Thatcher on "The Great Liberator"
Margaret Thatcher's eulogy has provided Ronald Reagan's funeral of its most interesting--and touching, to my mind--moment. Beyond anything else, it underscored just how distant the Reagan era and its main concerns seem to the current day. A snippet (which reminds you of why Thatcher was called "the Iron Lady"):
So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation….
Ronald Reagan carried the American people with him in his great endeavours because there was perfect sympathy between them. He and they loved America and what it stands for - freedom and opportunity for ordinary people….
He was able to say `God Bless America' with equal fervour in public and in private. And so he was able to call confidently upon his fellow-countrymen to make sacrifices for America - and to make sacrifices for those who looked to America for hope and rescue.
With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today the world - in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw, in Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev and in Moscow itself - the world mourns the passing of the Great Liberator and echoes his prayer "God Bless America".
Whole text here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yeah, why didn't we use joe's solution in Europe in 1944? We could have saved thousands of lives!
Ass*les protesting his funeral:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040611/480/zeb10206111551&e=6&ncid=705
Reagan employed joe's solution against the Soviets. And, I can't imagine Reagan falling for the Iraq hustle, as Bush did.
are those guys from the westboro baptist church group? (i see a god hates america sign in the background)
protesting a corpse is a lot weirder than venerating it.
Ah, Phil, Saddam-as-Hitler! You're like one of those "Retro Lunch" programs on a radio station.
Josh, please tell me more about not drawing on historical analogies to analyze War on Terror strategies.
And please do it without shoehorning the word "fascist" into your post.
"Wait a minute - you can liberate a place without bombing the piss out of it and taking over its government?"
Only if the guys holding the scepter in said place absolutely believes he will be dead like fried chicken if he doesn't negotiate in good faith. You can't divorce the idea of political pressure from the idea of credible military threat.
Hey, joe, can you quote me back anyplace -- and I mean anyplace, not just H&R -- where I have ever claimed Saddam was anything close to Hitler?
Oh, wait -- I never did. You're just putting words in my mouth, because you're a fucking asshole.
I'll take it, though, that you're conceding that different situations require different approaches. Your usual retreat into accusing people of saying things they didn't say is like a blaring klaxon screaming, "Whoops! I fucked up!"
joe: Within your snipe at Bush, you acknowledge that Reagan had a massively positive impact on world freedom. Considering the source, that's quite a tribute. Thanks.
Mark, jump down to my post on "Man Them Russians Were Tricky!"
Jason, "You can't divorce the idea of political pressure from the idea of credible military threat." No, indeed you can't. But it's a tough sell to say that the American stance towards Iraq in 1999 didn't constitute a credible military threat.
I guess interpretting "Yeah, why didn't we use joe's solution in Europe in 1944?" as a comment on the war against Nazi Germany missed some of the nuance. No, no attempt to conflate World War II with Iraq there. Boy is my face red.
What is it with leftist shitheels and this word, Duh-rider?
You keep saying that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Jason, "You can't divorce the idea of political pressure from the idea of credible military threat." No, indeed you can't. But it's a tough sell to say that the American stance towards Iraq in 1999 didn't constitute a credible military threat."
It is not a tough sell at all. Did he negotiate in good faith after UN mandates were passed? He had no reason to believe that the US would commit anything approaching the required level of violence to really threaten him in his homeland. The rest of the world doesn't even bear mentioning.
Remember, the entire world was arguing that violence was not a legitimate tool unless Saddam tried to roll tanks across your border. Most of the world is still making that argument. Why wouldn't he believe them? We got kicked out of Somalia after taking a strategically insignificant number of casualties. We had no response to Khobar, no response to the USS Cole. Credibility is not having missiles that you throw haphazardly at unimportant targets, it is demonstrating the willingness to chase him into a hole in his own country even if it means US losses and thumbing your nose at world governments with less fortitude.
No, it wasn't an attempt to conflate anything. You made that leap, it your typical dick-headed fashion. It was an answer to your sub-moronic rhetorical, "You can liberate a place without bombing the piss out of it and taking over its government?" That answer being, "Sometimes you can, and sometimes you can't, and I am not yet fully satisfied that this was one of the times that you can't."
