:02 AM
I agree Kennedy made some misteps like the Bay of Pigs and getting involved in Viet Nam, but he inherited the Cold War from Eisenhower where the foriegn policy was called brinkmanship. A lovely atmosphere to grow up in.

Kruschev was no peacemaker. He brought on the Cuban missile crises and Kennedy reacted. Probably the closest time to nuclear war we will experience, but their was more to Kennedy. He was a man of a new era and wanted to run things in a much more democratic manner and get rid of the inside corruption. The USA and the west was leaving the post war behind and new era of hope was coming. Kennedy was a breath of fresh air after the very structured and repressive 50s. I believe he would never have gotten the USA as deeply invoved in VietNam as they did. To sum it up Kennedy was a man of the people and loved by my generation. He helped bring equal rights to the USA and thus was also deeply hated. I still remember hearing the shocking news when Kennedy was shot.

Ronald Raygun, now there was a warmonger who tried to return brinkmanship as a way for the USA to succeed. He gets credit for the downfall of the USSR but he had little to do with it. The war in Afganistan bankrupted their economy and the union movement in Poland did more to bring down the East Bloc then Reagan ever did. Reagen had good instincts and good speech writers to take advantage of the situation and claim credit in the one sided American press which a lot of you seem to accept as the gospel.

The fantasies people tell themselves. There is so much evidence to the contrary of what you said. Kennedy and Reagan both.

Kennedy despised communusm to the utmost. Reread any of his speaches in regards to communism and Russia and he talks of confrontation to save freedom. Honestly, do you really believe a man willing to vapourise the known world to stop Russia at the boarder of his country WOULDN'T put 500,000 troops into a very strategic country to prevent communism from taking over?


Sorry the only thing I agree with is your comment about one-shoe!

[Displaced Flames fan]

The Reagan polarization is hilarious...and as Bingo so often says the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. One thing is for certain, his predecessor allowed Americans to be held hostage in Iran for 444 days. The very day Reagan was inaugurated they were released. That was not a coincidence. Reagan was what the country needed at that time. Certainly not a flawless 8 years, but I'd hardly call him a war-monger either.

And Bush doesn't compare favorably to him at all.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by HOZ+Aug 8 2005, 03:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HOZ @ Aug 8 2005, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Vulcan@Aug 8 2005, 07:02 AM
I agree Kennedy made some misteps like the Bay of Pigs and getting involved in Viet Nam, but he inherited the Cold War from Eisenhower where the foriegn policy was called brinkmanship. A lovely atmosphere to grow up in.

Kruschev was no peacemaker. He brought on the Cuban missile crises and Kennedy reacted. Probably the closest time to nuclear war we will experience, but their was more to Kennedy. He was a man of a new era and wanted to run things in a much more democratic manner and get rid of the inside corruption. The USA and the west was leaving the post war behind and new era of hope was coming. Kennedy was a breath of fresh air after the very structured and repressive 50s. I believe he would never have gotten the USA as deeply invoved in VietNam as they did. To sum it up Kennedy was a man of the people and loved by my generation. He helped bring equal rights to the USA and thus was also deeply hated. I still remember hearing the shocking news when Kennedy was shot.

Ronald Raygun, now there was a warmonger who tried to return brinkmanship as a way for the USA to succeed. He gets credit for the downfall of the USSR but he had little to do with it. The war in Afganistan bankrupted their economy and the union movement in Poland did more to bring down the East Bloc then Reagan ever did. Reagen had good instincts and good speech writers to take advantage of the situation and claim credit in the one sided American press which a lot of you seem to accept as the gospel.

The fantasies people tell themselves. There is so much evidence to the contrary of what you said. Kennedy and Reagan both.

Kennedy despised communusm to the utmost. Reread any of his speaches in regards to communism and Russia and he talks of confrontation to save freedom. Honestly, do you really believe a man willing to vapourise the known world to stop Russia at the boarder of his country WOULDN'T put 500,000 troops into a very strategic country to prevent communism from taking over?


Sorry the only thing I agree with is your comment about one-shoe! [/b][/quote]
I never said Kennedy didn't despise communism. I said there was a lot more to him than this foreign policy. I sometimes get a kick out of people who draw conclusions when they have no feeling of the economic, political and social pressures of the time. You can study all the speeches you want and read the New York Times and other newspaper analysis, but it comes down to whether you trust the man and I did. Reagan I never trusted and the Contra affair brought out his double dealing.

And Dis, I always found the release of the Iran hostages on Reagan's inauguration a trifle suspicious. Was there some double dealing in foreign affairs so Carter couldn't take the credit?

