English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I personally didn't agree with Reagan's domestic policies, but I felt that his foreign policy was very pragmatic. I believe that he would have sought and received a declaration of war from Congress to do whatever had to be done to Afghanistan and capture OBL. Reagan made threats, when he thought they would be beneficial to the US, but he was practical. And I don't think he would have stuck our military in the middle of the Islamic ideological conflict in the middle east. He walked away from the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing, because he knew that the consequences of remaining in that region. That's just my opinion though. What do you think?

2007-03-11 07:45:31 · 12 answers · asked by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

geezeere, answer my question or go somewhere else.

2007-03-11 07:50:18 · update #1

Chloe, you do understand that there is no declaration of war to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? You do understand what a declaration of war is? You can sometimes think outside the box? I was right here, the whole time, saying that we shouldn't be going to war without a declaration from Congress that would get everyone on the same page.

2007-03-11 07:53:37 · update #2

12 answers

You know, I think it was not Reagan who did all that but he had some really good cabinet people and he was their speaker. Toward the end of his terms Reagan was getting really senile but, in my opinion, Reagan would never have lied to the populace and started a war that could not be won. For thousands of years tribes in that area around Iraq have been warring with each other; it's not going to stop now. Right now our poor troops are just caught up in an impossible miasma of bureaucratic red tape.

I was around during the Reagan administrations; he was not St. Reagan; it was not the best of times. Economically, we were in a very bad way during the Reagan years but he never lied to us.

2007-03-11 08:03:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Same thing as Bush, but he would have convince people that he was right all along and make people feel foolish for doubting him. A Marine Barracks in Beirut is a lot different than innocents being murdered on our own soil.

2007-03-11 07:53:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Reagon would have made a movie on the subject of 9/11 and starred in it.

2007-03-11 21:06:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

He would have sent Berzhynski to train future-terrorists to do American's job for them and assure them unlimited supply of weapons...
and make sure that the screwed up country is forgotten for another decade or so.

2007-03-12 16:09:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think he would have gone to war targeting the true enemy, not creating a war on false pretenses. He would not have been afraid to go into Saudi Arabia and he would have made sure Bin Laden was captured. This is a Democrat saying this.

2007-03-11 07:49:25 · answer #5 · answered by CC 6 · 3 2

I didn't like Reagan then and I still don't care much for his politics even now.
However, I have to admit, he would have reduced Afghanistan down to a greasy spot on the map to get at Osama...AND...it wouldn't have taken him all of these years to do it!!

2007-03-11 09:39:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

tiedye writes: "It in no way could have got here about with the different president, W became the catalyst." Lie. The planning and practise for 9/11 became years contained in the making, even as Clinton became nonetheless President. in truth, it became meant to ensue even as Clinton became nonetheless in place of work, yet logisitics kept on pushing the date ahead. xg6 writes: "he could have flown on Air stress One on to Washington DC to coordinate the american reaction to the assaults (quite of operating off in the different route and hiding for 3 days like Bush). " a million) He doesnt could be in DC to coordinate any reaction. 2) DC became obviously a objective because the Pentagon became hit in reality fifty one minutes after the WTC were hit. to placed the President contained in the line of hearth isn't lifelike. 3) Cheney became already contained in the White living house on the time of the assaults, and the secret service prefers preserving the President and vice president bodily distant from one yet another as usually as accessible to reduce the possibility of both adult males falling sufferer to assassins jointly. so as that became yet another rationalization why he couldnt flow again to DC, fantastically with it being lower than attack. 4) Bush wanted to flow again to DC suitable away, yet his protection had to talk him out of it. 5) study about what you write.

2016-12-01 20:21:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Regan was a smooth communicator- Unlike Bush and his crew- which is their #1 problem-

2007-03-11 07:55:17 · answer #8 · answered by pavano_carl 4 · 0 0

He wouldn't have stopped with Iraq.

2007-03-11 07:58:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bombed Moscow. He thought that Moscow was behind every thing wrong with the world.

2007-03-11 07:49:34 · answer #10 · answered by geezerrex 5 · 1 5

fedest.com, questions and answers