miamizsun wrote: 
Always true.

 steeler wrote: 
that depends on how one would define outrage

Obama: "an outrage of unspeakable proportions"

 ScottN wrote: 

Yea I pretty much agree with that.  Something has to be done to correct the root cause of the humanitarian crisis that is benefiting no one except for the human traffickers though and if it is this legislation it must be modified at the very least and quickly.

 kurtster wrote: 
You were mentioning his weak foreign policy, which includes (and has often in the past included) financial/military support for authoritarian/far-right regimes when convenient (including Nuland's orchestrated love affair with Ukrainian fascists in Russia's hinterland). See the post below on Reagan or the history of the Middle American countries where some of them "invading" kids now come from ("I wanna be in Ahmericah"). Again, Guatamala was mentioned below in the article about the neo-Reagan's hagiography, but there's also Honduras and others. Chicks, roost.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Egypt as in Mubarak is not our guy, then he is and then he isn't.

Then he installs the Muslim Brotherhood and assures us that they are no threat to anyone ...

I'm talking about Obama's policy, not as to which authoritarian regimes the US supports.  

 kurtster wrote:You set the bar so low it is tough to know where to start as Reagan was, mostly, at best a figurehead, and at worst, criminal (Iran Contra on a long list).  By time Iran/Contra was being litigated and Reagan in possible legal peril, he was already suffering from dementia.  See RichardPrins for an eloquent dismantling of Reagan as hero and leader.  Imo, he was  perhaps well-intentioned, but largely a fraud, and as I said, occasionally criminal. He did play his role well.

You seem locked in your loop of conservative outrage and impervious to other perspectives...or what others regard as facts.  Good luck with that.

 kurtster wrote: 

Hmmm. Link about Reagan acting immediately is rather bereft of summaries of actions taken.  Lots of tough talk in the September 5 address to nation.  I believe there were denouncements at the United Nations, and I believe some negotiations with Soviets were suspended similar to Soviets being exluded from G8 after Soviet  annexation of Crimea a few months back..

neo-kurtster wrote: 
Egypt, back to the good old days of supporting dictators/coups and other genocidal maniacs in the region, aside from Israel that is...

Secretary of State John Kerry voiced strong U.S. support for Egypt's new president and signaled that Washington will continue the flow of military aid in an American welcome of the post-coup government. (...)

And as for Reagan's "decisive leadership", see the time when the U.S. downed Iran Air 655 claiming they thought it was a F-14:

(...) At the White House, a spokesman said Mr. Reagan planned to remain at Camp David until noon Monday, when the President was scheduled to return to the capital. But other officials, including the national security adviser, Lieut. General Colin L. Powell, were said to be returning from their weekend holidays to handle the crisis. (...)

It should be clear who the fools are that are engaged in the fantasy and myth-making surrounding Ronnie Raygun:

(...) But which Reagan is being commemorated? The man or the myth? Conservatives, and especially neoconservatives, have deified him as the warrior president who won the cold war with a combination of a muscular foreign policy and a well-funded military. Progressives have dismissed him as a cowboy president, hellbent on confrontation with the Soviet Union and itching to nuke Moscow. (His humorous asides didn't help: on one occasion Reagan leaned into a microphone and joked: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.")

But have both his supporters and his critics got him wrong? Neoconservatives, for instance, have long claimed that they are his ideological heirs. One of the most influential neocon texts, a 1996 essay in the journal Foreign Affairs by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, was titled "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy". The following year, in its founding "statement of principles", the now notorious neocon Project for the New American Century called for a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity".

The coalition's own neocon-in-chief – the education secretary, Michael Gove – writing in 2004, claimed that "it was because Ronald Reagan kept the faith that he achieved so much. What was that faith? In a word, neoconservatism."

It is a bogus claim. Reagan was no neocon. Unchallenged by progressives, rightwing hawks have rewritten history, leaving neocons like Kristol and Gove free to appropriate his name for their own belligerent ends.

Don't get me wrong. Reagan was no peacenik, either. A card-carrying cold warrior, he secretly sold weapons to Iran and Iraq, illegally funded the Nicaraguan Contras, provided aid to a Guatemalan army later accused by a UN-backed truth commission of carrying out "acts of genocide", and supported Osama bin Laden's mujahideen in Afghanistan, and Jonas Savimbi's Unita in Angola.

Nonetheless, he succeeded in avoiding a direct military confrontation. As the liberal US writer Peter Beinart argues in his book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris: "On the ultimate test of hawkdom – the willingness to send US troops into harm's way – Reagan was no bird of prey. He launched exactly one land war, against Grenada, whose army totalled 600 men. It lasted two days. And his only air war – the 1986 bombing of Libya – was even briefer." (...)

