PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Ron Paul Deceived. BucEyedPea Believed. (The Fabricated Reagan Quote)


Pages : [1] 2 3

patteeu
02-12-2010, 10:14 AM
I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but I wanted to create a separate thread where BucEyedPea can feel free to admit that Ron Paul was wrong or argue endlessly with me about it if she's still in denial without hijacking another thread.

In July of 2006, Ron Paul got up in front of the House of Representatives to speak in opposition to a resolution condemning Hezbollah's attack against Israel. In his statement, he quoted Ronald Reagan (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul335.html) to bolster his case. I should say he "mis-quoted" Reagan though, because as it turns out the quote was FABRICATED.

Since then, BucEyedPea has repeatedly referenced that quote here on the pages of ChiefsPlanet. At last count, I've seen her reference it no less than 16 times. What's with these appeasement conservatives and their need to pretend that Ronald Reagan would have approved of their misguided, neo-isolationist message?

See my next two posts for the details.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 10:22 AM
Ron Paul claimed that the Reagan quote came from Reagan's own autobiography. What he really did was collect a few out of context sentences from different pages of the book, connected them together as if they were contiguous and then fabricated the rest to drive home his dishonest point.

My original analysis of this lie was done with the hard copy from my local library. I've also checked the paperback version and found the same results. I'm sure it's available in most decent public libraries.

Here is Paul's mis-quote, color coded so the different pieces can be identified and sourced:

"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today."

Dark Orange - p466 of An American Life (Reagan's autobiography)

Purple - p462 of An American Life

Dark Green - different part of p462 of An American Life

Blue - Not present in An American Life

It's bad enough to string a bunch of out-of-context, unconnected sentences together as if they were written that way, but the really outrageous dishonesty comes from the final two sentences which were apparently fabricated out of thin air and which, btw, transform the ambiguity of the early part of the quote into a clear endorsement of Ron Paul's withdraw-at-all-costs foreign policy.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 10:31 AM
BucEyedPea has been loud and proud with her belief that Ronald Reagan would have approved of Ron Paul's foreign policy. I'm sure she was doing so innocently* when she repeated this Ron Paul lie 16 times here at ChiefsPlanet. It's now time for her to admit a mistake and condemn Ron Paul's dishonesty wrt to the Reagan quote.

Here are the 16 times she used Paul's false quote:

LOOKS LIKE IRAN IS CHOOSING TO TIANANMEN OPTION

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5858805

Hamas called down the thunder

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5334627

What is a "neo-con"?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5303710

Spain RonPaul's it's troops out of Iraq and terror attacks against them stop, right?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4557837

Mark Levin - Recent Speech – Excellent

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4331024

Osama Bin Bush

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3421263

Ronald Reagan said:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4269466

Who is Ron Paul Anyway?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4151844

Saving face in Iraq is pretty simple if the powers that be want to do it.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4075388

Across the pond, they're pissed

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4053384

Iraq's parliament just voted us OUT...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3965284

Rumsfeld: Terrorist Groups 'Actively Manipulating' U.S. Media

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3385095

Why is the U.S. afraid to fight Iran?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3354036

"Bleeding Heart Brits" agree with meme, Nightwish

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3318886

The Surge goes to Afghanistan

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=209825

AHMADINEJAD: 'Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11'...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6498658#post6498658

---------------------
* Although she deserves some criticism for passing the quote off as if it were from Reagan's autobiography instead of making it clear that she was relying on 2nd hand information rather than the book itself.

Reaper16
02-12-2010, 10:34 AM
Did you say something, patteeu?

wild1
02-12-2010, 10:39 AM
I haven't been party to this argument. But reading that:

To say "Reagan said this..." WRT to this quote/non-quote, as a paraphrase, it would seem like a very clear case of torturing the context so as to distort meaning.

To have read the quote in-line as if it had been lifted straight from the text is something I don't think you can describe as anything other than deceptive.

Maybe someone else writes his speeches, maybe this quote was just taking from a dubious online source - who knows. It disappoints me because I do like Rep. Paul. Has he ever made a public statement or retraction about this?

Congrats on what seems like a well-researched and worthy coup de grace here.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 10:45 AM
I haven't been party to this argument. But reading that:

To say "Reagan said this..." WRT to this quote/non-quote, as a paraphrase, it would seem like a very clear case of torturing the context so as to distort meaning.

To have read the quote in-line as if it had been lifted straight from the text is something I don't think you can describe as anything other than deceptive.

Maybe someone else writes his speeches, maybe this quote was just taking from a dubious online source - who knows. It disappoints me because I do like Rep. Paul. Has he ever made a public statement or retraction about this?

Congrats on what seems like a well-researched and worthy coup de grace here.

I like Ron Paul too. Before the GWoT drove a wedge between us, Ron Paul was by far my favorite Congressman. I still like almost everything about him but his foreign policy positions.

I've looked on the internet for the quote in an effort to either find a justification for it or a critique of it and have found nothing. The only places I find this quote are in the Lew Rockwell text of his Congressional statement and on message boards or commentary sections of articles where his disciples (or others with like minds on foreign policy) spread the rumor.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 10:52 AM
I've got a theory about what happened here, but I want BucEyedPea to admit that the quote is false before I try to bail Ron Paul out a little bit.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 10:55 AM
pssstttt Ronald Reagan raised taxes too...

Mr. Kotter
02-12-2010, 11:01 AM
Heh.

:popcorn:

Radar Chief
02-12-2010, 11:32 AM
Did you say something, patteeu?

LMAO If he wasn’t on her fake iggy before he definitely will be now.

Amnorix
02-12-2010, 11:49 AM
Ah, I love seeing a well planned execution.


http://gasbanditry.com/twg163/pictures/Demotivational%20Posters/Coup_de_Grace.jpg

wazu
02-12-2010, 11:53 AM
Nice job on the research, pat. I've always felt that the similarities between Ronald Reagan's beliefs and Ron Paul's beliefs are exaggerated. On fiscal issues I think Ron Paul is basically a much more extreme version of Reagan. On foreign policy I don't see them as that similar at all.

Jenson71
02-12-2010, 12:08 PM
Nice job on the research, pat. I've always felt that the similarities between Ronald Reagan's beliefs and Ron Paul's beliefs are exaggerated. On fiscal issues I think Ron Paul is basically a much more extreme version of Reagan. On foreign policy I don't see them as that similar at all.

Tremendously exaggerated.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 12:31 PM
Nice job on the research, pat. I've always felt that the similarities between Ronald Reagan's beliefs and Ron Paul's beliefs are exaggerated. On fiscal issues I think Ron Paul is basically a much more extreme version of Reagan. On foreign policy I don't see them as that similar at all.

That's pretty much where I'm at too.

Royal Fanatic
02-12-2010, 01:21 PM
pssstttt Ronald Reagan raised taxes too...
How ironic. In a thread about taking things out of context in order to be deceptive, you make a bullshit post like that.

Reagan was a NET tax cutter by a wide margin. To imply otherwise is dishonest.

Chocolate Hog
02-12-2010, 02:53 PM
I've seen a few pics of Ron Paul with Reagan. Ron Paul was one of only a few congressmen to endorse him in the 70's.

wild1
02-12-2010, 03:00 PM
When will the adversary arrive and start the fireworks?

Taco John
02-12-2010, 03:10 PM
When will the adversary arrive and start the fireworks?

Not until she gets back from the library to check it out herself, I'd wager.

Radar Chief
02-12-2010, 03:10 PM
When will the adversary arrive and start the fireworks?

BEP isn't known for admitting mistakes, living up to the :BS: she talks. I tend to doubt we'll see much from her other than maybe popping in for a snide, "Damn NeoCons! :cuss:" type comment.

NewChief
02-12-2010, 03:14 PM
Knock,
knock! Who's there, in the other devil's
name? Faith, here's an equivocator, that could
swear in both the scales against either scale;
who committed treason enough for God's sake,
yet could not equivocate to heaven: O, come
in, equivocator.

SNR
02-12-2010, 03:29 PM
I've got a theory about what happened here, but I want BucEyedPea to admit that the quote is false before I try to bail Ron Paul out a little bit.Is that last part of the quote that isn't even in the book distinctly what Reagan said or Ron Paul said? To me it might be confused, the way his speech is written, that Lew Rockwell would have assumed Ron Paul was quoting Reagan when in fact, he had ended the quote early and was reflecting on the situation himself?

patteeu
02-12-2010, 03:34 PM
I've seen a few pics of Ron Paul with Reagan. Ron Paul was one of only a few congressmen to endorse him in the 70's.

Yes, Ron Paul was a Reagan supporter before and during the first part of Reagan's Presidency. He became disillusioned at some point and by the time Reagan's second term was over he was no longer on the bandwagon and in 1988 he ran for the Presidency himself as a Libertarian.

Chocolate Hog
02-12-2010, 03:39 PM
Yes, Ron Paul was a Reagan supporter before and during the first part of Reagan's Presidency. He became disillusioned at some point and by the time Reagan's second term was over he was no longer on the bandwagon and in 1988 he ran for the Presidency himself as a Libertarian.

Because Reagan changed.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 03:41 PM
Not until she gets back from the library to check it out herself, I'd wager.

A week ago she said that she requested Reagan's autobiography from her library but that it would be a few days before they'd be able to get it from another larger library. I have faith that when she sees (or hears) for herself that the passage in question does not appear in the book as claimed that she will admit it.

To be clear here, I don't blame BEP for her reliance on the quote because she's just repeating what Ron Paul "wrote". She probably should have cited the Lew Rockwell article to show where she got it from instead of simply accepting that it came from Reagan's autobiography and citing it as such, but that's a minor complaint, IMO.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 03:47 PM
Is that last part of the quote that isn't even in the book distinctly what Reagan said or Ron Paul said? To me it might be confused, the way his speech is written, that Lew Rockwell would have assumed Ron Paul was quoting Reagan when in fact, he had ended the quote early and was reflecting on the situation himself?

That's my theory. But the article on Lew Rockwell carry's Ron Paul's name as the author so even if it's just a matter of someone at the website mistakenly moving some of Paul's commentary inside the quotation marks, it's still a bit of a stain on Paul's reputation in my book. If this were a transcription of an audio speech by someone unrelated to the speaker, it would be a more understandable mistake.

In any event, we still have the issue of sentences from different parts of the book being strung together without any indication that they are distinct statements. And more importantly, if you strip away the last part (that wasn't Reagan) from the quote, it really strips away most of the impact of the quote in terms of how close Reagan's views may or may not have been to the current Ron Paul philosophy.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 03:50 PM
Because Reagan changed.

Yeah, whatever. He changed from a speech giver to a person who had to govern without the powers of a dictator.

JohnnyV13
02-12-2010, 07:56 PM
Pat, this can't be true. Everything on the Lew Rockwell site has to be 100%, without error, correct! Its gospel, I tell you! Only other information sources can make errors. Drudge, MSNBC, Glenn Beck, and Megan McCain have warped your mind.

The only economists who can make mistakes are the followers of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, that hack Milton Friedman and, of course, Ben Bernanke. Paragons like Lew Rockwell, Che Guevara-lover Murray Rothbard, and of course Ludwig von Mises, are protected from all error because their ideology makes them incorruptable.

SNR
02-12-2010, 08:01 PM
Pat, this can't be true. Everything on the Lew Rockwell site has to be 100%, without error, correct! Its gospel, I tell you! Only other information sources can make errors. Drudge, MSNBC, Glenn Beck, and Megan McCain have warped your mind.

