Well then Buttercup, as I told another chest thumping hyperpatriot banging the war drums last week, you have a duty as an American to contact Fedgov and turn me and all those like me in as the foreign agents you believe us to be. At the very least, ping JR and have us zotted as liberal scum.
Of course you could haZ a problem with said Fedgov when that is shown false.
Are you comparing Reagan and the military under Reagan to the collection of directionless lying crapweasles in office today? Really? You think that Bhenghazi Barry and his merry band of Dem/GOP frauds are going to have the guts to mirror Reagan and back up his policies?
Because when your internet bluster is over and shooting starts, that’s what happens in war. When you begin the game of backing one hostile country with food, med supplies ect, that is in and of itself an act of war. Whether justified or not, you are providing aid to the enemy of the other country and you are now SQUARELY on one side of the conflict. And walking away when the shooting starts is NOT an option. Actions incur consequences.
Now if you are Ronald Reagan, that is a beautiful thing because your army, your enemy and the greater world at large know you are resolute in determination and are going to back your play to the hilt. You will finish what you involved yourself in.
When you are Bhenghazi Barry, you have not drawn red lines in the sand and blew the hell out of Lybia when they crossed them as did Reagan. Instead, you have drawn MULTIPLE red lines in the sand and backed away from each and every one time and again. Your army knows that their CIC will jail them for fighting the enemy or strip them of command, the enemy knows that if they wait 5 min your will will crumble and the world at large knows your idea of resolute determination ends at hiding your college records.
No, short of Israel who has been our lightning rod over in that craphole of a mid east, we should stop sending countries money and aid. It does not make the world more dangerous because most of them are using it to fund terror, buy weapons, start wars of their own and general stick it to their idiot benefactors who stand there wondering WTF just happened.
Now all the above is easily researched and provable/proven. As such, take your ‘appeasement’ talking point and shove it firmly yet lovingly, with special attention to social justice, homosexual rights for the military and perhaps a slice of lime for added ‘zing’.
You’re over compensating, posting as a tough guy, doesn’t hide the distinct lack of spine you have shown here, “Buttercup”.
The Russians are always happy to proxy against us and the one recent chance we have to pay them back - you instead hide behind Obama and grab your ankles because Putin pretends to be a scary guy.
Why are you even bad mouthing Obama? He is nearly being the total wuss you demand America must be, because of... you know, “consequences”. You should be cheering Obama!
Reagan Administration members and supporters saw that sanctions against the Soviet Union and its proxies worked. Even some Democrats agreed. But many high-profile Democrats disagreed, because they refused to acknowledge reality or support defense.
Sanctions against a nation will weaken that nation if implemented by a more ingenuous, hard working nation. If such nation has had a history of such strength but is lacking due to decline by way of decadence and tyranny by a non-technical political class, that nation will be forced to honor its real men again. That’s what many in anti-defense circles are afraid of.
Leftists, radical feminists for example, while arguing against national defense, have argued that for any measure to work, it must completely solve a problem and solve the problem all by itself. That’s a fallacy. Feminists have only used such illogic when arguing against conservative social norms. They haven’t applied the same lie to their own bandwagons—e.g., “stop domestic violence—another fallacy, in that they are the ones claiming that such violence can be stopped in totality by laws that helped to destroy families.
And in the contemporary West, there has been a strange alliance between such counter-culture associations, business, other political and academic interests. Corrections against that will be made one way or another. It’s an unnatural condition and cannot be maintained for long.
No one has argued that sanctions against a foreign enemy will stop the enemy from initiating aggression without any other measures being implemented. That’s the false, implied premise of the disloyal or pathological. The West not only sanctioned against the Soviet Union for over 50 years, but many westerners worked hard on many other efforts (many of those efforts in cooperation with friends who suffered under the Soviet Union) and remained ever-ready for physical defense.
Some groups of people in the Soviet Union sanctioned their own government by being more frugal and becoming more self-sufficient in stealthy ways wherever possible (examples: Czechoslovakia and Poland). The People’s Republic of Poland was sanctioned by the Reagan Administration because of its attempts to crush the Solidarity movement. The sum of various measures worked, because the Soviet Union—although capable of large military buildups—had glaring weaknesses.
And no, the U.S.A., although more corrupt than the U.S.A. was, is not nearly as corrupt as Russia. Russia is one of the most corrupt nations on the planet.
CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2013 (map)
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/
Sanctions do have weakening effects to various extents on despotic regimes, as do other measures. Such stress and its other effects are part of the physical reality of the world.
The argument against sanctions is much like the argument against anti-ballistic missile defense systems. It’s a fallacious argument stating that the measure being discussed must completely solve the problem by itself.
Sanctions have nearly always been used between warring nations. No single measure will defeat an enemy or defend our country and relative freedoms. It’s the totality of good and ingenuous measures that destroy his will to fight.
Ingenuity and hard work are needed for sanctions to be effective, though. That means hiring many more men in the U.S.A. and allied countries to do technical work and many others to become men in military training. That’s what many in office-bound, influential special interests are afraid of. In time, though, they’ll have no other choice.
LOL what? Norma, you're nuts.
You start with stupid name calling, then you throw in a straw man fallacy and then you finnish with some paranoid comment that I should call the Feds on you. And that's in your first paragraph.
Now all the above is easily researched and provable/proven. As such, take your ‘appeasement’ talking point and shove it firmly yet lovingly, with special attention to social justice, homosexual rights for the military and perhaps a slice of lime for added ‘zing’.
So you got all emotional over the word "appeasement". What you are describing is appeasement. Doesn't mean that appeasement isn't the right course to take when a country as no choice for instances, because their CIC is a traitor.
For example the US has every right to send Ukraine food rations. If the US can't send food rations because they are afraid that they will start a war, that's called appeasement. Maybe it's the right decision and maybe it isn't. But it's still appeasement.
Here's a question: What does one call a thread on FreeRepublic that doesn't have Norma Lenhart flying off the handle.
Answer, an unusual event.
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.