Lesson from Jimmy Carter: Weakness invites aggression

[P@triot]

The OP has a point

Bush was considered weak, that is why the terrorists attacked us on 9-11

Must be why Russia invaded Georgia when Bush was President too.

But they sure as hell didn't threaten to nuke us, did they???

 

[Sallow]

Actually they attacked us because Clinton gave them free roam to operate and did so while gutting defense. Al Qaeda operatives who were captured are on record that 9/11 took years of recruiting, training, planning, and financing. Bush was only on the job for less than 8 months and operating under Clinton's final defense-gutted budget when the attacks occured.

Oops...wrongwinger wrong once again!

Clinton warned Bush 8 months in advance that an attack was coming and Bush did nothing about it.

Furthermore, KSM said "on record", the reason for 9/11 was because, in part, our un-conditional support of Israel.

Clinton "warned" Bush while ignoring the problem and encouraging Al Qaeda for 8 years. He gutted defense.

We suffered more terrorist attacks under Bill Clinton than all U.S. president in history combined. And you think giving Bush a "warning" is something to be proud of?!?

Clinton gutted "defense" (laughable by the way to call it that..it's the Military) so badly, Bush was able to prosecute not one, but two full on invasions, knocking over each country in a matter of weeks.

Do you seriously think about what you post?

 

[P@triot]

Lets "compare & contrast" with "critical thinking"!

The Democrat's approach and subsequent results:
Jimmy Carter had tried accommodating America's enemies. He cut back on defense. He made humility the hallmark of American diplomacy. Our foes responded with aggression: Iranian revolutionaries danced in the rubble of the U.S. Embassy; the Soviets sponsored armed insurgencies and invaded Afghanistan.

Small wonder that people are saying the world looks like a rerun of the Carter years. The Obama Doctrine possesses many Carteresque attributes: a heavy reliance on treaties and international institutions; a more humble (and, often, apologetic) U.S. presence around the globe, and a diminishment of U.S. hard power.

And the Obama Doctrine has reaped pretty much the same results. When asked if he feared a U.S. military strike against his country's nuclear program, the Iranian president scoffed at the notion.

Meanwhile, after yielding to Russian complaints and canceling plans to build missile defenses against an Iranian attack, Obama signed an arms control treaty which, the Kremlin boasts, will further limit our missile defense. Yet Moscow still complains that the more limited system the Obama administration wants to field is too much. Once again, American concessions have only encouraged Moscow to be more aggressive. And now Russia state tv is boasting that they have the capabilities to turn the U.S. into "radioactive ash".

And lets not forget Bill Clinton ignoring Al Qaeda and pulling out of Mogadishu because he didn't have the political stomach for either - which was the dog whistle signal for our enemies to go on the offensive and eventually lead to 9/11.



The Republican's approach and subsequent results:
As Reagan entered his presidency, the U.S. economy and the American spirit were low. Still, he committed to a policy of "peace through strength." And, even before he put his plan into action, our enemies began to worry.

Yuri Andropov, the chief of the KGB -- the Soviet's spy network -- feared that Reagan planned to attack. "Andropov," wrote Steven Hayward, in his "Age of Reagan"ordered the KGB to organize a special surveillance program in the United States -- code-named Operation RYAN -- to look for signs of preparations for an attack."

Reagan's assertive approach to foreign policy did not spark war. It produced peace. The Kremlin discovered Reagan was not the cowboy they feared. But they respected the more muscular United States. Russia agreed to the most effective arms control treaty in history.

The benefits spread. According to the Canadian-based Human Security project, deaths from political violence worldwide (even accounting for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq) have declined continually since the end of the Cold War ... until recently.

Lesson from Jimmy Carter: Weakness invites aggression

So Iran wasn't entitled to self governance?

They had to endure the results of a CIA backed coup and live under the oppression of an American puppet government?

Let's be clear.

You really believe the Iranians were "self-governed"?

We're the Iraqis also "self-governed" under Saddam Hussein? We're the Russians also "self-governed" under Joseph Stalin?

If the strongest argument you can make is an outrageous and completely historically inaccurate one, it really proves you're on the wrong side of the debate.

 

[Sallow]

The OP has a point

Bush was considered weak, that is why the terrorists attacked us on 9-11

Must be why Russia invaded Georgia when Bush was President too.

But they sure as hell didn't threaten to nuke us, did they???

They threatened to nuke us?

When was that?

When did a Russian Official, acting on behalf of the Russian government, issue such a threat?

 

[Sallow]

Lets "compare & contrast" with "critical thinking"!

The Democrat's approach and subsequent results:
Jimmy Carter had tried accommodating America's enemies. He cut back on defense. He made humility the hallmark of American diplomacy. Our foes responded with aggression: Iranian revolutionaries danced in the rubble of the U.S. Embassy; the Soviets sponsored armed insurgencies and invaded Afghanistan.

Small wonder that people are saying the world looks like a rerun of the Carter years. The Obama Doctrine possesses many Carteresque attributes: a heavy reliance on treaties and international institutions; a more humble (and, often, apologetic) U.S. presence around the globe, and a diminishment of U.S. hard power.

And the Obama Doctrine has reaped pretty much the same results. When asked if he feared a U.S. military strike against his country's nuclear program, the Iranian president scoffed at the notion.

Meanwhile, after yielding to Russian complaints and canceling plans to build missile defenses against an Iranian attack, Obama signed an arms control treaty which, the Kremlin boasts, will further limit our missile defense. Yet Moscow still complains that the more limited system the Obama administration wants to field is too much. Once again, American concessions have only encouraged Moscow to be more aggressive. And now Russia state tv is boasting that they have the capabilities to turn the U.S. into "radioactive ash".

And lets not forget Bill Clinton ignoring Al Qaeda and pulling out of Mogadishu because he didn't have the political stomach for either - which was the dog whistle signal for our enemies to go on the offensive and eventually lead to 9/11.



The Republican's approach and subsequent results:
As Reagan entered his presidency, the U.S. economy and the American spirit were low. Still, he committed to a policy of "peace through strength." And, even before he put his plan into action, our enemies began to worry.

Yuri Andropov, the chief of the KGB -- the Soviet's spy network -- feared that Reagan planned to attack. "Andropov," wrote Steven Hayward, in his "Age of Reagan"ordered the KGB to organize a special surveillance program in the United States -- code-named Operation RYAN -- to look for signs of preparations for an attack."

Reagan's assertive approach to foreign policy did not spark war. It produced peace. The Kremlin discovered Reagan was not the cowboy they feared. But they respected the more muscular United States. Russia agreed to the most effective arms control treaty in history.

The benefits spread. According to the Canadian-based Human Security project, deaths from political violence worldwide (even accounting for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq) have declined continually since the end of the Cold War ... until recently.

Lesson from Jimmy Carter: Weakness invites aggression

So Iran wasn't entitled to self governance?

They had to endure the results of a CIA backed coup and live under the oppression of an American puppet government?

Let's be clear.

You really believe the Iranians were "self-governed"?

We're the Iraqis also "self-governed" under Saddam Hussein? We're the Russians also "self-governed" under Joseph Stalin?

If the strongest argument you can make is an outrageous and completely historically inaccurate one, it really proves you're on the wrong side of the debate.

I asked you a pretty simple question, ace.

Are the Iranians entitled to self governance without the influence of outside powers on internal affairs?

Yes or No?

 

[P@triot]

Clinton warned Bush 8 months in advance that an attack was coming and Bush did nothing about it.

Furthermore, KSM said "on record", the reason for 9/11 was because, in part, our un-conditional support of Israel.

Clinton "warned" Bush while ignoring the problem and encouraging Al Qaeda for 8 years. He gutted defense.

We suffered more terrorist attacks under Bill Clinton than all U.S. president in history combined. And you think giving Bush a "warning" is something to be proud of?!?

Clinton gutted "defense" (laughable by the way to call it that..it's the Military) so badly, Bush was able to prosecute not one, but two full on invasions, knocking over each country in a matter of weeks.

Do you seriously think about what you post?

And you notice neither of those occurred until Bush's budget was in place which restored defense?

Furthermore, it's not called the "military". Is the CIA "military"? Is the NSA "military"? Are our defense contractors who design weapons (like Lockheed Martin) "military"?

You are reaching new levels of ineptitude and desperation this morning. Congratulations!

 

[Sallow]

The OP has a point


Bush was considered weak, that is why the terrorists attacked us on 9-11

Must be why Russia invaded Georgia when Bush was President too.

And who can forget the Chinese sending in troops to Tibet. It was the shock and awe.

And the massacre continued in Sudan..because of..they were um..afraid..

 

[P@triot]

So Iran wasn't entitled to self governance?

They had to endure the results of a CIA backed coup and live under the oppression of an American puppet government?

Let's be clear.

You really believe the Iranians were "self-governed"?

We're the Iraqis also "self-governed" under Saddam Hussein? We're the Russians also "self-governed" under Joseph Stalin?

If the strongest argument you can make is an outrageous and completely historically inaccurate one, it really proves you're on the wrong side of the debate.

I asked you a pretty simple question, ace.

Are the Iranians entitled to self governance without the influence of outside powers on internal affairs?

Yes or No?

Yes you did "ace" - and in the process you exposed your ignorance and humiliated yourself (as usual).

 

[Sallow]

My fave, of course..was the fear the Chinese showed when they captured a US spy plane.

Shock and awe..I tells you what..

US apology letter to China | World news | theguardian.com

Was that a shock and awe apology tour?

 

[rightwinger]

The OP has a point


Bush was considered weak, that is why the terrorists attacked us on 9-11

Actually they attacked us because Clinton gave them free roam to operate and did so while gutting defense. Al Qaeda operatives who were captured are on record that 9/11 took years of recruiting, training, planning, and financing. Bush was only on the job for less than 8 months and operating under Clinton's final defense-gutted budget when the attacks occured.

Oops...wrongwinger wrong once again!

They were afraid to launch an attack while Clinton was President. With Bush they knew thay had a soft President and actually launched FOUR attacks

Bush responded by reading a childrens book

 

[P@triot]

Must be why Russia invaded Georgia when Bush was President too.

But they sure as hell didn't threaten to nuke us, did they???

They threatened to nuke us?

When was that?

When did a Russian Official, acting on behalf of the Russian government, issue such a threat?

Dmitry Kiselyov did just this week (once again we see you are completely uninformed about what is going on)...

Russian news head: We can bomb US into radioactive ash | New York Post

 

[Sallow]

You really believe the Iranians were "self-governed"?

We're the Iraqis also "self-governed" under Saddam Hussein? We're the Russians also "self-governed" under Joseph Stalin?

If the strongest argument you can make is an outrageous and completely historically inaccurate one, it really proves you're on the wrong side of the debate.

I asked you a pretty simple question, ace.

Are the Iranians entitled to self governance without the influence of outside powers on internal affairs?

Yes or No?

Yes you did "ace" - and in the process you exposed your ignorance and humiliated yourself (as usual).

it's one you couldn't answer definitively.

Your whole thread just got shot to shit.

In any case, the US was never intended to become an Empire.

Empire is a conservative thing.

And it must be seriously fought against.

Empires generally do not have good outcomes.

 

[P@triot]

I asked you a pretty simple question, ace.

Are the Iranians entitled to self governance without the influence of outside powers on internal affairs?

Yes or No?

Yes you did "ace" - and in the process you exposed your ignorance and humiliated yourself (as usual).

it's one you couldn't answer definitively.

Your whole thread just got shot to shit.

In any case, the US was never intended to become an Empire.

Empire is a conservative thing.

And it must be seriously fought against.

Empires generally do not have good outcomes.

My whole thread is accurate and backed up with indisputable facts and links - which is why your panties are in such a bunch about it

 

[Seawytch]

Flashback, 2008: When A Russian Invasion Made Fox News Shrug

 

[Sallow]

But they sure as hell didn't threaten to nuke us, did they???

They threatened to nuke us?

When was that?

When did a Russian Official, acting on behalf of the Russian government, issue such a threat?

Dmitry Kiselyov did just this week (once again we see you are completely uninformed about what is going on)...

Russian news head: We can bomb US into radioactive ash | New York Post

Ah so a Journalist in Russia is in command of the Nuclear Strike force of that country.

Interesting.

Any other pearls of wisdom you have floating about?

 

[Sallow]

Yes you did "ace" - and in the process you exposed your ignorance and humiliated yourself (as usual).

it's one you couldn't answer definitively.

Your whole thread just got shot to shit.

In any case, the US was never intended to become an Empire.

Empire is a conservative thing.

And it must be seriously fought against.

Empires generally do not have good outcomes.

My whole thread is accurate and backed up with indisputable facts and links - which is why your panties are in such a bunch about it

I don't wear panties, ace. I wear boxers. I think my girlfriend would prefer briefs.

Do you wear panties?

Is that why you think other men wear panties?

Well..what ever floats your boat.

 

[thanatos144]

Why do you guys keep thrashing over this???? Obama has proved to be more a failure at everything then Carter.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets look at the history books

Jimmy Carter allowed 52 American hostages to be held for 444 days. They all came out alive
George Bush allowed four terrorist attacks to kill almost 3000 Americans

Who was weaker?

 

[bedowin62]

Lets look at the history books

Jimmy Carter allowed 52 American hostages to be held for 444 days. They all came out alive
George Bush allowed four terrorist attacks to kill almost 3000 Americans

Who was weaker?

carter you nutjob; for installing the world's first islamo-fascist shiite regime in iran. the one threatening the world today

 

[thanatos144]

Lets look at the history books

Jimmy Carter allowed 52 American hostages to be held for 444 days. They all came out alive
George Bush allowed four terrorist attacks to kill almost 3000 Americans

Who was weaker?

Carter. Clinton was at the helm when the terrorist were planning to kill 3000 Americans.