Obama v. Reagan re. Poland

[Monarchist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c57z6...e=channel_page

I'm just being provocative here, because I know that you either hate Reagan or love Reagan intensely. The same goes for Obama. I find it very interesting that Poland was the crossroads of freedom (via Solidarność) in 1989, and remains so in 2009. In an older time, an American president defended Poland with a vigorous conviction; at this time, Poland is left to rot in the face of Putin's ... personality.

Comparing Reagan to Obama is like comparing apples to oranges; apples taste better.

[justicar5]

actually it was smart, it finally has Russia agreeing to support sanctions, with that we could make sanctions that actually hurt Iran enough to make negotiating a necessity.

[Gauvin]

Obama's foreign policy is either really brilliant or really stupid. There must be some hidden objective, I'm hoping. Because what it looks like from the outside is that Obama is alienating America's allies, and bolstering its enemies. Maybe his diplomacy is too complex to fathom. Or maybe he really is one of the worst presidents in American history.

actually it was smart, it finally has Russia agreeing to support sanctions, with that we could make sanctions that actually hurt Iran enough to make negotiating a necessity.

Like those sanctions that stopped North Korea? Or those sanctions that pursuaded Saddam Hussein to cooperate with U.N. inspectors? Or the sanctions against Cuba that prevented the Cuban missile crisis?

Sanctions do one thing great... it punishes the populace, which the governments then use as propaganda against us. They already do, and always will. Saddam had signs in his clinics that read: "There is no medicine because of U.N. sanctions"

[justicar5]

Obama's foreign policy is either really brilliant or really stupid. There must be some hidden objective, I'm hoping. Because what it looks like from the outside is that Obama is alienating America's allies, and bolstering its enemies. Maybe his diplomacy is too complex to fathom. Or maybe he really is one of the worst presidents in American history.

he's got the NATO allies back on side, which you really where in danger of loosing. Getting Russia to at least stop blocking diplomatic efforts is a necessary step towards the goal of disarming Iran, admitedly poland is not happy, but it was either keep a missile shield that didn't work all that well, or do what Obama has done, take the money from that project and place it into other systems that do work against any missile that Iran or NK have, get Russia on side to get effective sanctions in place and shut down the weaponisation side of the iranian nuclear program.

Now the real test ofc is if it works.

Like those sanctions that stopped North Korea? Or those sanctions that pursuaded Saddam Hussein to cooperate with U.N. inspectors? Or the sanctions against Cuba that prevented the Cuban missile crisis?

Sanctions do one thing great... it punishes the populace, which the governments then use as propaganda against us. They already do, and always will. Saddam had signs in his clinics that read: "There is no medicine because of U.N. sanctions"

He was cooperating so yea they did work, just not fast enough to satisfy GWB hunger for revenge.

The cuban missile crisis was a prime example of how incomplete sanctions fail, they drove Cuba further into the arms of the USSR then they necessarily would have gone, aside from the fact that the missiles in cuba where a direct response to NATO missiles in Turkey.

North Korea is another example of incomplete sanctions they still have trade with China, they are also information starved in the most extreme way possible something the population of Iran is not, and what they actually get propoganda from is when we give in and reward some small positive behaviour.

[Gauvin]

he's got the NATO allies back on side

Where's the evidence of this? The fact that they all want to be in pictures with Obama? But what exactly have they contributed now, that they haven't before?

Poland is by far one of Nato's most eager allies, and they've been snubbed by Obama.

He was cooperating so yea they did work, just not fast enough to satisfy GWB hunger for revenge.

If you remember, it took the threat of force for Iraq to let inspectors back in 2002, after being pulled out in 1998 by the U.N. because Saddam was not cooperating with them. The U.S. and the U.K. then bombed Iraq. You're like everyone else against the war, very opinionated about the subject, but completely uneducated about it. Iraq was under sanctions specifically because Saddam wasn't cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. If he was cooperating as you put it, then they would've been lifted. But, the fact is they were in place from 1991 to 2003 specifically because Saddam was uncooperative.

As for the rest, it took a blockade to solve the Cuban Missile Crisis, a military action they coined as an "embargo" to make it appear more benign, but it was nonetheless a military solution.

Maybe if some of you Americans could stop pretending that the Cold War is still going on, you would be looked at better in the world. Besides, I thought Putin had nothing to do with it, it was all about Iran, remember? That was the line you guys were towing during the Bush administration. Dont mind Reagan all that much, did some good for the states, but his sycophants piss me off. 2009 does not equal 1989.

We're more concerned about Iran, but our allies Poland and Ukraine are more concerned about Russia. Missile Defense would solve both problems.

[YuriVII]

Where's the evidence of this? The fact that they all want to be in pictures with Obama? But what exactly have they contributed now, that they haven't before?

Poland is by far one of Nato's most eager allies, and they've been snubbed by Obama.



If you remember, it took the threat of force for Iraq to let inspectors back in 2002, after being pulled out in 1998 by the U.N. because Saddam was not cooperating with them. The U.S. and the U.K. then bombed Iraq. You're like everyone else against the war, very opinionated about the subject, but completely uneducated about it. Iraq was under sanctions specifically because Saddam wasn't cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. If he was cooperating as you put it, then they would've been lifted. But, the fact is they were in place from 1991 to 2003 specifically because Saddam was uncooperative.

As for the rest, it took a blockade to solve the Cuban Missile Crisis, a military action they coined as an "embargo" to make it appear more benign, but it was nonetheless a military solution.



We're more concerned about Iran, but our allies Poland and Ukraine are more concerned about Russia. Missile Defense would solve both problems.

Missile Defense in Ukraine is an insane idea. Russia would go ballistic (figurativley and maybe literally) and half the Ukrainian population would be pissed, maybe even up in arms. In Poland, it was not a very well received idea according to opinion polls either.

Poland and Ukraine are your pawns, not your friends. Go ahead admit it. It feels good!

[alhoon]

Or those sanctions that pursuaded Saddam Hussein to cooperate with U.N. inspectors? Or the sanctions against Cuba that prevented the Cuban missile crisis?

You could have avoided arming him including arming with chemical weapons in the first place...

Avoiding future problems is what Obama's doing now IMO. Avoids steps that wouldn't benefit USA, or not much, in the long run. The missiles in Poland were a thorn in Russia-USA relations while providing little benefit.

As for alieneting Poland, are you sure they are alienated? Are you sure they feel betrayed and left in the mercy of Russia... that doesn't threaten them at the time?
It was just reasonable to drop an expensive, inefectual shield in order to improve relations.

[Gauvin]

You could have avoided arming him including arming with chemical weapons in the first place...

This is fantasy, as a person who went through ALL of the declassified documents about this since I found this to be the most troubling criticism of U.S. foreign policy in the 80s, I found that U.S. support for Iraq was severely limited, and only began when Iraq was losing the war, and was willing to declare a ceasefire which the U.N. was calling for, and Iran was not willing to cease hostilities. It then became clear at that point that Iran wanted to expand its revolution and territory. The material support to Saddam was so minimal, it's laughable to hear any of these claims. Also, during this time, the U.S. offered a harsh public rebuke of Iraq in '84 for its use of chemical weapons. About the giving of chemical weapons, that is a lie, in fact the reagan administration even blocked shipments of pesticides and other chemicals to Iraq in the early 80s because they feared Saddam would weaponize it.

At first, and this is what they're criticized for, they knew about the allegation that they've used chemical weapons, and spoke to Iraqi diplomats about halting their use. Never in any of the correspondance (including between Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz) I read did they say that they would turn a blind eye to chemical weapons, but made it clear that Iraqis should cease to use them, and that the United States is opposed to their use.

So, once again, these myths propogated by the left consist of half-truths and fabrications.

As for alieneting Poland, are you sure they are alienated? Are you sure they feel betrayed and left in the mercy of Russia... that doesn't threaten them at the time?

The poles who supported it feel so. I take their word for it. The poles who supported it by the way were pro-american, the ones who didn't were relatively anti-american. Not putting missiles into Poland isn't pleasing anyone but those who don't like america to begin with, their liking of America was not swayed either way, only those who are pro-america have had their faith shaken.

[s.rwitt]

he's got the NATO allies back on side

What do you mean by "back on our side"? Many are still planning on pulling the few troops they have from Afghanistan and limiting them from any meaningful action until they do.

[justicar5]

What do you mean by "back on our side"? Many are still planning on pulling the few troops they have from Afghanistan and limiting them from any meaningful action until they do.

I mean the public campaugns to withdraw totally from any alliance at all with america have stopped.

[Phier]

I mean the public campaugns to withdraw totally from any alliance at all with america have stopped.

So near worthless allies don't have a vocal minority of leftist malcontents and near fascists wanting to leave an alliance they were doing nothing for in the first place?

Oh dear, well I'm glad THAT's all better now.

[justicar5]

So near worthless allies don't have a vocal minority of leftist malcontents and near fascists wanting to leave an alliance they were doing nothing for in the first place?

Oh dear, well I'm glad THAT's all better now.

cool, then we'll bring all our troops home and kick you out of your bases in europe, also the Diego Garcia air and naval base in the pacific that you demanded we give you, lets see how you get on then.

[Admiral Piett]

So near worthless allies don't have a vocal minority of leftist malcontents and near fascists wanting to leave an alliance they were doing nothing for in the first place?

Oh dear, well I'm glad THAT's all better now.

In actuality, it wasn't chiefly leftists and fascists, but a general consensus.

[YuriVII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c57z6...e=channel_page

I'm just being provocative here, because I know that you either hate Reagan or love Reagan intensely. The same goes for Obama. I find it very interesting that Poland was the crossroads of freedom (via Solidarność) in 1989, and remains so in 2009. In an older time, an American president defended Poland with a vigorous conviction; at this time, Poland is left to rot in the face of Putin's ... personality.

Comparing Reagan to Obama is like comparing apples to oranges; apples taste better.

Maybe if some of you Americans could stop pretending that the Cold War is still going on, you would be looked at better in the world. Besides, I thought Putin had nothing to do with it, it was all about Iran, remember? That was the line you guys were towing during the Bush administration. Dont mind Reagan all that much, did some good for the states, but his sycophants piss me off. 2009 does not equal 1989.

[Monarchist]

Maybe if some of you Americans...

Why does everyone assume that supporter of Reagan = American? I suppose "I disagree" = "my opponent must be a dirty, stinking American". I'm sorry, but I reject your assumption.

[YuriVII]

Why does everyone assume that supporter of Reagan = American? I suppose "I disagree" = "my opponent must be a dirty, stinking American". I'm sorry, but I reject your assumption.

Now you assuming on my assumption. Reagan is an American President so most vocal supporters of him are American. You want me to be more broad and I will say that "international Regano-Thatcherist right wing cold war dinosaur cirlce jerk"

[removeduser_052420]

Many right-wingers hate obama because Obama realized that America needs to treats it's allies like allies, not like assets.

[s.rwitt]

Yeah, that's why they hate him.

[removeduser_052420]

Yeah, that's why they hate him.

No need for any smart remarks, everyone knows that isn't the only reason.

[bushbush]

it's all about trade offs, if obama wants russia to go at iran, he can't explain have too much a tough stance on polish issue. It's just the reality.