Difference between Reagan and Obama dealing with Libya

[Londoner]

And let's not talk about Reagan and Lebanon. He sent the Marines in with an unclear mission, than he pulled them out like a confused rookie, making the USA look indecisive and weak.

Or what about Grenada? What was the USA afraid of? A nutmeg bomb?

Reagan was a disaster on foreign policy.

He increased nuclear weapons production to bankrupt the Soviets. He gave a falling empire a push, but left us with crippling deficits as far as they eye could see. He was the first Republican president to completely abandon pay-as-you-go. We know the Dems spend like drunken sailors, but we depend on the GOP to be prudent.

So why did Reagan double Carter's spending and debt?

What a ******* disaster. The US has never recovered from his policies.

 

[Londoner]

And what about Reagan's vigorous support of Hussein while at the same time going back door with Iran? He formed deep partnerships with these terrorist regimes because they were amenable to US energy needs. We don't even need to talk about his increase of funding to the Saudi royals, who are the biggest freedom-haters on the block. This was the country where 99% of the 9/11 attackers came from. Carter, on the other hand, wanted us out of the middle east. He didn't want to support these regimes and make them more powerful through US aid. His long term plan of defunding the middle east was completely rejected by Reagan, who got Iraq and Hussein removed from the official list of terrorist nations. Why doesn't the Rightwing voter know any of this?

Listen, I get it.

Carter had a vastly different energy policy - one that was decreasingly less dependent on the middle east; one that defunded terrorist states. He was going to move 30% of energy use from middle east oil to alternative energy, conservation, and more efficient transportation/shipping and less wasteful, oil intensive urbanization. He wanted to raise cafe standards so that cars would get more miles per gallon. He wanted America to use less oil so as to strangle the middle east. Rather than pour money into Hussein, and then bomb him ten years later (as Reagan/Bush did), Carter wanted to hit these regimes where it hurt. Carter threatened the big oil monopoly which played a major financial role in the Reagan ascendancy. But... Carter lost to Reagan and Big Oil. Period. That was the most important political fight of our lives - and we are living the consequences, which is an empowered middle east along with an economy destroyed by expensive oil. Reagan tied America's neck to oil like a noose. Plain and simple.

Reagan did not want to defund the regimes sitting atop the profit cow of those who supported him. [Capital wants short term profit. Oil - which they knew would run out - was the ultimate short term profit. So they doubled down on a dead-end energy future and made no plans to shift to a post-petroleum world. China is now cleaning our clock with regards to alternative energy. They are quietly making investments and preparations to deal with a world that has markedly less and markedly more expensive oil]

But yes, Reagan got in bed with Iran (see Iran Contra) and Hussein and Saudi Arabia and the Mujahideen. He made all these terror states stronger, while making everyone think he was tough on terror by picking fights with irrelevant shit-holes like Grenada and Nicaragua. Do the ******* research. Reagan made mideast terror states stronger. This stuff isn't hidden. The only people who don't know this stuff are the useful idiots who listen to rightwing pundits and who never study actual policy.

All Reagan's policies served to increase our dependency on petrol-terror-states. Reagan increased American oil use like no other president. And because oil supplies were diminishing (as China/India demand rose), the cost would only rise - and eventually destroy the economy.

We are now lying in that bed. The game is over.

America swallowed poison in 1980.

 

[JoeB131]

I think you give Carter way too much credit...

He really was a weak, vacillating president who let everyone push us around.

He was completely ineffective with his own party controlling both houses of Congress for his entire term.

 

[kaz]

And they were scary black guys....

Yeah, yeah. Enlightened people don't hate blacks, they hate Jews and Mormons. You've mentioned that once or twice .. or more ...

Please point out where I said anything bad about "Jews" ever.

Thanks.

I remember now, you clarified this. You don't hate "Jews" you hate "Israelis." The terrorist you support aren't targeting "Jews" they are targeting Christians, Arabs, all of them. If any of them just on the remote chance happen to be Jewish then that's just too bad, but it certainly wasn't directed at them. They of course make that point clear in their statements, they have nothing against Jews, they just hate "Israelis."

