Ronald Reagan

Actually I've been around since 1998 or there abouts.. http://www.digitalpoint.com/lists/isp.html

What is the point of bumping a thread to place information in your post that is already listed in every post I make?

 

"Flippant", not "flipping" -- get thee to a dictionary!

 

Nyuk nyuk nyuk -- reality invades the RP dream world!

Don't forget Reagan's failed peace mission in Lebanon.

 

Yeah, one of the few times I saw the public face of the President actually rattled.

I respect Guerilla's thinking (though I don't agree with much of it), and am interested in his response. In my mind, the late President was very much an interventionist.

 

I'm in pretty much the opposite situation. Guerilla and I actually agree on the majority of things, but his lack of intellectual honesty makes me insanely hostile. He's a true believer in the same sense as any Moonie or Hare Krishna.

I am beginning to worry that when their chosen savior loses the election, his followers are going to head for the Kool-Aide tubs.

 

They will likely blame it on that there Fox News...

 

Notice that the pro war mongers wont answer any facts anymore. their best bet is to just give enough volume one line answers to bury facts deep in pages. Its a good tactic if your dishonest and unable to face moral truths but heck, this world would be boring if everyone loved honesty and facts.

 

I guess since things are not bleak as promised there is not much to dispute...

 

Are you even reading this thread?

np listed the facts, none of you surrender monkeys has refuted a single one of them -- or even seriously tried to.

Your dishonestly is appalling.

 

I guess u must have missed my post on mossadegh and iraq having nothing to do with terrorism. Talk about selective posting looooooooooooooooooooooool. Read my post and please find a way to rebutt the facts that i posted.
watch everyone as he pulls a no post on the rebuttal. When you have the truth on your side, war mongers seem to either ignore your posts and skip them.This must be the part where they huddle together and try to find a way to get past these facts.
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!! AMEN!!!!

Houston , i hear nothing. Houston i repeat no sounds at all. Let me try another planet hehehe.

 

Hitler was on a peace mission and all the innocents that died were just collateral damage. Do you realise how rediculous your posts are.

 

one day he will, right now i dont think he will answer the mossadegh or iraq question. The problem with these 2 questions is that they leave no wiggle room for a bs response. and this is why Ron Paul gained my respect. He really cares most for our troops. You see he isnt in here posting one liners while our soldiers die for no reason in iraq.

 

I knew this would be coming.

No. There was a certain stooge involved with the CIA. A man who would later be President, and refer to his world view as the, "New World Order".

Unfortunately, Ronald was pressured by the GOP to take this clown, a descendant of Hitler supporters as a running mate.



An early version of Dick Cheney.

Did Reagan know what was going on? Sure. But by the time he got into office, he was only a face man. It was his call to pull out of Lebanon after the bombing though, if it was a Bush, we might have gone to all out war at that time.

 

Guerilla, I have respected and enjoyed your posts and do think about what you have to say. I need to clarify - you are claiming the interventions I posted were not the President's initiatives, rather, he was dumbly led into these many overtures, by Bush Sr. and some kind of a shadow cabinet, against the President's native desire?

 

How many times do we have to go through the same nation destroying , election rigging, covert operations until these pro-war neocons will have the guts to even face the truth. Will Spencer , whos dishonest is appaling again? looooooooooooool

 

Thanks for the nice warmup. I hope I can continue to entertain and maintain your respect.

Absolutely. You only have to look at Reagan's stances from 1964 (1963?) until he was elected, and then what happened when he took office. Either this was the grandest of all (multi-decade) deceptions, or he was subverted by members of his own executive branch. Both he and Bush were fierce ideological opponents in the nominating process.

I don't think it is all that hard to imagine, because we have a similar situation with the current President. He's clearly not intelligent or driven enough to be running the world, yet this has been the most aggressive Presidency to date.

Some people may read this and think, "Oh boy, here we go, Guerilla believes in nutty stuff", but I ask anyone who takes that stance to go look up Operation Northwoods @ Wikipedia and then come back and tell me that you think our government is being run 100% on the up and up with the American people.

Under circumstances such as I indicate with Op Northwoods, and our current knowledge about manufactured pretexts to invade Iraq, is it that hard to believe that a President could be led the wrong way? I don't think so.

I truly loved Ronald Reagan, more for who he was before he was President, I feel that ideologically and spiritually he was a good man. So what happened?

 

President Reagan long saw the Soviet Union as an enemy, and saw the United States as a guarantor of freedom. However you feel about this, this isn't an isolationist at work. It is an activist President who believed America had a responsibility to the world. A couple of selections only:

-Debate with RFK, 1967 (sorry, misplaced the link)

http://reagan2020.us/speeches/Americas_World_Purpose.asp

March, 1978

Sorry, I posted my above before seeing your post. Would 1967 suffice? "Be free and determine their own destiny" is a battle cry for movements of national self-determination, and this arrow was aimed at the Soviet Union, with whom the then-Governor saw the United States locked in global, mortal combat. I don't see a difference between this and Wilson's cry for the same.

A bit further back. 1964.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm

Ronald Reagan was then saying - in 1964, not 1980 - that America had an activist role in the world, cloaked it in religious terms ("Christ on the Cross," "Israel and the Pharoahs"), and very clearly laid out an activist stand with respect to the Soviet Union. The enemy has changed, but the stance hasn't. Wilson, Reagan, Bush: America's role in the world is as the preserver of democracy and provider for the "inherent" right to national self determination.

I see nothing in the above but interventionism, and it didn't magically "pop" into the President's consciousness, ventriloquist-like, in 1980. From early on, I'd imagine since at least his SAG days, he would later prove it, in the countries I enumerated.

 

Somewhere in here is a disconnect, because the Reagan pre-1980 wouldn't have given aid to Saddam Hussein or the Iranian theocracy.

He had an opportunity to go to war with Libya, and intentionally did not take out Qadafi. There never was a grand showdown with the USSR, instead prompting them to do what we are doing to ourselves today. Bankrupting the country by fighting unwinnable ideological wars.

You left out an important part of your large quote from "A Time of Choosing", which seems to be a collection of snippets, taken out of context.

I thought Reagan exemplified the bold part best, by pulling the troops out of Lebanon after the bombing.

The quotes you pulled when put back together seem to indicate much more a policy of peace through strength (and resolve), than peace through force. This was pretty standard cold war rhetoric from the right.

 

Activism or resolve?

Again, the disconnect. How was supporting Saddam the right to national self determination?

The Reagan of pre-1980 was an idealist. The Reagan of 1980-1988 compromised. He compromised on the Dept of Ed., balancing the budget, on welfare, on foreign policy, and on growth of government.

As I said, either it was a fantastic and long term ideological scam, or something fundamental changed when he took office.

 

Guerilla i had the northwoods debate with them a while back, they wont respond about that. You need to give them something to where u can create reasonable doubt in their posts. If they cant they go into ignore mode lol.