The only economists who can make mistakes are the followers of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, that hack Milton Friedman and, of course, Ben Bernanke. Paragons like Lew Rockwell, Che Guervara-lover Murray Rothbard, and of course Ludwig von Mises, are protected from all error because their ideology makes them incorruptable.BEP doesn't like Adam Smith?

patteeu
02-12-2010, 08:14 PM
BEP doesn't like Adam Smith?

It was his error that allowed Marx to make his even bigger error or something like that.

Saul Good
02-12-2010, 09:03 PM
Did you say something, patteeu?

That made me laugh.

banyon
02-13-2010, 09:13 AM
It was his error that allowed Marx to make his even bigger error or something like that.

Plus, he's a mercantilist!

Saul Good
02-13-2010, 11:33 AM
Did I accidentally put BEP on ignore, or has she just avoided this thread?

wild1
02-13-2010, 04:23 PM
Did I accidentally put BEP on ignore, or has she just avoided this thread?

this post

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6526980&postcount=144

was edited at 12:12PM yesterday so she has been logged in and in this subfolder since the topic was created

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 04:25 PM
Out of curiosity: why is Reagan so idolized? From where I'm sitting, he caused a bunch of shit after he left office.

Chocolate Hog
02-13-2010, 04:29 PM
Out of curiosity: why is Reagan so idolized? From where I'm sitting, he caused a bunch of shit after he left office.

What else does the Republican party have to talk about over the last 30+ years?

Saul Good
02-13-2010, 05:48 PM
Out of curiosity: why is Reagan so idolized? From where I'm sitting, he caused a bunch of shit after he left office.

Imagine 7 years from now the economy is still being run by Obama, and the war is still going on. Also, we're basically in a cold war with China.

Then, imagine that the next president comes in, ends the war in the ME with a victory, and bankrupts China.

That's why Reagan is so idolized. Let me know if you have any questions about why Abraham Lincoln, another great Republican, is still idolized.

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 06:08 PM
Out of curiosity: why is Reagan so idolized? From where I'm sitting, he caused a bunch of shit after he left office.


You amaze me sometimes.

patteeu
02-13-2010, 06:24 PM
Out of curiosity: why is Reagan so idolized? From where I'm sitting, he caused a bunch of shit after he left office.

Out of curiousity, where are you sitting? Moscow? ;)

go bowe
02-14-2010, 12:39 AM
BEP isn't known for admitting mistakes, living up to the :BS: she talks. I tend to doubt we'll see much from her other than maybe popping in for a snide, "Damn NeoCons! :cuss:" type comment.damn neocons id da debbil...

go bowe
02-14-2010, 12:51 AM
ron paul is great fun...

why, oh why is everybody down on my homie, ron paul?

he makes me laugh and on occasion he can even make me think, as painful as that may be...

and he makes politics more interesting...

imagine a hundred ron pauls in congress...

and a couple of bep's in the senate...

now, that would be interesting...

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 06:44 PM
Bump.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 06:48 PM
Out of curiousity, where are you sitting? Moscow? ;)

Imagine 7 years from now the economy is still being run by Obama, and the war is still going on. Also, we're basically in a cold war with China.

Then, imagine that the next president comes in, ends the war in the ME with a victory, and bankrupts China.

That's why Reagan is so idolized. Let me know if you have any questions about why Abraham Lincoln, another great Republican, is still idolized.

This thread (and comments) should highlight why I raised the question.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9aytm/let_me_get_this_straight_reagan_was_the_greatest/

The big thing to get me researching Reagan and his legacy was his colossal failure in Afghanistan and what it turned into. (aka Charlie Wilson's War)

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 06:56 PM
This thread (and comments) should highlight why I raised the question.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9aytm/let_me_get_this_straight_reagan_was_the_greatest/

The big thing to get me researching Reagan and his legacy was his colossal failure in Afghanistan and what it turned into. (aka Charlie Wilson's War)

49

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 06:57 PM
49

?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 07:56 PM
?
Anybody care to help out IJ on this one?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 07:59 PM
You can just google "Ronald Reagan 49" if you can't stand the suspense.

orange
02-14-2010, 08:08 PM
49

?

Anybody care to help out IJ on this one?

It's the 49th Parallel, of course. Damn that James K. Polk!

54 40 or Fight, I say!!

|Zach|
02-14-2010, 08:23 PM
IJ, Saul is referring to the atomic number of indium.

banyon
02-14-2010, 08:46 PM
damn neocons id da debbil...

go Bowe sighting!

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:11 PM
This thread (and comments) should highlight why I raised the question.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9aytm/let_me_get_this_straight_reagan_was_the_greatest/

The big thing to get me researching Reagan and his legacy was his colossal failure in Afghanistan and what it turned into. (aka Charlie Wilson's War)

WTF are you talking about? Colossal failure in Afghanistan? ROFL

You really are sitting in Moscow, aren't you comrade?

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:29 PM
WTF are you talking about? Colossal failure in Afghanistan? ROFL

You really are sitting in Moscow, aren't you comrade?

Colossal failure as in what it bred. Sure, he got the quick victory but the Afghanistan of today is due in large part to his policy.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 09:30 PM
Colossal failure as in what it bred. Sure, he got the quick victory but the Afghanistan of today is due in large part to his policy.

You're going to have to connect a few dots for me.

NewChief
02-14-2010, 09:39 PM
You're going to have to connect a few dots for me.

Google reagan. Colossal failure.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 09:46 PM
Imagine 7 years from now the economy is still being run by Obama, and the war is still going on. Also, we're basically in a cold war with China.

Then, imagine that the next president comes in, ends the war in the ME with a victory, and bankrupts China.

That's why Reagan is so idolized. Let me know if you have any questions about why Abraham Lincoln, another great Republican, is still idolized.


:rolleyes:

patteeu
02-14-2010, 10:04 PM
Colossal failure as in what it bred. Sure, he got the quick victory but the Afghanistan of today is due in large part to his policy.

The Afghanistan of today isn't much different than the Afghanistan of Jimmy Carter's day (with NATO troops there instead of Soviet troops). In between Carter and Obama, Reagan defeated a superpower. Your take would be mind bogglingly off base if you were someone who considered the Americans to be the good guys.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 10:22 PM
The Afghanistan of today isn't much different than the Afghanistan of Jimmy Carter's day (with NATO troops there instead of Soviet troops). In between Carter and Obama, Reagan defeated a superpower. Your take would be mind bogglingly off base if you were someone who considered the Americans to be the good guys.

Curious, what would you say in response to this:

Anybody who claims that Reagan singlehandedly ended the Cold War is flat-out wrong. It's just simply not true.
Let me start by examining the actions that Reagan took to end the cold war, in bullet form.

-Ordered the largest peacetime buildup of US troops in history -Delivered speech at the Berlin Wall -Signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

While most people think that Reagan somehow miraculously saved the world from the Soviet Union, I argue that the Soviet Union was doomed to fail.
First, understand the nature of the Soviet military-industrial complex. That term gets thrown around in relation the United States, but we cannot even compare to the Soviets during the height of the Cold War. 25% of their GDP went into the military.

The Soviets were also fighting in Afghanistan, and we all know how well that went over for them. After 9 years, they lost and allowed a civil war to perpetuate, eventually leading to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This also caused a huge economic drain, which brings me to my next point.
Fighting wars and investing heavily in the military will eventually suck an economy dry. With a surplus of oil, a war being fought, and tons of money being dumped into the military, the Soviet Union's economy had stalled.
Gorbachev realized the need for reform and that's what he did. He allowed for greater freedom of the press, tried to reduce the corruption at the highest levels of government, and most importantly reduced the size of the military. Search perestroika or glasnost for further information.

Without a massive military, the Soviet Union itself became unsustainable and had to break up. The Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse before Reagan came to power, Reagan merely "beat" them through kicking the United States war machine into high gear.

I can't help but see the similarities between the US now and the Soviet Union then. Our military is spread far too thin and is far too large to begin with. We have dumped trillions of dollars into military spending and run up a bill that will take decades to pay off. We are currently fighting two wars with no clear goals or deadlines for troop withdrawal. Once the wars are over, more money will have to be spent to restore our armies to appropriate levels.

We face many of the same problems the Soviets did at the end of their time, and Gorbachev-style reforms will become increasingly necessary for the United States to survive. The United States cannot be hegemonic forever, especially if we cannot pay the bills. The first path to recovery is to drop the misconception that Ronald Reagan should be revered as a president. Increased military spending may have ended the Cold War, but if unchecked it will be the undoing of America as well.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 10:27 PM
Curious, what would you say in response to this:

That passage gives Reagan absolutely no credit for the fact that the Soviets were stuck in Afghanistan for 9 years. FAIL

I don't think Reagan did it single-handedly. He had a lot of help from Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II among other allies and supporters, but he was a key leader of the West when the West broke the Soviets.

KC native
02-14-2010, 10:27 PM
The Afghanistan of today isn't much different than the Afghanistan of Jimmy Carter's day (with NATO troops there instead of Soviet troops). In between Carter and Obama, Reagan defeated a superpower. Your take would be mind bogglingly off base if you were someone who considered the Americans to be the good guys.

Still trying to peddle this nonsense? The soviets were doomed by their own policies and Reagan was just fortunate enough to be there when they finally collapsed under their own weight.

KC native
02-14-2010, 10:28 PM
That passage gives Reagan absolutely no credit for the fact that the Soviets were stuck in Afghanistan for 9 years. FAIL

I don't think Reagan did it single-handedly. He had a lot of help from Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II among other allies and supporters, but he was a key leader of the West when the West broke the Soviets.

However the overriding factor in the USSR's collapse was their own policies and actions.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:30 PM
The Afghanistan of today isn't much different than the Afghanistan of Jimmy Carter's day (with NATO troops there instead of Soviet troops). In between Carter and Obama, Reagan defeated a superpower. Your take would be mind bogglingly off base if you were someone who considered the Americans to be the good guys.

Reagan did NOT defeat a superpower. The entire concept is comical. That Reagan, by spending money on the military and "standing firm" or whatever (not that we hadn't been stnading firm for nearly 40 years already) somehow caused the USSR to collapse. Seriously, just think about how nonsensical that is.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 10:34 PM
Still trying to peddle this nonsense? The soviets were doomed by their own policies and Reagan was just fortunate enough to be there when they finally collapsed under their own weight.

Yes, Reagan's arms buildup and his support of anti-Soviet bloc forces from Afghanistan to Nicaragua had nothing to do with it. LOL

Soviet socialism was a self-inflicted wound. Of that there is no doubt. Reagan added weight to the already burdened system until it's collapse became inevitable.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:35 PM
Still trying to peddle this nonsense? The soviets were doomed by their own policies and Reagan was just fortunate enough to be there when they finally collapsed under their own weight.

This. Not that Reagan didn't help, but Reagan's policies were mostly a continuation of those that had been in place for 40 years. Did Reagan stand off against the Russian's proxy in Korea? Did Reagan order the Berlin Airlift? Did Reagan stare down Kruschnev over Cuba? Did Reagan implement the containment policy? Did Reagan overcome centuries of animosity to form NATO? Did Reagan ensure nuclear supremacy? Did Reagan create the triad defense system, or implement NORAD?

The Reagan-worship seriously underrates the efforts of 40 years of effort. Of course, it's not hard to see the logic there by Republicans since alot of THAT effort was by Democrats.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 10:36 PM
Reagan did NOT defeat a superpower. The entire concept is comical. That Reagan, by spending money on the military and "standing firm" or whatever (not that we hadn't been stnading firm for nearly 40 years already) somehow caused the USSR to collapse. Seriously, just think about how nonsensical that is.

It's not nonsensical at all. What's nonsensical is the idea that US policy had no role in the Soviet collapse.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 10:38 PM
This. Not that Reagan didn't help, but Reagan's policies were mostly a continuation of those that had been in place for 40 years. Did Reagan stand off against the Russian's proxy in Korea? Did Reagan order the Berlin Airlift? Did Reagan stare down Kruschnev over Cuba? Did Reagan implement the containment policy? Did Reagan overcome centuries of animosity to form NATO? Did Reagan ensure nuclear supremacy? Did Reagan create the triad defense system, or implement NORAD?

The Reagan-worship seriously underrates the efforts of 40 years of effort. Of course, it's not hard to see the logic there by Republicans since alot of THAT effort was by Democrats.

I'm not taking anything away from the cold warriors that preceded Reagan. I'm just saying that if we had elected Barack Obama instead of Reagan, the Soviets would probably still be chugging along.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:38 PM
Yes, Reagan's arms buildup and his support of anti-Soviet bloc forces from Afghanistan to Nicaragua had nothing to do with it. LOL

who said nothing? Nobody, that's who.

But his "support of anti-Soviet bloc forces" was nothing more than the continuation of the containment strategy outlined by Kennan back in the late 40s for chrissakes. One long, 40 year effort that went from the formation of NATO to the Berlin airlift to the nuclear arms race to the development of the hydrogen bomb to the Korean War to the Cuban missile crisis to the Vietnamese War (an unnecessary war whose strategic implications and importance was badly misunderstood in Washington) to Chinese rapproachment all the way to the action of Reagan in the 1980s.

Reagan did NOT mount his white freaking horse and go crush the Soviets with nary a shot fired in 8 years. The entire notion is patently absurd.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:40 PM
It's not nonsensical at all. What's nonsensical is the idea that US policy had no role in the Soviet collapse.

That is nonsensical, which is why I didn't say it. Nor anything remotely like it.

KC native
02-14-2010, 10:42 PM
Yes, Reagan's arms buildup and his support of anti-Soviet bloc forces from Afghanistan to Nicaragua had nothing to do with it. LOL

Soviet socialism was a self-inflicted wound. Of that there is no doubt. Reagan added weight to the already burdened system until it's collapse became inevitable.


The USSR's collapse was inevitable from it's inception.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:44 PM
I'm not taking anything away from the cold warriors that preceded Reagan. I'm just saying that if we had elected Barack Obama instead of Reagan, the Soviets would probably still be chugging along.

Very unlikely given that Obama hasn't shown any weakness in pursuing perceived worthwhile military goals in Afghanistan. Nor is what Reagan did all that different or unusual from the policy that had preceded him and been fundamentally stable for 40 years.

The Soviets were going to fall of their own weight eventually if we stayed the course. Unless Obama or whoever completely screwed up in some fashion, then it was really just a function of time.

I doubt any American President would have pursued a policy in Afghanistan much different than what Reagan did. Supporting a war by proxy directly against your enemy is rather obvious strategy, employed effectively against us in Vietnam.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 10:44 PM
who said nothing? Nobody, that's who.

But his "support of anti-Soviet bloc forces" was nothing more than the continuation of the containment strategy outlined by Kennan back in the late 40s for chrissakes. One long, 40 year effort that went from the formation of NATO to the Berlin airlift to the nuclear arms race to the development of the hydrogen bomb to the Korean War to the Cuban missile crisis to the Vietnamese War (an unnecessary war whose strategic implications and importance was badly misunderstood in Washington) to Chinese rapproachment all the way to the action of Reagan in the 1980s.

Reagan did NOT mount his white freaking horse and go crush the Soviets in 8 years. The entire notion is patently absurd.

KC Native did. He attributed the Soviet collapse entirely to Soviet policies. That's clearly not true. Your more balanced assessment is far less objectionable, although you short-change Reagan and his contemporaries IMO. The Soviets' collapse in 1989 was not inevitable. Eight years of Reagan-led Western policies were the proximate cause.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:46 PM
The USSR's collapse was inevitable from it's inception.

Well, yes, very likely so, but a failure to contain would have (1) resulted in at least the potential of expanded Soviet hegemony and (2) signficantly delayed the timeframe of teh collapse.

I mean, if America had just gone back to its pre-WWII roots of isolationism, the world would be a VERY different place today, and not likely in a good way (for us or for the rest of the world).

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 10:47 PM
Very unlikely given that Obama hasn't shown any weakness in pursuing perceived worthwhile military goals in Afghanistan.
What makes you think that he would have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union as being a worthwhile goal?

Chiefspants
02-14-2010, 10:48 PM
Imagine 7 years from now the economy is still being run by Obama, and the war is still going on. Also, we're basically in a cold war with China.

Then, imagine that the next president comes in, ends the war in the ME with a victory, and bankrupts China.

That's why Reagan is so idolized. Let me know if you have any questions about why Abraham Lincoln, another great Republican, is still idolized.


Reagan did wonders for our economy and tackled Afghanistan with brilliant foresight.

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 10:48 PM
Still trying to peddle this nonsense? The soviets were doomed by their own policies and Reagan was just fortunate enough to be there when they finally collapsed under their own weight.

I wonder if you're one of those guys who looks back fondly on "Clinton's economy."

I'd argue (correctly) that Pres. Reagan contributed more to the collapse of the Soviet Union than Clinton contributed to the booming economic circumstances that coincided with his administration.

Sometimes praise can be heaped on a bit thick by either side for its own heroes.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 10:51 PM
I wonder if you're one of those guys who looks back fondly on "Clinton's economy."

I'd argue (correctly) that Pres. Reagan contributed more to the collapse of the Soviet Union than Clinton contributed to the booming economic circumstances that coincided with his administration.

This comparison immediately came to mind when I read that post as well.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:56 PM
KC Native did. He attributed the Soviet collapse entirely to Soviet policies. That's clearly not true. Your more balanced assessment is far less objectionable, although you short-change Reagan and his contemporaries IMO. The Soviets' collapse in 1989 was not inevitable. Eight years of Reagan-led Western policies were the proximate cause.

The Soviet collapse was likely inevitable, but if one assumes American disengagement following WWII, then Soviet influence could have been extended over so vast an area that the collapse may have been greatly delayed. The mightier the economic engine, the harder it is to break.

I'm honestly do believe you over-credit what happened in the 1980s. Reagan didn't cause serious instability in the Soviet's political leadership as a result of the selection and quick deaths of octogenerian Premiers (or whatever they were called, it's been so long I've forgotten. General Secretary, maybe). The turn to Gorbachev and his desire to try to fix the highly broken Soviet economic system.

And per the CIA, Reagan's military spending increases (which were a continuation and acceleration of a buildup first started during the last two years of Carter's Presidency) did not really result in any signficant change to Russian military spending, so there isn't much argument about Reagan causing the Russians to spend themselves into bankruptcy or whatever.

Finally, Reagan's actions were pretty much all in line with the well-established American policy of containment. A policy that was 40 years old by the time he took the reins.

I'm not saying he deserves NO credit, but I am saying that giving him vast credit is silly. Iran-contra didn't break the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union broke itself, with a large assist from a steady American policy that was half-a-century old by the time the USSR fell primarily from its own dead weight.

KC native
02-14-2010, 10:57 PM
I wonder if you're one of those guys who looks back fondly on "Clinton's economy."

I'd argue (correctly) that Pres. Reagan contributed more to the collapse of the Soviet Union than Clinton contributed to the booming economic circumstances that coincided with his administration.

Sometimes praise can be heaped on a bit thick by either side for its own heroes.

No, I'm not. The economy was better but as I have repeatedly said Presidents for the most part have very little effect on the economy.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:57 PM
I wonder if you're one of those guys who looks back fondly on "Clinton's economy."

I'd argue (correctly) that Pres. Reagan contributed more to the collapse of the Soviet Union than Clinton contributed to the booming economic circumstances that coincided with his administration.

Sometimes praise can be heaped on a bit thick by either side for its own heroes.

Presidents usually have less influence on events -- both economic and world wide, than they are given blame or credit for.

Like Reagan with the USSR, Clinton's economic success is a combination of a little dose of good policy and a large dose of luck.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:58 PM
What makes you think that he would have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union as being a worthwhile goal?

What makes you think that he wouldn't have?

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 11:00 PM
Like Reagan with the USSR, Clinton's economic success is a combination of a little dose of good policy and a large dose of luck.

And a Republican Congress that actually gave something of a damn about its agenda.

KC native
02-14-2010, 11:01 PM
KC Native did. He attributed the Soviet collapse entirely to Soviet policies. That's clearly not true. Your more balanced assessment is far less objectionable, although you short-change Reagan and his contemporaries IMO. The Soviets' collapse in 1989 was not inevitable. Eight years of Reagan-led Western policies were the proximate cause.

No, that's you putting what you want into what I said. I simply said that their collapse was inevitable due to their own economic structure and policies. You assumed that I believe that our actions had no effect on them which is incorrect. The USSR was going to fail regardless of our actions. The US helped speed the process along however giving credit to Raygun for bringing down the USSR is nonsense.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 07:41 AM
I realize that you liberals, with your soft and ineffective Carters, your disgraceful and deceitful Clintons, and your unprepared and weak Obamas have a hard time accepting that the high point in recent presidential memory was a Republican, but it's sad that you have to go to such lengths to try to minimize the credit you give him for policies that put an end to our country's biggest and longest lasting rival.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 07:42 AM
No, that's you putting what you want into what I said.

Hey BucEyedPea, when you get a chance let me know what you've discovered in Reagan's autobiography.

wild1
02-15-2010, 10:49 AM
I realize that you liberals, with your soft and ineffective Carters, your disgraceful and deceitful Clintons, and your unprepared and weak Obamas have a hard time accepting that the high point in recent presidential memory was a Republican, but it's sad that you have to go to such lengths to try to minimize the credit you give him for policies that put an end to our country's biggest and longest lasting rival.

I wonder what the world would be like today if Carter had won another term.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 11:07 AM
I realize that you liberals, with your soft and ineffective Carters, your disgraceful and deceitful Clintons, and your unprepared and weak Obamas have a hard time accepting that the high point in recent presidential memory was a Republican, but it's sad that you have to go to such lengths to try to minimize the credit you give him for policies that put an end to our country's biggest and longest lasting rival.

It's not even an argument. It's a dodge. And one easily turned on its head:

Hell, if you can't hero worship Reagan, you're more or less stuck going all the way back to Ike, so I can see why you need to pimp him endlessly.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 11:08 AM
Hey BucEyedPea, when you get a chance let me know what you've discovered in Reagan's autobiography.


Don't hold your breath...


http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/George_Bush_Holding_Breath.jpg

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 11:10 AM
I wonder what the world would be like today if Carter had won another term.

Eh. Wasn't going to happen. Carter wasn't the absolute fiasco he's been painted as, but he was certainly a thoroughly mediocre President.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 11:16 AM
It's not even an argument. It's a dodge. And one easily turned on its head:

Hell, if you can't hero worship Reagan, you're more or less stuck going all the way back to Ike, so I can see why you need to pimp him endlessly.

I'd take George W. Bush over any recent democrat. In the long run, GWB could even turn out to have a longer lasting positive impact on the US than Reagan (although it's tough to beat the slaying of a superpower), but that remains to be seen.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 11:18 AM
Don't hold your breath...

LOL at the picture. That was really more of a jab at KC Native for the style of his post than a real appeal to BucEyedPea. I figure I'll give her another week or so to verify my accusation and make a statement on her own before I do something like hound her to make an appearance.

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 02:50 PM
I'd take George W. Bush over any recent democrat. In the long run, GWB could even turn out to have a longer lasting positive impact on the US than Reagan (although it's tough to beat the slaying of a superpower), but that remains to be seen.

Well, GWB was left to slay the monster of Afghanistan that Reagan helped create in his administration, he just decided to neglect that matter for Iraq.

Now addressing the more illuminating declaration within that statement, would you honestly place GWB over Slick Willy?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 02:52 PM
Who will appear in this thread first to defend/apologize for the misquote, BucEyedPea or Ron Paul?

patteeu
02-15-2010, 03:46 PM
Well, GWB was left to slay the monster of Afghanistan that Reagan helped create in his administration, he just decided to neglect that matter for Iraq.

Reagan created the monster in Afghanistan (if it can even be called that) in the same way that Lincoln created the lynchings of the early 20th century deep south, which is to say not at all.

Now addressing the more illuminating declaration within that statement, would you honestly place GWB over Slick Willy?

Duh, of course.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 03:50 PM
I can only assume that Chiefspants will blame Roosevelt and Truman for this legacy of theirs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100213/wl_nm/us_germany_neonazis

patteeu
02-15-2010, 03:54 PM
I can only assume that Chiefspants will blame Roosevelt and Truman for this legacy of theirs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100213/wl_nm/us_germany_neonazis

Yes, and also the dominance of Japanese car companies over domestic concerns. Damnit Harry! :cuss:

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 04:55 PM
Reagan created the monster in Afghanistan (if it can even be called that) in the same way that Lincoln created the lynchings of the early 20th century deep south, which is to say not at all.



Duh, of course.


That's a rather weak analogy, lynchings were inevitably going to occur from the hands of the ignorant bigot. However, if Reagan would not have left Afghanistan in shambles after the war perhaps we would be living in a different world today. Arming the mujahideen in the soviet-afghan war may have been short-sided, Perhaps not so much because we aided the "freedom fighters", but because we left Afghanistan in utter ruin after the soviet withdrawal. Reagan's failure to present any form of a plan for Afghanistan may have planted the roots of the conflict we are mired in today.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 05:21 PM
At least we can agree that Afghanistan was the land of milk and honey before Reagan. I'll cede that point.

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 05:46 PM
At least we can agree that Afghanistan was the land of milk and honey before Reagan. I'll cede that point.

Lol, it sure was! Seeing as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Great Britain, and The Soviet Union all failed to take control of Afghanistan.


I am jovial that the United States has plunged into that abyss, any estimations on when we're going to get out of there?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 05:59 PM
Lol, it sure was! Seeing as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Great Britain, and The Soviet Union all failed to take control of Afghanistan.


I am jovial that the United States has plunged into that abyss, any estimations on when we're going to get out of there?

That depends. Do you want us to kick the shit out of them and leave like Reagan did, or do you want us to nation build like you criticized Reagan for not doing?

bowener
02-15-2010, 06:25 PM
Still trying to peddle this nonsense? The soviets were doomed by their own policies and Reagan was just fortunate enough to be there when they finally collapsed under their own weight.

And this was due to he and his wife constantly planning their lives and National matters by referring to astrology and other occult ideals. I guess he should literally thank the stars for his timing.

:)

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 06:25 PM
That depends. Do you want us to kick the shit out of them and leave like Reagan did, or do you want us to nation build like you criticized Reagan for not doing?


I would argue that the situations differ considerably, This time around we did not weaponize radical militants and flee the situation expecting harmony because our rival was upon the edge of destruction. This blatant lack of foresight is one of the reasons we are caught in our current quagmire. Furthermore, at that time we had just aided Afghanistan in their plight against the Soviet Union, If there were a time to aid Afghanistan, it would have been on the heels of their victory.

And so, shifting the focus to our current situation, it appears that while we were caught up in Iraq, our original enemy has spread throughout the middle east. So where do we go now? Do we continue to teeter on the border of Pakistan while moving our hand into Yemen?

There is going to be no easy way out of our present crisis.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 06:35 PM
I would argue that the situations differ considerably, This time around we did not weaponize radical militants and flee the situation expecting harmony because our rival was upon the edge of destruction. This blatant lack of foresight is one of the reasons we are caught in our current quagmire. Furthermore, at that time we had just aided Afghanistan in their plight against the Soviet Union, If there were a time to aid Afghanistan, it would have been on the heels of their victory.

And so, shifting the focus to our current situation, it appears that while we were caught up in Iraq, our original enemy has spread throughout the middle east. So where do we go now? Do we continue to teeter on the border of Pakistan while moving our hand into Yemen?

There is going to be no easy way out of our present crisis.

When did Reagan weaponize them with US airliners?

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 06:43 PM
When did Reagan weaponize them with US airliners?

I believe we gave the mujahideen a bit more than "US Airliners," Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we aided the "freedom fighters" with anti aircraft weapons, stinger missiles, and armed assault weapons.

It's a wonder that such assistance helped blossom the Taliban in that region.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 06:52 PM
I believe we gave the mujahideen a bit more than "US Airliners," Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we aided the "freedom fighters" with anti aircraft weapons, stinger missiles, and armed assault weapons.

It's a wonder that such assistance helped blossom the Taliban in that region.

Did they attack the US with anti-aircraft weapons, stinger missiles, and armed assault weapons? If the 9/11 attacks never happened, we wouldn't be there. Even so, are any of those even a major factor in the conflict over there? They are attacking us with mortars car bombs, and IEDs.

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 06:57 PM
Did they attack the US with anti-aircraft weapons, stinger missiles, and armed assault weapons? If the 9/11 attacks never happened, we wouldn't be there. Even so, are any of those even a major factor in the conflict over there? They are attacking us with mortars car bombs, and IEDs.

Oh, sorry, I had misunderstood you, I thought you implied that we had given them our airlines...my apologies, it has been a long day.

Anyways, while we obviously did not give them US Airliners, our abandonment of Afghanistan allowed the newly weaponized taliban to take control, we essentially built the foundation of their domination in the region.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 07:02 PM
Oh, sorry, I had misunderstood you, I thought you implied that we had given them our airlines...my apologies, it has been a long day.

Anyways, while we obviously did not give them US Airliners, our abandonment of Afghanistan allowed the newly weaponized taliban to take control of Afghanistan. We essentially built the foundation of their domination in the region.

Would we be at war if the 9/11 attacks never happened?

If yes, why? If no, how can you pin this on Reagan?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 07:03 PM
And, by the way, how was it our abandonment that caused this? I thought it was our occupation.

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 07:07 PM
Would we be at war if the 9/11 attacks never happened?

If yes, why? If no, how can you pin this on Reagan?

You will never hear me argue that Reagan was the sole cause of 9/11, however, when we empowered the Taliban to take control of Afghanistan, We allowed them to viciously expand until they assaulted us upon American soil.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 07:14 PM
You will never hear me argue that Reagan was the sole cause of 9/11, however, when we empowered the Taliban to take control of Afghanistan, We allowed them to viciously expand until they assaulted us upon American soil.

Why did they attack us on American soil?

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 07:22 PM
Why did they attack us on American soil?

Would they have attacked us if the taliban were not empowered in the early part of the 1990's?

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 07:24 PM
Would they have attacked us if the taliban were not empowered in the early part of the 1990's?

Yes

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 07:27 PM
Yes

I wish I possessed your ability to view alternative realms of history.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 07:28 PM
I wish I possessed your ability to view alternative realms of history.

Are you going to answer my question?

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 07:34 PM
Are you going to answer my question?

I am guessing their reasoning lied within our continued support of Israel, but again, if they had not been able to gather the power that they did such an attack would have been difficult to pull off.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 07:44 PM
I am guessing their reasoning lied within our continued support of Israel, but again, if they had not been able to gather the power that they did such an attack would have been difficult to pull off.

It would have been difficult to hijack an airplane in 2001 if Reagan had done what, exactly, in the 1980s? You can bail from this argument, you know. You've got to admit that it's getting ludicrous. I'm no historian, but I don't think that Reagan provided them with box-cutter technology.

If they had used some sort of advanced weaponry against us, your argument would have some straws at which to grasp. People may say that Afghanistan is trapped in the stone age, but they actually had metallurgy before 1980.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 08:15 PM
That's a rather weak analogy, lynchings were inevitably going to occur from the hands of the ignorant bigot. However, if Reagan would not have left Afghanistan in shambles after the war perhaps we would be living in a different world today. Arming the mujahideen in the soviet-afghan war may have been short-sided, Perhaps not so much because we aided the "freedom fighters", but because we left Afghanistan in utter ruin after the soviet withdrawal. Reagan's failure to present any form of a plan for Afghanistan may have planted the roots of the conflict we are mired in today.

My analogy may be weak, but not as weak as your argument. Reagan didn't leave Afghanistan in shambles after the war. Reagan left office before the Soviets were out of Afghanistan. Whatever fault you might find with those who ignored that region after the Soviets left, it should fall on George HW Bush and Bill Clinton. This fact alone makes your argument worthless, but there's more.

Reagan supported the anti-Soviet mujahideen, he didn't create al Qaeda (created by non-Afghans, mostly Saudis and Egyptians) or the Taliban (essentially created by Pakistan in partnership with a faction among the various mujahideen groups). The connection between Reagan and those two outfits, who I presume you are talking about when you speak of the Afghan monster and who comprised a minority of the overall mujahideen, is absurdly tenuous.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 08:18 PM
I would argue that the situations differ considerably, This time around we did not weaponize radical militants and flee the situation expecting harmony because our rival was upon the edge of destruction. This blatant lack of foresight is one of the reasons we are caught in our current quagmire. Furthermore, at that time we had just aided Afghanistan in their plight against the Soviet Union, If there were a time to aid Afghanistan, it would have been on the heels of their victory.

And so, shifting the focus to our current situation, it appears that while we were caught up in Iraq, our original enemy has spread throughout the middle east. So where do we go now? Do we continue to teeter on the border of Pakistan while moving our hand into Yemen?

There is going to be no easy way out of our present crisis.

Our original enemy was spread throughout the middle east (and beyond) before we went into Iraq.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 08:25 PM
My analogy may be weak, but not as weak as your argument. Reagan didn't leave Afghanistan in shambles after the war. Reagan left office before the Soviets were out of Afghanistan. Whatever fault you might find with those who ignored that region after the Soviets left, it should fall on George HW Bush and Bill Clinton. This fact alone makes your argument worthless, but there's more.

Reagan supported the anti-Soviet mujahideen, he didn't create al Qaeda (created by non-Afghans, mostly Saudis and Egyptians) or the Taliban (essentially created by Pakistan in partnership with a faction among the various mujahideen groups). The connection between Reagan and those two outfits, who I presume you are talking about when you speak of the Afghan monster and who comprised a minority of the overall mujahideen, is absurdly tenuous.

Say "uncle", pants. Say "uncle".

patteeu
02-15-2010, 08:26 PM
Oh, sorry, I had misunderstood you, I thought you implied that we had given them our airlines...my apologies, it has been a long day.

Anyways, while we obviously did not give them US Airliners, our abandonment of Afghanistan allowed the newly weaponized taliban to take control, we essentially built the foundation of their domination in the region.

We supported the mujahideen. They were much more than just the Taliban. The Taliban ultimately won control over Afghanistan not because we supported them over their rivals but because Pakistan did after we lost interest (which I'll remind you didn't have anything to do with Reagan).

You will never hear me argue that Reagan was the sole cause of 9/11, however, when we empowered the Taliban to take control of Afghanistan, We allowed them to viciously expand until they assaulted us upon American soil.

The Taliban didn't attack us. Al Qaeda attacked us. The Taliban earned our enmity only because they refused to cooperate fully with us after 9/11. The Taliban was as uninterested in the world outside of Afghanistan (other than the tribal region of Pakistan where their fellow tribesmen lived) as we were in the world inside Afghanistan during the GHWBush and Clinton years.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda left Afghanistan and took up residence in Sudan where OBL came up with his ideas of jihad against the west to replace the obsolete idea of jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Much later, when Sudan kicked them out, they returned to Afghanistan where they were tolerated by the Taliban but didn't integrate with the Taliban.

Saul Good
02-15-2010, 08:29 PM
We supported the mujahideen. They were much more than just the Taliban. The Taliban ultimately won control over Afghanistan not because we supported them over their rivals but because Pakistan did after we lost interest (which I'll remind you didn't have anything to do with Reagan).



The Taliban didn't attack us. Al Qaeda attacked us. The Taliban earned our enmity only because they refused to cooperate fully with us after 9/11. The Taliban was as uninterested in the world outside of Afghanistan (other than the tribal region of Pakistan where their fellow tribesmen lived) as we were in the world inside Afghanistan during the GHWBush and Clinton years.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda left Afghanistan and took up residence in Sudan where OBL came up with his ideas of jihad against the west to replace the obsolete idea of jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Much later, when Sudan kicked them out, they returned to Afghanistan where they were tolerated by the Taliban but didn't integrate with the Taliban.

So who gave them the technology to weaponize box-cutters?

patteeu
02-15-2010, 08:41 PM
So who gave them the technology to weaponize box-cutters?

LOL, I'm sure those came out of Bill Casey's personal CIA locker.

NewChief
02-15-2010, 08:55 PM
Wow. Still a no show.

Chiefspants
02-15-2010, 09:13 PM
We supported the mujahideen. They were much more than just the Taliban. The Taliban ultimately won control over Afghanistan not because we supported them over their rivals but because Pakistan did after we lost interest (which I'll remind you didn't have anything to do with Reagan).



The Taliban didn't attack us. Al Qaeda attacked us. The Taliban earned our enmity only because they refused to cooperate fully with us after 9/11. The Taliban was as uninterested in the world outside of Afghanistan (other than the tribal region of Pakistan where their fellow tribesmen lived) as we were in the world inside Afghanistan during the GHWBush and Clinton years.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda left Afghanistan and took up residence in Sudan where OBL came up with his ideas of jihad against the west to replace the obsolete idea of jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Much later, when Sudan kicked them out, they returned to Afghanistan where they were tolerated by the Taliban but didn't integrate with the Taliban.

Okay, starting off, wow, the amount of responses that can be put together during a game of madden. Anyways, I shall try to address your reasoning point by point.

First, you claim that because the Soviets withdrew in 1989 that any failure in Afghanistan should be pinned on HW Bush and Clinton. I would like to agree with you and extend the blame to papa bush and slick willy, but examining the first part of your statement we find that it is only partially true. The Soviet Union began withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1987 and the majority of their withdrawals came in the middle of 1988, during this time Reagan would have had ample opportunity to enact a plan to rebuild Afghanistan in the midst of this destruction, but instead he chose to leave it smoldering in desolation.

This was a misguided idea for a few reasons, firstly because most of the weapons he sent to Afghanistan went directly to Hekmatyar(sp?), a man who often spoke vehemently against the United States. It was not a secret that Hekmatyar was anti-American and leaving him the reigns of Afghanistan after our departure was definitely unwise. It is easy to see that In Reagan's ravenous appetite for Soviet destruction he did not ponder any potential consequences to his decisions encompassing Afghanistan.

You next state that Pakistan decided to throw support behind the Taliban long after we had lost interest, while again deflecting any blame from Reagan. Again, this is misguided, as the Taliban were formed directly from the Mujahadeen and most of the power was given to them by the weapons from the Reagan administration.

I would also like to point out that Reagan was not ignorant to the turmoil in Afghanistan, as many of his advisors warned him to many of the extremist groups vying for power as the Soviets began departing. Sadly, These warnings were largely ignored by the Reagan, Bush, and I suppose the Clinton administrations.

You next point out that Al Queda attacked this us, not the Taliban. This is true, but it is ignoring the role of the Taliban in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks. During the 1990's, when Clinton went on a manhunt for Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban repeatedly denied the US's request to hand him over. One cannot ignore the Taliban's role in the 9/11 attacks.

In the end, whether you support Reagan/Bush or not, it is clear that they made a crucial oversight in their handling of Afghanistan. Their actions/lack there of not only aided the Taliban 's emergence, but could have also partially lead us to the conflict we're in today.

Amnorix
02-15-2010, 10:36 PM
That's a rather weak analogy, lynchings were inevitably going to occur from the hands of the ignorant bigot. However, if Reagan would not have left Afghanistan in shambles after the war perhaps we would be living in a different world today. Arming the mujahideen in the soviet-afghan war may have been short-sided, Perhaps not so much because we aided the "freedom fighters", but because we left Afghanistan in utter ruin after the soviet withdrawal. Reagan's failure to present any form of a plan for Afghanistan may have planted the roots of the conflict we are mired in today.

:rolleyes: The Soviets left Afghanistan at about the time Reagan left the WH. If you're going to blame anyone for the lack of post-Soviet policy for Afghanistan, it's BushDaddy.

Jenson71
02-15-2010, 11:15 PM
Lol, it sure was! Seeing as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Great Britain, and The Soviet Union all failed to take control of Afghanistan.

Alexander failed? Ha, I've never heard such words!! Alexander did take control of "Bactria" and all other areas that today's Afghanistan touches.

googlegoogle
02-16-2010, 01:05 AM
Buckeye is great. So what patteeu.

Lebanon,Iraq. What's our national debt?

patteeu
02-16-2010, 06:34 AM
Okay, starting off, wow, the amount of responses that can be put together during a game of madden. Anyways, I shall try to address your reasoning point by point.

First, you claim that because the Soviets withdrew in 1989 that any failure in Afghanistan should be pinned on HW Bush and Clinton. I would like to agree with you and extend the blame to papa bush and slick willy, but examining the first part of your statement we find that it is only partially true. The Soviet Union began withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1987 and the majority of their withdrawals came in the middle of 1988, during this time Reagan would have had ample opportunity to enact a plan to rebuild Afghanistan in the midst of this destruction, but instead he chose to leave it smoldering in desolation.

You blame Reagan for not moving into Afghanistan for a rebuilding operation while the Soviets were still there?

This was a misguided idea for a few reasons, firstly because most of the weapons he sent to Afghanistan went directly to Hekmatyar(sp?), a man who often spoke vehemently against the United States. It was not a secret that Hekmatyar was anti-American and leaving him the reigns of Afghanistan after our departure was definitely unwise. It is easy to see that In Reagan's ravenous appetite for Soviet destruction he did not ponder any potential consequences to his decisions encompassing Afghanistan.

Not directly. Support flowed to Hekmatyar through Pakistan who vouched for him. Hekmatyar did not become Taliban or al Qaeda, although some of his troops left him to join Mullah Omar when the Pakistanis switched their support over to him (after US support ended).

You next state that Pakistan decided to throw support behind the Taliban long after we had lost interest, while again deflecting any blame from Reagan. Again, this is misguided, as the Taliban were formed directly from the Mujahadeen and most of the power was given to them by the weapons from the Reagan administration.

There were many factions within the mujahideen and there were plenty of arms to go around. When the Pakistanis started backing Mullah Omar, he still had to fight his way through all the other warlords to take over the country. It's not like the mujahideen all became Taliban and then had a cake walk to Kabul. In fact, several of the Soviet-era warlords had been fighting over Kabul for 2 or 3 years before Omar emerged and attracted the Pakistani's attention. Omar was never a warlord during the era when Reagan's aid was flowing through Pakistan to the mujahideen.

I would also like to point out that Reagan was not ignorant to the turmoil in Afghanistan, as many of his advisors warned him to many of the extremist groups vying for power as the Soviets began departing. Sadly, These warnings were largely ignored by the Reagan, Bush, and I suppose the Clinton administrations.

You next point out that Al Queda attacked this us, not the Taliban. This is true, but it is ignoring the role of the Taliban in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks. During the 1990's, when Clinton went on a manhunt for Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban repeatedly denied the US's request to hand him over. One cannot ignore the Taliban's role in the 9/11 attacks.

In the end, whether you support Reagan/Bush or not, it is clear that they made a crucial oversight in their handling of Afghanistan. Their actions/lack there of not only aided the Taliban 's emergence, but could have also partially lead us to the conflict we're in today.

You haven't convinced me that Reagan needs to apologize for any of his actions wrt Afghanistan. It's always easy to use hindsight to nitpick policies, but even in hindsight it's hard to criticize Reagan's actions there.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 06:35 AM
Buckeye is great. So what patteeu.

Lebanon,Iraq. What's our national debt?

English please?

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 01:40 PM
:rolleyes: The Soviets left Afghanistan at about the time Reagan left the WH. If you're going to blame anyone for the lack of post-Soviet policy for Afghanistan, it's BushDaddy.

True and false.

If we went in (in this case, supplied the rebellion) without a plan for the aftermath, it lies on both the person initiating the invasion (supply) and the person following.

In the case of Iraq, GWB fit both bills and Obama can claim to a small part as well seeing as he's overseeing the actual withdrawal. In Afghanistan, Reagan doesn't get an exemption just because he left office....

patteeu
02-16-2010, 01:54 PM
True and false.

If we went in (in this case, supplied the rebellion) without a plan for the aftermath, it lies on both the person initiating the invasion (supply) and the person following.

In the case of Iraq, GWB fit both bills and Obama can claim to a small part as well seeing as he's overseeing the actual withdrawal. In Afghanistan, Reagan doesn't get an exemption just because he left office....

The regrets Reagan should have over his Afghanistan policy for not having a plan to deal with a post-Soviet era are infinitesimal compared to the credit he should get for his policy's huge success there.

It's funny how the kids of today can have such a warped, revisionist view of such recent history.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:03 PM
The regrets Reagan should have over his Afghanistan policy for not having a plan to deal with a post-Soviet era are infinitesimal compared to the credit he should get for his policy's huge success there.

It's funny how the ideologues of old can have such a warped, revisionist view of such recent history.

FYP

:p


In seriousness, in what way do you consider his policy a huge success? If you are still going to contest he brought down a superpower, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 02:21 PM
FYP

:p


In seriousness, in what way do you consider his policy a huge success? If you are still going to contest he brought down a superpower, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

You can disagree on that point (because what would this place be without you clinging to wrong), but you can't disagree with the idea that Reagan's policies were instrumental in handing the Soviets a Vietnam-style defeat along with the attendant treasury drain, prestige loss, and morale damage.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:24 PM
You can disagree on that point (because what would this place be without you clinging to wrong), but you can't disagree with the idea that Reagan's policies were instrumental in handing the Soviets a Vietnam-style defeat along with the attendant treasury drain, prestige loss, and morale damage.

What policy(ies) would of his would you attribute this to?

From your perspective you have this great accomplishment and on the other you have Iran-Contra.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 02:35 PM
What policy(ies) would of his would you attribute this to?

From your perspective you have this great accomplishment and on the other you have Iran-Contra.

His policy of supporting the mujahideen's fight against the Soviets, of course.

I don't think Iran-Contra was such a bad thing. As usual, democrats were working against our national interests and effectively doing the bidding of a communist regime (some might say unintentionally) by trying to prevent us from aiding the Nicaraguan Contras.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:40 PM
His policy of supporting the mujahideen's fight against the Soviets, of course.

I don't think Iran-Contra was such a bad thing. As usual, democrats were working against our national interests and effectively doing the bidding of a communist regime (some might say unintentionally) by trying to prevent us from aiding the Nicaraguan Contras.

We've reached the point of agree to disagree. Each is going to claim the other is a revisionist historian.

|Zach|
02-16-2010, 03:19 PM
Wow. Still a no show.

LMAO

orange
02-16-2010, 03:49 PM
You can disagree on that point (because what would this place be without you clinging to wrong), but you can't disagree with the idea that Reagan's Carter's policies were instrumental in handing the Soviets a Vietnam-style defeat along with the attendant treasury drain, prestige loss, and morale damage.

The anti-communist rebels garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and current US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the US intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting US policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap ... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter "We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."[21]

Additionally, on July 3, 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[22] As a part of the Central Intelligence Agency program called Operation Cyclone, led by their elite Special Activities Division, which included the massive arming of Afghanistan's mujahideen.[23]


http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-war-in-afghanistan


Reagan did follow-up well, though. Escalated, even.

NewChief
02-16-2010, 03:50 PM
LMAO

I'm surprised people arguing with her haven't just started pasting the URL to this thread in reply to everything she says.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:55 PM
The anti-communist rebels garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and current US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the US intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting US policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap ... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter "We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."[21]

Additionally, on July 3, 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[22] As a part of the Central Intelligence Agency program called Operation Cyclone, led by their elite Special Activities Division, which included the massive arming of Afghanistan's mujahideen.[23]


http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-war-in-afghanistan

I'm not taking anything away from Carter by saying that Reagan's policies fueled the Soviet defeat. Carter deserves some credit for getting the ball rolling, kind of like a kicker getting credit for kicking the ball out of the endzone for a nice touchback at the beginning of the game. Ronald Reagan QB'd the team to victory though.

orange
02-16-2010, 03:57 PM
I'm not taking anything away from Carter by saying that Reagan's policies fueled the Soviet defeat. Carter deserves some credit for getting the ball rolling, kind of like a kicker getting credit for kicking the ball out of the endzone for a nice touchback at the beginning of the game. Ronald Reagan QB'd the team to victory though.

A better analogy would be Carter = Naismith, Reagan = Jordan.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 04:02 PM
A better analogy would be Carter = Naismith, Reagan = Jordan.

OK, I'll accept that.

Calcountry
02-16-2010, 05:50 PM
Presidents usually have less influence on events -- both economic and world wide, than they are given blame or credit for.

Like Reagan with the USSR, Clinton's economic success is a combination of a little dose of good policy and a large dose of luck.I know, I know. Here is a good example of what you are saying: The economy turns around in the next 6 months, and the unemployment rate goes down to 9%, and BRC will be in here starting threads touting the success of Obama's stimulus plan.

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 06:04 PM
Would now be a good time to ask BucEyedPea to explain the enormous discrepancy between the Ron Paul movement's idea of military use and Ronald Reagan's idea of military use, and why the Paul movement insists on a tie with Reagan (before the Neocons took over)?

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 07:12 PM
Would now be a good time to ask BucEyedPea to explain the enormous discrepancy between the Ron Paul movement's idea of military use and Ronald Reagan's idea of military use, and why the Paul movement insists on a tie with Reagan (before the Neocons took over)?

I think this ties into a lack of understanding. Also related: founding father misunderstanding.

|Zach|
02-17-2010, 10:35 PM
bump

Taco John
02-17-2010, 11:25 PM
Would now be a good time to ask BucEyedPea to explain the enormous discrepancy between the Ron Paul movement's idea of military use and Ronald Reagan's idea of military use, and why the Paul movement insists on a tie with Reagan (before the Neocons took over)?

That doesn't take much explination. Ron Paul has always been very vocal about where he parts ways with Reagan.

The insistance on a tie with Reagan is that Reagan brought the libertarian party into the Republican fold. His rhetoric leading into the whitehouse was very libertarian oriented. When Bush won the Whitehouse the first time, his message was very libertarian as well. In fact, Rove straight stole lines out of the Ron Paul platform. When Republicans want to win elections, they start talking like libertarians.

Jenson71
02-17-2010, 11:37 PM
That doesn't take much explination. Ron Paul has always been very vocal about where he parts ways with Reagan.

Where has he been vocal about where he parts ways with Reagan in regards to foreign policy?

The insistance on a tie with Reagan is that Reagan brought the libertarian party into the Republican fold. His rhetoric leading into the whitehouse was very libertarian oriented. When Bush won the Whitehouse the first time, his message was very libertarian as well. In fact, Rove straight stole lines out of the Ron Paul platform. When Republicans want to win elections, they start talking like libertarians.

I clearly remember Paul citing Reagan as an example for future U.S. foreign policy, mostly because of his actions regarding the withdrawal of troops in Lebanon. Am I misremembering? I think the insistence on a tie with Reagan is more political strategy than honest talk about policy visions.

Taco John
02-18-2010, 04:24 AM
Where has he been vocal about where he parts ways with Reagan in regards to foreign policy?

Hell, I don't know. I probably listened to over 150 hours of Ron Paul speeches and audio during the campaign. He got challenged on where he parts ways with Reagan all the time.



I clearly remember Paul citing Reagan as an example for future U.S. foreign policy, mostly because of his actions regarding the withdrawal of troops in Lebanon. Am I misremembering? I think the insistence on a tie with Reagan is more political strategy than honest talk about policy visions.

Ron Paul defends Reagan's retreat from Lebanon, to be sure - but mostly on the grounds that we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Taco John
02-18-2010, 04:28 AM
You know, for all the "we're going to nail Buc to a wall on the technicality of this quote," Ronald Regan's retreat from Lebanon speaks louder than any quote he could have possibly gave. Even if that faux quote isn't 100 taken in context, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan pulled up stakes and left.

Amnorix
02-18-2010, 06:22 AM
You can disagree on that point (because what would this place be without you clinging to wrong), but you can't disagree with the idea that Reagan's policies were instrumental in handing the Soviets a Vietnam-style defeat along with the attendant treasury drain, prestige loss, and morale damage.

Though I agree, I also happen to think that the strategy was so obvious that it's hard to give a heck of a lot of credit to anyone for it.

IMHO there was no viable alternative strategy. We can quibble about post-Soviet planning or lack thereof, but it's screamingly obvious that if your superpower rival invades a country that is difficult to control, you support whatever opposing factions you can and make it tougher for them to conquer/control.

Amnorix
02-18-2010, 06:27 AM
I'm not taking anything away from Carter by saying that Reagan's policies fueled the Soviet defeat. Carter deserves some credit for getting the ball rolling, kind of like a kicker getting credit for kicking the ball out of the endzone for a nice touchback at the beginning of the game. Ronald Reagan QB'd the team to victory though.

More like Reagan came into the game late in the 4th quarter...

Actually, the analogy isn't even all that accurate becuase time wasn't much of a factor. Unless the US really screwed the pooch on its strategy -- strategy that had been established long before Reagan -- the USSR was going to collapse eventually.

So really it's more like Reagan was the winning pitcher in the last game of the World Series for the 1927 Yankees. The guy who sealed the deal on what was pretty much inevitable anyway.

Or do you argue that Communism is a viable and efficient economic system, capable of competing with capitalism, and that the USSR was somehow going to win the Cold War?

NewChief
02-18-2010, 06:33 AM
You know, for all the "we're going to nail Buc to a wall on the technicality of this quote," Ronald Regan's retreat from Lebanon speaks louder than any quote he could have possibly gave. Even if that faux quote isn't 100 taken in context, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan pulled up stakes and left.

I don't want to nail her to the wall, as this isn't really a big fulcrum, game changing deal anyway. Hell, I don't even really know what technicality they're arguing over. I was just curious to see if BEP was capable of admitting that she just might have been incorrect on something. It appears we have our answer.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-18-2010, 06:46 AM
Operation Cyclone was the very definition of being penny wise and pound foolish.

Yes, by aiding the mujahadeen we were able to help draw the Soviets into a protracted war. But their losses were not any more crippling than the ones that we are suffering in Iraq right now.

Over 10 years of occupation, the Soviets lost around 13,000 men. Our casualty rates in Iraq are lower, but not disproportionately so.

Furthermore, the main problem w/ OC was that we explicitly funded the most militant groups, and ignored the more moderate fighters that later became the Northern Alliance--guys like Ahmad Shah Massoud (who we should have installed as a temporary head of state after the Soviets left, BTW).

Additionally, because we were so laissez-faire in our distribution of aid to the area, we allowed scumbags in Peshawar and Waziristan to distribute aid as they saw fit, rather than giving it to the individuals who were the most deserving.

In fact, Massoud even mentioned that himself when interviewed by CNN as part of their "Cold War" documentary series.

Then, having accomplished our short term goal, we pulled out, leaving a power vacuum that served as a breeding ground, as well as a site of accretion for the worst kind of Islamists. Of course, with a haven fully installed, the origins of Al Qaeda were allowed to ferment and disseminate their information and training--training which was largely provided to them by the CIA.

patteeu
02-18-2010, 08:45 AM
You know, for all the "we're going to nail Buc to a wall on the technicality of this quote," Ronald Regan's retreat from Lebanon speaks louder than any quote he could have possibly gave. Even if that faux quote isn't 100 taken in context, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan pulled up stakes and left.

Technicality? You've got to be kidding me. The Ron Paul article on Lew Rockwell has a full blown FABRICATED quote in it. Take away the part of the quote that Reagan NEVER said/wrote and it loses all of it's persuasiveness in terms of Ron Paul's duck-and-cover foreign policy.

Go back and read the chapter in Reagan's autobiography to understand where the other deceptively arranged bits and pieces of the quote came from and you'll understand that Reagan regretted that particular mission, not America's entire involvement in the middle east. He put the marines in a position where they were vulnerable without removing the leash to let them aggressively create their own safety. He changed his mind about sending marines for that particular non-warfare role, he didn't reject involvement in the region, including military and foreign aid involvement, altogether.

As for BucEyedPea, I understand she relied (heavily) on a quote that she didn't realize was false at the time. That's why the title of this thread was "Ron Paul Deceived. BucEyedPea Believed." instead of "BucEyedPea Lied after Ronald Reagan Died." It will be enough for me if she admits that the quote on the Rockwell site is false and if she doesn't try to pull what you're trying to pull here, i.e. arguing that it makes no difference wrt how likely it is that Reagan would approve of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

patteeu
02-18-2010, 09:03 AM
Or do you argue that Communism is a viable and efficient economic system, capable of competing with capitalism, and that the USSR was somehow going to win the Cold War?

I would argue that we could have lost the Cold War whether, all else being equal, communism is a viable and efficient economic system capable of competing with capitalism over the long haul or not. It's not like we had a gentlemanly competetion where we pitted their economic system against ours in the best possible conditions for each. We were actively trying to defeat each other in various ways along the way and both countries made both good and bad decisions along the way. We had a fundamental advantage, imo, but it didn't make the outcome inevitable. If nothing else, a nuclear exchange would have made us losers even if it didn't make them winners and there's nothing that communism or capitalism would have had to say about it.

Jenson71
02-18-2010, 09:20 AM
Hell, I don't know. I probably listened to over 150 hours of Ron Paul speeches and audio during the campaign. He got challenged on where he parts ways with Reagan all the time.

Any kind of source I could check out would be great, thanks. I googled "ron paul ronald reagan" and looked through a few pages with no success.

wild1
02-18-2010, 09:43 AM
Technicality? You've got to be kidding me. The Ron Paul article on Lew Rockwell has a full blown FABRICATED quote in it. Take away the part of the quote that Reagan NEVER said/wrote and it loses all of it's persuasiveness in terms of Ron Paul's duck-and-cover foreign policy.