Reagan was trying to increase world tensions, at a time the USSR and Yeltsin were moving to democracy, with his plans to build a space shield. Bush is trying to follow up on this plan with his own version while the biggest threat is coming from sabotage within.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Vulcan@Aug 9 2005, 01:13 AM


And Dis, I always found the release of the Iran hostages on Reagan's inauguration a trifle suspicious. Was there some double dealing in foreign affairs so Carter couldn't take the credit?

Why is it that people always find a good conspiracy theory to avoid giving credit to someone they despise?

The hostages were released because the Iranians knew there would be consequences with Reagan in office. I'm sure he made that clear on the first Wednesday of the preceding November.

[CaptainCrunch]

O.K Vulcan I'm going to respectfully disagree.

Kennedy was knee deep in Vietnam, and it was unlikely that he was going to pull out due to his being a massive proponent of the domino theory. Kennedy felt that if the American's showed weakness in Vietnam, it was felt by the Kennedy administration, and re-iterated by his brother that if Vietnam fell to communism, all the rest of South East Asia would fall soon afterwards.

Kennedy's attempts to destabilize Cuba and then invade, combined with his efforts to place SRBM's in Germany futher pushed the Russians into a corner from a MAD standpoint, from a prestige standpoint, plus a defense standpoint. the Russians and Khrushchev felt that if the Americans were going to attempt nuclear superioriority over Russia by placing short range missiles in Germany, the Russians would have to trump that by placing missiles in Cuba.

Its interesting to note that Khruschev was trying to reform the Soviet agricultural and industrial segments, while attempting to improve relations in the west after the Soviets had lost a great deal of international prestige over the Berlin Airlift, the split with China.

Kennedy bumbled the missile crisis not in standing up to the Soviets, but in giving Khrushchev no room to maneuver so he could continue his reforms, because of this, Khruschev was denounced and deposed by his own military and central committee comrades who decided that they needed more hardline leadership in Brezhnev, then former KGB head Antropov followed by another KGB man in Chernenko. These men were considered strong men who would continue the idealogical battle between the forces of socialism vs capitalism, and stand up to the U.S. as oppossed to negotiating with the U.S..


Please also note that it was Gorbachev and not Yeltson, and his reforms including Peristrocha (sp?) and Glastnost (sp?) which did not come into play until the very end of Reagan's first term when Gorbachev was elevated to the top seat in the Central committee, when Regan's use of defense spending and Star Wars forced the Soviets to realize that they were not only dealing with a very strong President who would not buckle as oppossed to Carter, but the hardliners had to realize that they couldn't stand up to the American on a Military, Industrial or Nuclear stage. Reagan's actions forced the end of Chernenko and created the conditions that lead to the installation of Gorbachev a man considered to be a strong reformist who could negotiate with Reagan as oppossed to the previous strategy of bluster and sabre rattling.

Your selling Reagan far short, he accomplished a lot more then Kennedy ever would have. the only thing that Kennedy really did was try to creat a royal family in the White house.

Both were brilliant speakers, both were decent domestically, but if Kennedy hadn't have been shot and killed he wouldn't have been remembered with the same fondness.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Aug 8 2005, 08:05 PM
O.K Vulcan I'm going to respectfully disagree.

Kennedy was knee deep in Vietnam, and it was unlikely that he was going to pull out due to his being a massive proponent of the domino theory. Kennedy felt that if the American's showed weakness in Vietnam, it was felt by the Kennedy administration, and re-iterated by his brother that if Vietnam fell to communism, all the rest of South East Asia would fall soon afterwards.

Kennedy's attempts to destabilize Cuba and then invade, combined with his efforts to place SRBM's in Germany futher pushed the Russians into a corner from a MAD standpoint, from a prestige standpoint, plus a defense standpoint. the Russians and Khrushchev felt that if the Americans were going to attempt nuclear superioriority over Russia by placing short range missiles in Germany, the Russians would have to trump that by placing missiles in Cuba.

Its interesting to note that Khruschev was trying to reform the Soviet agricultural and industrial segments, while attempting to improve relations in the west after the Soviets had lost a great deal of international prestige over the Berlin Airlift, the split with China.

Kennedy bumbled the missile crisis not in standing up to the Soviets, but in giving Khrushchev no room to maneuver so he could continue his reforms, because of this, Khruschev was denounced and deposed by his own military and central committee comrades who decided that they needed more hardline leadership in Brezhnev, then former KGB head Antropov followed by another KGB man in Chernenko. These men were considered strong men who would continue the idealogical battle between the forces of socialism vs capitalism, and stand up to the U.S. as oppossed to negotiating with the U.S..


