Russia and The 1980’s

Things are going so badly for the Obama administration on foreign policy that it just might be time for another speech on Climate Change. This post has to be sarcastic in nature because of the fact that the reality is so devastating that it is hard to comprehend. Putin has shown the world how feckless Obama is on the world stage and has upstaged and outwitted Obama at every turn. The sight of John Francois Kerry standing next to his Russian counterpart yesterday speaking of “deconfliction” was an absolute embarrassment. In the foreign policy debate of the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney correctly pointed out that Russia was our main geo political foe, a comment of which was met with ridicule from our Idiot in Chief, and the idiot is now confronted with that exact reality. Obama is no match for Putin, and Putin knows it. In fact the world knows it. The United States of America has been marginalized in the eyes of our allies, and mocked by our foes and that is hard to take for those of us who actually care about this country. The USA is presently in more danger than at any other time in it’s history and all you need to know about our political opponents is that they still consider Republicans to be more of a threat than any current external force. The Democrats and the Progressive media are more focused on the defunding of PP, the “right wing conspiracy” against Hillary, and immigration, than they are with the growing threat of ISIS, Russia, and Iran and that fact should alarm everyone. The deal that Obama just cut with Iran poses a monumental threat not just to the stability of the Middle East but to our national security. The single greatest national sponsor of terrorism is Iran, and thanks to Obama they now have the means and the confidence to expand their reach. Our political opponents are as dangerous to this country as any terrorist group could ever be, and we need to treat them as such. We should initiate impeachment proceedings immediately.

20 thoughts on “Russia and The 1980’s

  1. Marc Lee October 1, 2015 / 12:01 pm

    While I certainly agree with you about the horrendous danger this country has been placed in, I disagree on who our greatest enemy is at this time. Obama is and has been the greatest enemy to this nation and has methodically and deliberately weakened or dismantled our ability to defend ourselves. The time for impeachment is long past. Maybe back when we were first aware of our involvement stirring the Arab Spring in Egypt and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe when Obama went in to Libya and flipped the bird to Congress and the War Powers Act. Back when the destabilization of the region was becoming obvious. But we didn’t. And now we’re in grave danger that impeachment will take far too long to rectify in light of the rapidly changing situation. This president needs to be deemed unfit to serve and removed from office by our military leaders. He has already failed miserably in Syria and allowed Putin to fill the vacuum. What recourse do you suggest he has at this point? We have no recourse while he remains in office.

    • Cluster October 1, 2015 / 12:11 pm

      I concur Marc and guess I didn’t make myself clear enough. I absolutely consider Obama and the Democratic Party to be the greatest threat this country currently faces. And while I do not condone lying in any shape, manner, or form, I still give Carly a pass for her recent transgression because of the nature of our political enemy. I do not consider Obama and Progressives to be decent people and they should be treated with disdain. They are turning this country into a third world sh*t hole and we had better put a stop to it with whatever means possible before the “fundamental transformation” is completed.

      • Cluster October 1, 2015 / 3:52 pm

        Marc, please don’t vote for Carly Fiorina. You’re obviously trying to find something to convince you of that, so rather than spin your wheels on left wing garbage, just don’t vote for her and you will have peace of mind.

        I was amused by this line in the article:

        …..the more I research her background, the more troubled I become.

        That’s a line you would never read in the media about Obama. They went out of their way not to dig into his background. And incidentally Marc, do you think if the SEC had some hard evidence of criminal activity on behalf of Fiorina, that they would go after her? Better yet, do you actually think that you are first person to come across this information?

      • Cluster October 1, 2015 / 9:01 pm

        Marc, I took a little time to check on the source of the article and the author is a self described constitutional conservative and actually had a couple of pretty good articles, which leads me to a serious question. Why do conservatives do this? That article is nothing more than a hit piece with vague generalities. Does the author actually think the SEC was unaware of this? Does the author think that Carly ran Lucent by herself? No other executives, lawyers, board members, investors? Just Carly, right? Running amok. And pocketing $60 million to boot. And this is the disqualifier? I expect the left to do this, but i don’t understand why conservatives do to this each other. If you don’t like her, just don’t vote for her.

  2. tiredoflibbs October 1, 2015 / 12:15 pm

    Impeachment proceedings? A) the establishment Republicans are too cowardly and B) Democrats put party and ideology before country…. It doesn’t matter that obame has circumvented and disregarded the Constitution at every turn. It doesn’t matter that he abuses his executive order privileges. It doesn’t matter… what matters to him is transforming this country anyway he can and let his political appointees maintain his transformation through judicial activism and his drones attack all political opponents with accusations of racism – something the cowardly establishment Republicans are too afraid to face.


  3. M. Noonan October 2, 2015 / 12:38 am

    You kind of beat me to it on this – I was going to write an article called “Is This the End of the United States?”.

    To be sure, I understand Obama’s thinking on all this: Iran has only been our enemy because we’ve done them wrong, starting with the coup in the 50’s (as if we forced the Iranians to have a coup). All that has gone wrong between us since then stems from this. If we can just make friends with them, the middle east will cool down, Israel will be safe and we won’t have to be deeply engaged there.

    Of course, the reality is that Iran is our enemy because the Iranian government despises us for what we are – both good and bad, by the way…they hate us because we have liberty, and because we have filth in our popular culture, as it were. Their wish is to dominate the middle east – for their own power and because they believe that their brand of Islam is orthodox and the other brands must go down before it. The fundamental problem with the middle east is this fight between various brands of Islam, all of which believe they’ve got it right and the rest have to go…and, of course, the Jews and Christians have to go, as well.

    But aside from the middle east, Obama’s whole line of action has been to wreck the United States – once again on the theory that the world’s problems are largely the result of American folly or wickedness. I don’t know if the world can be put back together again.

    • Cluster October 2, 2015 / 8:34 am

      Obama complained for four years about the mess he inherited from Bush. Just consider for a moment the world class mess the next POTUS will inherit from Obama. The speech that Ted Cruz gave on the Senate floor the other day was one the single best political speeches I have ever heard. He accurately called out the Democrats for their obsessive allegiance to an ideology that has harmed this country, and he had the courage to call out the Republicans for their harmful allegiance to K Street and big business, and their reluctance to fight the good fight because of their desire for “wheel barrels full of campaign cash”. Ted Cruz put a very bright spotlight on Washington and exposed the ugliness and for that, I am strongly leaning towards Ted Cruz.

      • M. Noonan October 2, 2015 / 10:46 am

        Cruz certainly understands what has gone wrong – if he gets the nomination, I’ll enthusiastically vote for him. Still think Jindal is the better overall candidate.

      • Cluster October 2, 2015 / 11:09 am

        I like Jindal, but he is not forceful enough and I don’t think he has the ability to galvanize and inspire the base.

    • Bob Eisenhower October 2, 2015 / 6:05 pm


      I do not think the Iranians hate us for our liberty. There’s a bit of jealousy but there are varying degrees of that in all other nations.

      Iranians do, indeed hate us for our history. It is unfortunate that we fostered that coup (and by the way, a nation’s people don’t decide to have a coup, that would be called a revolution. A coup is carried out by a cabal, usually military). An we backed a horrible dictator, the Shah, for decades.

      Mind you, it was a good call on our part. Allegiance with Iran and Turkey was the most important Cold War alliance, more so than NATO in my opinion. We had to back that horrible dictator.

      To thine self be true. This nation (its government and/or people) have done some bad things. This is called history, and all nations have bad in their histories.

      We sided with a bad guy to hold back a global menace. Seems like a good decision, even now. My condolences (not joking) to those poorly affected, who now are our enemies because they hate us so.

      • Cluster October 2, 2015 / 7:12 pm

        You’re not wrong Bob, but IIRC it was the British who were our main allies in the coup. The British had a huge interest in the Iran oil industry at the time, and Mosaddegh was attempting to nationalize the oil industry against the wishes of both the Shah and the Brits. So did we back a bad guy? Yes. But I believe we did it to protect an ally and our national interest, and as it turns out that is what we probably should have done with Mubarek and Gaddafi

      • Bob Eisenhower October 2, 2015 / 7:21 pm

        They hate the British, too.

        And I never said we were the bad guy. America is the gratest that ever was.

        I said we made a choice that was for the overall best, but that choice made a generation of people hate us. And the British, too.

        We also made a choice is creating Israel (with those Brits again), and they hate us for that.

        They do not hate us for our liberty or because Kim Kardasian is a vapid, rich skank. They hate us because we done them wrong while we were saving the world.

      • Cluster October 2, 2015 / 8:59 pm

        LOL. Well it seems like the world was more saved back then, then it is now after we have stopped saving the world. The zealots who run those countries will always hate us, and who really cares. I think much of the average citizenry is ambivalent if not a little fond of America particularly Iran. But we really have to stop caring who likes us or not, and we should no longer be interested in who or what they are governed by either. I just want them to fear and respect us.

      • M. Noonan October 3, 2015 / 12:15 am

        I think it important to get entirely away from the the Narrative of the last 75 years – and part of that Narrative is “Third World nationalist just wants to be free from imperialism and set up democratic self government”. That is, from start to finish, pure bull. Mossadegh had no more desire for Iranian democracy than Nasser had for Egyptian democracy or, more recently, Chavez had for Venezuelan democracy. All they wanted was power – and whipping up hatred of the foreigner is akin to whipping up hatred of the Jews…it is just someone for LIV people to hate while their leaders destroy any semblance of law (and, often, set about looting the Treasury). Mossadegh first allied with the Islamists and when they turned on him for being insufficiently Islamist, he allied himself with the communists…and that is when US policy, which had been rather hands-off, went towards getting rid of Mossadegh.

        Mossadegh, of course, had infuriated the British by stealing Britain’s property in Iran – nationalizing the oil industry there. One might take the line that this was a good thing, but the bottom line is that if the Brit’s hadn’t poured the money in, Iran wouldn’t have had an oil industry to be nationalized (curiously enough, it was a young First Lord of the Admiralty who got the ball rolling as the Royal Navy switched over from coal to oil to power their ships…that First Lord was Winston Churchill). And it wasn’t that the Iranians weren’t making bank off it – but it was a simple bit of class warfare propaganda for Iranian politicians on the make to imply to the Iranian people that they would be the primary beneficiaries of a bit of highway robbery in the form of nationalizing the oil industry. Of course, the Iranian people wouldn’t have seen any more of the money than the Venezuelan people did when Chavez took over the oil industry – because you can’t just wave a magic wand and get oil…you need various skills and technologies which aren’t, as it turns out, readily available in the most oil-rich countries. And what revenues there are to be had after nationalization will, of course, be impounded for the use of the new Ruling Class, anyways.

        At mid-century, things like this were splendid for Third World politicians – bad, old, imperialists against good, young nationalists! Just made for a great Narrative. It worked so well that the Egyptians went for nationalization of the Suez Canal – in violation of several internationally binding treaties, by the way – even though the Brits were going to have to leave anyway in a short time as their treaty rights in Suez were about to expire. Nasser just wanted a showy kick at the Brits to burnish his political reputation among ignorant fools.

        But the two things – the Iranian and Egyptian nationalization schemes – point out something which was crucially important and which we in the West entirely flubbed: standing on treaty rights, absolutely. Treaty allowed the Brits to own the Iranian oil fields – treaty allowed the Brits to own the Suez Canal (in conjunction with a lot of other international stock holders). It didn’t matter how much the Iranians or Egyptians didn’t like it – treaties are treaties and must be kept. No one can abrogate a treaty all on his own unless the treaty allows such an action…and in Suez and Iranian oil, the treaties didn’t allow that. The only thing Egypt or Iran could do was patiently attempt to renegotiate the treaties…which would have been a long, time-consuming process and would not lend itself to nationalist hysteria exploitable by politicians on the make. When they didn’t do that, the hammer should have justifiably fallen on them…though in the case of Iran, we shouldn’t have gone the coup route…what the Brits, French and Israelis attempted in Suez was the course of action: military seizure of the disputed property…and then negotiations between all interested parties for the final disposition of the property. When we went the coup route in Iran and refused to back the Anglo-French-Israeli effort in Suez, we essentially told the world, “do whatever the F you want…we might try a bit of skullduggery to get our way, but we won’t stand on principal”. That was the mistake – it opened the Pandora’s box for a complete collapse of international law.

