Reagan pulled the troops out of Beuirt in 1983, so was the Republican hero (except for Jesus) a spineless cut and runner? Also, eventually all the troops should leave, no? Does that make anyone who says the troops have to return at some time a cut and runner?
Or was it somehow Clinton's fault again. I bet it was Clintons fault 9 years before he was President.
2006-08-16 15:01:11 · 12 answers · asked by eskimo 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't remember that either Democrat Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt, had advocated cutting and running in World Wars I and II. If I remember correctly, a good part of the opposition to Roosevelt's efforts to keep democracy alive in Europe came from the GOP.
And wasn't it Dwight D. Eisenhower, the GOP's first successful presidential candidate in 20 years, who campaigned on the promise, ``I will go to Korea" to bring that unpopular war to a close?
For years Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, used to plead with the American people to have patience and stay the course in Vietnam, and he, too, used to fly off to the war zone from time to time to look the latest American-backed leader in the eye. In the end it was a Republican, Richard Nixon, who reversed that policy and set the United States on a course of withdrawal. Another Republican, Gerald Ford, finally presided over the cutting and running.
And in Lebanon, it was Ronald Reagan, Republican, who decided to cut and run when the Marines he had sent ashore were bombed in their barracks.
2006-08-16 15:10:17 · answer #1 · answered by stoopiddumbface 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
2
2006-08-16 15:06:44 · answer #2 · answered by Quinton J A.K.A crossup123 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, Reagan cut and ran in Beirut, and Clinton Cut and ran from Somalia, and that was the wrong thing to do in both cases. I don't know how many Lebanese would have be killed if we had went after Hezbollah right then, when we should have.
But the war that just killed 1000 of them wouldn't have happened.
If Reagan had not cut and run in Beirut maybe we would have never wound up in Somalia. And Osama as much as said if we hadn't cut and run in Somalia, let the bombers of the embassy in Africa go unpunished, and the bombers of the U.S. Cole go unpunished, the 9/11 attacks may never have happened.
The others are right as well, both Johnson and Nixon cut and run from Vietnam which cost a million lives in Cambodia and unknown number in Vietnam. And that fact gives the terrorist we fight now hope that we will quit and they will win. The difference is when we quit in Vietnam, Vietnamese, Laotians died. If we quit now it will be Americans that pay the price.
Fact is every time we cut and run it makes the world more dangerous. At some point we have to stand and fight. So the Democrats that are preaching cut and run now are risking the nations future for short term political gain, and most sensible people can see that for the cynical political ploy that it is.
2006-08-16 16:48:46 · answer #3 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the differance in Clinton's Somilia cut and run and regans cut and run was there was a secure place in somalia for the troops assigned, the security of the troops that would be assigned to Beruit could not be secured. So unlike Clinton who ran because of a bloodied nose, Regan "ran" because he had no place to secure his troops. A lot of differnce really.
2006-08-16 15:15:08 · answer #4 · answered by hedddon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
by way of fact Ronald Reagan is astonishing. i might think of that the individuals interior the middle East halfway favored that we did no longer stay there and reason greater havoc. And the Republicans won't be ready to in all likelihood think of Bush is smarter than Reagan... that's ridiculous. The terrorists are taking away on us what huge Daddy Bush and Clinton could no longer shelter interior the 1st place.
2016-12-11 10:08:23 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is coming out of Iraq consider "cutting and running?" Were we planing to make Iraq our 51st state? Just thought I'd ask, and yes, to the GOP it is all the Liberalism Fault, no matter what, the GOP is not at fault. Why, well, Jesus, he doesn't hold them responsible for their sins, so who are we to hold them accountable.
2006-08-16 15:10:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It probably was Clinton's fault. I have seen repukes blame him for the sinking of the titanic, the Fransisco earth quake, and the great depression. Ronald Reagan was no great American. He was a traitor to America. He sold arms to our enemy's and gave that money to another set of thieves.
2006-08-16 15:10:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Raygun was a Alzheimer's patient. Show a little kindness to the infirm
Go big Red Go
2006-08-16 15:09:42 · answer #8 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is just like the republicans to try to blame their own Short comings onto the democrats They always seem to forget that when they point the finger of blame that four more are pointing Right back at them
2006-08-16 15:10:13 · answer #9 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes Reagan "cut and ran". Your point?
2006-08-16 15:13:46 · answer #10 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