Reagan is widely cited as having, in Margaret Thatcher's words, "won the Cold War without firing a shot". She also notes he did all this with a "lightness of spirit" even though his task was deadly serious.
How do you think Reagan would be solving our terrorism problem?
2007-02-07 09:32:25 · 23 answers · asked by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just because he didn't fire a shot does not mean he wouldn't have. If Reagan was president the total size of the US armed forces would have been about twice what it is today and using force would not have been something he allowed much debate on. Not to mention the fact that Reagan would have forced every nation to make a stand either with the US or against it and would not have accepted any middle ground.
Regan's great power was not only acting with the support of the people but in getting it in the first place. Reagan would never stop trying to convince the American public that what he was doing was right. Bush gave up trying to convince people that what he was doing was right and just decided to do it anyway.
2007-02-07 09:45:08 · answer #1 · answered by C B 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
oh i dont know that he would have solved the problem . i remember when he was in office and that was a scarry time.
i do think he would have been more likely to be honnest . i think he would have as a result of his honesty not got involved in iraq
i think he would have had the intellegence people work with the military to stirke a group here and a group there. i think during the time the usa had bin laden pin pointed from his cell phone regan would have sent his troops despite the fact the prince from kuwait was there.
so solved the problem no hit only where the hitting was needed yes. not caused a war for sure.
2007-02-07 09:39:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In a heartbeat! This is a different type of war than this nation has ever fought, and personally I think it's quite disingenuous for anyone to go after President Bush on this. The Democrats want to fight a war with polls, sound bites, and meaningless resolutions. I have yet to hear one of the so called Liberal leaders use the words victory or win. I think this country has become soft and our enemy is anything but soft, and they will continue to attack us somewhere if we don't get our backbone back, President Bush needs us to show support and so do our troops!
2007-02-07 09:40:35 · answer #3 · answered by rosi l 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He would have been less politically correct, Bush has grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory by trying not to offend those that refuse not to be offended and trying to appease those that are set to humiliate him. Reagan would have gone in without tying the hands of our military and held a press conference and marginalized all their left-leaning objections and had the American people believing in the mission. The terrorists would not have been so resilient because they would not have seen a country so divided and a president so weakened.
2007-02-07 09:49:43 · answer #4 · answered by Whootziedude 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Margaret Thatcher the milk snatcher was an idiot and overstated Reagans importance by 10 light years. He didn't win anything except spending all the American people's taxes on $600 hammers $1200 toilet seats and really poorly built but expensive military equipment to make his war profiteering buddies, including G.E, richer.
Reagan would have bungled our terrorism problem just like GWB is.
2007-02-07 09:40:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Reagan is the cause of many of our current terrorism problems. He
- Armed Iran and Iraq to fight one another.
- Helped perpetuate Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.
- Operated a proxy war with the Soviets via Afghanistan, which lead directly to the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
- Saddam Hussein later invaded Kuwait, which brought us to open up bases in Saudi Arabia for the first war with Iraq (i.e. attempt to clean up the Gipper's mess #1), which sparked significant support for Al Qaeda in the early to late 1990s.
How would the gipper have fought the war on terror? Presumably the same way he started it... by arming our enemies.
Edit: You know who's responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union...
2007-02-07 09:44:17 · answer #6 · answered by leftist1234 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Terrorism is an illusion??!!! What kind of loon are you? Did illusions destroy the twin towers?
I served under President Reagan, and I think he would have just kicked butt COMPLETELY, and been very mater of fact about it. He would have then set up shop in Iraq, and taken whatever resources he felt were necessary to maintain our presence. He would have made sure that the locals were taken care of, but it would have been marshal law without a doubt, just like it should be right now.
2007-02-07 09:49:14 · answer #7 · answered by Amer-I-Can 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Nobody knows the answer to that question because he is 6 feet under. But just guessing he probably would have done a little better than Bush. I do believe he would have attacked Iraq though.
2007-02-07 09:36:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
All out. He spent the Russians under, and you can't do that here. So I would think he would commit and commit big to killing them any where they are in the world. Not giving them sanctuary. The one big difference now is nobody likes Bush, no matter what he does.
2007-02-07 09:38:36 · answer #9 · answered by Chester's Liver 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He would have america biuld terminator robots and threaten that if osama doesn't shape up and cut the number of suicide bomber recruits we'll build more terminators. Osama Eventually will see the light and sign the terroist non-poliferation pact, cutting bombers by half. It'll be known as the saltan treaty (like sultan lol)
2007-02-07 09:40:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