Comments about ‘Letter: Putin's invasion’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 14 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

I say we invade. Shock and awe. We will be treated as liberators. And the oil from the Ukraine will pay for the war itself.

Who's with me???

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

60 hostages from the US Embassy in Iran were taken and held 444 days under a weak US President, and were magically released minutes after President Reagan was inaugurated, because they would now have to deal with a President who was not weak or passive, and who knew what he was doing.

No bullets, no missiles, no drones, no boots on the ground, just the right man as President, and the crisis was over.

2 bit
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO Denny Freidenrich was being intentionally obtuse. He pretends Krauthammer's proposed solution was "a rewrite of Catherine the Great's 19th century strategy in Crimea"... But I think in reality Krauthammer brought that up so we could learn from history.

I think there's something to be said for learning from history. And we don't have to belittle another's opinion just because they brought up what has happened in past history in similar conflicts in this same region.

The usual posters on the left were dismissing Krauthammer when he wrote his article, because he didn't have the right credentials for them to respect his opinion... I wonder what Denny Freidenrich's credentials in foreign affairs and international relations are?

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Badgerbadger:

That's not really how it went down at all. Carter was on the phone arranging for the release of the hostages until literally the moment he had to leave the White House for Reagan's inauguration. It was timed specifically to make Carter look bad, but he was fine with that. Giving Reagan credit for it is like praising a rooster for making the sun come up.

airnaut
Everett, 00

@Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

60 hostages from the US Embassy in Iran were taken and held 444 days under a weak US President, and were magically released minutes after President Reagan was inaugurated, because they would now have to deal with a President who was not weak or passive, and who knew what he was doing.

No bullets, no missiles, no drones, no boots on the ground, just the right man as President, and the crisis was over.
7:28 a.m. March 14, 2014

=======

Thank you
KJB1
Eugene, OR
for setting the conservatives constant revisionists history straight.

BTW --
That worked so well, that the administration later showed that same sort of "strength" with Iran-Contra "Arm for Hostages".

No bullets, no missiles, no drones, no boots on the ground, just the right man as President, and the crisis was over.

But I digress...

[And you have to audacity to go after Obama over Syria and Crimea....seez?!]

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

KJB1 Your memory is very foggy! What went down were Blackhawk helicopters in the desert under Carter's orders,and the bodies of the brave American crew members desecrated and drug through the streets as our enemies rejoiced. Carter did NOTHING!

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Obama is super weak so Putin took the Crimean peninsula.

Bush was Super Strong so Putin took Georgia.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Badger said: "No bullets, no missiles, no drones, no boots on the ground, just the right man as President, and the crisis was over."

Conservatives must have helped write the Bible.
..and Noah brought his Animals to higher ground avoiding the flooding river.

Rewritten by a conservative years later.
...Noah Brought every living creature into a gigantic ship when the entire world flooded.

Iran Contra ring a bell?
America and the world put sanctions in place against Iran for the hostage taking.
Reagan ignores this and helps secretly trade guns and sell drugs to Americans to fund secret wars.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

and since we are singing Reagan's praises... lets not forget Lebanon and the death of over 300 US troops... to which our "tough guy" response was to withdraw and leave the field of battle. But that just doesn't fit the revisionist version of history.

And I am not saying given the conditions on the ground, that wasn't the right thing to do. But lets not play footloose with history and forget all the other context. At the very same time we were arming the predecessor to the Taliban... seemed to be a good decision a the time.

I do like the thought process behind the opinion. It is thankfully devoid of partisan silly talk. Reagan did some very cool things. Carter did better than give credit for considering he was handed a gutted post Vietnam era military that was in shambles. The 55 mph speed limit... that was lame. But he wasn't as weak on Iran as is being claimed here. He also negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel... not a minor thing, but often over looked..

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

@mountainman.... you said..."What went down were Blackhawk helicopters in the desert under Carter's orders,and the bodies of the brave American crew members desecrated and drug through the streets as our enemies rejoiced."

There are just so many factual problems with this statement... just about every bit of it is wrong. There were no blackhawk helicopters involved, they used Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallions - not even slightly close the same. Next, the deaths were caused when a C-130 loaded with jet fuel blew up... taking out one helicopter and its crewat the same time. The 8 that died in the ensuing fire... no one paraded their bodies through the streets.

