I miss Ronald Reagan...

[npgunner]

Robert, I think Jewell is saying blow the bastards back into the seventh century and we won't be seeing the

guys and gals with bombs strapped to them. I have to agree.

 

And, as for the innocents right next to the terrorists, or fighters, if they are stupid enough to be next to them,

they get killed, also. they can't be that innocent if they are in the line of fire.

I tend to agree ... 

All this "clean" warfare will never work.  The enemy knows how to beat it: hide in the non-combatants.  

Until we grow a pair and bomb some of these ****ers off this Earth, every terrorist organization in the world (along with the UN, NK, China, etc.) will see us a pansies.  

Maybe some non-combatants die, maybe they don't.  Guilty by association if you harbor the enemy.  Either way ... those with ill-intent toward America will be too busy cleaning up there own mess and rebuilding their own country to bother us for another 10-20 years (I'm not a fan of 'rebuilding' other countries).  I don't think America needs to be the country that caters to all others' will and wishes.  No longer do we need the attitude that "everyone must like us."  We just need for the rest of the world to understand that they don't want to mess with us.  

 

Now, as far as Reagan goes ... 

(And for the sake of all involved in this thread I will add this disclaimer: I was not alive when Reagan was President.  In fact, I wasn't old enough to care about politics until well after the Clinton administration (my first vote was Bush-2 the second time).  I've read some of his stuff, as well as some stuff about him.)

 

I'll give it to you that the guy was a good orator.  His acting was (from what I've seen) not so great.  He made Republican American's feel great about themselves and America.  He may have made some bad decisions (in the eyes of his detractors), and may have made some good decisions (in the eyes of his supporters).  His legacy is what the media and people of those times have made it to be.  

 

... now take what I just said, and read it this way: Obama is a good orator. He makes Democratic/Liberal American's feel great about themselves and America.  He has made some bad decisions (in the eyes of Republicans), and has made some good decisions (in the eyes of Democrats).  His legacy will be what the media and the people of now make it to be.  

 

I quite frankly am tired of the Republican's "all-hail-Reagan" attitude.  Let's quit relishing what he may/may not have done and stop lusting for a reincarnation.  We need to follow suit of the Democrats and become future focused; find some young conservative candidates that will brandish the message of Conservative America.  We need to show "them" that the message of free market Capitalism and true freedom from the .gov oversight/tyranny is the best way for all to live in harmony.  Now if we can find someone that will put that message out there even half as passionately, and half as skillfully as Reagan spoke his message, then I think we'd be in for a winner.  

[E4 No More]

I thought we were talking mostly abut Lebanon and Reagan???

 

You are making some assumptions here I think - it might be easy to see a rocket launcher on top of a house; other "terrorist targets" may not be quite so obvious that would necessitate others in the area doing something/move.

 

We have a different viewpoint on this and mine isn't changing.  I spent time in Lebanon as a civilian...I have people I count as friends who live there still....I'm never going to support killing them just because they happen to be unlucky enough to be there.

Well, that's part of the problem with written communication on a forum that is conducted while at work no less. You're right in saying that you'll not change my mind about how Reagan did relatively nothing about the Beirut bombing. Well, they DID courtmartial the commanding general for doing the best he could under the contraints given to him by Reagan, et al, and thus made him the excape goat for the administration. I guess that's something. I'd have been willing to wager that sending a few cruise missles into Damascus and into the Ayatollah Khomeni's palace would have shut them up just as it did Gaddafi when we bombed his palace.

[RobertNashville]

I tend to agree ...

This thread wasn't, well, at lest is wasn't intended to be about any "all hail attitude"...I didn't start it to talk about Reagan...I stared it to talk about whether we've still have or have lost the capacity for self-governance.

I should have chosen a better title for the thread, that was my fault.  However, people obviously either didn't read the quote or didn't care or never got past the name "Reagan" as they immediately decided to start insulting/pileing on about the Marine barracks in Lebanon or the fact that he once divorced or that he, in their opinion, wasn't a good actor.

