• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama continues the legacy of Reagan and Kennedy

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The current president is more and more Reaganesque all of the time, don't you think?

Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and now, Obama all envisioned a world free of nuclear weapons. The US-Russian START accord, announced Friday, is a next step in that direction, experts say.
Click to expand...

link
 
yep.... and you should hear the conservatives hollering about it.

geo.
 
Reagan's stance seemed to be one of deterrence rather than submission.
 
lizzie said:
Reagan's stance seemed to be one of deterrence rather than submission.
Click to expand...

Don't ruin their moment with reality, they won't believe or understand you.
 
lizzie said:
Reagan's stance seemed to be one of deterrence rather than submission.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe he's submitting to other nations just because he's essentially doing the same thing both former presidents did: draw down the nuclear stockpiles of two world superpowers as an example for the rest of the world to follow?

Why was it okay when Kennedy and especially when Reagon did it, but not okay when Pres. Obama does it?
 
Objective Voice said:
Why do you believe he's submitting to other nations just because he's essentially doing the same thing both former presidents did: draw down the nuclear stockpiles of two world superpowers as an example for the rest of the world to follow?

Why was it okay when Kennedy and especially when Reagon did it, but not okay when Pres. Obama does it?
Click to expand...

Motive, objective and goals are important, as is method. Reagan and Obama both cutting Nuclear Weapons!! Just saying that seems to be enough for some, they don't bother to dig any deeper... I think they just don't care.

What did Reagan cut and why? What was his end game? Obama's is this naive notion of a Nuclear Free World. Reagan's was to gain the upper hand against the USSR.

Remember, Reagan also put IRBM's in Turkey. Does that sound like a guy with Obama's motivations? Didn't think so.
 
Objective Voice said:
Why do you believe he's submitting to other nations just because he's essentially doing the same thing both former presidents did: draw down the nuclear stockpiles of two world superpowers as an example for the rest of the world to follow?

Why was it okay when Kennedy and especially when Reagon did it, but not okay when Pres. Obama does it?
Click to expand...

Because Reagan had the will to back up what he believed with action. He was a man who was unafraid of conflict and the ugly realities that go along with it. During the Cold War, we were dealing with a reasonable leader of a huge global power. We could pretty much rely on the deterrent effect of avoiding mutal mass destruction. In the present-day world, we are dealing with Korea and Iran. This puts a new urgency on the nuclear issue, but also places a necessity on leaders to have the will to do what it takes to achieve their stated nuclear disarmament goals. About the only way to deter nations who cannot be dealt with on a rational level is to impose sanctions, and these sanctions will have a detrimental effect on the general populations. Our current political leaders do not have the stomach to impose sanctions that are strict enough to be truly effective. It appears that they want to take a more "wait-and-see" approach when dealing with countries who would love to see us flounder, and would like nothing more than to see us disarmed.

It's okay for Obama to do it, but it will most likely not get the desired result, and will put us in a higher risk category. That's one of the problems with trying to carry on the legacy of a great leader in a different world
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
Because Reagan had the will to back up what he believed with action. He was a man who was unafraid of conflict and the ugly realities that go along with it.
Click to expand...

no, Ronald Reagan was a dim-witted posturing buffon who happened to have some incredible people behind the curtain and some quite simple and sensible notions. That nuclear weapons are a bad thing was one of them.
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”

Ronald Reagan regarded nuclear weapons, according to Nancy, as “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.”
Click to expand...

- Ronald Reagan

compare and contrast:
In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.

I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can."
Click to expand...
- - Barack Obama (Prague)

now that you have heard your political mentors tell you what to think, try getting some facts under your hats.

the stated goal of the Nuclear Posture Review Report:

1. Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism;
2. Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy;
3. Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels;
4. Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and
5. Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.

you can read the entire report here -> http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report.pdf

geo.
 
Geo Patric said:
1. Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism;
2. Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy;
3. Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels;
4. Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and
5. Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.

you can read the entire report here -> http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report.pdf

geo.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand the comparison and contrasts. The world is a different place now than it was 30 years ago. The time for getting rid of nukes and wishing for practicality and goodwill are past. If we don't have the will to ensure that nations like Iran and N Korea will not have nuclear weapons, then it would be futile for us to disarm. As much as many would like to think the world is a nice place and that God favors the righteous, it's not true. I'm all for a peaceful world and a lack of weapons that can destroy large portions of humanity and the earth, but we should keep in mind that some nations live with the belief that force is the only legitimate form of power. If we, as a nation, want to take the risk, I can live with it. I don't think it's smart to do so.
 
