Posted on 06/19/2009 9:48:05 AM PDT by LSUfan
Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.
One need look no further than President Obama's cautiously timid response to the demands of freedom from Iranians. Contrast this with Reagan's response to similar demands from Poles in the 1980s and the miserable inadequacy of the Obama foreign policy is thrust into a stark and shameful relief.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Wow, what a great article. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
Those were the years I left the Democratic Party, which I learned as a youngster was the “party of the people. I looked at what Carter had done, and then I looked at what Regan was doing, and I decided if Regan was a Republican than I wanted to be one too.
Good Lord, please send us another one like him!
You totally ignored the Battle of Cowpens (and Kings Mountain, 3 months earlier). These deprvied the British of the ability to hold the countryside in—at least—South Carolina, and restricted them to fortified cities. A classic example of a great power losing an insurgency; able to hold cities, but a countryside belonging to insurgents. Cowpens, was, by the way, a “full scale battle” that the Continental Army won WITHOUT French assitance.
—But even with that surrender, the British were far from beaten militarily. What caused the war to conclude was internal politics in Britain where the war was decidedly unpopular and increasingly unaffordable. Parliament under Whig leadership finally forced King George to call an end to it.—
That sounds an awful lot like the excuse I heard back in the 1970s, to wit: “We never lost a battle in Vietnam. We only lost because Congress (i.e. the American people) pulled the plug on it.” Sorry, but a defeat is a defeat, and if you wear down an enemy enough that his government decides it’s not worth thowing good money (and lives) after bad, you’ve still won.
No sh*&
Hardly 'full scale' -- only about 1000 men on each side.
Don't misunderstand me. Cowpens was an very important battle. In winning, the Americans not only hurt Cornwallis by killing or capturing the majority of his light calvary (Tarrelton's Dragoons) as well as some of his best and most seasoned infantry troops, but it was also a sorely needed psychological boost to the American side. For the first time, they showed they could stand toe-to-toe with the British in the South which brought more volunteers to the American side and discouraged Loyalists from joining the British side.
But no, it was not a 'full-scale' battle of armies. A few months later, the Battle of Gilford Courthouse had 5 times as many men involved (4000 Americans vs 2000 Brits) and then Yorktown with well over 20,000 American and French troops facing 9000 Brits. Those are 'full scale' battles.
That sounds an awful lot like the excuse I heard back in the 1970s, to wit: “We never lost a battle in Vietnam. We only lost because Congress (i.e. the American people) pulled the plug on it.”
Well, I have never said that because it would be inaccurate. Congress (a post-Watergate leftie congress) pulled the plug on the South Vietnamese in 1975, two years after the last US combat troops left. No, we did not win the war. But when we left, the commie side was significantly weakened and the ARVN was doing pretty damn good until the political hacks in DC cut them off at the knees and ended up getting a couple million SE Asians butchered as a result.
I have had a burning hatred for that lefties ever since.
"Let's wait till they get them and then do something..." DUH IN SPADES YOU DYSFUNCTIONAL IDIOT! You are an IDIOT SUPREME!
Didn’t anyone finance our war and newly formed nation?
The two situations aren't as comparable as the writer thinks.
China in 1989 might be a closer parallel. We didn't do anything then either.
Reagan and Poland in 1981 was pretty atypical.
And even with Reagan's actions, Jaruzelski still imposed martial law.
When something is defined as an "internal matter" it's hard for foreign governments to do much about it, then or now.
“I have had a burning hatred for that lefties ever since.”
Just wait until they do the same with Iraq and Afghanistan.
—ARVN was doing pretty damn good until the political hacks in DC cut them off at the knees—
ARVN got skunked every time it went up against PAVN regulars*
*unless, as at An Loc, it had a buttload of American air support.
Yup. Feb 6, 1802--Congress heeded Thomas Jefferson and declared war on what was then called Tripoli.
One need look no further than President Obama's cautiously timid response to the demands of freedom from Iranians. Contrast this with Reagan's response to similar demands from Poles in the 1980s and the miserable inadequacy of the Obama foreign policy is thrust into a stark and shameful relief.And of course, another glance at Zero bowing to his royal master can't hurt, either.
Guess you never heard of declaring war on Mexico in 1846.
Thanks for playing, but just not ready for prime time.
They did pretty good until the Russians poured in equipment that we did not match. Once we left, Moscow went nuts on aid the the NVA and we did not follow suit. They had our air and equipment support until Nixon resigned, but after thet, with a radical Congress in Washington, they were on their own against the NVA, the USSR and China.
I sure wouldn't want to be in that boat. Would you?
IMHO, if Nixon hadn't resigned, they would have survived.
BTW. Many of those ARVN were very good men who deserve our respect.
Given time, they would have done fine.
Pollyanna, much?
bump
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.