And "coincidentally" from the ilk of Robert Kagan we end up with Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland who, as we all know, was heavily involved in... you guessed it, Ukraine.

 ScottN wrote: 
We will indeed see.  Reagan acted immediately, turning George Schultz loose immediately.  He spoke forcefully and in no uncertain terms.  You believed him and his commitment to act.  He did not make idle threats.  You had to take Reagan seriously, there was little wondering.  Whether you agreed with him or not, he did follow through on his words in matters like what we are discussing.

When it comes to foreign policy, can the same be said about Obama ?  One word, Egypt.

Reagan cancelled his vacation and worked on this immediately and gave that address 4 days later.  Obama barely acknowledged the event knowing enough during his first comments to at least condemn the act and the acknowledge that it was shot down, not blown up.  And then Obama went on to party in NYC .

4 days will be Monday.  We will see what Obama has done between now and then.  Comparing Obama to Reagan is certainly legitimate.

 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
USA! USA!

 kurtster wrote: 
Yeah maybe if one of our current enemies shot down a planeload of people who got on that plane in New York City, Obama would have a reason to stick his nose in. But, as tragic as it is, it doesn't involve us, and our president is doing a decent job of not spouting a bunch of bellicose bluster the only outcome of which would be to "put up or shut up" over a skirmish we want no part of. But I don't know, maybe you do wish for a hot war with Russia. God knows we have a huge healthy military with nothing better to do right now, and we're swimming in budget surpluses that will only go to waste on health care and people and crap if we don't fight fight fight.

 kurtster wrote: 

Quickly,from the world of logic and reason:
The Korean airliner was shot down on September 1, 1983.  Reagan's addresss to the nation, the video of which you have supplied here, was made September 5, 1983.
The facts that emerged were that the Soviets shot down the Korean airliner because it had entered Soviet air space.  In fact, in the video, Reagan plays parts of the intercepted communications that served as evidence that the Soviets had intentionally fired the missile without knowing — or perhaps even knowing — that it was a commercial airliner.

Compare and contrast.  As you yourself have said in this thread today, at this point, this appears to be an accident that occurred in a war zone.  The best information right now is that this probably was a missile fired by Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine who thought they were firing on a Ukraine military plane, not a commercial airliner.

As information is gathered,perhaps the facts will show something different. 
                        

 kurtster wrote: 
Me too. Welcome back to the ignore bench.

 kurtster wrote:Like I said earlier, irony is most enjoyed on a Friday.
In short, Reagan had days to prepare for the speech and considerable time (days) to consider statements and actions to be taken.

You, however, are criticizing Obama for smth that happened a very short time before he made an address on another topic.
We are now seeing, if we (you) choose to observe, what Obama and our allies will do with the same time to consider and coordinate actions.

 islander wrote: 
You are so clueless.  You accept mediocrity and incompetence as the new normal.

This is an example of what a leader does.  Its not about the specific actions related to the event of KAL 007.  Its about taking actions, not barely acknowledging an atrocity, which the downing of the Malaysian airliner is.  And it is an atrocity regardless if it was an accident or deliberate.

I give up.  Go snort some Pixie dust ©.  You need it more than I do.
 

 kurtster wrote: 
So you want him to take action with our allies to impact Russia?  Like increasing the sanctions already in place and encouraging our allies to do the same?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2014/07/17/new-us-sanctions-against-russia-go-further-than-ever-before/

Maybe you want him to say something specifically implicating Russia? like: "without sophisticated equipment and sophisticated training, and that is coming from Russia."  Okay, done. 

What else would you like?  Maybe he could refer to Michelle as "Nancy"?

 sirdroseph wrote:The "immigration" bill to which I refer is basically good legislation, imo,  that has led to unintended consequences. The legislation  must be modified, certainly.

As I understand it, there is a complex of reasons why this surge in child illegal entry has occurred. I leave that analysis to another time and thread.  I simply reject the Kurster stated claim that it is an "invasion" and an "Obama plot" or "Obama allowed", as if he alone is responsible.  That is far too simplistic.

Want an invasion example?  Visit Gaza.
 

This is the standard I use for judging Obama ...

I also know that nearly everyone who has participated in this thread the past couple of days holds Reagan in very low regard.

Reagan immediately cancelled his vacation to return to Washington to deal with this head on.  If you actually watch it, pay attention to the 9:50 mark and while watching, remember how primitive our technology was 21 years ago, yet so much was known immediately regarding the incident and was shared as soon as it became available. 
This is a clear and stark contrast to Obama ...   

This is real leadership.