The Bear and the Community Organizer

[De Selby]

Yeah, because scrooo'em.  They aren't smart enough to have their countries in the West, then they deserve to have the Russians (or Soviets) lord over them.

How many other countries do we throw under the bus, just to prevent nuclear holocaust or no destroy our way of life?   And for forty+ years after WWII we did have Pax Americana for the most part.  Which, IIRC, resulted in putting one in the WIN column 1989 when the Wall came down.    Seems like we have spent the last few years undoing all that we gained that night.

Gee, now that you point how trivial the consequences of war with Russia might be, I guess I have to change my position on the Baltic States.  

Onward freedom at any price!  If there are any Americans or people living in modern countries after an all out nuclear war, I'm confident they'd thank us!

[Scout26]

Gee, now that you point how trivial the consequences of war with Russia might be, I guess I have to change my position on the Baltic States.  

Onward freedom at any price!  If there are any Americans or people living in modern countries after an all out nuclear war, I'm confident they'd thank us!

We managed to beat the Soviets without firing a shot.  So you're saying we can't do that again? 

Si vis pacem, para bellum.   Sadly our modern Chamberlin*, does not understand that concept.



*"Let Vladimir know that after this election, I can be more flexible."-  Obama when meeting with Putin's #2 before the 2012 election.   Putin took him at his word, and now wants to see how flexible Obama can be.   Which the answer seems to be "Pretty damn."

[De Selby]

We managed to beat the Soviets without firing a shot.  So you're saying we can't do that again? 

Si vis pacem, para bellum.   Sadly our modern Chamberlin*, does not understand that concept.



*"Let Vladimir know that after this election, I can be more flexible."-  Obama when meeting with Putin's #2 before the 2012 election.   Putin took him at his word, and now wants to see how flexible Obama can be.   Which the answer seems to be "Pretty damn."

Beat?  Yeah, no.  Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev.  Some of his most senior diplomats from that time are speaking out now about how their work is being destroyed by the attitude that Russia was a loser for agreeing to back off of Europe. 

[roo_ster]

Beat?  Yeah, no.  Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev.  Some of his most senior diplomats from that time are speaking out now about how their work is being destroyed by the attitude that Russia was a loser for agreeing to back off of Europe. 

This sort of attitude irks me. Yep, Reagan's revitalization of America's morale and his steadfast devotion to America were the core of what won the Cold War for the West.  Without that revitalized moral component, there is no Western victory.

Sniveling nearly 30 years after the victory that Reagan screwed the pooch for getting some wispy little nuance or shading wrong and that is the cause for current woes is puerile.  It is just another sign that our ruling class is decadent, worthless, and needs replacing posthaste.

[SADShooter]

"Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev" from a position of strength, and with resolve, and achieved important aims, regardless of ex post facto quibbles which ignore the gravity and urgency of the time.

The more accurate characterization above is also, unfortunately, not the character of current U.S. foreign policy. This statement is far more influential to our present state than any legacy considerations of strategic shortsightedness on Reagan's part. He expected we would build from the foundation he laid down, and we haven't.

(edit for typo)

[TommyGunn]

Beat?  Yeah, no.  Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev.  Some of his most senior diplomats from that time are speaking out now about how their work is being destroyed by the attitude that Russia was a loser for agreeing to back off of Europe. 

Reagan "negotiated?"   You have an interesting definition of the word, since Reagan actually walked out of a "negotiation" when the Soviets tried to TKO his SDI program.  Reagan built our defenses back up and it was in trying to keep up with this that was atleast, in part, (The Pope & Maggie Thatcher also get some credit) responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Scout26]

Beat?  Yeah, no.  Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev.  Some of his most senior diplomats from that time are speaking out now about how their work is being destroyed by the attitude that Russia was a loser for agreeing to back off of Europe. 

Ah, yes.  The "Gorbachev let Reagan win." angle/argument.

Yeah. No.  I was there when the build-up was taking place.  I was there and saw the demonstrations in East Germany.   I was in Berlin Labor Day weekend of 1989.   And I was there when the Wall came down, and the Ossi's flooded across the border.

All that sweat, hard work and treasure being pissed away by the current regime.

[De Selby]

Ah, yes.  The "Gorbachev let Reagan win." angle/argument.

Yeah. No.  I was there when the build-up was taking place.  I was there and saw the demonstrations in East Germany.   I was in Berlin Labor Day weekend of 1989.   And I was there when the Wall came down, and the Ossi's flooded across the border.

All that sweat, hard work and treasure being pissed away by the current regime.

No, he didn't let Reagan win - reagan won through negotiation.  Not through provoking war.  Both sides at that time understood red lines and their importance. 

Part of the deal for Russia giving up without a fight was no NATO expansion in Eastern Europe.  there are important strategic reasons for it.  What's happening now is a far greater risk for war than anything Reagan did.