I think you are getting your movies mixed up. Your partisan glasses are particularly foggy today.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Yes Carter was doing the negotiations, but his loosing the election was the catalyst for the hostages to be released.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Mountanman, get your history correct. The Blackhawk was barely in the iventory in 1980 and only a few were there. THey certainly wouldn't have used it in this operation. They used Sikorsky RH-53 Sea Stallion's one of which which crashed into an EC-130 thereby causing the catastrophy in the Iran desert.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

World politics involve just that - the world. It's amazing how Americentric conservatives are in these situations. To ignore so many other actual factors (ie potential European response, economic turmoil, G8 standing, etc...) and focus exclusively on Obama is hilariously disingenuous.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Obama fan but the sheer fact that conservatives immediately assume that all world leaders make their daily decisions based on US factors alone truly indicate why Bush's foreign policy will have us reeling for at least another decade.

Mountanman (sic) - We must use different maps. Apparently your map shows Magadishu as being located in Iran. In your map, is the word "mountain" also missing the "i"?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Oh no... we wouldn't want to give ANY credit to Reagan.

I don't know how much credit Reagan gets for the Iran Hostage release. It may have been all Carter's shrewd negotiations that did it. Who knows...

I don't know how much credit Reagan gets for the Berlin wall coming down, or the collapse of the Communist regime controlling Russia, Ukraine, etc. American leftists give all the credit for that to Margret Thatcher. Who knows...

I don't know how they explain Carter's weakness on the Panama Canal. It seems he was afraid of pineapple faced drug cartel kingpin Manuel Noriega, or afraid Latin America would not liking us or something. I don't know why you would give up a key strategic asset like the Panama Canal to a drug lord who wanted to use his country as a drug transportation station. But who knows...

I just know that Carter served only one term... Brought us the "missery index", high jobless rates, and 17% annual inflation. And the American people selected Reagan to replace him... with the largest margin of victory in my lifetime...

Evidently American people at the time preferred Reagan to Carter.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Stalwart Sentinel,
Wait... you're not an Obama Fan??

Sure could have fooled me!

===

You claim, "conservatives immediately assume that all world leaders make their daily decisions based on US factors alone"...

Since when is Russia's invasion of Ukraine only an American concern?

Remember the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" Google it. Not only America signed it. It was Russia, USA, UK, China, and France. We ALL signed an agreement to defend Ukraine from invasion IF... they would give their nuclear weapons to Russia.

And look what happened!

And you think this is just about Obama!?

We made an agreement. UK made an agreement. But you think people who expect us to live up to that agreement... are just after Obama??

Coming to the defense of Ukraine and living up to our commitment in the Budapest Memorandum is NOT just an American concern, or a "US Factor".

And I don't mean military defense (at this point). I mean diplomatic defense (like maybe messing a summit, or having talks with their leaders and reminding them of their agreements, etc)....

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

After years of throwing mud and garbage at President Obama, Republicans now complain about his being dirty and smelling so bad.

It seems to me that some people have such a terrible motivation to see President Obama fail in every quarter and venue that they would rather America itself should die if necessary to achieve their goal.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Reagan is irrelevant here. So is Bush. What's relevant is that Ukraine was ready to liberate itself from the Russian sphere of influence. Doesn't matter if George Patton was president. Putin would have done exactly what he did, and Patton's hands would have been tied. So get off your partisan high horses and start dealing with reality. That goes for President Krauthammer too. Good grief.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

"Evidently American people at the time preferred Reagan to Carter."

Not sure anyone is really debating that point. High inflation. High interest rates. Oil Embargo... Stupid 55 mph speed limit. Lots to not like about when Carter was president.

Kent - spot on comment. This has very little to do with Obama. Putin would have done the same thing had Romney been president. We aren't always the center of the universe. My son just lived in Ukraine for 2 years...he is very clear this Russian vs. Ukrainian thing has nothing to do with us. It is about their own national identity.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

2 bits - I'm afraid you've been fooled. I'm a liberal and when Obama's presidency is taken in historical context, he has pursued a center-right doctrine which I cannot agree to support. I know you've been told otherwise by talking heads but the proof is in the pudding: the current administration is center-right. I'm sure you won't believe me but, then again, you've clearly been fooled before.

I appreciate your response but it appears you may have misunderstood my initial messaging. I actually don't "think this is just about Obama." Rather, my commentary is to conclude that the issue is multifaceted and the simplistic thinking on the right that believes "Putin invaded Crimea because Obama is weak" suggests those people are blind to the many other factors that exist on the world stage - some of those factors have little or nothing to do with the US which were thankfully pointed out by you. So, thank you for bolstering my case against the current conservative mantra.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Stalwart Sentinel

I can hardly wait to hear what center right doctrine you have found in this administration.

Do tell.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments