Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RavensGrrl

Bill Clinton & Barack to meet

80 posts in this topic

Actually, Jimmy Carter had the initiatives in place. Idiot Reagan dismantled the process.

 

Idiot Reagan? Carter had ideas that were not good enough to get re-elected.

 

So Reagan is an idiot for not running with the loser's plans?

 

Reagan defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot.

 

Some idiot.

 

Reagan is right next to George Washington in the shaping of not only how we are here, but how we were viewed by the rest of the world.

 

Things started to go wrong with Clinton when he left the job in Iraq unfinished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno. Personally I'd like to retire somewhere else. Considering the dollar ain't worth crap now anyway most Americans can't afford to retire outisde the country. I don't see many from elsewhere retiring here either coming to think of it. They come here to work. Not to retire...

 

Done much traveling? The dollar won't always be down, why didn't you leave 5 or 10 years ago? Alec Baldwin and his ilk can easily afford to leave but they won't despite what they say, why? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Done much traveling? The dollar won't always be down, why didn't you leave 5 or 10 years ago? Alec Baldwin and his ilk can easily afford to leave but they won't despite what they say, why? :confused:

 

Yeah I 've done some. Been to several continents and a couple of islands. I didn't leave 10 years ago cuz I just graduated from undergrad and that wasn't on the agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Idiot Reagan? Carter had ideas that were not good enough to get re-elected.

 

So Reagan is an idiot for not running with the loser's plans?

 

Reagan defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot.

 

Some idiot.

 

Reagan is right next to George Washington in the shaping of not only how we are here, but how we were viewed by the rest of the world.

 

Things started to go wrong with Clinton when he left the job in Iraq unfinished.

 

Reagan was no genuis. He was good at reading scripts given to him. The Soviets defeated themselves; his administration was able to take advantage of the situation.

 

Daddy Bush is to blame for not finishing the Gulf War properly, not Bill Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reagan was no genuis. He was good at reading scripts given to him.
REVISION! Reagan edited the majority of the speeches given to him. he has always been the initiator of his politics. he actually got "let go" by GE because he was turning the factory tour into a political campaign writing "scripts" for himself.
The Soviets defeated themselves; his administration was able to take advantage of the situation.
more revision. Reagan's successful policies proved to the world that the Communist country was internally defunct and that they had nothing to fear from it for trying to westernize it. at the same time, he was waging a war of atrition in many South American countries, without which the Soviet agenda would have had twice as many voices on its side.

 

the Soviets were waging war from day one, all declassified evidence has proven that. McCarthy was not as paranoid as he seems, and were it not for Edward R. Murrow, he would have been vindicated the day Soviet info was declassified. as it stands, the American public's perception outweighs the truth of the matter and McCarthyism is still a buzzword for facsism, sadly.

 

by the time of Reagan's administration, Soviet Russia was decaying, but far from death. without Reagan, there would be no Perestroika; there would only be detante. Reagan's calling their bluff at the SALT II was the first major hit of the fight. The Soviets came out of that looking like neutered kittens. between that and struggles in Afghanistan (aided by Reagan's CIA), the Soviets had to enhance their public image.

 

thus spake Perestroika.

 

without Reagan's pressure, there would have been no Yeltsinian revolution.

 

Daddy Bush is to blame for not finishing the Gulf War properly, not Bill Clinton.
actually, Stormin' Norman is to blame. he, a soldier, gave the Iraqi's back their helicopters. had he been Airborne, he would have known better.

 

on a side note, if it were not for Reagan's policies prematurely ending communism, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait could have been WWIII. Reagan unknowingly saved us from worldwide destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GE Scripts? Those were in the 50's. Decades later it was a different circumstance. A teams of writers and advisors worked on and for him and his adminstration. He was acting.

 

That's not revision but a skeptical evaluation of a man who was personally pleasant but not much of a deep thinker who took advantage of cirucmstances.

 

Communism is a self defeating system in the hands of flawed humans. Selfishness wins over the "collective good". That has nothing to to do with Reagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotmatt,

 

Thanks for picking up the ball and running with it.

 

Reagan was truly a once in a lifetime President, more likely 10 lifetimes.

