OT: When will the libs apologize to Reagan and Conservatives?

Page 1 of 3  
Remember when Ronald Reagan created the Strategic Defense Initiative, the idea being that rather than only having mutually assured destruction as a response, we could have a shield to intercept incoming ICBMs? He was so convinced of it's importance that at Reykjavic, Iceland, when Gorbachev offered to go as far as eliminating all nuclear weapons, if Reagan would confine SDI to the laboratory, Reagan refused. The libs and the media pissed all over SDI, calling it Star Wars. How stupid it was. How Reagan was going to get us into a war, creating a whole new weapons race. Taking war to space.
Yet, today the missle defense systems that are a direct result of that are being deployed to guard the US and it's allies from the nut case weilding missles and nukes in North Korea. Obama even ordered up more of it to protect the west coast. After of course, he canceled the same stuff earlier in his administration. As far as SDI creating a weapons race, it did. It created one that the USSR not only couldn't win, but one they couldn't even compete in and it helped push them over the edge, into collapse. Defeated, Gorbacev ultimately accepted the nuclear treaty reductions that Reagan had offered years earlier and they accepted it on Reagan's terms.
We're still going thorugh the latest saber rattling from North Korea. As bad as it is, within just a few more years, they will have missles capable of hitting the US directly, not just our allies or bases. Imagine what that will be like, when they could actually hit HI or Los Angeles.
So, with the little runt over there threatening to unleash missles, I've been waiting for the media to run a story: "Reagan was right again...." And for Obama and all the libs to say the same thing. How long do you think we'll be waiting.....?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When is there an ice storm predicted to be in hell?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
replying to snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net , passerby wrote:

I remember! What a stupid, irresponsible and arrogant idea it was! Especially introduced at the time when most ICBMs became multi-warhead or multi-projectile (MIRVs) with dummy warheads being interspersed with real ones to complicate targeting. There was never really any way to target the booster before separation (too close or even over the adversary's territory) and there was never a way to target the small re-entry vehicles especially considering how many there would be and how many decoys, booster debris and other chaff you'd had to look at before you found the real warhead. And you only had 25-30 minutes. And with an astonishing in the fog of war 99% success rate you would still miss 100 warheads out of 10,000 available to the Soviet Union in the 1980s. 100 mushroom clouds over the US despite unknown (but certainly vast) amount of money spent on the program still does not look like a good idea.

That's one way to look at it. But the more likely scenario is that Soviet Union was falling apart since at least 1982 from internal causes. Gorbachev wanted to buy some time by offering to cut *more* nuclear arms than Reagan proposed in 1981. They are expensive to maintain. I'm pretty sure Gorbachev looked at the books and thought: "what the hell, we can be just as dead with 5,000 warheads as with 10,000. At least we'll save some maintenance money". SDI was at such early stages of development that it could not have played any role in the collapse of the Soviet Union and even in general terms the strange refusal to accept the vague "10 years of laboratory research only" clause was meaningless. It was at the laboratory stage for much longer than the 10 years that Gorbachev sought. By the way, nothing was accepted on Reagan terms, the Reykjavík Summit ended with NOTHING achieved, it was an utter failure. Reagan couldn't even bring up the question of the Afghanistan invasion (8 years after the fact).

Waiting for what?
You do not need an SDI-type program for shooting down N. Korean boosters. SDI was for all-out 1000s of ICBMs flying, a true doomsday scenario. How many ICBMs can N. Korea possibly field? You can have multiple US Navy destroyers with Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System in the Sea of Japan in a matter of days (there are 3 there now, I believe - you can check the public deployment data, I think it's available online) and completely overwhelm them with the amount of SM-3 interceptors available. All without violating any international treaty, unlike SDI.
It's all there. I'm sure the guys in the control rooms (as well as Lockheed and Raytheon engineers) are anxious to test a SM-3 (or a dozen) in real life deployment without any danger of accidentally causing World War 3. They must be sitting on the edge of their seats right now anxious for a chance of a lifetime to prove their worth. So, what's with all the drama?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:44:01 +0000, passerby

Complete bullshit. It was the gambit that won the cold war.
<more tripe snipped>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The clueless dolt laughs at the obvious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 16, 8:44 pm, passerby

If they can't possibly work, they why is Obama deploying more ICBM defense systems to the west coast of the USA? And we'd have a lot more of them and an even more effective shield if the rest of the technology had been deployed. It's obviously just dumb to say that it's impossible to intercept an ICBM. Not only has it been shown over and over that for every offensive system it's possible to build some kind of defense, we actually have a working limited defense. It's just that it's small and not what it could have been, had it not been for you libs.

