Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I think it's quite different. There's not a lot of love for the USA among the Egyptian street. If Obama is seen to be taking sides it's just going to empower groups like the Muslim Brotherhood who can point to US interference over the decades as the root of their economic problems.
So much of Reagan's rhetoric towards the USSR was simply political cover here at home while he actively worked with the Russians to negotiate deals as the cold war was winding down. Russia was falling apart and Reagan was looking for the best deal he could get. From what I've read both he and Gorbachev wanted to be seen as peacemakers.
I don't think there's any parallel between the situations Obama faces today...
No matter what happens in public, behind the scene I'm sure we're backing the military. I was reading up on how tight we actually are and it's quite dramatic.
-spence
|
Spence, never you mind that the entire rational world credits Regan and Pope John Paul as being the 2 folks who had the most to do with not only ending the Cold War, but making sure that the good guys won. You cannot accept that, because Regan had an (R) after his name, and that's all that matters to you.
Regan did more than spout rhetoric. He led a massive military buildup that the Soviets couldn't match. His rhetoric also was very inspirational to oppressed dissidents like Lech Walesa, who were motivated by Regan's encouragement to continue to protest. Regan's actions put enormous pressure on a Soviet system that was, as you said, crumbling.
Obama, on the other hand, offers absolutely zip to political dissidents who are struggling for freedom. Obama will not stick his neck out unless he has to. Proof? All those "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature (he voted "present" more times than anyone else).
The extent that brainwashed liberals will go to, to distort reality and revise history, is entertaining.