 

Come to think of it...maybe all this angst about Reagan sort of answers the question of whether we've lost the capacity for self-governance...we obviously have.  :surrender:

Edited April 23, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I tend to agree ... 

All this "clean" warfare will never work.  The enemy knows how to beat it: hide in the non-combatants.  

Until we grow a pair and bomb some of these ****ers off this Earth, every terrorist organization in the world (along with the UN, NK, China, etc.) will see us a pansies.  

Maybe some non-combatants die, maybe they don't.  Guilty by association if you harbor the enemy.  Either way ... those with ill-intent toward America will be too busy cleaning up there own mess and rebuilding their own country to bother us for another 10-20 years (I'm not a fan of 'rebuilding' other countries).  I don't think America needs to be the country that caters to all others' will and wishes.  No longer do we need the attitude that "everyone must like us."  We just need for the rest of the world to understand that they don't want to mess with us.  

 

Now, as far as Reagan goes ... 

(And for the sake of all involved in this thread I will add this disclaimer: I was not alive when Reagan was President.  In fact, I wasn't old enough to care about politics until well after the Clinton administration (my first vote was Bush-2 the second time).  I've read some of his stuff, as well as some stuff about him.)

 

I'll give it to you that the guy was a good orator.  His acting was (from what I've seen) not so great.  He made Republican American's feel great about themselves and America.  He may have made some bad decisions (in the eyes of his detractors), and may have made some good decisions (in the eyes of his supporters).  His legacy is what the media and people of those times have made it to be.  

 

... now take what I just said, and read it this way: Obama is a good orator. He makes Democratic/Liberal American's feel great about themselves and America.  He has made some bad decisions (in the eyes of Republicans), and has made some good decisions (in the eyes of Democrats).  His legacy will be what the media and the people of now make it to be.  

 

I quite frankly am tired of the Republican's "all-hail-Reagan" attitude.  Let's quit relishing what he may/may not have done and stop lusting for a reincarnation.  We need to follow suit of the Democrats and become future focused; find some young conservative candidates that will brandish the message of Conservative America.  We need to show "them" that the message of free market Capitalism and true freedom from the .gov oversight/tyranny is the best way for all to live in harmony.  Now if we can find someone that will put that message out there even half as passionately, and half as skillfully as Reagan spoke his message, then I think we'd be in for a winner.  

I'm not lusting for a reincarnation of him, and I don't "all hail" him, either, but I will gladly point out good things in anyone, even that mutt in the White House.

 

I stand by my earlier statement about between Eisenhower and the present, he was the best one we had. If that is deifying anyone, I guess I'm guilty. I'm not a scholar of poly-sci, and I don't play one on TV. :D Going strictly on my memory, and I did live through that period.

 

As far as following the Democrats, quite frankly I'm tired of that kind of suggestion, not at you for saying it, but that conservatives and libertarians need to focus on their ground game and not worry about democrats, and promote good candidates who will stay with the Constitution in order to provide for a minimal effective government. Most Americans would join in on that because that is what would produce much less tyranny and we could possibly turn this ship around. Looking to the future is all well and good, but it isn't the only thing to deal with. I refer to the real problems of the economy, spending out of control, tyrannical laws that need to be nullified and EO's that go back for decades.

 

It will take a lot of people to do that and it has to start at the local level, not just putting the flavor of the moment up for President, each time. Simple enough?

Edited April 23, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Mike.357]

Insult and denigrate all you want...have a nice day.  :rofl:

 

 

Just admit you are a Ronnie fanyboy.  Seems you can't back him up with whatever it is he did that had substance.

[Mike.357]

 or the fact that he once divorced or that he, in their opinion, wasn't a good actor.

 

 

  hey those were both mine,  give credit where credit is due.

[E4 No More]

This thread wasn't about any "all hail attitude"...I didn't start it to talk about Reagan...I stared it to talk about whether we've still have or have lost the capacity for self-governance.

