Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Terrorism Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ronald Reagan on Terrorism
swhitebull    6/7/2004 9:09:36 AM
How do you tell a communist? Someone who reads Marx and Lenin. How do you tell an anti-Communist? Someone who UNDERSTANDS Marx and Lenin. - Ronald Reagan, interview in 1987. The same applies to Jihadis: swhitebull - it boils down to this - who is closer philosophically to the Gipper? Bush or Kerry. And who will wage the war on Islamic jihadis the right way.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Ashley-the-man    RE:Ronald Reagan on Terrorism   6/16/2004 5:41:00 PM
"This is the war we’re in now. If only we had a Reagan to fight it." Bush is doing a credible job, but imagine if Reagan and his rhetoric were around to knock down his opponents - both inside and outside our country. It is important for a President to speak well and present a coherent message. Reagan was the master. Bush 41 and 43 do not have the public speaking gene. If Bush looses this election it won't be as a result of the War, or the economy, but because of inability to go Lincoln, or Churchill when necessary. I would have liked to see and heard how Newt Gingrich would have handled this presidency.
Quote    Reply

chemist    RE:Ronald Reagan on Terrorism   6/17/2004 12:43:33 AM
Only one problem: Gingrich had been made the Grinch by the media. He was the democrats Hillary(i.e. a tremendously polarizing public figure). He was un-electable to higher office..
Quote    Reply

On Watch    RE:Ronald Reagan on Terrorism   6/17/2004 11:00:50 AM
>>>I would have liked to see and heard how Newt Gingrich would have handled this presidency.--Ashley<<< >>He was un-electable to higher office..--Chem<< Perhaps, Ashley is referring to how Newt, as Speaker, and as a vocal architect & point-man for the party, mobilized Republican strength in Congress -- energized Americans, and neutralized the Democrat President and the Left, via the Republican "Contract with America" etc etc. Presently, the Newt like 'inspirational fire' in both houses of Congress seems sorely lacking...Coupled with the necessary low-key approach that POTUS has adopted of late, it does present a feeling of foundering. My take though, is that the President is reserving his "fireworks" until we head for the '04 election homestretch commencing on Independence day, and when the Flag once again is raised to Full Staff (the Gip chose a good day to die!)! On Watch
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Ronald Reagan on Terrorism   7/27/2004 9:25:13 AM
Reagan was a man of convictions. You knew where he stood because he wanted you to know because he BELIEVED in what he stood for. One may have agreed or disagreed but at least you knew where the man stood without question. OTOH he couldn't administer his way out of a paper bag - he hired other people to take action, which sometimes would lead to bad things like that little secret government he had going on the side. Bush Sr. was an able administrator but no man of vision (what the f___ is a "thousand points of light" supposed to mean anyway) and definately no leader. Bush Jr. doesn't have any of the above qualities. He's not a man of vision or strong convictions, he motivates through fear. He doesn't trust the American people and he certainly doesn't trust our allies - this is not going to help us in any war on terror folks. And he has absolutely no clue who the enemy is or how to fight them. The way the War on Terror is being fought today can only be explained by complete ignorance or domestic politics. The War on Terror has about as much chance of success as the War on Drugs. In fact one could argue, and quite effectively, that terrorism has only increased because of the War on Terror and that it will continue to do so until we start treating the disease, not the symptom. Our actions so far have only served as a recruitment poster for more terrorists. There is no terrorist standing army that can be defeated on the battlefield and forced to surrender. Terror is merely a tactic. Fighting terrorists does not address the fundamental causes of why those terrorists exist. I get no sense that Bush Jr. understands the underlying causes of anti-U.S. terrorism or that he would really care if he did.
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Ronald Reagan on Terrorism   7/27/2004 1:14:13 PM
I would like to know how you back up these statements, Mark. AQ isn't exactly doing well lately, in case you haven't noticed.
Quote    Reply

Vapid    RE:Ronald Reagan on Terrorism   7/27/2004 2:09:08 PM
OTOH he couldn't administer his way out of a paper bag - he hired other people to take action, which sometimes would lead to bad things like that little secret government he had going on the side. Vapid--Are you using just one incident? Or do you have more? I don't think your definition of one incident is sufficient enough to rate the man's overall administration skills. "Bush Jr. doesn't have any of the above qualities. He's not a man of vision or strong convictions, he motivates through fear. He doesn't trust the American people...." Oh I would beg to differ with you on this. But I want to cover your statement of him not trusting the American People. [Vapid] What do you think the tax cuts were? Did he come out and say "I am returning To You, Your Money and You Will Spend It This Way...So We Can Get The Economy Going Again, Because I Don't Trust You To Spend It The Way We Envisioned."? No!!! (The democrats surely stated same, just not as directly.) I think that act alone proved he had faith in the people to spend their money as they saw fit. Sure did take a lot of trust, didn't it? And it sure did take a tiny bit of vision to know what the results would be. Even if the idea is not even remotely a new one. As for the terrorism, I believe this link pretty much underscores this administrations method. I hate chasing my tail on this because I have posted it before and this discussion is a bit outdated. Especially since the AQ is showing signs of being FUBAR. But I’ll do it again just for you. Vapid
Quote    Reply

Big Bad Pariah    Ronald Reagan supported terrorism   9/2/2004 9:10:26 AM
Reagan supported right-wing terrorists in Nicaragua and also secretly (and illegally) sold arms to terrorism-sponsor Iran.
Quote    Reply

celebrim    RE:Ronald Reagan supported terrorism   9/2/2004 5:18:46 PM
"right-wing terrorists in Nicaragua..." Which have sinisterly gone on to hold free elections for the past 15 years, build schools for deaf children, and other such acts of terror to the left-wing. "secretly (and illegally) sold arms to terrorism-sponsor Iran." As I recall, those arms you mention were anti-tank missiles, which Iran then used against Saddam Hussein in the last days of the Iran-Iraq war. Anti-tank missiles are normally useful mainly against, I don't know, tanks and armies. If any of those anti-tank missiles are ever used against American civilians, then I'll hold the Gipper accountable for letting it happen on his watch. I suppose that you'd rather Saddam Hussein had won the Iran-Iraq war? Or is it just that you don't want to credit the Reagan administration for being nuanced. As I recall, the Iran-Contra team was the only portion of the Federal government running underbudget and at a profit that year. And heck, they even managed to get a few hostages released. I consider all of that my tax dollars well spent. Now, if they'd pocketed it all to line thier own pockets, I'd be all with you about lining them up against the wall. But in the mean time, you're going to have to do alot better than that before I'm going to take you seriously.
Quote    Reply

Big Bad Pariah    RE:Ronald Reagan supported terrorism   9/3/2004 5:46:14 AM
"Which have sinisterly gone on to hold free elections for the past 15 years, build schools for deaf children" If I recall correctly, it was the Oretega government that allowed elections in 1990. It was the Sandinistas that set about reversing Somoza's devastation of the country and began a programme of land reform, social justice, and redistribution of wealth and income. "other such acts of terror to the left-wing" - Paramilitary bands, aided by the CIA front organisation American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), began armed attacks in the north, singling out volunteers in the health and literacy programmes to murder. In January 1981 Ronald Reagan took office under a Republican platform which asserted that "it deplores the Marxist Sandinista take-over of Nicaragua" and he greatly expanded the CIA's guerrilla warfare and sabotage campaigns. In November 1981 Reagan authorised a covert plan for $19 million to help the Argentina dictatorship train a guerrilla force operating from camps in Honduras to attack Nicaragua. Former members of Somoza's National Guards (who had fled to Honduras when the Somozan regime was toppled) and other war criminals formed the basis of this force, which became known as the contras. By the autumn of 1983, 12,000 to 16,000 contra troops of the so-called FDN (Nicaraguan Democratic Force) were operating along the Honduran border. Smaller contra forces operated from bases in Costa Rica. They staged hit and run raids against rural towns and co-operatives in Nicaragua, before returning to their bases across the border. The CIA had no illusions about the contras' ability to overthrow the FSLN; in two years of operations, they failed to take and hold even a small village. The aim of the contras was to use terrorist tactics to stop Nicaraguan development projects in all areas: economic, education, health services and political organisations. The contras blew up bridges, civilian power plants and schools, they burned fields of crops and attacked hospitals. Their tactics included rape, kidnappings of peasants and civilians, ambushes and massacres against small rural communities, farms, co-operatives, schools and health clinics. Contra raids caused extensive damage to crop fields, grain silos, irrigation projects, farm houses and machinery. Numerous state farms and co-operatives were incapacitated; other farms still intact were abandoned because of the danger. Witness For Peace, an American Protestant watchdog body, collected a list of contra atrocities in one year, which included murder, the rape of two girls in their homes, torture of men, maiming of children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, amputating the genitals of people of both sexes, gouging out eyes, scraping the skin off the face, pouring acid on the face, breaking the toes and fingers of an 18 year old boy, and summary executions. These were the people Ronald Reagan called "freedom fighters" and "the moral equal of our founding fathers." One survivor of a contra raid in Jinotega province, which borders Honduras, reported: "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit." The human rights organisation Americas watch, concluded that "the contras systematically engage in violent abuses…. so prevalent that these may be said to be their principle means of waging war." There was also a CIA plan to split Nicaragua in half, east and west, with the contras taking the east side and the Sandinistas left with the capital Managua and the west side. Horrified at this picture of outright war, the Senate Committee introduced the Boland Amendment, prohibiting the use of tactics "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua." However, in defiance of this, the CIA's contra operations continued. By 1983 the Agency's support for the contras had risen to $24 million. Source:
Quote    Reply

Condor Legion    RE:BBP supports terrorism   9/3/2004 12:21:05 PM
As long as it's that good ol fashioned leftist-commie anti-American terrorism it's ok by BBP. So, ya little pinko, summer break is over? LIKE I SEE IT, CL.
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT