254 US Marines killed

[Camp]

Reagan's failure to respond in a robust and meaningful show of force and punishment and to seek out the specific terrorist responsible for the murderers of the Marines and the attack on the Embassy in Beirut led to an era of fearless terrorist making continued and consistent attacks on Americans and American interest. Reagan worshipers hate to admit this and go into fits of denial when it is brought up, but it is a fact that is undeniable. Before the Beirut Embassy and Barrack's bombing that followed the Embassy attack, middle eastern terror groups focused on Israel and refrained from attaching Americans or American interest. After the attacks they added Americans and American interest to their target list as acceptable tactical and strategic targets.

amazon.com/PeaceKeepers-War-Beirut-Marine-Commander-/dp/1597974250

Anyone who attempts to debate the fact about Reagan's response to the Beirut Barracks bombing giving birth to modern day terrorism need only show the terrorist attacks before Reagan came into office and the ones that occurred after the Embassy and Barracks Bombing.

And if Reagan has done anything more "robust", you would be claiming that modern anti-american terrorism was blow back from that.

You are speculating in a way that supports your support for Reagan. The attack on the Marines was carried out by Hezbollah with support from Iran. Hezbollah is a terror group sponsored by Iran. Instead of hunting them down and punishing them the created Iran-Contra. Killing Americans became very profitable under Reagan.

No, there was not speculation in my post.

Your behavior leaves no doubt as to the fact that no matter what, you would put the blame on the Republican.

It contains about as much "speculation" as if you let go of an object over a drop, that it will fall.

MMm, yes, good analogy. The odds of gravity suddenly failing is about the same as you NOT blaming a Republican.

You are predicting and how I would react if something that didn't happen had happened. That is pure speculation.
Where are your examples of Hezbollah off shoot terror groups attacking US targets before Reagan? Do we need to start listing the ones that happened under Reagan?

Sure it is.

I just dropped something.

Guess what? It fell.

I "speculated" that it would.

OK, I understand your meaning. The science of gravity is the same as your ability to predict the future and read minds. In your world that is rational thinking. In my world your concept is jackassery.

 

[kiwiman127]

in the Beirut barracks bombing. No one demanded Reagan resign, be impeached, or investigated. No hearings to smear Reagan or any other administration official occured. Only hearings were bipartisan and designed to improve security.

Fast foward to now and 4 die and everyone's smearing Clinton and the President over it.

Can you say politically-motivated hypocrisy?

Apples and oranges. Reagan didn't lie about it and those Marines were not turned down for help. Stick to your idiotic homo comments

The Marines were hanging around the Beirut airport as peacekeepers but had no orders. They were sitting ducks.
The Reagan Administration was WARNED by by the intelligence community. They were urged to move the troops to a more secure setting.
Yet the troops weren''t moved and the guards had no ammo.
REAGAN AIDES SAY C.I.A. BULLETIN WARNED OF LIKELY BEIRUT ATTACK

Aide: Reagan Left Marines Vulnerable in Beirut | Fox News

 

[paulitician]

Should have never been there. At least Reagan was man enough to later admit that. Good on em.

 

[kiwiman127]

Should have never been there. At least Reagan was man enough to later admit that. Good on em.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed with you but were overridden by the Reagan Administration.

 

[Correll]

And if Reagan has done anything more "robust", you would be claiming that modern anti-american terrorism was blow back from that.

You are speculating in a way that supports your support for Reagan. The attack on the Marines was carried out by Hezbollah with support from Iran. Hezbollah is a terror group sponsored by Iran. Instead of hunting them down and punishing them the created Iran-Contra. Killing Americans became very profitable under Reagan.

No, there was not speculation in my post.

Your behavior leaves no doubt as to the fact that no matter what, you would put the blame on the Republican.

It contains about as much "speculation" as if you let go of an object over a drop, that it will fall.

MMm, yes, good analogy. The odds of gravity suddenly failing is about the same as you NOT blaming a Republican.

You are predicting and how I would react if something that didn't happen had happened. That is pure speculation.
Where are your examples of Hezbollah off shoot terror groups attacking US targets before Reagan? Do we need to start listing the ones that happened under Reagan?

Sure it is.

I just dropped something.

Guess what? It fell.

I "speculated" that it would.

OK, I understand your meaning. The science of gravity is the same as your ability to predict the future and read minds. In your world that is rational thinking. In my world your concept is jackassery.

Not all minds, JUst people like you.

Anyone can do it. See Republican, know that you'll put the blame on them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan's failure to respond in a robust and meaningful show of force and punishment and to seek out the specific terrorist responsible for the murderers of the Marines and the attack on the Embassy in Beirut led to an era of fearless terrorist making continued and consistent attacks on Americans and American interest. Reagan worshipers hate to admit this and go into fits of denial when it is brought up, but it is a fact that is undeniable. Before the Beirut Embassy and Barrack's bombing that followed the Embassy attack, middle eastern terror groups focused on Israel and refrained from attaching Americans or American interest. After the attacks they added Americans and American interest to their target list as acceptable tactical and strategic targets.

amazon.com/PeaceKeepers-War-Beirut-Marine-Commander-/dp/1597974250

Anyone who attempts to debate the fact about Reagan's response to the Beirut Barracks bombing giving birth to modern day terrorism need only show the terrorist attacks before Reagan came into office and the ones that occurred after the Embassy and Barracks Bombing.

And if Reagan has done anything more "robust", you would be claiming that modern anti-american terrorism was blow back from that.

Reagan wrote a whole new set of rules after Beirut. Rules that both of the Bush presidents ignored, which is why we're still mired in the ME.

What did GHWBush do wrong? Do you think he should have left Saddam have Kuwait?

Yes. It was a regional dispute that was none of our business. We had no vital interest in where the nuts in the ME drew their borders.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why did you bring it up?

What soldiers? What war zone?

i didn't. The OP did.

So you didn't make Post #22?

It has your name on it.

Nothing in post #22 can be read as "Reagan did not let soldiers have bullets".

Stop being a lying asshole.

Why did you bring it up?

Reagan was Commander in Chief. If the guards at the Beirut barracks didn't have bullets that is on Reagan.

Are you asking why did I bring up the lack of bullets?

The answer to that was very, very clear in post 22.

Reagan was NOT the man that left the military to degrade to the point where soldiers on guard duty were not trusted to have bullets.

You could try to put every decision and action of the US military on the desk of the CiC.

Can we do that with Democratic Presidents too?

Reagan did take full responsibility for the incident in a televised speech to the American people.

Even though I find it hard to believe that Presidents should be in charge of such details.

Reagan didn't take full responsibility. He didn't resign.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did Hilary? Nope

Plus the reason for the attack is soft shit

Hillary lied her ass off about the reason for the attack. Most informed people know that.

No she didn't.

Yes she did.

"Family members of two of the four Americans murdered during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi had harsh words for Hillary Clinton following her testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Thursday.

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Kate Quigley, the sister of CIA contractor Glen Doherty, recalled a meeting she and her family had with Clinton at Andrews Air Force Base three days after the terrorist attack in which the then-secretary of state said that the onslaught started as a spontaneous protest.

“She spoke to my family about how sad we should feel for the Libyan people because they’re uneducated, and that breeds fear which breeds violence and leads to a protest,” Quigley recalled.

But as was made clear in Thursday’s hearing, Clinton knew even before the attacks were finished that terrorists with links to al-Qaeda were involved. Clinton emailed her daughter Chelsea stating that terrorists were involved. She relayed the same information to the president of Libya and the prime minister of Egypt in conversations in the day or two after the attack. But despite privately stating that terrorists were involved in the attack, Clinton parsed her words in public. And many others in the Obama administration outright tied the motive for the attacks on a YouTube video."

Read more: Benghazi Victims’ Family Members BLAST Clinton After Hearing [VIDEO]

Did she lie to Chelsea and the President of Libya and PM of Egypt or to the families of the dead victims families?
Your choice.

Nobody denied it was terrorism.

The entire Obama administration blamed it on a spontaneous demonstration as a result of a 6 month old video. Did you miss the Susan Rice appearance on five TV shows. Someone said they thought you were an idiot. I am convinced that you are.

Nobody denied it was terrorism.

 

[Correll]

Reagan's failure to respond in a robust and meaningful show of force and punishment and to seek out the specific terrorist responsible for the murderers of the Marines and the attack on the Embassy in Beirut led to an era of fearless terrorist making continued and consistent attacks on Americans and American interest. Reagan worshipers hate to admit this and go into fits of denial when it is brought up, but it is a fact that is undeniable. Before the Beirut Embassy and Barrack's bombing that followed the Embassy attack, middle eastern terror groups focused on Israel and refrained from attaching Americans or American interest. After the attacks they added Americans and American interest to their target list as acceptable tactical and strategic targets.

amazon.com/PeaceKeepers-War-Beirut-Marine-Commander-/dp/1597974250

Anyone who attempts to debate the fact about Reagan's response to the Beirut Barracks bombing giving birth to modern day terrorism need only show the terrorist attacks before Reagan came into office and the ones that occurred after the Embassy and Barracks Bombing.

And if Reagan has done anything more "robust", you would be claiming that modern anti-american terrorism was blow back from that.

Reagan wrote a whole new set of rules after Beirut. Rules that both of the Bush presidents ignored, which is why we're still mired in the ME.

What did GHWBush do wrong? Do you think he should have left Saddam have Kuwait?

Yes. It was a regional dispute that was none of our business. We had no vital interest in where the nuts in the ME drew their borders.

A warmonger on the march in the world primary oil producing region and you don't think it matters?

You do realize that that war was so popular that the US, France, the Soviet Union, Israel and Saudi Arabia were all on the same side?

Sounds like the vast majority of the world disagreed with you.

 

[Correll]

i didn't. The OP did.

So you didn't make Post #22?

It has your name on it.

Nothing in post #22 can be read as "Reagan did not let soldiers have bullets".

Stop being a lying asshole.

Why did you bring it up?

Reagan was Commander in Chief. If the guards at the Beirut barracks didn't have bullets that is on Reagan.

Are you asking why did I bring up the lack of bullets?

The answer to that was very, very clear in post 22.

Reagan was NOT the man that left the military to degrade to the point where soldiers on guard duty were not trusted to have bullets.

You could try to put every decision and action of the US military on the desk of the CiC.

Can we do that with Democratic Presidents too?

Reagan did take full responsibility for the incident in a televised speech to the American people.

Even though I find it hard to believe that Presidents should be in charge of such details.

Reagan didn't take full responsibility. He didn't resign.

Please support your implication that the only way to take full responsibility is to resign.