I should have chosen a better title for the thread, that was my fault.  However, people obviously either didn't read the quote or didn't care or never got past the name "Reagan" as they immediately decided to start insulting/pileing on about the Marine barracks in Lebanon or the fact that he once divorced or that he, in their opinion, wasn't a good actor.

 

Come to think of it...maybe all this angst about Reagan sort of answers the question of whether we've lost the capacity for self-governance...we obviously have.  :surrender:

Oh, yes, the Marine barracks in Lebanon was such a minor thing compared to the great things that he did. How dare I bring it up and hold to my opinion.

[npgunner]

I'm not lusting for a reincarnation of him, and I don't "all hail" him, either, but I will gladly point out good things in anyone, even that mutt in the White House.

I stand by my earlier statement about between Eisenhower and the present, he was the best one we had. If that is deifying anyone, I guess I'm guilty. I'm not a scholar of poly-sci, and I don't play one on TV. :D Going strictly on my memory, and I did live through that period.

As far as following the Democrats, quite frankly I'm tired of that kind of suggestion, not at you for saying it, but that conservatives and libertarians need to focus on their ground game and not worry about democrats, and promote good candidates who will stay with the Constitution in order to provide for a minimal effective government. Most Americans would join in on that because that is what would produce much less tyranny and we could possibly turn this ship around. Looking to the future is all well and good, but it isn't the only thing to deal with. I refer to the real problems of the economy, spending out of control, tyrannical laws that need to be nullified and EO's that go back for decades.

It will take a lot of people to do that and it has to start at the local level, not just putting the flavor of the moment up for President, each time. Simple enough?

Good points. And I guess in my mind that was part of the idea where the Dems have something going for them. Ground game. Appeal to the younger crowd to ensure generational support. And etc.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Actually the Democrats are playing their end game, right now. This a full court press for wrecking the Constitution

and the economy. Obama has actually admitted as much. We, other than Democrats(how's that?), needto be

focused on the future, but one that's relevance is based in now, and reality. Theirs is based on Utopian, state

controlled facism. Make it sound good at first, get as many addicted to the poison, then slide the tyranny in on

a Big Mac bun. A little different from the October revolution, but the same idea of utopia in a different package,

or on a Burger King bun.

[RobertNashville]

Oh, yes, the Marine barracks in Lebanon was such a minor thing compared to the great things that he did. How dare I bring it up and hold to my opinion.

Did I say it was "minor"?  I think the angst about Reagan and the Marine barracks is misplaced. No U.S. soldier losing his life is minor and if you really thought I meant otherwise then I need to do a better job of explaining myself

[Mike.357]

t otherwise then I need to do a better job of explaining myself

 

 

I'd say that is obvious but you would get hurt.

 

Just reread the original post and did not get much about us being able to self govern out of it.  Seriously sounded like a RR fan thread.

[Dolomite_supafly]

 

I am still waiting to find out what St. Ronnie did.  He made lots of speeches and stuff that were good.

 

Well he did sign into law the ban on the sale of new machine guns to civillians. As well as supporting the assault weapons ban. It was his strong support of the ban on assault weapons that likely led to it passing congress in 1994. He was pro 2nd amendment during the beginning of his presidency but made a 180 degree turn at the end of his presidency. Reagan even teamed up with Jummy Carter and Gerald Ford to push for a ban on assault weapons.

 

So I say he did a lot, a lot that we should not forget as gun owners.

[Joe357]

I liked his movies but I like beach movies too. As stated war is hell.

[TMF]

I miss George Washington.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Reagan rebuilt our armed forces that Carter decimated, and the reason that ultimately caused the Soviet Union to crumble, slashed highest tax rates from 50% to 28%, stimulated a Carter induced sluggish economy to unprecedented growth, increase of tax revenues into the treasury as a result of tax cuts and economic growth, reinvigorated a new spirit of American patriotism after Carter's malaise speech about America, champion of individualism and warned us that big government is not the solution to our problems but that big government is the problem, created the beginnings of missile defense(Star Wars) that is protecting us from NK and Israel from Iran nuclear missiles, beginnings of unprecedented technological growth during his two terms.

