Libs at work in Syria/Iran

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Ever wonder why our hostages were held in Iran for 400+ days under Carter and released the day Reagan was sworn in--listen to this kum ba ya from them in syrian interview and you'll know

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5418.html

 

[Chadman]

Yeah, I definitely wonder about that, Wayne. Could it have anything to do with the arms and spare parts that immediately went to Iran (the country we are now having so many problems with) thanks to unpublicized meetings between Reagan/Bush representatives and George Bush himself? Or the stopping of sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets?

Did you ever wonder if American' lives were kept in their hostage situation for political gain for Reagan? I mean it makes just as much sense that the arms to Iran were as big a part of the release of the hostages as any kind of forboding of a Reagan administration.

But, thanks for asking. I mean there is no reason to think there could be any kind of problematic arms deal like the Iran-Contra situation to gain the release of those hostages, is there?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

replay the tape again--might take twice to sink in

--but then again if your opting for Carter over Reagan it really won't make a difference Chad--we'll just have to agree to disagree on issue.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Yeah, I definitely wonder about that, Wayne. Could it have anything to do with the arms and spare parts that immediately went to Iran (the country we are now having so many problems with) thanks to unpublicized meetings between Reagan/Bush representatives and George Bush himself? Or the stopping of sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets?

Did you ever wonder if American' lives were kept in their hostage situation for political gain for Reagan? I mean it makes just as much sense that the arms to Iran were as big a part of the release of the hostages as any kind of forboding of a Reagan administration.

But, thanks for asking. I mean there is no reason to think there could be any kind of problematic arms deal like the Iran-Contra situation to gain the release of those hostages, is there?

Wrong. Giuliani said "they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages."

2 minutes. Hostages released.

 

[gardenweasel]

whatever happened to " politics ends at the water's edge"?.........kennedy would spit on this new crew of democrats.....


where`s the treasonous lil` troll`s headscarf?

 

[gardenweasel]

it was nice of ron paul`s "mini-me"to stop by and meet with a murderous dictator.....

but,why not our troops in the field, just right across the border?.......afraid of the reception from the troops?.....

wtf is in the water in cleveland?....apparently the browns are drinking it,too......

 

[Roger Baltrey]

Wasn't Reagans term in office replete with hostage taking in Lebanon etc? And didn't Ollie North trade missiles for hostages to Iran? Weak comparison!:nono:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Just as in war--there are always going to be mistakes or episodes one can harp on--world war 2 lost 800 paratroopers in one drop because they dropped them in the ocean.

You don't have many tatical errors being a liberal in the last 30 years when the only strategic decisions you have had is whether to use the words retreat-withdraw or surrender.

 

[Chadman]

replay the tape again--might take twice to sink in

--but then again if your opting for Carter over Reagan it really won't make a difference Chad--we'll just have to agree to disagree on issue.

I think I understand exactly what you think needs to sink in, Wayne, I just don't happen to always agree with your message. I never said I was opting for Carter over Reagan - that is a weak attempt at glossing over the side point I think you were making. I have always been sceptical of that hostage release situation...too many factors at play for me to presume it was just sheer fear of Reagan that affected the release. I don't doubt that a stronger reaction moving forward could have had something to do with it, again, I can allow for a less black and white scenario (unlike some here, evidently you are among them). But I certainly believe what I posted had as much to do with the release, if not more, than the fear of Reagan.

 

[Chadman]

Wrong. Giuliani said "they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages."

2 minutes. Hostages released.

Well, THAT clears it up for us...

And the person you use as an authority on truth is Rudy Giuliani?

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :142smilie :142smilie :142smilie

Maybe you could address what was incorrect about what I posted instead of quoting someone like Rudy - maybe not.

 

[Chadman]

Just as in war--there are always going to be mistakes or episodes one can harp on--world war 2 lost 800 paratroopers in one drop because they dropped them in the ocean.

You don't have many tatical errors being a liberal in the last 30 years when the only strategic decisions you have had is whether to use the words retreat-withdraw or surrender.

What I think you mean is, when there are mistakes and episodes when a republican is in charge, it's understandable. When a dem is in charge, it's incompetence and weakness.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I woud disagree.

I think Clintons decision on going into Somolia was absolutely the correct move--and I don't lay any blame on him for fiasco that occurred--as the mililtary was in charge of operations--however retreating from opposition that had a few hundred rag tag rebels in the aftermath had to have had the military wanting a piece of Bill.

--another thing that gets my goat is media and hollywood folks complaining that our troops in Iraq/Afgan breed more terrorists--but have no prob running prison scandal on front page/along with Algazeera or the latest DePalma fellow who's new movie Redacted -which has good possibilty of being banned in U.S. due to its gross anti american troop theme--will surely light up the Muslims and put our troops in harms way.

Bottom line you have one dissing our troops who volunteer to be in harms way by fighting for us- as breeding terrorist--while they do it for politcal or monetary reasons.

 

[djv]

Talk about putting troops in harms way. I wonder what great president was in charge of the barracks in Lebanon. He must have scared the chit out of those terrorist. Lost more men in those barracks in 10 minutes then Somalia.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Didn't know any pres was in charge of barracks in lebanon :shrug:

If your speaking of our miltary under GW I might remind you they accomplished in Afgan in about a month what Russia couldn't do in 10 years while simultaneously planning to accomplish same in Iraq.

