"How would Reagan end the Muslim madness? "

Jewish World Review ^ | 6/10/04 | Gal Luft

[redrock]

President Reagan's death brought to the fore his outstanding accomplishment of ending the Cold War. Like American presidents before him he led the U.S. in the charge against the "evil empire" by forging alliances and sending troops to remote theaters at high cost in blood and treasury. What makes Reagan's vision for victory particularly remarkable is that it stemmed from the belief in the power of technology as both a force multiplier and a game changer.

For the three and a half decades that preceded Reagan's presidency, Americans lived in the ominous shadow of a thermonuclear war that threatened to bring destruction to the planet. Two years into his first term, Reagan invited some of America's leading scientists to "give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." The result was a radical decision to develop a new system, which became known as "Star Wars," to reduce the threat of nuclear missiles by destroying them from space. The decision was met with a mixture skepticism and ridicule. Critics pointed to the technological barriers and the huge costs involved. But Reagan did not falter and insisted on pursuing the project. His gambit worked. The Soviets, already burdened by poor economy, proposed to eliminate all nuclear weapons over 15 years, contingent on the U.S backing off the project. Reagan declined and within a year the two superpowers began negotiations toward nuclear disarmament and permanent peace.

Thus ended the Cold War.

[sawmill trash]

Can you imagine him go after Bin Laden after NYC got whack after Sept 11


Yeah, he'd probably go blow everything up in Afghanistan then take it next door to Iraq and kick some butt there too !!!

Hey, wait a minute, W did that !
Does this mean (and maybe only in the back of my "right wing extremist" mind) that Pres. Bush is cut from the same kind of cloth as Pres. Reagan was .... God I hope so.

[ExSoldier]

"Your entire post sounds like something taken from the Birchite "NEW AMERICAN."

Well, speaking as a former member of the John Birch Society, I take that as a great compliment to be put in the same class as John MacManus and William F. Jasper. Which by the way, does not invalidate the assertion.

For decades the Birchers were ridiculed for their belief that communism had completely infiltrated the Hollywood community. When the KGB files were opened, all those assertions were confirmed. In fact when it comes to globalism and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, et al JBS continues to be spot on. The New American was one of the first to postulate the existence of "John Doe" #3 at Oklahoma City.

So sink, I haven't seen you posting recently. Things must be busy for you over at No Such Agency, huh?

[VOA]

bump

[sinkspur]

In fact when it comes to globalism and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, et al JBS continues to be spot on.

You left out the Bild-a-burgers.

You're right. Birchers and their fellow travelers are still paranoid about boogeymen, the latest being "the multi-national corporations."

Always some gremlin under the bed, trying to control the world.

Did you guys finally give up on the Jews?

[ExSoldier]

"Always some gremlin under the bed, trying to control the world.

One thing I have learned in 16 years of both teaching and studying history is there is no such thing as "accidental" history.

"Did you guys finally give up on the Jews?"

To my knowledge, JBS nver said the Jews were a part of any global conspiracy unless you count the Rothchild family and the world bank. But that isn't representative of Jews overall. But you already knew that. Clever you, casting aspersions like that.

When I was an active Bircher, I was on active duty as an Army Officer and I went to the G2 (Division Intel Officer) to ask if membership would jeopardize my security clearance. Did you know that from it's very beginnings, the John Birch Society invited a Congressional investigation of themselves? membership in JBS has never been a problem which would preclude any level of security classification.

[redrock]

Excellent post...and one that I agree with.

redrock

[redrock]

"I think that most of that oil would be sold overseas at a considerable profit rather than being used to bring down the price of fuel here at home."

I may be wrong...but I have heard that most,if not all, of the oil from Alaska now goes overseas.

redrock

[FrankR]

The muslims are not the entire source of the middle east problems...it's the ENABLERS.

The American media and the American liberals are the main, bottom-line, in-a-nutshell, root cause, of terrorism.

The children [muslims] are misbehaving and the father [W] tries to punish them, but the protectent mother [liberals/media] stands between them.

When a child has this situation at home, he will always run to the protective parent for shelter, MEANWHILE the proctive "mother"is villifying the "father", and there is a constant fight.

Human behavior is very similar, from the smallest child to the league of Nations.

Remove the incentive,and you will remove the threat.

[Cedar]

Know you were just putting in simple terms, but I have to add that my mother was the punisher in my family, not my father. And yes, she loved us very, very much.

