How to handle a terrorist, Reagan-style
Give this the full two minutes and compare the resolve, love of country, and clarity of purpose of Reagan with the linguine-spined, moral-equivalence, global-citizenship B.S. of Barack Obama. Americans prefer the former, but sometimes you only get there after seeing the latter in action. After all, Reagan followed Jimmy Carter.
Barack Obama will very likely prove to be the greatest thing to happen to America since Jimmy Carter; at least when it comes to picking his successor.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Previously logged in with Facebook?
Log in to True/Slant with Facebook
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bill_Dupray. Bill_Dupray said: #tcot How to handle a terrorist, Reagan-style: Give this the full two minutes and compare the resolve, love of country, http://url4.eu/Wm54 [...]
And who is it exactly you think we should be bombing? Other than going all misty eyed over Ronnie what exactly is the point you’re trying to make?
I think it’s great, too, that President Reagan invoked the UN Charter to launch an airstrike against Libya. A pity that President Bush chose to normalize relations with Gaddafi in order to manufacture a ‘win’ for the Bush Doctrine.
You seem to be implying that Obama is teeing the nation up for its next Ronald Reagan. I’m curious, which of the President’s likely 2012 challengers do you believe will be the nation’s next Ronald Reagan?
Sadly, there isn’t another Reagan in the wings, but I do believe that Obama is setting us up for a major swing back to the right. Americans like divided government, especially when one party is seen as overreaching when they control the whole shooting match. If the GOP takes back one or both houses of Congress next year, it will probably, ironically, guarantee Obama a second term.
In response to another comment. See in context »And what were the results of this magnificent patriotic spasm of violence? Two years later, Gaddafi took revenge by blowing up Pan Am Flight 107, killing some 200 innocents and 23 years later he’s still in power happily spewing his lunacy. Another problem solved by good old military action.
Reagan’s hard line on terrorism, despotism, and bad-guyism in general was what broke the back of Communism. It’s tough to pitch a no-hitter and terrorists, by their nature, will occasionally hit their mark. Such was the case with Gaddafi.
But my larger point is that a strong resolve and moral clarity to recognize that evil cannot be negotiated with is preferred to pacifism and the naive notion that we can talk our way out of any dispute.
In response to another comment. See in context »Spending broke the back of the USSR, not Ronnie’s ideology. As has been repeatedly pointed out in the thread he repeatedly negotiated with “bad guys”.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Reagan’s hard line on terrorism, despotism, and bad-guyism…”
Um…was that the “hard line” that he used to fund Iraq’s proxy war against Iran, thus propping up a despot? I understand that diplomacy, especially during the Cold War, involved a lot of morally ambiguous strategies, like Kissinger”s “realist” theories (although I find much of that now overrated in retrospect, when compared to the neoconservative disaster that followed), but it’s interesting to see you latch onto words while ignoring actions. How do you separate it in your mind, I wonder; how do you ignore the moral ambiguity of any kind of leadership and instead just reference some nice-sounding quotes? I haven’t been able to see things so simply since I was a child, before I learned that the world had a certain level of complexity. But you: I envy your simple mind.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] the rest here: Bill Dupray – American Conservative – How to handle a terrorist … Bill Dupray – American Conservative – How to handle a terrorist … Posted in Entertainment, General, Health, News Tags: Entertainment, News « Developing [...]
Yes, let’s take a moment to admire that tough-minded resolve Reagan took w/ the Iranians, by selling them arms in exchange for hostages.
And the hard line he took w/ dictators like Pinochet, the anti-semetic junta of Argentina, and Ferdinand Marcos by praising them and helping prop up their governments.
And how he bravely took on the racist and corrupt South African regime by vetoing Congressional sanctions against them.
And the foresight he had in confronting Saddam Hussein, by supplying him w/ U.S. intelligence and billions of dollars of loan guarantees.
Take heed, tinpot dictators of the world! Cross the U.S. under a conservative, and you risk drowning in praise, money, and weaponry. The horror!
SWOOSH!!
crowd roars
In response to another comment. See in context »You left out the fact that Reagan’s policies liberated hundreds of millions of people from the scourge of Communism and Bush’s liberated tens of millions from Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime. Tough, conservative foreign policy pays big dividends.
In response to another comment. See in context »What dividends have come to the American people from us going int Iraq? Name 1.
In response to another comment. See in context »You do know that we replaced a despotic Sunni government with what’s basically going to be a despotic Shia government, right? At the expense of probably a couple hundred thousand lives? The “new” Iraq is going to look a lot like the “old” Iraq, except that it’s going to be aligned with another despotic Shia government: that of Iran.
I mean, this isn’t some crazy fringe theory I’m stating here; most analysts paying attention to Iraq tend to see it more or less this way – they just disagree on how tight Iran and Iraq will be, and how bad (on a scale of “bad” to “terrible”) this will be for long-term US interests. And yet, you seem to genuinely think the Iraq war worked out great. I know I keep pestering you, but please believe me when I say I am genuinely curious how one can have these beliefs in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Please, please, I really want to hear your explanation.
In response to another comment. See in context »You forgot the resolve-est, love of country-est, and clarity of purpose-est of all: arming the Afghanistan mujahedeen.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bwaaaahhhhaaaaahhaaaa.
I love this Dupray clown.
Too many holes in this, his latest bit of lunacy to even begin tearing it apart. It’s too easy.
I have a question for you “American Conservative”, do you actually believe the nonsense that you post or do you simply do it for our comic relief?
Nah, I’m just screwing around.
In response to another comment. See in context »Look at that! You finally wrote something accurate!
In response to another comment. See in context »