Posted on 03/24/2023 7:58:23 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
In 1984 on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, Ronald Reagan ascended the windswept stage of Pointe Du Hook, Normandy to commemorate one of the greatest sacrifices in the defense of freedom the world had ever seen.
“We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars,” Reagan declared. “It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We’ve learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.”
Nearly 40 years after he spoke those words, Reagan’s remarks should serve as a stark reminder and warning to leaders looking out at an increasingly unsettled world who are tempted by the siren’s call of American isolationism, rather than declaring and reaffirming the value of American leadership.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
This is territorial dispute, going on violently since 2014. Russia's inability to manage this skirmish is a key sign that expansionism would be folly.
The West's failure to resolve this through enforcement of the Minsk agreements is the foundation for the Russian action.
Reagan supported the Mujahadin in Afghanistan against the Soviets. And this was after the Islamic overthrow of Iran. He would absolutely have supported Ukraine.
Reagan would likely even have deployed NATO into Ukraine and driven the Russians back inside their borders within a month. And he’d have had Lance and Pershing IIs inside Ukraine during and after the war. The Soviet Union would have collapsed then and there.
Reagan knew the absolute fraud of the Soviet system which is why he was so confident in opposing it.
Here’s almost right — Reagan’s Vice President would have been one of Ukraine’s strongest supporter.
Hey that’s not true. Joe Bidens son Beau died in Iraq during the war. I heard the president tell the story.
The “Soviet system” is a historic artifact.
You want to fight ghosts.
No he would not. It is a different time and a different place.
The war in Ukraine is a European affair, let them handle it.
But before they get too involved they might want to catch up on how a minor dispute turned into WWI, you know the GREAT WAR, the war to end all wars.
Ok, I stopped laughing.
You know they're losing when they invoke Reagan. Of course, Ronaldus Magnus isn't around to rebut this nonsense.
Best response: And the Democrat Party in Reagan's day supported the communist Soviet Union.
Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Did not seek reelection to congress in 2014.
Freedom Index: https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-index/legislator/r000572/
Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/Mike_Rogers_(Michigan)
Would Reagan have been played by the Straussians into accepting their world view and plans?
I Kinda give Reagan the benefit of believing he was not, by blood or genetics, part of the secret club. But swayed by their persuasions to shape our foreign policies and to maintain the noble lie.
Russia itself is a historic artifact. It is also completely fraudulent, even moreso than the Soviet Union as it has no ideology other than plunder and exploitation -which is the basis of the Russian nation’s founding and purpose.
Russia is weaker now than in 1984, the establishment is a lot stronger. I know which one Reagan would have concentrated on defeating. If Reagan were still in charge, Russia wouldn’t be an enemy now.
This dumbass thinks he is still in Washington DC, where throwing around half-baked analogies and stupid slogans is enough to climb the greasy pole.
Reagan would never have broken our economy to support Poland or East Germany. Reagan utilized "Cost Benefit" analysis when it came to policy. We have not had a president since with the balls to return to cost benefit analysis so we remain mired in "Rights Benefit" analysis and up to our eyes in debt. There is NO cost benefit analysis in supporting the Ukraine. Send them some arms and ammo, but billions of dollars, hell no!
Problem with history is you have to study it before you write about it. Apparently that is not a requirement for Hill pundits.
Reagan was asked in 1988, if he thought the Soviet Union was still the Evil Empire, he said, “No.”
Reagan wanted to help Russia recover from the Soviet Era. His successors simply wanted to dance on their grave and exploit it.
Reagan confronted them in Afghanistan with Stinger missiles. Central America-Contras. Then think Star Wars. It’s not what you know it’s what others THINK you know. If he would have just ‘bounced’ a couple of torpedos off of those Cuban troop ships bound for Angola-wait that was Ford.
Afghanistan and Nicaragua were outside the Soviet orbit. In Ukraine they think like a kleptomaniac would.
Im pretty sure Gorby and the Gipper agreed no NATO on Russian borders. We have broken every promise since.
Nope.
Two former Soviet states in a land squabble, let them fight.
The powerful propaganda machine directed by the Biden administration has done a good job selling their product. The pro-war position. If we had an honest press, I think the nation would be calling for peace.
All the people around at the end of the Soviet Union - Reagan, Bush, Schultz, Weinberger, James Baker, even Dick Cheney, never would have imagined a Ukraine separated from Russia and certainly would have never considered a war with Russia over places right on its border, like Donbas and certainly not Crimea.
That came later, with the rise of neocons, their empire, and the globalist, woke bubble-thinking of Washington DC.
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.