Go back and read the chapter in Reagan's autobiography to understand where the other deceptively arranged bits and pieces of the quote came from and you'll understand that Reagan regretted that particular mission, not America's entire involvement in the middle east. He put the marines in a position where they were vulnerable without removing the leash to let them aggressively create their own safety. He changed his mind about sending marines for that particular non-warfare role, he didn't reject involvement in the region, including military and foreign aid involvement, altogether.

As for BucEyedPea, I understand she relied (heavily) on a quote that she didn't realize was false at the time. That's why the title of this thread was "Ron Paul Deceived. BucEyedPea Believed." instead of "BucEyedPea Lied after Ronald Reagan Died." It will be enough for me if she admits that the quote on the Rockwell site is false and if she doesn't try to pull what you're trying to pull here, i.e. arguing that it makes no difference wrt how likely it is that Reagan would approve of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

There's no way to obfuscate what you posted in the first few posts. It's an out-and-out fabrication.

Taco John
02-18-2010, 12:00 PM
Technicality? You've got to be kidding me. The Ron Paul article on Lew Rockwell has a full blown FABRICATED quote in it. Take away the part of the quote that Reagan NEVER said/wrote and it loses all of it's persuasiveness in terms of Ron Paul's duck-and-cover foreign policy.


I'm not yet convinced that the final quote can't be found somewhere. I'd be suprised to learn that Ron Paul made it up.



Go back and read the chapter in Reagan's autobiography to understand where the other deceptively arranged bits and pieces of the quote came from and you'll understand that Reagan regretted that particular mission, not America's entire involvement in the middle east.

I don't currently have the book, but have added it to my bucket list.

patteeu
02-18-2010, 12:32 PM
I'm not yet convinced that the final quote can't be found somewhere. I'd be suprised to learn that Ron Paul made it up.

I was surprised too. That's why I went to the library to get the actual book to check it out even after failing to find it in the google books version.

I described my theory about how this might have happened earlier in the thread. It doesn't completely absolve Ron Paul of responsibility for the falsehood, but it softens the charge a bit from intentional fabrication to careless transcription (the original use of the quote was in a speech on the floor of the House).

orange
02-18-2010, 01:27 PM
the original use of the quote was in a speech at least two speeches on the floor of the House

In a remarkable October 7 (2005) speech delivered on the House floor, Representative Ron Paul, a maverick Republican from Texas who has long been critical of Bush's misguided approach to fighting terrorism, invoked Reagan's legacy as part of a call for withdrawal...

"We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan about his experience with a needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon. Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990 President Reagan said this in his memoirs: "…we did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle… In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave… yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.""


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/30573

Note that the commenter parsed it right that time.

If there's any intentional misleading going on, my money is on LewRockwell.com as the culprit.

JohnnyV13
02-18-2010, 02:07 PM
In a remarkable October 7 (2005) speech delivered on the House floor, Representative Ron Paul, a maverick Republican from Texas who has long been critical of Bush's misguided approach to fighting terrorism, invoked Reagan's legacy as part of a call for withdrawal...

"We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan about his experience with a needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon. Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990 President Reagan said this in his memoirs: "…we did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle… In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave… yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.""


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/30573

Note that the commenter parsed it right that time.

If there's any intentional misleading going on, my money is on LewRockwell.com as the culprit.

Lew Rockwell mislead? Blasphemy! Lew Rockwell is a true conservative and his philosophy makes him incorruptable. You people just don't understand. Once you adopt a true conservative policy, your free will can no longer choose a wrong path!

Brock
02-19-2010, 12:31 PM
.

Slainte
02-20-2010, 06:32 PM
arriba

|Zach|
02-20-2010, 07:12 PM
http://i37.tinypic.com/35b6v7q.jpg

VAChief
02-20-2010, 09:47 PM
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Slainte
02-21-2010, 04:54 PM
No tears to cry. No feelings left. This species has amused itself to death...

patteeu
02-22-2010, 09:31 AM
So you both got nothing. Now I know I've won the argument.

:shrug:

wild1
02-22-2010, 10:06 AM
According to negative reps for my comments in this thread, BEP is waiting for direction from Ron Paul's office to tell her what to believe about this.

(we're up to three straight negative reps now! I must really be in the doghouse!)

|Zach|
02-22-2010, 11:42 AM
According to negative reps for my comments in this thread, BEP is waiting for direction from Ron Paul's office to tell her what to believe about this.

(we're up to three straight negative reps now! I must really be in the doghouse!)

That is awesome. ROFLROFL

wild1
02-22-2010, 11:58 AM
That is awesome. ROFLROFL

1

patteeu
02-22-2010, 12:36 PM
I have the book right in front of me with nearly all of the quote in it. Just two lines at the end. I am in touch with Paul's office for where he got those.

Don't forget to ask why he merged all those quotes that you did find (see post 2 for an accurate description) to make it seem like they were all a part of one passage instead of quoting them separately or quoting them in an honest way that makes it clear that there was intervening text omitted.

The other thing you can do without the help of Paul's office is actually read the chapter (Chapter 61) to get the full context of Reagan's opinion about Lebanon. It's not really very long. If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that while Reagan came to the conclusion that the particular Lebanon mission in question was a mistake, he didn't ever even hint at renouncing his broader "interventionist" foreign policy wrt Israel and the middle east as you and Ron Paul have tried to lead us to believe.

I'm glad you got the book to see for yourself. Surely you'd be better off making a post in this thread based on your preliminary thoughts even if you reserve the right to amend your remarks based on feedback from the Paul office.

wild1
02-23-2010, 10:16 AM
Thanks to those who gave me offsetting positive rep :D

banyon
02-23-2010, 10:30 AM
1

"Christian Warmonger"

haven't heard that one in a while.

wild1
02-23-2010, 10:42 AM
"Christian Warmonger"

haven't heard that one in a while.

I'm not sure what I said to gain either title.

Radar Chief
02-23-2010, 10:49 AM
I'm not sure what I said to gain either title.

Doesn’t matter, you’re a NeoCon and everyone knows they’re all the same. /NeoCon Demagogue (i.e. BEP)

|Zach|
02-24-2010, 10:48 PM
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k203/intense-freerider/8yatr9.jpg

wild1
02-26-2010, 10:27 AM
http://artfiles.art.com/5/p/LRG/17/1704/2CM1D00Z/andy-warhol-waiting.jpg

dirk digler
02-26-2010, 10:39 AM
Nice thread pat. :D I don't understand why BEP has ignored this. She should just admit she was wrong and move on.

BTW fact checking this takes about 5 minutes. Go to Amazon and find the book and do a search inside the book. Works great except apparently in BEP's case.

Radar Chief
02-26-2010, 11:03 AM
http://artfiles.art.com/5/p/LRG/17/1704/2CM1D00Z/andy-warhol-waiting.jpg

Heh, cool. Mrs. Radar was an art student when we met and she’s a big Warhol fan. :thumb:

|Zach|
02-26-2010, 05:04 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/2jetpqw.jpg

Chocolate Hog
02-26-2010, 05:06 PM
Zach hates Ron Paul.

|Zach|
02-26-2010, 05:12 PM
Zach hates Ron Paul.

I do?

Chocolate Hog
02-26-2010, 05:52 PM
I do?

Do you? I've always wondered what your politica views are.

|Zach|
02-26-2010, 06:25 PM
Do you? I've always wondered what your politica views are.

I would say I am part of TJ's dreaded mushy middle. I like Ron Paul. I actually donated to his campaign this past election season.

However, I am a supporter and voter for Obama. He isn't my savior but I was faced with the two options for President he was and even today is IMO without a doubt the right choice.

I figure if nobody is going to try and be responsible fiscally (I don't see a lot of difference between the R's and D's on this) I will support the party who has other views more similar to mine.

patteeu
02-26-2010, 06:46 PM
I figure if nobody is going to try and be responsible fiscally (I don't see a lot of difference between the R's and D's on this) ...

Wow, give or take a trillion dollars of deficit spending or two, I guess.

|Zach|
02-26-2010, 06:55 PM
Wow, give or take a trillion dollars of deficit spending or two, I guess.

Well we never got to choose from someone who is going to be conservative. Since guns and abortion seem to be the only thing Republicans care about.

So why not try and get money in where it helps people. And thwart the financial collapse. I have already seen companies wallets open up in my consulting ventures.

patteeu
03-01-2010, 06:30 AM
OK, BucEyedPea, the signature is gone and, with it, so is your covertly communicated excuse. What's your take on this situation?

|Zach|
03-02-2010, 01:17 AM
http://i47.tinypic.com/k1dw91.jpg

Taco John
03-02-2010, 03:01 AM
Well we never got to choose from someone who is going to be conservative. Since guns and abortion seem to be the only thing Republicans care about.

So why not try and get money in where it helps people. And thwart the financial collapse. I have already seen companies wallets open up in my consulting ventures.


This, I agree with. I'd much rather seen that bailout money go directly to the people. Of course, the government couldn't just cut a check to every American, though, because all the money was loaned from China. It doesn't make much sense to take a huge loan from China to spread across America. The net result is inflation. UNLESS... of course... unless that money is tied to something in the system, such as income tax, which is tied to earnings, where the money would be weighted by the physical asset that created it in the first place. It would return from the government netherworld to the pockets of the people by way of a tax rebate, tax cut, or even better, tax elimination. Imagine the investment that business owners across the country could make in their businesses, and thus markets having that money they expended back in their pockets.

The one benefit that I can speak towards in my family is that when we got our salaries cut, we were forced to take a serious look at our spending and balance the budgets. Government hasn't been forced to go through this practice yet, and are still operating on a pre-September 2008 mindset. They don't seem to understand that government (whether you see left or right) is the reason that we're in this mess, and that it can't borrow and spend our way out of it.

|Zach|
03-03-2010, 01:46 AM
http://i45.tinypic.com/104m80z.jpg

|Zach|
03-03-2010, 07:02 PM
http://i50.tinypic.com/15xr3op.jpg

NewChief
03-03-2010, 08:17 PM
Options at this point:

1) Continue to fake ignore thread.
2) Come into thread and just say, "Okay. I was wrong. It happens."
3) Eventually come into thread once she's got her argument prepared and is ready to slip her way out of Patt's trap.

I'm predicting 3. I'd really be a lot more impressed and think more of the poster if 2 came to fruition.

wild1
03-03-2010, 08:41 PM
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u45/avoidance_ostrich.jpg

|Zach|
03-04-2010, 01:57 PM
http://i50.tinypic.com/2di4ncj.jpg

|Zach|
03-04-2010, 06:14 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/2r3wkxy.jpg

Bill Parcells
03-04-2010, 11:25 PM
This thread (and comments) should highlight why I raised the question.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9aytm/let_me_get_this_straight_reagan_was_the_greatest/

The big thing to get me researching Reagan and his legacy was his colossal failure in Afghanistan and what it turned into. (aka Charlie Wilson's War)

:spock:

Bill Parcells
03-04-2010, 11:30 PM
I wonder if you're one of those guys who looks back fondly on "Clinton's economy."

I'd argue (correctly) that Pres. Reagan contributed more to the collapse of the Soviet Union than Clinton contributed to the booming economic circumstances that coincided with his administration.

Sometimes praise can be heaped on a bit thick by either side for its own heroes.

LOL! The Clinton ''economy boost'' was in large part due to the westernization of eastern Europe in the early to mid 90's. but the liberals will say thats nonsense too ;)

Bill Parcells
03-04-2010, 11:32 PM
patteeu should be awarded the annual CP ownage gold medal for 2110

ROFL

2 for 2 ;) first kc douchebag and now the heart throb of many here at cp..the fabulous and stunning ms bep

ROFL

awesome job pat!

SNR
03-05-2010, 12:35 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FAPABJd4xos&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FAPABJd4xos&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

patteeu
03-05-2010, 06:45 AM
patteeu should be awarded the annual CP ownage gold medal for 2110

ROFL

2 for 2 ;) first kc douchebag and now the heart throb of many here at cp..the fabulous and stunning ms bep

ROFL

awesome job pat!

2110 is probably about when BucEyedPea will show up to admit she was wrong.

Bill Parcells
03-05-2010, 01:37 PM
2110 is probably about when BucEyedPea will show up to admit she was wrong.

ROFL

OMFG! I wrote a check with that on it too.lol :redface:

dirk digler
03-05-2010, 03:34 PM
I think a mod should sticky this thread until she shows up.

Bill Parcells
03-05-2010, 07:08 PM
I think a mod should sticky this thread until she shows up.

She will continue to post on patriots planet's political board under her ''secret alias'' (what is she Brady's girl or some shit over there?) until this all blows over in like 50 years.


ROFL

googlegoogle
03-06-2010, 02:23 AM
I'm not sure how we could have anticipated the catastrophe at the marine barracks. Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that make the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have. Perhaps we should have anticipated that members of the Lebanese military whom we were trying to assist would simply lay down their arms and refuse to fight their own countrymen. In any case, the sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president. Every day since the death of those boys, I have prayed for them and their loved ones.

close enough http://www.ronaldreagan.com/leb.html

Exactly what are you bitching about so much?

patteeu
03-06-2010, 06:47 AM
I'm not sure how we could have anticipated the catastrophe at the marine barracks. Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that make the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have. Perhaps we should have anticipated that members of the Lebanese military whom we were trying to assist would simply lay down their arms and refuse to fight their own countrymen. In any case, the sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president. Every day since the death of those boys, I have prayed for them and their loved ones.

close enough http://www.ronaldreagan.com/leb.html

Exactly what are you bitching about so much?


It's not close enough. It's not really very close at all. It's the difference between Reagan regretting the marine mission to Beirut because it was poorly conceived and Reagan deciding we need a "more neutral" policy in the middle east. The former is true, the latter is not.

Beyond that, it's a matter of integrity. The Ron Paul article on Lew Rockwell falsely attributes a quote to Ronald Reagan. Whether it's an intentional deception in order to make it look like Reagan would have agreed with Ron Paul's unReagan-like neo-isolationism or whether it was just carelessness that has gone uncorrected for the past 3.5 years, it's a black mark on the Ron Paul operation.

I hope this helps clear up your confusion.

Bill Parcells
03-06-2010, 04:33 PM
burp and bump

googlegoogle
03-06-2010, 05:01 PM
It's not close enough. It's not really very close at all. It's the difference between Reagan regretting the marine mission to Beirut because it was poorly conceived and Reagan deciding we need a "more neutral" policy in the middle east. The former is true, the latter is not.

Beyond that, it's a matter of integrity. The Ron Paul article on Lew Rockwell falsely attributes a quote to Ronald Reagan. Whether it's an intentional deception in order to make it look like Reagan would have agreed with Ron Paul's unReagan-like neo-isolationism or whether it was just carelessness that has gone uncorrected for the past 3.5 years, it's a black mark on the Ron Paul operation.

I hope this helps clear up your confusion.

That was the incorrect paragraph i quoted. Reagan didn't want intervention there anymore.

"We had to pull out. By then, there was no question about it: Our policy wasn't working. "


AND...

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

Sounds like Neutrality to me. Or a form of it. Ok the quote was wrong. You guys are splitting hairs.

patteeu
03-06-2010, 06:22 PM
That was the incorrect paragraph i quoted. Reagan didn't want intervention there anymore.

"We had to pull out. By then, there was no question about it: Our policy wasn't working. "


AND...

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

Sounds like Neutrality to me. Or a form of it. Ok the quote was wrong. You guys are splitting hairs.

Sounds more like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush to me. It's not at all an endorsement of neutrality. The quote was wrong and the entire case the false quote was being used to support was wrong. On foreign policy issues, Ronald Reagan was impossible to distinguish from a neocon, which is why so many neocons flocked to his administration. In fact, being a former democrat and an admirer of FDR himself, Reagan had a lot more in common with the original neocons than just his peace through strength views and his selective but aggressively interventionist foreign policy.

RedNeckRaider
03-06-2010, 06:27 PM
Dang Buc own it or defend it~

Brock
03-06-2010, 06:46 PM
this thread

================================>BEP

Slainte
03-07-2010, 01:35 PM
http://yffar.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/52_cv48_v2_solicit.jpg

Bill Parcells
03-07-2010, 07:26 PM
(BURP)

|Zach|
03-07-2010, 10:42 PM
http://i46.tinypic.com/24ch9io.jpg

Jenson71
03-07-2010, 10:45 PM
Cowardly, pathetic, and holds no credibility in the 'integrity' department.

Mr. Kotter
03-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Guess we should just learn to trust BEP....and take her word as gospel. Heh

:hmmm:

Saggysack
03-08-2010, 06:21 PM
Haha! BEP didn't like her swaffelen from pattycakes.

Mr. Kotter
03-09-2010, 11:03 AM
Haha! BEP didn't like her swaffelen from pattycakes.

She's an "interesting" lady that BEP...heh.

Bill Parcells
03-09-2010, 03:20 PM
(BURP)

Slainte
03-11-2010, 11:13 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rroEVng6Iww/R3YBcYp4HbI/AAAAAAAAAMI/-um_QWR8PsU/s320/lyme.png

Stinger
03-12-2010, 02:21 PM
Bumpage

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/stinger871/Dispair/1226732167808jpgroflposterscommyspa.jpg

PunkinDrublic
03-12-2010, 02:31 PM
She's an "interesting" lady that BEP...heh.

If by interesting you mean regurgitating Randian psychobabble.

|Zach|
03-13-2010, 07:15 PM
Bump

patteeu
03-13-2010, 08:32 PM
Don't leave me hanging like this BEP. It's time to be a big girl and admit what you've surely discovered by now.

googlegoogle
03-14-2010, 01:04 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YyXW1hb-JQg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YyXW1hb-JQg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Slainte
03-14-2010, 01:44 AM
http://site.despair.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ignore.jpg

patteeu
03-14-2010, 11:12 AM
*** video deleted ***

Do you think Ronald Reagan voted for Ron Paul in 1988's presidential election? I don't. He certainly didn't endorse him.

BTW, why was Ron Paul so disillusioned by the Reagan presidency that he left the Republican party?

Slainte
03-14-2010, 02:30 PM
BucEyedPee, preparing a considered reply...

http://msp88.photobucket.com/albums/k189/simon_3112/Celine%20Dion/funny004.jpg

banyon
03-14-2010, 04:02 PM
I don't know why this thread would turn out any differently than:

The time she thought that Obama would involuntarily conscript American youth. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207872&page=12)

The time she agreed with jAZ that Karl Rove was about to be indicted. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139776&page=6)

The time she thought World War II ended in 1940 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203599).

or

The time she claimed Lincoln encouraged mass rapings. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4320410&highlight=endorsed#post4320410)

Mistakes will NOT be acknowledged or taken back.

|Zach|
03-14-2010, 06:40 PM
I don't know why this thread would turn out any differently than:

The time she thought that Obama would involuntarily conscript American youth. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207872&page=12)

The time she agreed with jAZ that Karl Rove was about to be indicted. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139776&page=6)

The time she thought World War II ended in 1940 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203599).

or

The time she claimed Lincoln encouraged mass rapings. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4320410&highlight=endorsed#post4320410)

Mistakes will NOT be acknowledged or taken back.

Oh shit.
LMAO

|Zach|
03-14-2010, 10:03 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iwGFalTRHDA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iwGFalTRHDA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

|Zach|
03-15-2010, 07:07 PM
Coward

Radar Chief
03-16-2010, 09:58 AM
Coward

X2.

Slainte
03-17-2010, 12:45 PM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/63Ch2pNkZwU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/63Ch2pNkZwU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

BIG_DADDY
03-17-2010, 12:48 PM
MATE

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 12:50 PM
coward.

:crybaby:

WTF is with moonbats calling people a "coward" all the time? Do they even know what the word means? Stupid ass loonbats..

|Zach|
03-19-2010, 07:48 AM
Bump.

|Zach|
03-19-2010, 08:59 AM
http://base1.googlehosted.com/base_media?q=FroogleCatalog_CNETI497145.jpg&size=20&dhm=13c7f2e1&hl=en

Bill Parcells
03-19-2010, 10:37 AM
Ms Pea, you have to be the most thin skinned individual I have ever seen on any message board.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 10:45 AM
Ms Pea, you have to be the most thin skinned individual I have ever seen on any message board.

That remark is going to pierce her thin skin yet again.

Slainte
03-20-2010, 03:19 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JN44B9TKL.jpg


CAESAR
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard.
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.

[Re-enter Servant]

CAESAR
What say the augurers?

SERVANT
They would not have you to stir forth to-day.
Plucking the entrails of an offering forth,
They... could not find a heart within the beast.

CAESAR
The gods do this in shame of cowardice:
Caesar should be a beast without a heart,
If he should stay at home to-day for fear.
No, Caesar shall not: danger knows full well
That Caesar is more dangerous than he:
We are two lions litter'd in one day,
And I the elder and more terrible:
And Caesar shall go forth.

VAChief
03-20-2010, 07:48 PM
Ms Pea, you have to be the most thin skinned individual I have ever seen on any message board.

Your projecting!!! :)

Saul Good
03-20-2010, 08:45 PM
Ms Pea, you have to be the most thin skinned individual I have ever seen on any message board.

What's great is that I've seen multiple posts where she claims that she hasn't read the OP of this thread, but I've received both pos and neg rep from her on posts I've made in this thread. Not sure how that's supposed to work.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 09:36 PM
Maybe I should take her off iggy. I already miss reading her make a bumbling hash out of someone else's good ideas.

Bill Parcells
03-21-2010, 09:43 AM
What's great is that I've seen multiple posts where she claims that she hasn't read the OP of this thread, but I've received both pos and neg rep from her on posts I've made in this thread. Not sure how that's supposed to work.

ROFL

|Zach|
03-22-2010, 10:29 PM
http://i39.tinypic.com/2s15gly.jpg

Slainte
03-23-2010, 12:30 PM
Back to the top for Lolo...

Slainte
03-26-2010, 01:57 AM
Lolo bump

patteeu
03-29-2010, 09:11 AM
The credibility of Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul has been tarnished.

|Zach|
03-29-2010, 10:57 PM
Bump.

patteeu
03-30-2010, 06:29 AM
True or false: State... 03-29-2010 09:37 AM BucEyedPea you're an asshole

It didn't need to come to this BEP. You could have just fessed up and it would have all blown over. The extra exposure this has received is blowback for your failure to act. I even treated you with kid gloves in the beginning because I knew you were fragile. Anyway, we can still be friends but I think you owe Ronald Reagan and the rest of the board an apology.

BigRedChief
03-30-2010, 07:19 AM
So BEP still hasn't come around to this thread yet?

Bill Parcells
03-30-2010, 08:58 AM
It didn't need to come to this BEP. You could have just fessed up and it would have all blown over. The extra exposure this has received is blowback for your failure to act. I even treated you with kid gloves in the beginning because I knew you were fragile. Anyway, we can still be friends but I think you owe Ronald Reagan and the rest of the board an apology.

ROFL

She is very sensitive..be careful, you may bruise her LMAO