1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Clinton Ambushed on Fox News

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by efusco, Sep 25, 2006.

  1. rudiger

    rudiger Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    696
    45
    0
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    Vehicle:
    2013 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NoSpam @ Sep 30 2006, 10:09 AM) [snapback]325996[/snapback]</div>
    Uhm, no.

    Reagan was president when the Cold War ended, but he didn't win it. The Soviets defeated themselves through years of arrogance and incompetence in the management of their country (the final blow being the ill-advised invasion of Afghanistan). All Reagan did was accelerate the demise of the Soviet Union by an expensive, massive military build-up that the Soviets went broke trying to match.

    The Soviet Union was going to collapse eventually, regardless, either with or without Reagan's help. If Reagan had been smart enough to see this, he could have devoted the US' attention to the part of the world that really needed it, i.e., the Middle East, and the US is paying for that mistake now.

    It's not unlike Americans taking credit for winning WWII when the reality was that the Soviet Union had already stopped Hitler by the time the United States had entered the war. If the US hadn't entered the war, it's more likely that Germany and the Soviet Union would have achieved an eventual stalemate after more years of back and forth fighting, exactly the same as in WWI.
     
  2. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Oct 1 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]326420[/snapback]</div>
    another attempt at re-writing history. no matter how many times you repeat yourself you are not going to change the facts of history. and even when you do touch tangentially on a fact you glance off of it quickly. its a free country so think as you might.
     
  3. dragonfire_777

    dragonfire_777 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    22
    0
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 29 2006, 06:21 AM) [snapback]325524[/snapback]</div>
    To use your own terminology, you obfuscate. Your question on the bombing of the WTC has already been answered. Of course maybe you didn't read my response. They got the bad guys. So move on.
     
  4. stevedegraw

    stevedegraw Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    121
    0
    0
    It is more correct to say that we're still chasing the bad guys for pre-9/11 acts of war or attempts...

    * The October 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing.
    * The August 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

    Al-Qaeda is also suspected of carrying out or directing sympathetic groups to carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Plots linked to al-Qaeda that were disrupted or prevented include; a 1999 plot to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport; a 1995 plan to blow up 12 transpacific flights of U.S. commercial airliners; a 1995 plan to kill President Bill Clinton on a visit to the Philippines; and a 1994 plot to kill Pope John Paul II during a visit to Manila.
     
  5. livelychick

    livelychick Missin' My Prius

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    1,085
    0
    0
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 25 2006, 12:50 PM) [snapback]324714[/snapback]</div>
    Jesus...could you be quoting "The American President" any more? I hate to tell you, but that is called "fiction," not reality. Oh wait--you believe fiction...after all, you support the current administration.

    And, to use your logic, Bush has been in office for only three-quarters of that time, and we have over 7000 DEAD Americans on his watch...and I can't even count the wounded...

    And the adminstration brags about "no terror attacks on American soil in five years." We went from '93 to the current administration with no civilian attacks on American soil--let's not bring up embassy attacks at this moment, or we may have to dis the almighty Reagan. Wth?
     
  6. NoSpam

    NoSpam Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    46
    0
    0
    Location:
    Arizona
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Oct 1 2006, 05:54 AM) [snapback]326420[/snapback]</div>
    I am a real fan of the military build-up that Reagan did after the gutting of the military under Carter. America was so weak that we were at serious risk. Reagan restored pride in the strength of the U.S. after the humiliation under Carter!

    Reagan was the one who demanded, "...tear down this wall." He did not say, "please," he demanded it. And the wall was torn down.

    It is no secret that the military was weakened by Carter and again by Clinton. At least Reagan and Bush (one and two) didn't/don't, "loath the military" like they did. Ultimately, peace is only achieved by strength and the U.S. needs to remember that. Weak policies invite attacks.

    Best regards,
    NoSpam
     
  7. IsrAmeriPrius

    IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    4,333
    7
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 1 2006, 06:38 AM) [snapback]326428[/snapback]</div>
    Funny you should be making such an accusation. I was planning to write the exact same thing about you.