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 ...
pwotUS... panty-waist (or waste :-) of the U.S.
Yeah, it took the House to actually make the first “official” statement on behalf of the country in favor of the protesters. What a pathetic excuse for a POTUS we have now. He’s not even worthy enough to shine Reagan’s shoes.
Does anyone really belive that the Framers would have cared about what was going on in what was then called Persia? I doubt it. Certainly George Washington would not have cared. Remember, if we keep sticking our nose where it does not belong it will get smacked sooner or later. Oh, wait. That’s already happened! My bad.
Obama’s shame. He is a disgrace to free people. This cowardly identifies with dictators, and islamic extremists.
The truth is exactly what it appears to be, he is *not* on the side of the protesters.
I would like to avoid getting involved in Persia, but since we are "The Great Satan" and only about 30 minutes flight time by ICBM from there, it is to our advantage to help them get rid of the nutjob.
My word. When the “Framers” were around there was no such thing as nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles or Hezbollah and Al Qaeda either.
But Thomas Jefferson sure as HELL cared about what happened on the high seas in the Mediterranean Sea. He declared war on the Barbary pirates and the Navy and Marine Corps went “to the shores of Tripoli...” The rest is history.
Evidently, you never had a lesson in history, or else you would never have made such an ignorant statement in the first place.
Obama is no Reagan.
Obama is no Lincoln.
Obama is no Washington.
Heck, Obama is not even a Nixon.
At this point, Obama would have to seriously step up his game to be a poor imitation of Carter ... but he still has 3 years and 7 months to improve. Granted, it’s a long shot ...
1. Sorry about the typo. Type in haste, repent in leisure.
2. Iran has ICBMs? Wow, you’ve got some good sources! Last I heard, they’re weren’t able to cobble together a “Fat Man/Little Boy” type A-bomb yet.
3. The Old World has been nothing but a source of grief and mischief for the New World. That is why, until the ghastly Woodrow Wilson chose to involve the USA in the “Great War” in Europe, all earlier administrations chose to keep the USA at arms length from that part of the Globe.
—But Thomas Jefferson sure as HELL cared about what happened on the high seas in the Mediterranean Sea. He declared war on the Barbary pirates and the Navy and Marine Corps went “to the shores of Tripoli...” The rest is history.—
That was because trade with Europe was being compromised by the pirates. IOW, he did it for the $$$. Not a very good reason to spend blood and treasure. At any rate, we didn’t make the same mistake until 1898, when we annexed the Phillipines, thus setting the stage for involvement in the Pacific conflict with Japan decades later. Oh, and lay off the ad hominem crap, OK.
—My word. When the “Framers” were around there was no such thing as nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles or Hezbollah and Al Qaeda either.—
1. Unless you know something most intelligence agencies around the world don’t know, there aren’t any nuclear weapons or ICBMs in Iran at this moment.
2. Hezbollah is a threat primarily to Lebanon and Israel.
great article - thanks - he sure as hell ISN’T Reagan - sadly, more like Chamberlain
Or, for that matter, the encouragement to Hungarian revolutionaries the US gave back in 1956; and we (i.e. the Eisenhower administration and NATO) did nothing when the Soviets crushed the uprising.
It’s not hard at all to imagine they would have simply cared. It might be hard to imagine them intervening, but it’s nearly impossible to imagine Washington remaining silent, if his silence was clearly shown to be directly assisting a tyrant. It’s nearly impossible to imagine there would not be extensive thinking and writing about the situation in Iran.
Also, it’s not exactly honest to say that Iran has not been a menace to legitimate American interests since it was formed in ‘79.
Iran siezed our embassy and held the personel for over a year.
Iran bombed Khobar Towers.
Iran repeatedly threatens a vital American economic interest by menacing the straits of Hormuz.
Iran directly murdered countless American soldiers in the Iraq war. This is not even a matter of doubt.
It’s pretty hard to imagine the founders enduring such an enemy for much more than 30 years without acting.
Besides, all anyone asks of Obama is to say that America thinks the protesters are in the right. Moral support is all anyone is asking. Theres no moral risk in identifying right from wrong.
Yeah, it was our own fault for getting into WW2 because we got the Philippines in 1898. It had NOTHING to do with Japanese aggression.
Isn’t there a Ron Paulestinian web site you can go troll on?
Reagan spoke words of support for the Poles, was that wrong too?
I agree with avoiding foreign entanglements, but it is not a one-sided deal. Just because we want to make make peace won't necessarily prevent an attack.
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.