"Support the Troops"

[maineman]

See, we can agree on something. Carter was a coward during the Iranian Hostage Taking and Reagan was on this. The only real difference is that Reagan learned a bit from this mistake. Not perfect, only better.

I was furious with Carter for not replying with a military response to the clear act of war on the part of the Iranians. But, when you think about it, the Iranian affair did not result in ANY loss of American lives, and Carter DID, at least, belatedly TRY to do something about it. Reagan ran away in Beirut and then he went on to give Iran weapons in return for Iran's exerting their influence to get our hostages released. THe message from Ronnie to the Iranians was clear: Americans were cowards and they would sell out their principles. I think that Reagan's dealings with the middle east had a worse effect on middle eastern respect for us and opinions of us than Carter's did.

 

[pegwinn]

I was furious with Carter for not replying with a military response to the clear act of war on the part of the Iranians. But, when you think about it, the Iranian affair did not result in ANY loss of American lives, and Carter DID, at least, belatedly TRY to do something about it. Reagan ran away in Beirut and then he went on to give Iran weapons in return for Iran's exerting their influence to get our hostages released. THe message from Ronnie to the Iranians was clear: Americans were cowards and they would sell out their principles. I think that Reagan's dealings with the middle east had a worse effect on middle eastern respect for us and opinions of us than Carter's did.

I agree IRT Carter/Iran.

I agree IRT Reagan/Iran-Contra

I don't agree that Reagan had a worse effect. Had Carter begun punitive strikes against Iran....... I think there is a good chance that history wouldn't record so many terrorist acts.

I think the worst overall blunder during the 80's and to a lesser extent the 90's was to disregard the terrorists as little more than annoyances and focus soley on the Soviet bloc.

 

[red states rule]

I was furious with Carter for not replying with a military response to the clear act of war on the part of the Iranians. But, when you think about it, the Iranian affair did not result in ANY loss of American lives, and Carter DID, at least, belatedly TRY to do something about it. Reagan ran away in Beirut and then he went on to give Iran weapons in return for Iran's exerting their influence to get our hostages released. THe message from Ronnie to the Iranians was clear: Americans were cowards and they would sell out their principles. I think that Reagan's dealings with the middle east had a worse effect on middle eastern respect for us and opinions of us than Carter's did.

Clinton did the same in Somalia whcih led to 9-11

Now Dems are doing the same with Iraq

Dems never learn from their mistakes

 

[maineman]

Clinton did the same in Somalia whcih led to 9-11

Now Dems are doing the same with Iraq

Dems never learn from their mistakes

why do you ignore what Reagan did?

 

[maineman]

oh...never mind...I know why: because he was a republican!

 

[Gunny]

I was furious with Carter for not replying with a military response to the clear act of war on the part of the Iranians. But, when you think about it, the Iranian affair did not result in ANY loss of American lives, and Carter DID, at least, belatedly TRY to do something about it. Reagan ran away in Beirut and then he went on to give Iran weapons in return for Iran's exerting their influence to get our hostages released. THe message from Ronnie to the Iranians was clear: Americans were cowards and they would sell out their principles. I think that Reagan's dealings with the middle east had a worse effect on middle eastern respect for us and opinions of us than Carter's did.

Did Reagan run away from Beirut? I don't recall that we actually were doing anything but occupying space. IIRC, the group that attacked us was traced to Iran, and the truck driver an Iranian.

I seem to recall that Lebanon was in the midst of a religious civil war, with Syria backing one side, and Israel interjecting itself as opposition. Into the middle of this tromps the US as a UN peacekeeping force.

Who exactly do we retaliate against? Iran from Beirut? If retaliated against Syria, would Iran care?

IMO, there was no real point to us being there. And make no mistake where MY loyalties lie .... I was a young Corporal at the time and I lost a couple of friends, and some acquaintances in the barracks bombing, to include the Marine that slept on the bunk beneath mine for 3 months in boot camp. My brother fortunately, was aboard ship, and not in the barracks.

If Reagan tucked tail and ran, then it would stand to reason that Clinton did the same in Somalia, right?

