Posted on 02/09/2015 3:54:55 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
No, I liked Reagan. Except in retrospect, I believe he made a blunder, in arming the head choppers in Afghanistan against the USSR.
He helped create along with Carter a formidable Islamic army that is now terrorizing the world.
zzzz
Thank God he led to the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, without that WWIII might have happened.
I bet that does bug you about the actions he took to defeat the Russians, and here we are all these years later, and you are still rooting for them and still opposing our most Reagan like politicians, because of their opposition to Russian invasions.
Bump!
I support Cruz but not on this as we should have nothing to do with it at all.
>>and our military is superb.
How will it work, and who will it work against, when the Sodomites assume complete dominion?
There is no god but the Tzar!
http://www.google.com/#q=There+is+no+god+but+the+Tzar
Meet the New Ba’al, same as the Old Ba’al
—The OprichWho?
I’m sorry to hear Ted take this position. If Europe won’t defend Unkraine why should we. Right on Russia’s border. Come on man. What happens if this doesn’t work. “Special advisors”? Troops?
History tells me that Kiev was the first capitol of early history Russia. Ukraine has been part of Poland, Lithuania, the Cossack empire, and others, but Ukraine is a 20th century invention. There had never been a free and independant Ukraine until 1991/1992.
Russia has made agreements with the west, including agreements that we would not extend NATO to her borders, and we have violated those agreements. Putin and Russia have taken advantage of the fact that we are distracted and our leadership is impotent to push back against the west. I believe that Russia is prepared to plunge us into a war that we don't want, and can't win. Yes, I said a war we can not win. Not only that, but Germany has been allied with both Russia and the US in the past. I believe that when the NATO alliance cracks, Germany could go either way.
This is my opinion. I feel that we should use diplomacy to solve this issue. It can be done. And as for Ted Cruz, he agrees with Senator John McCain, which tells me he is on the wrong side of this issue. I am marking Cruz off of my 2016 list. He was in my top three (with Walker and Fiorina). Now, I'll put him just above the Huckster and BushIII at the bottom of my list.
Thank God he led to the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, without that WWIII might have happened.
Well, that did help start it. We are in it against the Islamists.
When the USSR left Afghan, the mujahideen al qaeda crowd, with western supplied sidewinder, AK 47s,and US training went and took over Kosovo.
Now that crown is raising hell in Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Nigeria and throughout the ME. And might I add the UK, France, Germany, Holland, etc.
You need to grasp who our enemy is - hint the sharia Islamists , not Russia. Wake up, it's a new day.
No, this isn’t WWIII, this is closer to peacetime than a war measuring the dead by the 100s of millions, perhaps even the thousands of millions, and losing Europe entirely to the Russians.
Diplomacy has failed, we need a more muscular Reagan style diplomacy, that means we use some sticks as well.
Cruz, Palin, and Reagan are right.
Your supporting Obama weakness is the opposite of what we need.
Hi Paul R., sorry for the late response to your post.
When the Soviet Union dissolved, Ukraine agreed to the elimination and /or removal of its nuclear weapons to Russia.
Ukraine signed and ratified deals to this effect in return for support for their nuclear power program and money. The agreement did not include a pledge of security from the United States.
This decision may not have been in Ukraine’s interest, but it is one they made.
My confidence in the Obama Administrations ability to pull that off are zero. Then again, we have John F'n Kerry negotiating for us. That gives us an equally zero chance of negotiating an end to the crisis.
When this broke out, I believed that Ukraine could accept aid and trade from the West, while Moscow could do the same. Ukraine could have had the best of both worlds. That outcome seems impossible now, and I don't see a military option that isn't bloody, long, and ultimately counter-productive. Also, given our lack of resolve in conflicts since 1945, our government would ultimately pull out (See Vietnam)when it is politically expedient, leaving the Europeans to deal with the repercussions. When that happens, NATO is over, and we will be in a period of global realignment. We will not fare well unless we have a new regime in place at that time.
No one is talking about military options to deal with this Russian invasion, so no reason to mention it.
Like almost everyone of the pro-Russia crowd, you seem to say we need more aggressive leadership, but at the same time oppose doing anything, it doesn’t make any sense,
Right now pressure is being put on Obama to supply arms to Ukraine, I hope he adds that to all of the other things like sanctions and creating a rapid reaction force, and relocating military assets, that he is doing. Constructive actions that are the opposite of all these calls to submit to Russian military goals.
Can you name one, please? Specifically about NATO.
Please explain how Pat thinks a country can “re-annex” its own territory.
You didn’t answer my question, and you are providing no context for Pat’s argument.
What don't you understand, is Pat wrong on the facts, if so what are they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.