Please also note that it was Gorbachev and not Yeltson, and his reforms including Peristrocha (sp?) and Glastnost (sp?) which did not come into play until the very end of Reagan's first term when Gorbachev was elevated to the top seat in the Central committee, when Regan's use of defense spending and Star Wars forced the Soviets to realize that they were not only dealing with a very strong President who would not buckle as oppossed to Carter, but the hardliners had to realize that they couldn't stand up to the American on a Military, Industrial or Nuclear stage. Reagan's actions forced the end of Chernenko and created the conditions that lead to the installation of Gorbachev a man considered to be a strong reformist who could negotiate with Reagan as oppossed to the previous strategy of bluster and sabre rattling.

Your selling Reagan far short, he accomplished a lot more then Kennedy ever would have. the only thing that Kennedy really did was try to creat a royal family in the White house.

Both were brilliant speakers, both were decent domestically, but if Kennedy hadn't have been shot and killed he wouldn't have been remembered with the same fondness.

These foreign policy manouvers by Kennedy were pale in comparison to what the right wing advocated. At the time Kennedy was considered a Dove as opposed to the Hawks who would have had no hesitation to overrun Cuba and bomb the hell out of Russia. They were even claiming that in an all out nuclear war the USA could survive even if most of the population was wiped out. In the 64 election [Republican and John Bircher] Goldwater's slogan was "In your heart you know he's right" was countered by Johnson's "in your guts, you know he's nuts". Guess which one was believed. I was no fan of Johnson but you have to understand the strident right wing that wanted to get power at the time.

I screwed up when I said Yelstin instead of Gorbachov.

I realize that Kruschev wasn't an all out bogyman and Kennedy wasn't really a knight in shining armour but they were often reacting to forces beyond their control and I still believe Kennedy was a reasonable man who could change with the times. Some of the newer leaders, not so much.

The shooting of Kennedy was traumatic because he brought hope at a time when imminate destruction seemed only a moment away. He had a lot of friends and a lot of enemies. Even my grandfather, who was as far left as you can get without being a communist hated him because he was a Cathlick. He stepped on a lot of toes but he was no phoney, as I believe Reagan and Bush are or were with their hidden agendas of furthering the military, industrial complex.

As far as Reagon's Star Wars goes they are still not able to shoot down Scud missiles. Talk about an empty threat. Just a few rambling thoughts for you Captain.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Aug 8 2005, 07:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Aug 8 2005, 07:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Vulcan@Aug 9 2005, 01:13 AM


And Dis, I always found the release of the Iran hostages on Reagan's inauguration a trifle suspicious. Was there some double dealing in foreign affairs so Carter couldn't take the credit?

Why is it that people always find a good conspiracy theory to avoid giving credit to someone they despise?

The hostages were released because the Iranians knew there would be consequences with Reagan in office. I'm sure he made that clear on the first Wednesday of the preceding November. [/b][/quote]
Possibly because it is "a good conspiracy theory" and was proposed at the time by the some of the press. Although the term 'conspiracy theory' has been relegated to a derogatory word, people still go to jail for conspiracy and so it is still a valid hypothesis.

[CaptainCrunch]

These foreign policy manouvers by Kennedy were pale in comparison to what the right wing advocated. At the time Kennedy was considered a Dove as opposed to the Hawks who would have had no hesitation to overrun Cuba and bomb the hell out of Russia. They were even claiming that in an all out nuclear war the USA could survive even if most of the population was wiped out. In the 64 election [Republican and John Bircher] Goldwater's slogan was "In your heart you know he's right" was countered by Johnson's "in your guts, you know he's nuts". Guess which one was believed. I was no fan of Johnson but you have to understand the strident right wing that wanted to get power at the time.

In the early 60's the American's thought that Nuclear war was winnable to to a lack of credible counter-force by either side. It wasn't until advanced GPS technology came out that war heads became accurate enough to hit missile fields in a way to do damage. Its interesting if you look at the philosophies that the two nations had. the Americans used hardened silos hoping that the Russian missiles weren't accurate enough to damage them. The Russians used mobile rail lanchers which meant that American's wouldn't know where all the missiles were. The American's retailiated by putting missiles on submarines, the Russians tried to do this, but they didn't have the crews to leave the subs on patrol for more then a couple of weeks at a time.

Anyways back to the original point. the Russians had the bigger warheads, the American's were slightly more accurate. The American's at the time thought that they could win a nuclear exchange due to thier accuracy and the possibility of both a counter force and decapitation strike using thier submarines.

I realize that Kruschev wasn't an all out bogyman and Kennedy wasn't really a knight in shining armour but they were often reacting to forces beyond their control and I still believe Kennedy was a reasonable man who could change with the times. Some of the newer leaders, not so much.

My gut feeling is that Kennedy wasn't totally reasonable when it came to stopping communism, it was all or nothing, with no real negotiation. Kennedy effected the way that the Supreme Council of the Soviets saw relations with Americans, where the only way that they were going to get respect from the American's was to over power them or appear stronger then they seemed. This caused over reporting of results as the Soviets tried to lie to the world about thier economy and thier military. This created a perfect environment for Reagan to exploit in the mid to late 80's as the Soviets vastly over estimated thier national wealth and its ability to feed itself.

Kennedy just wasn't good at foreign relations.

The shooting of Kennedy was traumatic because he brought hope at a time when imminate destruction seemed only a moment away. He had a lot of friends and a lot of enemies. Even my grandfather, who was as far left as you can get without being a communist hated him because he was a Cathlick. He stepped on a lot of toes but he was no phoney, as I believe Reagan and Bush are or were with their hidden agendas of furthering the military, industrial complex.

Kennedy was responsible for a build up of the U.S. military beyond reasonable size and spending when he was President, his biggest mistake was not putting the right people behind the guns. Most presidents bend to the Military Industry, Kennedy was no exception. He was responsible for one of the biggest spending increases for the Military in terms of hardware aquisition up until Bush Sr Showed up. You have to remember that Kennedy pumped a huge amount of money into the Navy, the Airforce and missile technology as well as a 10 fold increase in warhead production. For you to say that Reagan was a bigger conduit of money to the military industry then Kennedy isn't really accurate.

John F Kennedy - "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

I'm not saying that Kennedy didn't do good things domestically, but he also spent like a madman on the military, and his foreign policy bungles were huge.

As far as Reagon's Star Wars goes they are still not able to shoot down Scud missiles. Talk about an empty threat. Just a few rambling thoughts for you Captain.

Unfortunatly the Soviets were working on thier own SDI project at the time, and the American's knew that they had to compete in it in case the Russians made it work. The Soviet SDI project combined with Reagan's strategy of forcing the Sovs to spend thier hard currency to build up thier military to keep pace spelled the end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. While Reagan's military spending actually to some extent helped the American high tech sector and helped the Americans recover from the recession of the 70's, the Soviets were destroyed by it.

Right now looking back, I would take Reagan over Kennedy in an election every time.

Have a great night.

[Vulcan]

With the U.S. President having so much power, I'd take Kennedy's finger on the destruct button every time over Reagan's.

and you too.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Vulcan@Aug 9 2005, 04:58 AM
With the U.S. President having so much power, I'd take Kennedy's finger on the destruct button every time over Reagan's.

and you too.

What are you saying, that you wouldn't trust me with the dooms day button?

Thats an odd thing to say if thats a fact.

Kennedy was willing to push the world to the edge of nuclear conflict, Reagan never ever got close to that point.

Personally I would have trusted Reagan more then Kennedy.

[Vulcan]

No, I was just replying to your ' have a great night'. I'm not to good with computers.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Vulcan@Aug 9 2005, 04:37 AM

Possibly because it is "a good conspiracy theory" and was proposed at the time by the some of the press. Although the term 'conspiracy theory' has been relegated to a derogatory word, people still go to jail for conspiracy and so it is still a valid hypothesis.

Well, if that's all it takes to believe a conspiracy theory I guess I have to believe that Bill Clinton had his friend of 40 years Vince Foster murdered and made it look like a suicide in order to avoid being exposed in the Whitewater scandal.

[killer_carlson]

I'd bet that Australia lists Don Bradman ("the Don") in their top 2, if not #1. He was the greatest cricketer the world has ever seen. If you think Gretzky dominated his sport like no other has ever dominated theirs, then do a search on career stats for Cricket. His average is literally close to double the next highest to EVER play the game. That is domination, but the guy's rep was that of someone who didn't like the spotlight and was fairly friendly.

[Crazy Flamer]

IIRC, didn't Reagan take the States from having a huge surplus, to having its greatest deficits?

[CaptainCrunch]

When Reagan was elected the U.S. was running a deficit of about 3% of the GNP, it did increase to close to 6% which was marginal, but still effectible. Nearly every nation on the planet had to increase spending as the international community was trying to jumpstart thier economies through massive government works projects.

Not unexpected since Carter pretty much made a mess of things.

[Abstract]

Churchill fair enough i guess and the engineer dude did change the world but Princess Diana the 3rd greatest Briton of all time? Yikes. Is she even the 3rd greatest Diana of all time? Wow she married a Prince and did charity work due to her unending free-time. The Royal Family sucks ass but not as badly as the fake and totally media-fuelled over pouring out of emotion for this woman. The media are blamed here for it so their repsonse to show that they aren't the bad guys is to endlessly bring her name in to things.

Also how about some love for the Scots? TV anyone? Penicillin? Telephones? Sean Connery? Ok the last ones a joke but pleeeeeeease not Diana.