Did Ronald Reagan surrender Lebanon?

Dale Beisel · #1 05-04-2007, 03:25 PM

Remember when...

In February 1984, just five months after 241 Marines were killed in the Beirut barracks bombing, despite repeated pledges by both President Ronald Reagan and VP George H. Bush that the U.S. would stay in Beirut to fight terrorists, President Reagan ordered the withdraw of all remaining U.S. forces from Lebanon, which today is a haven for the Iranian-sponsored terrorist organization Hezbollah - the same group that carried out the Beirut bombing.
Did Ronald Reagan surrender Lebanon to the terrorists by cutting and running before the mission was completed?

db

Hane · #2 05-04-2007, 03:48 PM

My short answer to you is No. Lebanon surrendered Lebanon to terrorists. President Reagan recognized terrorism for what it was. Despicable.

Dale Beisel · #3 05-04-2007, 04:24 PM

You're right that Reagan recognized terrorism as "despicable." But that only further begs the question: why did he then order US troops out of Lebanon shortly after being attacked there, instead of staying and fighting? What would be wrong with us recognizing the reality that Reagan's withdrawing of troops left Lebanon to the terrorists that use it as a base today? That is a fact my friend. Reagan's decision to abandon Lebanon in 1994 seems to me to be a very relevant parallel to the quandry the US faces in Iraq today. But, I sense from your reply that you're not prepared to discuss any of this in any meaningful way. As I see it, the preferred methodology of Reaganites and Bushies is to deflect responsibility and reality, rather than confronting it head on. Good luck with that.

politicalboy · #4 05-04-2007, 04:29 PM

I would have to agree with Hane, the only time then President Reagan surrendered anything was his admittance to cover Powells shortcomeings in the Iran/hostage crisis, to here Colin Powell tell the story, he stood off stage as the President stood before the press and took the fall for the General, who had a lump in his throat. As for Beirut, within hours of the attack we had sortis over Libya re-decorating Khadaffis house, if memory serves me correct the only thing we surrendered in that generation was the Panama canal under the Carter admin. Get the facts, then post Dale. If you do a little more research you will find out the Khadaffi family took casualties that day, as President Reagan said himself, liberals are always full of info, that just isn't so, if you want to pick on a conservative former president well,,let me say this about that.

politicalboy · #5 05-04-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicalboy

I would have to agree with Hane, the only time then President Reagan surrendered anything was his admittance to cover Powells shortcomeings in the Iran/hostage crisis, to here Colin Powell tell the story, he stood off stage as the President stood before the press and took the fall for the General, who had a lump in his throat. As for Beirut, within hours of the attack we had sortis over Libya re-decorating Khadaffis house, if memory serves me correct the only thing we surrendered in that generation was the Panama canal under the Carter admin. Get the facts, then post Dale. If you do a little more research you will find out the Khadaffi family took casualties that day, as President Reagan said himself, liberals are always full of info, that just isn't so, if you want to pick on a conservative former president well,,let me say this about that.

Dale Beisel · #6 05-04-2007, 04:41 PM

And yet, the unanswered fact remains: Reagan ordered Marines out of Lebanon, shortly after being attacked by terrorists there, leaving that country to be largely controlled by Hezbollah. You can dodge, you can weave, and you can even try to rewrite history to fit your misgotten beliefs, but you're not doing yourself any favors by ignoring the truth. Is it true or not that Reagan ordered Marines out of Lebanon, shortly after being attacked there, leaving that country to be largely controlled by Hezbollah? And if you say "no," Politicalboy, then back it up with facts, and not just red herrings.

thank you.

politicalboy · #7 05-04-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Beisel

And yet, the unanswered fact remains: Reagan ordered Marines out of Lebanon, shortly after being attacked by terrorists there, leaving that country to be largely controlled by Hezbollah. You can dodge, you can weave, and you can even try to rewrite history to fit your misgotten beliefs, but you're not doing yourself any favors by ignoring the truth. Is it true or not that Reagan ordered Marines out of Lebanon, shortly after being attacked there, leaving that country to be largely controlled by Hezbollah? And if you say "no," Politicalboy, then back it up with facts, and not just red herrings.

thank you.