Wrong. Learn history. I've seen several former Soviet Union State Dept officials giving interviews. They said the Russians were mortified by SDI. They knew it required advanced technology that they had no hope of matching. And that they couldn't afford it. If the USA developed it, then the USA would have a shield and they would not. If they weren't so damned afraid of it, then why did Gorbachev walk out of Reyjkavik when Reagan refused to confine SDI to the laboratory only? THAT was the only issue that prevented them from achieving what would have been the most monumental nuclear arms reduction in history. And it shows you the strong character of Reagan. All he had to do was give up SDI and he would have had an arms deal that no president had ever been able to achieve. He would have in one fell swope proved all his detractors wrong and would have returned home a conquering hero. But he knew how important SDI was. Just take a look at Iran and North Korea and it's obvious he was absolutely right.
And he didn't just push them with SDI. He pushed them by putting Pershing missles in Europe, forcing them to try to figure out how to respond to that. He made huge increases in all conventional systems and they had to try to match that. More ships, more tanks, more subs, more aircraft. Were they already in economic trouble? Sure, but he sure put the boot to their throats. If we had some lib running things, he probably would have sent some free thinking libs over to help them with their economic problems.
and even in general terms the strange

BS. About a year later, Gorbachev came back hat in hand to Reagan in DC and signed the biggest nuclear arms reduction in history. It's key feature was the elimination of medium range missles, an entire class of nuclear weapons. It was the ZERO option that Reagan had proposed from day one. HE told them from day one, either you get rid of all your medium range missles aimed at western europe, or we're going to deploy those Pershing missles aimed at you. They refused, so he and Thatcher put them in the UK. They went into Germany too. The libs said, "My God, you're gonnna start a war...." Instead, eventually Gorbachev showed up in DS, signed that treaty. The Russians destroyed their missles and the US destroyed the Pershings. We got the zero option.
Reagan

IDK what that's all about. Everyone knows that Reagan was very tough on Gorbachev in all their early meetings. He essentially lectured him on how bad the USSR was, something no president ever dared to do.

To say thank you Reagan, you were right.

How do you get an ICBM from one continent to another, if not with a booster? geez... WTF exactly are those rockets that would go from NK to the west coast of the USA?

Well, since we just let them keep working on it, the number grows each day and the upper limit is unknown. How many ICBMs does it take to kill 5 million people?
You can have multiple US Navy destroyers

Better tell that to Obama then, because he just announced they are deploying more ground based anti-missle defense systems to the west coast of the USA. And they also said that more may be necessary on the east coast as well. To intercept ICBMs. You don't follow the news much, do you....

What drama? I'm just asking for an acknowledgement that Reagan was right. But you libs are totally ignorant of even the most basic facts and lie about much of the rest, so that won't likely be forthcoming.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:17:42 AM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

billions for the technology...but only millions to counter that technology. It is a "Catch 22". You "guys" will NEVER get it...swoosh!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.

If it doesn't work, then why is Obama deploying it to the west coast? Why is he saying he's considering deploying it to the east coast? Why is he ordering more of it, after of course first cancelling it? Does Obama have a small mind? I leave it for others to judge who doesn't even understand the most basic facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:17:42 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Because we're defending against 5 missiles, not 10,000. That's why.
Reagan's idea was to have giant Austin Powers-esque "la-sers" in orbit to g o "pew-pew-pew" and shoot down the missiles in flight.
Of course, he would *never* point them at the ground and turn them on his o wn people, riiiiight? We're all in a tizzy now because the government bough t some handgun bullets. Big orbiting laser platforms that can wipe out citi es? Nahhh, we can trust our government with thaaaat. Our real worry is guys in black suits with pistols.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 17, 1:08 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

The Russians never had 10,000 missles. Nor the Chinese.

A lib lie. Reagan didn't have an idea of lasers, or rockets, or spit balls. Reagan's idea was simply to be able to intercept an incoming missle or warhead and stop it. He didn't specify the technology or specific approach. THAT was what all the SDI research was about, how to to it. And that reasearch is what lead to the missle defenses being used today to guard against North Korea.

ght some handgun bullets. Big orbiting laser platforms that can wipe out ci ties? Nahhh, we can trust our government with thaaaat. Our real worry is gu ys in black suits with pistols.
Another village idiot for the list.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/16/2013 2:14 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

********Clip Lots Of Good Stuff********
Back in the late 1980's I had a very (tiny) small part in The SDI program and I was told in confidence by an Army officer that the focus had changed from a missile shield to protection of our satellites. I was working at what was known as The Kwajalein Missile Range, it is now known as The Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site. It is a very fascinating place steeped in history. If you have time, you can spend hours cruising The Websites that tell about the place. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:14:41 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:
How about giving him credit for our economic collapse?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, it figures you lib loons would try to go back 30 years and blame Reagan for what's wrong with today's economy. The truth is Reagan inherited a huge economic mess, in many ways equal to or worse than what Obama faced. We had a stagnant economy, high unemployment, double digit inflation, a prime rate at 21%, and US Tbonds at 16%. Jimmy Carter called it a "malaise" and lectured the country on how it was our fault. The lib elite were writing pieces about how maybe the USA had become so complex, no one could govern it any more.
When Reagan left office unemployment was down to 5%, and interest rates had been returned to normal levels. And the USA place as a world leader with a vibrant economy had been restored. We felt good about ourselves and our country for the first time in more than a decade. And from the day Reagan took office, unlike whining Obama, I never once heard him blaming the countries problems on Jimmy Carter.
If you want to look at why we have an economy that is barely growing, you don't need to go back 30 years. Just go back 4. You have an anti-business president. He's attacked insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies, Wall Street.... He's blocked drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the keystone pipeline, even Boeings new plant in SC that would employ thousands as part of the 787 program. And by screwing with that Boeing plant, he put all the other tens of thousands of jobs in the USA and around the world that depend on the 787 in jeopardy too. Real good moves, with a struggling economy and high unemployment. And just as soon as he gets one tax increase, he's flying around at $1mil a day campaigning for another tax increase.
In short, he's doing the exact opposite of everything Reagan did. So, lets look at the results, shall we. From the third year of Reagan on, we were creating 300,000, 400,000, jobs a month. One month we hit 1.2 mil. In the fifth year of Obama, we're lucky to hit 125,000. Last month is was just 80,000. But yeah, it's all Reagan's fault......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:33:32 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Your piece is full of a lot of myth. There is no way that what Reagan inher ited comes even close to what happened to the economy in 2008. Carter never said "malaise" (you're the one who put it in quotes). How could Obama be a nti business when they're making record profits and Wall Street has never d one better? For christ's sake, get your head out of wingnut radio and look up some of the facts and get it right?
Better yet, why do you post this to another newsgroup other than home repai ?r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:47:45 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I'm amused by the fact that both sides here seem to agree that Reagan "inherited" the bad economy of the early 1980's...
...but the so-called "right" claims that Obama CAUSED the current economic crisis. Even though it started in 2007 under someone else's watch.
I'm also amused that the so-called "right" has to go clear back to Reagan to have anything to be proud about, while the so-called "left" thinks every one of theirs that has held office is God's gift to the Presidency.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:06:51 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

You're lying. Obama *HAS* made a bad situation a *lot* worse, though. He's done exactly the wrong thing. If he'd done nothing, we'd be well on the way out of the mess and perhaps in quite good shape. A $17T boat anchor hasn't helped, though.

have anything to be proud about, while the so-called "left" thinks every one of theirs that has held office is God's gift to the Presidency. Reagan was the last President that could be called "right". Of course you're not bright enough to figure that out. Lefties never are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in

Well, that's sort of true, but certainly not in the way you intended it. The economy Reagan inherited had unemployment, interest, and inflation rates *all* in double digits -- *far* worse than the economy that Obama inherited.
At least one of these statements about you must be true: you're less than thirty-five years old, and you get the majority of your information from television news broadcasts. You've apparently bought into the lie that was repeated over and over a few years ago about this being "the worst economy since the Great Depression". No, it wasn't. 1978-1982 has that locked up. Clearly, all you know about the economy at that time is what you've been told. I was in the workforce then. I remember.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The situation you describe above reminds me of the recent disgrace in London with the death of Thatcher. Did you see the parties the leftist nuts were throwing celebrating? If you look at them, most of the participants were either young kids or not even born when Thatcher was PM. I heard one of them yelling "She ruined my entire life!" All they know is the leftist crap they've been fed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 3:24:15 AM UTC-7, Doug Miller wrote:

You're full of Bullshit. I was born when Eisenhower was president.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know, let me clarify that. Eisenhower hadn't even won a second term yet. I remember the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, Nixon's wage and price freeze, and Ford's Wip Inflation Now (WIN) buttons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.