Reagan vs. Carter vs. Bush. Fight!

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-17 09:26am

Carter had an obsession with the Iranian hostage crisis; it all but dominated his time in office after 1979. Some speculate that one reason Iran kept the hostages so long was to reduce ti and then maintain Carter at this level, because he was the one throwing gas on the fire.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-09-17 09:27am

HemlockGrey wrote:Wasn't Reagan the prez in 1982? And didn't the reform party fail because of the massive soviet invasion that overran all the major population centers? And didn't many of the mujahadeen form the core of the Northern Alliance?

the invasion was in 1979 not 1982.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-09-17 09:31am

But the link says that the mujahadeen which it claims destroyed the reform party started training in 1982.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-17 10:13am

No surprise there, Wong. Like their great hero, Reagan's acolytes are always giving Reagan credit for things he never did.

For example, Reagan ducked WW2, but this didn't stop him from telling Yitzhak Shamir (Israel's PM) that he personally filmed the liberation of a Nazi death camp at the end of the war, kept a reel for himself and used it to convince a Holocaust "skeptic" that the death camps were real. Reagan repeated this bullshit story to Simon Wiesenthal. The truth? Reagan spent the war in Hollywood, where Hitler didn't have any gas chambers or ovens.

Next Reagan's fans will claim he was born in a manger on Dec. 25, 0000.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-09-17 10:30am

No we won't, because we're smart enough to know there was no year zero A.D.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-17 11:22am

Elfdart wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Between this and Kerry's outright lie over the AWB banning machine guns*, I'm almost ready to hold my nose and vote for GWB.

But I won't.
Instead I'll write in Dean.

*Kerry MG quote:
“Police officers -- police officers -- begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring the down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47.”
Technically, Kerry's right since the barrels are the same.

Actually, he's not since the barrel of a Uzi machine gun is way too short to be legal on the Uzi semiauto rifles that are legal for sale both pre and post AWB.

And as I said before, this rifle is AWB compliant. No flash hider or bayonet lug.

Is Kerry saying the cops are more scared of getting bayoneted with an AK than being shot with one?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-17 04:54pm

Beowulf wrote:No we won't, because we're smart enough to know there was no year zero A.D.

That's debatable.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-17 05:18pm

Elfdart wrote:
Beowulf wrote:No we won't, because we're smart enough to know there was no year zero A.D.
That's debatable.

No, it really isn't. There was no year zero. This is why the millennium started in 2001, not 2000. It went from BC 1 to AD 1 with nothing in between.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-09-17 07:39pm

I should actually have found a better link, but it was late - Carter authorised operation Cyclone about 6 months before the Soviet invasion. The purpose was to destabilise the Soviet union via islamic fundamentalism.

The fact is, the soviet invasion was partly in response to the mujihadeen uprisings. Financed, and with members trained by the US, the insurgents were destabilising the PDPA regime. The Brezhnev doctrine called for the Soviets to defend Afghanistan against this threat. Of course they simultaneously they feared Iranian influence, that the islamic revolution would spread to Afghanistan, but the fact is the Taleban regime and Al Qaeda are a direct legacy of Brzezinsky's (carter's national security advisor) brilliant idea - Reagon however also takes credit as he happily continued the project throughout the 80's.

Some links:

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
[http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000239.html]Brzezinsky and Cyclone[/url]

That was the apparent (pre-9/11) view of Carter-era national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski back in 1998, when he admitted in a widely publicized interview with France's Le Nouvel Observateur that he and CIA director Bill Casey had cooked up the idea of trying to provoke a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by providing covert aid via the Pakistani intelligence services to the mujahideen. "What is most important to the history of the world?," Brzezinski reportedly told the paper, in its January 15-21, 1998 issue. "The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-17 07:51pm

The purpose was to destabilise the Soviet union via islamic fundamentalism.

Grreeeaattt idea, no really. Fucking hell talk about setting yourself up. Thank you Carter!bastard

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-17 08:48pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Elfdart wrote:
Beowulf wrote:No we won't, because we're smart enough to know there was no year zero A.D.
That's debatable.
No, it really isn't. There was no year zero. This is why the millennium started in 2001, not 2000. It went from BC 1 to AD 1 with nothing in between.

Are you trying to be funny or are you that fucking stupid? What's debatable is whether Reagan worshippers are smart enough to know...

I recycled a gag from Back to the Future and not one, but two dumbasses think they've had EUREKA! moments by "debunking" a fucking joke. You must be the life of the party:

Party Guest: Why did the chicken cross the road?

Rouge 9 (yes I spelled it rouge on purpose

): What road? I don't see any chickens. This is bullshit!

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2004-09-17 08:58pm

Elfdart wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
Elfdart wrote: That's debatable.
No, it really isn't. There was no year zero. This is why the millennium started in 2001, not 2000. It went from BC 1 to AD 1 with nothing in between.
Are you trying to be funny or are you that fucking stupid? What's debatable is whether Reagan worshippers are smart enough to know...

I recycled a gag from Back to the Future and not one, but two dumbasses think they've had EUREKA! moments by "debunking" a fucking joke. You must be the life of the party:

Party Guest: Why did the chicken cross the road?

Rouge 9 (yes I spelled it rouge on purpose ): What road? I don't see any chickens. This is bullshit!

Given your previous history of idiocy, I thought you seriously believed there was a 0 AD. It's not that easy to pick up on an obscure joke from a movie that most people haven't seen in years.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-17 09:12pm

StimNeuro wrote:
Elfdart wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: No, it really isn't. There was no year zero. This is why the millennium started in 2001, not 2000. It went from BC 1 to AD 1 with nothing in between.
Are you trying to be funny or are you that fucking stupid? What's debatable is whether Reagan worshippers are smart enough to know...

I recycled a gag from Back to the Future and not one, but two dumbasses think they've had EUREKA! moments by "debunking" a fucking joke. You must be the life of the party:

Party Guest: Why did the chicken cross the road?

Rouge 9 (yes I spelled it rouge on purpose ): What road? I don't see any chickens. This is bullshit!
Given your previous history of idiocy, I thought you seriously believed there was a 0 AD. It's not that easy to pick up on an obscure joke from a movie that most people haven't seen in years.

The DVD only came out a year or so ago, and aside from "Who you callin' spook? Peckerwood!", that was the funniest thing in the movie.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-17 09:18pm

Elfdart wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
Elfdart wrote: That's debatable.
No, it really isn't. There was no year zero. This is why the millennium started in 2001, not 2000. It went from BC 1 to AD 1 with nothing in between.
Are you trying to be funny or are you that fucking stupid? What's debatable is whether Reagan worshippers are smart enough to know...

I recycled a gag from Back to the Future and not one, but two dumbasses think they've had EUREKA! moments by "debunking" a fucking joke. You must be the life of the party:

Party Guest: Why did the chicken cross the road?

Rouge 9 (yes I spelled it rouge on purpose ): What road? I don't see any chickens. This is bullshit!

Uh huh. Look, you cunt, if you'd meant it as a joke you wouldn't have kept the damn thing going with the "That's debateable" line. I presented evidence that it was not the case, and suddenly you feel the need to scream that it was a joke and flame me. Nothing doing, Elfy Boy. Now how about you go crawl back into whatever hole you came out of and stay there, mmkay?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-17 09:24pm

Beowulf pitched me a softball and I couldn't pass up responding with two words. Are you familiar with "Brevity is the soul of wit."? Obviously not.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-17 09:41pm

Elfdart wrote:Beowulf pitched me a softball and I couldn't pass up responding with two words. Are you familiar with "Brevity is the soul of wit."? Obviously not.

When the brief comment actually, y'know, conveys the point. Yours failed spectacularly to do so.