What Would Reagan Do In Egypt?

[RadiomanATL]

The same thing he did in Lebanon?

See? I keep trying to tell them....

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Following a rapid deterioration of conditions in Beirut, President Reagan Feb. 7 ordered the U.S. Marines of the multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon to begin withdrawing to U.S. ships offshore. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Reagan's decision followed the resignation of Lebanese President Amin Gemayel's cabinet Feb. 5 and a military collapse that left Moslem militiamen in control of western and southern Beirut. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]As a show of continuing support for Gemayel, however, Reagan coupled his decision to withdraw with new rules of engagement that allowed U.S. commanders to mount naval and air attacks on antigovernment forces in Lebanon. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Reagan's announcement, which took most U.S. politicians by surprise, was greeted with relief by congressional leaders. The widening of the U.S. military role in support of Gemayel, however, came under immediate attack. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The U.S.'s European allies in the multinational peacekeeping force had also been given little warning of Reagan's decision, but Britain and Italy Feb. 8 quickly announced their own plans to withdraw from the embattled capital. [/FONT]

SOURCE

Now he did so in effect to keep any more Marines there from being killed. But WE weren't apparently the only ones that withdrew.

[/FONT]

Britain and Italy left because we did. We left because Reagan didn't want to get embroiled in a sideline to his main enemy. Communism. Unfortunately, his turning tail and running embolded Islamic nutcases. "The "Great Satan" runs away! They did in Tehran...They did in Beirut." We saw the end results of those type of policies on 9/11/2001.

The bombing of the barracks was a straight up act of war. One that we ran away from, and never went back to. A tactical withdrawal in order to save lives is completely understandable and encouraged if that is what the situation requires. However, Reagan did not perform a tactical withdrawal as you suggest. He tucked his tail and went home.

 

[The Hatter]

yes you have a wonderful Utopian view of the world. In a perfect world we would stay out of it. However we live in the Real world. Where Egypt controls Access to one of the most important Places on earth. The Canal, and is in close proximity to Israel.

Now Reagan could not exactly support Mubarak because the alternative was worse, while at the same time trashing him for human Rights abuses now could he.

It is very easy to arm Chair Quarter Back these issues and conclude we were wrong. It would be an entirely different thing to draw the same conclusion if you had actually been there at the time.

I don't have a wonderful Utopian view of the world. I was merely pointing out that many people (including myself to a great degree) believe that sticking our noses in countries business where we had no place to be is what has caused a lot of our problems in the first place.

Reagan could of had easily pressured Mubarak into stopping human rights abuses. Just as could have George H.W Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama. Except, they didn't. It took the will of the people to finally stand up and say enough is enough for something to be done.

Supporting oppressive regimes in countries around the world isn't a good way to make friends with citizens who are going to be mighty pissed off at us when they finally overthrow those oppressive regimes. A good example of this would be the CIA trained SAVAK in Iran that brutally oppressed the Iranian people. Do you think the people of Iran forgot that back in 1979 or even today?

As for arm chair, this entire thread is based on the question What Would Reagan do? I merely gave an answer using the facts that some people in this thread did not like.

 

[Ropey]

27th Oct. 1983, President Reagan's televised address to the United States of America, speaking of both the terrorist bombing in Lebanon and the Grenada invasion:

"My fellow Americans:

Some 2 months ago we were shocked by the brutal massacre of 269 men, women, and children, more than 60 of them Americans, in the shooting down of a Korean airliner. Now, in these past several days, violence has erupted again, in Lebanon and Grenada.

Brave young men have been taken from us. Many others have been grievously wounded. Are we to tell them their sacrifice was wasted? They gave their lives in defense of our national security every bit as much as any man who ever died fighting in a war. We must not strip every ounce of meaning and purpose from their courageous sacrifice.

Then he stripped every ounce of meaning and purpose from their courageous sacrifice.

Pity the nation: the abduction of ... - Google Books

Reagan ran from the Muslims attack on American forces in Lebanon to attack Granada. Two weeks after he said that America would stay the course, he redeployed the forces and booked it.

 

[The T]

See? I keep trying to tell them....

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Following a rapid deterioration of conditions in Beirut, President Reagan Feb. 7 ordered the U.S. Marines of the multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon to begin withdrawing to U.S. ships offshore. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Reagan's decision followed the resignation of Lebanese President Amin Gemayel's cabinet Feb. 5 and a military collapse that left Moslem militiamen in control of western and southern Beirut. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]As a show of continuing support for Gemayel, however, Reagan coupled his decision to withdraw with new rules of engagement that allowed U.S. commanders to mount naval and air attacks on antigovernment forces in Lebanon. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Reagan's announcement, which took most U.S. politicians by surprise, was greeted with relief by congressional leaders. The widening of the U.S. military role in support of Gemayel, however, came under immediate attack. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The U.S.'s European allies in the multinational peacekeeping force had also been given little warning of Reagan's decision, but Britain and Italy Feb. 8 quickly announced their own plans to withdraw from the embattled capital. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

SOURCE

Now he did so in effect to keep any more Marines there from being killed. But WE weren't apparently the only ones that withdrew.