 

He wasn't a figurehead by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GE Scripts? Those were in the 50's. Decades later it was a different circumstance. A teams of writers and advisors worked on and for him and his adminstration. He was acting.
wow. you don't strike me as one who simply swallows party line, but please research that little bit of information a little further before repeating it in public.

 

That's not revision but a skeptical evaluation of a man who was personally pleasant but not much of a deep thinker who took advantage of cirucmstances.
holy moly, he wasn't deep? goodness gracious. like i said, i don't want to offend you and call you names because unlike some others here, you seem to be pretty reasonable. seriously, do a personal research project on Reagan from an objective POV.

 

i'm offering you blatant partisan response in the hopes you concede with the middle gorund. Reagan, like any president or human, had his faults. some were really bad, but the things you are accusing him of are simply not true or a matter of perspective.

 

Communism is a self defeating system in the hands of flawed humans. Selfishness wins over the "collective good". That has nothing to to do with Reagan.

 

it does when you understand Russian history. i read a book a while ago, "The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union," written by a reporter/historian. if you understand the culture more, you'll understand that Communism, even as corrupt and mismanaged as it was by the 80s, could have run for another hundred years without the changes Reagan's policies forced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reagan was no genuis. He was good at reading scripts given to him. The Soviets defeated themselves; his administration was able to take advantage of the situation.

 

Daddy Bush is to blame for not finishing the Gulf War properly, not Bill Clinton.

 

Daddy Bush was following the UN mandate to stop. If he kept going the "Highway of Death" might have looked like Disneyland by the time we got to Baghdad. One thing certain, the leftist AS PROVEN on this very board would have screamed bloody murder just as they do now. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daddy Bush was following the UN mandate to stop. If he kept going the "Highway of Death" might have looked like Disneyland by the time we got to Baghdad. One thing certain, the leftist AS PROVEN on this very board would have screamed bloody murder just as they do now. :rolleyes:

 

 

And Sonny disregarded the UN. What an odd family.

 

I'm personally of the opinion that having started a war, one should finish it and to me that means completely finish. Sherman and Truman got it right, wage war like hell until the earth smokes and the enemy can't lift a hand against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow. you don't strike me as one who simply swallows party line, but please research that little bit of information a little further before repeating it in public.

 

holy moly, he wasn't deep? goodness gracious. like i said, i don't want to offend you and call you names because unlike some others here, you seem to be pretty reasonable. seriously, do a personal research project on Reagan from an objective POV.

 

i'm offering you blatant partisan response in the hopes you concede with the middle gorund. Reagan, like any president or human, had his faults. some were really bad, but the things you are accusing him of are simply not true or a matter of perspective.

 

 

 

it does when you understand Russian history. i read a book a while ago, "The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union," written by a reporter/historian. if you understand the culture more, you'll understand that Communism, even as corrupt and mismanaged as it was by the 80s, could have run for another hundred years without the changes Reagan's policies forced.

 

 

Please do not insult me with the Holy Reagan Grail. He was never that insightful, intuitive,etc. He was congenial and believed the lines he spoke but he didn't create many of them. His presidency coincided with certain things that took place world wide that brought about the Kremlin crack.

 

Reagan's lack of awareness of the impact on his fellow Americans of some of the policies he implimented is a disgrace.

 

If you understood Russia, you'd know it has cycles, as do other long term groups like the Germans. Utterly predictable cycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Sonny disregarded the UN. What an odd family.

 

I'm personally of the opinion that having started a war, one should finish it and to me that means completely finish. Sherman and Truman got it right, wage war like hell until the earth smokes and the enemy can't lift a hand against you.

 

Hmm, you mean we went it alone WITHOUT UN support? No, pretty sure there were others besides us. Besides, I thought that statement was supposed to be about Daddy, not Sonny. Not a great dodge.

 

You're correct, Sherman and Truman got it right, MOST of your ilk on this board think "The Bomb" should never have been used. I'm glad he had the stones to use it <twice>, how about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please do not insult me with the Holy Reagan Grail. He was never that insightful, intuitive,etc. He was congenial and believed the lines he spoke but he didn't create many of them. His presidency coincided with certain things that took place world wide that brought about the Kremlin crack.

:rolleyes: read about it soemtime, don't regurgitae others opinions.

Reagan's lack of awareness of the impact on his fellow Americans of some of the policies he implimented is a disgrace.

link? i'll provide a link that proves you freaking wrong: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030929-488776,00.html

If you understood Russia, you'd know it has cycles, as do other long term groups like the Germans. Utterly predictable cycling.