In your sad, pathetic rush to categorize anyone who dares disagree with your nuanced, enlightened opinion as a Bush-voting, NRO-regurgitating Dittohead, you weren't willing to dig any deeper than the surface, which, is, alas, your fault and not mine.
But I typically expect no more from you, and I'm sure I'll continue to get no less.
I thought that for 12 years we did try to bring Saddam down the easy way. But it didn't work because Saddam, unlike Gorbachev, didn't give a s***.
joe: I jumped. RWR gets credit for noticing a change in Soviet tone. What caused the change in tone?
An essential component of "credible military threat" is that the enemy feels threatened, more than that the saber-rattler feels powerful. Perhaps Saddam didn't really feel afraid (he's nuts, after all). Unable to frighten him, another effective option was to actually attack. The less an enemy values life, the less likely negotiation will be effective.
Also, Saddam seemed more of a dictator than any modern Soviet leader. Reagan could play off the internal pressures in the USSR much more effectively than Bush in Iraq. With plenty of oil and plenty of cheaters, plus a UN itching to give aid, Bush didn't really have the same option of bankrupting Iraq.
Why not extend the weird historical comparisons further? Imagine the American Civil War without the US blockade of the CSA. British "humanitarian" aid could well have prolonged the CSA's ability to fight, until Lincoln was replaced by someone more conciliatory.
On the original post: Great speech. Go Maggie!
Is that crone still alive?
I'm done with you Phil. You're long on curses, short on thought, and on a hair trigger. Some people find people it fun to walk past the dog who freaks out at every noise, and I'll leave you to them. Buh bye.
John, I'd say that for most of those 12 years, there was no attempt to bring Saddam down, just to keep him in his box. Saddam seemed to care very much about looking impotent in the face of an American military presence that he could do nothing to restrain.
Wahhh, wahhhh, wahhh.
Ah, lively intelligent discourse in the Comments. As usual. Oh the wasted minutes!
"Without a shot being fired." I thought all those proxy wars in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Latin America, the Middle East, etc. had a lot of shots fired. Bringing down Communism cost the USA nearly 100,000 lives, even if the Soviets pulled the trigger for
Please delete the obvious conterfeits.
Mark, the military threat was sufficiently credible by early 2003 that, just prior to the war, there were back channel negotiations between Iraq and the Saudis to secure Saddam's family's exile. Face it; this administration was determined to have its war, and the "Reagan Option" was never even tried.
I respond to pithy inanity with pithy inanity, and he calls me "hair trigger." Go figure. I guess pointless, one-sentence irrelevancies that do nothing to shed any real light on anything but how clever the poster feels he is are reserved for the enlightened, or something. Whatever.
Write often! I'll miss you!
P.S. Being called "short on thought" by you is like being called "short on looks" by Michael Berryman.
So "The Great Communicator" becomes "The Great Liberator"? I like it.
Wordy old broad, ain't she?
Wait a minute - you can liberate a place without bombing the piss out of it and taking over its government?
You can, but it isn't nearly as much fun.
Just when I was starting to think different problems might require different solutions, joe kindly set me straight.
"Wait a minute - you can liberate a place without bombing the piss out of it and taking over its government?"
Sometimes, but probably not Boston.
"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." "Ronald Reagan"
"Mark, the military threat was sufficiently credible by early 2003 that, just prior to the war, there were back channel negotiations between Iraq and the Saudis to secure Saddam's family's exile."
Early 2003? I note that Saddam was not sufficiently scared for to stop impeding inspectors or otherwise comply with any UN mandate. Credibility is based more on past actions than current bluster. All we had demonstrated for the previous 12 years is that we were not willing to take the losses to get him, and the only thing that matters to the tyrant is his own neck.
As many have pointed out, there is a world of difference between 'using force' in the form of 50 Tomahawks with no infantry in sight and using force to the extent that we hunt down the man in his own country.
I'm biased of course, but I thought Brian Mulroney's eulogy the most eloquent.
"No infantry in sight? Does the phrase "No Drive Zone" ring any bells?"
No strategically significant infantry threat to his choosing to hide in Iraq. You suppose he thought those guys were going to come get him? Come on, joe.
No infantry in sight? Does the phrase "No Drive Zone" ring any bells?