Just a few of his many accomplishments working against a democrat majority Congress. Edited April 24, 2013 by ThePunisher

[RobertNashville]

Some folks have a really selective memory about things; especially the 1986 act.
 

 

In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

It concluded that seventy-five percent of ATF prosecutions were "constitutionally improper", especially on Second Amendment issues.

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Among the reforms intended to loosen restrictions on gun ownership were the reopening of interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, legalization of ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition, and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal.

However, the Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."

The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment intended to drive the FFL holders out of business (as the FFL holders would constantly be having to tend to ATF inspections instead of to customers).

The Act mandated that ATF compliance inspections can be done only once per year. An exception to the "once per year" rule exists if multiple record-keeping violations are recorded in an inspection, in which case the ATF may do a follow-up inspection. The main reason for a follow-up inspection would be if guns could not be accounted for.

 

Yeah...what as shame that act passed...a lot of what we take for granted today was ILLEGAL until 1986.

 

Yeah...no new machine guns...that's a shame too...it's a shame that Democrats sneaked it in...it's a shame that that amendment was what it took to get the bill passed...a bill that every pro-gun group at the time wanted passed WITH the machine gun ban.

 

It's a real shame...I mean...no one had ever had to compromise to get something passed before. Well...nothing except for the Constitution but I'm sure that was it until 1986.

 

It would be cool to own a fully automatic firearm but I don't know that I'd buy one even if they were currently available to buy new from the factory...I DO know I buy most of my ammo and I've bought many firearms over the internet not to mention getting rid of some of the other #### that ATF was doing...I'd love to have my cake and eat it too but sometimes you have to settle for cake alone...oh darn.

Edited April 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

...Just reread the original post and did not get much about us being able to self govern out of it.  Seriously sounded like a RR fan thread.

Seriously???
 

From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?" - Reagan

To which I added...

Sometimes I can't help but think to myself that "people" are just too dumb or too uneducated or too self-absorbed to be able to "handle" the burden of governing themselves and I fall into the trap of believing that "someone" needs to step in and do if for those people.

You saw nothing about self-governance in there?

Whatever.

[Oh Shoot]

Some folks have a really selective memory about things; especially the 1986 act.
 

 

 

Yeah...what as shame that act passed...a lot of what we take for granted today was ILLEGAL until 1986.

 

It is indeed true that the machine gun ban was a last minute amendment which was passed by voice vote, and erroneously, for which you can thank Charlie Rangel.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

It is indeed true that the machine gun ban was a last minute amendment which was passed by voice vote, and erroneously, for which you can thank Charlie Rangel.

 

- OS

You know...if all the people who complain about the ban on newly manufactured machine guns not being available to the public would get active and do something about it then maybe that portion of the 1986 act would be amended/repealed and then people could stop bitching about in on the internet. ;)

Edited April 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Dolomite_supafly]

You know...if all the people who complain about the ban on newly manufactured machine guns not being available to the public would get active and do something about it then maybe that portion of the 1986 act would be amended/repealed and then people could stop bitching about in on the internet. ;)

 

Maybe we should if we get control of both houses in 2014 but I have a sneaking suspicion just the opposite is going to happen. I am surprized no one has challenged it based on the video alone.

[Mike.357]

Seriously???
 

To which I added...

You saw nothing about self-governance in there?

Whatever.

 

thats not what I got out of it, but like you wrote,  whatever...

[JayC]

No we really need another Calvin Coolidge :)  Clearly the best President we've had in the last 100 years

 

what we realy need is another eisenhower

 

[JayC]

Targeting individual enemies is a complete waste of time, and a poor game plan for executing a war.  You win a war by denying the enemy the ability to wage war, you do that but making anything other than staying alive a low priority.

 

If you deny the enemy: electricity, communications, running water, bridges, and passable roads then you remove their ability to wage war or terror.

 

Even in a primitive country like Afghanistan, if you deny these assets, the population is forced to focus on food production, and rebuilding infrastructure assets that it can not 'afford' to waste time and energy on waging war or terror.

 

The fact is, if we had gone into Afghanistan and leveled all the bridges, destroyed all the power and water plants...  Messed up the roads, and knocked out anything that transmitted a radio signal...  then turn around and came home, and promise them that any hint that somebody living in Afghanistan tried to attack us we'd repeat the process over again.

 

Our boys would have been home 10 years ago, we may have had 200 deaths, and it would have cost us 50 or 60 billion dollars.  Instead we're still there today spending money to rebuild the stuff we blow up, have lost nearly 3200 friendly troops, and it's cost us the better part of a trillion dollars.

 

Robert, I think Jewell is saying blow the bastards back into the seventh century and we won't be seeing the

guys and gals with bombs strapped to them. I have to agree.

 

And, as for the innocents right next to the terrorists, or fighters, if they are stupid enough to be next to them,

they get killed, also. they can't be that innocent if they are in the line of fire.

Edited April 24, 2013 by JayC

[E4 No More]

Targeting individual enemies is a complete waste of time, and a poor game plan for executing a war.  You win a war by denying the enemy the ability to wage war, you do that but making anything other than staying alive a low priority.

 

If you deny the enemy: electricity, communications, running water, bridges, and passable roads then you remove their ability to wage war or terror.

 

Even in a primitive country like Afghanistan, if you deny these assets, the population is forced to focus on food production, and rebuilding infrastructure assets that it can not 'afford' to waste time and energy on waging war or terror.

And that recently worked so well where? Much of Afghanistan is used to that. So was Vietnam. Both countries are accustomed to resistance to invasion.

 

As a side note, I'm really surprised that Russia didn't nuke a lot of Afghanistan considering they stooped to booby-trapping children's toys.

[RobertNashville]

Targeting individual enemies is a complete waste of time, and a poor game plan for executing a war.  You win a war by denying the enemy the ability to wage war, you do that but making anything other than staying alive a low priority.
 
If you deny the enemy: electricity, communications, running water, bridges, and passable roads then you remove their ability to wage war or terror.
 
Even in a primitive country like Afghanistan, if you deny these assets, the population is forced to focus on food production, and rebuilding infrastructure assets that it can not 'afford' to waste time and energy on waging war or terror.
 
The fact is, if we had gone into Afghanistan and leveled all the bridges, destroyed all the power and water plants...  Messed up the roads, and knocked out anything that transmitted a radio signal...  then turn around and came home, and promise them that any hint that somebody living in Afghanistan tried to attack us we'd repeat the process over again.
 
Our boys would have been home 10 years ago, we may have had 200 deaths, and it would have cost us 50 or 60 billion dollars.  Instead we're still there today spending money to rebuild the stuff we blow up, have lost nearly 3200 friendly troops, and it's cost us the better part of a trillion dollars.

Well....we've talked about everything else in this thread except what I actually intended to discuss...we might as well discuss modern warfare tactics now. ;)

I'm certainly not a trained military strategist but it seems obvious to me that you cannot use the same tactics against a dispersed, loosely associated group of people who look identical to and often hide within the rest of the population and generally don't gather together into identifiable formations...who fight through stealth and cowardly acts of terror or meet inside of caves in a hillside...against such an enemy, you can't use the same tactics that you would use against a uniformed military with an actual command and control structure and who wage war in a traditional way.

Moreover, while I haven't been to Afghanistan, I've been to enough middle-eastern countries to know that denying them what we consider to be basic needs like electricity, etc. doesn't really get you very far as a lot of the "basics" are unavailable for extended periods of time as a normal situation.

In hindsight, I'd say we would probably have been better off to have done NOTHING except to pursue Bin Laden and his cronies on a person by person basis...in other words, a more subtle but no less ruthless pursuit of the people responsible for attacking us.

However, given our anger at the time of the 9/11 attacks, I'm not sure that the people would have been happy with such a course of action and had I been president at the time I might well have taken the same course as Bush. Edited April 24, 2013 by RobertNashville