I'd say it took much more planning than
-Edwards stratagy --terrorism is a myth
Clinton--stragagy-- I'm for waving the white flag
Obama--I waved it 1st
:shrug:

 

[Chadman]

Too bad it's taken so many years to NOT achieve our main goal in Afghanistan. I think I actually saw a Bin Laden video the other day. He's so bored with taunting Bush and Co. that he's starting to taunt the dems...:mj07:

 

[bryanz]

Ever wonder why our hostages were held in Iran for 400+ days under Carter and released the day Reagan was sworn in--listen to this kum ba ya from them in syrian interview and you'll know

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5418.html

I voted for Reagan. Why does this President go to Saudi Arabia and kiss face with the leaders of the people that had more to do with what happened on 911 than the people of Iraq did ? Could it be that Iran like the rest of the world new that Carter was the worst president in the history of America until 43 and wanted to do the next President a favor ? You try to make things that are gray, black & white. There will never be a democracy in Iraq without the help from all the players in the region.

 

[bryanz]

do you think any rouge leader fears 43 ? ask bin laden if you can find him. we are bogged down in iraq....do you think we can dictate from a position of strength to iran or syria ? This invasion and occupation of iraq has left us with limited options.

 

[kosar]

Didn't know any pres was in charge of barracks in lebanon :shrug:

If your speaking of our miltary under GW I might remind you they accomplished in Afgan in about a month what Russia couldn't do in 10 years while simultaneously planning to accomplish same in Iraq.

Reagan cut and ran, got the f*ck outta there, after Hezbollah, the terrorist arm of Iran, blew up 241 Marines. Spin it however the f*ck you want. AGAIN, PLEASE include this every time you mention Somalia.

As far as what we have 'done' in Afganistan compared to the USSR? You have *got* to be kidding. We will leave the country the same way we found it. Period.

Well, except for the current record opium crops.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I see Matt you don't distinuish any diff on someone bombing an embassy and and retreating from an military operation.

I would assume then that if GW had not went into Afgan and Iraq you'd be saying the same about him--but since he did -now the answer is retreat.

Remember Matt the pres is commander and chief and symbloic leader of our armed forces.

What kind of pic do you think Dems leaders portray to our troops.

Which Dem leaders haven't said we already lost-retreat-ect.

I don't know about you--but in life in general excluding politics I have no use for people with defeatist attitudes--

We (America) are at war--whether it is correct war can be debated--but fact of matter is most americans pull together--only a certain element that would rather see us fail--trys to portray our military in the worst light via movies and media.
--and as long as that element exist and trys to run the Dem party--I hope we continue to have a divided nation.

 

[bryanz]

I see Matt you don't distinuish any diff on someone bombing an embassy and and retreating from an military operation.

I would assume then that if GW had not went into Afgan and Iraq you'd be saying the same about him--but since he did -now the answer is retreat.

Remember Matt the pres is commander and chief and symbloic leader of our armed forces.

What kind of pic do you think Dems leaders portray to our troops.

Which Dem leaders haven't said we already lost-retreat-ect.

I don't know about you--but in life in general excluding politics I have no use for people with defeatist attitudes--

We (America) are at war--whether it is correct war can be debated--but fact of matter is most americans pull together--only a certain element that would rather see us fail--trys to portray our military in the worst light via movies and media.
--and as long as that element exist and trys to run the Dem party--I hope we continue to have a divided nation.

Yes we are at war and we should pull together. We all can agree on that. If we were to pull out of Iraq does not mean we are retreating or taking on a defeatist attitude. You talk about military operations like you know something about them . There are now countless high ranking generals & others in the military that think this operation is no good in it's present form. I think as a military leader your number 1 concern should be to maximize your assets and minimize the loss of your personal. People make mistakes all the time for all kind of reasons. It's time to focus and continue this war on terror with a different approach. I know you will never understand this because you are locked into some kind of defeatist idea that once you start a military operation you can never retreat. It was wrong not to retreat in Vietnam and it is wrong not to retreat now. Our commander and chief asked our military to do the impossible. Our military will never unite all the factions in Iraq into a democracy. It doesn't matter how many of them we kill over there, we will always face a threat at home. I know it's hard for you to understand : just because we have lost lives and many of our people suffer with their mental and physical wounds from this war; we can't make good by throwing more humanity to the wind. We can't go back. We the American people have to ask ourselves, why do we allow such incompetence by our leadership ? It's mind boggling that this administration did not have a plan for the day after saddam was gone. I don't believe that anyone can honestly say that we would still be in Iraq, in the capacity that we are. If bin laden would have sat down and dictated to our president what he would have wanted him to do after 911, he couldn't have scripted it any better. We look like the Russians did in the 80's, when our commander and chief Regan helped bin laden waste thousands of Russian lives and billions of their dollars. I'll say it again : there is no long term military solution, we can not win a conventional ground war in Iraq. The war on terror is like the war on drugs, it will go on forever. It's not going to be won on a battle field. We have to use our intelligence and target these people that are planning to target us. It's to complex for people like you and 43 to understand. It's pitiful to see some of these commercials with the people that have served or the family of a person that was killed. We have to pull together and demand they use our military in a more responsible way and stop wasting fellow American life for nothing. I agree with what we have done in Afghanistan........We have done some good things in Iraq. We have made some mistakes, that's going to happen. My problem is with the lack of understanding of history and the enemy that this administration has shown early on . The stated goals of this administrations Iraq policy are good and noble. The actions and the execution are very confusing ! That's where the politics comes in. If you are against the occupation of Iraq, you are anti American , soft on terror and anti war. That's bull shit ! Americans like me are for fighting the war on terror in a way that we can win. This military operation is border line aiding & abetting the enemy !