This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
So he was head of the Fed 50% of the time Carter was President. He shares some of the blame then.The tax reform bill certainly simplied my tax form and closes several loopholes that major corporations enjoyed. I would think someone like you would have liked seeing corporate welfare reduced.As to success, the economic data during the Reagan years and beyond speak for themselves. The tax cuts were very successful.
That military defeat drained their treasury which hurried the collapse was my point. And I think Gorby just saw the writing on the wall. If whoever was president would have sat down with him the same things would have happened more or less I believe.
and yet he was too much of a weakling to hit Hammas when they killed more Marines in one day since Iwo Jima. In fact, he had us sneak out of Beirut in the dead of night. See my post above. If a Democrat did that, he's be a "weak-willed Liberal". Talked tough - was a great talker - just suucked at the actual ACTION. The dude ####ed up and terrorists are using that failure to act even to this day. And no, the with or without the "Liberals", the Soviet Union was a trainwreck. Funny how Americans think that we control every event that occurs in the world.
He made the decision to reform. Others around him were blind to the facts and would have gladly continued the Cold War. The 1991 coup, that ultimately failed, shows that. He wanted to end the Cold War. Reagan wanted to win the Cold War. Almost everything under Gorbachev smacks of political reform. Elections, market reforms, and the like have little to do with the arms race but they have everything to do with ending the Cold War.
I assume you are referring to plans to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters? Baalbek is hardly isolated. It is the major Shia center in Lebanon. In a period where the Soviet Union was the biggest threat to our existence, a motley crew of Arab terrorists were hardly a blip on the radar. I can excuse the lack of that crystal ball in 1983, especially as Cap was instrumental in modernizing the armed forces against a much more dngerous (at the time) foe. Not sure I can excuse the same failure to act following an attack in 2000 when a different President, knowing much more about the threat of terrorism to the US than we did in 1983, decided not to respond.
Reagan pushed for victory. Gorbachev saw the handwriting on the fall and sensibly surrendered in a way that at least preserved some form of Russian dignity. Might not have if not pushed.
Your first two points are valid. I think it took a US president that was willing to take advantage of Russia's temporary situation to push them over the cliff though. Reagan was willing. He took a lot of flak for it, as at the time, nobody believed how close we were to winning the cold war. The military buildup that Reagan started was one that the Soviets couldn't match, Gorbachev knew it, and capitulated as gracefully as he could.
#1) Link to anything saying this mission was under-manned. #2) Link to anything saying the mission was under-manned PRIOR to the failure. Prove that this went to Carter and he overrode or disregarded it. #3) Link to anything proving that Carter told the ops group to reduce staff - or made ANY recommendations as to staffing size whatsoever. - Until then, you're just making things up. The birds went down largely due to a wicked sand storm and one pilot clipping another bird. - Again, you haven't brought anything to the table to prove that "Carter blew it". Seriously man, how can you compare the loss of life on that mission to the #### up that is Iraq? I understand you don't like the guy, but no reasonable person is going to say that the Iraq debacle has less impact upon this country and the world than a failed rescue attempt that killed 8 guys. On the bright side, You're right about CIC. - And he did take personal responsibility - which was the right thing to do. If we're going to play that game, then GWB is personally responsble for almost 30,000 dead or wounded Americans and a completely failed state that now harbors & arms terrorists.
But LBJ's problem was Vietnam, which became a political entity onto itself. I don't think the current Iraq conflict is even close.I answered Carter and quite frankly don't see anyone in the last 50 years as close. Further, in the history of the office, I'd put him in the bottom 5, and that small group includes a guy that died a month in, a guy that was assassinated 8 months in, a two others that probably 90% of the country think were contestants on American Idol year 3.
i dont' think this is accurate. I read a book by the special forces commanding General under Carter that explained the entire mission and why it failed, I can't recall but I'll dig it up tonight and post the relevant passages here. later
And by the anti-Bush lib mantra of today it wouldn't have mattered if we had bombed them. The bombing would have created more terrorists to take their place.
I'm sorry, did just say that the murder of more Marines in one day since Iwo Jima was "hardly a blip on the radar"? Are you ####ing kidding me? Do you KNOW any Marines? Two question:
You know damned well there was no internet then so finding a link is damned hard. But do you really think that eight helicopters even loaded with Marines had a prayer in hell of rescuing 52 hostages held in the capital of a hostile country? Do you really think putting together a mission like that with no contingency planning is an act of military genius? Do you really think that leaving behind documents identifying our operatives in Iraq was an act of competence? Do you think leaving behind six intact helicopters was good planning? And the mission was aborted before the third(it was actually the fourth) helicoipter crashed. Carter approved the plan. It's his failure.You can start by reading Guests of the Ayatollah, if you want to learn more in depth about the crisis than you can get from Wilkepedia.
1. Who had the capability to do more damage to the US at the time? The USSR.2. How many Servicemen died in proxy wars with Soviet client states?
You know damned well there was no internet then so finding a link is damned hard.
Dude, you're cracking me up. You're telling me you can't find Reagan's speeches on the 'net? You DO know they posted stuff that said and done BEFORE the internet, don't you?
But do you really think that eight helicopters even loaded with Marines had a prayer in hell of rescuing 52 hostages held in the capital of a hostile country?
Do you think Carter specified the criterion for the mission?
Do you really think putting together a mission like that with no contingency planning is an act of military genius?
Do you think Carter told required this happen? See, he actually HAD "military geniuses" that designed this plan. - As is their job.
Do you really think that leaving behind documents identifying our operatives in Iraq was an act of competence? Do you think leaving behind six intact helicopters was good planning? And the mission was aborted before the third(it was actually the fourth) helicoipter crashed.
Do you think Carter specified that when he drafted the rescue attempt all by himself? Heck, I'm surprised he wasn't flying the damn birds too! I guess you're giving him a break for not alleging that he made the chopper pilot clip the other bird - thanks for that. What a guy! He completely bypassed the entire Pentagon and drafted the whole plan himself!
Carter approved the plan. It's his failure.
And, even though he wasn't responsible for a single element that caused the failure, like a man, he nutted up and took responsibility. Again, if you're play it that way, Bush is directly and personably responsbile for the deaths of almost 3,000 more soldiers than Carter - which is worse??
You act like this is the only President who approved failed covert missions. I have news for ya buddy, he ain't. And a whole bunch died under Reagan's (& virtually every other President's) command too. 'Course, we don't hear a lot about those... (hence the "covert") If you're gonna cherry-pick one, you gotta include them all.
He is wrong about the helicopters. Two failed in a sandstorm, a third sustained damage landing at an airstrip near Tabas and a fourth clipped a C-130 and crashed - but afterthe mission was already scrubbed. We left the remaining five RH-53s behind and unforgivable, we left behind our dead.
Man, you sure don't answer many questions do you?? So you're saying Reagan's policy was to ignore the deaths hundreds of American Marines - unless they were killed by {gasp!} the Russians? -And you agree with this policy? Wow. Sad really. :(
Carter had military experience. Granted in was on nuclear subs, but he was CIC and he approved the mission. That included any contingency planning (obviously there wasn't any), staffing, command structure and mision size (including the aircraft). It doesn't matter what he specified. He was presented with a bad plan and he approved it. It makes it his responsibility.You know damned well there was no internet then so finding a link is damned hard.
Dude, you're cracking me up. You're telling me you can't find Reagan's speeches on the 'net? You DO know they posted stuff that said and done BEFORE the internet, don't you?
But do you really think that eight helicopters even loaded with Marines had a prayer in hell of rescuing 52 hostages held in the capital of a hostile country?
Do you think Carter specified the criterion for the mission?
Do you really think putting together a mission like that with no contingency planning is an act of military genius?
Do you think Carter told required this happen? See, he actually HAD "military geniuses" that designed this plan. - As is their job.
Do you really think that leaving behind documents identifying our operatives in Iraq was an act of competence? Do you think leaving behind six intact helicopters was good planning? And the mission was aborted before the third(it was actually the fourth) helicoipter crashed.
Do you think Carter specified that when he drafted the rescue attempt all by himself? Heck, I'm surprised he wasn't flying the damn birds too! I guess you're giving him a break for not alleging that he made the chopper pilot clip the other bird - thanks for that. What a guy! He completely bypassed the entire Pentagon and drafted the whole plan himself!
Carter approved the plan. It's his failure.
And, even though he wasn't responsible for a single element that caused the failure, like a man, he nutted up and took responsibility. Again, if you're play it that way, Bush is directly and personably responsbile for the deaths of almost 3,000 more soldiers than Carter - which is worse??
You act like this is the only President who approved failed covert missions. I have news for ya buddy, he ain't. And a whole bunch died under Reagan's (& virtually every other President's) command too. 'Course, we don't hear a lot about those... (hence the "covert") If you're gonna cherry-pick one, you gotta include them all.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Sad. And stupid.Saying Carter didn't cause that mission to fail is like saying Bush didn't cause the Iraq occupation to fail. They are irrelevant statements. Carter approved a plan that didn't succeed. His responsibility. It doesn't matter that he wasn't the one executing it.