 

[Jroc]

Well, whew, that was a relief. I mean those dirty stinking Commies might have taught girls to read, and then the little hussies might have started showing some ankle! So good think Reagan helped those guys nip that in the bud.

Unless you are one of the thousands of people who've been killed as a result of them coming to power.

Lets not forget the 10s of millions of people who were freed with the fall of the Soviet Union.... Get lost hater

First, if you really think that Afghanistan had much of anything with the fall of the USSR, you're delusion. Fact is, the Communist Government in Kabul was still up and running when the Communists in Moscow fell from power.

Second, in the chaos that sits on the remains of what was the USSR/Warsaw pact, you have a lot of dictatorships and dirt poor countries... So I fail to see what "advantage" there was there, exactly. A lot of peoples lives are the same and some are even worse off.

Tell that to the former East Germany, Poland, Romania ect..Yeah Yugoslavia was probably better off as Yugoslavia, before Clinton started bombing the Christians

 

[kaz]

No, actually Zionist is a word that describes a specific political belief- that the practice of Religious Apartheid is perfectly acceptable...

Actually "Zionist" is just someone who supports having a Jewish homeland in Israel. While some Zionists believe what you say, others support living with Arabs peacefully. What you said is like Defining Democrat as "Jewish hater." Some do, like you, but you can actually be a Democrat and not hate Jews. Sadly, it's just that a lot of you do.

On the other hand, Zionists don't support shooting rockets into Arab neighborhoods, blowing up Arab buses, discos, supermarkets, putting bombs in ambulances or strapping bombs to children to murder border guards. That's what your side does.

 

[Moonglow]

Washington) – The United States government during the Bush administration tortured opponents of Muammar Gaddafi, then transferred them to mistreatment in Libya, according to accounts by former detainees and recently uncovered CIA and UK Secret Service documents, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. One former detainee alleged he was waterboarded and another described a similar form of water torture, contradicting claims by Bush administration officials that only three men in US custody had been waterboarded.

US: Torture and Rendition to Gaddafi

 

[Neotrotsky]

Too funny
Bush's fault

What's next racism is what caused this as well?

 

[Moonglow]

there is not a president that has not had dealings with Lybia in one way or another. The OP is trying to establish that nothing went on from Reagan until Oblama.
You have a myopic view so I would not consider that you would understand the point.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I understand quite well
as long as it is promoted by Papa Obama
it must be ok

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-xqXhGpRLQ]Full video of Gaddafi being tortured and killed-Gaddafi's last words and moments - YouTube[/ame]


In the words of Papa Obama

"you didn't build that,,,,"

 

[Moonglow]

I understand quite well
as long as it is promoted by Papa Obama
it must be ok

Full video of Gaddafi being tortured and killed-Gaddafi's last words and moments - YouTube


In the words of Papa Obama

"you didn't build that,,,,"

myopia at it's best, Kadafi got what he deserved, sorry you lost a leader that you looked up to.

 

[Neotrotsky]

you sure are....

side note

the blame Bush and racism charges
may not be working with the American people anymore



Look up to?
No, but then again I never shook hands with him

We did have diplomatic relationship with Libya, did we not?

As most things with Papa Obama, it can be thrown under the bus
at any time

 

[Moonglow]

you sure are....

side note

the blame Bush and racism charges
may not be working with the American people anymore

for people that want to ignore history, it sure does.

 

[francoHFW]

OP:Absolutely no equivance at all. The Libyan gov't and people are pro USA, the violent attack was carried out by tiny minority of jihadists. MORE STUPID chickenhawk BS, Fox etc idiocy. Get your fundie a-holes under control..

 

[Londoner]

I think you give Carter way too much credit...

He really was a weak, vacillating president who let everyone push us around.

He was completely ineffective with his own party controlling both houses of Congress for his entire term.

The only area where Carter deserves credit is his energy policy, and even that is no "home run". But I agree that he was too weak-kneed. Nixon and Eisenhower were far better presidents, both of whom supported more vigorous infrastructure investments, the New Deal approach to protecting labor from capital flight, and the sensible regulation of the economy.

