aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It was Reagan's decision. The resolution wasn't binding.
How could Ann Coulter miss an opportunity to bash liberals?
Media Matters - Days after claiming Reagan brought "historic pause" to Islamic terrorism against U.S., Coulter suggested Reagan's actions in Beirut helped bring about 9-11
She didn't. She was the one who first brought the fact that Democrats forced Reagan into retreating to my attention:
Treason. Pg. 137.
She also points out that Reagan responded by saying that House Speaker Tip O'Neil (D) "may be ready to surrender, but I am not." It was only after Democrats poured on the pressure that he was politically forced to retreat. Kind of like Bill Clinton and the welfare reforms he vetoed again and again, before being forced to sign, and then taking credit for.
And how hilariously weak that your only comeback for my point about Democrats always groveling and surrendering to America's enemies is that Reagan once (allegedly) acted like a Democrat.
:lol:
You've cited not one single example or reason why an incredibly unpopular president seen as fighting an outrageous war of aggression (Lincoln) cannot be compared to...an incredibly unpopular president seen (falsely) as fighting an outrageous war of aggression (Bush).
Try again.
Yes, liberals lied pathologically about everything involving the war. And Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, hence the reason no one accused him of causing it-another thing liberals continuously lie about.
Wrong again. We found terrorists there, even notorious terrorist fugitives like Abu Abbas, when we invaded. The 9/11 Commission Report also extensively links him to terrorists, as well as does his open terror-sponsoring. Another perfect example of something liberals lie through their teeth about at every turn.
You've made your first accurate statement since this exchange began. Unfortunately, after 15 years of failed diplomacy, in a post-9/11 world, any WMD were too much for Saddam to have.
And we were greeted as liberators, contrary to pathological liberal lying. So please, stop spreading misinformation. Also, we were authorized by UN Resolution 1441 to act.
Nearly everyone looks at it with partisan glasses, involuntarily and unknowingly, because they have been so systematically misled at every turn by the news media. You are so utterly misinformed that objectivity looks like bias to you.
We lost fewer troops in the first four years of “peace” under Bill Clinton than in five years of heavy fighting in Iraq.
And there were people just like you who peddled this same shortsighted isolationist drivel about uprooting Hitler. It is people like you who history will look down on, not those with the spine and the intelligence to act.
Democrats have tried to force us to betray our allies and lose this war at every turn (as always). No reasonable person could expect a little thing like victory to deter them from finding a way to surrender it to Islamic terrorists at this point. It's simply what liberals do.
It had nothing to do with Lebanon's govt. failing?
C'mon, Reagan's decision followed the resignation of Lebanese President Amin Gemayel's cabinet Feb. 5 and a military collapse that left Muslem militiamen in control of western and southern Beirut.
Of course it didn't. That civil war had been going on for almost a decade, and it had never been clear from one moment to the next who was going to take over. Democrats had been undermining any and every U.S. response to the attacks for months before that government fell.
Reagan and the leader of France had developed a plan to launch a crippling strike on Islamic Revolutionary Guard positions and were ready to proceed until Democrats started with their trademark terror-apologist menstrating about us daring to fight back.
Do you really see no difference between the Civil War and the Iraq war? If not, there's no hope because you are hopelessly partisan and won't see the forest for the trees.
There was no connection between why we went into Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 and why we went into Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. He wasn't connected, he wasn't hiding terrorists, he wasn't doing anything but running his mouth about crap. He didn't have WMD's, he didn't pose a threat to the US, there was no reason to go.
There were no terrorist camps there before we went it. There was no major terrorist activity or presence before we went there. The only thing you have to link to terrorism at all was that he offered money to the families of suicide bombers, but there was no training camps or other activity of the sort there before we went in. And the only reason he offered money was because he was a dick.
Too bad he didn't have any.
Propaganda and misdirect. Are we still liberators or occupiers? And the UN holds no sovereignty. Funny how people will use it in one instance and rally against it in another. Hypocrisy is all it is, blind partisan hypocrisy.
More misinformation.
Wait...your defense is that we lost fewer troops in 4 years under Clinton than we did in 5 years in Iraq? Who says I condone what Clinton did? He misused the military almost as grievously.
Though there are those like you whom are unwilling to accept responsibility for actions. We've been screwing around in an area for decades, you think it's ok and that negative feelings towards Americans is uncalled for.
And WTF did Hitler have anything to do with this. That's just appeal to emotion.
And nothing more than partisan hackery and drivel. Good job showing a complete lack of objectivity and rational response.
And you found someone to publish you.
Only in America.
Change the subject, hurl insults. The signature of defeat. :thumbdown
I know better than to try to have an honest debate with you. You wanted to pretend that congress forced him to withdraw troops. I pointed out the resolution was non-binding. Then you lowered your standards to say that he caved to political pressure.
I'm sure Casper Weinburger's opposition to that whole deal had nothing to do with it.
Next you are going to tell me that the dems forced Macfarlane to be involved in Iran-Contra. :rofl
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?