Reagan: How does the BATFE Feel About Him?

I think that the Reagan Administation was a bigger threat the safety
of the country than high power rocketry ever was. It wasn't the NAR
or TRA who supplied Stinger anti-aircraft missles to Muslim fighters
in Afganistan or who secretly gave away weapons to known Iranian
terrorists. Let's all hope that Reagan's legacy doesn't include an
airliner downed by one of his "gifts" to Muslim terrorists.
I'm not happy that he died, but Reagan was far from flawless. Any man
who oversees the subversion of the Constitution (Iran/Contra) is NOT a
great president.
Go ahead and blast me as a "liberal Communist." You'd be wrong, but I
realize that's the only response some of you are capable of.
David M.
Reply to
David M.
Loading thread data ...
OK, I'll bite...
David M. wrote:
At the time, at the height of the Cold War, we were supplying Afghanistan as enemies of the Soviet Union. At the time, that was the right decision. In today's environment, that has obviously changed.
Agreed, but again, for what was necessary AT THE TIME, I believe what he did was appropriate. I would be interested, actually, to know how many Stingers, etc., are believed to still be in the hands of Afghans, for example. But I also have to believe that if they were prevalent, that we would have already seen a downed airliner from them in the past 20 years.
No question. Do you know someone who is?
Did he oversee the subversion of the Constitution via Iran/Contra? No. Did Iran/Contra occur on his watch and was he ultimately responsible? Yes. Was Iran/Contra a subversion of the Constitution? Actually, it sure doesn't seem like that to me -- it seems sufficiently (and intentionally) a muddled question that it will always fall down among party lines -- or don't you agree?
I've got to tell you, that one of the things that made Reagan stand out in my mind was the day that he announced that he had just become aware of the situation, went to the public, announced it, and also announced that it would be fully investigated and followed through on. That is a far cry, for example, from what Nixon or Clinton did in similar circumstances (Nixon in regards to Watergate, Clinton in regards to things such as the Travelgate incident and missing FBI files). And before you jump up and down about the comparison, I find Nixon to have been a hateful, venal man, BUT, he fulfilled his campaign promise to get us out of Vietnam. Other than that, I don't have much use for Nixon.
No, you're not a liberal Communist, but you're reaching on some of your rhetoric. I voted for John Anderson in the 1980 primary, and Reagan in the general election, because Jimmy Carter had proven himself to be an absolutely incompetent president (and I'd love to see someone try to contradict that one). Carter is, in my mind, a man of integrity, just like Reagan (and unlike both Nixon and Clinton). He was simply too much of a micro-manager to have been successful (but he is far and away the best ex-president we've ever had!).
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
Well, there's always Hunter S. Thompson's view on that: The substance of Nixon's 1968 "secret plan to end the war" was to keep it going just long enough to use its imminent end ("peace is at hand!") in his 1972 re-election campaign. Four More Years.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
I'm cynical enough to think that most of us knew that at the time, and were waiting for '72 to pass for it to happen...
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
Not really. The Vietnam War ended because Congress terminated funding for it. Comrade Nixon and his fellow traveler Kissinger were busy in Paris giving away all of the victories we had won in combat.
If I sound bitter, it's because I am. Over 50,000 of my buddies died in that war. We won every military enagement of the war, and it was all thrown away in Paris.
Bill Sullivan
Forgive? Absolutely! Forget? NEVER!
Reply to
The Rocket Scientist
Please bear with me on this one.
To All: There is always going to be something I don't like about the current administration. Remember Kent State? When National Guard troops started firing on American (unarmed) civilians, things changed. For the sake of the nation, The Senate came up with the solution to get us out of Viet Nam. I don't like the position of peace at any price. And I do believe that the only solution is complete and undeniable victory. The veterans of the Viet Nam conflict/war/police action....whatever it was, were to be commended for going to Hell and coming back to an ungrateful nation. I missed the draft by a year or so, and concider myself fortunate. So, I volunteered for 13 years, Navy....did some time in the Persian gulf under Reagan. Persian Gulf escort service. Remember the mine layer, AJR? They were caught in the act with filmed proof. Then destroyed. The Mohajedeen (sp), were the enemys of our enemys. Foreign policy will always be forwarded under a cloak of behind the scenes, cover of darkness, Back door. But make no mistake, we will avenge the deaths of our innocent citizens. We fight an enemy without concience, without concern for life or the idology of freedom. I'm embittered by the lack of common decency during this time of mourning. A modicum of respect please. And if I remember correctly, Reagan was found to have "plausable deniability", and exhonerated by Congressional investigation. Others may have fallen on the sword. I'll quit now, while I'm ahead. As long as you are ranting about the constitution, seems to me that the only powers provided by congress are: To provide for the common defense To facilitate interstate commerce My opinion, all other powers afforded the government were stolen from we the people, when we were bickering amongst ourselves. So, FIND A SOLUTION! Or can it!
