On the contrary, Reagan subscribed to the principle that if you want peace, prepare for war, and that there are thing that a free man is willing to fight for.
I agree, that’s why I’m a Reaganite. He kept the peace by preparing for war. In contrast, Bush started a war that we didn’t need to engage in, and it destroyed his presidency - and left us with an Iraq that’s run by Shiites who are the closest allies to Iran.
As National Rifle Association President David Keene has noted:
“Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the [1983] assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?”
I agree with that in retrospect of the nation building, democracy crap. I am interested in controlling nuclear WMD's.
“Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . ."
Absolutely true, and a sign of a great warrior, defeat your enemy by not fighting him.
I guess we agree on Reagan. The man was able to avoid so much damage and disaster and still get things done for the betterment of so many people.