As predicted . . .

At least Reagan expected a return for his effort. Obama Inc., only has a dead ICE agent and scores of dead Mexican nationals to show for its gun scheme. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What did Reagan get for his effort???? The scandal embarrassed us- here we are selling weapons to a regime that hated us and took Americans hostages and chanted "Death to America" and at the same time we were "supposed" to be allies with Saddam and yet we were arming both sides??? Yeah that's a lot of class by the Reagan administration this would be the equivalent of the U.S supporting a government that was fighting Al-Queada and at the same time selling top weapons to Al-Queada- only a Republican administration would do something that patriotic.

What did Reagan get for his effort???? The scandal embarrassed us- here we are selling weapons to a regime that hated us and took Americans hostages and chanted "Death to America" and at the same time we were "supposed" to be allies with Saddam and yet we were arming both sides??? Yeah that's a lot of class by the Reagan administration this would be the equivalent of the U.S supporting a government that was fighting Al-Queada and at the same time selling top weapons to Al-Queada- only a Republican administration would do something that patriotic. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Actually, it was the Israelis who delivered the weapons. There is no evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.

All in all, LTC North’s plan worked! Per plan, the Sandinistas were brought down by the Contras in large part because of the funding arranged by the U.S. Per plan, five hostages held by Hezbollah were released.

Meanwhile, Obama Inc., has orchestrated the death of one ICE agent and the deaths of scores of Mexican nationals, and what else? Care to elaborate?

holy crap. You agreed with frying Paterno yet Osama needed a mock trial like Saddam. Hot damn I've hbeard it all now Originally Posted by WTF

Not going to reopen that issue, but you need to talk to someone about your obsession with this Paterno thing. I agree with JD. You need some help.

Well, certainly no Republican president would....I'm certain that any self-respecting GOP president would have brought him in, tortured the heck outta the "poor old man" to get all that valuable intel he was gathering from his compound in Pakistan....and then given him a trial by judge and jury.

COG, truly.....your posts today surpass all prior levels of stupidity exhibited by you in the past....and that takes effort on your part. Off your meds? Or on new ones? Trying to get that doseage right?

You are right on the line here Tim, find a new tactic away from the forbidden topics. CC Originally Posted by timpage

Timmy, so you're saying it's ok to kill them, but not ok to take them alive and question them. You brought up torture, not me. I oppose torture. So you, like so many before you, set up a straw man, knock him down, then congratulate yourself on how smart you are.

So ok, you favor brutal killing, and I favor civilized punishment. Fine. At least we can agree to disagree.

Actually, it was the Israelis who delivered the weapons. There is no evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.

All in all, LTC North’s plan worked! Per plan, the Sandinistas were brought down by the Contras in large part because of the funding arranged by the U.S. Per plan, five hostages held by Hezbollah were released.

Meanwhile, Obama Inc., has orchestrated the death of one ICE agent and the deaths of scores of Mexican nationals, and what else? Care to elaborate? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, the fact that Col North's plan may have worked does not make it the right thing to do. It would have been better to use the political or judicial process to fight and overturn the unconstitutional Boland Amendment. President Reagan was enormously popular, and could have gotten it done. He got bad advice, and whether he knew about it or not, the buck stopped with him.

And what did we win in Nicaragua? Now the Nicaraguans have democratically elected the Sandinistas! This is similar to expecting freedom to break out in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. Ain't gonna happen, and we best be taking care of ourselves, rather than try to mold the world to our will.

And what did we win in Nicaragua? Now the Nicaraguans have democratically elected the Sandinistas! This is similar to expecting freedom to break out in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. Ain't gonna happen, and we best be taking care of ourselves, rather than try to mold the world to our will. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

See you are not always clueless.

Buster?

And what did we win in Nicaragua? Now the Nicaraguans have democratically elected the Sandinistas! This is similar to expecting freedom to break out in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. Ain't gonna happen, and we best be taking care of ourselves, rather than try to mold the world to our will. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Here’s the rub: Was Carter trying to ‘mold’ Nicaragua in our image when he installed the Sandinistas, or was Reagan trying to ‘mold’ Nicaragua in our image when he tried to take them out? During Reagan’s presidency, the Sandinistas were actively supporting and participating in communist insurgency operations throughout Central America.

