If you were president in 1979, would you have bombed Tehran?

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Tonio
You mean, if someone told you to F off, you wouldn't want to say, "Don't talk to me like that, you azzhole" and want to punch them in the 'nads?

It would depend on who it was. If it was some random tard off the street, I'd just say, "No, YOU F off!" or ignore him, depending on my mood.

But if there might be something to be gained from the person - if they were a client or my ex-husband with whom I share children - I'd think about what I want from this person and what's the best way to go about getting it.

When Iran took American hostages, that was the perfect opportunity for Carter to build a coalition, send in troops and Shock and Awe them, making the world safe for Democracy and getting his (Carter's) name in the history books for something other than as a complete failure. That's how we 'make a deposit' rather than 'get bent'.

But Carter wasn't that kind of a President and the Ayatollah knew it.

 

[donbarzini]

Speaking of Jimmy........let's not forget his response to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

If you guys don't leave, we're not going to play with you in the Olympics....so there!!

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by Voter2002
So....Iran is now part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to un-seat Democrats

The waters of that vile consipracy run deeper and more insidious than you can possibly fathom with 100% of your brain!

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by migtig
Actually, according to the encyclopedia, it looks like we (the US) paid to free the hostages:

The side of the hostage crisis few republicans like to remember.

Along with Reagan later agreeing to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages (so much for the staring them down theory) and then taking the money they made and using it to support the contras in Nicaragua in violation of the law. Which some of you know gave us the 5 wonderful years of the Iran-Contra Scandal.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by Warron
The side of the hostage crisis few republicans like to remember.

What's the big deal? They gave us the hostages, we gave them their OWN money back, most of which came right back in debts to us, and Europe. They gained almost nothing.

Along with Reagan agreeing to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the hostages (so much for the staring them down theory) and then taking the money they made and using it to support the contras in Nicaragua in violation of the law. Which some of you know gave us the 5 wonderful years of the Iran-Contra Scandal.

I never saw the point of quibbling over that. We sold them arms for their war with Iraq, and we took the proceeds to help the contras fight the Sandinistas. Big deal.

After the smoke cleared, nothing was found against the President, or the vice-President. Total cost, about 45 million.

Fast forward ten years. President Clinton, Ken Starr. President found not guilty.

See, if you're a big Clinton supporter, you gotta be some kind of hypocrite to whine about Clinton's impeachment saying "they never found him guilty of nothing - all that wasted tax money and energy" (knowing deep in your heart he was as guilty as sin) BUT grouse about how Reagan and Bush were also found not guilty - but believe them guilty nonetheless. Both investigations took years, sent a lot of people to jail, but the guy at the top wasn't found guilty.

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by SamSpade
What's the big deal? They gave us the hostages, we gave them their OWN money back.

The big deal is that one of the Reagon administrations catch phrases was "America will never make concessions to terrorists," yet he did it repeatedly. Including the hostage crisis that seems to be the only topic people have to discuss about the Carter administration.

Originally posted by SamSpade
I never saw the point of quibbling over that. We sold them arms for their war with Iraq, and we took the proceeds to help the contras fight the Sandinistas. Big deal.

Yeah, too bad it was illegal. Not to mention having just labeled the country as supporters of terrorism and having just got over a hostage crisis in which the government swore never to make concessions to terrorist (even though thats exactly what they did to get the hostages back). If only I could lie and break the law as much as the federal government and have it be no big deal. And people wonder why noone takes the president (current or previous included) on his word alone.

Originally posted by SamSpade
Fast forward ten years. President Clinton, Ken Starr. President found not guilty.

Yeah, whatever. Not really relavant to this discussion and I never voted for him. I see the similarities in the scandals, but I'll hold my opinions of clinton for some other post.

 

[Ken King]

I say nope. Not at that time with what had been happening to our military and how the population felt about military involvement so soon after Vietnam. Carter did much the same that was done to Iraq. Economic and diplomatic pressure – something we haven’t figured out yet that doesn’t work too well.

I remember Operation Eagle Claw and the ensuing SNAFU. Several C-130s and nine RH53s were used. Two of the 53s broke down and another was damaged while landing. Then a departing C-130 clipped another 53 and crashed killing 8 servicemen. Not a good day or plan from what I remember.

It wasn’t until after the Shah died and the election that Iran got serious about negotiating a settlement. The hostages were released the day of Reagan’s inauguration so I find it hard to believe the speculation of the hostages for arms deal. As Sam Spade said (and I agree), it was about giving back their frozen assets.

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by Ken King
Economic and diplomatic pressure – something we haven’t figured out yet that doesn’t work too well.

I'm not sure we have found anything that works well yet.