2007-01-03 17:11:46 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Lets not forget, neo-cons. Your own heros have done nothing but let you down. Flight 007 was the american airliner that was shot down by the USSR, that was flying between USA via South Korea, to Japan. An inquirey proved that they were on course, unlike the Soviet claim that it was in a high security restricted air space, and he did nothing, just like most neo-cons.
2007-01-03 17:15:08 · update #1
What happened to Gaddafi's daughter? I think killing a member of his immediate family counts as retaliation.
What's that expression about something best served cold?
Check your facts before you try to slam Reagan.
BTW- 007 is fine... He just made a movie.
2007-01-03 17:20:53 · answer #1 · answered by C B 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Just because that vaunted bastion of truth, the Associated Press, didn't report it, don't think that nothing happened after Beirut. From what I understand, Hamaas finally worked up the courage to come down out of the hills about ten years ago, although a few are still afraid to leave their holes.
2007-01-07 08:55:05 · answer #2 · answered by The_moondog 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What a hoot and a holler. Yeah Reagan was supposed to retaliate against the Soviet Union.....hmmm...by doing what? Shooting down an Soviet Airliner maybe? Nah. Provoking a full scale thermonuclear war? Oh! I've got it! How about...hmmm...maybe Reagan should have retailiated by ramping up the US military in such a way it that drove the USSR into political and economic collapse! Wait a second now...come to think of it....hey, that's exactly what he did! Isn't that just amazing.
How did Reagan's turning tail and running for home differ from Bill Clinton's turning tail and running for home after the 'Black Hawk Down' incident in Somalia? Remember that one? The incident Osama cited as learning that if you bloody us fat/dumb/lazy/stupid/weak Americans we will turn tail and run away, run away.
Remember that? Do ya? WELL?
2007-01-03 17:26:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Beirut - He did, but it was indirectly by supplying the Iraqis with strategic information during their war with Iran.
Sakhalin - What exactly was he supposed to do about a South Korean airliner downed by the Soviet Union?
And stop yer cryin' 'n whinin' - if you have something to say, be a man about it, fer gawd's sake!
2007-01-03 17:16:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Cheney/Rummy weren't as big of an influence back then--or maybe something would have been done. The recent destruction of Lebannon via Israel went on without U.S. Gov't protest--maybe that was the payback.
2007-01-03 17:16:17 · answer #5 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You forgot to mention the Iraqi attack on USS Stark which killed more sailors than the bombing of USS Cole. Reagan did nothing in response.
You also didn't mention Iran-Contra. Reagan traded arms to Iran in exchange for hostages taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon. It was an abject failure.
2007-01-03 17:29:42 · answer #6 · answered by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
i dont know why no retaliation for beirut.
lockerbie scotland flight, cant remember if # was 007, there was retaliation. bombing of quadifi's living area in libya, killed some family member of his , cant remember if it was his wife or children(child). several other people killed too.
2007-01-03 17:19:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What does the capital of Lebanon "Beirut" has to do with what you are saying????
2007-01-05 08:13:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you can't keep 007 down for long.
2007-01-03 17:13:07 · answer #9 · answered by Andrew O 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