Why Is Ronald Reagan Still Considered A Conservative Hero?

[edthecynic]

The Contras, of course.

They actually DID everything Reagan accused the Sandinistas of doing. Every human rights group that examined the evidence found that the Contras attacked purely civilian targets and that their tactics included murder, rape, beatings, kidnapping and disruption of harvests.

well, perhaps it was the use of the word terrorist, which is something i wouldn't have normally assigned to them. should it be assigned to them? well, maybe.... but i think i always looked at them from the pov of what our country did during that time as opposed to assigning that particular label.

They were named as terrorists by several human rights groups like the Washington Office on Latin America, the International Human Rights Law Group and Americas Watch.

 

[sangha]

The Contras, of course.

They actually DID everything Reagan accused the Sandinistas of doing. Every human rights group that examined the evidence found that the Contras attacked purely civilian targets and that their tactics included murder, rape, beatings, kidnapping and disruption of harvests.

well, perhaps it was the use of the word terrorist, which is something i wouldn't have normally assigned to them. should it be assigned to them? well, maybe.... but i think i always looked at them from the pov of what our country did during that time as opposed to assigning that particular label.

A terrorist is a terrorist, even if the US supports them. Contras tortured and killed thousands of innocent civilians. There is no doubt that the Contras were terrorists, and that Reagan and the rightwinger support terrorism

Reagan also armed Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and gave Stinger missiles to Iranian terrorists

 

[MarcATL]

So let me get this straight...

Conservatives truly believe it was Reagan's speech that said "tear down this wall" that made all the difference?

You mean the Europeans heard those words coming out of his mouth and said to themselves, "Well that's it, we just GOTTA tear down these walls now?"

Is that what I'm to understand?

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

The actual quote is "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! "

After the speech, Mr Gorbachev promptly proceeded to NOT tear down that wall.

Yah...I was paraphrasing a bit, the important part was "tear down this wall."

I really don't understand these wingnuts...its as if they are devoid of thought.

 

[MarcATL]

So let me get this straight...

Conservatives truly believe it was Reagan's speech that said "tear down this wall" that made all the difference?

You mean the Europeans heard those words coming out of his mouth and said to themselves, "Well that's it, we just GOTTA tear down these walls now?"

Is that what I'm to understand?

Let me see if I get all this.

Everything that bad happend was Reagans fault.

When it went right, he was just some doddering old man that just happened to be there.

Is that right?

Another, not-so-slick RW question dodger.

Predictable? You betcha!

 

[sangha]

well, perhaps it was the use of the word terrorist, which is something i wouldn't have normally assigned to them. should it be assigned to them? well, maybe.... but i think i always looked at them from the pov of what our country did during that time as opposed to assigning that particular label.

I think terrorist fits quite nicely when you are talking about the Contras. I don't care about the whole "with us or against us" thing. Terrorists are still terrorists.

perhaps. but i think it might be an overuse of the word. i'm not sure their violence was in furtherance of their political agenda. i think their violence against innocents was more just typical garden variety brutality.

Throwing dead bodies on the street with signs on them labelling them "traitor" or "informant" and then killing anyone who tried to bury the body is NOT "typical garden variety brutality"

Question - When the military in El Salvador (a military Reagan helped arm and train) kidnapped, raped, and murdered a group of Jesuit nuns with help of US supplied intelligence, was that also "typical garden variety brutality"?

Here's a little more about their "typical garden variety brutality"

Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration

A few weeks before the 1984 presidential election, news broke that the CIA had financed, produced, and distributed an assassination manual for the Nicaraguan Contras fighting the Marxist Sandinista government. The manual, entitled “Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War,” recommended “selective use of violence for propagandistic effects” and to “neutralize” (i.e., kill) government officials. Nicaraguan Contras were advised to lead

demonstrators into clashes with the authorities, to provoke riots or shootings, which lead to the killing of one or more persons, who will be seen as the martyrs; this situation should be taken advantage of immediately against the Government to create even bigger conflicts.

The manual also recommended

selective use of armed force for PSYOP [psychological operations] effect.... Carefully selected, planned targets — judges, police officials, tax collectors, etc. — may be removed for PSYOP effect in a UWOA [unconventional warfare operations area], but extensive precautions must insure that the people “concur” in such an act by thorough explanatory canvassing among the affected populace before and after conduct of the mission.

I don't think the selective use of violence for propogandistic effects could be considered "garden variety" The fact that they did this on the advice of the CIA under Reagan makes Reagan and the rightwingers guilty of giving aid to terrorists.

 

[edthecynic]

well, perhaps it was the use of the word terrorist, which is something i wouldn't have normally assigned to them. should it be assigned to them? well, maybe.... but i think i always looked at them from the pov of what our country did during that time as opposed to assigning that particular label.

I think terrorist fits quite nicely when you are talking about the Contras. I don't care about the whole "with us or against us" thing. Terrorists are still terrorists.

perhaps. but i think it might be an overuse of the word. i'm not sure their violence was in furtherance of their political agenda. i think their violence against innocents was more just typical garden variety brutality.

You can decide for yourself if this is terrorism.

A Sandinista militiaman interviewed by The Guardian stated that Contra rebels committed these atrocities against Sandinista prisoners after a battle at a Sandinista rural outpost:

Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit.

Jonathan Steele and Tony Jenkins (1984-11-15). "The Slaugter at the Cooperatives" (print). The Guardian.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So let me get this straight...

Conservatives truly believe it was Reagan's speech that said "tear down this wall" that made all the difference? No, it was years and years of work to wear down communist Russia.

You mean the Europeans heard those words coming out of his mouth and said to themselves, "Well that's it, we just GOTTA tear down these walls now?" Reagan inspired many people with his speeches. Not long after the speech, they were taking hammers and picks to it.

Is that what I'm to understand? You refuse to understand.

Let me see if I get all this.

Everything that bad happend was Reagans fault.

When it went right, he was just some doddering old man that just happened to be there.

Is that right?

Another, not-so-slick RW question dodger.

Predictable? You betcha!

Since you are such a nice guy, I will answer your accusations. (oh, please no bs about them being questions. An accusation with a "?" at the end, is still an accusation.)

Think you can respond to my accusations?

 

[Sallow]

I think terrorist fits quite nicely when you are talking about the Contras. I don't care about the whole "with us or against us" thing. Terrorists are still terrorists.

perhaps. but i think it might be an overuse of the word. i'm not sure their violence was in furtherance of their political agenda. i think their violence against innocents was more just typical garden variety brutality.

You can decide for yourself if this is terrorism.

A Sandinista militiaman interviewed by The Guardian stated that Contra rebels committed these atrocities against Sandinista prisoners after a battle at a Sandinista rural outpost:

Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit.

Jonathan Steele and Tony Jenkins (1984-11-15). "The Slaugter at the Cooperatives" (print). The Guardian.

Those were the days my friends..

 

[MarcATL]

Since you are such a nice guy, I will answer your accusations. (oh, please no bs about them being questions. An accusation with a "?" at the end, is still an accusation.)

Think you can respond to my accusations?

I got lost in the sauce.

Can you repost them as a separate post?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Instead of privatizing Social Security, he raised taxes

The Greenspan Commission....he signed it into law, and it raised taxes on Social Security.

He negotiated with terrorists, sending -- over and over again -- arms to Iran in exchange for hostages; by contrast Jimmy Carter didn't give an inch to the Iranians.

Reagan gave amnesty to people who are breaking the law and living in the country illegally. He said, "Forget about it. Stay here forever." He cut and ran from Lebanon. How many hundreds of Marines were killed?

Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?

He's a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists.

Why is Ronald a hero to conservatives?

The best question and only question that needs to be asked is
"why do so many peope still support obama?"

That is all.

 

[sangha]

Since you are such a nice guy, I will answer your accusations. (oh, please no bs about them being questions. An accusation with a "?" at the end, is still an accusation.)

Think you can respond to my accusations?

I got lost in the sauce.

Can you repost them as a separate post?

He didn't answer your questions, Marc. His claim is just another wingnut lie

He responded to your questions, but he did not answer them, unless you think statements like "You refuse to understand." is an answer and not an accusation

 

[MarcATL]

Instead of privatizing Social Security, he raised taxes

The Greenspan Commission....he signed it into law, and it raised taxes on Social Security.

