If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
How many pictures do you think are out there of Reagan or Bush shaking hands with dictators and telling them to keep up the good work slaughtering the leftists, trade unionists, and socialists plaguing their countries? Could probably go on a while. Here's a good start: Reagan entertaining the charming Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos
Reagan had high praise for Jose Rios Montt, Dictator of Guatemala from 1982 to 1983. Described him a man of great personal integrity and full of American values. Amnesty International estimates that tens of thousands were killed by death squads on his watch, which was heartily supported by Reagan because he hated the commies. Montt is currently on trial for crimes against humanity.
Reagan extinguished the hopes of many around the world by backing dictators against the heroic, Soviet-backed freedom fighters in places like El Salvador. These noble soldiers were only trying to give their people a breath of freedom and prosperity, like that enjoyed in Cuba in the USSR, so that they could then spread this freedom and prosperity to other countries and, eventually, the United States. The bad guys won, and now the Western world lives under the yoke of oppression instead of the glory and freedom of Communism.
Reagan would never dream of sitting down with a murderous communist regime. The very thought would bring a chill to his soul. His was firmly and adamantly opposed to any normalization with communist countries.
Oh, here's Reagan delighted at an anecdote being told by lover-of-free-enterprise and supreme leader of the PRC, Deng Xiaoping.
"That's lovely,Deng, just lovely...now about us putting those IBM plants in Guanzghou..."
"I know you fund the Sandinistas and all those left-wing governments thatI say are murderous thugs, Gorby, and I'm sorry we had to overthrow them all, but I can't help loving you and I'm proud to call you a deep, deep friend"
That is not what this exchange is about. Nothing involving international relations is as black and white as some would try to make it.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
First, I think Bernie is a loon and agree with very little of what he says. And he's not a democrat. But what he said was that the people of Cuba may like Castro because Castro did some good things. That to me doesn't seem to be saying he is better than the president of the United States.
But if a 1985 interview with a socialist mayor of a tiny Vermont mayor is the best you can do, it's the best you can do.
To be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" Kobayashi
That is not what this exchange is about. Nothing involving international relations is as black and white as some would try to make it.
Of course it's what the exchange is about. It's all that it is about. Given that Hanni is pulling memes from racist YouTubers and posting them here, I suspect that Hanni doesn't think much of our current president and probably isn't concerned about murdering political enemies and crushing dissent.
To be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" Kobayashi
That is not what this exchange is about. Nothing involving international relations is as black and white as some would try to make it.
It's certainly not black and white but if liberals love dictators because they've been photographed with Castro (who, quite frankly, probably isn't even in the 20th century's 25 greatest monsters) then conservatives love any dictator that ever shook hands with Reagan (there's a lot of them).
Trump's embrace of Putin's leadership is different than posting past pictures of various summit meetings with unsavory leaders. Diplomacy with these leaders is generally more effective than sanctions or war. Saying Putin is a better leader is absolutely ridiculous and should be repudiated by everybody in no uncertain terms.
Obama inherited an absolute mess, he spent plenty of capital getting a stimulus package through when much of the world went through dumb austerity packages.
Why are US presidents of any political suasion and their agents shaking hands with these people, smiling, getting photographed with them? How about photos of FDR, Churchill and Stalin?
There are complicated reasons why that were deemed at that point in history to be advantageous to US interests.
I don't get why some sort of blame game is being played here. Nor do I find it worthwhile to try to assign character deficiencies to those from a particular political persuasion.
History is rife with tawdry relationships between the world's powerful nation states since the beginning of civilization. What is the point?
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
Why are US presidents of any political suasion and their agents shaking hands with these people, smiling, getting photographed with them? How about photos of FDR, Churchill and Stalin?
There are complicated reasons why that were deemed at that point in history to be advantageous to US interests.
I don't get why some sort of blame game is being played here. Nor do I find it worthwhile to try to assign character deficiencies to those from a particular political persuasion.
History is rife with tawdry relationships between the world's powerful nation states since the beginning of civilization. What is the point?
The general point is to accept that America is guided by self-interest in its foreign policy, particularly since WWII. Much more so that any real guiding principles or morals or because it's our divine, unique mission to bring freedom to the world. I think every President since at least FDR has heavily compromised the nation's supposed founding principles in order to either gain economic advantage or provide supposed security/stability. Some Presidents have been worse about this than others, but they've all done it to one degree or another.
If you're fine with this then you should also accept being the world's policeman because it's this extension of the "American interest" to nearly every country on the planet that has caused us to assume that role. I think it's worth at least questioning if this realpolitik has truly served us well when every 'solution' or compromise with a dictator seems to produce a new problem for the next generation to solve. Sometimes Ron/Rand Paul's POV on foreign relations may be worth listening to.
Rand Paul wants to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia because they're using our weapons to indiscriminately bomb civilians in Yemen. Wolf Blitzer's main concern is that if we halt arms sales, some guys at the bomb-making planet will lose their jobs. Doesn't Rand Paul care about them?
Good example of principles vs. self-interest in American foreign policy
Tweet
Comment