News-Record.com

I recall those deaths. I recall a Congressman warning one month before deployment, what if a an American ship or plane is destroyed by a Russian weapon or if American troops are massacred. The Constitution does not provide for the US to become involved in civil wars brought on by the partitioning of a region by a former failed group of nations. Reagan went headstrong into the fray. The battleships that shelled Lebanon did not care if the shells exploded on Jews, Muslims or Christians. This creates determined enemies. It got thousands of people from that region off the fence. This day observes one of the early battles of 9-11 and the attrition of millions of conservatives from the Republican party. Reagan withdrew from the area and layed a few people off. It was not enough. The soldiers there on a mission from the godless UN were still dead.

Thank you for this letter. I served on one of the US Navy vessels that brought our boys home from Lebanon. I will never forget those who served and died.
We have too many forgotten veterans, discarded after service and suffering, used by pundits and politicians to make a point and rarely remembered as individuals who did their duty.
Thank you for serving, Bob.

I remember at the time that it was thought the mere presence of American troops was supposed to stop these people from fighting each other who had been doins so for thousands of years.
I had a friend who was in the Marine Corps at the time and was sent there right after the Grenada invasion.
He told me they wouldn't even let them use live rounds before the barracks' bombing and that the guards had nothing but blanks in their guns when the suicide bomber crashed through the entrance gate.

http://unifour-ululation.blogspot.com

I remember at the time that it was thought the mere presence of American troops was supposed to stop these people from fighting each other who had been doins so for thousands of years.
I had a friend who was in the Marine Corps at the time and was sent there right after the Grenada invasion.
He told me they wouldn't even let them use live rounds before the barracks' bombing and that the guards had nothing but blanks in their guns when the suicide bomber crashed through the entrance gate.

http://unifour-ululation.blogspot.com

The presence of amerikan anything can not stop the killing of amerikans by amerikans. Amerikans murder each other at the highest rate on the planet, then sent without bullets to stop other murderers from murdering each other? Is this model more flawed than Greenspan's or am I having a siezure? The Marines oath was to the Constitution of the United States, not to the amerikan interests and the UN. Remembering is nice but don't let the criminals on both sides off the hook.

Thank God Reagan realized his mistake & brought the troops home. Had he insisted on "staying the course" / "not backing down" / "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" , we'd still be in that quagmire.

Don't blame the marines, ChuckA. There is a time and place for everything. The writer asked us to remember the fallen, not debate on the merits of sending them or your opinion of our country.

Was this the same incident that occurred a mere year and change after the Ayatollah released the 444 American Hostages? I keep reading herein the middle east was shaking in fear of Ronnie .. something's not lining up .. hmmm.

=

Let us also not forget Ronnie’s cut and run was cited by bid Laden as proof that American’s cannot handle having soldiers die .. and it showed his attack on America would never be fully retaliated because American’s are all smoke – "They can’t handle it ... " ... when their soldiers die.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037541486X/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

The real bitch is, so far bid Laden has been able to say he was correct. You can also bet he’s taking credit for America’s collapsing economy, as he took credit for kicking the USSR’s ass.

"Let us also not forget Ronnie’s cut and run was cited by bid Laden as proof that American’s cannot handle having soldiers die ."

So should Ronnie have stuck in there?

"In a 1998 interview with ABC News, bin Laden said the U.S. response to the Beirut bombing showed "the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier, who is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983, when the Marines fled."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-10-15-beirut-barracks_N.htm

Perhaps this was the beginning, and you are correct JDR in your example. You however conveniently omit our pullout from Somalia. Also you omit our inaction in the first World Trade Center bombing, embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Khobar Towers bombing, and the USS Cole bombing. A little bit of balance please. Methinks these events gave bin Laden a bit of balls as well.

You're right, Dan - I did not mention others which could have included Vietnam and Korea ... because the topic was Beirut, 25 years ago.

So should Ronnie have stuck in there?

I don't know .. but since the ecstasy of WWII, America has a history of poking it's military nose into soveriegn tents .. and never seems to learn what Caspar Weinberger said in 1984 (from your link), "Don't commit insufficient military forces to an ill-defined mission with no clear national interest or exit strategy".

I'll also restate this: The constantly repeated rhetoric about 444 American Hostages being released due to the All Powerful Ronnie is a huge crock of crap.

" .. you omit our inaction in the first World Trade Center bombing ... "

"The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. And in November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb."

None of these were related to Mr. Dead or Alive bin Laden, there was no evidence of Iraqi support.

It was al Qaida - but al Qaida is a pretty broad word meaning including "the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate".

I'd "do" the others too .. but the results would be similar.

This illustrates the core problem: We tend to oversimplicate the issues into sound-bite sizes, missing the subtleties and making it "Us against them", "Dead or alive", "For us or against us", or dare I say "Red vs. Blue" issues.

Similarly, it's not Environmental Extremist that have exclusively caused the Energy Crisis, nor Democrats that exclusively caused the Economic Meltdown, nor Republicans that exclusively botched the War on Terrorism. ...

... but the critical shades of gray are lost on most.

... btw - did you see the Feds want another 918 BILLION .. and we're only 1 month into the present fiscal year.

I'm sure it's the exclusive fault of Ted & Nancy [Kennedy & the Wide Eyed Queen]

"They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle."

"None of these were related to Mr. Dead or Alive bin Laden..."

Since you got the above info from Wiki I'll continue:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization, although he lived in Kuwait rather than Afghanistan, heading al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from sometime around 1999. According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

So you are saying that bin Laden had nothing to do with WTC bombing #1?

"None of these were related to Mr. Dead or Alive bin Laden"

However, just like Beirut, I'm guessing they left a huge impression.

I always wonder what Gore would have done had he been President following September 11th.

Would we have had another empty investigation, some kind of useless diplomacy that resolved nothing, a couple of arrests and trials, a mission involving a few missiles aimed at deserted terrorist training camps?

As bad as we've screwed up the war in Iraq, would it have been worse if we had taken the Clinton approach of doing virtually nothing?

Of course, it's a question we'll have have an answer on but something I muse about on Election Day.

“So you are saying that bin Laden had nothing to do with WTC bombing #1?”

That is correct; bin Laden had nothing to do with the first World Trade Center bombing.

Had you had read further you would have found “in January 1996, Mohammed fled to Afghanistan, where he … formed a working relationship with the newly migrated bin Laden later that year … this was the first time he had seen bin Laden since 1989. Although they had fought together [in Afghanistan] in 1987, bin Laden and KSM did not yet enjoy an especially close working relationship."

Now if you want to argue that bin Laden was OK with the bombing, I’ll support your argument. I might even go along with “he knew in advance” … at least I could not dispute that contention. But masterminding it? No way. Financing it? No way.

here’s the data:

1 – The WTC bombing #1 was carried out by Ramzi Ahmed Yousef – leader of a semi-rogue group, partially financed by Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, but “ … KSM notes that Yousef was not a member of al Qaeda and that Yousef never met Bin Ladin. Intelligence report, interrogation of KSM, Feb. 19, 2004”
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

Speaking of semi-rogue groups - here is a funny story:

Egypt had was no full-blown group of terrirists hollering “Jihad”. Egypt did harbor a many private groups – handfuls of men – clubs if you will – all very small and even more secretive – and each not even knowing there were other groups with the common idea to overthrow the Egyptian Government and replace it with an Islamic State.

After the small group lead by Ayman al-Zawahiri assassinated Anwar Sadat (1981), the Egyptian Government gathered ALL these discrete groups and put them together in a common prison (for horrific torture and confessions, of course). There the groups got to meet each other and enjoy long debates about the meaning of Islamic life. In prison, they united and established full-blown organization with the common mantra: “Make the Holy Lands Holy Again”.

I told you it was funny .. and true .. and that is the real danger of Radical Islamic Groups .. they are mostly semi-rogue but a common goal: Make the Holy Lands Holy Again”.

2 – The WTC bombing #1 occurred in 1993. At that time, bin Laden was basking in Sudan.
“The Sudanese leaders liked this wealthy Saudi who was enthusiastic about investing in their fledgling Islamic state.” (From PBS). Yes there was an al Qaeda .. but it had channeled fighters and funds to the Afghan resistance. Once the USSR left, Usama had little to do but irritate the Sheiks of Saudi Arabia.

Here is another funny and true story: When Saddam started to invade Kuwait, the Saudi royalty was very-very nervous; look at a map you’ll see why. Usama, who had access to the royal family because his Daddy had once saved the Kingdom, went to King Fahd and touted his military prowess as demonstrated by his skill in taking down the mighty super Soviet Union. He offered to pit his rag-tag “army of 50,000” against the Million Man army of Saddam to save Saudi Arabia. The Royal Family laughed at him and told him to get lost.

3 – The WTC bombing #1 occurred in 1993. Ayman al-Zawahiri did not meet bin Laden until 1996

So bin Laden goes to Sudan – where he stayed until the Sudanese also got tired of his antics – like his declaring war on America – plus he was because his family cut him off. He heads to Afghanistan, joins forces with Ayman al-Zawahiri, receives financial support for wealthy hard-core Islamists remaining in Saudi .. who also send their distant cousins.

And the rest of the story is better know by the average Joe American Six-Pack.