He negotiated with terrorists, sending -- over and over again -- arms to Iran in exchange for hostages; by contrast Jimmy Carter didn't give an inch to the Iranians.

Reagan gave amnesty to people who are breaking the law and living in the country illegally. He said, "Forget about it. Stay here forever." He cut and ran from Lebanon. How many hundreds of Marines were killed?

Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?

He's a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists.

Why is Ronald a hero to conservatives?

The best question and only question that needs to be asked is
"why do so many peope still support obama?"

That is all.

The best answer and the only answer that can be given is
"Because the majority of the American population is rather pleased with what President Barack Obama is doing, especially considering the crappy hand he was given."

That is all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Instead of privatizing Social Security, he raised taxes

The Greenspan Commission....he signed it into law, and it raised taxes on Social Security.

He negotiated with terrorists, sending -- over and over again -- arms to Iran in exchange for hostages; by contrast Jimmy Carter didn't give an inch to the Iranians.

Reagan gave amnesty to people who are breaking the law and living in the country illegally. He said, "Forget about it. Stay here forever." He cut and ran from Lebanon. How many hundreds of Marines were killed?

Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?

He's a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists.

Why is Ronald a hero to conservatives?

The best question and only question that needs to be asked is
"why do so many peope still support obama?"

That is all.

The best answer and the only answer that can be given is
"Because the majority of the American population is rather pleased with what President Barack Obama is doing, especially considering the crappy hand he was given."

That is all.

Really? that isn't true and you know it. Th media is a friend to obama they aren't doing their job. They aren't attacking him like they do to others that precent a threat to them.

 

[MarcATL]

Bigreb...you are the one that's mistaken.

I guess time will tell.

In the meantime, I'll go with the numbers, all polls has Obama ranking RATHER HIGHLY with the American population.

But you can stay in your anti-Obama echo-chamber all day long. Enjoy it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bigreb...you are the one that's mistaken.

I guess time will tell.

In the meantime, I'll go with the numbers, all polls has Obama ranking RATHER HIGHLY with the American population.

But you can stay in your anti-Obama echo-chamber all day long. Enjoy it.

THE PEPLE AREN'T HPPY WITH obama BUT STILL THE NUMBERS ARE HIGH.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls

 

[Trajan]

The patented CON$ervative Dumb Act when caught with your foot in your mouth. YOU only named two terrorists groups and you acknowledged one of them, but only a CON$ervative can pretend to be too stupid to figure out who the other terrorist group is!

a foot in MY mouth? I never named ANY Terrorist org. you did, I asked for clarification, those labels are assigned by YOU in this context. The only thing we have patented here is, your apparent inability to comprehend English as its written.

You added my quote right there, is English your first language or what?

so who's the second grp? I take very little for granted on the net..its usually easier that way as we have just seen in our last exchange as you take huge liberties in digesting English, so thats why I ask and will ask.


and I asked politely, keep it adult...alas.....you 're just another internet tough guy who gets off being a jerk cause they have so little juice in their own lives.
I am sorry you have so little going for you in real life, so if you keep the stupid remarks up, don't expect a response, build your fragile ego by talking to yourself or Marc...okay?

I'll keep it as "polite" as your highlighted post.

hey I asked you first....lets move on and start again.

 

[midcan5]

Reagan had one of the best pieces of propaganda ever done, as the poor got poorer, and the rich richer, as the working class collapsed, as worker rights were diminished, and regulatory structure was destroyed and banking was failing and the S&L required bailouts - it was a new morning in America! I guess we can agree with that!




Ronald Reagan: Was He Really that Dumb? (a warning from history) - Democratic Underground

 

[uscitizen]

The best question and only question that needs to be asked is
"why do so many peope still support obama?"

That is all.

The best answer and the only answer that can be given is
"Because the majority of the American population is rather pleased with what President Barack Obama is doing, especially considering the crappy hand he was given."

That is all.

