Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Dec 9, 2013.
Or Cesar Augustus.
FWIW, he probably stole their rhetoric in this case.
I'm curious. What would you suggest they do?
Do what previous Presidents (Republican and Democrat alike) have done in similar circumstances, at a minimum?
You know, call a press conference, say that the US "supports freedom and democracy" and "stands with the Ukrainian people." Quietly fund democracy groups. Have State Department officials support those that want democracy in public and in private?
Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush did this in the Cold War--and afterwards, so did Bush and even Clinton. We don't have to be on the winning side (Hungary and the Czechoslovakian Revolutions come to mind), but we should, at a bare minimum, be consistent. That's why the US gained such respect abroad by those who support freedom of choice, protecting individual rights, and democracy/capitalism.
When we don't stand for these things anymore despite ample opportunity to do so, we jeopardize our longstanding principles...and for what? Because Obama wants to "lead from behind?" How's that working out? The US is getting outmaneuvered diplomatically around the globe because our President is a bumbling idiot when it comes to foreign policy.
I don't completely disagree. However, it seems you are suggesting something akin to firing up the cold war. A couple of things I would like you to consider.
1. This is not the Soviet Union. In fact, while Putin does have strong Fascist tendencies, at this point the current landscape in Russia is night-and-day different than the Soviet Union. So, I'm not sure how oppressed the Ukraine is and whether the actions of Cold War presidents are an accurate comparison. It may not be convenient, and it may suck for those who want an independent state as a member of the EU. However, where is the upside for the US? Why piss off Russia if there is nothing to gain? Do they really represent that polar opposite, totalitarian military state we were at odds with for half a century?
3. Bush and Clinton did it on a rather selective basis and there were typically other motives at work. For Bush it had very little to do with freedom and a lot to do with Neo-Con fantasies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century). If it had anything to do with freedom or human rights, we would have had troops all over central Africa.