In both instances, what if we had become embroiled in some other nations' internal conflicts by declaring war against one side or the other? Would we STILL be there?

IMO, we don't belong in the middle of some other nation's internal conflicts' especially, while we play pattycakes with the external threat posed by a country such as Iran.

 

[Louie]

Regardless of how you want to look at the Iran-Contra affair, the fact remains that in the first REAL bloody battle in the United States' war against inslamic extremism - the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut - Ron Reagan sent a clear message to our enemies...when they attacked us, Ron tucked his tail between his legs and ran back home like a fucking coward. How your neocons can worship that sort of cowardice is beyond me.

hey, Ronnie is a brave man! He attacked grenada over Beiruit! Gotta keep those American spirits high for election time! All bow to the great actor!

 

[maineman]

Did Reagan run away from Beirut? I don't recall that we actually were doing anything but occupying space. IIRC, the group that attacked us was traced to Iran, and the truck driver an Iranian.

I seem to recall that Lebanon was in the midst of a religious civil war, with Syria backing one side, and Israel interjecting itself as opposition. Into the middle of this tromps the US as a UN peacekeeping force.

Who exactly do we retaliate against? Iran from Beirut? If retaliated against Syria, would Iran care?

IMO, there was no real point to us being there. And make no mistake where MY loyalties lie .... I was a young Corporal at the time and I lost a couple of friends, and some acquaintances in the barracks bombing, to include the Marine that slept on the bunk beneath mine for 3 months in boot camp. My brother fortunately, was aboard ship, and not in the barracks.

If Reagan tucked tail and ran, then it would stand to reason that Clinton did the same in Somalia, right?

In both instances, what if we had become embroiled in some other nations' internal conflicts by declaring war against one side or the other? Would we STILL be there?

IMO, we don't belong in the middle of some other nation's internal conflicts' especially, while we play pattycakes with the external threat posed by a country such as Iran.

I don't have a quarrel with anything you have said.... Somalia and Beirut appear the same from the perspective of a jihadist.

My point being that Clinton is pilloried by the right for Somalia while Reagan continues to be deified as a republican god.

and I would agree that retaliating against Lebanon for something that was perpetrated by non-lebanese would have been as stupid as.... as retaliating against Iraq for the attacks of 9/11.

 

[Gunny]

hey, Ronnie is a brave man! He attacked grenada over Beiruit! Gotta keep those American spirits high for election time! All bow to the great actor!

Loosen the chinstrap, bud. It's constricting bloodflow to the brain.

 

[Gunny]

I don't have a quarrel with anything you have said.... Somalia and Beirut appear the same from the perspective of a jihadist.

My point being that Clinton is pilloried by the right for Somalia while Reagan continues to be deified as a republican god.

and I would agree that retaliating against Lebanon for something that was perpetrated by non-lebanese would have been as stupid as.... as retaliating against Iraq for the attacks of 9/11.

I don't necessarily think Clinton ran from Somalia anymore than I think Reagan ran from Beirut. If one thinks beyond the thrist for vengeance, there was nothing in either case worth our becoming embroiled in those countries' internal conflicts.

I have never agreed with the Saddam - 9/11 connection. While I don't go 180 the other way and ignore the fact that he had connections with terrorists and/or terrorist organizations, I think stretching that to an involvement in 9/11 is a bit much.

The biggest argument against that, IMO, is that even though I believe Saddam was willing to tentatively support the enemies of his enemies (us), the Islamic jihadists were as big a threat to his power as anyone's; which, would necessitate and arm's distance stance on his part.

 

[maineman]

I don't necessarily think Clinton ran from Somalia anymore than I think Reagan ran from Beirut. If one thinks beyond the thrist for vengeance, there was nothing in either case worth our becoming embroiled in those countries' internal conflicts.

I have never agreed with the Saddam - 9/11 connection. While I don't go 180 the other way and ignore the fact that he had connections with terrorists and/or terrorist organizations, I think stretching that to an involvement in 9/11 is a bit much.

