[Hoot Gibson]

and by the 1980's France/Germany and those other European countries were no longer under our rebuilding. They were their own independent countries. As a result they could make their own decesiions. Sometimes it may not be what we want(but isn't the the real meaning of freedom) look at the Warsaw Pact countries at the same time. Where they free or just puppets of the USSR. Freedom means you can rule as you see fit. In time Iraq and Afganistan will be able to do this- Live Free and rule by the people.

My point is that you cannot buy friends. Maybe removing a despot from power, or weakening his regime so that he loses his grasp on power is preferable to providing welfare to a newly freed people.

[nky]

My point is that you cannot buy friends. Maybe removing a despot from power, or weakening his regime so that he loses his grasp on power is preferable to providing welfare to a newly freed people.

my point is that you have to stabilize a country so that it can be successful not just in the short run by for generations after

[Hoot Gibson]

my point is that you have to stabilize a country so that it can be successful not just in the short run by for generations after

Why? Why is it the American taxpayers' (i.e., "American debtors'") job to stabilize governments that were not necessarily stable before - and in cases where they were stable, such governments have often chosen to harbor terrorists or, as in the case of Iran, actively worked to kill Americans and undermine American national security through proxies?

I support stabilizing governments to the extent that it is necessary to provide American national security but it is not feasible to rebuild every Muslim country that harbors Al Qaeda and other radical Islamo-fascist groups. If we stick to our current strategy, then Al Qaeda need only move from nation to nation, goading us into engaging in an endless attack and rebuild cycle throughout the world. It is not a sustainable policy economically.

[nky]

Why? Why is it the American taxpayers' (i.e., "American debtors'") job to stabilize governments that were not necessarily stable before - and in cases where they were stable, such governments have often chosen to harbor terrorists or, as in the case of Iran, actively worked to kill Americans and undermine American national security through proxies?

I support stabilizing governments to the extent that it is necessary to provide American national security but it is not feasible to rebuild every Muslim country that harbors Al Qaeda and other radical Islamo-fascist groups. If we stick to our current strategy, then Al Qaeda need only move from nation to nation, goading us into engaging in an endless attack and rebuild cycle throughout the world. It is not a sustainable policy economically.

We went into these countries as part of the war on terror. Once there we can not leave until the job is done. What must be done is a stable government . This may take time.

[Hoot Gibson]

We went into these countries as part of the war on terror. Once there we can not leave until the job is done. What must be done is a stable government . This may take time.

Ronald Reagan eliminated Libya as a terrorist threat for many years and it did not destabilize the government and it did not bust the US budget. Clear and convincing messages can be sent without necessarily unleashing all of the hounds of war at once.

[nky]

Ronald Reagan eliminated Libya as a terrorist threat for many years and it did not destabilize the government and it did not bust the US budget. Clear and convincing messages can be sent without necessarily unleashing all of the hounds of war at once.

yet Clinton fired cruise missile and just rearranged some sand

[Hoot Gibson]

yet Clinton fired cruise missile and just rearranged some sand

Reagan was a strong, decisive leader who took intelligent risks. Clinton agonized over decisions while waiting on the results of polls and focus groups.

Launching cruise missiles in the general direction of the bad guys or launching them after the targets are long gone does no good. Reagan hit Gaddafi where he lived and sent one of his family members to meet Allah. Gaddafi knew that if he did not change his ways, he would lose more property and more of his own family and he proved himself to be less insane than was generally believed.

Clinton would never have attacked Gadaffi's palace because of the possible repercussions. Reagan was an optimist. All great American presidents have been optimists.

[nky]

Reagan was a strong, decisive leader who took intelligent risks. Reagan was an optimist. All great American presidents have been optimists.

Agreed. Not only optimists but really great presidents don't waver to the rising and lowering to polls. What's right is right.

[Hoot Gibson]

Agreed. Not only optimists but really great presidents don't waver to the rising and lowering to polls. What's right is right.

:Thumbs: I agree. Truly great leaders do not follow public opinion, they shape it. GWB did not follow the polls but he lacked the ability to mold public opinion. Clinton followed the polls and was generally popular but after the healthcare and "don't ask, don't tell" debacles, all he did was follow his polls and focus groups.

Both Reagan and Kennedy staked out tough, unwavering positions and took actions necessary to reach their goals - or in JFK's case at least got the ball rolling in the right direction. Now, the Obama regime is actively destroying large parts of the legacies that JFK and Reagan left behind.