But I think, oddly, presidents like Carter and Obama benefit the Right far more than the Left. Why? Because they are easier for the Right to push around. The Right does not want an FDR or LBJ because these men were ruthless and worthy adversaries. [They don't want the Clintons either, who are far better at hardball than Carter or Obama] FDR and LBJ didn't apologize for their policies, or ape the language of their opponents, or appease the obstructionists on the other side. They had a "**** you" amoral approach like Cheney. Love 'em or hate 'em, they served their party like warriors.

Eisenhower taxed the first 250K at over 90%. He was a hero because he paid for the Interstate system, which had an incredible multiplier effect for business. He didn't put it on a credit card like Reagan, who signaled the permanent transition to deficit spending. He didn't borrow from China so he could give the wealthy more and more tax cuts; he paid for the shit we needed and he didn't listen to voices in his party who said government couldn't do big things. He was one of the best presidents in history. And he warned us about what would happen if we let military special interests dominate foreign policy. If he was on the ticket in November, I would vote for him without a second thought.

Carter and Obama were only allowed to get near power because they didn't have the courage or political skill to overturn the status quo. Their purpose was to help John Galt get higher returns by freeing capital to seek cheap labor in freedom-hating nations. This is why both of them packed their economic teams with neoliberal free marketeers who would protect John Galt from the democratic redress of those whose jobs he was outsourcing.

Both Carter and Obama are like the basketball team, the Washington Generals. Remember them? They were the faux opponent of the Harlem Globetrotters. They were paid to lose, and look stupid doing it. The Left hasn't had support for their policies since Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon - the four great centrists who got both parties to pass policies designed to help the middle class. Everything after that can be considered as the slow rise of Reaganomics and neoliberalism. Everything after the four great centrists can be seen as the corporate take over of Washington and the death of the middle class consumer, who was handed a credit card and subprime mortgage to make up for the jobs that were outsourced and the money which wasn't trickling down.

CorpWatch*:*What is Neoliberalism?

 

[Neotrotsky]

No doubt
you speak from experience

One is Carter; one is Papa Obama
hard to tell the difference

 

[Erand7899]

In 1983, when Reagan was president, terrorists killed 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers. The deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.

Ronbo Reagan CUT and RAN.

1983 Beirut barracks bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon)

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the American Marines barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.

Response

U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon.

There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans, besides a few shellings. In December 1983, U.S. aircraft from the USS John F. Kennedy and USS Independence battle groups attacked Syrian targets in Lebanon, but this was ostensibly in response to Syrian missile attacks on American warplanes.

Multi-service ground-support units were withdrawn from Beirut after the attack on the Marine barracks due to retaliatory threats.

In the meantime, the attack boosted the prestige and growth of the Shi'ite organization Hezbollah.

The Taliban did not even exist prior to 1991. It was started by Mullah Omar with less than 50 armed madrassah students in his hometown of Kandahar, Afghanistan. He did not mobilize these students until 1994. This force grew when other students from Pakistan joined them, and the rest is history.

 

[Erand7899]

And let's not talk about Reagan and Lebanon. He sent the Marines in with an unclear mission, than he pulled them out like a confused rookie, making the USA look indecisive and weak.

Or what about Grenada? What was the USA afraid of? A nutmeg bomb?

Reagan was a disaster on foreign policy.

He increased nuclear weapons production to bankrupt the Soviets. He gave a falling empire a push, but left us with crippling deficits as far as they eye could see. He was the first Republican president to completely abandon pay-as-you-go. We know the Dems spend like drunken sailors, but we depend on the GOP to be prudent.

So why did Reagan double Carter's spending and debt?

What a ******* disaster. The US has never recovered from his policies.

So much ignorance, and so little time to correct it. Reagan increased the national debt by about $1.5 trillion dollars in eight years. Just about the same amount that Clinton raised the national debt in his eight years. Yet, Clinton had no terrible economic mess to correct, instituted a huge tax increase in his first year in office, and still matched Reagan in the deficit spending arena.

