|
President Ronlad Reagan is dead (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| disko-kandi |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
Alright but what does that have to do with this thread??? :) |
why don't you stop being so complacent & lazy and actually READ the article rather than have other ppl give you summaries and their opinions on it! |
|
|
| Miss Julia |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
I know...but it was my nice way of saying that we should be civil to a TA rather than behave like a wanker.
Cheers :D |
hahha :D |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by disko-kandi
why don't you stop being so complacent & lazy and actually READ the article rather than have other ppl give you summaries and their opinions on it! |
Well I did...and it talks about the bush administration...daddy bush i'm guessing... |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
Well I did...and it talks about the bush administration...daddy bush i'm guessing... |
you did? perhaps you should read past the title! there is a scrolling function ... ;)
ok, you want me to spell it out for you? here you go:
So what did the Reagan Administration do? Reagan vetoed this Act, of course. Conventional Wisdom says that he did this because in those days Iran was the Bad Guy, and anyone who was an enemy of Iran was on Our Side.
The Reagan administration, which had been providing Iraq with $700 million a year in credit guarantees, saw Hussein's Iraq both as a potential security partner in the volatile Persian Gulf and as a promising market for American products and investment.
Secretary of State George Shultz denounced Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but others in the administration seemed more concerned about the Iraqi reaction should the sanctions become law. (Senate passage of the Pell legislation produced the biggest anti-American demonstration in Baghdad in 20 years.) Working with the Republican House leadership and some House Democrats, the administration was able to water down and ultimately defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act.
While past error is no indication of future action, the Kurds have not forgotten that Secretary of State Colin Powell was then the national security adviser who orchestrated Ronald Reagan's decision to give Hussein a pass for gassing the Kurds. Dick Cheney, then a prominent Republican congressman and now vice president and the Bush administration's leading Iraq hawk, could have helped push the sanctions legislation but did not. [Peter W. Galbraith, "The Wild Card in a Post-Saddam Iraq," The Boston Globe Magazine, December 15, 2002]
Pelletier wants to assume that, because American intelligence circulated information that Iran, not Iraq, had gassed the Kurds, then Iran gassed the Kurds. I think it makes more sense to assume American intelligence was directed by the Reagan White House to spread disinformation that Iran, not Iraq, gassed the Kurds. (I'm saying "Reagan White House" instead of "Reagan" because I suspect that by 1988 Reagan's dementia had progressed to the point he was mostly just taking up space.) |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by disko-kandi
you did? perhaps you should read past the title! there is a scrolling function ... ;)
ok, you want me to spell it out for you? here you go:
So what did the Reagan Administration do? Reagan vetoed this Act, of course. Conventional Wisdom says that he did this because in those days Iran was the Bad Guy, and anyone who was an enemy of Iran was on Our Side.
The Reagan administration, which had been providing Iraq with $700 million a year in credit guarantees, saw Hussein's Iraq both as a potential security partner in the volatile Persian Gulf and as a promising market for American products and investment.
Secretary of State George Shultz denounced Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but others in the administration seemed more concerned about the Iraqi reaction should the sanctions become law. (Senate passage of the Pell legislation produced the biggest anti-American demonstration in Baghdad in 20 years.) Working with the Republican House leadership and some House Democrats, the administration was able to water down and ultimately defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act.
While past error is no indication of future action, the Kurds have not forgotten that Secretary of State Colin Powell was then the national security adviser who orchestrated Ronald Reagan's decision to give Hussein a pass for gassing the Kurds. Dick Cheney, then a prominent Republican congressman and now vice president and the Bush administration's leading Iraq hawk, could have helped push the sanctions legislation but did not. [Peter W. Galbraith, "The Wild Card in a Post-Saddam Iraq," The Boston Globe Magazine, December 15, 2002]
Pelletier wants to assume that, because American intelligence circulated information that Iran, not Iraq, had gassed the Kurds, then Iran gassed the Kurds. I think it makes more sense to assume American intelligence was directed by the Reagan White House to spread disinformation that Iran, not Iraq, gassed the Kurds. (I'm saying "Reagan White House" instead of "Reagan" because I suspect that by 1988 Reagan's dementia had progressed to the point he was mostly just taking up space.) |
Okay well that's a whole different story, the previous thing only talked about Bushy...:thepirate |
|
|
| Busy Child |
| quote: | Originally posted by disko-kandi
you did? perhaps you should read past the title! there is a scrolling function ... ;)
ok, you want me to spell it out for you? here you go:
So what did the Reagan Administration do? Reagan vetoed this Act, of course. Conventional Wisdom says that he did this because in those days Iran was the Bad Guy, and anyone who was an enemy of Iran was on Our Side.
The Reagan administration, which had been providing Iraq with $700 million a year in credit guarantees, saw Hussein's Iraq both as a potential security partner in the volatile Persian Gulf and as a promising market for American products and investment.
Secretary of State George Shultz denounced Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but others in the administration seemed more concerned about the Iraqi reaction should the sanctions become law. (Senate passage of the Pell legislation produced the biggest anti-American demonstration in Baghdad in 20 years.) Working with the Republican House leadership and some House Democrats, the administration was able to water down and ultimately defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act.
While past error is no indication of future action, the Kurds have not forgotten that Secretary of State Colin Powell was then the national security adviser who orchestrated Ronald Reagan's decision to give Hussein a pass for gassing the Kurds. Dick Cheney, then a prominent Republican congressman and now vice president and the Bush administration's leading Iraq hawk, could have helped push the sanctions legislation but did not. [Peter W. Galbraith, "The Wild Card in a Post-Saddam Iraq," The Boston Globe Magazine, December 15, 2002]
Pelletier wants to assume that, because American intelligence circulated information that Iran, not Iraq, had gassed the Kurds, then Iran gassed the Kurds. I think it makes more sense to assume American intelligence was directed by the Reagan White House to spread disinformation that Iran, not Iraq, gassed the Kurds. (I'm saying "Reagan White House" instead of "Reagan" because I suspect that by 1988 Reagan's dementia had progressed to the point he was mostly just taking up space.) |
and so this comes directly from www.democraticunderground.org, a site that discredits republicans. HAHA, what do you think they are gonna say about reagan, bush sr. and GW? Almost like trying to get unbiased politcal information from CNN. |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Busy Child
and so this comes directly from www.democraticunderground.org, a site that discredits republicans. HAHA, what do you think they are gonna say about reagan, bush sr. and GW? Almost like trying to get unbiased politcal information from CNN. |
it's always easy to make snide remarks and shoot someone down, - but without any underlying, concrete facts that would prove the contrary ... all right then, why don't you show me the alternative & disprove what this article states! |
|
|
| richard raiban |
 |
|
|
| Busy Child |
| quote: | Originally posted by disko-kandi
it's always easy to make snide remarks and shoot someone down, - but without any underlying, concrete facts that would prove the contrary ... all right then, why don't you show me the alternative & disprove what this article states! |
And its always easy to copy and paste something off the intarweb. Whats the point? this is a RIP Ronald Reagan thread. |
|
|
| disko-kandi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Busy Child
And its always easy to copy and paste something off the intarweb. Whats the point? this is a RIP Ronald Reagan thread. |
hahahahaa!! this is your best come back?! .........i gave you the chance to discredit what i said, or at least show me an alternate argument. ...
sad, how it's so 'easy' to just go with the flow & follow the crowd. ... :o
Poor Ronald. ...all right RIP, but whatever. |
|
|
| Busy Child |
| if you seriously thought i was trying to make a comeback you are mistaken becase you quoted an article from democraticunderground.com. That site is a joke, everyone knows that, my democratic friends know that. If that is where you get your information, good for you. There are better sources out there, on the web even. |
|
|
| Nosmo |
| There were so many things about RR with which I disagreed, during his presidency and in retrospect, such as his supply-side “reaganomics” and the nefarious aspects of his foreign policy. However, I can’t help but compare him to our current president and long for what RR did. Although his actual policies can (rightly) be debated, RR’s intentions always seemed to be what was best for America. The current republican in the white house has demonstrated no such conviction, seemingly caring only about his own personal, partisan, agenda; Dubya’s only goal is to be re-elected and his only constituents are big business and Christian fundamentalists. RIP, RR, indeed. If there has to be a conservative in the white house, how I long for a return to his brand of it. W = the suck. |
|
|
|
|
