Ron Paul Deceived. BucEyedPea Believed. (The Fabricated Reagan Quote)

[patteeu]

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 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.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

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]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

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

Yes

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Yes

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

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

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

Are you going to answer my question?

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

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]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

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).

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

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]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

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]

Wow. Still a no show.