Reagan wasn't a particularly well-liked president outside of the USA. We have Reagan-blinders on us. The USSR came to him not because they thought he was the guy, but because the USSR was about collapse and he was the man they had to speak with. His foreign policy was tough...but he was also the cause of a lot of damage to the US reputation. I guess my point is - Reagan got lucky, and really shouldn't be an example for how to do things as a president (and if you ask me, the biggest problem with the GOP is their obsession with Reagan, but that's neither here nor there).
Not to go off on too much of a tangent here, so I will try to keep it relevant to comparisons to today -
It doesn't matter if Reagan was "well-liked" outside of the US. He was respected by our allies, and feared by our enemies. Which is what a president should be. Obama is neither, and no one can honestly claim otherwise at this point.
I do not believe Reagan got lucky. I believe he made his own luck. His theory was the USSR was a husk, Communism made them weak, the power they projected was an illusion, and they would not be able to keep up in the arms race. He psyched them out with SDI, and they bought it. They ended up bankrupting themselves in the process. His theory was right. Of course he didn't bring them down on his own. He had help from Lech Walesa, the Pope, and Iron Maiden.
I don't think what Reagan did with the USSR is a model of what to do in every conflict. It was unique to the situation. There simply is no modern parallel to the Soviet Union and the Cold War. So perhaps it is a model in a way - that the response to each situation should be uniquely tailored to it. Again Obama fails here. He is just copying what Bush did in Iraq. Syria is pretty small ball compared to the USSR, and yet he can't even get that right. I shudder to think what kind of mess Obama would be creating if the Cold War was still on.
The GOP has a lot of problems, but I would rank their biggest problem to be that the GOP leadership is institutionally incapable of seizing an easy political advantage by simply coming out against NSA spying, targeting Americans with drones, or starting a war in Syria.
No. I'm advocating that we destroy every bit of gas in the country. Every single bit. We know the rebels probably have some - blow that up. We know the government has some - blow that up. If anyone gets more? Blow it up. Fuck both of them. They aren't allowed to play with gas. This isn't what Obama is advocating. I think doing something is better than nothing, but his idea isn't a whole lot better than nothing.
I hope you recognize that what you advocate cannot realistically be done without boots on the ground, and complete US control in country.
That article does not say that Germany states Assad didn't order the attack. That article states that the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag claims to have sources in German intelligence that claim that Assad didn't order the attack. Bild am Sonntag is the equivalent of the New York Post or The Sun in the UK - it's not quite a tabloid, but not anything but a tabloid. I place more emphasis on the Russian report because at the very least it had details (whether or not they were invented, who knows?)
If German intel has concluded that, I would place more faith in it than the Russian report.
Bild am Sonntag is making some pretty specific claims, so they would have to be completely fabricating it from wholecloth were it false, which I highly doubt.
John Kerry never said for people to spit on American soldiers. He reported on the atrocities that were actually committed by US soldiers. That makes him a hero, because he pointed out that the Americans could be just as bad as the other side. This is an important lesson, and maybe that Americans freaked out over it points less to what John Kerry said and more to their inability to disconnect the actions of a few with the actions of most. Would you rather people like Kerry have stayed silent over US war crimes?
Edward Snowden is a hero. John Kerry is anything but. He amplified dubious stories from radicals, many of whom who were frauds that had never set foot in Vietnam. Kerry didn't have to explicitly direct people to mistreat Vietnam vets. He, more than any other person, painted the false picture of Vietnam vets as baby-killing war criminals. People who did not ask to be sent to fight a war in Vietnam. People who were just kids. People who were already suffering from post-traumatic stress (or "shellshock" as it was known back then.) People who already felt isolated and cutoff from their families and their country. And they came back to horrible abuse, accusations, being treated like they were subhuman by complete strangers. John Kerry did that. He is no fucking hero. He is complete and total piece of shit whose grave will be spat upon every day should Arlington be sullied by his bones.
Can I ask an honest question? If we had proof (say a video, or maybe a turncoat colonel who was there, or perhaps witnesses or something)...would you, KoT, agree to a strike to remove the gas reserves of whichever side actually did this? Do you believe there is a humanitarian argument to this at all?
A video? Like the one that we were told caused the attack in Benghazi?
I think it is a human tragedy what is happening there. But I also believe there are no good sides in this war.
The only way to end it is for one side or the other to lose decisively.
That means regime change. But who will fill the vacuum?
There are no good sides in this war, and we cannot afford yet another Muslim Brotherhood.
That is what I fear we will get if Obama meddles once again.