        The Iranians, of course, now use the Coup as a means of stirring up hatred for the United States – but it isn’t like the Coup actually has any meaning. Iran is less free now then they were on the morn of the Coup in 1953. It is just propaganda – and only someone like Obama could take that propaganda at face value…could actually think, that is, that the Coup is the bone of contention…rather than Iranian politicians determined to gain and increase their power over their own people and over the middle east. Had they been properly smacked down in 1953 we wouldn’t have this problem – they would have got a lesson: break a treaty, and you will lose very badly. Now they know – break a treaty, shout about irrelevant nonsense, and people in the West will buy it.

      • Bob Eisenhower October 3, 2015 / 4:45 pm


        The primary reason for hatred of America is not the coup. Of course, no nation likes a coup with foreign hands in it, but that isn’t the thing. And they do hate us for Israel, but that isn’t their primary cause for hatred.

        The thing they hate is that we kept the Shah, as ruthless a dictator as Saddam, in power. Decades of “disappeared” citizens, torture prisons, etc. is considered to have been propped up and endorsed by every U.S. President.

        Look at the people of Chile. Like Iran, they were victimized by the dictator the U.S. helped bring to power. While Chileans have a generally wary stance towards the U.S., they do not hate us. Why? Probably because we did not support Pinochet; we worked (unsuccessfully) to get rid of him.

      • M. Noonan October 4, 2015 / 12:01 am

        People are being “disappeared” and tortured in Iran today – in fact, probably in vastly higher numbers than the Shah ever did. In point of fact, we don’t know how the Iranian people view the United States: it is impossible to assess because the government of Iran allows no free expression. Hiring a crowd of goons to shout “death to America” (or making them show up because they are government employees and thus could lose their jobs if they don’t) is easy – and is an old, old trick for tyrants. The crucial thing to understanding the world is, as I’ve said, getting away from the Narrative – it is invariably false; and deliberately made so by people who profit off of lies.

        To get off that subject and put it on to something a bit less immediate: the Narrative had it that the South Vietnamese government was hopelessly unpopular with the South Vietnamese people and was only kept in power by main force, supplied by the United States. But the fact of the matter is that in the wake of the Tet Offensive, the South Vietnamese government distributed 600,000 military weapons to the people of South Vietnam so that they could defend themselves against VC and NVA forces. If the South Vietnamese government was hopelessly unpopular and only kept in place by our power, then all the government would have been doing in that case was arming 600,000 new enemies. But, they didn’t – they armed people who were decidedly loyal and who used those arms to keep the VC and NVA away. The Narrative about the status of the South Vietnamese government was false – and was only one of a thousand false Narratives about that war…all of which assisted the North Vietnamese government to emerge victorious and, thus, were clearly the result of people buying North Vietnamese Narratives about the war.

        I urge everyone to look closely at things – never take at face value what someone says…especially if that someone is on the left.

  4. Cluster October 3, 2015 / 9:31 am

    Two recent Obama quotes:

    “Russia went into Syria out of weakness”

    “Chanting death to America does not create jobs”

    Any questions?

  5. tiredoflibbs October 3, 2015 / 5:51 pm

    obame: “Chanting death to America does not create jobs”

    Neither does “hope and change”.

    Record number of Americans not in the workforce since 1977. obame’s policies are failures all the way around. Carter is one happy camper…. he is no longer the worst pResident this country has ever seen.

Comments are closed.