What did we win in Nicaragua? Time. Today there is no Soviet Union to support communist insurgencies operating out of Nicaragua.

You're right. No more Soviet Union to support them, so the people voluntarily elect them. Big difference. Maybe we should quit trying to mold the world to our will. Maybe if we showed them what a free society is like, instead of forcing them to conform, we could win more allies.

In our bid to police the world, we simply have become a police state. When our focus, as individuals or nations, is on what we hate, that is what we become. We have tried to force freedom on countries around the globe, and we have become a police state.

In our bid to police the world, we simply have become a police state. . Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We also have become very very broke.

Policing the world without being paid is a thankless task.

Unless of course you are part of the vast military industrial complex.
Those folks have taken a huge transfer of wealth from the rest of the country.

That is what happens to the overfunded SS benifits. We fund our military with it and then folks in that industry bitch about cuts to the military.

When Rome's militaty cost more to support and maintain than it brought in , Rome collapsed. It is a basic math problem.

We also have become very very broke.

Policing the world without being paid is a thankless task.
Originally Posted by WTF

we need to get tribute...hail wtf

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/f...omeReasons.htm

Christianity

When Constantine established religious toleration in the Roman Empire, he took upon himself the title of Pontiff. Although he was not necessarily a Christian himself (he wasn't baptized until he was on his deathbed), he gave Christians privileges and oversaw major Christian religious disputes. He may not have understood how the pagan cults, including those of the emperors, were at odds with the new monotheistic religion, but they were, and in time the old Roman religions lost out. Although the path from pagan to Christian Rome had a few more hurdles, it was from the time of Constantine that Roman Christianity is dated. At this early point, however, the emperors of Rome controlled the religion since emperors held the power to appoint bishops. Over time, Church leaders became influential and took away power from the emperor. Christian beliefs conflicted with the working of empire.
Christian Emperors, Persia, and The Fall of Rome
This is a chapter from Frank Smitha's "Antiquity Online" about the division of the Empire into East and West and the reign, including conversion of Constantine.
Vandals and Religious Controversy

Vandals took over the Roman territory in Africa, just as Rome lost Spain to the Sueves, Alans and Visigoths. A perfect example of how interconnected all the "causes" of Rome's fall are, Rome lost revenue along with the territory and administrative control. It needed revenue to support its army and it needed its army to keep what territory it still maintained. See: "The Decline of the Roman Power in Western Europe. Some Modern Explanations," by Norman H. Baynes. The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 33, Parts 1 and 2 (1943), pp. 29-35.

. . . the pictures will probably 'turn up' during the campaign season, but they couldn't be released last year because they were 'too gruesome'. Crass, political chicanery!


Osama Bin Laden Death Photos May Be Released


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1243898.html Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I hope they don't as it would not have any political gain.If thy do it should be in conjunction with pictures of the planes flying into the twin towers.

You're right. No more Soviet Union to support them, so the people voluntarily elect them. Big difference. Maybe we should quit trying to mold the world to our will. Maybe if we showed them what a free society is like, instead of forcing them to conform, we could win more allies.

In our bid to police the world, we simply have become a police state. When our focus, as individuals or nations, is on what we hate, that is what we become. We have tried to force freedom on countries around the globe, and we have become a police state. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So you are arguing Carter's acquiescing to the Soviet sponsored regime change in Nicaragua was okay. You do realize that the Reagan era struggle against the Sandinistas had very little to do with 'molding' Nicaragua to our will than it did in thwarting Khrushchev's plan to 'mold' Nicaragua to the will of the U.S.S.R. You and WTF are fooling yourselves if you believe that the 1979 rise to power of the Sandinistas was the action of a free society: it was a Soviet sponsored insurgency.

You clowns really shred your own credibility, not to mention making yourselves look pretty fucking stupid, when you cherry-pick an article like this and then post up the link that shows the kind-of important facts that you choose not talk about. Originally Posted by timpage

Cherry pick? Its the title of the article. Darn Freedom of Information Act. What's the kind of important facts you chose not to talk about?

Not going to reopen that issue, but you need to talk to someone about your obsession with this Paterno thing. I agree with JD. You need some help. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah, even his retort posts are rife with it. I'm disagreeing with JD in one aspect though.