PDA

View Full Version : What will Obama do?



LWW
02-20-2011, 07:38 AM
Shouldn't we expect him to demand that the Chinese communist leadership step down?

Shouldn't we expect him to endorse the peaceful protestors?

Shouldn't we be seeing dear leader demand changes to the Chinese constitution?

Or, should we be expecting Obama to be shown ... again ... as a hypocrite who embraces thugocracies which oppose US interests as he has done withe the Iranians and others?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BEIJING Jittery Chinese authorities wary of any domestic dissent staged a concerted show of force Sunday to squelch a mysterious online call for a "Jasmine Revolution" apparently modeled after pro-democracy demonstrations sweeping the Middle East.

Authorities detained activists, increased the number of police on the streets, disconnected some mobile phone text messaging services and censored Internet postings about the call to stage protests at 2 p.m. in Beijing, Shanghai and 11 other major cities. </div></div>
OH DEAR! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110220/ap_on_re_as/as_china_jasmine_revolution)

LWW

Sev
02-20-2011, 07:50 AM
The sock puppet will remain silent.

LWW
02-20-2011, 06:03 PM
Wow!

At this point I have to assume that our esteemed leftist members don't believe the Chinese people have the same human rights as the Egyptians?

LWW

llotter
02-20-2011, 06:21 PM
The Left has a soft spot in their hearts for communists cause they are one.

cushioncrawler
02-20-2011, 06:23 PM
I prefer the party-pipple to the pipple-pipple.
The world duznt need another stupid demokracy.
The party aint perfikt, but most pipple-pipple (everywhere) are stupid.
mac.

Soflasnapper
02-20-2011, 07:19 PM
Such an unserious question, my word!

Sure, he should stick his thumb in the eye of one of our largest creditors and trading partners, in a quixotic bid to escalate tensions and help sour the economy more, with no chance of success.

Right, he should do that, or else be called hypocritical.

Like Reagan told Gorbachev to step aside, I guess you mean?

Look up the serenity prayer, and ask for some wisdom. Not everything in the world is amenable to US presidential control, and the sooner juvenile minds understand it, the better.

LWW
02-21-2011, 02:01 AM
So we should be for freedom ... unless money is involved?

Is that really the position you want to take?

And, FWIW, Reagan pushed the whole communist state to step aside.

And, as for myself, I've always blamed Bush I for not taking a stand over Tianenmen Square ... and blamed Bush II for not taking a stronger stand against the ChiComs.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-21-2011, 02:54 AM
Money trumps peace, Bush admits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRKKOUHA4A&NR=1)

He's making a different, but related, point.

Foreign policy must be realistic, including all effects, economic effects and effects on our allies among them. Chance of success, willingness to commit resources, all ramifications, including national security. It's easy to push for bold but empty exhorations, when you have no responsibility for what happens next. This is bar-room punditry from loud talking drunks.

And, FWIW, Reagan pushed the whole communist state to step aside.

So far as I remember, Reagan predicted their demise, but never pushed any of them to step aside. Maybe Castro. He thought history would inevitably handle that by itself.

LWW
02-21-2011, 03:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Money trumps peace, Bush admits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRKKOUHA4A&NR=1)

He's making a different, but related, point.

Foreign policy must be realistic, including all effects, economic effects and effects on our allies among them. Chance of success, willingness to commit resources, all ramifications, including national security. It's easy to push for bold but empty exhorations, when you have no responsibility for what happens next. This is bar-room punditry from loud talking drunks.</div></div>

I hate to break this to you ... but Bush isn't the POTUS any longer.

LWW

LWW
02-21-2011, 03:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And, FWIW, Reagan pushed the whole communist state to step aside.

So far as I remember, Reagan predicted their demise, but never pushed any of them to step aside. Maybe Castro. He thought history would inevitably handle that by itself. </div></div>

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100322/GAL-10Mar22-4120/media/PHO-10Mar22-213187.jpg

HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A) was the point of no return for the Soviet regime.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-21-2011, 09:50 AM
Hardly. The Soviet empire was finished by their failure to rein in Poland, and their decision not to use force in that situation, not by anything Reagan said in Germany, which preceded the actual fall for other reasons some 3 years after his speech.

A military officer Politburo member revealed in Worth Magazine that decision had been made prior to Reagan taking office.

To be clear here, in this speech Reagan didn't call for Gorbachev to step down, or even the E. German leadership to step down. He said this would prove Gorbachev wanted peace and reform, not that it would sweep away their empire, which as I said was already crumbled because of what happened earlier on in Poland.

LWW
02-21-2011, 05:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A military officer Politburo member revealed in Worth Magazine that decision had been made prior to Reagan taking office.</div></div>

Whatever's on the spoon I see.

LWW