[FreeReign]

To bad he didn't level Beirut after the 83 bombing.

So then Reagan didn't end the "Muslim Madness".

[dts32041]

Thats correct he didn't stop the muslim madness and we are paying for that failure today.

Of course he did launch at least three actions against the islamterrorists which kind of quited them down for a little while, but the klintoon and mad maddy really got on there good side.

[F16Fighter]

"When it comes to globalism and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, et al JBS continues to be spot on."

Thank God for that...

I'm puzzled at the naivety of those who refuse to believe the reptilian internationalists of the TC, Bilderbergers, CFR are NOT conspiring to undermine American sovereignty in the name of the NWO, but instead have merely been meeting to play pinochle and get away from the wives.

[FITZ]

if they think the Muslims are here in the USA for the American dream.

You certainly wouldn't find the American dream in a Koran --- you cannot believe on one hand you can live under the Constitution and then believe on the other hand you must live under Sharia law. Freedom and Islam are about as exact opposites as you could possibly get.

[FITZ]

Oh, I'm sure somebody will eventually "figure it out," but not while oil is relatively cheap, and there's no alternative to it for the majority of energy applications.

Maybe soon oil will become like coal --- it's still out there --- I think plentiful enough but too messy and we don't need it.

[ExSoldier]

Just remember, there really is no such thing as accidental history and anybody who tries to tell you different has a different agenda himself. Also remember that not everybody who posts here are "good guys" with "good intentions." Keeping those facts in mind, the folks who are saying such things are not being naive.

You want to read a book that will take your breath away on this topic? Read: "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. While you're captivated by this book that reads like a Tom Clancy novel but reflects accurate history you can idly wonder why folks like sinkspur want to discourage you from reading the book.

[boris]

The solution has several parts: (1) A crash program to exploit methane clathrates; (2) A massive construction program for nuclear power plants; (3) Drill in ANWR; (4) Use the nuclear power in (2) to synthesize gasoline from coal, natural gas, clathrates, shale oil, etc.

Look up "methane clathrates" under google. Also try "methane hydrates". You will be surprised.

Then nuke every Arab nation into a glowing sea of glass.

--Boris

[F16Fighter]

"Just remember, there really is no such thing as accidental history and anybody who tries to tell you different has a different agenda himself. Also remember that not everybody who posts here are "good guys" with "good intentions." Keeping those facts in mind, the folks who are saying such things are not being naive. "

Hear ya loud and clear. I was being charitable in giving the benefit of doubt ;-)

The so-called "moderate" thinkers are the stealth enablers of the NWO.

"You want to read a book that will take your breath away on this topic? Read: 'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by G. Edward Griffin."

Thanks for the heads-up, XS -- I will definitely check it out.

[FrankR]

"Know you were just putting in simple terms, but I have to add that my mother was the punisher in my family, not my father. And yes, she loved us very, very much."

Thanks for your input...

However, even though the point I was trying to make was not one of child physcology; nor did I ever imply that the "punisher" did not love their children; nor did I imply that "punisher" equals "abuser".

Quite the contrary.

Before the dawn of political correctness, it was generally accepted that it was the parent(s) who disciplined their child who was showing their love for the child.



My philosophy for raising my children was: "It is the parent's job to get their children ready to make it in the world, on their own.". That's not only financial, but with self-esteem, responsibility, self-discipline, pride, honesty, and education.

Sometimes doing that requires discipline; but I submit the parent who is so self-absorbed as to NOT discipline, doesn't give a hang about their children.

It doesn't matter who the "punisher" is, it still takes the parents sticking together to make any punishment work. If one parent always allows and "out", then that child will grow up always thinking the "knight on the white horse" is going "save" them from all hardships...and they'll have a rude awakening...and probably develop a bad attitude.

[Cedar]

I agree with everything you said.

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. In your example you used the father as the one trying to give the discipline, and the mother as the one who was wrongly shielding the child from the father's discipline.

My point was that in many cases, including my family, the mother is the one who gives the discipline that the child needs, not the father. (And I just added that my mother did love us very much for the benefit of those who might read my post and think that if a parent spanks a child, then the parent must not love the child. Some young parents actually believe that!)

So I was not disagreeing with any of your thoughts. I just wanted to make it plain that sometimes the mother is the one who is giving the discipline, and it is the father who gets in the way of that discipline being administered to the child.

I know it might just be a technicality, but still I thought it needed saying.

Do you understand now what I was saying?