'American Realist'

[Ferocious]

Today U.S. foreign policy lies in ruin. America?s troops are dying in an unnecessary occupation; America?s actions are spurring more terrorists to take up arms; America?s credibility is in tatters around the world. The only unity that the Bush administration?s aggressive policies have encouraged is between Shi?ites and Sunnis in Iraq against America and among virtually everyone else around the globe against Washington. This is a world very different from the one bequeathed by Ronald Reagan.

good read...so click this

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

All these threads look and sound so much alike I am confused as to where I am! help?!

 

[Vadatajs]

You should mention that the article is from American Conservative in the topic. Reagan had flaws too (which aren't mentioned, they're very similar on economic policy, for example), but at least Reagan was sure enough of himself to allow his policy to adapt to REALITY.

 

[Bitek]

It should also be said Bush is a Big-Government Republican, nothing like Reagan domestically. The only thing those two share are enormous deficits.

 

[Bitek]

President Reagan likely would have been horrified: the U.S. initiating war on a lie and then finding itself caught in an unnecessary guerrilla war that has made the West less secure and America more hated by more people than at any point in its history.
....
At this point Reagan demonstrated how he differed from President George W. Bush: he recognized that he had made a mistake [invasion of Lebanon, post Embassy/barracks bombings], and he changed policy.....

Ronald Reagan, in contrast to George W. Bush, understood that such a policy exceeded America?s power and was not in America?s interest.

Yes, you should mention this was written by the Communist Liberal Pinkos over at the American Conservative and the Cato Institute.

 

[sandorski]

Yup

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

Today U.S. foreign policy lies in ruin. America?s troops are dying in an unnecessary occupation; America?s actions are spurring more terrorists to take up arms; America?s credibility is in tatters around the world. The only unity that the Bush administration?s aggressive policies have encouraged is between Shi?ites and Sunnis in Iraq against America and among virtually everyone else around the globe against Washington. This is a world very different from the one bequeathed by Ronald Reagan.

good read...so click this

Good read. I was never a Reagan fan, but he was 100-fold better than Bush-lite. I firmly believe Bush-lite's ultimate legacy will be being widely regarded as the worst, most harmful President in at least a century.

 

[glugglug]

Reagan was one of the greats at foreign policy. Exact opposite of Dubya in that regard. I disagreed with Reagan's economic policies, but at least he appeared to put some thought into them other than his own wallet.(or big businesses, which indirectly is the same thing...)

Have to agree with Bowfinger on both points. Reagan, unlike Dubya, was a respectable man. Shrub no doubt will go down in history as the worst president in the existence of the U.S, possibly the worst leader of ANY westernized country, ever.

 

[glenn1]

At this point Reagan demonstrated how he differed from President George W. Bush: he recognized that he had made a mistake [invasion of Lebanon, post Embassy/barracks bombings], and he changed policy.....

Ronald Reagan, in contrast to George W. Bush, understood that such a policy exceeded America?s power and was not in America?s interest.

So the moral compass of ATOT says that allowing Lebanon to become the vassal of Syria was the action that was in "America's interest." And yet, when it comes to questions about situations which would similarly not be in our best interests by those same standards (the recent clamor to get involved in Liberia jumps to mind), you do a complete 180 in your views.

If you can't even maintain logical consistency while discussing just two foreign policy issues (1980s Lebanon, Iraq today) then you deserve to be ignored. You need to have the balls to come straight out and say you support isolationism and don't give a rats ass about human rights and such, or you'll lose even the thin claim you have now for any intellectual basis for your positions other than arbitrary whims depending on who is in power when the question is being discussed.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

LOL - it's a little comical to find a scathing indictment of the Bush administration in a bleeding-heart source like, er, The American Conservative magazine.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: glenn1

At this point Reagan demonstrated how he differed from President George W. Bush: he recognized that he had made a mistake [invasion of Lebanon, post Embassy/barracks bombings], and he changed policy.....

Ronald Reagan, in contrast to George W. Bush, understood that such a policy exceeded America?s power and was not in America?s interest.

So the moral compass of ATOT says that allowing Lebanon to become the vassal of Syria was the action that was in "America's interest." And yet, when it comes to questions about situations which would similarly not be in our best interests by those same standards (the recent clamor to get involved in Liberia jumps to mind), you do a complete 180 in your views.

If you can't even maintain logical consistency while discussing just two foreign policy issues (1980s Lebanon, Iraq today) then you deserve to be ignored. You need to have the balls to come straight out and say you support isolationism and don't give a rats ass about human rights and such, or you'll lose even the thin claim you have now for any intellectual basis for your positions other than arbitrary whims depending on who is in power when the question is being discussed.

This post doesn't make sense... maybe if I substitute 'logical consistency' with 'either agree with the government about both or disagree about both, regardless of the context'. But that wouldn't make any sense as an argument, so I doubt that's it either.

I'm honestly confused as to what inconsistency you are attacking here...

To the best of my knowledge, no country in the world really takes a stand on human rights that is commendable: we all trade with China. Justifying a war against any other nation on human rights grounds, but continuing to trade with China, is a sick joke. Don't forget that Afghanistan had much worse human rights conditions than Iraq, but the chance to alleviate this was really considered as an after-thought; a fringe benefit to removing a real, documented source of terrorist support.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ferocious

Today U.S. foreign policy lies in ruin. America?s troops are dying in an unnecessary occupation; America?s actions are spurring more terrorists to take up arms; America?s credibility is in tatters around the world. The only unity that the Bush administration?s aggressive policies have encouraged is between Shi?ites and Sunnis in Iraq against America and among virtually everyone else around the globe against Washington. This is a world very different from the one bequeathed by Ronald Reagan.

good read...so click this

Good read. I was never a Reagan fan, but he was 100-fold better than Bush-lite. I firmly believe Bush-lite's ultimate legacy will be being widely regarded as the worst, most harmful President in at least a century.

:beer:

I'm a little worried though. If I'm in full agreement with the paragraph above, does that mean I'm a conservative? :Q