Context? You said Reagan didn’t refuse. Either you typed that in error, or you’re confused by your own B.S. Reagan DID refuse. It took you a couple of posts to come around to admitting that. You typed about how the Cold War needed fightin and Reagan needed Congress for that more. (Which is a B.S. excuse) But Reagan DID refuse. He too made the call to not engage. Maybe someone talked some sense into you. Any objective person can see this thread and notice the spin. I officially don’t care any more. It’s LOL silly.

Any objective person would see that you deliberately take things out of context to try to get me to answer your own twisted version of the subject at hand. Any objective person would see that you simply don’t like Reagan and will use any excuse to bash him.

For the record, here’s my response again: The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

And your response doesn’t mention Ronald Reagan who for whatever reason you want to give, chose not to attack the Beirut terrorists with military force. You’d rather bash liberals than admit that Reagan did anything wrong like emboldening jihadists. I’m going to bed with a smile on my face. The Reagan Messiah complex shows its head again. Amazing. For the record, any democrat that chose to not respond by trying to hunt down and kill those terrorists who killed our soldiers WAS WRONG. See, how easy that is? It’s called holding people accountable. Try it sometime. Oh yeah, you can’t

I hold people accountable all the time. The difference between us is that I hold people accountable for things they actually do while you blame people for not doing whatever it is that you think they should have done at the time.
The reason I don’t hold Reagan accountable for emboldening jihadists is because he didn’t embolden jihadists. Don’t let the facts get in your way of yet another anti-Reagan diatribe though.

See?

Undresiege:
Did Reagan’s inaction embolden Islamic Jihadists to further attack Americans and our Allies.

JHSII(Gee, I can’t admit Reagan made a mistake, Hmmmmmmm? I know, I’ll deflect):

Your snide comment after my name isn’t what I posted. It’s not what I did. Why don’t you respond to what I actually did post?

The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

Ahhh…there you posted my response. As expected, you couldn’t refute it. It’s notable that you didn’t even try.

LOL. Sweet dreams. May God Reagan bless you and yours this Easter weekend.

I see you’re still into the Reagan / Messiah thing that discredited you a while back. You could do better – but you won’t.

For the record, here’s my response again: The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

And your response doesn’t mention Ronald Reagan who for whatever reason you want to give, chose not to attack the Beirut terrorists with military force. You’d rather bash liberals than admit that Reagan did anything wrong like emboldening jihadists. I’m going to bed with a smile on my face. The Reagan Messiah complex shows its head again. Amazing. For the record, any democrat that chose to not respond by trying to hunt down and kill those terrorists who killed our soldiers WAS WRONG. See, how easy that is? It’s called holding people accountable. Try it sometime. Oh yeah, you can’t

See?

Undresiege:
Did Reagan’s inaction embolden Islamic Jihadists to further attack Americans and our Allies.

JHSII(Gee, I can’t admit Reagan made a mistake, Hmmmmmmm? I know, I’ll deflect):

The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

LOL. Sweet dreams. May God Reagan bless you and yours this Easter weekend.

Now that we’ve established you don’t know what you are talking about.

I hate to use one of the standard boring conservative calling cards on this blog but that the following demonstrates your PROJECTION on the subject of “knowing what you’re talking about”.

Conservatives use the term “projection” with people like you because it accurately describes what you do on a routine basis. If it has become boring then perhaps your side should stop doing it.
In this case however, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that I do know what I’m talking about. The fact that you choose not to see things in the larger context in no way reflects back on me.
I also note that you cut the rest of the statement so that you could remove the context there as well.

As far as a lack of response, it was the democrat-controlled congress that demanded that Reagan didn’t respond. In the much larger context of the Cold War President Reagan decided to use his resources in another area so that he could get the support of congress there. In hindsight Reagan saw later that he could have responded more forcefully.
If you don’t know the difference between responding according to what you know now as opposed to thinking what you could have done with information from many years later then you have bigger issues than just your animosity to President Ronald Reagan.

The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

It’s laughable that you’re not man enough to admit that your initial post was either an error, or you simply changed your mind. First you’re saying Reagan never refused.(I guess you realized what little sense that made).

It’s interesting that you again choose to change the context of something so you can criticize me. It’s a pattern I see often from your side.

Then you post #185 and followup with:

There can never be more than one reason for doing or not doing something. I’m impressed by that logic. /sarc

Huh?

Yes, deliberately taking something I posted out of context can bring about the “Huh?” reaction.

BTW, I didn’t followup post #185 with that comment. That comment – which you deliberately took out of context – was a followup to your post #188. You could at least try to get it right.

The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

If you dispute that, you do look upon Reagan as a Messiah, and lack any credibility.

I guess you answered the question.

Yes I did answer the question – of course you snipped my answer because you couldn’t honestly respond to it.

You’d rather bash liberals in a general sense than admit something has simple as:

The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists.

Whatever. You are what your are. Have a safe holiday weekend.

More proof that you read what you want to read rather than what is actually posted. No surprise here – liberals do that all the time.

For the record, here’s my response again: The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

Now that we’ve established you don’t know what you are talking about.

I hate to use one of the standard boring conservative calling cards on this blog but that the following demonstrates your PROJECTION on the subject of “knowing what you’re talking about”.

As far as a lack of response, it was the democrat-controlled congress that demanded that Reagan didn’t respond.
The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

It’s laughable that you’re not man enough to admit that your initial post was either an error, or you simply changed your mind. First you’re saying Reagan never refused.(I guess you realized what little sense that made).

Then you post #185 and followup with:

There can never be more than one reason for doing or not doing something. I’m impressed by that logic. /sarc

Huh?

The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t

The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

If you dispute that, you do look upon Reagan as a Messiah, and lack any credibility.

I guess you answered the question. You’d rather bash liberals in a general sense than admit something has simple as:

The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists.

Whatever. You are what your are. Have a safe holiday weekend.

You can keep bringing up the Cold War, but that didn’t in any way inhibit Reagan’s ability to use military force to avenge the Beirut attacks. Saying Cold War over and over does not make a point. If anything Reagan’s actions made us look weaker in the Cold War.

I keep bringing up the Cold War because it’s the larger context of what President Reagan was doing. Any Commander has to choose which battles to fight and where to deploy his resources. He also has to deal with the political situation of a congress that was diametrically opposed to nearly everything he was trying to do.
Reagan was choosing to fight the Cold War first, and win it before our attention would be turned to Islam’s war against the West. That didn’t make President Reagan look weak at all.

The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

Are you really gonna dispute that with a straight face?

I see you couldn’t dispute what I actually posted:

“The jihadists have been emboldened because people like you have never wanted any action taken against them of any kind. Well, aside from the UN’s standard-issue Strongly Worded Letter.”

Let me make this simple for you. Please answer these questions since we’re talking about credibility.

In YOUR MIND did Congress prevent Reagan from avenging the Beirut attack?

Your words:

As far as a lack of response, it was the democrat-controlled congress that demanded that Reagan didn’t respond.

The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

or

Did Reagan follow the example of men like Churchill, and personally choose to not avenge the Beirut attacks so that it wouldn’t hurt his efforts in the Cold War.

Simple question. I have read what you typed, and I see you’re offering multiple excuses.

Wow. There can never be more than one reason for doing or not doing something. I’m impressed by that logic. /sarc
Note that I used the word “reason” rather than your disingenuous term “excuse”.)
It would also be nice if you responded to what I posted in context. I think I can see your problem though – to respond to what I post in context you would have to start thinking for yourself rather than reading from the liberal handbook.

The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

If you dispute that, you do look upon Reagan as a Messiah, and lack any credibility.

The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists. As for how I view President Ronald Reagan – you can’t even see the larger context of fighting the Cold War, so you have utterly no credibility with how I view the former President.

Now that we’ve established you don’t know what you are talking about, why don’t you go back to the kos, huffpo, or du and spread your tales of how you smacked me down so that you can get a few pats on the back.

The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

Are you really gonna dispute that with a straight face?

Let me make this simple for you. Please answer these questions since we’re talking about credibility.

In YOUR MIND did Congress prevent Reagan from avenging the Beirut attack?

