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 sounds a neocon version of “Jesus was a liberal”.
Because the America of Ronald Reagan were the good guys…
“Their claim to their lands and culture is far stronger than ours”
Is this your schtick now? Condoning invasions and war of conquest by nations that have a “strong claim to lands and culture”?
Was Saddam your guy too?
China - Taiwan
North Korea - South Korea
It’s all about having a “strong claim” against another country’s territory?
In the nuclear age condoning wars of territorial conquest is Bad okay? Like, immoral.
Are you going to stack up all the deprivations and deaths in the RUS-UKR war and say they’re of lesser significance than corrupt, homo politicians and purple flags? I bet you will in some mad, Stronk! claim
Doesn’t matter what someone thinks Reagan would have done. What the globalists did, and are doing, to Russia is totally wrong.
The evil WEF has for decades worked to remove anyone not supporting their agendas.
LOL. Sure is pantloads of BS peddled about here today.
I am glad I have a couple appointments to go to.
After the Marines were killed in Beirut Reagan stayed out of lots of those messes. Buchanan was helpful with that.
If true, that party needs to die.
Spare us the Neocon propaganda.
Its not the 1930s.
Putin is not Hitler.
The Cold War is over.
Ukraine is not an ally.
Ukraine is not a Democracy.
America has no vital national interest in Ukraine.
As a Reagan Republican, I have not been and shall not be a supporter of the messy “I divorce you - no, you can’t!”
situation between Russia and The Ukraine.
[Instead the West economically raped it.]
What? We (the West) bought their gas and rented their rockets, sold them uranium even. The West did their best to lead them to civilization. I guess Patton was right.
“The Republican Party of Reagan would be Ukraine’s strongest supporters”
I proudly voted for Reagan 4 times (primaries and general in ‘80 and ‘84), and while people like me would have supported fighting the Soviet Union in every possible way...the Soviet Union has ceased to exist. That’s not to say that Russia hasn’t and isn’t doing bad things - of course they are - but understanding the degree and nature of the threat is a thing.
Back then, you had a seemingly all-powerful and highly aggressive USSR trying to undermine and ultimately take over the West. Now Russia, the core of the USSR on every level, is bereft of not just its client states, but also of many of the former Soviet “republics.” Russia has an economy the size of New York State’s, it has a rapidly declining population, and it is incredibly vulnerable to foreign enemies. It is, basically, a Turd World country...except for those thousands of nukes.
The idea of seriously risking a nuclear exchange with the USSR was anathema to Reagan - and it is he (with Bill Casey) who engineered the bloodless fall of the evil Communist regime that ran/owned Russia for 75 years. Now there is even less reason to risk such a civilization-ending conflict - Russia simply wants to return to the physical security that it had 30 or so years ago, at a time when they know that they will never be able to field a truly large army again to defend themselves. Their incredible weakness in military technology and in the effective use of whatever manpower and equipment that they have, is a source of great insecurity for them, and us sending tens of billions in equipment plus supplying training and intelligence to Ukraine only makes that worse. You really, REALLY do NOT want a nuclear superpower to be insecure - that’s a recipe for having things turn out anything but well, and I am 100% confident that Reagan would be opposed to what Biden and the War Party (both Dems and Pubbies) are doing. He’d be negotiating a deal that would leave Russia very secure...within a box that they couldn’t leave. They are no threat to us, only to their neighbors because of insecurities that we have purposely exacerbated.
I propose this here again.
Why would it not be just as effective in stopping Russia’s ability to wage war in Ukraine by the USA drilling, fracking, and pumping oil like mad to lower the world price? If Russia cannot sell HTEIR oil at a certain price floor, they cannot maintain their own economy at home, much less wage war in Ukraine. Just like the US bankrupted the Soviet Union in an arms race they could not keep up in, this would actually tank their economy as opposed to the current “sanctions” that hurt us as much or more than Russia.
Thoughts?
The Hill seems to be going down hill of late. The problem is Zelensky scorned Republicans and put all his eggs in the Democrat basket. He then paid off the son of the POTUS. So the one running the show in the Ukraine is totally depraved and corrupt.
I know I bet Mike is all for the continued economic relationship with China. China today is America’s chief foe not Russia. He might want to consider that Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy’s.
“ack to the main subject. Agreed. Reagan never would have been sucked into a Ukrainian war for had his policies proceeded after his terms, Russia would have been treated like any other beaten enemy, such as Japan and Germany. Today Japan and Germany are our allies. There is no reason Russia could not have been turned into an ally too.”
The way we view the world wars have changed and frankly Reagan was wrong in regards to the first world war. The tragedy in WWI, is that Wilson lied and had the USA enter that tragic war.
France never should have allied with Russia, should have let the Kaiser get it. France and England just didn’t like having a new kid on the block.
Are The Hill writers suddenly now supportive of Reagan and his policies? Just like the left now supports Bush and Romney who they despised just a few short years ago.
I have a distrust of people who tell me I should base my political positions on what someone else (now deceased) would support, when that person is obviously not available to state their actual position.
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.