Quote:
Originally Posted by Tessa
One thing Reagan had was a real backbone, he wouldn't let anyone intimidate the US. He was a big fan of cruise missles, and wasn't afraid to have Battleships/Destroyers in the area launch attacks at those whom struck at us. He wasn't afraid of "polictial correctness" and used the armed forces when they were needed.
|
Doing wars by proxy is easy. Its even easier launching 1 or 2 missiles, or carrying precision strikes. But look what happens when the US military goes to war. Vietnam you lost. Iraq you lost. Afghanistan, you're not winning.
In fact the US had never "winned" in any sense a large scale war after WW2.
That should tell you something.
Quote:
|
Had Reagan been president in the 90's there's a good chance 9/11 wouldn't have happened, why? Because at one point Bin Laden was at a know location, coraborated by several reliable sources. All Clinton had to do was order the strike and 1 cruise missle would have brought him down. This chance happened right after the Lewinski scandal broke and didn't take the action he should have because it might have possibly make his political situation worse. "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." -- Gen William Tecumseh Sherman
|
Hindsight is always 20/20. Sure Regan had a backbone, when dealing with the libyians. He had no qualms launching an air strike against gheddafi. But look what happend in lebanon. Us marines left lebanon. And during the Clinton years US troops got to leave somolia for the same political reasons.
On the other hand just as gheddafi had luck and was not killed in that famous strike, so Bin Laden got lucky and was not killed in the cruise missiles attacks. S-h-i-t happens. Its not colored republican or democrat.
01-07-11, 04:15 PM
Threaded Mode