Last edited:
he is not advocating disarmament, lizzie, or anything near it.

he is advocating policy that states that we will not, except under the most extraordinary conditions, use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state or people.

he is advocating putting as much pressure as we are capable of on nations to NOT build nuclear weapons or to reduce the number they currently have.

he is advocationg transparency on the part of those nations that DO have these terrible weapons so that the worldwide threat can be properly assessed.

he is advocating a long range ambition (he says he does not expect to see it come to fruition himself) to convince the nations of the world to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely... just as m. Reagan wished.

geo.
 
lizzie said:
Yes, I understand the comparison and contrasts. The world is a different place now than it was 30 years ago. The time for getting rid of nukes and wishing for practicality and goodwill are past. If we don't have the will to ensure that nations like Iran and N Korea will not have nuclear weapons, then it would be futile for us to disarm. As much as many would like to think the world is a nice place and that God favors the righteous, it's not true. I'm all for a peaceful world and a lack of weapons that can destroy large portions of humanity and the earth, but we should keep in mind that some nations live with the belief that force is the only legitimate form of power. If we, as a nation, want to take the risk, I can live with it. I don't think it's smart to do so.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you guys seem to think that Iran and N. Korea represent a bigger threat than the Soviet Union ever did. Sorry, I just don't see it! Not coming from one country that just barely got their nuclear weapons program off the ground but doesn't have the launch platform capable of reaching our shores, while the other hasn't even produced a single nukes beyond the test phase.

I'm not saying destroy all of our nukes while other nations still have them. That's certainly not what this nation is doing. If anything, we and our nuclear power ally (if you can call Russia an ally) are just scaling back production and possibly placement of our nukes on foreign soil. But to cry foul and claim that the President is whippy on taking up a fight when clearly he had no problem (other than what any man would have in sending troops into harms way) with sending more troops to Afghanistan...I think it's unfair to judge him for the exact same things former presidents have done for the exact same reason - to stop the spread of nuclear weapons starting with our own.

The threat is no longer as "heated" as it once was. Why keep hundreds if not thousands of nukes pointed over there when they no longer represent a threat? And the one or two troubled spots some speak of can easily be handled with conventional weapons. It's like cracking open a peanute with a sledgehammer. Does it make sense to use such force against such a tiny foe?

And the President does speak for "US", the nation. That's why we elect people as our president...to represent US as a nation.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Yes, but you guys seem to think that Iran and N. Korea represent a bigger threat than the Soviet Union ever did. Sorry, I just don't see it! Not coming from one country that just barely got their nuclear weapons program off the ground but doesn't have the launch platform capable of reaching our shores, while the other hasn't even produced a single nukes beyond the test phase.

I'm not saying destroy all of our nukes while other nations still have them. That's certainly not what this nation is doing. If anything, we and our nuclear power ally (if you can call Russia an ally) are just scaling back production and possibly placement of our nukes on foreign soil.
Click to expand...

I don't think they pose a larger threat, merely a less predictable one.

As for Russia, it's hard to say if they are our ally. Maybe they are, but they also (imo) are more inclined to sell Nukes to nations like Iran and N Korea given enough incentive financially. We shall see.
 
lizzie said:
I don't think they pose a larger threat, merely a less predictable one.

As for Russia, it's hard to say if they are our ally. Maybe they are, but they also (imo) are more inclined to sell Nukes to nations like Iran and N Korea given enough incentive financially. We shall see.
Click to expand...

That's ludicrous. Russia wouldn't risk the international fallout if they did.
 
One of Reagan's rules of thumb was "trust, but verify". I've been reading that Russia has sold an S-300 missile defense system to Iran, disregarding pressure from the West and Israel. This is one of those things that needs verification.
 
lizzie said:
Because Reagan had the will to back up what he believed with action. He was a man who was unafraid of conflict and the ugly realities that go along with it.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the Marine Barracks Bombing in Lebanon?:roll:

What wars did we fight during Reagan's terms? Grenada?
 
the cold war

we won
 
USA-1 said:
Did you know that the Cold War was not really a war.
So what did we win?
Click to expand...

We won a safer, more secure world as the Soviet Union fell apart. We won a freer world, as the Soviet Union no longer ruled Eastern Europe. We won a world free of the old style Communism.

We also lost our boogyman, at least until the Islamic nutters attacked us and gave us a new one: Terrorism.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Oh no!!! Your country now only has the ability to nuke the world 5 times over and not 6!!! What a coward Obama is.
Click to expand...

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! What will we ever do?




:roll:
 
lizzie said:
Because Reagan had the will to back up what he believed with action. He was a man who was unafraid of conflict and the ugly realities that go along with it.
Click to expand...

You mean like how he talked tough about fighting terrorism in Lebanon right before he appeased them and left?

On October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber attacked US military barracks in Lebanon killing 241 servicemen. Reagan immediately pledged to keep US military in Lebanon. Vice President Bush declared that the US "would not be cowed by terrorists." Caspar Weinberger said there would be no change in American policy.

Right. In reality, Reagan did nothing to retaliate for those attacks and on February 23, 1984, he ordered the Marines to withdraw from Lebanon completely. So much for this ridiculous myth that Reagan was a warrior who would never settle for "appeasement" or retreat.

Reagan the Appeaser : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

And for more fun:

Matthew Yglesias (June 25, 2008) - Appeasement History (Foreign Policy)
 
lizzie said:
I don't think they pose a larger threat, merely a less predictable one.

As for Russia, it's hard to say if they are our ally. Maybe they are, but they also (imo) are more inclined to sell Nukes to nations like Iran and N Korea given enough incentive financially. We shall see.
Click to expand...

All the more reason to pursue nuclear arms reduction/disarmament, don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom