Reply With Quote
Winehole, this question is for u2.
Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?
Winehole, this question is for u2.
Possibly one of the most overrated Presidents of all time, hitting a gold mine due to pure cir stantial conditions regarding the break up of the U.S.S.R.
Only ray of hope seen by right wingers.
P.S-Ronald Reagan
reagan ed up central america, but more remember the USSR. overrated not becaues he wanst good, but damn he isnt the best ever. hannity stop masturbating to this guy!
"Soft on terrorism" wasn't much of a canard back in the 80's. With a rival superpower in the Soviet Union, and thousands of ICBMs pointed at each other, there's wasn't any need to inflate the "existential threat" of terrorism.
I think Iran-Contra made Ronny appear softer on terror than pulling out of Lebanon..
Sure, why not? He didn't benefit from hindsight just as Clinton did not, but the overall perception is the overall perception. Reagan's cut-and-run just doesn't get as much play in the states for whatever reason.
And yeah, Beirut, Iran-Contra, the deal for timing the release of the hostages and the purely politically convenient involvement of the US in the Soviet-Afghan conflict totally on any suggestion that Reagan considered the Islamic fundamentalist threat as anything serious at all.
Reagan was a wus. Remember KAL 007? Remember 1000 Stingers going to Iran of all places (payback for gutting Carter)?
Marines get their butts kicked, and St Ronnie pulls them out of Lebanon as fas as he could. That certainly was seen by Lebanon and their masters in Iran, already having kicked American's butt in the Tehran embassy without American reprisals, as a huge victory and encouragement to keep kicking America's butt with impunity.
St Ronnie was also the first Repug tool to start the financial deregulation rolling, cutting taxes on the rich while raising taxes on the poor, and signalling to corps with his massive firing of the air traffic controllers that war on (middle class) employees was encouraged.
And St Ronnie had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which simply bankrupted itself in Afghanistan while the price of oil plummeted (USSR's main source of $$).
We did cut and run from Lebanon, but I don't think it matters much whether that made Reagan appear soft on terror or not. A calculation was made that the US interest in Lebanon wasn't worth the risk to US troops, or that having troops there wasn't essential in order to secure whatever the US interest was at that time.
How that made us "look" wrt terrorism -- or to the terrorists -- was beside the point then. That we are even discussing it now only reflects how much 9/11 has turned us into idiotic, bedwetting security trolls.
Anyway, Reagan sort of made up for cutting and running in Lebanon by bombing Qaddafi's barracks.
The idea was to not appease the Soviets. Lebanon had nothing to do with that. About Reagan getting lucky-no luck increased our defense spending, bankrupting USSR. In fact this is a silly argument that he got lucky. No intelligent person, apart from the elitist professors where you got your talking point, would say that what Reagan walked into or what he did was from luck.
Iran Contras- He got the Americans home. If a lib did it, you would be praising diplomacy. I think it is great that we were funding the contras. the ayatolla was carters problem that reagan inherited. For you libs who think we shouldn't be involved in international affairs-this was perfect.
What about the missiles Iran got? Was that great, too?
I hate America funding our enemy, even if it is the enemy of our enemy. However had Carter protected our allies, and not handcuffed the CIA, that would have never happened. Do you think that what Carter did about the coup in Iran was acceptable?
lol thinks reagan would have prevented the coup.
So appeasing terrorists with gifts of US weapons is OK in your book -- especially when the terrorists just took more hostages to replace the ones who were released.Iran Contras- He got the Americans home.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 11-09-2009 at 10:02 AM.
Wait so the Iranian students are terrorists? I bet if their last name was Smith, you wouldn't call them terrorists.
If they did the same things as the Iranian students and government did, I would.
Nice attempt to change the subject again. Good to see you're still angry about being wrong when you said Hasan's actions met every definition of terrorism.
Trying to change the subject again.
He did.
"increased our defense spending, bankrupting USSR"
You Lie
The USSR was totally dependent for hard currency on petro-dollars, which greatly decreased with the last deep economic contraction after the Iranian Revolution oil shock.
Coupled with the expenses of years in Afghanistan, the USSR simply ran out of funds.
Had NOTHING to do with St Ronnie's bull Hollywood StarWars or military build-up. That was all predicated on the Robert Gates politicizing the CIA's reports to the WH to give the WH the "facts" it wanted, ie, that the USSR was a huge threat (when in fact it was industrially moribund and financially bankrupt) so the Repugs could enrich the MIC on false pretenses.
Not the US Code definition I gave last night. Sorry you're still angry about it. Just accept you were wrong. It's not the first time.
I just think we could talk about how bad ass Reagan was on the anniversary of the berlin wall falling down. Lets look back at all the liberal loons who thought he shouldn't have told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Let's look at all the libs now who want appeasement policies and see how well they worked against Reagan and Bush's policies. Carter/Obama policy of making our enemies happy and denouncing our allies havn't done much, have they? Casey even is saying we need more troops in Afghanistan. Obama decried Bush for not having enough troops in Afghan, and what is he doing?
What president did not give money to our enemies?
Great. Start another thread.
I know Reagan is the right's messiah and he must be thought of as perfect and infallible, but he wasn't. Quit doing for Reagan what you accuse Obama's supporters of doing for him.
LE 18 Part 1 CH 113B Subsection 2331
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
For all the libs that think calling the war on terrorism a overseas contingency battle is necessary.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
