Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
USS Cole is not an embassy, are were you not aware of that. The beirut embassy scenario and the present day are very similar as Lebannon was in the midst of civil unrest just as we have today. The difference between the two is how our citizens rally around the president. Romney's statements have been disgraceful and undermine the role of the President when it is a time to rally behind.
No sh** but people need to live in the present....
Okay well how about the 1998 bombings in East Africa..there do you feel better now? It was under Clinton...
So the U.S. news does not report lies that you want them to so you have to get it from somewhere else. I get it. Why don't you cite your source...just for giggles.
This topic is extremely misleading, there was already a detachment of nearly 2,000 Marines in Lebanon at the time of this bombing, who successfully kept the peace between Israel and the PLO. And to further derail this failed thread, the argument at the time was NOT whether or not to send more Marines there, but rather to get them out of Lebanon along with the rest of the peacekeeping forces. President Reagan had them stay, and as a result the Israelis withdrew about a month after the embassy bombing and violence was significantly reduced until the October bombings of the Marine barracks. Still, we kept our forces there until the following year when Lebanon's army imploded.
In short, there was already a nasty civil war in progress in Lebanon during those events and a large US military presence.
Yeah, that was before Reagan's political ideology had time to ruin it. For all of the lies about how democrats spend money, it was Reagan who left office with twice the debt to GDP ratio, and unlike Obama, there was no financial system collapse to blame for it. Reagan just passed budgets as long as they contained his quadrupled military budget.
"Your" president is an idiot who is going to get us all killed, and or drive us into bankruptcy. This "Manchurian Candidate" president has to go!
I am not going to look through all of these cites just point me to the one that states that your President- had 48 hrs notice of attack on the embassy.
This topic is extremely misleading, there was already a detachment of nearly 2,000 Marines in Lebanon at the time of this bombing, who successfully kept the peace between Israel and the PLO. And to further derail this failed thread, the argument at the time was NOT whether or not to send more Marines there, but rather to get them out of Lebanon along with the rest of the peacekeeping forces. President Reagan had them stay, and as a result the Israelis withdrew about a month after the embassy bombing and violence was significantly reduced until the October bombings of the Marine barracks. Still, we kept our forces there until the following year when Lebanon's army imploded.
In short, there was already a nasty civil war in progress in Lebanon during those events and a large US military presence.
So you are saying there was civil unrest and a large military presence in the middle east. No, these two are not similar at all.
Neither Reagan, nor Clinton were weak Presidents. This one is. Heck, You can probably go back to beyond the Maine to find precedence to support your weak premise. But, it will not fly.
Remember the Maine?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.