Once upon a time, a dangerous radical gained control of the US Republican Party.

Once upon a time, a dangerous radical gained control of the US Republican Party.
Reagan increased the budget for support of the radical Muslim Mujahidin conducting
terrorism against the Afghanistan government to half a billion dollars a year.
One fifth of the money, which the CIA mostly turned over to Pakistani military
intelligence to distribute, went to Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a violent extremist
who as a youth used to throw acid on the faces of unveiled girls in Afghanistan.
Source

The NWO, hard at work? Well if anything this read will kick start your brain and get it thinking. I mean that in a good way. This link comes complete with pictures. I hope you find it entertaining.

On an interesting side note: I just finished reading the Reagan Diaries.

One entry in late 1987 talk about recovering a sunk Iranian speedboat (this was back when the USN was escorting oil tankers through the gulf). What did they find on board? A Stinger missile whos serial numbers indicated that it had been given to the Mujahadeen via Pakistan

reply to post by FredT


ok, since we are not ending this thread because of political baiting, i feel i need to input mho on this subject.

Ronald Reagan was absolutely the best U.S. President ever. BAR NONE! second only to President Bush (the younger)
If you want to discuss bad presidents we can discuss President Clinton ALL WEEK LONG



[edit on 23-8-2007 by darkheartrising]

I liked Regan as well. You have to do what you have to do. Type of motto.
This is still a good find none the less. Same as the Stinger missile info. Thanks FredfT.

Oh, my

Originally posted by darkheartrising
reply to post by FredT

 

ok, since we are not ending this thread because of political baiting, i feel i need to input mho on this subject.

Ronald Reagan was absolutely the best U.S. President ever. BAR NONE! second only to President Bush (the younger)
If you want to discuss bad presidents we can discuss President Clinton ALL WEEK LONG.

Doesn't what I bolded seem to negate the rest of your post? Pot/kettle? Also, what does that have to do with the topic?

All I can say is...

The US aids the Muslims and the US aids the Jews. Only when the US started aiding the Jews much more than the Muslims did things start to go south for the US.

The Muslims are now the underdog.
If the situation were reversed and the US aided the Muslims more than the Jews, the Jews would have remained the underdog.

So now the US decided to aid the Jews even more and try and convert the Muslims by force.
We all know how this is working out...

reply to post by Nemithesis


eah we know how it is working out, the troop surge is working, even the most liberal news channels agree to that and so does Hillary.
the muslims will be put in their proper place and so will th jews. it is what we do here in the U.S., that's our job, to keep the world running smoothly and benefiting us. As long as we are safe and on top the U.S. government should do what it needs to do as it needs to do it. if it means arming the muslims one year and then arming the jews the next so be it.

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
I liked Regan as well.

You have to do what you have to do. Type of motto.
This is still a good find none the less. Same as the Stinger missile info. Thanks FredfT.

"You have to do what you have to do"? So do you support authoritarian, violent, illegal, and/or unaccountable government policies as long as they are deemed "what you have to do"? I bet the Department of Justice would love to you have on their team.

in the past our government gave almost all of the present terrorists money it's insane

Originally posted by darkheartrising
the muslims will be put in their proper place and so will th jews. it is what we do here in the U.S., that's our job, to keep the world running smoothly and benefiting us.

What is that "proper place?"

Originally posted by darkheartrising
As long as we are safe and on top the U.S. government should do what it needs to do as it needs to do it. if it means arming the muslims one year and then arming the jews the next so be it.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this, honestly. It makes me sad, embarassed, and slightly pissed to be identified as an American when I read this sort of arrogant stuff. Someone on this board very recently told me that this type of nationalist exceptionalism is much more commonplace in America, and I really don't want to believe it. But really, I've seen plenty posts like this around the Internet and I've heard statements very similar for much of my life.

Besides being hit by the insensitive part of your post, I just wanted to mention that it is your attitude of "you gotta do what you gotta do" that is undermining the rule of law in America. Who cares what the law says, or what the public thinks it wants, you gotta do what you gotta do, Mr. President.

Hi,
bit off topic but FYI

How can you call all of those good presidents..
In the last century lets say kennedy was the best of them.
but it really ended with the president that sold your lovely USA to the bankers and gangsters Woodrow Wilson!

but he had no choice.

He after signing the papers knew what he did but it was too late..

just my opinion Woodrow Wilson was the best of the last.

Nando out!

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP
Hi,
bit off topic but FYI

How can you call all of those good presidents..
In the last century lets say kennedy was the best of them.
but it really ended with the president that sold your lovely USA to the bankers and gangsters Woodrow Wilson!

but he had no choice.

He after signing the papers knew what he did but it was too late..

just my opinion Woodrow Wilson was the best of the last.

Nando out!

i agree

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Jbird]

reply to post by C21H30O2I


Just to take a serious tone here, Afghanistan and its support was a wedge against the Soviet threat. At the time the Soviet Union was trying to establish a warm water port in the Persian Gulf. The extremist was not an Afghani native but Pakistani. How the money is distributed is part of how the clandestine world operates at times. It is not a direct decision of the President but part of how powers to do things was delegated at the time.

To call President Reagan a "dangerous radical," in this context having a direct relationship in this covert action is absurd. The President does not know everything, and sadly the CIA does make mistakes, and has rogue elements. There is no question such things are documented, and you can look it up from credible sources.

There are things that happen while any President is in office, what anyone in that office would not want to happen.

Your post is dubious at best IMHO. Ronald Reagan deserves the respect of history, and to associate his legacy with a peripheral monster who got money so many parties removed is without merit.

Luap-Me liking Regan? was more Sarcasm than anything.

SkipShipman- This post Isn't my writing. As you seen from the top of the page It is from an external source. I just brought it here to stimulate conversation...Which is whats been done. IMHO All the leaders are liars
and scams to push their own agenda.

I agree that Reagan was one of our greatest presidents ever, if not the greatest.
But second only to Bush? that is where we part company. Bush sucks and his Daddy sucked as US presidents.
Clinton and his antics were hilarious but his ties and suspicious deaths all around him make him one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times. oh and lets not forget him selling and giving away, tones of highly classified US missile technology for a few million dollars in campaign "contributions"
Reagan allowed arms to be sold to Afghan Mujahadeens for one reason and one reason only and thats because of who their enemy was.
If it had been any other country, besides Russia that invaded Afghanistan, then we couldnt have cared less.
It was our last opportunity to fight a proxy war with the old Soviet Union and quite a successful one I might add.

Originally posted by darkheartrising
reply to post by Nemithesis

 

eah we know how it is working out, the troop surge is working, even the most liberal news channels agree to that and so does Hillary.
the muslims will be put in their proper place and so will th jews. it is what we do here in the U.S., that's our job, to keep the world running smoothly and benefiting us. As long as we are safe and on top the U.S. government should do what it needs to do as it needs to do it. if it means arming the muslims one year and then arming the jews the next so be it.

I cant believe your post is actually serious. And you wonder why most of the world hates america and (often unjustifiably) its people? People like you typecast a lot of good people to be the victims of prejudice, and eventually, you will reap a lot of suffering of your nation for your fascist, ignorant and uneducated opinions

Have we noticed how presidents real americans like end up failed or assasinated, or senial, and ones we dont like succeed?

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
Luap-Me liking Regan? was more Sarcasm than anything.

My mistake. I got a bit pissed at the idea of brushing of government accountability.

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
I agree that Reagan was one of our greatest presidents ever, if not the greatest.
But second only to Bush? that is where we part company. Bush sucks and his Daddy sucked as US presidents.
Clinton and his antics were hilarious but his ties and suspicious deaths all around him make him one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times. oh and lets not forget him selling and giving away, tones of highly classified US missile technology for a few million dollars in campaign "contributions"
Reagan allowed arms to be sold to Afghan Mujahadeens for one reason and one reason only and thats because of who their enemy was.
If it had been any other country, besides Russia that invaded Afghanistan, then we couldnt have cared less.
It was our last opportunity to fight a proxy war with the old Soviet Union and quite a successful one I might add.

All presidents preform some suspicious activities. I don't think "most corrupt" fits Clinton though, at least as far as the evidence I've seen fits. Reagan pissed on the US checks-and-balances system when he gave aid to the contras in Nicaragua. Carter started the support for Afghani mujahideen. American presidents, as heads of the US federal executive branch, are too powerful and thus dont represent the actual peoples' interests enough.

To excuse Reagan's actions because "of who their enemy was" is a cop-out. He broke the law and Bush Sr. couldn't have cared less. I agree, Clinton sucked. But so has every president since the beginning of the Cold War, at least. To take partisan lines on the corruption of the American political system is a defeat to American politics as a whole.