It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So Many Conservatives On Social Media Worshiping Reagan Without Knowing He Armed Bin Laden?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: C21H30O2I




Reagan increased the budget for support of the radical Muslim Mujahidin conducting terrorism against the Afghanistan government to half a billion dollars a year.


Nice try.

Money comes from Congress, and that was Wilson's perview.

They didn't call it Charlie Wilsons WAR for nothing.

Hell even hollywood made if famous.




posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

you do not understand, whats the alternative? you aren't thinking strategically you are simply being critical to be critical.

5 people are trapped on the left side of a train track juncture, 1 person on the right, if you pull the lever one person will die if you do nothing five people will die, what do you do?

clearly these quagmires mean nothing to you, but at a certain level and perspective these situations become all to real and think tanks make the best choice and direction for the current threat, like it or not that's the #ing truth.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Just for snips and giggles.




posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Yep, saw it. Operation Cyclone. sorry i just tend to lump the whole political show ponies, into one basket.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Just like not knowing where the WMD's were. Or not knowing that planes would be flown into buildings.


Funny how These people for EIGHT YEARS said they were there.



The cluster EFF of the middle east is OWNED by the left.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

How should I know what the options even are, I don't get intelligence briefings or reports from the people who know. Neither do you so you don't know if it was the best move either. You're just assuming they did the best thing because you support Regan and his presidency.

But of course had it been made under a Democratic Pres. then I'm sure you'd have plenty of sh*t to say about it.

I don't care who it was on the other hand. All I'm saying is that when someone makes a mistake they should own up to it and collectively we should learn from it so we don't do it again.

When the people who's job it is "to know this stuff" say "Well, we didn't know the result." Well that's not an excuse, sorry. It's your job to know. So either get someone else to do the job or something.

All your assumptions of me are BS too by the way and I don't believe you are the beacon of truth so you need not bother acting like you are.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Heres a thought.

Read the Iraq war resolution in which congresss APPROVED action.

Wasn't just 'one' reason, but a plethora of them.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

you are having comprehension issues.. Btw i am right of center but in many ways identify with liberal social policies , don't bother responding you are not worth my time



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Don't forget Reagan had 8 years of a full Democrat majority in the House.

Only president to ever have that "honor".




posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: TaleDawn

I'm not saying he was a bad president either, but he also gave Arms to Iran--Iran Contra Deal. After we already knew Iran was our enemy--we gave, he gave Iran weapons. You see how badly Obama is getting hammered on the nuclear deal with Iran, funnily even though it was an international deal, not just us. Now Imagine for a moment if Obama would have actually made a deal to give Iran actual weapons! Can you imagine the horror and outrage, but because Reagan did it....

Ronald Raygun
sure did, while the waters of that affair became increasingly muddied, with the involvement of Israel, and more.
And of course, as far as Russia was concerned, a certain Leo Wanta probably had much more to play in any downfall of Communist Russia than Afghanistan...but then Wanta was only carrying out orders.
Makes you wonder at times, here we have a B movie actor, usually the good guy..aka somebody's friend in need, who ends up being a presidential gun runner, and money manipulator in reality, who pretty much set the stage for the next Epic..Epoch..whatever, that we have today.
Perhaps with the Donald Fart, we may get a revival of star wars..buggar, we have a revival of star wars in the movies,
Hollywood isn't dead then!



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: mOjOm

Heres a thought.

Read the Iraq war resolution in which congresss APPROVED action.

Wasn't just 'one' reason, but a plethora of them.

en.wikipedia.org...


That the Iraq war was a BI PARTISAN effort.

3 people that voted YEA.

2 became secretaries of state. Kerry, and Clinton.

1 became your vice president. Biden.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TaleDawn
a reply to: JHumm

Well from what i have seen Conservatives are on it to because the Conservatives wanted Assad gone to.


So does Hillary, Kerry, and Obama.

Seems the only ones that like Assad are Iran and Russia.




posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying though.

My point was allowing the Government or whoever is in charge, Dem or Rep I don't care, to get off the hook for the stuff they do when it backfires shouldn't be as easy as them saying, "Well, we didn't know that would happen."

That isn't a valid excuse. It's their job to know and if they don't know then they should get someone who does or come up with more options or something. Or if nothing else be held responsible.

Why do we continue to allow the arming and training of these middle east terrorists when they keep becoming our problem later on??? We keep arming rouge groups of people to take down governments, some of which we put in power to start with, then eventually we end up fighting them too.

Then when the Government gets called on it they look at us and say, "Oops. Who could have known that would happen??" and we just accept that?? It's BS.

What other kind of important position or job do we allow that to happen over and over again??? None because it's not a good idea to reward failure.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: TaleDawn
a reply to: JHumm

Well from what i have seen Conservatives are on it to because the Conservatives wanted Assad gone to.


So does Hillary, Kerry, and Obama.

Seems the only ones that like Assad are Iran and Russia.



Correct me if I am wrong here.

But ain't them the same people that have been arming those 'freedom' fighters in Syria?



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TaleDawn

You need to check on your sources more often. President Reagan never had a meeting Taliban fighters in the Oval Office. This was an event that took place in 1983; before the Taliban or Al-Qaeda existed, the men pictured are Afghan rebels.

Also, I don't think the U.S armed Osama himself, but they did arm the mujahideen fighters who were at war with the Soviet Union.
Snopes Article



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: TaleDawn
They defeated the Soviet Union and so Regan had dealt with what was the enemy of the time. As to what became of it later...well it's called blowback.


This. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's geo-politics. That Reagan indulged in it shouldn't be surprising and is no reason that these conservatives should not still like him. This is not a revelation in any sense of the word. Besides, Reagan won. The USSR is no more. (Now we've got worse, but what the hey! Like TaleDawn said: Blowback.) There was Iran-Contra, too. Just another example.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

Dude, stop telling what to do as if that is going to matter. If you don't want me to talk to you then don't talk to me, it's that simple. Just ignore me. But as long as you say something to me I'll probably say something back. Don't give me orders or demands though because I'm not going to do what you tell me like you have some power to dictate my actions. It's f*cking arrogant and rude not to mention stupid because you have no control over anyone else.

Saying you're right of center doesn't mean anything. That tells me very little. What I do know is you blame just about everything on the Left or Leftists so to say you're liberal I find hard to understand. Using generalized labels like left of center isn't going to help because if you are both liberal and conservative on certain issues that still isn't going to tell me which ones you side with.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: TaleDawn
a reply to: JHumm

Well from what i have seen Conservatives are on it to because the Conservatives wanted Assad gone to.


So does Hillary, Kerry, and Obama.

Seems the only ones that like Assad are Iran and Russia.



Correct me if I am wrong here.

But ain't them the same people that have been arming those 'freedom' fighters in Syria?


Yup.

The same ones.




posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: TaleDawn
a reply to: JHumm

Well from what i have seen Conservatives are on it to because the Conservatives wanted Assad gone to.


So does Hillary, Kerry, and Obama.

Seems the only ones that like Assad are Iran and Russia.



Correct me if I am wrong here.

But ain't them the same people that have been arming those 'freedom' fighters in Syria?


Yup.

The same ones.



From the same party as Charlie Wilson.

Don't know whether to laugh or stock my bunker.
edit on 14-3-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TaleDawn

This is disingenuous. Operation Cyclone (the code name for the mechanism to fund and train mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan against the USSR) was started under the presidency of Jimmy Carter on the advice of his National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski. It was part of the Carter Doctrine, intended to cripple the USSR's influence and expansion in the Persian Gulf States. The relationship began to sour when the US held close ties to the House of Saud, which fundamentalist Islamic factions want gone, desiring to replace the Royal family's rule with a purely religious ruling panel and then got very bad when the US (and rest of the civilized world) sided against the Mujahideen in the Yugoslavian wars.

In hindsight, if Carter had simply minded his own business, told Brzezinski to STFU, and allowed the USSR to take Afghanistan, we'd probably still have two beautiful towers in NYC right now. In fact, the entire Middle East would probably be a lot calmer, as the balkanization process coming after the USSR inevitably dissolved would have eliminated most problem children in the region, with those surviving the war of attrition being easy pickings for whoever wanted to finish the job.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join