Q&A: Ronald Reagan withdrew from a pointless and hopeless military conflict to protect America. So why can’t Bush
Question by Wave: Ronald Reagan withdrew from a pointless and hopeless military conflict to protect America. So why can't Bush
During his presidency, Ronald Reagan brought an old battleship out of mothballs to practice gunboat diplomacy in Lebanon. Using its 18 inch guns and 1800 Marines he attempted to intimidate insurgents. Soon, the results of his policy became clear: over 200 Marines were dead from truck bombs.
Reagan "turned tail" (to use YA! terminology) and he "ran." He realized we should not be there, and the costs of a continued presence were too great.
Conservatives didn't criticize him then for this prudent, humble action.
Why don't today's Conservatives realize a hopeless military situation when they see one, and take the prudent, humble course of action that will protect America from losing its treasure, its unity and the lives of its soldiers?
Best answer:
Answer by Private Deek
Ever heard of Tokyo rose?
LOL
What do you think? Answer below!
Prepare For Boot Camp.
The Survival Guide For Usmc Boot Camp -Huge Traffic For Ultra Cheap.
Prepare For Boot Camp.
US $1,945.00
Tagged with: America. • bush • can't • conflict • From • hopeless • military • pointless • protect • Reagan • Ronald • withdrew
Filed under: Military Trucks
Ronald Reagan didn’t see two towers fall on American soil.
I’m sorry. Correct me if I’m wrong. Wasn’t the U.S. ATTACKED a few years back?
Ronald Reagan actually listened to his advisors. Although his administration had a fair amount of controversy too.
I would like people to remember too that we were in the Cold War under Reagan, so we were essentially under the constant threat of MAD (mutually assured destruction) through nuclear weaponry. So people need to put things in perspective. Plus there was also terror like Pan Am 103 which killed a number of Americans including 35 Syracuse University students.
Too afraid to leave Iraq now they got castrated by the Arabs.
1. Bush is no Reagan. Reagan had sense and humility, Bush has neither.
2. Conservatives in those days were actual, true conservatives. They have NO relation to the psychopathic, venal, corrupt, administration that calls itself conservative today.
because if you leave people will hate you more, iraq will be even more fucked up than when they went in thered be civil war and stuff and the un would step in so you;d probably end up going back
Because the Con’s have evolved into even dumber people! They all have their heads up their butts and are destroying their own party day-by-day. Thank your lucky stars for that.
We’re in much deeper and have more at stake in Iraq.
who are these people bringing up 9-11?…IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US ON 9-11
Reagan’s entire legacy did not rest on that one venture. In fact, he’s beloved by many due to the many good things that happened during his terms, some of which had little to even do with him. That’s the key. If this war fails, then Bush’s legacy is completely and utterly destroyed. Nothing else during his two terms is as big as this. This war defines his 8 years, like it or not, regardless of what decisions he makes. If he stays and somehow pulls it out, then he and his colleagues can argue it was worth it, right or wrong. If they pull out, they admit they were wrong. Pride and history are powerful motivators. Factor in the possibility that he may actually think the war IS just and still possible to win, and it is pretty obvious why he sticks to it.
Note I am not saying whether the war is right or wrong or whether or not we should stay. This is simply to answer the question why Bush refuses to give the war up.
I don’t think its all that easy anymore. Ronald Reagan had more sense than Jorge Bush… even though I’m not a Ronald Reagan fan I doubt highly we would ever have gone into Iraq if he were president — Afghanistan yes, Iraq no. We stirred up a major hornet’s nest in Iraq and just pulling out is not going to make it go away. I am as liberal as they come. I cannot stand George Bush and his minions. I think it was a huge mistake to divert so many resources from the fight in Afghanistan which could have wound up being the “model of democracy” in that part of the world that Bush and Co. were looking for. However, we’re far beyond all that now. Abruptly pulling out will cause more bloodshed in Iraq, make the region even more unstable than it is now, give Iran so much power and control (you know they’re going to step in when we leave, right?) and make us less safe. Staying in Iraq with the current troop levels isn’t the answer either. We need to change policy – AGAIN – and we need to re-instate the draft… and this time there will be no exceptions for people in college or people who’s parents have money and connections. Women must serve as well. We need to handle our military the same as Israel does — all must serve. We need to handle Iraq similarly to the way we handled Germany and Japan after WWII. We need to stay there for the next 50 to 100 years to maintain a safe and stable environment, help create an economy and jobs and build that country’s infrastructure from the ground up now that most of it has been destroyed. It’s time to stop playing around and take care of business. I do think Bush doesn’t want to be perceived as a failure, but I also think there are many American politicians who realise there is a bigger picture to be analyzed and looked at.
Its too late to turn tail now. Now that we’ve been in Iraq and made a complete mess of things we need to fix it for the sake and safety of our children and Iraqi children in the future, for our honor (internationally and domestically) and we cannot appear weak — we do that with these over zealous religious types and we’re in trouble. They will take us out at any turn. We never should have gone in there in the first place… we were lied to and the American people fell for it hook, line and sinker… but now that we’re there we need to buck up, stick it out, sacrifice and get it done or we’ll never be safe. Its too late to pull out. We need to re-instate the draft… Seriously.
Because no war could be won and Ronald realized it, in todays world you can win via 3 methods
-Population wants you in their country, to be “liberated”…how often this actually occurs I do not know.
-Economic victory such as Germany has undertaken, now a major leader in EU which is the true super power
-Kill everyone in the country…this has never happened for obvious reason
In the past the key way victory was made by the Roman legions and the like is
-The Romans breed with the conquered, in a sense converting them to Romans
-The peons did not really care who controlled them, making the opinion of the population a preconceived victory by the above statement.
Reagan saw that he could not kill all the opponents and he saw he did not have the people on his side. W on the other hand does not see that the people are not on his side or that he lacks the military power to kill everyone.
Diplomacy has also hit a huge snag, the world does not like warmongers and by that alone the Iraq “war” is already a loss.