January 20, 2006
is the first year of bush's second term over yet?
This republic will always cherish the memory of President Reagan for standing up to evil empires, putting America first and fighting for small government. None of his succesors are worthy enough to carry his boots.
Hear, hear. And very few of his predecessors, as well!
One of my favorite Reagan moments was shortly after he took office:
Carter got it into his head that there was a gasoline shortage. He put in a government allocation system run by bureaucrats. Immediately long lines formed because the bureaucrats could not do as good a job as the free market.
One of Reaganís first actions was to remove the government allocation system and let the free market do its thing. Ted Kennedy threw a fit and predicted a huge disaster for America.
Within one week, the gas lines disappeare
Funny red state remembers: Green lighting Saddamís invasion of Iran.
But not Reagan green lighting the sale of arms to both sides in that conflict...oh, that's right, not even Reagan remembered that.
Not Dawn Summers -
Yeah! And you know what else? At one time, the U.S. was allied with the very country it would go on to fight in the Cold War! That's right, it's a *fact*. The president at the time, he was this big shot Democrat known only as "FDR", sent the Soviets money, ships, guns, bullets and even tanks, which the "commies" used not only to fight the Germans (the excuse FDR gave) but also to massacre thousands of their own people. We provided them with intelligence and arms that they used to establish a totalitarian system over all of Eastern Europe.
Then, hypocritically, the U.S. government turned around and opposed the very state they provided all those arms to!
It was all explained away by some lame excuse of how nation's don't always get to pick their allies when faced with grave dangers, but I don't buy that.
And I'm sure a smartie like you doesn't buy that crap either.
ps> Have you ever read anything by this professsor named Chomsky? You would totally dig him, dude. He really calls out this sort of evil double-dealing the government has been doing for years. You should check it out!
At the time, both Iraq and Iran were dangers to other nations in the Middle East. Both had huge militaries. Both were ruled by madman.
It was a toss up to determine who was the greatest danger to world peace.
It was a brilliant strategy to help both of them to destroy each other's army. And it worked.
Uh...the picture is of Reagan's second inaugural. Just an FYI.
Funny how you are quite happy to blast the europeans for doing the same thing as you. giving arms to Iraq. Or trying to avoid a repeat of the 1st world war in the 1930s. Do you guys know what hypocrisy means or are you to busy indulging the la la land fantasy in which RONALD REAGAN is considered a good president?
Ummm... NewSisyphus, for your brilliant analogy to hold up, FDR would be allied with Stalin, while also selling arms to Germany.
And by brilliant, I mean idiotic.
Not Dawn Summers -
Yeah, that was my point. You caught me out. It had nothing at all to do with the fact that there are times when reasons of state compel a government to ally itself to unsavory characters who, given other circumstances, they would have nothing to do with.
If you're going to ascribe guilt by association, you should be prepared to do it across the board. In which case, FDR was a criminal.
If you aren't willing to ascribe guilt by association across the board, then you are admitting that the exact circumstances of the alliance, and not the mere fact of the alliance itself, is the context in which the action should be judged.
And, in this particular instance, the entire world was confronted by an enormously energetic revolutionary regime in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods on Earth. In order to curb its ambition, we provided some assistance to its natural enemy, Iraq. (Though not nearly as much as is suggested by critics).
Unfortunately, Iraq took this to mean a green light to lauch offensive operations, which seemed for a time to have a chance of winning. Since an Iraqi-ruled Iran would have been yet another cause for grave concern, the USG responded by lifting some sanctions on the regime, allowing it to re-supply its spare part stockpiles for its U.S. equipment, a legacy of the Shah's rule.
So, yes, "we supported both sides." But outside of the context, this is no more damning than noting without context that FDR supported militant international Soviet-style communism with arms, money and, indeed, public praise.
Nobody was crazy about them before hand, but I don't think people realize how much Iran was despised after they took over our embassy. Supporting their enemy, Iraq, during the Iraq-Iran war was the right thing to do. The way they were killing each other it seemed like both countries would be seriously weakened.
Iran was a terrorist state, with an illegitimate government, openly sponsoring attacks on the United States. Iraq was the only power in the Middle East capable of neutralizing Iran and Saddam Hussein, at the time, was not the guy who invaded Kuwait in 1990.
It's simple to sit here 25 years later and levy criticism at Reagan.
Iran was indeed a terrorist government. Don't forget that Khomeni only moved AFTER meeting with Carter's people in the South of France.
And Saddam was EXACTLY the same bastard in the Iran-Iraq war who invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Saddam was NOT the same character in 1980 that he was in 1990; this is not to say that he wasn't psychotic, or even evil; it is to say that he had not demonstrated himself as a serious threat to the West in 1980.
You've forgetting that Saddam used those chemical weapons in Halbja-- in 1988, when Reagan was still President. And when Saddam was still our ally.
Don't you people see your own hypocrisy?
Yes, he is, and he will even more so missed come next year.