Dark Wizard 23 Posted December 9, 2014 I think FDR set this country on a dangerous path, but that is a different argument To the point on diplomacy, diplomacy is a two way street. One cannot feel intimidated in order to make progress. Supremacy is not diplomacy. I agree we should not have helped Ukraine, and I like neither Bush or Obama. To be honest, Nixon is a GREAT example of what a diplomat should be (again another discussion) I'm not even talking about Reagan anymore Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lonzomac 19 Posted December 9, 2014 Lol I think I know what you mean about FDR. Good argument for diplomacy though. Yet sometimes I do believe the best strategy is to show them who the man of the house really is. Also I had no idea you were American!I thought pretty much everyone here was Canadian eh or Austrailian except Tank, you can tell an Englishman from a mile away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mandystalin 6 Posted December 9, 2014 Indeed you can, old chap. It would be interesting to know the nationality of the voters - within America Reagan seems to be essentially known as the man who killed off the USSR (as we have seen in some of the responses) but outside America he isn't. Or at least not to the same extent. Personally I'm on the 'no, he just quadrupled your debt for no real gain' side Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lonzomac 19 Posted December 9, 2014 Such BLASPHEMY! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aurelius 42 Posted December 10, 2014 Indeed you can, old chap. It would be interesting to know the nationality of the voters - within America Reagan seems to be essentially known as the man who killed off the USSR (as we have seen in some of the responses) but outside America he isn't. Or at least not to the same extent. Personally I'm on the 'no, he just quadrupled your debt for no real gain' side I think that's pretty much his image outside of America too (I'm Australian). Also, he and Thatcher were like siblings split at birth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mandystalin 6 Posted December 11, 2014 Blame propaganda for that one Also, he and Thatcher were like siblings split at birth. British legend is that Reagan was effectively subservient to Thatcher, as he liked domineering women The images that creates just gives me the creeps... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dark Wizard 23 Posted December 11, 2014 Blame propaganda for that one Also, he and Thatcher were like siblings split at birth. British legend is that Reagan was effectively subservient to Thatcher, as he liked domineering women The images that creates just gives me the creeps... Thanks for bringing that image back, now I have to purge my memory again I actually talked about this quite extensively in one of my classes and there is some compelling evidence that there was some substance to this accusation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dark Wizard 23 Posted December 11, 2014 Lol I think I know what you mean about FDR. Good argument for diplomacy though. Yet sometimes I do believe the best strategy is to show them who the man of the house really is. Also I had no idea you were American!I thought pretty much everyone here was Canadian eh or Austrailian except Tank, you can tell an Englishman from a mile away. Obviously you can't walk in to discussion looking to concede, but in situations like Ukraine you need leverage in order to be the "an of the house". In this situation the United States tried to be the man of the house without leverage. The US does not have leverage because they have invaded several countries as well, ie. Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia denounced our actions in those cases, and we disregarded that. When Russia invaded the Ukraine the same thing happened in reverse. We denounced their actions, and they disregarded it. It is hypocritical for the US to call for Russia to stop occupying a certain sovereign territory while the US continues to be able to occupy whoever they please. If the US was not occupying the Middle East, they would have leverage. We created an international precedent that it is ok to invade another territory if it is to quell "terrorism" they used the same disguise to invade Ukraine. If the US would stay in its pants so to speak, we would be able to keep other nations in their pants too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lonzomac 19 Posted December 11, 2014 Lol I think I know what you mean about FDR. Good argument for diplomacy though. Yet sometimes I do believe the best strategy is to show them who the man of the house really is. Also I had no idea you were American!I thought pretty much everyone here was Canadian eh or Austrailian except Tank, you can tell an Englishman from a mile away. Obviously you can't walk in to discussion looking to concede, but in situations like Ukraine you need leverage in order to be the "an of the house". In this situation the United States tried to be the man of the house without leverage. The US does not have leverage because they have invaded several countries as well, ie. Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia denounced our actions in those cases, and we disregarded that. When Russia invaded the Ukraine the same thing happened in reverse. We denounced their actions, and they disregarded it. It is hypocritical for the US to call for Russia to stop occupying a certain sovereign territory while the US continues to be able to occupy whoever they please. If the US was not occupying the Middle East, they would have leverage. We created an international precedent that it is ok to invade another territory if it is to quell "terrorism" they used the same disguise to invade Ukraine. If the US would stay in its pants so to speak, we would be able to keep other nations in their pants too. I couldn't agree with you more! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