Look dude, you are missing the point, please excuse my double post, I messed up trying to edit the orig. however, the Marines removed from Lebenon had everything to do with not inviting/negotiating terror, I see what you are doing, its the same thing Rather, Williams, Brokaw and other morons like Bob Shieffer like to do and thats twist the facts to there liberal way of thinking, President Reagan struck hard and fast for that attack, I remember it well and he even had the endorsement of the then liberal press, so give it a rest skippy, like other liberals you are looking for a bone that has not been thrown, no one is denying we removed Marines from Lebenaon, we cycle deployments all the time, what I am saying is you are giveing the impression that the attack went unabatted, which is out and out slander, let me add this since you seem to be in a mode to pick on past Presidents, start with Carter really the National int. rate was above 21% unempl. 11% gold got to several hundred per ounce, and he let a third world piss aunt hostage takeing country lead us around by the nose for 444 days which by the way is a year longer than Clinton/Reno gave fellow Americans in Waco, come on Dale, get in the game or get off the board.

Dale Beisel · #8 05-04-2007, 05:30 PM

you have some homework to do, Politicalboy.

First of all, no one is "picking on" former president Reagan by pointing out facts relating to his time in office. It's called "facing the facts." If it's picking on former presidents that you object to on principle, then I suggest you refrain from "picking on" former presidents Clinton and Carter.
Here are a few pertinent facts related to the Reagan administration's response to the Beirut bombing:

President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon. He infact, withdrew forces four months later. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said there would be no change in the U.S.'s Lebanon policy. U.S. Vice President George Bush toured the Marine bombing site on October 26 and said the U.S. "would not be cowed by terrorists."
In retaliation for the attacks, President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters. But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations.
Besides a few shellings, there was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans. In December 1983, U.S. aircraft attacked Syrian targets in Lebanon, but this was in response to Syrian missile attacks on planes, not the barracks bombing.
The attacks on Libya you, Politicalboy, refer to had nothing to do with the Beirut bombing. Those attacks came two years later, on April 15, 1986 and were a result of an escalation in tensions between the US and Libya related to territorial disputes over the Gulf of Sidra, and a bombing of West Berlin disco attributed to Libya which killed two US servicemen.

btw - what does this mean? " come on Dale, get in the game or get off the board." You mean I should agree with you or shut up? I didn't realize that's how things work in this freedom-loving democracy of ours which you and I both love and defend. You want that everyone on this board should march in lockstep and not ask any hard questions? Golly!

andophiroxia · #9 05-04-2007, 05:46 PM

So, conversely should we do the same in Iraq if what Reagan supposedly did was wrong? If this was the wrong thing to do in the long run, then why are we whining about Iraq in this case? It seems like a similar situation: Terrorists attempting to take over a government via their means.

I would consider that this to be a valid question, but of course you interject:

Quote:

As I see it, the preferred methodology of Reaganites and Bushies is to deflect responsibility and reality, rather than confronting it head on. Good luck with that.

So, you're admitting to the fact that you hate Bush and Reagan? Wow. I never could have guessed that! So in one part of your paragraph, you're admitting Bush was right in your own nuanced way because if Reagan did make that mistake, then we should learn from it and NOT pull out of Iraq, because it IS a similar situation. Not only that, but you fail to take into context that world opinon (of which you guys are so into) is that any strong handedness to terrorist threat at that time was considered too harsh. Besides, most of the world's focus was on the Cold War, not terrorism. Unfortunately, that would prove to be problematic and cause the climate for 9-11.

Next time ask a question when you really want an answer.

Dale Beisel · #10 05-04-2007, 06:04 PM

brother,

you are missing some important wiring upstairs, if you concluded all that you did on the basis of my statements. Are there any of you willing to discuss in a "reality based" mode the simple, easy to obtain historical facts of the Lebanon bombing and it's aftermath without unpacking all of this crap about how I supposedly hate Reagan because I'm willing to honestly examine his record? Get a grip man. What I was hoping for is that at least one of you would be willing to admit that Reagan blew it when it came to confronting the terrorists that attacked us in Lebanon. But instead he pulled our troops out. Conversely, Bush Jr. instead of getting the guys that attacked us on 9-11 went after the Phantom Menace, Saddam Hussien. I don't know why you're so unwilling to discuss in a logical manner the truth about the Reagan/Bush legacies as they relate to the war on terror: they have both been abysmal failures.