You're right. It's pretty common knowledge. Bueno hasn't posted any facts, just opinions. - And ignores any of the hard questions. Absolutely ####ed up that we left the dead. Not our best day. But, I'm pretty sure it wasn't ol Jimmy at the helm saying "#### the dead! - we gotta go!"
Control of the Panama Canal was bought by the Chinese that hold it for the next 20 years or so. They are increasing the fee this year making it more expensive to use the canal and in turn making it more expensive to ship.Not a "hater" (voted for the guy the 1st time), but certainly the argument for Bush v. Carter can be made pretty easily, no??Lessee what was listed for Carter:1) Iranian Hostages - Don't know how we could control that. Still think some shadiness happened with Reagan and that whole affair. 2) Moscow Olympics? - Who cares?3) Panama? - Hasn't really affected us much has it? 4) Econony - I think we've learned that - while politicians like to take credit - it's really the FED if anyone who controls the economy. - But agreed, Tax rates under Carter were the suck. I just don't think any of those -or ALL of those combined - are anywhere near the f'ing mess we're in now. I mean Carter wasn't exactly a great leader, but he didn't initiate a war - under incorrect pretenses - that's left almost 30,000 dead or wounded American soldiers, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and destabilize an entire region. - I mean, even our own NIE (not exactly liberals, mind you) have said the War in Iraq has made America and the World far less safe. That's the thing - Iraq. Without that, Bush would look pretty damn good. But Iraq violated a lot of his campaign promises (fiscal responsibility, no nation-building, etc.) - and permanently tainted his Presidency. Speaking of ten years; I think over time the hysteria and rending of garments over Clinton lying about a ####### is going to fall away. That was stupid even back then. I have a feeling historians are going to look back and
Somebody did. Somebody higher up than the mission commander scrubbed the mission and gave that order. If Bush is repsonsible for any mission in Iraq then Carter is responsible for this mission. You can't have it both ways.And I've posted plenty of facts. It's you that hasn't.
I'm sorry, did you NOT justify Reagan's not avenging the deaths of 241 American Marines because the soviet union was a "bigger threat" and this was just a "blip on the radar?" - man, I gotta get reading glasses or something - 'cause I coulda sworn that's what you've posted.
And blaming Jimmy for everything that went wrong - and having no proof whatsoever (while or course, NOT appllying that standard to anyone you DO like) is pretty weak.
No, I didn't. I said there were bigger fish to fry and there was a good chance the target that was selected was not a good one as it was filled with Iranian advisors, not Hezbollah leaders. Had he a better target, he might have hit it. I wish he had hit something, but I understand why he didn't want to open up a war in the ME when winning the cold war was a more important goal.You really are incapable of having an intelligent conversation with twisting words or misapplying them anyway. Like the stupid attack on my reading habits. I've probably read more books on the subject of the Middle East than you've handled. Come back when you grow a brain that can comprehend more than one variable. Goodnight ****.I'm sorry, did you NOT justify Reagan's not avenging the deaths of 241 American Marines because the soviet union was a bigger threat and this was just a "blip on the radar?" - man, I gotta get reading glasses or something - 'cause I coulda sworn that's what you've posted.
When you're read and/or capable of answering the hard questions and discussing this intelligently, let me know. Cherry-picking one incident (because it's apparently contained in the only book you read?)
Say goodnight, Gracie.
But, we didn't know they were a threat did we Bueno?? How many more than that is the Cole incident Bueno?? - In lives or events - whatever is easiest for you...
Very convenient of you to leave out the Berlin Disco bombing and the Pan Am bombing. Reagan went after Libya if you recall. As for retaliating, who were we supposed to retaliate against? Lebanon, a country that was in civil war with the Israeli Army controlling the southern half to Beirut? Syria, a firmly entrenched Soviet client state? There weren't a lot of options.http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040621&s=lizza062104
It's often forgotten, but Reagan's eight years in office witnessed a marked increase in acts of international terrorism. In fact, terrorists killed far more Americans during the 1980s than during the 1990s.
+ In 1983, Hezbollah suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63.
+ Later that year, in October, a 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans--the most deadly terrorist strike against the United States until September 11.
+In March 1984, Islamic terrorists kidnapped, and eventually killed, a CIA officer.
+The following month, Hezbollah killed 18 American soldiers in an attack on a restaurant near an airbase in Spain.
+ Two U.S. military personnel were killed by another truck bombing in Beirut in September 1984.
+Terrorists hijacked an airliner, TWA 847, in July 1985 and killed one American, Navy diver Robert Stethem, whose corpse was thrown out of the plane and onto the runway.
+ In October came the Achille Lauro incident, in which Palestinian terrorists commandeered a cruise ship and executed Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American tourist.
+In December, Abu Nidal terrorists attacked travelers simultaneously at airports in Rome and Vienna.
+ In March 1986, terrorists killed four Americans in Greece.. Commenting on the years of passivity
NINE terrorists incidents. NINE "NO RESPONSES". Great Job Mr. President.
... Reagan's biographer, Lou Cannon, observed, "For five years of his presidency, Reagan talked tough about terrorism but did virtually nothing in the way of retaliatory action to stop it."
Reagan's failures in Lebanon have long been seen as one of the worst blots on his record. Cannon noted, "If measured in loss of American lives abroad, Lebanon was the greatest disaster of the Reagan presidency." It was "a case study of foreign policy calamity" and the best illustration of "the naïveté, ignorance, and undisciplined internal conflict characteristic of the Reagan presidency." Sent on an ill-defined peacekeeping mission to restore order to the turbulent country, Reagan repeatedly pledged to stay the course. Four days after the devastating car bombing of the Marine barracks, he said "Let me ask those who say we should get out of Lebanon: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism?" Four months later, we got out of Lebanon.
Gee, sound familiar to anybody???
The message this sent to terrorists became clear in 1996, when Osama bin Laden tauntingly declared war against the United States: "We say to the Defense Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! [A]nd shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983? You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly Marine soldiers were killed."
Okay, so he suucked at the "War on Terror" - even though he delivered some pretty speeches (that somebody wrote for him) about it. At least he can fall back on that spectacular success that he initiated call "The War On Drugs".
You refuse to acknowledge Gorbachev's role in it all. Astonishing! If Gorbachev hadn't been at the helm, the reforms - the political and economic - might not have happened at all. You act as if anyone at the helm could have done the very same thing and had the same success. Clearly the hardliners within the USSR felt differently. They would have clung to the old system, the status quo and Reagan would have kept spending until out of office. Would Bush have been elected? Would he have had the clout to push for that kind of defense spending? Doubtful. Give Gorbachev credit for being more than a simple pragmatist. His reforms ushered a new line of thought while Reagan's arms build up and support of puppet regimes was straight out of the '50's.
I acknowledged Gorbache's role. He did the sensible thing and gave up. But he was pushed. If someone else was at the helm, the military buildup would have bankrupted them and we would have been at the same place, though possibly not as fast.
There was no war on terror at the time. There was hardly a terorist safe haven to attack. They weren't the #1 priority. A WOT would detract from the primary objective of bringing the Soviet Union to its knees. Wasn't enough money for both.And I assume that if we get out of Iraq tomorrow, in 20 years you'll be blaming Bush too. Try to see the forest for the trees - if you can see past that foaming mouth of yours.http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040621&s=lizza062104
It's often forgotten, but Reagan's eight years in office witnessed a marked increase in acts of international terrorism. In fact, terrorists killed far more Americans during the 1980s than during the 1990s.
+ In 1983, Hezbollah suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63.
+ Later that year, in October, a 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans--the most deadly terrorist strike against the United States until September 11.
+In March 1984, Islamic terrorists kidnapped, and eventually killed, a CIA officer.
+The following month, Hezbollah killed 18 American soldiers in an attack on a restaurant near an airbase in Spain.
+ Two U.S. military personnel were killed by another truck bombing in Beirut in September 1984.
+Terrorists hijacked an airliner, TWA 847, in July 1985 and killed one American, Navy diver Robert Stethem, whose corpse was thrown out of the plane and onto the runway.
+ In October came the Achille Lauro incident, in which Palestinian terrorists commandeered a cruise ship and executed Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American tourist.
+In December, Abu Nidal terrorists attacked travelers simultaneously at airports in Rome and Vienna.
+ In March 1986, terrorists killed four Americans in Greece.. Commenting on the years of passivity
NINE terrorists incidents. NINE "NO RESPONSES". Great Job Mr. President.
... Reagan's biographer, Lou Cannon, observed, "For five years of his presidency, Reagan talked tough about terrorism but did virtually nothing in the way of retaliatory action to stop it."