Really? that isn't true and you know it. Th media is a friend to obama they aren't doing their job. They aren't attacking him like they do to others that precent a threat to them.

the media overall did not attack Bush either, seems to be them being our president or somesuch. And yes the media does attack Obama. Fox is media.

 

[mudwhistle]

Let's look at that outright lies of these people.

First Obama compared himself to Lincoln when he announced he was running.
Then everyone started comparing him to JFK, Michelle to Jackie.
He claims he will close GITMO.
He claims he will get us out of Iraq.
He claims we must pull out of Iraq so we can go to Afghanistan were he will find Bin Laden.
Then claimed that the Stimulus would create jobs, which never has.
They change the way the unemployed are counted so they can fudge the stats. We are currently over 10% but nobody really knows how much.
Then they claimed that their Health Care bill would cut costs and provide insurance for everyone but it's discovered it does nether.
Obama claims he's not a Muslim but supports them at every turn.
Obama claims he's a Christian, and he starts going to church after two years of not going and declaring this is not a Christian nation and refusing to attend the annual prayer breakfast.
Obama claims jobs are his number one priority.
Obama says he was on the job from day one, forgetting that he said it wasn't his problem but BP's, and he will not rest till the oil spill is capped and the mess cleaned up....then he goes on vacation and the leak continues for months. You see Obama was so busy calling an entire state racist that he forgot to do his job. So for 10 days he ignored the largest ecological disaster in our history.
The left claims that Sarah Palin had something to do with the Arizona Shooter. This time Obama is all over it so he can act like he cares, unlike the way he acted after several service members were shot and killed at Ft Hood earlier last year.
The Tea Party is called violent and full of racists. Code Pink is ignored when they say they want to cut off Clarence Thomas's toes and feed them to him.
Chris Matthews compares the Tea Party to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now Obama's MSM claims he's the second coming of Ronald Reagan, forget that this came to them around the 100th anniversary of his birth. My how convenient.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Why on Earth does anyone believe them after all of these fabrications?

 

[Trajan]

Sorry about that, but the dumb act really irritates me. If he doesn't want to admit the Contras were terrorists he should right come out and say it like a man, instead of being cutesy playing dumb.

Why, exactly, should he? The Contras were backed by Reagan..and tacitly backed by the US government in the spook world.

Put up your evidence..and show him where he is incorrect. But Trajan is generally polite and respectful.

'Contra' Terrorism Is, Unfortunately, True - Letter - NYTimes.com

To the Editor:
In his April 15 address, President Reagan sought to cast doubt on my report (page A1, March 7) of atrocities by anti-Sandinista ''contras'' in Nicaragua by alleging I was ''shepherded through Nicaragua by Sandinista operatives'' (excerpts, April 16).
Each account of murder, brutality, rape and kidnapping in my report is based on the sworn affidavits of eyewitnesses who were selected and interviewed with no interference and whose names and addresses are listed.
Representatives of the Washington Office on Latin America, the International Human Rights Law Group and Americas Watch have independently confirmed the accuracy of these horrible accounts and documented many others. Your March 7 article also verified four incidents chosen at random. The President cannot deny the systematic terror of these so-called ''freedom fighters.'' REED BRODY New York, April 17, 1985





NICARAGUA

the contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners. In 1989 the number of contra abuses has been greatly reduced in comparison to the beginning of the peace process, largely because, at least through September, they were entering Nicaragua less frequently. To the extent that the contras have continued to operate, however, they have continued to commit these violations, and toward the end of 1989, abuses by the contras appeared to be on the increase. The Bush administration is responsible for these abuses, not only because the contras are, for all practical purposes, a U.S. force, but also because the Bush administration has continued to minimize and deny these violations, and has refused to investigate them seriously. As in the Reagan years, the Bush State Department has continued to make too much of monitoring mechanisms within the contra movement that have been wholly unsuccessful in prosecuting those responsible for abuses.

Hummm, one link that has no attribution whatever and one from the Times, which is a letter to the editor ( from reed brody no less)……next stop; journalists without borders, j/k, we have to do better than this...seriously.



So first, lets make sure we understand each other-the UN cannot come up a solid definition but lets try here or else we’ll go in circles, I’m on board with this standard wiki def….you?

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.
Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4]

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia