RBB: If Bush were running for president, I might be interested in your thread…
pparets - 05:05pm on 05/16/2008
Thank you.
realitybasedbob - 05:05pm on 05/16/2008
... as always - you are most welcome.
pparets - 05:05pm on 05/16/2008
The examples given by Obama’s partisan defenders in all this are at best uninformed, and at worst disingenuous. Actually, the Bush administration has been negotiating with Iran for several years, both directly and indirectly through the offices of the EU, the IAEA, and the Russians.
That is much different than face to face with the POTUS and giving them the prestige and world stage to advance their agenda.
Didn’t Reagan talk with Russia?
Reagan talked to them from a position of strength and with an announced program to build our military and break their economy first. He spoke to them knowing his core beliefs were common knowledge, that he was unmovable in his goal to destroy the Soviets and HE dictated the terms of their surrender.
We talk with China because they were imploding and we foisted a hunger for capitalism among the populace, and the Chinese now have too much too lose by fighting us. They bluster and treat their people with a tough hand, but Capitalism is taking over China and therein is our hope for final victory. Well, that is, unless we get an Obama and China realizes we have in him a political fellow traveler (socialist) that will close his eyes to their human rights abuses.
Neiman - 05:05pm on 05/16/2008
Didn’t Reagan talk with Russia?
There is also another difference, aside from those detailed by Neiman. When Reagan talked to the Soviet leaders, the relationship between the two countries was one of brutal, but non-military confrontation. MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Each side had the capacity to obliterate the other with nuclear weapons. Each side knew of the other’s capability to do so. And neither side regarded that option as acceptable. Reagan’s plan for defeating the Soviet “Evil Empire” was not to do so by military means, but to win by economic and ideological means instead.
The threat we face today from radical Islamists is entirely different. They have shown themselves more than willing to die for the chance to inflict death and destruction on their infidel enemies. There is no mutually assured destruction to define the parameters of our struggle.
Part of Reagan’s master plan, and that shared by Pope John Paul II, was to offer freedom and a chance to worship God as they saw fit to those enslaved by the Soviet regime… starting, of course, with Poland and the Solidarity trade union. Poland was the first domino to fall, the first brick in the ideological wall to crumble, and with it, ultimately came the Berlin Wall.
The Islamists, by contrast have no more interest in religious freedom and diversity than they have in any other facet of a pluralistic society.
The comparison by those on the Left, Obama’s foolish defenders, is meaningless. The situations are not at all analogous.
Bat One - 07:05pm on 05/16/2008
Also, pparets, the Chinese armed the North Vietnamese.
The rationalizations going on here to explain why it is ok for the republicans to talk to nations like Iran, North Korea and why democrats can’t is an exercise in political gymnastics. Great fun to read!
Puzzlefeet - 07:05pm on 05/16/2008
Also, pparets, the Chinese armed the North Vietnamese.
Puzzle,
I never realized that you are old enough to have had some experience with military intelligence during the Vietnam War. I actually wasn’t serious with that quip a few weeks ago about your AARP card. Imagine that!?
Actually, the main supplier of military hardware to the North Vietnamese was the Soviet Union, not the Communist Chinese. With the exception of the anti-aircraft artillery surrounding Hanoi, and Haiphong, which was manned by the Chinese, the entire air defense system of North Vietnam, including radar, communications equipment, MiG aircraft and SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, was Soviet manufactured and installed… with the necessary Russian trainers often right next to their Vietnamese counterparts. Similarly, most of the munitions and equipment smuggled into Souther Vietnam along the Ho Chi Minh trail through Laos and Cambodia was of Russian origin… not Chinese.
Bat One - 07:05pm on 05/16/2008
Dhimmierats love to talk. That’s all they do which explains why terrorism has gotten so much worse and why rogue regimes flourish under the aegis of the “annointed” ones in their ivory towers. Compare Iran’s actions under peaceful, compassionate Carter and what happened as soon as Reagan reached office.
Dhimmierats love to sell people into slavery up never seem to find the backbone to fight for freedom, but then again to be a Leftist means meeting the prequisites of no spine and having had a frontal lobotomy and thorough brain washing at the local community college of liberal arts mill.
The US has paid out over 180 billion dollars for Carter’s little pace agreement between Israeland Eygpt. And is there peace? The sooner the US adopts a realistic policy towards states that sponsor terrorism the sooner it will end lest we become as feeble as Barry the wonder Madrassa graduate. Pussy doesn’t begin to describe this whimp. And I thought Clinton would stoop to anything. Clinton looks like Reagan compared to Snobama, no wonder McGovern has endorsed him. He must want to see someone lose all fifty states before he dies. He might have got his wish if the GOP had fielded someone with some integrity like Jack the Ripper rather than a moderate Dhimmierat like McCain. But then McCain could win if he selects Hildabeast as his VP since the conservatives will be staying home or voting third party.
Thomas Jackson - 08:05pm on 05/16/2008
Where has not negotiating with nations that (we say) sponsor terrorism gotten us? Nowhere! No matter who we may be using as go-betweens, we still look like hard-headed bullies in the eyes of the world. The “good guys vs the bad guys” scenario isn’t working. If we are appeasing anyone, it is the Israelis.
RBB: If Bush were running for president, I might be interested in your thread…
Thank you.
... as always - you are most welcome.
That is much different than face to face with the POTUS and giving them the prestige and world stage to advance their agenda.
Didn’t Reagan talk with Russia?
Reagan talked to them from a position of strength and with an announced program to build our military and break their economy first. He spoke to them knowing his core beliefs were common knowledge, that he was unmovable in his goal to destroy the Soviets and HE dictated the terms of their surrender.
We talk with China because they were imploding and we foisted a hunger for capitalism among the populace, and the Chinese now have too much too lose by fighting us. They bluster and treat their people with a tough hand, but Capitalism is taking over China and therein is our hope for final victory. Well, that is, unless we get an Obama and China realizes we have in him a political fellow traveler (socialist) that will close his eyes to their human rights abuses.
There is also another difference, aside from those detailed by Neiman. When Reagan talked to the Soviet leaders, the relationship between the two countries was one of brutal, but non-military confrontation. MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Each side had the capacity to obliterate the other with nuclear weapons. Each side knew of the other’s capability to do so. And neither side regarded that option as acceptable. Reagan’s plan for defeating the Soviet “Evil Empire” was not to do so by military means, but to win by economic and ideological means instead.
The threat we face today from radical Islamists is entirely different. They have shown themselves more than willing to die for the chance to inflict death and destruction on their infidel enemies. There is no mutually assured destruction to define the parameters of our struggle.
Part of Reagan’s master plan, and that shared by Pope John Paul II, was to offer freedom and a chance to worship God as they saw fit to those enslaved by the Soviet regime… starting, of course, with Poland and the Solidarity trade union. Poland was the first domino to fall, the first brick in the ideological wall to crumble, and with it, ultimately came the Berlin Wall.
The Islamists, by contrast have no more interest in religious freedom and diversity than they have in any other facet of a pluralistic society.
The comparison by those on the Left, Obama’s foolish defenders, is meaningless. The situations are not at all analogous.
Also, pparets, the Chinese armed the North Vietnamese.
The rationalizations going on here to explain why it is ok for the republicans to talk to nations like Iran, North Korea and why democrats can’t is an exercise in political gymnastics. Great fun to read!
Puzzle,
I never realized that you are old enough to have had some experience with military intelligence during the Vietnam War. I actually wasn’t serious with that quip a few weeks ago about your AARP card. Imagine that!?
Actually, the main supplier of military hardware to the North Vietnamese was the Soviet Union, not the Communist Chinese. With the exception of the anti-aircraft artillery surrounding Hanoi, and Haiphong, which was manned by the Chinese, the entire air defense system of North Vietnam, including radar, communications equipment, MiG aircraft and SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, was Soviet manufactured and installed… with the necessary Russian trainers often right next to their Vietnamese counterparts. Similarly, most of the munitions and equipment smuggled into Souther Vietnam along the Ho Chi Minh trail through Laos and Cambodia was of Russian origin… not Chinese.
Dhimmierats love to talk. That’s all they do which explains why terrorism has gotten so much worse and why rogue regimes flourish under the aegis of the “annointed” ones in their ivory towers. Compare Iran’s actions under peaceful, compassionate Carter and what happened as soon as Reagan reached office.
Dhimmierats love to sell people into slavery up never seem to find the backbone to fight for freedom, but then again to be a Leftist means meeting the prequisites of no spine and having had a frontal lobotomy and thorough brain washing at the local community college of liberal arts mill.
The US has paid out over 180 billion dollars for Carter’s little pace agreement between Israeland Eygpt. And is there peace? The sooner the US adopts a realistic policy towards states that sponsor terrorism the sooner it will end lest we become as feeble as Barry the wonder Madrassa graduate. Pussy doesn’t begin to describe this whimp. And I thought Clinton would stoop to anything. Clinton looks like Reagan compared to Snobama, no wonder McGovern has endorsed him. He must want to see someone lose all fifty states before he dies. He might have got his wish if the GOP had fielded someone with some integrity like Jack the Ripper rather than a moderate Dhimmierat like McCain. But then McCain could win if he selects Hildabeast as his VP since the conservatives will be staying home or voting third party.
Where has not negotiating with nations that (we say) sponsor terrorism gotten us? Nowhere! No matter who we may be using as go-betweens, we still look like hard-headed bullies in the eyes of the world. The “good guys vs the bad guys” scenario isn’t working. If we are appeasing anyone, it is the Israelis.