Was Reagan to blame for 9/11?

[Psychoblues]

Reagan, a truly gifted orator, never truly understood the neocons under his radar and in his administration, gabby.

Don't be silly!
Actually, Reagan is a pretty good answer. With his famous "arms for hostages" deal while also making secret agreements with Iraq and Iran.

We've certainly seen the ugly side of them under the gwb administration, haven't we?

[JohnDoe]

so your argument is ... we gave them weapons so they attacked us.....

Good Morning Manu,

actually, i personally believe that our mess in the middle east began with the British overreach of colonialism....

Yes, I think that Reagan walking away from what happened in Lebanon, and him arming the Iranians most definately contributed to the situation we are in today, and many other decisions that previous administrations made has contributed to what we face today in the middle east, and to a 9/11 on our soil.

It did not happen in a vacuume.

jd

[Classact]

Good Morning Manu,

actually, i personally believe that our mess in the middle east began with the British overreach of colonialism....

I disagree, the British had little interest in the ME outside of pirates... the ME was tolerated as a dieing superpower with the discovery of the new world.

Yes, I think that Reagan walking away from what happened in Lebanon, and him arming the Iranians most definitely contributed to the situation we are in today, and many other decisions that previous administrations made has contributed to what we face today in the middle east, and to a 9/11 on our soil.

It did not happen in a vacuume.

jd

The ME became of interest as of WWI when it was realized that oil was necessary to fight a war in Europe. The ME chose the wrong side in both wars and as a result were spoils of war. The ME was originally managed by France and the British and when the US had to start importing oil it became an interest to the US... the Cold War had a lot to do with it too.

The ME was considered as a bother like dog dick gnats and was ignored... let them fight amongst themselves and stay the hell out of it... install a brutal dictator because that is what they understand ... brutality!

[JohnDoe]

I disagree, the British had little interest in the ME outside of pirates... the ME was tolerated as a dieing superpower with the discovery of the new world.

The ME became of interest as of WWI when it was realized that oil was necessary to fight a war in Europe. The ME chose the wrong side in both wars and as a result were spoils of war. The ME was originally managed by France and the British and when the US had to start importing oil it became an interest to the US... the Cold War had a lot to do with it too.

The ME was considered as a bother like dog dick gnats and was ignored... let them fight amongst themselves and stay the hell out of it... install a brutal dictator because that is what they understand ... brutality!

SO YOU REALLY DON'T THINK the british and their dealings in the middle east, breaking up countries and tribes in to new countries like Persia in to iraq and iran etc, creating saudi arabia, israel,....sir lawrence of arabia stuff etc....had NOTHING to do with the mess we are in?

jd

[Classact]

SO YOU REALLY DON'T THINK the british and their dealings in the middle east, breaking up countries and tribes in to new countries like Persia in to iraq and iran etc, creating saudi arabia, israel,....sir lawrence of arabia stuff etc....had NOTHING to do with the mess we are in?

jd

This is where I was going...

Revolts and revival (1566–1683)
Suleiman's death in 1566 marked the beginning of an era of diminishing territorial gains. The rise of western European nations as naval powers and the development of alternative sea routes from Europe to Asia and the New World damaged the Ottoman economy. The effective military and bureaucratic structures of the previous century also came under strain during a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans. But in spite of these difficulties, the empire remained a major expansionist power until the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which marked the end of Ottoman expansion into Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

[JohnDoe]

This is where I was going...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh gotcha! thanks for link!

jd

[Classact]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh gotcha! thanks for link!

jd

Check out this link on Kuwait and how far back the British link up with Kuwait... http://www.kuwait-info.com/sidepages/nat_history.asp

[actsnoblemartin]

how about discussing, the after mohammeds death, before the crusades, or would liberals like to conviently forget that muslims started the whole mess by trying to take over the world over 1400 years ago, and havent stopped since.

That's a good start, gabby, but I'm afraid it goes back a little further than Dwight, don't you know?





Can we discuss the Crusades, only superficially?

[actsnoblemartin]

they didnt create israel, israel was around thousands of years ago, before the romans stole it.

but im with on ya on, its possible that creating dictaters in what became those other countries was a bad idea.

infact, look up judea and sumaria if you dont believe me

SO YOU REALLY DON'T THINK the british and their dealings in the middle east, breaking up countries and tribes in to new countries like Persia in to iraq and iran etc, creating saudi arabia, israel,....sir lawrence of arabia stuff etc....had NOTHING to do with the mess we are in?

jd

[TheStripey1]

Read an interesting editorial the other day which caused me to stop and say... Was Reagan to blame for 9/11?



1987? Reagan was President then and Bush 1 VP... Hmmmm... I wonder why the republicans never seem to recall this tidbit of information when they try to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11... is this more of their selective memory showing?

obtw, the second link in my sigline has been fixed... sorry bout that misplaced space...



and obtw, this topic is REALLY about GUN CONTROL! specifically aimed at how PILOTS used to be able to carry weapons IN the cockpit and just marginally about WHO disarmed them.

Though, all but the most rabid partisan should be able to agree that Ronnie is partially to blame. He WAS the President in 1987, right? He disarmed the pilots which ultimately led to those nefarious cockpit takeovers during 2001, now didn't he?

[TheStripey1]

See, this is my problem with it, Everyone is reaching for someone to blame for 9/11, be it Bush, Clinton, or, now, apparently, Reagan. It wasn't any of them, not a one. I may not like bush, but nor do I believe him responsible for the WTC, that point goes to the hijackers who jacked a bunch of our jets, and slammed them into buildings, along with the bastards who sent them.

That would be Osama Been Forgotten... right? what ever happened to bringing him in Dead or Alive?

[TheStripey1]

see gun control doesn't work.....

Correct... for once we agree...

[TheStripey1]

Personally, I don't think Reagan can be blamed for anything. His administration, however, has plenty to atone for. Was his administration in any way contributory to the attack on 9/11? Yes, it was. That was your question, wasn't it?

Yes... Are you saying he wasn't a participant in his own policies? Why then who was???

[TheStripey1]

Thank God for the internet!!!!!!!!! Do some goggling on your own, m'59.





You might be surprised at what you find. The "liberal" media ain't cutting it, don't you know?

The original editorial wasn't IN a liberal source. It was in the Washington TIMES... not at all liberal... and I read it in my NRA monthly and they aren't considered liberal either, at least not in my opinion.

[gabosaurus]

The original editorial wasn't IN a liberal source. It was in the Washington TIMES... not at all liberal... and I read it in my NRA monthly and they aren't considered liberal either, at least not in my opinion.

PWNED....again.