 

you don't understand complex systems. there is no cycle, it is not predictable. what is predictable is that a serf-born society used to slavery will not rebel.

 

the october "rebellion" basically consisted of taking over a newspaper and telling 200,000,000 russians that the fight was over whether they like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, you mean we went it alone WITHOUT UN support? No, pretty sure there were others besides us. Besides, I thought that statement was supposed to be about Daddy, not Sonny. Not a great dodge.

 

You're correct, Sherman and Truman got it right, MOST of your ilk on this board think "The Bomb" should never have been used. I'm glad he had the stones to use it <twice>, how about you?

 

 

The US went to war with a "Coalition of the Willing" not official UN sanction. Please note that certain larger influential countirs in the UN opposed the war. And since the entry, please also note the number of "willing" shrank.

 

I do not have any "ilk." I am responsible only for my own opinion on this board and no one else's.

I am not glad that Truman had to authorize two bombings but I think he was ABSOLUTELY correct. When faced with a determined enemy that will not give in, who will continue to fight as the Japanese would have because they were and are tough and proud, only an overwhelming physical blow could covince them they could not win.

 

Personally, I think that only the leaders should have to fight. It would prevent a lot of wars. In the absence of that utopian thought being made war etiquette, bring down unrelenting hell on earth and quickly end resistance of any type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes: read about it soemtime, don't regurgitae others opinions.

 

link? i'll provide a link that proves you freaking wrong: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030929-488776,00.html

 

 

you don't understand complex systems. there is no cycle, it is not predictable. what is predictable is that a serf-born society used to slavery will not rebel.

 

the october "rebellion" basically consisted of taking over a newspaper and telling 200,000,000 russians that the fight was over whether they like it or not.

 

 

I am not repeating anyone's opinion but my own. I lived through the idiocy of Reagan's "bootstrap mentality" and his prejudice that cost so many people their lives because he stalled AIDS research- until after Rock Hudson made it known he was dying. I was doing social work while he was closing mental care facilities and services and tossing people on the streets. I I had clients who were unable to get medicine or even counseling after he was done. There are still repercussions in our society from the Air Traffic Controllers strike that he handled.

 

Did you read some of the comments in that Time Magazine article you linked to? Has it occurred to you that maybe there was nothing inside the man except ambition to be very important and well received?

 

You don't understand people. The Russians always go back to a strong leader/system that regulates them. That's the cycling. They are extremely tolerant of living with repression and deprivation. A certain percentage flourish in that atmosphere. They don't need serfdom or communism but they do feel more comfortable being squeezed by something/someone or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US went to war with a "Coalition of the Willing" not official UN sanction. Please note that certain larger influential countirs in the UN opposed the war. And since the entry, please also note the number of "willing" shrank.

 

I do not have any "ilk." I am responsible only for my own opinion on this board and no one else's.

I am not glad that Truman had to authorize two bombings but I think he was ABSOLUTELY correct. When faced with a determined enemy that will not give in, who will continue to fight as the Japanese would have because they were and are tough and proud, only an overwhelming physical blow could covince them they could not win.

 

Personally, I think that only the leaders should have to fight. It would prevent a lot of wars. In the absence of that utopian thought being made war etiquette, bring down unrelenting hell on earth and quickly end resistance of any type.

 

Yeah, you're right Russia, China and Iran are also in the UN so it wasn't unanimous.

 

Nice thought about "only leaders" fighting but since Japan attacked us even Hirohito could have kicked FDR's arse so we would have lost WW2. Id take Kennedy over Ho in VN, which fight would you take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, you're right Russia, China and Iran are also in the UN so it wasn't unanimous.

 

Nice thought about "only leaders" fighting but since Japan attacked us even Hirohito could have kicked FDR's arse so we would have lost WW2. Id take Kennedy over Ho in VN, which fight would you take?

 

 

You forget France and Germany didn't approve either. Moreover, some of the nations who were willing sent token support or are long gone.

 

I think you under estimate FDR. He had strong arms and might have taken Emperor Showa as long as he kept balance or they arm wrestled. JFK was a mess physically by the time he was elected but he would have been game. Kennedys like a scrap.

