Reagan and Bush gave arms, training, money to Bin Laden and his boys in the 80's.
Then they gave WMD's and money to Saddam. Saddam used those WMD's to kill countless people. Thats how we know he never had WMD's when we invaded because he ran out.
Reagan and Bush (again) wussed out and give in to Iran and gave them weapons.
Reagan and Bush (I think they really screwed America) gave arms and cash to the Contra's.
They had massive Republican support even to this day.
Since they have this knack of training and arming our enemy's can't Republicans at least fight them when they attack us?
Since the Bush's have helped our enemy's wouldn't you think it would be fair to see the Bush twins slugging it out with Al-Qaeda?
Or does the poor and middle class have to fight the Republican enemy's again?
2006-08-13 14:33:31 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
war = money. thats why.
2006-08-13 14:40:59 · answer #1 · answered by Vodka 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
What you outline is not an exclusively Republican problem. Its an American or perhaps even a Democratic one. American Foreign Policy would be impossible to outline here. Suffice it to say we don't always make sound judgments. Our policy also tends to be Short sighted. Almost like sound bites, knee jerk reactions without carefully considering the long term implications. Many factor influence decisions to arm other people and groups and the US is hardly the only country to do it. A better question to ask might be why we continue to show such poor judgment in situations like this?....
2006-08-13 14:42:43 · answer #2 · answered by Kevin P 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
You send e-mail but expect no one to reply?
Well, he is my reply:
Oh yea, thats why the National Guard is now on the border, and why fences are being built on the border.
Right?
2006-08-13 15:10:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The clinton administration gave millions to North Korea.
2006-08-13 14:48:25 · answer #4 · answered by Bill 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Politics serves the dollar.
2006-08-13 14:38:56 · answer #5 · answered by TwilightWalker97 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you can't sell new weapons unless you get them to use up all the old weapons. basic economics.
congress does have to approve weapons deals also. so don't believe that any president sold weapons all by themselves. do you really believe that no weapons were sold to foreign governments while the democrats sat in the white house. lol
2006-08-13 14:45:27 · answer #6 · answered by justnotright 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why? A kick-back called a 12% commission.
2006-08-13 14:39:48 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I agree with John E
2006-08-13 14:52:52 · answer #8 · answered by genny_gump 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
People often make this mistake. The people that are arming these foriegn powers are not doing it because of party affiliation. Its because this is a job to them and unfortunately a low paying job, comparatively. The fact is these people feel no accountability because its not thier job. They look at control of this government the same way that you look at a rental car. Its not thiers and they have no claim to it. It is mine.
2006-08-13 14:44:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 10⤋
It all goes back to the old adage:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
You have to remember that the largest threat to the US in the 80s was deemed to be communism, which we armed bin Ladin and Hussein to fight.
It's called 20/20 hindsight. If we had known then what we know now...it never would have happened.
2006-08-13 14:39:23 · answer #10 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 2⤊ 11⤋