For the ignorant asses that have little knowledge of government spending, the big drivers of the national debt are the entitlement programs, and that is what drove the debt in the 80's and 90's. A Republican congress drug Clinton, screaming, kicking and shutting down the government, to welfare reform, and that allowed Clinton to falsely claim that he left a surplus for Bush.

You need to get past the smoke and mirrors of Democrat rhetoric, and actually learn what the real facts are.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, yeah. Enlightened people don't hate blacks, they hate Jews and Mormons. You've mentioned that once or twice .. or more ...

Please point out where I said anything bad about "Jews" ever.

Thanks.

I remember now, you clarified this. You don't hate "Jews" you hate "Israelis." The terrorist you support aren't targeting "Jews" they are targeting Christians, Arabs, all of them. If any of them just on the remote chance happen to be Jewish then that's just too bad, but it certainly wasn't directed at them. They of course make that point clear in their statements, they have nothing against Jews, they just hate "Israelis."

Israelis are a nationality, and I don't really hate them, either. I do think ZIONISM is wrong as a political philosophy for the same reason Apartheid was.

The ironic thing is, after the Romans drove them out of the Holy Land, Muslims let the Jews come back, and they lived there for centuries under Seljuks and Abbayids and Ottomans without an issue. The only time it really kind of sucked for them was when the Crusaders showed up.

Until the Zionists decided, "Hey, we aren't just going to live there, we are going to RUN the place."

Zionists are like abused children who've gotten big enough to beat up on someone else, and it's never appealling.

 

[francoHFW]

I think you give Carter way too much credit...

He really was a weak, vacillating president who let everyone push us around.

He was completely ineffective with his own party controlling both houses of Congress for his entire term.

The only area where Carter deserves credit is his energy policy, and even that is no "home run". But I agree that he was too weak-kneed. Nixon and Eisenhower were far better presidents, both of whom supported more vigorous infrastructure investments, the New Deal approach to protecting labor from capital flight, and the sensible regulation of the economy.

But I think, oddly, presidents like Carter and Obama benefit the Right far more than the Left. Why? Because they are easier for the Right to push around. The Right does not want an FDR or LBJ because these men were ruthless and worthy adversaries. [They don't want the Clintons either, who are far better at hardball than Carter or Obama] FDR and LBJ didn't apologize for their policies, or ape the language of their opponents, or appease the obstructionists on the other side. They had a "**** you" amoral approach like Cheney. Love 'em or hate 'em, they served their party like warriors.

Eisenhower taxed the first 250K at over 90%. He was a hero because he paid for the Interstate system, which had an incredible multiplier effect for business. He didn't put it on a credit card like Reagan, who signaled the permanent transition to deficit spending. He didn't borrow from China so he could give the wealthy more and more tax cuts; he paid for the shit we needed and he didn't listen to voices in his party who said government couldn't do big things. He was one of the best presidents in history. And he warned us about what would happen if we let military special interests dominate foreign policy. If he was on the ticket in November, I would vote for him without a second thought.

Carter and Obama were only allowed to get near power because they didn't have the courage or political skill to overturn the status quo. Their purpose was to help John Galt get higher returns by freeing capital to seek cheap labor in freedom-hating nations. This is why both of them packed their economic teams with neoliberal free marketeers who would protect John Galt from the democratic redress of those whose jobs he was outsourcing.

Both Carter and Obama are like the basketball team, the Washington Generals. Remember them? They were the faux opponent of the Harlem Globetrotters. They were paid to lose, and look stupid doing it. The Left hasn't had support for their policies since Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon - the four great centrists who got both parties to pass policies designed to help the middle class. Everything after that can be considered as the slow rise of Reaganomics and neoliberalism. Everything after the four great centrists can be seen as the corporate take over of Washington and the death of the middle class consumer, who was handed a credit card and subprime mortgage to make up for the jobs that were outsourced and the money which wasn't trickling down.

CorpWatch*:*What is Neoliberalism?

Teddy screwed Carter. He wanted more austerity, Teddy wanted expensive Dem programs after 8 years of Pubs mucking up the great society.