 

Its difficult fighting guerilla warfare tactics. Of course, if they had systematically followed defoliation with bulldozing and paving Viet Nam inch by inch, the war would have had a different ending, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that BJ Clinton will ask The ObaMessiah to make Mrs William Clinton The Veep On The Ticket and then send her to Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq and Afghanistan...and, if that doesn't work, downtown Baltimore on a Saturday night...alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You forget France and Germany didn't approve either. Moreover, some of the nations who were willing sent token support or are long gone.

 

I think you under estimate FDR. He had strong arms and might have taken Emperor Showa as long as he kept balance or they arm wrestled. JFK was a mess physically by the time he was elected but he would have been game. Kennedys like a scrap.

 

Its difficult fighting guerilla warfare tactics. Of course, if they had systematically followed defoliation with bulldozing and paving Viet Nam inch by inch, the war would have had a different ending, I think.

 

It's not uncommon for France and Germany to bow the other way no matter what the case. Wasn't it France that sent 3 or 4 generators during Katrina?

You might be right on VN, but the bigger problem was the Rules of Engagement and the politicians playing nice for public opinion home and abroad. Dinks loved building meaty targets next to hospitals and dikes. Here's a great link on ROE many that were in effect even when I was there in 72.

http://www.historynet.com/air-force-colonel-jacksel-jack-broughton-air-force-general-john-d-jack-lavelle-testing-the-rules-of-engagement-during-the-vietnam-war.htm

I wonder how many MK-82's got dropped in the gulf because they knew what we wouldn't hit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not uncommon for France and Germany to bow the other way no matter what the case. Wasn't it France that sent 3 or 4 generators during Katrina?

You might be right on VN, but the bigger problem was the Rules of Engagement and the politicians playing nice for public opinion home and abroad. Dinks loved building meaty targets next to hospitals and dikes. Here's a great link on ROE many that were in effect even when I was there in 72.

http://www.historynet.com/air-force-colonel-jacksel-jack-broughton-air-force-general-john-d-jack-lavelle-testing-the-rules-of-engagement-during-the-vietnam-war.htm

I wonder how many MK-82's got dropped in the gulf because they knew what we wouldn't hit?

 

if you don't have the balls to determine how many children are going to die to save the lives of your soldiers, don't start the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you don't have the balls to determine how many children are going to die to save the lives of your soldiers, don't start the war.

 

That's also true, McNamara, Johnson and Westmorland come to mind. Admiral Zumwalt conversely opted to defoliate every brown river in SE Asia while his own son was there. His son eventually died before the Admiral did. The grief stricken Zumwalt when asked if he would do things different he said emphatically "NO, the Orange saved more American lives then it took". This after his son died of cancer, that takes balls, I was proud to have met the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's also true, McNamara, Johnson and Westmorland come to mind. Admiral Zumwalt conversely opted to defoliate every brown river in SE Asia while his own son was there. His son eventually died before the Admiral did. The grief stricken Zumwalt when asked if he would do things different he said emphatically "NO, the Orange saved more American lives then it took". This after his son died of cancer, that takes balls, I was proud to have met the man.

 

 

What else could he believe and live with himself? I'm sorry he lost his son. I'm sorry so many died or were permanently altered in that war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What else could he believe and live with himself? I'm sorry he lost his son. I'm sorry so many died or were permanently altered in that war.

 

He could have blamed himself, gone into self pity, double guessed his decision but he didn't. He stood by it even after great personal sacrifice. I admired the man before this all came out when he was CNO, this was just icing on the cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He could have blamed himself, gone into self pity, double guessed his decision but he didn't. He stood by it even after great personal sacrifice. I admired the man before this all came out when he was CNO, this was just icing on the cake.

 

I think there are many people who can't face their decision wasn't the best choice, in hindsight. That's not admirable in my opinion. Its understandable and tragic but I have a different view of that.

 

A soldier may think one thing. A father another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there are many people who can't face their decision wasn't the best choice, in hindsight. That's not admirable in my opinion. Its understandable and tragic but I have a different view of that.

 

A soldier may think one thing. A father another.

 

We differ on that, if I can borrow a line from Star Trek. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Zumwalt looked at the larger picture outside of his own remorse.

 

One other think, he was a Navy Man, a Sailor, a notch above the rest. :rwb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites