why did he cut and run instead of fighting back after 241 americans soldiers were killed by a terrorist?
2007-04-18 13:36:13 · 10 answers · asked by Jason 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
note the lack of response.
2007-04-18 13:48:54 · update #1
As an American who knows Lebanon very well and who was there, I think Reagan's actions of putting troops into Lebanon and taking sides in a civil war helped precipitate the attack that killed 241 of our service people. They were under fire from all sides, including Israeli troops who had invaded Lebanon and were operating along the perimiter of the American base at the airport.
Reagan's imposition of American troops who wound up supporting Lebanese fascists (the Christian right-wing) put us square in the middle of a Lebanese domestic conflict and an Israeli-led invasion. It was bound to bring America trouble.
2007-04-18 13:44:25 · answer #1 · answered by tamarindwalk 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I never understood why Reagan is considered to be such a good president.
Many of our troubles today were caused by Reagan. All Reagan did was do what ppl wanted at the time. A good leader does whats best overall, not what's popular opinion.
Bush and Clinton realized this.
You know what Bush did.
Clinton sent 15bil to Russia when communism collapsed to keep WWIII away. (Look up what caused WWII)
2007-04-18 13:41:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, he's already going on in historic past because of the fact the guy strongest in terminating the suitable economic/socio/political test interior the historic past of the international (Soviet Communisim) - a memory i do no longer think of is as warranted as many think of through my theory that the known reason in the back of Communism's fall interior the Soviet Union grew to become into through its rigid nature and not the race to financial ruin Reagan began with them - a race that coincidentally benefited our own protection rigidity-business complicated individuals extra suitable than anybody else.
2016-12-29 08:18:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reagan encouraged terrorism more by funding and training bin laden and the mujahedeen, and setting them up with contacts in the ME.
2007-04-18 13:43:44 · answer #4 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Don't forget the terror he put in place in Central America and for being the person responsible for putting Saddam in power.
2007-04-18 13:44:46 · answer #5 · answered by Charlooch 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He encouraged terrorism by being in Beirut in the first place.
2007-04-18 13:39:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Reagan was a coward just as his future counter part, GW Bush. He talked really tough though (how impressive).
2007-04-18 13:39:29 · answer #7 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Reagan...the ultimate Flip Flopping Cut n' Runner.
HHAHAHAHHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAH I love it.
2007-04-18 13:38:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Another one with no facts. He took them off shore into safe waters and fought from the ships. I don't call that cutting and running.
2007-04-18 13:40:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋
oh puhlease...clinton did more damage by ignoring terrorism for eight years..uss cole, african embassy bombings wtc one...what more do you need.
2007-04-18 13:39:48 · answer #10 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 6⤋