Reagan Said It Best

You want to really talk about what Reagan said?

How about the following?

In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:


1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.


2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.


3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)


4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available


Now, Iraq warmongers, let's hear you justify invading Iraq in 2003 while strictly adhering to RONALD REAGAN's principles.

Daveman (or anyone else for that matter) has already shown they can't justify the Iraq invasion while strictly adhering to anyone's principles. All they can do is parrot the GOP talking points. (Which is why it's so easy to kick his ass in these discussions.)

Heck, even Bush couldn't justify the invasion and resulting deaths of over 4,000 troops.

What they can't do is show why they thought invading Iraq was necessary but invading North Korea isn't.

Translation: they knew all along that invading Iraq was unnecessary, but they wanted it anyway...

...so **** them when I say, as I often do, that 4000 Americans died UNNECESSARILY in Iraq,

thanks to them.
 
Listening to these liberal idiots and their completely failed attempts to attack Reagan is comical!

Nothing but totally debunked BS from liberal blogs that they run with as if they are actual facts!

Seriously, you lib's are making complete asses of yourselves......But then, that's the way alway it is.....And as their beloved Messiah continues to so abjectly fail, they are making asses of themselves on an even deeper level these days.

LMAO!

Sorry, Cretin, but you haven't refuted anything here. Pack up your grunts and barnyard noises and take them back to your cave where you belong.
 
Longest post-war economic expansion. Yes, it did work out well.

Wrong. November 1982 to July of 1990 - 'Reagan' expansion.

March 1991 to March 2001 - 'Clinton' expansion.

And Clinton did it without running up massive deficits and debt.
Took us as close to a balanced budget as we've seen in a long time

His sexual exploits and other misdeeds not withstanding, his administration was good for the economy
 
Yeah, go tell that shit to the Iraqi's who were dancing in the streets, tearing Down Sadaam's statues, and having one hell of a good time when they realized that Sadaam was nothing more than a bad memory.

Go tell that to the Iraqi families who had thousands of loved ones executed and piled into mass graves (that are still being discovered) for daring to speak out against that maniacle, murderous piece of shit.

Go tell that to the Iraqi's who fully understand what would have happened if Sadaam's even crazier sons took control of that country.

Last but not least.....Go tell it to the Kurds!

We fully did the right thing!
 
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles."

Hmmm...

from your link:
In warm weather, trees release volatile chemicals that act as catalysts for smog.


I wonder where the smog came form in the first place... other trees?

After seeing that, there's no reason to bother with the rest of it
 
The funny thing is all the Leftists are knee-jerking about Reagan. In fact the first quote was from the notorious right wing Republican Hubert Horatio Humphrey, 1968 Democratic Convention.
Well played, sir! :clap2:

So the OP falsely attributes an obscure quote to Reagan and that makes him clever? I guess that means everyone is supposed to google everything Rabbi posts to see whether he is lying or not.

...come to think of it, that IS a good idea.


I'll save you time: assume he's lying until proven otherwise
 
Germany and France opposed the invasion of Iraq because they were not a threat and occupying Iraq made little sense.

Seven years later it appears they were right
No, they opposed the invasion because of money. Stop pretending otherwise.

Oh yea...I forgot about all those WMDs

I forgot that our closest ally Canada said we were nuts to invade. Forgot that NATO said it was not a valid threat....they must have been in it for the money too

But Bush and Cheney knew best

In his new book, Bush admits there were no WMDs

When we didn’t find weapons I felt terrible about it, sick about it and still do, because a lot of the case in removing Saddam Hussein was based upon weapons of mass destruction
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...says-he-was-sick-about-finding-no-wmd-110910/


leftist source?
 
What they can't do is show why they thought invading Iraq was necessary but invading North Korea isn't.

See, that's where you're lying. I said invading NK was necessary...but given the present circumstances, not possible.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your Two Minutes Hate.
 
Yep. The recession ended over a year ago. Corporate profits at record levels. Want to know what was going on in November of 1982??

oh, of course, you already know, since you profess to be knowledgeable of the Reagan presidency.
TRANSLATION:
"Mmmmm...good shit sandwich." :lol:

Translation, daveman is left with nothing intelligent to respond with.

Comon, Mr. Reagan fan, tell us all what was going on in November of 1982...

...2 years after Reagan was elected.

Let's compare it to the Obama +2 situation.
This is interesting.
In August 1982, two months before the midterm elections, the unemployment rate stood at 9.8 percent. In August 2010, it was 9.6 percent. So the numbers are remarkably similar. Even the comparative rise during each president's term was similar. The unemployment rate rose 2.5 points between Reagan's election and the last unemployment survey before the midterm election, compared with 3 points for Obama.

Case closed? Not really.

For one thing, in 1982, the unemployment rate only rose to "well over 10 percent," to use Jordan's words, in October 1982, when it hit 10.4 percent. However, this number was released after Election Day, meaning that it could not have been a factor on voters' minds. It peaked at 10.8 percent in November and December 1982.

So while Jordan's number is not far off, it does modestly exaggerate how high voters knew unemployment to be as they prepared to vote.

Here's another difference -- the average unemployed worker this year has been jobless much longer than in 1982.

In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks -- more than twice as long. And that's not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks.​
Still want to make the case things were worse under Reagan?
 
15th post
Yeah, go tell that shit to the Iraqi's who were dancing in the streets, tearing Down Sadaam's statues, and having one hell of a good time when they realized that Sadaam was nothing more than a bad memory.

Go tell that to the Iraqi families who had thousands of loved ones executed and piled into mass graves (that are still being discovered) for daring to speak out against that maniacle, murderous piece of shit.

Go tell that to the Iraqi's who fully understand what would have happened if Sadaam's even crazier sons took control of that country.

Last but not least.....Go tell it to the Kurds!

We fully did the right thing!
Tell it to the one in four Iraqis who's been murdered, maimed, displaced or detained since March 2003.

Then take in a few refugees:

"Seven years after the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, the country continues to face large scale displacement and pressing humanitarian needs.

"Millions of Iraqis have fled their homes – either for safer locations within Iraq or to other countries in the region – and are living in increasingly desperate circumstances. Iraq’s future will only be secure and prosperous if the needs of the displaced are also considered in all current and future policies and planning."
 
Back
Top Bottom