Your words:

As far as a lack of response, it was the democrat-controlled congress that demanded that Reagan didn’t respond.

The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

or

Did Reagan follow the example of men like Churchill, and personally choose to not avenge the Beirut attacks so that it wouldn’t hurt his efforts in the Cold War.

Simple question. I have read what you typed, and I see you’re offering multiple excuses.

The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

If you dispute that, you do look upon Reagan as a Messiah, and lack any credibility.

In less than 24 hours your desire to defend Ronald “Messiah” Reagan has caused you to look rather desperate. First, you were saying Congress prevented Reagan from going after the terrorists responsible for the attack in Beirut.

I’m not the one looking desperate. I will note particularly your attempt to denigrate President Reagan by calling him “Ronald “Messiah” Reagan“. Whatever credibility you might have had took a major hit with that comment.
It might also help if you actually read what I posted.

Now re-read post 185 where you actually give reasons for Reagan’s lack of response and give an example of Churchill during WW2. BTW, the example has nothing to do with a failure to seek out those responsible for the Beirut bombings and bring them to justice. You’re comparing apples and lettuce. You can’t figure out what excuse you want to make, so you make and all excuses.

It was a mistake not to boldly respond and seek justice through military force.
The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists, period, end of discussion.

I just love your ability to ignore the larger picture. I guess the Cold War never occurred in your world.
For the record, I was comparing apples to apples – but if you ignore the larger context just so that you can get in a few cheap shots then I can see why you would see it that way.

The jihadists have been emboldened because people like you have never wanted any action taken against them of any kind. Well, aside from the UN’s standard-issue Strongly Worded Letter.

As far as a lack of response, it was the democrat-controlled congress that demanded that Reagan didn’t respond. Reagan actually did respond, but the response was toned down because he still needed the democrat congress to at least not torpedo his efforts at defeating the Soviet Union.

Sorry undresiege, but Reagan never refused to use force to go after the terrorists who blew up the Marine barracks in Beruit. The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

Now re-read post 185 where you actually give reasons for Reagan’s lack of response and give an example of Churchill during WW2. BTW, the example has nothing to do with a failure to seek out those responsible for the Beirut bombings and bring them to justice. You’re comparing apples and lettuce. You can’t figure out what excuse you want to make, so you make and all excuses.

It was a mistake not to boldly respond and seek justice through military force.
The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists, period, end of discussion.

I served under Reagan so I have a much better understanding of what Reagan would and wouldn’t do.

So, and apparently not.

Apparently yes. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Sorry undresiege, but Reagan never refused to use force to go after the terrorists who blew up the Marine barracks in Beruit. The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

He didn’t NEED congress. I can’t believe you fail to understand that.

Yes, and Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were launched on schedule and landed on the moon also. Just because you don’t have any idea of how things worked – and even less of an idea on how Reagan was fighting a much larger war doesn’t mean that I share your lack of understanding.

Regarding this issue: Reagan would have directly challenged North Korea and shot down their missile.

Based on the garbage you’re spewing he wouldn’t unless the Democratically controlled Congress authorized it. Guess what dude, they wouldn’t. As much as you want it, you can’t have it both ways.

No garbage from me, and I’m not the one now trying to have it both ways. Your complete lack of understanding of the larger context at the time in apparent.

With your twisted logic, you’re trying to opine that Reagan would risk war with NK by shooting down their “test missile” though nothing was hit and nobody died, with or without congressional approval. However, he wouldn’t avenge the deaths of 241 Americans because congress wouldn’t grant approvel. Get real. You’re in LaLa land. You can’t have it both ways, though you’d like to in “protecting” your hero.

That’s not what I said. Why don’t you make an effort to actually read what I posted and then respond to that?

Judging by your posts you seem to believe that history is a series of small unconnected incidents that have no place within a larger context. Thus because President Reagan didn’t personally grab a gun and go off avenging the deaths himself he was a coward rather than someone who was fighting a much larger war. Talk about someone who needs to get real and not reside in lala land!

If you want something really weak, then you should continue your postings about how incompetent and ineffective President Reagan was.

He

was on this issue. WHY IS IT REAGAN CAN ADMIT HE MADE A MISTAKE, BUT YOU CAN’T SEEM TO ADMIT HE MADE A MISTAKE? DO YOU KNOW REAGAN BETTER THAN HE KNEW HIMSELF? DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HIMSELF THAT RONALD FREAKEN REAGAN WASN’T PRIVY TOO?

Why is it that you can’t see the larger context of the Cold War? I’m reminded of Winston Churchill, who knew that German bombers were going to attack a certain English city on a certain date, at a certain time – and he allowed the attack to take place without doing anything to stop it because he knew if he alerted the population of anything else then the Germans would know the British had broken their military codes (Ultra).

Heck, if it hadn’t been for Jimmy Carter, there would have been no terrorist organization to bomb the barracks in the first place!!

His record did speak for itself

We can agree on that.

We just disagree on what that record was.

I served under Reagan so I have a much better understanding of what Reagan would and wouldn’t do.

So, and apparently not.

Sorry undresiege, but Reagan never refused to use force to go after the terrorists who blew up the Marine barracks in Beruit. The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

He didn’t NEED congress. I can’t believe you fail to understand that.

Regarding this issue: Reagan would have directly challenged North Korea and shot down their missile.

Based on the garbage you’re spewing he wouldn’t unless the Democratically controlled Congress authorized it. Guess what dude, they wouldn’t. As much as you want it, you can’t have it both ways.

With your twisted logic, you’re trying to opine that Reagan would risk war with NK by shooting down their “test missile” though nothing was hit and nobody died, with or without congressional approval. However, he wouldn’t avenge the deaths of 241 Americans because congress wouldn’t grant approvel. Get real. You’re in LaLa land. You can’t have it both ways, though you’d like to in “protecting” your hero.

If you want something really weak, then you should continue your postings about how incompetent and ineffective President Reagan was.

He was on this issue. WHY IS IT REAGAN CAN ADMIT HE MADE A MISTAKE, BUT YOU CAN’T SEEM TO ADMIT HE MADE A MISTAKE? DO YOU KNOW REAGAN BETTER THAN HE KNEW HIMSELF? DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HIMSELF THAT RONALD FREAKEN REAGAN WASN’T PRIVY TOO?

His record did speak for itself

We can agree on that.

I served under Reagan so I have a much better understanding of what Reagan would and wouldn’t do. You can’t even get right what Reagan did in response to the terrorist attack in Germany from Libya.

If you want something really weak, then you should continue your postings about how incompetent and ineffective President Reagan was.

Regarding this issue: Reagan would have directly challenged North Korea and shot down their missile. North Korea is NOT the Soviet Union and Reagan would not have treated them as such. His record did speak for itself – it’s too bad that you try to spin his real record into a bunch of liberal revisionist nonsense.

I’m trying to figure out where undresiege makes the connection between the number 241, Reagan, and North Korea.

Past behavior gives clues of future or hypothetical behavior. You and Kaos are trying to opine that the man who refused to use force to go after the terrorists that killed 241 of our marines would use a show of force against NK for launching a test missle. No way Jose.

Gaddafi was an apple to the NK orange because he was one man who orchestrated terrorist acts that killed Americans and took credit for it. So we bombed his house.

It’s really weak to blame Congress when Reagan was the Commander in Chief. Do you in turn want to credit Congress with the raids on Gaddafi? I doubt you would. President Reagan as the leader of the free world, should have authorized force, and wage war if necessary after those Islamic terrorists. If the weaklings in Congress wouldn’t back him up, eff em.

If he was man enough later in life to admit to his errors and failings, his supporters should be man/woman enough to do the same.

Again:

REGARDING THIS ISSUE, A President Reagan would call Kim evil, make a mean face, spend more on our military, and then do nothing to stop Kim from getting more nukes. Of course once Kim got more nukes, Reagan’s strategy would be to engage in a (blank) size contest for years in the hopes of bankrupting North Korea. There’s no way in hell Reagan would move militarily against NK. His record speaks for itself.

There’s every reason to believe that Reagan would move against North Korea – just ask Muammar Gaddafi!