Airnaut- I find it telling about liberals reading your comments. What you are
saying is that liberals believe in the following:Letting Bin Laden stay in
his position of powerIncreasing our dependence on foreign oilImplementing a single payer health system that would ration care severely and
limit access to care seniors are currently eligible for.Allowing illegal
immigrants to stay indefinitely in the country and rewarding them for their
actions, even those who are criminalsRaising taxes on individuals for the
simple fact that they became successful, and that liberals believe making
$250,000 year is "uber wealthy". That is odd since most liberal actors
would not be willing to say one line in a movies for that same sum that would
make them "uber wealthy". I guess they all want to be super uber wealthy
then. And FYI, true conservatives oppose TARP and the Patriot Act, it is
the leftist that approve of them as it is a means of gaining more government
control over business and the populace. The leftist supported bailing out GM and
the unions. Liberals support bailing out big business, while letting small
businesses suffer under heavy handed regulations.
I would suggest our right wing revisionist friends read what Bani-Sadr had to
say about the subject. In case you don't remember or are too young he was
the President of Iran during the hostage crisis. You can link it through the
Christian Science Monitor. I suggest you quit the Reagan worship. It's easy
to sit on the sideline and buy into bomb the world philosophy when you
don't have anything to lose.
@BadgerbadgerMurray, UTStalwart SentinelI can hardly wait to
hear what center right doctrine you have found in this administration. Do
tell.8:20 p.m. March 14, 2014========== I'm
not Stalwart, but I'd like a crack at it...Increased
Domestic Oil drilling, NOT raising taxes on the uber-wealthy, Implementing his own version of RomneyCare, NOT implementing the Single
Payer option to Obamacare, Deported more illegal immigrants than his GOP
predecessor ever dreamed of, TARP part II, Extended the GOP's
Patriot Act, Took out Osama Bin Laden, I could go on and on, but it
wouldn't matter, you'd STILL wouldn't buy it.Obama is
NO Liberal-Leftie -- not even by a long shot.
All that we need to know about Obama's weakness in this area of foreign
policy is to look back at the debates against Romney. He laughed at
Romney's assertions regarding the geopolitical threat of Russia.
Essentially stating that Romney was still living in the Cold War Era to consider
Russia a true threat. Who is being proven the fool now? Not Romney.
Stalwart SentinelI can hardly wait to hear what center right
doctrine you have found in this administration. Do tell.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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)....
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.
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
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.
Yes Carter was doing the negotiations, but his loosing the election was the
catalyst for the hostages to be released.
@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
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
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.
Obama is super weak so Putin took the Crimean peninsula. Bush was
Super Strong so Putin took Georgia.
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
@BadgerbadgerMurray, UT60 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 KJB1Eugene,
ORfor 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?!]
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.
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?
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.
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???