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.
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
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
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!
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.