ignore |igˈnôr|
verb [ trans. ]
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally

 

There is/was a document signed by Reagan April 15 1979, About Noriaga.
Not long after that Jimmy Carter granted Noreaga asylum in the USA.
There are some interesting facts on that page that if I can find it that will interest you. Search if you like, I'm not having any luck today:o

Or forget I remembered it.

In the mean time you may find some interesting reading herehttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...nsaebb2.htm#3a

 

Do you yhink bombing Lybia had anything to do with terrorism, Reagan had his allies in the CIA.
Gadafi{gadaphi} had a chenge of heart.
Regretedly inocents did die.

 

Lybia was definitely a terrorist state. Weren't they behind the Pan Am crash over Scotland? Hard to believe Kadafi is considered neutral these days.

 

First off, thanks for this thread bluejay432000. I too find it interesting.

It's truely a shame what happeneds to todays heros. We are in a short attention span society, where strategic decisions are made and people just aren't happy because the results aren't instantaneous. When the resuts materialize people have long forgotten what decision was made to get to them.

The way I see it, many of todays heros get no respect. It's people that bring reason and common sense to the discussion. Honorable people like my father, grandfather, and many people who I talk to who believe that this country has lost a lot of what made it great. They don't blame Bush or the republicans for this, but the American people who seem to have collectively lost sight of what built the foundation of this country instead focusing on their own self interest.

People seem to have forgotten the words of a famous democrat president.

This country doesn't owe us a thing. We are supposed to be greatful. Some still are. It is these people who are the heros of today. They don't ask what the country can do for them as much of the country is currently doing. They continue, with pride, to ask what they can do for their country.

 

Here's a few more that too many people seem to forget...

 

I don't hear anyone saying that there must be no criticism of the president. There are shows on television dedicated to just that. It just seems like criticism comes from a narrow vision of the world. I'm a firm believer in constructive criticism. That's not what we have today. Today it's all a big joke.

Very true. That's why many of us don't believe that Obama and the democrats should be in charge. Just think how NRA members interpret this quote.

I don't know anyone willing to trade their freedom for security. I have lost no freedom since September 11, 2001, yet there hasn't been another attack on our soil since. What about financial security? Aren't people now saying that they're willing to give up freedom for financial security? That's not what I want. Security isn't all about the defense of our country. There is security in many facets our lives that we are being told can be had for some of our freedoms.

Pick up a newspaper, or turn on the tv news. People are not asking what they can do for their country. People are not being asked to do for thier country. People are asking what their country can do for them and being told what their country can do for them. For some of us, that's a sad state of affairs.

I'm sorry that you missed the point of my post but thanks for pointing out these additional quotes. I guess they are as relevant.

 

 

No, I understood your point, but I think it has much more to do with our leaders than our citizens. I don't know a single person that wouldn't do whatever was asked of them to help support the troops, but very few people are asking. Bush intentionally made a point of trying to make his war as quiet as possible. He won't let them film fallen soldiers returning home, and he didn't want the people of this country to feel like they were sacrificing anything. In fact, he did the opposite; he encouraged everyone to go out and live it up, go on trips, go shopping, and spend lots of money.

During WWII, the president asked everyone to sacrifice for the cause. They had to. The government found it necessary to ration food, gas, and even clothing during that time. Americans were asked to conserve on everything. With not a single person unaffected by the war, rationing meant sacrifices for all. In the spring of 1942, the Food Rationing Program was set into motion. Rationing would deeply affect the American way of life for most. The federal government needed to control supply and demand. Rationing was introduced to avoid public anger with shortages and not to allow only the wealthy to purchase commodities.

While industry and commerce were affected, individuals felt the effects more intensely. People were often required to give up many material goods, but there also was an increase in employment. Individual efforts evolved into clubs and organizations coming to terms with the immediate circumstances. Joining together to support and maintain supply levels for the troops abroad meant making daily adjustments. Their efforts also included scrap drives, taking factory jobs, goods donations and other similar projects to assist those on the front. Government-sponsored ads, radio shows, posters and pamphlet campaigns urged the American people to comply. With a sense of urgency, the campaigns appealed to America to contribute by whatever means they had, without complaint. The propaganda was a highly effective tool in reaching the masses.

It wasn't the people that were different, it was our leaders.

 

Bull, you can't tear the average person away from his ipod, xbox or cafe' latte' long enough to give a rat's patoot about anything. That's WHY we have these crapbags as leaders. Take a look at the actual percentages of people who vote since the 40's, it's been a steady decline. No one will actually get of thier fat asses and make a REAL change.

 

You can't say that Afghanistan is being ignored with thousands of troops fighting on the ground and billions of dollars being spent, not to mention the diplomatic efforts to get our Allies to help with the fighting (yes Germany, I'm talking to you). Saying that we're ignoring Afghanistan is just more anti-war hyperbole.

Grim

 

FYI, Obama changed his published postion on the surge over the weekend.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...itique_of.html

Grim

 

Read comments by the commanders in Ahghanistan---they say that too much is being spent on Iraq, and the real war on terror is in Afghanistan, but they don't have the supplies, etc...Makes one think...

Tim C.

 

Maybe it's a Kentucky thing? In 1944, 53% of the U.S. population voted in the presidential election, in 2004, 55.27% of the U.S. population voted in the presidential election.

If they would get rid of the Electoral College, even more voters would turn out.



Call it what you will, but it is an irrefutable fact that troops and resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq for Bush's war. As a direct result, according to "top US military leaders", the Taliban and Al Qaeda are now as strong as they've ever been.

 

It does make one think. I don't think we have enough troops in Afghanistan. That is partially due to the war in Iraq and partially due to the fact that our military is simply too small.

That being said, I stand by my previous comment--anyone saying we're ignoring Afghanistan is engaging in pointless hyperbole.

Grim