Land of Free

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wouldn’t say I was a fan of Reagan’s, rather I was supportive of his policies. I did believe that the Russians were a threat to us and the free world, a belief that is supported by Putin’s policies in present day Russia.

Following Carter’s disastrous Presidency, something had to change regarding America’s position in the world, and I think Reagan was the right guy in the right place at the right time.

As a Republican, I am very disappointed in Bush, but not surprised. I think anybody with the wherewithal to do a little research, and read a little news, would have seen what Bush was about, and well before he took office.

Ultimately, the people are responsible for those we elect, and Bush is our responsibility (those that voted for him, that is).

[NotCranky]

Somehow I think Bush is our collective responsibilty regardless of who we voted for or if we didn’t vote at all.I would be estatic, just to be confident that such a disaster could never happen again. Unfortuantely, I think there is a good chance we will get worse.

I think our major difference in any discusion we could have on politics is our view on the value or correctness,if you will, of the United State’s super power position in the world. I know you have serious problems with our current presentation to the world but I also feel you believe it should always be us in front. This belief on a majority scale will always lead to an “us or them” stance and war because a democracy will appease that ingrained sentiment. Not to say I am ready to capitulate to the next bully nation. My hopes are that any future threats of a new dominant society will lead to cooperative improvements in the management of the world. How that would work? I haven’t a clue.

As far as knowlege of the events and characters of history,I would be be playing catch up with you if I studied for a decade.

I tend to think my position in general would have me come up with a better opinion of Carter than you suggest you have, or at least of his aims and policies, you might have a good opinion of the man.

[NotCranky]

Somehow I think Bush is our collective responsibilty regardless of who we voted for or if we didn’t vote at all.I would be estatic, just to be confident that such a disaster could never happen again. Unfortuantely, I think there is a good chance we will get worse.

I think our major difference in any discusion we could have on politics is our view on the value or correctness,if you will, of the United State’s super power position in the world. I know you have serious problems with our current presentation to the world but I also feel you believe it should always be us in front. This belief on a majority scale will always lead to an “us or them” stance and war because a democracy will appease that ingrained sentiment. Not to say I am ready to capitulate to the next bully nation. My hopes are that any future threats of a new dominant society will lead to cooperative improvements in the management of the world. How that would work? I haven’t a clue.

As far as knowlege of the events and characters of history,I would be be playing catch up with you if I studied for a decade.

I tend to think my position in general would have me come up with a better opinion of Carter than you suggest you have, or at least of his aims and policies, you might have a good opinion of the man.

[NotCranky]

Somehow I think Bush is our collective responsibilty regardless of who we voted for or if we didn’t vote at all.I would be estatic, just to be confident that such a disaster could never happen again. Unfortuantely, I think there is a good chance we will get worse.

I think our major difference in any discusion we could have on politics is our view on the value or correctness,if you will, of the United State’s super power position in the world. I know you have serious problems with our current presentation to the world but I also feel you believe it should always be us in front. This belief on a majority scale will always lead to an “us or them” stance and war because a democracy will appease that ingrained sentiment. Not to say I am ready to capitulate to the next bully nation. My hopes are that any future threats of a new dominant society will lead to cooperative improvements in the management of the world. How that would work? I haven’t a clue.

As far as knowlege of the events and characters of history,I would be be playing catch up with you if I studied for a decade.

I tend to think my position in general would have me come up with a better opinion of Carter than you suggest you have, or at least of his aims and policies, you might have a good opinion of the man.

[NotCranky]

Somehow I think Bush is our collective responsibilty regardless of who we voted for or if we didn’t vote at all.I would be estatic, just to be confident that such a disaster could never happen again. Unfortuantely, I think there is a good chance we will get worse.

I think our major difference in any discusion we could have on politics is our view on the value or correctness,if you will, of the United State’s super power position in the world. I know you have serious problems with our current presentation to the world but I also feel you believe it should always be us in front. This belief on a majority scale will always lead to an “us or them” stance and war because a democracy will appease that ingrained sentiment. Not to say I am ready to capitulate to the next bully nation. My hopes are that any future threats of a new dominant society will lead to cooperative improvements in the management of the world. How that would work? I haven’t a clue.

As far as knowlege of the events and characters of history,I would be be playing catch up with you if I studied for a decade.

I tend to think my position in general would have me come up with a better opinion of Carter than you suggest you have, or at least of his aims and policies, you might have a good opinion of the man.

[NotCranky]

Somehow I think Bush is our collective responsibilty regardless of who we voted for or if we didn’t vote at all.I would be estatic, just to be confident that such a disaster could never happen again. Unfortuantely, I think there is a good chance we will get worse.

I think our major difference in any discusion we could have on politics is our view on the value or correctness,if you will, of the United State’s super power position in the world. I know you have serious problems with our current presentation to the world but I also feel you believe it should always be us in front. This belief on a majority scale will always lead to an “us or them” stance and war because a democracy will appease that ingrained sentiment. Not to say I am ready to capitulate to the next bully nation. My hopes are that any future threats of a new dominant society will lead to cooperative improvements in the management of the world. How that would work? I haven’t a clue.

As far as knowlege of the events and characters of history,I would be be playing catch up with you if I studied for a decade.

I tend to think my position in general would have me come up with a better opinion of Carter than you suggest you have, or at least of his aims and policies, you might have a good opinion of the man.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would agree with you on certain points, and disagree with you on others.

I think Carter’s appeasement of Brezhnev and the Soviet Union, and his willingness to turn a blind eye to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, as well as doing nothing while the Cubans were running riot in Angola, did tremendous damage to US prestige throughout the world, and encouraged other despots, who no longer feared America as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

In an earlier time, Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, along with France and Britain’s standing idle during the Anschluss and the later annexation of Czechoslovakia, led directly to the invasion of Poland in 1939 and WWII.

Appeasement does not work. I am not arguing for war, rather I am arguing that History is brutally unforgiving when it comes to the weak or the morally unwilling.

As to our being in front, I would argue that the UN’s involvement in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, etc has been nothing short of disastrous. Even a morally divisive war like Vietnam is remarkable for what happened after the US left Southeast Asia, meaning the genocidal actions of the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge following the “liberation”.

I would never argue that the US is always right. Far from it. We have more than our share of blood on our hands, and our actions at times have been far from pure. But sometimes the alternative is not between good and bad, but bad and worse.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would agree with you on certain points, and disagree with you on others.

I think Carter’s appeasement of Brezhnev and the Soviet Union, and his willingness to turn a blind eye to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, as well as doing nothing while the Cubans were running riot in Angola, did tremendous damage to US prestige throughout the world, and encouraged other despots, who no longer feared America as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

In an earlier time, Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, along with France and Britain’s standing idle during the Anschluss and the later annexation of Czechoslovakia, led directly to the invasion of Poland in 1939 and WWII.

Appeasement does not work. I am not arguing for war, rather I am arguing that History is brutally unforgiving when it comes to the weak or the morally unwilling.

As to our being in front, I would argue that the UN’s involvement in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, etc has been nothing short of disastrous. Even a morally divisive war like Vietnam is remarkable for what happened after the US left Southeast Asia, meaning the genocidal actions of the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge following the “liberation”.

I would never argue that the US is always right. Far from it. We have more than our share of blood on our hands, and our actions at times have been far from pure. But sometimes the alternative is not between good and bad, but bad and worse.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would agree with you on certain points, and disagree with you on others.

I think Carter’s appeasement of Brezhnev and the Soviet Union, and his willingness to turn a blind eye to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, as well as doing nothing while the Cubans were running riot in Angola, did tremendous damage to US prestige throughout the world, and encouraged other despots, who no longer feared America as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

In an earlier time, Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, along with France and Britain’s standing idle during the Anschluss and the later annexation of Czechoslovakia, led directly to the invasion of Poland in 1939 and WWII.

Appeasement does not work. I am not arguing for war, rather I am arguing that History is brutally unforgiving when it comes to the weak or the morally unwilling.

As to our being in front, I would argue that the UN’s involvement in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, etc has been nothing short of disastrous. Even a morally divisive war like Vietnam is remarkable for what happened after the US left Southeast Asia, meaning the genocidal actions of the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge following the “liberation”.

I would never argue that the US is always right. Far from it. We have more than our share of blood on our hands, and our actions at times have been far from pure. But sometimes the alternative is not between good and bad, but bad and worse.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would agree with you on certain points, and disagree with you on others.

I think Carter’s appeasement of Brezhnev and the Soviet Union, and his willingness to turn a blind eye to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, as well as doing nothing while the Cubans were running riot in Angola, did tremendous damage to US prestige throughout the world, and encouraged other despots, who no longer feared America as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

In an earlier time, Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, along with France and Britain’s standing idle during the Anschluss and the later annexation of Czechoslovakia, led directly to the invasion of Poland in 1939 and WWII.

Appeasement does not work. I am not arguing for war, rather I am arguing that History is brutally unforgiving when it comes to the weak or the morally unwilling.

As to our being in front, I would argue that the UN’s involvement in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, etc has been nothing short of disastrous. Even a morally divisive war like Vietnam is remarkable for what happened after the US left Southeast Asia, meaning the genocidal actions of the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge following the “liberation”.

I would never argue that the US is always right. Far from it. We have more than our share of blood on our hands, and our actions at times have been far from pure. But sometimes the alternative is not between good and bad, but bad and worse.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would agree with you on certain points, and disagree with you on others.

I think Carter’s appeasement of Brezhnev and the Soviet Union, and his willingness to turn a blind eye to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, as well as doing nothing while the Cubans were running riot in Angola, did tremendous damage to US prestige throughout the world, and encouraged other despots, who no longer feared America as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

In an earlier time, Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, along with France and Britain’s standing idle during the Anschluss and the later annexation of Czechoslovakia, led directly to the invasion of Poland in 1939 and WWII.

Appeasement does not work. I am not arguing for war, rather I am arguing that History is brutally unforgiving when it comes to the weak or the morally unwilling.

As to our being in front, I would argue that the UN’s involvement in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, etc has been nothing short of disastrous. Even a morally divisive war like Vietnam is remarkable for what happened after the US left Southeast Asia, meaning the genocidal actions of the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge following the “liberation”.

I would never argue that the US is always right. Far from it. We have more than our share of blood on our hands, and our actions at times have been far from pure. But sometimes the alternative is not between good and bad, but bad and worse.

[Sandi Egan]

WOW!
This video you will like!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE

[Sandi Egan]

WOW!
This video you will like!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE

[Sandi Egan]

WOW!
This video you will like!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE

[Sandi Egan]

WOW!
This video you will like!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE

[Author]

Posts