The biggest argument against that, IMO, is that even though I believe Saddam was willing to tentatively support the enemies of his enemies (us), the Islamic jihadists were as big a threat to his power as anyone's; which, would necessitate and arm's distance stance on his part.

exactly.... supporting terrorists in and of itself oughtnot to be a reason American invades, conquers and occupies places. South Boston supported the IRA for years... we should alway concentrate on our enemies and the terrorists Iraq supported were not the kind that attacked us.

 

[Gunny]

exactly.... supporting terrorists in and of itself oughtnot to be a reason American invades, conquers and occupies places. South Boston supported the IRA for years... we should alway concentrate on our enemies and the terrorists Iraq supported were not the kind that attacked us.

No, Saddam was a big supporter of Hamas suicide bombers by paying some amount of money to the surviving family members. I also have seen at times he had some dialogues with OBL, and allowed al-Zawahiri to recoup in a Baghdad hospital.

The tenuous Saddam-OBL connection is the one that "some folks" always point to, but I would have been surprised if two nations/groups that considered us Enemy #1 did not have dialogue.

Hell, even the Germans and Japanese were allies, and wouldn't it have been fun to sit and watch them two go at it had they swept the rest of their respective spheres of influence unopposed? I'd bet dollars to donuts each thought the other a lesser form of life.

 

[maineman]

Saddam supported palestinian nationalist organizations that routinely employed terror as a tactic. He did NOT support wahabbist organizations that ultimately sought the demise of secular arab nation states such as his own. The former was not out to attack the US...the latter IS.

 

[maineman]

and I believe it was Zarqawi who recuperated in a Baghdad hospital, but I see no reason to believe that Saddam "allowed" that to happen...and, at that time, Zarqawi was a RIVAL of OBL and not an ally.

 

[Gunny]

and I believe it was Zarqawi who recuperated in a Baghdad hospital, but I see no reason to believe that Saddam "allowed" that to happen...and, at that time, Zarqawi was a RIVAL of OBL and not an ally.

I always get their names mixed up. al-Zarqawi, Zawahiri, al-Sadr ... one dumbass extremist after another. Like cutting off one of the hydra's heads.

 

[red states rule]

and I believe it was Zarqawi who recuperated in a Baghdad hospital, but I see no reason to believe that Saddam "allowed" that to happen...and, at that time, Zarqawi was a RIVAL of OBL and not an ally.

Saddam's son ran the hospital and oversaw the operation. So Saddam did not know?

 

[Gunny]

Saddam's son ran the hospital and oversaw the operation. So Saddam did not know?

The real question ... does it matter whether or not he knew? Put yourself in Saddam's shoes. You have the Shia pushed into the No Fly Zones. You have the Kurds in the Northern No Fly Zone. You have UN sanctions choking off your country. You have the US on your southern border.

Do you pick a fight with AQ? Under those circumstances, I would probably figure ignoring his presence to be the prudent course of action.

 

[red states rule]

The real question ... does it matter whether or not he knew? Put yourself in Saddam's shoes. You have the Shia pushed into the No Fly Zones. You have the Kurds in the Northern No Fly Zone. You have UN sanctions choking off your country. You have the US on your southern border.

Do you pick a fight with AQ? Under those circumstances, I would probably figure ignoring his presence to be the prudent course of action.

He was giving a haven to terrorists, and funding terrorists activities - Saddam was a terrorist

 

[Gunny]

He was giving a haven to terrorists, and funding terrorists activities - Saddam was a terrorist

A perfect example of logical conclusion, at its finest.

Saddam was a brutal dictator. He was not a terrorist within the context of Islamic terrorists for the purposes of this discussion.

One terrorist being treated in a hospital is NOT providing safe have to terrorists.

The terrorists activities that Saddam funded were in no way part of AQ's jihad against the US.

You have completely ignored the facts, and they have been presented in this thread, and responded with talking points that cannot be substantiated without twisting the truth.

 

[pegwinn]

Y'know it just occured to me that I am the only guy in the US of A that really couldn't care less if SH was a terrorist, had WMD, or enjoyed drinking the blood of virgins.

In 1991 we should have removed him then. This was simply unfinished business.