What Would Reagan Do In Egypt?

[The T]

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.

And why Obama refuses to learn from history and winds up on the wrong side. And it isn't the American side. Lest we forget his address in Cairo in 2009?

 

[The T]

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.

However? We were speaking of terrorism and Mo-Mo were we not?

Has everything to do with his actions.

 

[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.

No...Counter-Terrorism Forces formed by Reagan. And I mean US Troops.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Specifically:


STRATEGIC AND ECONOMIC ISSUES


Point? I was there on both counts.

SOURCE

Your reply has nothing to do with my post.

However? We were speaking of terrorism and Mo-Mo were we not?

Has everything to do with his actions.

We were speaking of Reagan encouraging Islamic nutcases. I already said that Reagan was able to shut Qadaffi up, but that he armed quite a few others. And he turned tail and ran in Beirut. All of which led to what we saw on 9/11/2001.

Reagan was a good president in many regards. But on the Middle East? He was woefully and dangerously shortsighted. He let a bunch of nutcases run off the United States military after they committed an act of war.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

According to Douglas Brinkley:


Egypt’s brutal crackdown on demonstrators and the media would have “angered and goaded” the late, great President Ronald Reagan, who would have sided with the people trying to throw off a dictator, best-selling historian Douglas Brinkley tells Newsmax.

“One of the things I learned in editing 'The Reagan Diaries' is to never say what Reagan would do, because he surprised people,” Brinkley told Newsmax in an exclusive interview Thursday night.

However, there’s little doubt how Reagan would have reacted to the mayhem in the streets of Cairo, "The Reagan Diaries” author said.

“If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though there’s a long friendship between the United States and Egypt,” Brinkley said. “And [he would have] supported the Democratic movement.”

Yeah....the same way he turned-his-back on the Somozas, In Nicaragua. ​

CIA Support For The Contras​

The prize-winning historian and author said there were two reasons Reagan handled situations such as the crisis in the Middle East astutely: He listened to his top advisers, and “he was always fighting for one ideal: democracy around the world.”

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......democracy around the world.

The Oliver North File​

 

[RadiomanATL]

No. I mean US Forces.

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

No...Counter-Terrorism Forces formed by Reagan. And I mean US Troops.

Who then armed nutbars....

 

[The T]

Your reply has nothing to do with my post.

However? We were speaking of terrorism and Mo-Mo were we not?

Has everything to do with his actions.

We were speaking of Reagan encouraging Islamic nutcases. I already said that Reagan was able to shut Qadaffi up, but that he armed quite a few others. And he turned tail and ran in Beirut. All of which led to what we saw on 9/11/2001.

Reagan was a good president in many regards. But on the Middle East? He was woefully and dangerously shortsighted. He let a bunch of nutcases run off the United States military after they committed an act of war.

Yes, and he then took measures to correct it, didn't he?

I made my case. Perhaps it is you that doesn't see it? I was directly and indirectly involved. I saw it. I was there.

 

[The T]

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

No...Counter-Terrorism Forces formed by Reagan. And I mean US Troops.

Who then armed nutbars....

NO...were totally a force of their own to DEAL with the terrosrist threat with NO dealings with other forces.

You just don't get it.

 

[Dawg]

Edited



Why would anyone care what Reagan would have done? This is now, not 30 years ago. The US is not the super power it was 30 years ago. We are much more dependent on the middle east oil now than back then. Thanks in large part to Reagan's lack of vision in keeping this country on a sustainable energy policy. What would Reagan do? Of all the US presidents of the past to ask this of, Reagan is the least accomplished in foreign affairs. More meaningful would be:
What would Roosevelt Do?
Or What would Kennedy Do?
What would Nixon Do?
What would Ike do?
Or even, What would Jefferson or Washington do.
Reagan is one of the least signifcant US Presidents in history.

 

[RadiomanATL]

However? We were speaking of terrorism and Mo-Mo were we not?

Has everything to do with his actions.

We were speaking of Reagan encouraging Islamic nutcases. I already said that Reagan was able to shut Qadaffi up, but that he armed quite a few others. And he turned tail and ran in Beirut. All of which led to what we saw on 9/11/2001.

Reagan was a good president in many regards. But on the Middle East? He was woefully and dangerously shortsighted. He let a bunch of nutcases run off the United States military after they committed an act of war.

Yes, and he then took measures to correct it, didn't he?

I made my case. Perhaps it is you that doesn't see it? I was directly and indirectly involved. I saw it. I was there.

No. He did not take any measures to correct it. Slapping Qadaffi down isn't "correcting" the Beirut barracks bombing

 

[RadiomanATL]

No...Counter-Terrorism Forces formed by Reagan. And I mean US Troops.

Who then armed nutbars....

NO...were totally a force of their own to DEAL with the terrosrist threat with NO dealings with other forces.

You just don't get it.

Again...by deal, you really mean "arm".

 

[Dr.Traveler]

democracy is breaking out all over

If you actually believe the uprising in Egypt is going to lead to Democracy you are fooling yourself.

There will be 1 of 2 possible outcomes. Either the Military will hold onto power and install another General, Or the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies will take over and set up a very Iran Like Islamic Theocracy in Egypt.

There simply are no Moderate Democratic Leaders strong enough to take over. Period.

There is certainly the group of educated, secular, moderate middle class to see a true democracy show up.

The problem though is that the only groups organized enough to participate in the negotiation are the army, who have acted in an amazingly positive way all told, and the Muslim brotherhood. It is a real mess.

 

[The T]

We were speaking of Reagan encouraging Islamic nutcases. I already said that Reagan was able to shut Qadaffi up, but that he armed quite a few others. And he turned tail and ran in Beirut. All of which led to what we saw on 9/11/2001.

Reagan was a good president in many regards. But on the Middle East? He was woefully and dangerously shortsighted. He let a bunch of nutcases run off the United States military after they committed an act of war.

Yes, and he then took measures to correct it, didn't he?

I made my case. Perhaps it is you that doesn't see it? I was directly and indirectly involved. I saw it. I was there.

No. He did not take any measures to correct it. Slapping Qadaffi down isn't "correcting" the Beirut barracks bombing

I don't expect you to understand...nor military I suspect...but nonetheless...

Try this...

The air force also took part in the special operations buildup, bringing most of its special operations and search and rescue units together under the 23d Air Force; in 1983, the 23d's First Special Operations Air Wing was established, and based at Eglin Air Base in Florida.13 By 1987, there were some 4,100 air force special operations forces on active duty and 2,500 reservists. Five other SOF squadrons (and three in the reserve) were based at Eglin, Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, and Ramstein Air Force Base in West Germany. A helicopter detachment was based at Howard Air Force Base in Panama.14

By 1986 the navy's SEALs—Sea, Air, Land forces—had reached some 1,700 troops, organized into two special warfare groups based at Little Creek, Virginia, and Coronado, California, respectively. Arguably the best-trained of the elite units, SEALs continue the traditions of the underwater demolition teams (UDTs) created by the navy in 1942 to clear the way for amphibious landings; their role expanded in Korea to include reconnaissance and covert landings for deep-penetration raids.15 The SEALs, which draw recruits from underwater demolition personnel, date to 1962 and first saw action in Vietnam. The characteristic SEAL force of sixteen-man units; navy plans in 1987 reportedly aimed at increasing the number of units from forty-one to seventy over five years.16 Larger units included six SEAL Teams.17 SEAL Team 6, with from 175 to 200 men, is believed to specialize in counterterrorism.18 Secret navy units like Task Force 98 reportedly work out of eight bases, including the British Royal Air Force base at Machrihanish, Scotland.19

SOURCE

Try JSOC which was established after the botched raid in Iran to rescue the hostages...

 

[Sallow]

Reagan would rip off his shirt. And with muscles bristling he would grab all the biggest, shiniest and sexy weapons he could hold and walk on water to Egypt. There he would kill Hitler with his bare hands and stomp on Stalin while high fiving Jesus.

By gumption!

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yes, and he then took measures to correct it, didn't he?

I made my case. Perhaps it is you that doesn't see it? I was directly and indirectly involved. I saw it. I was there.

No. He did not take any measures to correct it. Slapping Qadaffi down isn't "correcting" the Beirut barracks bombing

I don't expect you to understand...nor military I suspect...but nonetheless...

Try this...

The air force also took part in the special operations buildup, bringing most of its special operations and search and rescue units together under the 23d Air Force; in 1983, the 23d's First Special Operations Air Wing was established, and based at Eglin Air Base in Florida.13 By 1987, there were some 4,100 air force special operations forces on active duty and 2,500 reservists. Five other SOF squadrons (and three in the reserve) were based at Eglin, Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, and Ramstein Air Force Base in West Germany. A helicopter detachment was based at Howard Air Force Base in Panama.14

By 1986 the navy's SEALs—Sea, Air, Land forces—had reached some 1,700 troops, organized into two special warfare groups based at Little Creek, Virginia, and Coronado, California, respectively. Arguably the best-trained of the elite units, SEALs continue the traditions of the underwater demolition teams (UDTs) created by the navy in 1942 to clear the way for amphibious landings; their role expanded in Korea to include reconnaissance and covert landings for deep-penetration raids.15 The SEALs, which draw recruits from underwater demolition personnel, date to 1962 and first saw action in Vietnam. The characteristic SEAL force of sixteen-man units; navy plans in 1987 reportedly aimed at increasing the number of units from forty-one to seventy over five years.16 Larger units included six SEAL Teams.17 SEAL Team 6, with from 175 to 200 men, is believed to specialize in counterterrorism.18 Secret navy units like Task Force 98 reportedly work out of eight bases, including the British Royal Air Force base at Machrihanish, Scotland.19

SOURCE

Try JSOC which was established after the botched raid in Iran to rescue the hostages...

Building up the military, just like slapping down Qadaffi, is in no way "correcting" the Beirut barracks bombing.

You keep swinging, you keep missing. Thats because he did zero about it. Your rationalizing away everything unrelated to it trying to prove a correlation is a bit amusing though.

 

[MikeK]

Obama is clueless. Totally clueless.

The people who voted for him and still support him are .

While my first choice was Dennis Kucinich I voted for Obama because it was either him or McCain. But I had no faith in Obama's promises and while he's been a disappointment in many ways he is better in every way than Bush -- who, by his own admission, was dedicated to the interests of his super-rich sponsors. Whether or not I support Obama depends entirely on who or what he opposes.

As far as this so-called "White House Insider" is concerned, are you comfortable hanging onto the ramblings of an anonymous writer who could be anyone from Karl Rove to some insignificant, politically ambitious right-wing operative who is representing subjective opinions as objective observations?

 

[The T]

We were speaking of Reagan encouraging Islamic nutcases. I already said that Reagan was able to shut Qadaffi up, but that he armed quite a few others. And he turned tail and ran in Beirut. All of which led to what we saw on 9/11/2001.

Reagan was a good president in many regards. But on the Middle East? He was woefully and dangerously shortsighted. He let a bunch of nutcases run off the United States military after they committed an act of war.

Yes, and he then took measures to correct it, didn't he?

I made my case. Perhaps it is you that doesn't see it? I was directly and indirectly involved. I saw it. I was there.

in what capacity where you there for, because you have never served.( you stated this over on hannity, I am sure you will ask for proof. There is none, your handle is gone. In which you will declare i am lying) You water boy or something?

btw, i have been enjoying watching Radio school you.

Ignorant Twerp. Go look in the Military parts of these boards.

I was serving this nation when your idea of a fun time was sittn' in front of the TV watching Bugs Bunny and knawin' on a fudgcicle.

And And you're delusional. Radio did no such thing. I educated HIM.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Radio did no such thing. I educated HIM.

Yes, you have shown me the width and breadth of your ignorance

 

[georgephillip]

“If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though there’s a long friendship between the United States and Egypt,” Brinkley said. “And [he would have] supported the Democratic movement.”

“Reagan was a pure liberation, free-and-fair election American. I think he would have been cautious, would have been doing what he could to get Americans out of Egypt like Obama’s done, and to try to embrace this perhaps-Democratic movement that is sweeping throughout the Middle East,” Brinkley said.

What? Reagan supported many dictatorships, as long as they opposed communism.

Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Shah of Iran for starters.

He defended the apartheid government of South Africa, even going as far as vetoing the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which would of put sanctions on South Africa. In fact, that piece of legislation was the first time in the 20th century that a President had a foreign policy veto overridden.

Source: How African-Americans helped free South Africa | Ebony | Find Articles at BNET

Reagan also supported right-wing dictatorships throughout South America including Columbia, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

This pattern of funding right-wing military and paramilitary groups would continue in Guatemala. In 1999 a report on the Guatemalan Civil War from the UN-sponsored Commission for Historical Clarification stated that “the American training of the officer corps in counter-insurgency techniques” was a “key factor” in the “genocide…Entire Mayan villages were attacked and burned and their inhabitants were slaughtered in an effort to deny the guerillas protection.” According to the commission, between 1981 and 1983 the Guatemalan government—financed and trained by the US—destroyed four hundred Mayan villages and butchered 200,000 peasants (1).

Source: Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also Reagan's support of Panama Dictator, Manuel Noriega. He was dropped from the CIA payroll during the Carter Administration and put back on during the Reagan Administration.

Source: Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's Not Forget Nicaragua

"Under the direction of the CIA, the largest Contra army, the FDN, attacked collective farms and other civilian targets, as well as murdered, tortured and mutilated civilians and committed other war crimes, as documented by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. [2] The Contras were also accused of being involved in illicit drug-trafficking.

"In 1986 a CIA-written training manual detailing methods of terrorism and assassination was discovered to have been issued to the Contras.

"The proxy army followed Washington orders to attack 'soft targets' such as farm cooperatives and health clinics instead of 'trying to duke it out with the Sandinistas directly,' and to 'attack a lot of schools, health centers, and those sort of things' so that 'the Nicaraguan government cannot provide social services for the peasants, cannot develop its project' as explained by General John Galvin, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, who added that with these tactics, aimed at civilians lacking means of defense against armed terrorist bands, prospects for the contras should improve.[citation needed]

"When asked in the US Congress in April 1985 to define US policy in Nicaragua, former CIA Director Stansfield Turner responded 'state-sponsored terrorism'”.

Ronald Reagan compared the contras to this country's founding fathers. Possibly there were a few Indians who agreed with him.

Reagan Foreign Policy - Wiki

 

[asterism]

I can't find much about the Middle East that Reagan did well, nor anything that anyone could have done well.