Gary Frasier/TRA 9691
Reply to
netnews.bresnan.net
Wrong. That would be the ACLU.
one of his "gifts" to Muslim terrorists.
Or that the leaking of key information by Carter i.e. Stealth or Clinton i.e. Los Alamos, China, etc. does something similar.
I've never heard him anyone say he was but you felt the need to make a point of it at this exact time?
If you're under 50, you've never had a better one.
No, I just think you've been reading and listening to the liberal media too long.
Reagan was not perfect. He was a great American that was dedicated to restoring and keeping this country what it had always been. He spoke what he thought and did his best to back it up. Unlike most politicians of today, he did not speak out of both sides of his mouth and most Americans prospered under his leadership.
His policies broke the Soviets literally and figuratively. His greatest trophy can't be seen. It isn't there anymore.
Randy
Reply to
Randy
The stinger batteries expire and die. That makes the system unuseable.
Noted.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
I agree with that. I was just trying to keep it to the ones that I've lived under their leadership.
Randy
Reply to
Randy
And the fuel breaks down if incorrectly stored and handled.... I have seen SM1 misslies u/sed because of a leak and the fuel rotted. That was a professional storage facility....imagine a bunch of no neck toolbox head 2 sandwich eating camel jockeies looking after them. Surprised if any worked now. Well past their shelf life one would think
Reply to
Michael Mackay-Blair
You could say the same about anything. Like, "the shoe industry is a bigger threat to the safety of the country than high power rocketry ever was." After all, a shoe has been used at least once in an attempted terrorist attack, which is more than high power rockets have ever been misused that way.
Iran/Contra was nothing of consequence and had zero effect on the average citizen. I'm far more concerned about the liberals who openly attack our Constitutional rights at every opportunity, even making it a part of their campaign platform.
Reply to
RayDunakin
Sorry folks, it's off topic.....
Ok David, not a rant, nor flames toward you. No matter what some people say, I like you anyway. ; )
Just my opinion here. It's a long list but here are just a few I have a problem with:
1. Endorsement of gay marriage. 2. Removing prayer from schools. 3. Replaced many traditional icons of American culture in the name of political correctness. 4. They have changed the laws to where the victim is placed on trial, rather than the criminal in many cases. 5. Oppose capital punishment even for confessed murders i.e. Manson, Dahmer, Bundy.
They are many more I have a problem with.
Many safeguards that would have helped to prevent 911, they have systematically opposed before and after. IMHO it's amazing how this country made it to the from 1776-1970 without their divine guidance. When you read their manifesto, there is almost nothing that is right with this country and they have the only solution. They do believe in God, they believe themselves to be him.
It will be interesting to see which group eventually takes control of the government, them or Homeland Security. Should be an interesting bout. I wouldn't place a bet on either, it's a dead heat. What one wants to take away, the other wants to give away.
Yes, I do give them credit for protecting some important liberties i.e. 1st amendment for one, but they seem to want to homogenize everything and some things, should be left the way they always have been.
Like I said, no flames or ill will intended, just my opinion. Sorry for the OT people.
Rockets, rockets, rockets!
Randy
Reply to
Randy
I agree completely. They wouldn't take me and gave me a medical 4-F, but some of my former classmates went. I never could understand why we played political games and fought with one hand tied behind our backs, or was it two, while American soldiers were dying. And worse, I agree they did give everything away in Paris. Unfortunately I see a similar situation developing in Iraq. No, the similarity is not because Iraq is becoming a "quagmire" as some say. The similarity is that the Iraq war started out OK but is fast becoming a "political" war - we are too concerned what others think to do what needs to be done. So we will end up throwing Iraq away too, and the 1000 or so American soldiers will have died for what? I'm not debating whether or not we should have fought either war. My point is that once we have become involved, just like Churchill said in WWII we ought to fight for the absolute, complete, utter defeat of those against whom we fight. If we're not going to do that, we show a total lack of respect for the men and women who risk their own lives in our armed forces. BTW, our son has just finished Basic with the Army Infantry at Ft. Benning, and I got a call from him at 2:15 AM this morning as he was in the Seattle airport waiting for a military flight so he can begin duty in Korea. You're a better man than I Bill because I don't think I'll ever forgive the politicians for what they did, and are about to do again. Larry Lobdell Jr.
Reply to
Larry Lobdell, Jr.
Actually they only do this for certain causes and certain forms of "speech", some of which are not speech at all.
They also oppose our Second Amendment rights.
Reply to
RayDunakin
That is a point where I disagree with the ACLU... they ought to stand up for the whole Bill of Rights, and not leave out one of the amendments like that.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
I wasn't really satisfied with Nixon's ending of the war. However, I think Nixon's legacy was the ending of the draft. Now learning how to kill people at the government's expense may not have been a bad thing for me. I could have enlisted, but that just did not make economic sense for career planning.
Alan, 1H
Reply to
Alan Jones

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.