"Reaganesque" policy is to build a strong military, and yet not unnecessarily use it.
Despite a massive rebuilding of U.S. forces in the Reagan years, there were only three military incidents that occurred during Reagan's presidency
(1) Dislodging of a small insurrection on the Island of Grenada in 1982.
(2) The blowing up of a marine barracks of U.S. soldiers stationed in Beirut. Despite the provocation for war, Reagan saw there was no pragmatic reason to have U.S. soldiers there, and quietly removed them, rather than continue an endless back-and-forth of U.S. and Arab reprisals.
(3) After bombing of a nightclub in Italy, traced back to Quaddafi in Libya, a one-time bombing of Libya, to deter further sponsorship of terrorist bombings by Libya.
That's it.
In contrast, Hillary and Obama have weakened U.S. conventional and nuclear forces to their weakest level since before World War II, and they potentially provoke a war our military is not ready for. Further, as I answer in above posts to the topic Pariah raised, Russia has fully modernized their nuclear missiles and submarines so they are far more prepared for a war that Hillary/Obama are trying to provoke!
Hillary is a Council On Foreign Relations globalist/interventionist who would start a war just to prove she can be tough, or provoke war to distract and rally the population away from interest in her scandals and criminal actions.
What Hillary Clinton is doing with her rhetoric toward Russia is not "Reaganesque". It's self-destructive. It's suicide. It's inviting our enemies to come and conquer us, after they have already weakened our military from the inside.
It's Saul Alinsky-esque, joining the capitalist system, infiltrating it for decades, moving to the higher levels of power, and destroying the system from within to implement leftist/Cultural Marxist change.
