billvon 2,435 #101 July 16, 2008 >He did great good for the country and the world while in office. He did indeed do a lot of good things, but also a lot of bad things. His support for Islamic terrorism, for example, was a pretty bad idea in retrospect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #102 July 16, 2008 Actually, in retrospect it was not his policy of support for the Afghan resistance (I'm not a Soviet supporter; that's how I refer to it), rather his policy of allowing the Saudis to direct that support. Read Coll's book - superb work there. I'm not just stating that to make a point - it is a VERY well researched and insightful read. I'd actually like to get a copy and reread it. Need to find the local library anyway... Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #103 July 17, 2008 >rather his policy of allowing the Saudis to direct that support. I'd say it was more the US's direct intervention. The CIA bought tens of thousands of tons of arms and ammunition a year (mainly from China) and funnelled it in through Pakistan, creating an army of very well supplied Islamic terrorists. The Saudis were involved as well, but were a small part of the overall support of the Mujahideen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #104 July 17, 2008 Read the book and get some details, amigo...allowing the Saudis - and the Pakistani ISI - to direct the aid was where we screwed up. I just ordered a used one off of Amazon. When I get it, I'll let you borrow it. It really is a great read. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #105 July 17, 2008 >allowing the Saudis - and the Pakistani ISI - to direct the aid was where we >screwed up. I'd say even if we had had the Kuwaitis do it, giving billions to islamic terrorists in arms, training, Stinger missiles and IED components would still have been a bad idea in the long run. Let's put it this way. Let's say we wanted to arm the Iraqi insurgents so they would fight Iran for us. Would the sticky part there be who we funnelled the aid through? Or would there be a more fundamental problem with that plan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #106 July 17, 2008 Quote Read the book and get some details, amigo...allowing the Saudis - and the Pakistani ISI - to direct the aid was where we screwed up. I just ordered a used one off of Amazon. When I get it, I'll let you borrow it. It really is a great read. One year ago, I was working with a man from Pakistan. He said that after the USSR left Afghanistan, the army started being unpaid and that led to the lawless activities. The man also spoke of the problem that you mention with the Saudis running the refugee camps. The Taliban was formed by people who were vigilantes attacking the corrupt Afghan army after an incident of rape and murder. It is documented everywhere. The Afghans were free of the Soviets, the future was theirs to choose. I don't know why people expect that the US guarantee that their lives and political systems will be perfect for ever and ever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #107 July 17, 2008 Quote Reagan is hands down my favorite president of my short lifetime. What a fantastic American. It's hard to believe it's ben 20 years since he left office. Just think of the one-liners he would have produced about El Jefe Clintonista and friends! It's such a pity that he nearly tripled the national debt and increased federal spending by 21%, both significantly more than the increase in GDP during his terms. Then there's his inability to "recall" the Iran-Contra scandal. But he WAS very good at convincing the weak minded that he was a great predident.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #108 July 17, 2008 Increase spending? Yes, that he did. At the time it was the right thing to do in some areas, though in retrospect I wish he hadn't been so prolific. Being a President is more than having your OMB produce a budget to submit to Congress (remember who controls the $$ after all, Sir John). It's about leading - and Reagan did that EXCEPTIONALLY well in many regards. Don't worry, Sir John. At some point, the f-tards in the NEA will dumb down another generation and those of us who remember the era will be drowned out. You'll be able to malign the great man and have people actually believe you wholeheartedly. Of course, they won't be able to add, subtract, and might be barely literate, but the Democrats DO need to increase their voting base, right? Morons dependent upon the state vice themselves are always a voting base upon which the left can depend. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 49 #109 October 22, 2008 I guess while anything can still happen to derail Sen Obama's campaign, the answer right now is a resounding "No", especially after Gen. Powell's public endorsement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #110 October 22, 2008 QuoteI guess while anything can still happen to derail Sen Obama's campaign, the answer right now is a resounding "No", especially after Gen. Powell's public endorsement. I said well over a year ago that Hillary never had a chance. At that same time I said I had serious doubts that Obama could be elected because I was counting on the Republicans not making any fundamental mistakes. They had been playing a straight ahead campaign. As to the color issue, I would have thought the percentage of people that would vote for Obama simply because of his skin color was overwhelmed by the people that wouldn't and would tip the scales in favor of McCain. However, they made a HUGE mistake with Palin. Up to that point it was a toss up and Palin tips the scale. As far as I can see the choice of Palin lost McCain the Oval. This is all supported by the polling data. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm#track Look at the August numbers, then look at the current ones.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 49 #111 October 22, 2008 QuoteUp to that point it was a toss up and Palin tips the scale. Agreed. I must confess that I was one of those seduced by Gov Palin's charm, and I still think she is an impressive woman. I also do not believe she is a dumb Caribou Barbie like she has been called on here, but a Vice President she is not yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #112 October 22, 2008 QuoteThis is all supported by the polling data. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm#track Look at the August numbers, then look at the current ones. "Dewey Defeats Truman" It's not over until Nov 5th.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #113 October 22, 2008 Quote As far as I can see the choice of Palin lost McCain the Oval. This is all supported by the polling data. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm#track Look at the August numbers, then look at the current ones. This is also when the economy went tits up and 100 year financial giants started tumbling. Though Palin really didn't help, I think the GOP side had an uphill battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #114 October 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteThis is all supported by the polling data. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm#track Look at the August numbers, then look at the current ones. "Dewey Defeats Truman" It's not over until Nov 5th. Yes, but the problems in 1948 were easily seen in hindsight. The polling methodology was clearly flawed and biased. But this time around, it only works out for McCain if lots of people said they were voting Obama because they didn't want to admit to the pollster that they didn't want a black man elected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #115 October 22, 2008 Quote Why would anyone with any intelligence vote for a conservative after the experience of the past 7 years? Because we haven't had a conservative in the white house for the last seven years. Even Clinton was more of a small-government fiscal conservative tan Bush 43. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #116 October 22, 2008 QuoteQuote Why would anyone with any intelligence vote for a conservative after the experience of the past 7 years? Because we haven't had a conservative in the white house for the last seven years. Even Clinton was more of a small-government fiscal conservative tan Bush 43. "I am a conservative because I believe in the power of each individual. My philosophy trusts individuals to make the right decisions for their families and communities [instead of] from distant bureaucracies. I am a conservative because I believe government should be limited and efficient. I am a conservative because I believe in a strong national defense [and] I support free markets and free trade. I am a conservative because I believe government closest to the people governs best." Source: “A Charge to Keep”, George W. Bush p.235 Are you suggesting G.W. Bush was LYING?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