Reagan's failures in Lebanon have long been seen as one of the worst blots on his record. Cannon noted, "If measured in loss of American lives abroad, Lebanon was the greatest disaster of the Reagan presidency." It was "a case study of foreign policy calamity" and the best illustration of "the naïveté, ignorance, and undisciplined internal conflict characteristic of the Reagan presidency." Sent on an ill-defined peacekeeping mission to restore order to the turbulent country, Reagan repeatedly pledged to stay the course. Four days after the devastating car bombing of the Marine barracks, he said "Let me ask those who say we should get out of Lebanon: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism?" Four months later, we got out of Lebanon.
Gee, sound familiar to anybody???
The message this sent to terrorists became clear in 1996, when Osama bin Laden tauntingly declared war against the United States: "We say to the Defense Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! [A]nd shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983? You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly Marine soldiers were killed."
Okay, so he suucked at the "War on Terror" - even though he delivered some pretty speeches (that somebody wrote for him) about it. At least he can fall back on that spectacular success that he initiated call "The War On Drugs".
Not to mention that an attack on the ME in those years could have cost us a fragile relationship with Egypt. I thought Bush bashers were bad. This guy has lost all rational thought.Very convenient of you to leave out the Berlin Disco bombing and the Pan Am bombing. Reagan went after Libya if you recall. As for retaliating, who were we supposed to retaliate against? Lebanon, a country that was in civil war with the Israeli Army controlling the southern half to Beirut? Syria, a firmly entrenched Soviet client state? There weren't a lot of options.http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040621&s=lizza062104
It's often forgotten, but Reagan's eight years in office witnessed a marked increase in acts of international terrorism. In fact, terrorists killed far more Americans during the 1980s than during the 1990s.
+ In 1983, Hezbollah suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63.
+ Later that year, in October, a 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans--the most deadly terrorist strike against the United States until September 11.
+In March 1984, Islamic terrorists kidnapped, and eventually killed, a CIA officer.
+The following month, Hezbollah killed 18 American soldiers in an attack on a restaurant near an airbase in Spain.
+ Two U.S. military personnel were killed by another truck bombing in Beirut in September 1984.
+Terrorists hijacked an airliner, TWA 847, in July 1985 and killed one American, Navy diver Robert Stethem, whose corpse was thrown out of the plane and onto the runway.
+ In October came the Achille Lauro incident, in which Palestinian terrorists commandeered a cruise ship and executed Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American tourist.
+In December, Abu Nidal terrorists attacked travelers simultaneously at airports in Rome and Vienna.
+ In March 1986, terrorists killed four Americans in Greece.. Commenting on the years of passivity
NINE terrorists incidents. NINE "NO RESPONSES". Great Job Mr. President.
... Reagan's biographer, Lou Cannon, observed, "For five years of his presidency, Reagan talked tough about terrorism but did virtually nothing in the way of retaliatory action to stop it."
Reagan's failures in Lebanon have long been seen as one of the worst blots on his record. Cannon noted, "If measured in loss of American lives abroad, Lebanon was the greatest disaster of the Reagan presidency." It was "a case study of foreign policy calamity" and the best illustration of "the naïveté, ignorance, and undisciplined internal conflict characteristic of the Reagan presidency." Sent on an ill-defined peacekeeping mission to restore order to the turbulent country, Reagan repeatedly pledged to stay the course. Four days after the devastating car bombing of the Marine barracks, he said "Let me ask those who say we should get out of Lebanon: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism?" Four months later, we got out of Lebanon.
Gee, sound familiar to anybody???
The message this sent to terrorists became clear in 1996, when Osama bin Laden tauntingly declared war against the United States: "We say to the Defense Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! [A]nd shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983? You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly Marine soldiers were killed."
Okay, so he suucked at the "War on Terror" - even though he delivered some pretty speeches (that somebody wrote for him) about it. At least he can fall back on that spectacular success that he initiated call "The War On Drugs".
Lol, and you wonder why you have no friends.
I don't think it will ever leave Carter's possession.History defines presidencies not the MSM.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Eisenhower, FDR, GWB, and Reagan.
Talk about being a partisan apologist. This post is pathetic.
Actually, you got owned.
True and verifiable.
Bored?
This is just plain stupidity.Carter Center Health Programs:
Carter Center Peace Programs:
What made him so awful? He obviously ####ed up Vietnam. Outside of Vietname what else made him so awful?
Pretty much a case for voting W in this poll.
