Crisis in the Ukraine

Naw, not you.

Just another Pile-On-The-Mooslim-N****er day for the rightie circle sploogers (here and out in the world of monkey-screech mass media).

Nobody has any suggestion to do anything different, but whatever "that guy" is doing is all wrong and of course is proof he's a pussy.

 

It was only a matter of time before you came in throwing molotovs.
That whole foreign policy thing seems to be more of an obstacle than the brain trust envisioned.
You're the smartest guy in the room (besides Obama)- what do you propose?

 

For you and all the others that don't read responses (in your case it is, I'm sure, because you were in such a rush to throw the racism charge out there and post your clever n****r wording into your response), read reply #181 where I pointed out the first thing I would like to see Obama do. Or don't. I am sure you are eager to troll off to find other threads where you can show us what a non-racist, stand-up guy you are.

 

Announcing that the United States military will retain the same number of soldiers it has now? Fuck yeah, that'll have Putin retreating to the Arctic Circle. That's a solid plan.

I believe we have fulfilled Godwin's Law.

 

LTL...So you think reducing our military to Pre-WW2 numbers will not embolden anyone? You think it doesn't matter how many troops we have? Reagan WON the Cold War by out-spending and out-manning the Russians. Obama comes out and talks about these huge reductions to our military...not very smart at this juncture. But straw-man it if you want, act like I said that would "solve" the situation.

As for The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, have you ever read it?

 

Reagan's spending spree actually had little to do with it. The CIA reported USSR military spending remained constant, it didn't skyrocket in response to Reagan. Gorbachev also said he never feared war with the West, which allowed him to cut their nuclear stockpile and kill an expensive missile system.

 

I'm not for weakening the military. We need a strong defense, but we also need a smart defense.

We can't keep a Cold War-esque military for perpetuity. We don't have the economic might we had in the pre-globalization era to do it even if we want to (and much of that can be blamed on presidents from both parties throwing away our manufacturing base via trade agreements that weren't good for us).

But if the hawks want to make the same mistake the Soviets did, well, I'm not surprised, since they only believe the history that perpetuates their views. The mistake the Soviets made is the one many here are suggesting as a solution. The Soviets tried to maintain a superpower military when it couldn't afford to do so. Reagan had very little to do with it.

We have to pick our spots with defense spending. Not wipe it out, but spend smart, and most importantly, remain the most technologically advanced military. Because that's where the battlefield will increasingly be.

I do think it's deeply pathetic, but not surprising, that many who would consider themselves Tea Party budget hawks want carte blanche for military spending.

 

Reagan did not win the Cold War, he is one of the seven U.S. Presidents who collectively pursued the policy of containment that allowed the U.S. to give the Soviet Union the space it needed to collapse of its own weight. The idea the Soviet Union collapsed because of military spending is erroneous. North Korea shows us military spending and economic collapse need not imperil a dictatorship. If anything, Reagan doesn't get enough credit for easing relations with Gorbachev in his second term, making the Soviet contradictions less easy to justify to its own political class.

 

Reagan had little or nothing with causing the fall of the USSR -- that was Lech Walesa and Karol Wotyla.

Reagan just happened to be the alzheimer's-addled idiot who was lucky enough to be standing there to pick up the pieces. He had more important things to do, mainly shoveling money up to the top of the economic ladder by the trillions.

 

There were only two possible outcomes to the Cold War.

Everybody wins. Or everybody loses.

 

The last thing I want is military intervention from the United States. I am fearful of what that could (and probably would) lead to. However, I doubt even the threat of military action from Obama would be taken seriously. After the Syrian "Red Line" fiasco, I don't think Obama will be taken seriously regardless of what he says.