Boy, you know you’ve sunk to the bottom of the pit when you have to start spewing Reaganomics as a virtue.

I remember a time during the Reagan years when sitting with the then in-laws watching the news, a story involving some issue or another was on regarding Reagan.  It was one of those “last straw” kind of moments and I just looked at everyone and starting ranting things, such as, “look at that idiot, oh, wonderful Reagan and did you want the shirt off our backs too and on and on,....well.... until I got to the part where I started saying, “Who would vote for such a moron?...You’d have to be an idiot!....I can’t believe how STUPID people are!...etc...etc.

Suddenly there was a burst of laughter from the ol’ ex-inlaws, which kind of stopped me mid-sentence...I was confused..??!!  I didn’t think my ranting was all THAT funny.  Finally one of them pipes up, well, yeah...well...(in her laughter) “I voted for him” (and apparently they all had).  In my shock and NOT QUITE utter disbelief (hey, they’re my EX-inlaws) I stood there dumbfounded.  (They were kidding me....right?) No, it was true, they had all voted for him.....whatever....

Anyway, I told you all that just to say this:  Afterwards they admitted that it was the STUPIDEST THING they had ever done.  Dumb, dumb, dumb, is what they admitted in a sheepish tone of embarrassment.  So for these candidates to “attach” themselves to Reagan is ignorant.  Of all the Republicans I’ve ever known the only ones who STILL think Reagan was a good thing, can’t remember their own address and sometimes leave the house without shoes.  I doubt they’ll be voting.

RXaver,
For me this is sort of a ‘litany’ I suppose, which means other posters/readers will have heard it before.
Still I’d like to call it to your attention as something to consider, along with anyone else that may not have, just based on what has become that standard thinking for most Americans, and particularly those who have spent time in the military, since it does impart a certain mindset…
So, in all of the incidents you’ve mentioned here, where the US did ‘no action’ or no response, this one jumps out at me, as sort of proving my point about the reason for what you call the ‘terror’ to begin with…

• “Oct. 23, 1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut
241 U.S. Marines were killed and more than 100 others wounded. The eventual response could be characterized as “cut and run” - four months later, U.S. Marines were ordered to start pulling out of Lebanon.”

You note that Marines were ordered to start pulling out of Lebanon. Can you give some thought first, to why Marines were in LEBANON to begin with, (this or any other time that the US Military has been targeted in some foreign destination, thousands and thousands of miles from home, on the soil of another sovereign state) And then, can you consider next, that had the Marines NOT been in any of these locations, these thousands of miles from home, on the soil of some sovereign state not our own, they obviously would NOT have been targeted.

I realize that this sounds very simplistic, because we, as Americans, are somehow accustomed to believing that we have the right to send our armed forces into any place on the globe, without thought to whether or not we may or may not be welcome in any of these spots, by the people who occupy that sovereign territory. And so we are just as quick to decide that if they DON’T want us there, and they demonstrate that by such destructive acts, we automatically call them ‘terrorists’.

But, my thinking is that in each and every one of the incidents that you’ve noted here, the US Military was out of their own jurisdiction, and had we not been there, we wouldn’t have been ‘terrorized’.

Imperialistic agendas do have these consequences. So, it’s something to think about. Do we want to have a military that operates under the umbrella of the Department of DEFENSE, which