I am actually 'scared' when the Reps (esp. Trump) will lose...

[Doc Savage Fan]

Or Reagan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair

Lol...no shit Sherlock! But not a problem when Obama does this it seems.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/20/kuhner-how-obama-arms-al-qaeda/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...llow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885

lol, nothing like links to a right wing op-ed from a guy that said this:

President Obama's re-election was more than a victory for liberalism. It represented America's collective suicide—a national push into a fiscal, cultural and moral abyss.

and and an article from a right wing tabloid that talks about Obama giving non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition!

I bet those will both give excellent insight and objective analysis to support your point, friend DSF.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol, nothing like links to a right wing op-ed from a guy that said this:



and and an article from a right wing tabloid that talks about Obama giving non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition!

I bet those will both give excellent insight and objective analysis to support your point, friend DSF.

...and Libya? Ooops!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/w...s-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?_r=0

 

[fskimospy]

...and Libya? Ooops!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/w...s-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?_r=0

That also doesn't help your position. Weapons that accidentally fall into the hands of terrorists is nothing like Iran-Contra, where Reagan deliberately armed terrorists. (giving weapons to terrorists was in fact the whole goal)

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Lol...no shit Sherlock! But not a problem when Obama does this it seems.

Its called perspective

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That also doesn't help your position. Weapons that accidentally fall into the hands of terrorists is nothing like Iran-Contra, where Reagan deliberately armed terrorists. (giving weapons to terrorists was in fact the whole goal)

Agree, at least one had a noble objective....while the other was just plain stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

Agree, at least one had a noble objective....while the other was just plain stupid.

I totally agree, I thought Reagan diverting money from those sales to arm the Contras in a campaign of rape, torture, and murder across Nicaragua was a particularly noble objective.

 

[zinfamous]

Agree, at least one had a noble objective....while the other was just plain stupid.

Ah! When even treason can be noble!

(disclaimer: "nobility" in this equation is firmly limited to situations in which a political rival of the "noble" candidate is pigeonholed into losing a major national election at the expense of the candidate's "beloved" home country, and a population of his countrymen held prisoner by avowed terrorists. Never let a good hostage situation get in the way of ambition. Uh, I mean nobility)

 

[glenn1]

I totally agree, I thought Reagan diverting money from those sales to arm the Contras in a campaign of rape, torture, and murder across Nicaragua was a particularly noble objective.

I'll stipulate that if you can likewise stipulate the plain fact the Sandanistas under Daniel Ortega committed atrocities equally terrible including attempted genocide of the Moskito tribes. And they replaced the Somoza regime which was wretched as well. This was a war akin to Iran-Iraq where both sides were both horrible and unworthy of U.S. backing.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll stipulate that if you can likewise stipulate the plain fact the Sandanistas under Daniel Ortega committed atrocities equally terrible including attempted genocide of the Moskito tribes. And they replaced the Somoza regime which was wretched as well. This was a war akin to Iran-Iraq where both sides were both horrible and unworthy of U.S. backing.

I agree that the Sandinistas were terrible people too!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I totally agree, I thought Reagan diverting money from those sales to arm the Contras in a campaign of rape, torture, and murder across Nicaragua was a particularly noble objective.

Attempting to secure the release of US hostages is indeed a noble cause...at least in my book.

 

[fskimospy]

Attempting to secure the release of US hostages is indeed a noble cause...at least in my book.

By engaging in activities that confirmed that taking hostages was a lucrative business that they should engage in more often. There's a reason why the US has a firm position on not negotiating in situations like that. Reagan's foreign policy in the Middle East was breathtakingly incompetent.

It's very illuminating that you leave out parts of the transaction too. Deliberately arming terrorists in order to free hostages? Maybe noble, if incredibly stupid. Deliberately arming terrorists to free hostages AND fund paramilitary rape and murder squads in Nicaragua? Maybe that's noble in your book, but it sure as shit isn't noble in mine.

 

[zinfamous]

Attempting to secure the release of US hostages is indeed a noble cause...at least in my book.

in violation of US policy, much less as a non-representative of the US with no legal rights to do so. Also forget that it is simply a fucking awful precedent that he set.

what a scummy McScummerson. Totally fitting for his worshippers, though. Of course, Reagen worshippers are the same people that think it's totally cool for some congress critters to invite a head of state to speak for them when that is the role of a president; simply to spite their president.

I mean, what is selling weapons to terrorists when not even a fucking president, to your supporters when they simply don't care about any kind of protocol or diplomatic precedence? Let alone treason.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

You should be worried of Hillary winning, instead of Bernie. It's basically a stone cold fact that a Democrat is taking the white house. The question is whether we get a true progressive, or a corporate lying shill that will say & do anything to get into power.

 

[kage69]

:biggrin: Always nice to see a shill come full circle.

In defending the disastrous, failing Bush admin over it's litany of stupid decisions and policies, the Bush faithful would respond to criticism of Bush as it being irrelevant because he wasn't up for re-election. "Guess I'm not voting for Bush!" was the snarky phrase as I recall. That was a normal response from their kind, literally for years.

And now look at the likes of DSF, butthurt over St. Reagan and his treasonous past, so his rebuttals are of course attempted gotchas involving Obama. In a thread based around the coming election, it might not be surprising but hey it's still funny.

I guess you guys can take comfort in that despite being laughed at, not a single person here is going to vote for Obama.

 

[ivwshane]

I totally agree, I thought Reagan diverting money from those sales to arm the Contras in a campaign of rape, torture, and murder across Nicaragua was a particularly noble objective.

I especially liked the CIA bringing crack to the inner cities! Quite noble indeed!