[/FONT]

Britain and Italy left because we did. We left because Reagan didn't want to get embroiled in a sideline to his main enemy. Communism. Unfortunately, his turning tail and running embolded Islamic nutcases. "The "Great Satan" runs away! They did in Tehran...They did in Beirut." We saw the end results of those type of policies on 9/11/2001.

The bombing of the barracks was a straight up act of war. One that we ran away from, and never went back to. A tactical withdrawal in order to save lives is completely understandable and encouraged if that is what the situation requires. However, Reagan did not perform a tactical withdrawal as you suggest. He tucked his tail and went home.

True...and later Reagan would also confront the specter of Terrorism (as the Beirut bombings were), when Khadaffi had his ass handed to him for being behind the German Disco bombing attack.

The beginnings of the WOT?

 

[RadiomanATL]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

SOURCE

Now he did so in effect to keep any more Marines there from being killed. But WE weren't apparently the only ones that withdrew.

[/FONT]

Britain and Italy left because we did. We left because Reagan didn't want to get embroiled in a sideline to his main enemy. Communism. Unfortunately, his turning tail and running embolded Islamic nutcases. "The "Great Satan" runs away! They did in Tehran...They did in Beirut." We saw the end results of those type of policies on 9/11/2001.

The bombing of the barracks was a straight up act of war. One that we ran away from, and never went back to. A tactical withdrawal in order to save lives is completely understandable and encouraged if that is what the situation requires. However, Reagan did not perform a tactical withdrawal as you suggest. He tucked his tail and went home.

True...and later Reagan would also confront the specter of Terrorism (as the Beirut bombings were), when Khadaffi had his ass handed to him for being behind the German Disco bombing attack.

The beginnings of the WOT?

Lobbing a couple of bombs at Qadaffi's shithouse tent in no way acted as a deterrent against terrorism.

Reagan didn't want to deal with Islamic nutcases. He, at most as in the case of Qadaffi, had a half-hearted PR attempt at retaliation.

 

[The T]

Britain and Italy left because we did. We left because Reagan didn't want to get embroiled in a sideline to his main enemy. Communism. Unfortunately, his turning tail and running embolded Islamic nutcases. "The "Great Satan" runs away! They did in Tehran...They did in Beirut." We saw the end results of those type of policies on 9/11/2001.

The bombing of the barracks was a straight up act of war. One that we ran away from, and never went back to. A tactical withdrawal in order to save lives is completely understandable and encouraged if that is what the situation requires. However, Reagan did not perform a tactical withdrawal as you suggest. He tucked his tail and went home.

True...and later Reagan would also confront the specter of Terrorism (as the Beirut bombings were), when Khadaffi had his ass handed to him for being behind the German Disco bombing attack.

The beginnings of the WOT?

Lobbing a couple of bombs at Qadaffi's shithouse tent in no way acted as a deterrent against terrorism.

Reagan didn't want to deal with Islamic nutcases. He, at most as in the case of Qadaffi, had a half-hearted PR attempt at retaliation.

It sure as Hell made him (Mo-Mo)back down, didn't it?

 

[The Hatter]

Lobbing a couple of bombs at Qadaffi's shithouse tent in no way acted as a deterrent against terrorism.

Reagan didn't want to deal with Islamic nutcases. He, at most as in the case of Qadaffi, had a half-hearted PR attempt at retaliation.

Unless it involved fighting Communism:

Reagan Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants.[30] The largest recipient of US funding for the mujahideen was the Hizb party led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received more than a half a billion dollars of American funding funneled through the Pakistani ISI.[31][32][33] The CIA allegedly also gave Hekmatyar immunity for his illegal drug trade activities.[34]

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is currently wanted by the United States for participating in terrorist actions with al Qaeda and the Taliban, and on 19 February 2003 the United States Department of State designated him as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist".[2]

After 11 September 2001 Hekmatyar, who had "worked closely" with bin Laden in early 1990s,[39] declared his opposition to the US campaign in Afghanistan and criticized Pakistan for assisting the United States. After the U.S. entry into the anti-Taliban alliance and the fall of the Taliban, Hekmatyar rejected the U.N.-brokered accord of 5 December 2001 negotiated in Germany as a post-Taliban interim government for Afghanistan.

In January 2010, he was still considered as one of the three main leaders of the Afghan insurgency. By then, he held out the possibility of negotiations with President Karzai and outlined a roadmap for political reconciliation. This contrasted with the views of Taliban leader Mullah Omar and allied insurgent chief Sirajuddin Haqqani, who refuse any talks with Kabul as long as foreign troops remain in the country, Hekmatyar appeared less reluctant.[47]

 

[The T]

Lobbing a couple of bombs at Qadaffi's shithouse tent in no way acted as a deterrent against terrorism.

Reagan didn't want to deal with Islamic nutcases. He, at most as in the case of Qadaffi, had a half-hearted PR attempt at retaliation.

Unless it involved fighting Communism:

Reagan Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants.[30] The largest recipient of US funding for the mujahideen was the Hizb party led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received more than a half a billion dollars of American funding funneled through the Pakistani ISI.[31][32][33] The CIA allegedly also gave Hekmatyar immunity for his illegal drug trade activities.[34]

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After 11 September 2001 Hekmatyar, who had "worked closely" with bin Laden in early 1990s,[39] declared his opposition to the US campaign in Afghanistan and criticized Pakistan for assisting the United States. After the U.S. entry into the anti-Taliban alliance and the fall of the Taliban, Hekmatyar rejected the U.N.-brokered accord of 5 December 2001 negotiated in Germany as a post-Taliban interim government for Afghanistan.

In January 2010, he was still considered as one of the three main leaders of the Afghan insurgency. By then, he held out the possibility of negotiations with President Karzai and outlined a roadmap for political reconciliation. This contrasted with the views of Taliban leader Mullah Omar and allied insurgent chief Sirajuddin Haqqani, who refuse any talks with Kabul as long as foreign troops remain in the country, Hekmatyar appeared less reluctant.[47]

He already mentioned that. Stop taking credit for something he already stated. NICE that you omitted radios' statement.

 

[RadiomanATL]

True...and later Reagan would also confront the specter of Terrorism (as the Beirut bombings were), when Khadaffi had his ass handed to him for being behind the German Disco bombing attack.

The beginnings of the WOT?

Lobbing a couple of bombs at Qadaffi's shithouse tent in no way acted as a deterrent against terrorism.

Reagan didn't want to deal with Islamic nutcases. He, at most as in the case of Qadaffi, had a half-hearted PR attempt at retaliation.

It sure as Hell made him (Mo-Mo)back down, didn't it?

Yes, it made one nutbar back down.

Too bad him turning tail and running encouraged countless other nutbars though.

 

[The T]

Lobbing a couple of bombs at Qadaffi's shithouse tent in no way acted as a deterrent against terrorism.

Reagan didn't want to deal with Islamic nutcases. He, at most as in the case of Qadaffi, had a half-hearted PR attempt at retaliation.

It sure as Hell made him (Mo-Mo)back down, didn't it?

Yes, it made one nutbar back down.

Too bad him turning tail and running encouraged countless other nutbars though.

They were indeed numerous, and cause for Reagan to institute special forces to deal with them.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It sure as Hell made him (Mo-Mo)back down, didn't it?

Yes, it made one nutbar back down.

Too bad him turning tail and running encouraged countless other nutbars though.

They were indeed numerous, and cause for Reagan to institute special forces to deal with them.

By deal with them, I'm sure you meant "arm" them.

 

[The Hatter]

He already mentioned that. Stop taking credit for something he already stated. NICE that you omitted radios' statement.

I didn't omit or take credit for anything. Since you're still around, care to finally answer some of the questions I posed to you earlier?

In case you forgot:

Why don't you tell me the reasonable justification for which Ronald Reagan supported the Apartheid Government in South Africa. Or you could also give me justification for his support of other dictatorships.

 

[The T]

He already mentioned that. Stop taking credit for something he already stated. NICE that you omitted radios' statement.

I didn't omit or take credit for anything. Since you're still around, care to finally answer some of the questions I posed to you earlier?

In case you forgot:

Why don't you tell me the reasonable justification for which Ronald Reagan supported the Apartheid Government in South Africa. Or you could also give me justification for his support of other dictatorships.

No, actually I don't. My points have been made. Deal with it.

 

[The T]

Yes, it made one nutbar back down.

Too bad him turning tail and running encouraged countless other nutbars though.

They were indeed numerous, and cause for Reagan to institute special forces to deal with them.

By deal with them, I'm sure you meant "arm" them.

No. I mean US Forces.

 

[The Hatter]

No, actually I don't. My points have been made. Deal with it.

So when faced with the slightest opposition, you turn tail. That's probably one way you don't want to emulate Reagan.

 

[RadiomanATL]

They were indeed numerous, and cause for Reagan to institute special forces to deal with them.

By deal with them, I'm sure you meant "arm" them.

No. I mean US Forces.

Yes. Thats what I said. Reagan had the US Forces arm the nutbars.

 

[Londoner]

He'd do what he always did with terrorists:

Give them weapons and aid in the back of the house, but act tough in the front of the house (in order to get the support of rightwing voters).

Reagan removed Saddam Hussein and Iraq from the list of terrorist nations.

He famously called the Mujahideen "Freedom Fighters".

Reagan cultivated alliances with terrorists and 3rd world dictatorships as a part of an America-centric globalism, i.e., Washington created an empire of bases to stabilize global markets on behalf of the American transnationals who funded elections and own government. Go into any Walmart and read the labels on the products. They come from unstable regions. Reagan cultivated alliances with bad people in those regions so he could provide his backers with "access" to cheap labor and resources. Reagan didn't want political freedom for poor backward nations. He wanted to give Nike access to sweat shops -- cheap labor -- so that a narrow group of Americans could make higher returns.

(And now... all those nasty alliances that benefited capital are coming home to roost)

Again: Reagan gave business cheap labor. Cheap labor comes from oppressive regimes. The reason he opened borders and provided Mexicans with Amnesty is because Reagan wanted a world where capital & resources could flow unobstructed: he didn't want strong borders to prevent business from getting cheaper labor and cheaper operating conditions. Don't you morons get it? Reagan wanted to give business the cheap operating conditions that places like Mexico provide. He opened borders for capital. [Do you idiots know his record on amnesty?]

And then, of course, the talk radio machine trumpets "Borders, Language, Culture" in order to agitate the base. This is the Orwellian genius of Movement Conservatism. It's a shell game designed for low information voters. But make no mistake: capital loves dictators because dictators create the inhumane conditions for ultra cheap 3rd world labor.

(morons)

Study Iran-Contra for the only "on the record" evidence of Reagan and his terrorist allies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

 

[The T]

By deal with them, I'm sure you meant "arm" them.

No. I mean US Forces.

Yes. Thats what I said. Reagan had the US Forces arm the nutbars.

Specifically:


STRATEGIC AND ECONOMIC ISSUES

US concerns continued over the regional activities of Libya's leader, Col. Mu'ammar Qadhafi, and the Iranian Islamic regime under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeyni's guidance. Four US AWACS reconnaissance planes were sent to Egypt in February 1983 after Washington charged Qadhafi with planning a coup in Sudan. The US Ambassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, stated: 'The US has a strong strategic interest in assuring that Qadhafi is not able to upset governments or to intervene militarily in other countries, as is currently happening in Chad'.

US-Egyptian relations remained strong, although somewhat more distant than during their high point under President Anwar al-Sadat. There were worrisome reports of growing anti-Americanism and about the ineffectiveness of the US aid program, which totalled around $1 billion in 1973. Washington's efforts focused on important infrastructure programs, such as improving the Cairo sewers.
President Husni Mubarak was supportive of the Reagan Plan and of joint military maneuvers. "Operation Bright Star 83" was held in August. The two countries were unable to agree, though, on terms for upgrading the Egyptian base at Ra's Bands for US use in regional contingency planning.

Point? I was there on both counts.

SOURCE

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

Reagan is worm food. I don't care what he would do. I'm more interested in what Obama is doing and what his living opponents would suggest.

 

[RadiomanATL]

No. I mean US Forces.

Yes. Thats what I said. Reagan had the US Forces arm the nutbars.

Specifically:


STRATEGIC AND ECONOMIC ISSUES

US concerns continued over the regional activities of Libya's leader, Col. Mu'ammar Qadhafi, and the Iranian Islamic regime under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeyni's guidance. Four US AWACS reconnaissance planes were sent to Egypt in February 1983 after Washington charged Qadhafi with planning a coup in Sudan. The US Ambassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, stated: 'The US has a strong strategic interest in assuring that Qadhafi is not able to upset governments or to intervene militarily in other countries, as is currently happening in Chad'.

US-Egyptian relations remained strong, although somewhat more distant than during their high point under President Anwar al-Sadat. There were worrisome reports of growing anti-Americanism and about the ineffectiveness of the US aid program, which totalled around $1 billion in 1973. Washington's efforts focused on important infrastructure programs, such as improving the Cairo sewers.
President Husni Mubarak was supportive of the Reagan Plan and of joint military maneuvers. "Operation Bright Star 83" was held in August. The two countries were unable to agree, though, on terms for upgrading the Egyptian base at Ra's Bands for US use in regional contingency planning.

Point? I was there on both counts.

SOURCE

Your reply has nothing to do with my post.